Friday, April 3, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Neil McCarthy: Sounds of Silence Top
I have not written a blogpost in almost two months. A cousin in Colorado wondered if all was well. She was used to receiving my monthly (or, during the recent election, weekly) missives and thought something might be wrong. I told her everything was fine and filled her in on some family news. Another friend mentioned that he, too, had gone to the blog recently and had seen nothing since early February. He was worried that I would "lose my audience." With his finger on the pulse of 21st century internet based media, he issued a dire warning. "If you want to get hits, you have to do it all the time. Good bloggers blog every day. And theirs are shorter than yours." Translated for my 20th century literary based mind, "get hits" is a synonym for having been "read," and "good bloggers" are those who, tautologically speaking, "get hits." On his view, reading appears to be more or less beside the point. A "hit", I have learned, is anyone who accesses the blog, whether or not they actually read it. Shorter appears to be better because it merely increases the chances that some of the "hitters", as it were. will also turn out to be readers. What's a neophyte blogger to do? I told my cousin I had not written anything lately because I was still trying to get a bead on what is going on in the economy. Said I: "The whole banking plan is very complicated and I am not quite sure I understand it yet." Said she (tongue firmly planted in cheek): "You mean you actually want to understand what is happening before you write about it?" But this is not a laughing matter. Bloggers (and others) are weighing in en masse on the Obama-Geithner plan to create a public-private partnership to begin purchasing the so-called toxic assets, largely mortgage backed securities which are not trading anymore (and thus can't really be priced) along with those killer credit default swaps and options that piled leverage on top of the way overly leveraged mortgage backed securities. No one really knows whether the plan will work (except Paul Krugman, who -- for reasons I do not understand -- pretty much says it won't, and Tim Geithner, who -- for reasons I very much understand -- does not promise it will but is officially reduced to the position that it has to). I don't know either. And so have been reduced to silence. Which is another word for "thinking". Along with the other "weigher-inners", I could break my studied silence and take a position. As far as I can tell, that would not really require "weighing in" on the actual economic effects of the plan. Instead, I would just need to make some aphoristically cute atmospheric point. Like . . . Why is the President doing a town hall meeting in California when he should be 24/7 on the banking plan? Or . . . Why is the President talking about universal health care, or universal pre-k, or -- frankly -- universal anything, when the universe's entire foundation (aka the banking system) is not functioning? Or . . . Why didn't Geithner or Obama know about those AIG bonuses, and anyway how will we stop them, which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the banking plan will actually work but otherwise satisfies a "weigher-inner's" felt urge to say something that appears to be related even if it isn't? Or . . . What's the point of passing a back to the '70s larded by liberals' budget that raises taxes and refuses to delay on-going green and a whole host of Democratic platform planks which will just balloon the deficit, when we are already committed to ballooning the deficit to bail out the bankers and hedge funders (and, just for edge and moral superiority, those AIG bonus babies)? Or I could just say nothing. And keep thinking. I won't get any "hits" this way. But my cousin in Colorado still loves me. More on Barack Obama
 
Julian Baird Gewirtz: Chinese Youth and the Economic Crisis Top
Beijing, CHINA -- In the past few weeks, I have talked with a range of Chinese young people about the global economic crisis. What I've heard suggests that the economic developments of the past year have moderated, but certainly not destroyed, the enthusiasm for freer markets among the future economic leaders of China's so-called socialist system. It's an obvious point that the economic crisis has affected more than just money. People around the world are evaluating in a different way everything from their habits to their country's economic system. A recent article in the New York Times about this week's G-20 summit was headlined "Anglo-American Capitalism on Trial," and this phrase does seem to capture part of the spirit of the moment. China is no exception to this phenomenon. For some Chinese, despite the many economic problems that China is clearly facing, the crisis has strengthened their sense that China is basically on the right track and that the West is not. That's led to greater boldness in some government statements, like Premier Wen Jiabao's much-publicized comments in mid-March that China was "worried" about its holdings of U.S. government debt, and has motivated some intellectuals, like the authors of the recent bestseller Unhappy China , to aggressively criticize the West. But to say that that China's confidence in its path has increased is more complicated than it may seem. It doesn't mean that China is on the right track as the socialist system that it officially claims to be, but on the right track in the sense of moving towards a free market system in its own particular way. Indeed, the Chinese are attempting to use this crisis as an opportunity to address a wide range of domestic problems that they have identified. This attitude makes linguistic sense, as the Chinese word for "crisis," weiji, contains characters from the words for both "danger" and "opportunity." Since the transformative economic reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, China's economy has combined qualities of a socialist planned economy and a capitalist free market. Deng's pragmatic moniker for this system was "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," which, along with "socialist free market," remains the official term for the economy today. While the day-to-day here in Beijing feels much like living in a capitalist society -- from the brazenly ambitious street vendors competing for customers to the overwhelming variety of businesses promoting their services -- the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom (created by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal ) ranks China in 132th place, out of the 179 countries studied. There are certainly many ways, of which the Chinese students whom I spoke with seem very aware, in which China hardly resembles a free market society. For example, "When Wen Jiabao says we are going to have an 8% growth rate this year," a young woman attending college in Beijing told me, "we all know that, whatever the reality, officially we are going to achieve that 8%." Comparing the American and Chinese systems illuminates an interesting difference in the way that the latter works. In the United States, a free market is the norm; as we have seen in recent weeks, government intervention must be vigorously justified. In China, the reverse is true. The recent Chinese stimulus bill allocated the large majority of its funds to China's state-owned enterprises. Smaller private companies have been hit particularly hard and, as explored by James T. Areddy of the Wall Street Journal , the "slowdown stunts entrepreneurs." Some Chinese students who will graduate in the next several years and hope to work at private companies complained that because of the lack of help for these businesses, it has become disproportionately difficult to get a job in the private sector. In recent years, despite the U.S. and China's normative differences, the trend in China has been towards freer, so-called American-style markets. In a 2006 survey conducted by the University of Maryland and GlobeScan, people in 20 countries were polled on a range of economic questions, focusing on market systems. In China, a stunning 74% percent of respondents voiced support for the free enterprise system. This was, the authors report, the highest number of any of the countries surveyed (the United States registered 71% support). Deng's "socialism" seems to be on the wane, then, and his "Chinese characteristics" on the rise. "China does not have a really strong ideology now," said Wang Jun, an international economics student. "Even most party members don't really believe in Marxism." The survey's results align with what Wang told me about his own past views, too. "Previously, I felt that the freer the market, the better the results," he said, peppering his comments with references to Adam Smith, contemporary Chinese thinkers, and a range of statistics. But he also noted that his views have undergone a substantial change as he has watched and studied the economic crisis: "I'm now definitely on the side of more regulation and supervision . . . [Both are] needed to keep the market free." Other young people with economics backgrounds shared similar views. "I used to be a real proponent of the idea that a freer market is synonymous with economic progress," said one college student with whom I spoke. "When I read the Wall Street Journal lately, it's hard for my views not to change -- but I don't know what I think is the best system now." It's clear to me that, along with their government, these Chinese students are wrestling with the most essential economic questions that the crisis has posed. They are trying to understand how to draw lines between market and government and how to determine limitations on the free market, including what roles government regulation, subsidy and ownership should play. In our own way, the United States and the West, albeit from different starting points, are debating similar questions. The economic crisis has certainly not yet stopped the progress of China's economy toward a freer and more liberal system. It does not appear to be a deathly knell for free markets. It has tempered the youthful enthusiasm of China's future leaders, making clear to them that, in their country and throughout the world, significant risks will always accompany this development. More on The Recession
 
Daley's Office Pressured City Colleges To Hire Hispanic Woman Over Black Candidate: Lawsuit Top
Mayor Richard M. Daley's office pressured the chancellor of the City Colleges of Chicago to hire a Hispanic woman for an open position over a qualified black employee, a federal discrimination lawsuit alleges.
 
9 Mood-Boosting Tricks Of The Happiness Trade Top
I've succumbed to full-blown depression just once, and the only good that came of it was learning that I never wanted to experience anything like it again. So I started collecting little mood-boosting tricks--small, helpful ways to pull myself back from the edge. Science is beginning to explain why they actually work, which means that these days I don't feel ridiculous when I'm in my car and someone catches me belting out a Beatles song. Find out the science behind these mood-boosting tricks! You rent a bunch of stand-up comedy DVDs. A smile can improve your mood. In one study, participants view a cartoon while simulating a smile or between puckered lips. The first group found the cartoons funnier. More on Happiness
 
Jeff Danziger: Gingrich Catholic Top
 
Sen. Russ Feingold: First, Do What We Must in Pakistan Top
President Obama's strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan, unveiled last week, finally focuses the government's attention and resources where they are most needed. After years of our country being bogged down in Iraq, the president recognizes that the key to our national security is defeating al Qaeda, and that to do so we must address both Pakistan and Afghanistan. But while the president clearly understands that the greatest threat to our nation resides in Pakistan, his new strategy has the potential to escalate, rather than diminish this threat. In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. made the right choice to invade Afghanistan because it was from there that our nation was attacked. Our brave troops successfully toppled the Taliban, but the Bush administration soon turned its attention elsewhere. Distracted by Iraq, that administration allowed efforts in Afghanistan to languish while al Qaeda and Taliban leaders found safe haven in the western part of Pakistan. As a result, al Qaeda has reconstituted and strengthened itself while the Taliban, operating relatively freely in Pakistan, launches cross border attacks into Afghanistan, including lethal attacks on Americans. The Obama administration's plan and rhetoric recognize the vital need to confront this threat. However, the decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan - and possibly an additional 10,000 troops next year -- before fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan could very well prove ineffective, or worse, counterproductive. So long as the Taliban can flee into Pakistan and operate from there with relative ease, any gains against them in Afghanistan may well be temporary at best. Meanwhile, our troops would be threatened by forces who are largely beyond their reach, in Pakistan, while our increased military presence in Afghanistan could stoke resentment among the Afghan people. In addition, and perhaps even more troubling, increased military engagement against the Taliban in Afghanistan could push it further into Pakistan while worsening the militant extremism that has spread to more and more parts of Pakistan. New Taliban safe havens could emerge from which attacks in Afghanistan or Pakistan, like recent bombings in the Khyber Pass and Lahore, could be planned. More Pakistanis could fall under the control of those who would violate basic human rights, particularly the rights of women and girls. Already weak government institutions could deteriorate further, undermining the legitimacy of the Pakistani state. And a country with nuclear weapons could be dangerously destabilized. President Obama has stated clearly that we cannot prevail in Afghanistan without addressing Pakistan -- but that recognition alone is not enough. Before deciding to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should be ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistani leaders to curb militant extremism. The Pakistani government must not sit idly by as the Taliban and other militants operate freely, in some cases with the support of individuals in the government. Increasing U.S. assistance to Pakistan is an important step, as is the insistence that it be conditioned on a commitment to confronting al Qaeda and the Taliban, but we must be explicit about the serious consequences if this commitment is not met. We can't walk away from Pakistan altogether or abandon those fighting alongside us against this threat. At the same time, we must not turn a blind eye to those in the government who tolerate and support militant extremism and whose actions threaten Americans and Pakistanis alike. We also need to push Pakistan to make democratic reforms because, until it does so, it is unlikely to be a true partner in fighting extremism -- no matter how much assistance we provide. An effective, responsive and representative government will help Pakistan achieve the political and economic stability that are sorely needed there. Moreover, if Pakistan is going to undertake a sustained effort against militant extremism, it will likely need a civilian government that derives popular legitimacy through a respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Stability and elections are no guarantee of an aggressive counterterrorism policy, of course, but they may be a necessary requirement. Finally, we must work with both Pakistan and India to reconcile the historic tensions between their countries. As we saw in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, those tensions continue to fester. India's security concerns must be addressed -- and they can be, once Pakistan finally turns its attention to the al Qaeda, Taliban and militant threats within its own borders. None of these needed initiatives will come easily, but they may be even more difficult if we first escalate militarily in Afghanistan. If, as the president said, another terrorist attack against the U.S. would likely come from Pakistan, then that is where we must start.
 
Loan Modifications Not Helping Homeowners Top
WASHINGTON — Though lenders are boosting their attempts to curb record-high home foreclosures, fewer than half of loan modifications made at the end of last year actually reduced borrowers' payments by more than 10 percent, data released Friday show. The report, based on an analysis of nearly 35 million loans worth more than $6 trillion, was published by the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. It provides the most detailed and broad analysis to date of efforts to stem the foreclosure crisis, which President Barack Obama is trying to combat with a $75 billion plan to promote loan modifications. The report helps explain why many loans are falling back into default after being modified. Many borrowers and consumer groups contend that the modifications offered by the lending industry aren't very generous, despite more than a year of public prodding from regulators. For instance, nearly one in four loan modifications in the fourth quarter actually resulted in increased monthly payments. That situation can happen when lenders add fees or past-due interest to a loan and spread those payments out over the 30- or 40-year period. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the report found that loans were far less likely to fall back into default if a borrower's monthly payment is reduced by a healthy amount. Nine months after modification, about 26 percent of loans in which payments had dropped by 10 percent or more had fallen back into default. That compares with about half of loans in which the payment was unchanged or increased. "This new data shows that, in the current stressful environment, modification strategies that result in unchanged or increased mortgage payments run the risk of unacceptably high re-default rates," Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan said in a statement. But regulators said they saw a positive trend in the data, collected from mortgage companies including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. Traditionally, lenders have seen loan workouts as a way to get a borrower back on track after a temporary disruption in income. Now, with the economy sinking fast and foreclosures soaring, they are increasingly coming around to the idea to that more permanent changes are needed. Among loan modifications made in the October-December quarter, about 37 percent resulted in a drop in payments of more than 10 percent, compared with about one-fourth in the first nine months of the year. Regulators saw that growth as a positive sign. "The trend toward lowering payments to make home mortgages more affordable is moving in the right direction," John Bowman, acting director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a prepared statement. The Obama administration is aiming to help up to 9 million borrowers stay in their homes through refinanced mortgages or modified loans. Still, the faltering economy, driven down by the collapse of the housing bubble, is causing the housing crisis to spread. Among the loans surveyed in the report, just over 10 percent were delinquent or in foreclosure, compared with 7 percent at the end of September, the report said. Delinquencies are increasing the most among prime loans made to borrowers with strong credit, it said.
 
Sheldon Filger: Is the U.S. Auto Industry Doomed? Top
Detroit has become an urban wilderness. Only a few miles from the downtown core of the Motor City can be found once vibrant neighborhoods that are now devoid of human life. Only abandoned homes remain, extinguished of their occupants by a tidal wave of foreclosures. Recently, the local and even national media have reported on a phenomenon unique in metropolitan America; animals that had not inhabited Detroit for decades, including industrious beavers, were now reclaiming their previous habitat, as more and more areas of urban Detroit have been transformed into pastoral land. No better metaphor can exist to point out what has happened to the heart of America's once mighty automobile industry. As the Global Economic Crisis destroys worldwide consumer demand for automobiles, two of America's three remaining domestic carmakers, General Motors and Chrysler, look to President Barack Obama for salvation. They, however, are not alone. The financial and banking system are first in line, while states and cities starved of tax revenues are also clamoring for help from the Obama administration. No doubt President Obama has many burdens weighing on him as he seeks to provide leadership for a national and global economy in tatters. Obama did not cause the decline of the U.S. automobile industry, and no doubt he is trying to do his best in formulating policy regarding Detroit and well as the many other ailing sectors of the U.S. economy. However, the recent decisions regarding G.M. and Chrysler that Barack Obama has made will not, in my view, do much to reverse the dismal fate that seems irreversible for the once proud car builders of Detroit. The perspective from the White House appears to be that the two domestic auto manufacturers are in dire straits because they have not formulated a business plan that is viable in current market conditions. They have therefore, in effect, been sent an ultimatum. Chrysler is being told to merge with the Italian automaker, Fiat, while G.M. was compelled to fire its CEO, and must "restructure" radically within two months, or face bankruptcy. Washington will only provide funding for the duration of the ultimatum, with further support only available if the expectations of the Obama administration are met in full. With respect to Chrysler, the attempt at a shotgun marriage with Fiat is just another failed automotive merger in the making. The record of foreign carmakers buying large or controlling interests in American auto companies has been universally disastrous. One need only look to Chrysler's relatively recent merger with Mercedes-Benz, at which time the joint company was known as Daimler-Chrysler. Prior to that catastrophic union, which Mercedes-Benz management will forever regret, there was the purchase of American Motors by Renault, the French auto giant. The end result of that merger was the extinction of AMC, with its remnants bought by Chrysler. It should also be pointed out that Fiat abandoned the American car market decades ago, so it is totally unfamiliar with the dynamics of the U.S. auto marketplace. General Motors is a much larger carmaker, with a global presence and vast overhead. Its very size defines the essence of the problem being faced not only by G.M. but also by other global car builders, including Toyota, Nissan and Ford. Currently the world has the manufacturing capacity to assemble more than 90 million automobiles a year. However, the Global Economic Crisis has created a vortex of demand destruction in the car business, reducing global demand to around 50 million units. The overhead for maintaining this complex, global manufacturing infrastructure is staggering, and can only generate profits if sales match production capacity. With worldwide sales reduced to 50 million cars, no major car company can make money. The only solution for preserving General Motors is to provide sufficient demand for its manufacturing capacity. This demand need not be restricted to cars; during World War II Detroit became the arsenal of democracy, as its assembly lines retooled to build the weaponry that helped defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. However, in 2009, political leadership appears to lack the imagination to see the potential of harnessing the productive capacity of the auto manufacturers in other directions that can facilitate global economic development and recovery. What we are left with are ultimatums that provide only two possibilities: bankruptcy now, or becoming "leaner" with the future possibility of insolvency still hanging like a sword of Damocles. I do not think the Obama plan for preserving a domestic U.S. auto industry, as presently conceived, will work. At most, it may preserve fragments and echoes of what was once the mightiest industrial productive capacity on the planet. Unlike the Great Depression of the 1930s, in which industrial giants such as G.M. and Chrysler did survive and eventually prosper, the Global Economic Crisis is devouring what were once seen as the pinnacles of economic and industrial might. If G.M. and Chrysler are in fact doomed, along with much of what remains of America's industrial capacity, this will be largely due to a policy decision that establishes the financial sector as the center of gravity for the U.S. economy, reflecting the vastly more significant taxpayer dollars that have been allocated to that sector, with far fewer strings than are being attached to the paltry aid given to Detroit. How is it possible for the U.S. to rebuild its economy if the industrial sector, epitomized by companies such as General Motors and Chrysler, is largely sacrificed on the altar of Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bank of America and their ilk?
 
Mark-To-Market Won't Help Bank Stocks: Goldman Sachs Top
April 3 (Bloomberg) -- The relaxation of fair-value accounting rules won't prevent bank shares from falling because growth in bad loans is accelerating, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. "Our core view is that banks will not bottom until underperforming asset growth decelerates," Richard Ramsden, a New York-based analyst at Goldman Sachs, wrote in a report today. "Loans are going bad faster than banks earn money."
 
Paul K. Chappell: How Patriotism Can Save America Top
As a soldier in the United States army, I have often pondered what it means to be patriotic, what it means to serve our country, and what it means to love America. In my book, Will War Ever End?: A Soldier's Vision of Peace for the 21st Century , I describe a dangerous misconception of patriotism that I witnessed while deployed in Baghdad. When I was deployed in Iraq and had a chance to watch American news channels, I heard commentators say that if we question or criticize our government, we do not love America and are being unpatriotic. They believed that patriotism meant waving a flag and being blindly obedient, but this is not what it means to love our country. What does it mean to truly love our country? We can better understand love of country by realizing what it means to love a child. Parents who love their children will try to correct a child caught stealing, abusing people, or being dishonest. For parents who do not truly love their children, apathy will cause them not to care, enabling their children to get away with anything. In this same way, if we love our country we will do our best to improve it. We will try to make America a better place for everyone, as courageous citizens have always done. Since our country's founding, brave patriots have worked to give us the many freedoms we enjoy today. I am part African American and part Asian, and because of patriotic Americans who loved and were therefore willing to improve their country, I had the opportunity to graduate from West Point and I have the freedom to write these words today. These liberties were not achieved overnight. Two hundred years ago in America, anyone who was not a white, male landowner suffered oppression. During this era, the majority of people lacked the right to vote, and many Americans lived as slaves. Our country is much more humane today than it was then. This happened because courageous citizens such as Martin Luther King Jr., Mark Twain, Helen Keller, Susan B. Anthony, Woody Guthrie, Smedley Butler, Henry David Thoreau, and many others struggled to make our country a better place for all people. Because of the countless responsible Americans who loved and were therefore willing to question, constructively criticize, and improve their country, America has made a lot of progress. When my father was drafted into the army as an African American in 1949, the military was segregated because the government upheld an official policy that viewed African Americans as inferior and subhuman. At the turn of the previous century, the government would not allow women to vote, and only fifty years prior to that, the government supported and protected slavery. Patriotism is a labor of love that requires us to question our government and think critically so that America can become a more humane, just, and peaceful country for all of its citizens and a role model for the rest of the world. Although we have a long way to go before America truly becomes a symbol of justice and peace for the rest of the world, we have also journeyed a long way in this democratic experiment because of patriotic Americans, such as Martin Luther King Jr., who loved and constructively criticized their country. Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken: the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profits motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered... A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth... A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This way of settling differences is not just.'" This form of national progress is necessary for our country's survival, and it requires us to pursue the truth. The truth usually hurts, but we must keep in mind that discomfort is not always a bad thing. For example, lifting weights at the gym, running, and other forms of physical exercise are uncomfortable. But this discomfort is necessary to make us healthy and strong. In this same way, a change in our country's moral perception of war, economic inequality, and environmental destruction can also be uncomfortable, but this discomfort is necessary to make us healthy and strong as a nation. In the past two hundred years, we have seen a change in our country's moral perception of slavery, the oppression of women, and racial segregation. As a result, our country is much healthier today than the America that drafted my father into a segregated army, the America that would not allow women to vote, the America that supported slavery, and the America that oppressed all people except white, male landowners. With the survival of our planet now at stake, our country needs patriotic Americans to question, think critically, and pioneer this democratic experiment. Now more than ever, our country needs us to help it become a beacon of hope that exports peace instead of war. Only patriotism, not blind obedience or flag waving, can make America healthy and strong. Only patriotism can save America from itself. To learn more about how we can wage peace and create a brighter future, please read my book Will War Ever End?: A Soldier's Vision of Peace for the 21st Century and visit my web-site, www.willwareverend.com .
 
Christopher Herbert and Victoria Kataoka Rebuffet: Weekly Foreign Affairs Roundup Top
New Israeli Leadership Sounds the Drumbeat to War Facts: Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud party, assumed control as Prime Minister of Israel thanks to a strange coalition between far-right parties and the left. He named Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the right-wing Israel Beiteinu, as Foreign Minister who bluntly stated, " those who wish for peace should prepare for war ." And he named Ehud Barak, leader of the Labor Party, Defense Minister. Though the EU and the US continue to call for continued pursuit of a two-state solution, Netanyahu announced last week that he expects "no pressure" from the US over peacemaking activities. SI Analysis : Though not as belligerent towards the recent peace efforts as his new Foreign Minister, PM Netanyahu has tried to distance himself from the sclerotic peace negotiation process and has said that he will focus on boosting the economy of the West Bank, while reaching a regional peace agreement and curtailing Iran's nuclear program. He has not clearly stated whether he believes the Palestinians deserve a state of their own. Thought leaders as varied as Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and Quartet leader Tony Blair say that the prospect of peace is greatly diminished with the new Israeli administration. Arab leaders expressed deep concern over the new administration's statements and some analysts, including US CENTCOM Commander General Petraeus , speculate that another incursion into Gaza or an attack on Iran are highly likely. Summary of Summits SI Analysis : This week saw the application of a new US foreign policy of integration: one that seeks to engage deeply with traditional allies as well as emerging or "rising" powers such as China and India. Such a policy reflects new realities of a US forced to lead in the face of global crisis but deeply dependent on myriad players. US President Obama tried to make a palpable break with the previous US Administration and set a tone of engagement with the world. Global leaders were forced to make commitments to the common "good" to restore the global economy and curb Islamist militancy in South Asia, while also taking care not to compromise their national interests. Some valueless posturing was to be seen, but substantive gains were indeed made on many fronts. In any case, though the dearth of US leadership capital is palpable, it is clear that no other country is remotely positioned to take up the slack. G20: London, England. Leaders of the world's 20 largest economies were in attendance. SI Analysis Highlights : Leaders committed $1.1 trillion in loans and guarantees to developing countries and made commitments to improve global financial transparency . The world media focused on the apparent conflict between "old" European calls for regulation pitted against American, British and Japanese calls for a global stimulus package. These reported "conflicts" detract from the true issue that both stimulus and regulations are needed and all parties were willing to see some measures of both but perhaps not enough of either. German and French opposition to stimulus reflects more their inability to conjure funds out of nowhere and domestic political imperatives to place blame elsewhere (After rejoining the military wing of NATO, Sarkozy's threat to walk out of the Summit was just posturing to affirm that "French exceptionalism" still exists). Efforts to set out ways to curb protectionism were made at least in name as were negotiations to give developing economies -- especially China and Saudi Arabia -- more leverage in the use of development funds and in the administration of the IMF . Arab Summit: Doha, Qatar. Many Arab leaders were in attendance as were several Latin American leaders. SI Analysis Highlights : After all was said and done, the general view is that the Arab Summit was a big failure . Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak didn't even come. No progress was made on the Palestinian issue . A large divide appeared between Arabs with a more favorable view to Iran and those traditionally opposed to Tehran , such as Saudi Arabia. Gas-rich Qatar has good relations with Iran, and a rumored surprise visit by Iranian President Ahmadinejad (he never actually came) kept many leaders wary. Ironically, one bit of progress resulted: the notorious Libyan leader Mu'ammar al- Qadhafi had a surprising reconciliation with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah at the summit. The summit amounted to nothing more than a show of nominal unity... after all, the event was officially (and inimitably) called the Second Summit of Arab-South American Countries . UN Afghan Conference: The Hague, Netherlands. Leaders from 80 countries were in attendance, most importantly US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh, and US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke. SI Analysis Highlights : The summit was intended to give world leaders a forum to create ideas to help stabilize Afghanistan and deal with the rising Taliban insurgency. Strategies on how to engage with some "moderate Taliban" as well as luring regional war lords and militants away from the Taliban were discussed. There was general enthusiasm for the new US strategy in Afghanistan though little commitment for real support from key allies. Meanwhile back in Washington, US lawmakers and Pentagon officials evoked the possibility of increasing both spending and troops to Afghanistan (above the 21,000 newly committed) while increasing aid to Pakistan and debating the reliability of the Pakistani Intelligence Service. The new risk of a joint Afghan and Pakistani Taliban militant campaign against NATO forces, as well as Baitullah Mashud 's recent threats for increased violence in Pakistan, were assessed as well. All this being said, most of the attention was paid to what happened at the sidelines . The summit was a chance for US and Iranian diplomats to meet. And just as obscured as US-Iran relations are in reality, so was the confusing interaction between Akhundzadeh and Holbrooke. Following the summit, Clinton announced that the two men had a " brief and cordial exchange ". Iran came out the next day denying that such a meeting took place . Turkey's AfPak Summit: Ankara, Turkey. Turkish PM Recep Erdogan hosted Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. SI Analysis Highlights : Turkey further cemented its role as an arbiter for international conflict both in the Middle East and Central Asia (on the edge of Russia's sphere of influence). Little else was truly accomplished other than that both Zardari and Karzai paid lip service to better military cooperation to thwart Islamist extremists. Palestinian Unity Summit: Cairo, Egypt. Representatives from Egypt, Fatah and Hamas attended. SI Analysis Highlights : In the third effort in as many months to form a unity government, talks were almost immediately suspended for three weeks so that parties could consult their leadership on new proposals. Many feel that the lack of support, attention and unity coming from the Arab Summit in Qatar did nothing to spur Palestinian talks along. Others say that the position of the new Israeli government may in fact encourage greater unity shortly. Meetings of Minds: Obama - Hu Jintao: China's emergent prominence in global economic affairs underscored this meeting. The US sought to reassure China as to its efforts to curb inflation and keep the dollar sound in the face of the global economic crisis. China discussed moving the main reserve currency away from the dollar, but that idea did not gain any real traction for now. Most importantly, the parties pledged to work together as equal partners through bolstering the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue . Obama-Singh : Both sides expressed a desire to strengthen their relationship. Indian PM Manmohan Singh stated his case against protectionism with regards to the global financial crisis but focused mainly on how to work with the US on fighting Islamist militancy in the region (which could include qualifying some US aid to Pakistan). Obama encouraged India to work with Pakistan on security and the resolution longstanding disputes. Obama - Medvedev: This was the first meeting between Medvedev and Obama. The two leaders pledged renewed cooperation and made a political commitment to reach a START-II treaty by the end of the year. Key issues were discussed such as NATO expansion, Missile Defense in Eastern Europe, Iran and Russia's sphere of influence in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Medvedev-Merkel: On Tuesday, Medvedev met German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin to coordinate their agendas before going to the G20 summit. The two leaders called for a change to the global economic "architecture". Medvedev went so far as to reiterate his call for a new global currency system that rejects protectionism and promotes advances in international trade. Medvedev-Brown: While press reports on this meeting were scarce, the meeting between the British Prime Minister and the Russian President was expected to discuss energy transportation to Europe and improving bilateral ties that have soured in recent years. Medvedev-Hu Jintao: On Wednesday, the two leaders met in London. The two leaders agreed to carry out existing bilateral trade and energy deals while implimenting new ones. No specifics were determined for any new plans. Many analysts agree that Sino-Russian cooperation guarantees these two large economies a greater say in the global financial system. Ongoing or Upcoming Summits: NATO Summit in Baden-Baden, Germany and Strasbourg, France: On the occassion of NATO's 60th Anniversary, US President Obama will seek to secure more NATO member commitment to the new US Strategy in Afghanistan , while welcoming the latest members Croatia and Albania and pondering the raison d'etre of the international body. Most NATO nations are expected to disappoint US President Obama's expectations for more troops in Afghanistan . A growing number of analysts remark on how Obama's presidency presents a challenge to European leaders who are used to a unilateral American foreign policy. Obama has proven himself to be conciliatory with a priority on alliance building . US/EU Summit in Prague: The summit will be held on April 5 and 6. Obama is expected to give a speech reiterating his calls for trans-Atlantic unity. US-Turkey Summit in Ankara: The summit will be held on April 6 and 7. This meeting is possibly the most important for Obama in terms of promoting a new US foreign policy. Obama is expected to reaffirm bilateral ties with Turkey while courting an increasingly anti-American populace. Most significantly, Obama is expected to lay out a " fundamentally new US foreign policy in the region " with more nuance with regards to Israel and the Iraq War. Important to note, this trip will not include a much anticipated speech discussing American relations with the Muslim world. Curiously, Turkish press reports that Iranian opposition leader Mohammad Khatami will be in Turkey while Obama is there, leaving some to guess that Ankara is trying its hardest to continue in its self-made role as international arbiter. Hodge-Podge and Under the Radar: Deal of the Week: Russia and Azerbaijan on Gas Facts : On March 27, Russia's Gazprom and the State Oil Company
 
'ER' Finale Does HUGE Business Top
NEW YORK — Nielsen Media Research says that 16.4 million people watched the two-hour finale of "ER." That's the most-watched swan song for a television drama since "Murder She Wrote" in 1996. The groundbreaking medical drama called it quits Thursday after 15 years on NBC. It ended on a hopeful note with the daughter of Dr. Mark Greene eager to practice medicine where her father did. The audience Thursday night was nearly double what it has been for this final season, yet still half what it was when "ER" and NBC's "must-see" Thursday night lineup ruled television. More on NBC
 
Fed 'extremely uncomfortable' about bailouts Top
While acknowledging that the Federal Reserve was "extremely uncomfortable" about last year's bailouts of big financial companies, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said Friday the central bank's strategy to ease the financial crisis is working. Bernanke was referring to the Fed's unprecedented decisions last year to step in and financially back JPMorgan Chase's takeover of then-troubled investment house Bear Stearns and throw its first of four financial lifelines to insurance giant American International Group. In remarks prepared for a Fed conference in Charlotte, N.C., Bernanke said the central bank was forced to take action because the collapse of those companies would have dealt a serious blow to the financial system and the national economy. The situation underscores the need for new powers to allow the government to safely wind down such huge firms, he said. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently asked Congress for such powers. Credit provided under those company bailout accounts for only 5 percent of the Fed's $2 trillion balance sheet. Still, "these operations have been extremely uncomfortable for the Federal Reserve to undertake and were carried out only because no reasonable alternative was available," Bernanke said. The Fed's radical programs to bust through the financial crisis and spur bank lending to consumers and businesses are helping. Its program to provide financial companies with loans, buy mounds of debt that companies rely on for short-terming financing of payrolls and supplies, and efforts to bolster consumer lending and the mutual funds have eased some credit stresses, he said. Such efforts by the Fed, along with central banks in other countries, have "significantly reduced funding pressures for financial institutions, helped to reduce rates in bank funding markets and increase overall financial stability," Bernanke said. Getting banks to boost lending to customers is a key ingredient to any economic turnaround. The Fed chief said he expects to see a "gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth." However, he didn't say when. Bernanke also defended the Fed's decisions to revive the economy by plowing trillions of dollars into efforts to stabilize the banking system and to lower interest rates. Its program to buy mortgage-backed securities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has helped drive down the rate on 30-year mortgages to record lows. "These are extraordinary challenging times for our financial system and our economy," Bernanke said. "I am confident that we can meet these challenges, not least because I have great confidence in the underlying strengths of the American economy." To brace the economy, the Fed has slashed a key interest rate to an all-time low of near zero. The central bank has turned to unconventional tools _ such as its recent decision to start buying government debt _ to pull down interest rates on a range of consumer loans. The goal: entice Americans to go out and spend again, which would help lift the economy out of recession. More on Ben Bernanke
 
Michael Wolff: If You Blog, Is It Better to Be Blonde? Top
What do men in their fifties and sixties know about girls in their twenties? Are these young women looking for purpose, for a job, or just publicity (will the publicity provide a purpose and a job?)? Middle-aged men, so flummoxed by the desires and ambitions of young women, seem especially easy prey to girls with blogs. What do you do with a girl who won't shut up? That's the situation the Republicans find themselves in with John McCain's daughter, Meghan. She was a mild diversion during the presidential campaign--nice to have a blonde blogger in the party. A Julie Nixon type, maybe. But empowered, she's turned into someone who actually wants a seat at the table, apparently unaware of the incongruity and awkwardness of a 24-year-old girl among the guys with their pants pulled up high. Continue reading at newser.com
 
Henry Blodget: Hooray, We've Adopted Japan's Banking Solution Top
In the 1990s, when I was a technology analyst on Wall Street, I often heard economists explain why Japan's economy and stock market were mired in a lost decade. Japan, the economists said, refused to acknowledge that its banks were insolvent. Japan was allowing the banks to continue to pretend that they were healthy--by not writing down bad loans and by making new loans so companies could pay interest on bad loans and the bankers could say that the bad loans were good loans. Until Japan forced its banks to write off bad loans and stop making new loans to pay interest on bad loans, the economists said, Japan's economy would suffer. The economists always said this as though it was the most obvious thing in the world. The Japanese were just wimpy socialists who lacked the balls to face up to reality. And now so are we! A few years ago, the U.S. put an accounting rule in place that was designed to help us avoid becoming Japan: mark-to-market. Since the market is the best judge of the value of any security (better than the average individual, always), mark-to-market makes it harder for banks to lie to themselves and the rest of us about what their loans are worth. Banks loved mark-to-market when markets were going up, because they no longer had to defend the high prices they placed on their assets. They could just mark them to the market price, watch billions of dollars of profits flow through to the bottom line, and cash in at the end of the year. Now that markets are going down, however, banks are screaming bloody murder about mark-to-market, because it is making them insolvent. Banks don't like being insolvent (who would?), so they have been kicking and screaming about how mark-to-market should be eliminated. (Of course, the banks aren't stupid, so they don't say that mark-to-market should be eliminated because it is putting them out of business. They say it should be eliminated because, this time, the market is wrong: It's not that so many loans are going to go bad. It's that we are having a little liquidity crisis. The moment we fix the liquidity crisis, prices will go back up.) Banks employ lots of people (voters) and give lots of money to politicians. So, naturally, when banks screamed about the horrific unfairness of mark-to-market, politicians listened. And began screaming, too. And so did investors, who kept losing their shirts. And with the politicians and bankers and investors all screaming and losing their shirts, the folks who work at FASB (the people who establish accounting rules) suddenly began to feel a little less popular at cocktail parties. No longer were they the folks who had figured out how to help our banks and investors and politicians get rich in the boom years. Now, they were the folks who were putting our banks out of business, costing investors their shirts and employees and politicians their jobs. All in the name of some silly little accounting rule that no one understands. So FASB caved. And changed mark-to-market. So now banks can go back to saying their assets are worth whatever they want them to be worth again. And we can pretend that bad loans are good loans and make more bad loans to help keep other good loans from going bad (would you like a new loan to pay the interest on that old loan?) and investors won't get wiped out and employees and politicians won't get fired and everything can be hunky dory. Just like in Japan. See Also: Another Liberal Nobelist Says Geithner's Plan is Robbery Magna Cum Lousy: Where Today's Bad CEOs Went To School More on Timothy Geithner
 
Dr. Michael J. Breus: Snoring: A Health Hazard or a Harmless Habit? Top
When I tell people that snoring can be a sign of a serious health problem, they typically act surprised because snoring is so common. In other words, how can it be so serious if it's so universal? Approximately 90 million American adults snore, and of those 37 million snore on a regular basis. It's a problem among all ages and both genders, but it seems to affect men more than women, and it can worsen with age. Snoring is a turbulence problem. Air rushes down a tube that causes a vibration in the tissue, which causes a cadence and then a snore. This can cause frequent disruptions in a person's sleep (not to mention the other person trying to sleep in the same bed). Snorers generally don't wake up feeling as refreshed as they should. So, what makes this so dangerous? It can be a sign of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), a common sleep disorder I've blogged about several times . People with OSA briefly stop breathing multiple times during the night when the muscles in the back of the throat fail to keep their airway open. This results in fragmented, poor sleep, as well as low blood oxygen levels. OSA has been associated with an increased risk for myriad health problems, including hypertension, heart disease, mood and memory problems. Not everyone who snores has OSA, but the link between the two is well documented, and research showing the strong association between snoring and cardiovascular problems continues to come out. The good news is treating OSA is pretty simple these days thanks to the Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machine, or CPAP. This nifty device, which forces the airway to stay open so breathing is possible, is the best we have right now for treating sleep apnea. Sleep becomes much more restful and solid; it also shuts up the snoring that frequently accompanies that apnea. People who sleep with a snorer often rejoice, as data shows that sleeping with a snorer can steal about 1 hour of sleep. CPAP has others ways of saving lives; check out my previous post here . Is there a way to nix the OSA and the snoring altogether? Yes, but the cure isn't necessarily the easiest to achieve. Of all the risk factors for OSA, weight and physical activity factor heavily in that risk. People who have thick necks are more likely to experience OSA due to the extra fat they have at the back of their throats, which can be an underlying cause to the blocked airway. Studies also have shown that OSA wanes among people who begin exercise programs, regardless of weight loss. Losing weight and boosting exercise both require lifestyle shifts that aren't always easy. The benefits are huge, though, and extend beyond the issue of OSA and snoring. Many people do not know it, but being sleep deprived, like having undiagnosed apnea, can prevent you from losing weight; it's a vicious cycle, as described in my previous blog post on weight loss and sleep loss .  The bottom line is clear: preventing OSA is largely about maintaining a healthier, more active lifestyle. If you do suffer from OSA, treating it with a CPAP will help support sound sleep, which can then foster a healthier, more efficient body. And a more efficient body will shed those extra pounds more easily, as well as energize you in ways you never thought possible before. I've always said that the bedroom should be saved for sleep and sex only. The time has come to put snoring in its place. It's not a harmless habit. It's a health hazard, and a wake up call to action.   Sweet Dreams, Michael J. Breus, PhD, FAASM The Sleep Doctor This sleep article is also available on Dr. Breus's official blog, The Insomnia Blog .
 
The Progress Report: The Case For A Public Health Care Plan 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 . Though President Obama and 73 percent of voters strongly support a new public health insurance plan that can compete with private insurers equally and transparently within an insurance exchange, some lawmakers have indicated that a public plan may not be part of the final reform legislation. Yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus threatened "to vote against any health plan that doesn't include a public plan option." "We have polled CPC members very carefully in recent weeks and a strong majority will only support comprehensive healthcare reform legislation that includes a public plan option on a level playing field with private health insurance plans," explained CPC co-chairmen Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)." Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has recently said that the public plan is just a bargaining chip to "encourage the private health insurance industry to move in the direction it knows it should move toward -- namely, health insurance reform, which means eliminating pre-existing conditions, guaranteed issue, modified community rating." "I think we can accomplish" health care reform "without" a public plan, Baucus said in an interview with The Progress Report. The insurance industry asserts that a new public plan would underpay medical providers, increase costs for Americans with insurance, and force millions to leave the employer market and move into a public plan. There is also limited bipartisan support for the plan. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has warned that there is "no GOP support for a plan that included a government option" and in March, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sent a letter to Obama, effectively taking this option off the table. LOWERS COST: Despite the opposition, a new public health inurance plan could restore competition into the consolidated health insurance market, lower health care premiums, lead the way in innovation, and improve health quality. As CAPAF Senior Fellow Peter Harbage and Director of Health Policy Karen Davenport argue in a new report about the public plan, "in the face of tremendous consolidation in the health insurance market, employers and individuals have a shrinking set of health insurance options. Private insurers have used this market power to boost their profits." Harbage and Davenport add, "By including a public health insurance plan as another insurance option and creating a health insurance exchange that delivers transparency and accountability to the market, we can assure both viable competitors and real competition." As former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) argues, health reform "rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose" a public option. In a recent interview with The Progress Report, Dean explained that "the free market does not work in health care, except in very perverse ways. So, you have to find a system that works better in addition to the free market...it's a structural problem in delivering health insurance." According to the Urban Institute, "the presence of a well-run public plan would constrain private spending, as the plans would have to compete on price." Forcing private insurers to compete fairly with a public model that has lower administrative costs and operates with greater efficiency could "reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over 11 years, and lower premiums by about 20 percent on average." IMPROVES QUALITY: Traditionally, public health insurance plans like Medicare have "been the source of important payment innovations" that private plans have generally adopted." Today's Medicare program, for instance, "promotes quality care alongside cost containment. ... Medicare's refusal to pay medical care providers for 'never events' where a patient suffers a knowable and catastrophic mistake such as having the wrong limb removed is something other major insurers are now adopting." Similarly, Medicare development of its provider-payments systems and its investments in measuring and reporting quality care indicators are "two things that private insurers are now following the Medicare lead in doing." Moreover, "the way in which Medicare pays hospitals -- on a per stay basis rather than by reimbursing on a system that charges for each service or treatment delivered -- helped to change the way that care is delivered in the United States." The Veterans Health Administration has also "implemented a sophisticated electronic medical record systems and a quality measurement approach that focuses on preventive care and chronic disease management." A new public plan has the potential to do even more "to drive improvements in the health care system" and set the standard for developing new payment models and investing in preventive care and care coordination. DESIGNING FAIR PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITION: While the public option has become the subject of heated debate, few have spent much time sketching out the details for how to foster fair private-public competition. Robert E. Moffit of the Heritage Foundations has argued that it would be impossible to design a framework that pits for-profit private insurers against a government program that need not turn a profit. The government will institute lower rates, taxpayers will assume liability, and private insurers, Moffit warns, will simply go out of business. But eliminating medical underwriting will lower the administrative costs for private insurers and force companies to compete on quality, not risk. As health care economist Uwe Reinhardt explains, "if the new public plan had to negotiate its own prices, then it would not have a competitive advantage any more 'unfair' than is the ability iof large insurers -- such as Aetna and Wellpoint -- to negotiate lower prices with hospitals and physicians than these providers charge smaller insurers. For some reason, no one has ever called this form of price discrimination 'unfair.'" In fact, more than 30 states already have public health insurance options. In their role as self-insured employers, states are responsible for containing costs, promoting quality, and assuring that employees get the benefits and the care they need. In these states, employees may choose between private plans and the public plan, while in some states this pool is open to private employers as well -- a clear example of a public health insurance plan offering additional choices. Len Nichols of the New America Foundation has designed a framework that would ensure that the same body that's running the government plan isn't setting the rules of the competition, charging unreasonably low rates, or assuming too much risk. Such models already exist. Under Nichols' conception of a competing public option, the new program would "be accountable to an entity other than the one identified to govern the marketplace." The managers would be evaluated by patient satisfaction, not profits, and the people running the plan would have no incentive to stint on patient care in favor of the bottom line. In other words, public and private payers compete on a completely level playing field and follow all of the rules of the marketplace. The public plan would be actuarially sound, would not leverage Medicare to force providers to participate or use Medicare payment rates, and would have to adhere to the same rules regarding reserve funds. Costs would be lowered through competition and system-wide reform. By changing the way Medicare and the public option reimburse for services and increasing the efficiency of both programs, the government can encourage private insurers -- who are now competing directly with the new public plan -- to also adopt more efficient payment practices.
 
Adam Lioz: Pathways Out of Poverty While Saving Energy Top
We all know our economy is shedding jobs at a scary clip. President Obama's recovery package was a good start to get us back on track, but we need to do more. And, of course, the recession has hit our most vulnerable populations hardest -- minorities, folks laid off from the manufacturing sector, and disadvantaged youth. That's why Progressive Future is excited to be working with Green for All, Apollo Alliance, Center for American Progress, and others to promote a program that will provide pathways out of poverty, while saving Americans money on our energy bills: a national Clean Energy Corps. The Clean Energy Corps will create 600,000 jobs, increasing the energy efficiency of 15 million buildings. Given that buildings account for nearly half of our energy use -- more than all those gas-guzzling SUVs we hear so much about -- this will save lots of money and put a serious dent in global warming pollution. The Clean Energy Corps also provides job training to make sure that unemployed Americans have access to the new clean energy economy. And, it will engage millions of Americans in green service opportunities. This will help poor youth take the first step onto the green career ladder. You can help by signing our petition to Congress calling for green jobs and a Clean Energy Corps.
 
New Push For Employee Free Choice Act Kicks Off With TV Ad (VIDEO) Top
A coalition of pro-labor groups looking to drum up support for the Employee Free Choice Act is preparing to pounce on lawmakers when they arrive in their home districts for the April recess. The activist push is kicking off with a new TV ad , released Friday, that shows American workers on the job as heartwarming music plays. "This recess, we will not allow our leaders to forget that workers across the country are counting on them to make the economy work for everyone again," said American Rights at Work director Mary Beth Maxwell in a press release, which says plans are set for rallies, leafleting, town hall meetings, and other activities during the recess. The ad suggests that pro-EFCA forces are galvanizing in the face of uncertainty over the fate of the bill, commonly referred to as "card-check," which would make it easier for workers to unionize. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), whose support is crucial to winning 60 votes in the Senate, recently said that he can no longer support the measure in the current economic climate. The ad, titled "Fabric of America," will run nationwide, the press release says. [WATCH:]
 
The CIA Won't Put Its Declassified Documents Online Top
In a quiet, fluorescently lit room in the National Archives' auxiliary campus in suburban College Park, Maryland, 10 miles outside of Washington, are four computer terminals, each providing instant access to the more than 10 million pages of documents the CIA has declassified since 1995. There's only one problem: these are the only publicly available computers in the world that do so.
 
Randall Amster: Getting Good Mileage from the GM Takeover Plan Top
At long last, the plan is finally hatched to "save" the auto industry, or at least General Motors. President Obama's quasi-takeover blueprint is bold and intriguing, and could even become a template for managing the whole financial crisis itself. Indeed, in the spirit of the old axiom, perhaps what's good for General Motors really is good for America after all. The latest incarnation of industrial bailout could include the unique move of shepherding the U.S. auto giant through potential bankruptcy proceedings. Taking advantage of certain legal provisions in the bankruptcy code, the notion essentially would be to split the company into two pieces : the "good" part and the "bad" part. For argument's sake, let's call the former Good Car (which will include brands like Cadillac and Chevrolet) and the latter Bad Car (which will subsume the also-rans and didn't-runs like Saturn and Hummer). The plan would carve Good Car from GM and get it running again, while Bad Car will remain up on blocks in bankruptcy proceedings presumably until it's liquidated. This unprecedented move -- at least insofar as we might have the government acting in a semi-receivership capacity and bifurcating a major corporation -- could serve as a model for further interventions in these challenging times, comprising a sort of nascent test drive to restart the old economic engines. Imagine for a moment the potential implications if this scheme was applied to some of the key entities and issues in society: Bad Wall, Good Street : It's hard to find the positive side among the modern-day robber barons and golden parachute crowd. But most of the people working it day-in and day-out in downtown Manhattan are just that: workers. Plus, there are some brokers there with ethics (really!) and even a few who invest only in green enterprises and socially-just endeavors. These folks are the good part of Wall Street and ought to be freed up to do their thing, while the rest will be required to raise $2 trillion to bail us out for a change. Good Telly, Bad Vision : This one is more complicated than simply revisiting Stewart vs. Cramer . Television has been called a "vast wasteland" and a popular bumper sticker urges people to "kill" theirs. Still, it would be interesting if people were truly forced to choose only those few programs they simply couldn't live without, and all the rest were suddenly reduced to test patterns. During the last election cycle, then-candidate Obama actually urged us to turn off our televisions and read to our children. Perhaps he was already thinking about which shows to excise when government takes the reins? Let's keep all the various Star Treks and the music videos up and running -- oh yeah, music television doesn't actually show music videos anymore, that's right -- so Trek it is, then, warp speed ahead! Bad AIG, Good Riddance : There just isn't anything good to be found here, so the whole thing gets axed. Better yet, let's give them all complimentary Corvairs. Or Pintos donated by Ford. Maybe Hummers with blown head gaskets, flat tires, and exorbitant overdue payments? Nah. No cars for this crew -- just the karma they've rightly earned. Good Global, Bad Warming : After briefly fancying some of the moons of Saturn, I've decided that this little blue-green Earth of ours is actually the place to be. It's really a fine globe we've got here, and one not easily replaced -- they're not making any more, as the old saying goes. Everything we are comes from this place, and while it's true that we're part of Nature it's also the case that we're tampering with it in myriad problematic ways. In fact, this is likely the first time in history that a terrestrial species has so rapidly and dramatically altered its own environment; consider, for instance, that we've actually managed to cause geological and glacial processes to occur on a human time scale. This is no unimpressive feat, but it must be halted -- like, now. Thus, in a stunning maneuver, the Obama Administration has secretly been planning to ban all toxic emissions (see the note on Television above for what will become of FOX News under this rubric) and require that every rooftop in the country be made out of solar panels. Oil companies go the way of the Edsel and nuclear reactors are replaced by New Clear Energy. Bad Mister, Good Wrench : Michael Moore's got this one poignantly covered already, but it fits too well to omit it from this litany! Good Bye, Bad Buy : I think we should all drive whatever Reverend Billy is driving. He's the guy running for mayor of New York on the Green Party ticket. He's also the leading light of the Church of Stop Shopping. No, he won't win any Chamber of Commerce endorsements, but he will earn the lasting affection of future generations for simply advocating that we cease consuming so much crapola. We can get what we need, and even some of what we desire, without making ourselves the enemy of (a) each other and (b) everything else on the planet. Applying a bit of forethought before making that next purchase could go a long way toward making things go a long way. Let's slow down the engine of consumption enough to make our collective road trip a happy one. Government cannot mandate this for us, but luckily we as consumers have the power to make it happen and steer ourselves away from that approaching precipice. So let's take a page from the Obama GM owner's manual and rev up our newfound enthusiasm for allowing the good to flourish and the rest to flounder. Wouldn't it be fun, fun, fun to be lounging on crushed velvet seats in a little red Corvette -- um, I mean Prius -- instead of always being in the SUV breakdown lane spewing fumes during rush hour? Yes, this new plan to turn General Motors into Specific Motors feels very good indeed... More on Auto Bailout
 
Anne Stockwell: For Wagoner, Camaro Comes Too Late Top
When he drove to Washington in December in his second bid for a government bailout, why didn't GM's Rick Wagoner saddle up the 2010 Camaro? GM's reinvented muscle car is an achievement worth pointing to. Big, bad, and nasty, it also delivers the best fuel economy ever in its class. Of course Wagoner couldn't just jump in the Camaro. That would have been fun. After his disastrous first descent on Congress in the GM corporate jet, the chairman had to grovel on the second trip. Not to worry: There's a GM model for that, too. To us on the West Coast, the sight of Wagoner en route in a Chevy Malibu hybrid summed up the carmaker's problems. At 34 mpg on the highway, the hybrid Malibu is just medium-green. Design-wise, it's solid, not sexy. Like too many GM products we grew up with, it aims for the middle -- a thousand models, and every one just like your mom's station wagon. The Camaro, on the other hand, could be GM's biggest hit in years. At least that's how it looked to me when the automaker invited me to drive the V6, 304-hp model in West Hollywood last week. Even here, in Celebrity Central, people stopped on the sidewalks to stare. Heads turned; cell-phone cameras clicked. After all, the Camaro is a movie star. It debuted in 2007's smash hit Transformers as Bumblebee, the loyal Autobot who helps Shia LaBeouf save the world and get next to Megan Fox. Angelenos may want virtuous cars, but we want sexy too. Climate change or not, this is Hollywood. With an EPA-rated 29 mpg on the highway, the Camaro delivers both ways. It's fast enough to pin your ears back but green enough to soothe your conscience. There's no love lost for GM in Los Angeles. Detroit's a world away. Japan's next door. Midwest and West Coast, we regard one another with suspicion. Out here we respect the Cadillac CTS, and maybe we'll love the long-awaited Chevy Volt. But nothing we've seen makes up for the joke that is the Hummer. Still, let's be fair. We say GM can't make fuel-efficient cars Americans want to drive, but the Camaro proves otherwise. Whatever his failings, Wagoner, who resigned Sunday at the behest of the Obama administration, deserves a piece of that credit. I'm told that 14,000 Camaros are on order, and that's before Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen hits theaters in May. Recession and all, we still want a piece of that ride.
 
Anne Hill: Rachel Maddow's Anxiety Dream Top
Everyone has anxiety dreams. Even fabulous cable and radio show hosts like Rachel Maddow have their share of dreams where things go wrong in major ways. I just came across this video from Maddow's recent appearance at a Mother Jones fundraiser in San Francisco where she gives a great description of her recent anxiety dream. What I find interesting here as a dreamworker is that in her final summary of the dream, she says that she blew the interview with General Petraeus. But taking each element of the dream individually, it sounds as though the interview itself went well -- in fact, it was a great example of being in the moment and being mentally prepared for a sudden opportunity. She had questions, he had answers, and the spontaneous conversation went fine. What didn't go well in the dream were the structural things that broadcasters have to have in place: note pad, schedules, and, most importantly, a camera rolling. So if this were my dream I would say that there is a tension between what I feel eminently able to do, and the way I have to do it. Maybe my exuberance is not a great fit for the media role I now have, or maybe the dream is reminding me to slow down and make sure I have all the logistics taken care of before I just sit down and talk to someone off the cuff. Either way, the dream highlights some universal concerns that arise in our anxiety dreams: problems with communication, preparedness, forgetting important details, and the pressure we face being professionals while still being ourselves. And as Clara Jeffery pointed out, the good news in this dream is that at least she wasn't interviewing General Petraeus naked. More on Rachel Maddow
 
Iris Martin: Homeowner, Don't Let the Wolf in Your Door! Top
Your lender is threatening to foreclose? Not! If your loan has been securitized, your lender is not the current note holder and has no legal right to do so. Millions of Americans today are in financial and psychological distress because their toxic adjustable rate mortgages have reset, forcing them into delinquency, default and foreclosure. These homeowners have been victimized by a conspiracy of predators that has fraudulently induced them into toxic loans in order to generate fees and profit. However, the lenders who originated these loans and sold them have no legal right to foreclose, per their own 8K SEC filings. They just have to be reminded in court that, when they were paid in full for the loans, plus a premium, they relinquished their legal right to foreclose as they are no longer current holders of the notes. Or as Florida attorney April Charney, known as the "Foreclosure Killer," puts it, "it seems a no brainer that a judge would make sure every foreclosure has a legal claim." Sounds too good to be true? Not! In fact, it is simple contract law. While many players in the securitization business want to convince you that the "lost note defense" is a "legal gimmick" that will merely slow down foreclosure, recent judicial orders upholding the rights of homeowners are the current reality: Judge Boyko dismissed 14 foreclosures attempted by Deutsche Bank, stating that "the federal court system will not be forgiving in this regard." Judge O'Malley dismissed 32 foreclosures, stating that the lender "has not filed adequate documentation demonstrating that it was the owner and holder at the time it filed suit." Judge Bufford found in favor of the pro se homeowner against IndyMac Bank, stating "IndyMac Bank is not the real party of interest." Judge Rose dismissed 20 foreclosures, stating "while the plaintiffs have pled that they have standing, they may not have had standing at the time when the foreclosure was filed." Judge Crawford dismissed a foreclosure, concluding that "MERS failed to establish that it held either the mortgage or the note at the time it filed the lawsuit." Andrew Pizor, Counsel for Connecticut Fair Housing Association, wryly says, "Foreclosure firms are so used to actions just going through unopposed. Now people are paying attention and pointing out the gaps. When I raise these defenses in foreclosure proceedings, the shocked response from lenders is that 'it is a technicality.' Well, not paying your mortgage is a technicality, too." And more such orders are coming every day as energized homeowners fight their mortgage wars. In fact, these judicial opinions are so thoughtfully written and so adamantly supportive of homeowners' rights, that I have included them in my new book, Mortgage Wars: How to Find Fraud and Reverse Foreclosure . These judges were also surgically critical of the mortgage giants who breezed through the securitization process, as in this quote by Judge Boyko: "The institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns." But despite the law, and in the spirit of protecting the conspiracy, our government wants to lend them even more money and further empower them! No one, including the President, seems to care about the psychological carnage created as Americans are tossed on the street, forced into homelessness or residing in their cars. In his address to the nation, Obama said "if you got yourself into more house than you can afford, we can't help you." In reality, the Administration knows that it cannot convince owners of mortgage backed securities to modify their pooling and servicing agreements, if for no other reason than that no one can find them. It is one big multi-trillion dollar (and growing) mess being dumped on the very homeowners and taxpayers who have been defrauded. Further, this lunacy fueled by the media -- that the foreclosure crisis was caused by a sudden epidemic of deadbeat liars -- isn't helping. Most borrowers were not first time homeowners and trusted the professionals to play it straight, as in "fiduciary responsibility." Consider this: what idiot would commit to a loan, knowing that in a few short months he would be out on the street, saddled with bankruptcy, bad credit, and bail out taxpayer debt to boot? And don't think for a second that this financial blood bath hasn't contributed to our nation's post traumatic stress disorder, starting with the rigged 2000 election. Thrust into a ten year cycle of fraud, most Americans have come to accept that, if they couldn't elect a President without being overruled, and they can't stop a fraudulent war devoid of weapons of mass destruction, then how could they stop the financial wolves from beating down their doors? The irony is that the predators, so obsessed with selling derivatives, attacked the one front we just couldn't resist: our homes. Fast money for homeownership? Cheap equity lines? How about a one percent loan? They had us at "hello." American homeowners need to come together and scream out loud, "We're not gonna take it!" through filing predatory lawsuits alleging fraud and demanding quiet title actions. While there is quite a self-serving underground movement aimed at suppression, (think Deep, Deep Throat, the sequel), we still have, on our side, a little document called the United States Constitution which assures us that "Citizens of the United States shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." So how do you find your own due process? If you are a victim of the conspiracy, follow my ten step war plan of engagement: 1. Get out those dusty closing documents and peruse them; they actually make for fascinating reading. You will learn all sorts of facts that your mortgage broker and lender did not want you to know, as in how they committed mortgage fraud. 2. Check your credit rating. If you have fallen to the bottom of the class and your loan is fraudulent, there is hell to pay. Your lender has violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 3. Compare the current value of your home to the stated appraised value at your closing. If your value has dropped significantly, it may have been fraudulently inflated to increase the loan amount, so your broker and lender could reap higher fees. Again, a major no no. 4. Is your debt to income ratio over 35%? Oops, they did it again. It is against the law to put borrowers into loans that they cannot pay back. 5. Does your income reported to the IRS match the income on your loan application? If not, check to see if your data was fudged and your signature was forged. A common enough practice which also happens to be a crime. 6. Go online and google your lender's 10K and 8K filings for the year that you signed your loan documents. See how your lender has gleefully bragged to its investors about how efficiently it securitized loans such as your own. Most lenders even go as far as to claim that no loans sold into pools were predatory in any way! (Think investor fraud.) And don't get me started on the accounting firms who certified these blatant lies. Or the credit rating agencies who stepped up to the plate with inflated ratings and outstretched palms. 7. Get your loan audited. It is the first step in building a winning lawsuit. If you can't find an auditor, go to my website www.yourmortgagewar.com and we will refer one. 8. Get a qualified attorney to file your "Qualified Written Requests" and your legal complaint. We know some of the best ones in the country who will not rip you off. No point in jumping from predatory lending to predatory lawyer. 9. Demand your loan be extinguished. After you have been defrauded, it is your legal right to demand that the predators be held accountable. Toward that end, don't waste time attempting to modify a securitized loan. Go right for the jugular, just as your lender has. 10. Break out the champagne. You have tamed the wolf. Maybe in time, you can transform him into a lovable canine companion, maybe a Wall Street born-again Marley. And stand up for yourself. Don't fall for the media's pre-emptive attacks on your character. An examination of recent history paints an entirely different picture of a conspiracy of politicians, regulators, investment bankers, mortgage brokers and nominal lenders that would do anything -- including bankrupting the country and the globe -- to profit from the derivatives explosion. It's time for this karmic cycle to reverse and for homeowners to take back their American dream, one lawsuit at a time.
 
RJ Eskow: How to Follow the Health Reform Debate Top
In what may become a new Opening Day tradition, John McCain threw out the first cranky 1 when debate on Kathleen Sebelius' nomination began this week. . That means the topic of health reform is about to heat up even more, and it's getting hard to tell the players without a scorecard. Here's a handy guide to the action: The debate is now centered on two key proposals - the 'public plan option,' and mandates that require individuals and businesses to obtain health coverage. While you'll hear about other issues (including fearmongering about health IT ), they represent the real fight. And the ground may be shifting as Democratic leaders draw what may be the wrong conclusions from reform efforts in Massachusetts. The public plan option offers people under 65 the ability to bypass private insurance and enroll in a government-run plan, similar to (but separate from) Medicare. "Mandates" come in two forms - one that requires employers to offer health coverage, and one that requires individuals to obtain coverage (either from their employer or privately) or face penalties. The public plan option would act as a restraint on private insurers and generate innovative cost-cutting measures. But some object because they believe it would become a virtual monopsony (like a monopoly, but where one buyer dominates a market), giving it "unfair advantage" over the private sector. That position may have some inherent logical flaws (e.g. if the free market does a better job why does it need protecting?), but the President has shown a certain amount of sympathy for it. Mandates help manage costs by ensuring that healthy people, as well as those more likely to need care, join the plan. But forcing individuals to pay costly premiums to profit-making ventures could become an onerous burden and an politically unpopular move. Health policy experts support mandates for sound economic reasons, but they bring significant practical and political problems -- unless they are combined with a public plan option, as in the proposal put forward by Prof. Jacob Hacker . (I interviewed Hacker about it here .) Combining the two programs should help limit premiums to an affordable level, expecially with government support at higher income levels. That's important. There's a compromise proposal on the table which would allow a public plan option but restrict its ability to press for price and other concessions. While this proposal might reduce resistance from Max Baucus and others, it somewhat weakens the principles behind the model. Ezra Klein does an excellent job summarizing the three ways a public plan option could play out, but I'm not sure I agree with Ezra's conclusion that the public plan alternative (especially what he describes as a "gentle non-profit") is not a critical element of reform. Consider: If even a "gentle non-profit" captures a significant percentage of the insurance market - say, 30% - that could save half a trillion dollars or more over the next ten years 2 . And a more unconstrained program could create new cost savings incentives that save even more. The least desirable outcome (aside from complete failure) is a plan that includes mandates but doesn't have a public plan option, as is currently the case in Massachusetts. Sen. Baucus already implied to Karen Tumulty that he's using the public plan option primarily as a bargaining chip. That's not good. The Administration has indicated an increased openness to the mandate idea, although they opposed it (at least as an initial step) during the campaign. (I interviewed Obama health advisor David Cutler on the topic during the primary campaign .) There are indications now, however, that the Administration might avoid any suggestions of a reversal by letting Congress take the lead. Sen. Baucus and others may be relying too much on the Massachusetts health reform initiative, which includes mandates but no public plan. While it has succeeded in expanding coverage - a good thing - it has had to exclude a significant portion of the state's uninsured <3>3 and faces serious financial problems . Mandate-only advocates point to polls showing that Massachusetts residents generally have very favorable opinions about the reform . But... A careful reading of those polls show that people who were personally affected by the reform (32% of the total) had a much more negative reaction to it. In this group, 56% said it had affected them negatively while only 44% said it had affected them positively. While some respondents may be people who can afford coverage but don't buy it, many of them are hard-pressed middle-class families who are now mandated to obtain an expensive private plan or face tax penalties. And Massachusetts had a much smaller uninsured problem than the nation as a whole. A similar plan on a national level could be widespread economic strain for middle-income families. And the political impact on Democrats could be even greater. The very unhappy minority tends to shift its votes more than the mildly happy majority does. The fate of the mandate and public plan proposals could determine what happens to health reform. And if Democrats rely too much on the Massachusetts mandates-only model, it could lead to a less effective plan and create a political minefield for their party. That's the heart of the battle currently being waged in Washington. _______________________________ 1 "Would you agree," McCain asked, "that executives of firms receive more lavish health benefits than their employees?" I'm pretty sure that's wrong. I know what he's trying to do - tap into populist outrage and turn it against health reform - but when I worked in the health benefits world this sort of favoritism was very rare. Employers were especially concerned about the tax and discriminatory implications. Benefit consultants: Has that changed, or is Sen. McCain way off-base here? 2 That's a rough calculation: $2 trillion in annual expenditures, two-thirds of which is private-sector insurance. Take 30% of that, remove 15% for profit margins, and multiply by ten (since policymakers love those big ten-year numbers). Result: $594 billion. 3 Figures vary, but most people agree that roughly 20% of the uninsured were excluded by design. As of June 2008, which are the last figures I've seen, significantly more than that had not yet received coverage.  
 
Human Body Parts Found In Argentinian Temple, Police Investigating Human Sacrifice Top
A human skull, femur, and other bones were found on the altar, and detectives were investigating whether human sacrifices were carried out at the church in Argentina. More on Argentina
 
Berlusconi Rattles Queen Elizabeth II (VIDEO) Top
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, known for his often inappropriate gaffes , appears to have upset Queen Elizabeth II during a G-20 group photo in London. Berlusconi shouts to President Obama, who is standing near the Queen. Her Majesty apparently did not understand the need for such a rude ruckus. Watch here: The video has since become an Internet sensation, while Buckingham Palace has tried to play down the episode. More on G-20 Summit
 
Dan Lashof: Recycling Scary Numbers to Protect the Status Quo Top
Yesterday Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey released a "discussion draft" of the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- a comprehensive energy and climate proposal that would create good jobs, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change by repowering our economy with clean energy. My colleague David Doniger provided a first read of the bill on Switchboard. Opponents apparently didn't bother to look at the draft before firing off their prepared talking points. They are trying the same old tactics polluters used to argue against the Clean Air and Water Acts: throwing around a lot of scary numbers about energy prices. But history shows such forecasts have little to do with reality -- a survey by the Economic Policy Institute showed that past industry claims about environmental compliance costs have been overblown by anywhere from 30%- 2,900%. Dig a little deeper and it's clear that the numbers now being hurled into the climate policy debate have nothing to do with the legislation that this Congress is beginning to consider.  Opponent tactics include: Tossing around wild estimates of the cost of emission permits that are four or five times higher than the best government estimates. Assuming that the value of carbon emission permits just disappears from the economy when, in fact, it goes back into consumers' pockets through energy efficiency and clean energy investments and rebates. Ignoring the economic benefits from reducing air pollution and avoiding the damages from global warming, including stronger storms, floods, and droughts. Excluding from their analyses important parts of the proposed policies designed to limit the costs. Hiding the fact that even their worst-case scenarios actually show robust economic growth for the US economy under a carbon cap, with most analyses showing imperceptible shifts from business as usual trends over the long term.  What's a more realistic picture?  Limits on global warming pollution won't go into effect until 2012. That means there will be no impact on energy prices while we're in the depths of the recession -- zero impact in 2009; zero impact in 2010; zero impact in 2011. In 2012 energy price increases would average less than 5 percent and total household energy costs -- including heating fuels, electricity, and gasoline -- would increase by about the cost of a small pack of gum per day according to the most credible and up-to-date  government analysis of a similar proposal offered last year. That analysis did not fully account for the opportunities to improve the energy efficiency of our homes, businesses and transportation system. With smart incentives to invest in energy efficiency upgrades, such as those in the Waxman-Markey proposal (which no one has had time to directly analyze yet), consumers can quickly cut their energy use by at least 10 percent, resulting in a net reduction in their energy bills.  Even bigger savings -- 30 percent or more -- can be made as they replace obsolete appliances and inefficient vehicles with state-of-the-art models. So efficiency investments can lower energy bills in the short run and translate into big savings down the road.  Even in the worst-case scenarios peddled by opponents of limits on global warming pollution the economy, personal income, jobs, and other key economic indicators all grow robustly under a cap and trade bill. In fact, the economist behind a study sponsored by National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) acknowledged that climate legislation would delay the GDP increase we can otherwise expect by 2050 by a mere three months.   What's even better news is that comprehensive energy and climate legislation will create and protect millions of good paying "green" jobs across the nation -- insulating homes, installing solar energy systems, manufacturing batteries for hybrid cars, and building wind farms, among other occupations -- helping restore our economy to full employment more rapidly than would traditional energy investments. That's because for every million dollars spent on clean energy three to four times as many jobs are created than if the same amount of money was spent on fossil fuels. Clean energy development employs more people to build, deliver and install equipment, and these paychecks go into their pockets instead of coal and oil company coffers.  The long-term benefits will also be profound: sustainable growth, greater security, and a cleaner, more stable environment for all of us and our children to enjoy. This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog . More on Energy
 
Ben Affleck: Why Violet Swears In German (VIDEO) Top
Ben Affleck sat down with Jay Leno Thursday night and told a story about 3-year-old daughter Violet's introduction to a German swear word. On to promote "State of Play," Affleck recounted taking Violet out for lunch at a Mexican restaurant and having her spill their drinks all over the table. As he jumped up and started to say "SHIT" he caught himself at the "SH" and instead yelped "SHEISSE," German for shit. He then imitated Violet asking what it meant and repeating it over and over, louder and louder, as the restaurant looked on. WATCH: More on Jay Leno
 
Google, Twitter Not In "Late Stage" Acquisition Talks: Swisher Top
While the "news" that Google was in "late-stage" talks to acquire Twitter, which TechCrunch reported last night, certainly sounds exciting, it isn't accurate in any way, according to a number of sources BoomTown spoke to close to the situation. In fact, Twitter and Google have simply been engaged in "some product-related discussions," according to one source, around real-time search and the search giant better crawling the microblogging service. More on Twitter
 
Daoud Kuttab: Palestinians Angry About Portrayal of Prisoners' Wife by Palestinian Filmmaker Top
The film won Arab and international praise for its courage in tackling some of Palestine's more difficult issues. But the hardest and most obnoxious reviewers were back at home. The fiction movie is Najwa Najjar's Pomegranates and Myrrh , which opened the Dubai International Film Festival, Rotterdam, Sundance and was shown at the had a special screening hosted by the Berline-Bradenberg Prime Ministry durig the Berlin Film Fesitval. Here's the trailer . Many more festivals have plans to show the film. The Gulf News called it a movie made in heaven, giving it the following introduction: "Palestinian filmmaker Najwa Najjar's new film reflects both the sweetness and bitterness of life in her homeland. An old Arabic proverb says that in every pomegranate, one seed is made in heaven. It is the seed of hope that made the Pomegranates and Myrrh a reality, reflecting life's sweetness and bitterness." The sweetness of it is simply a Palestinian love story, the bitterness is that the man finds himself in jail and the woman (a dancer) is fighting cultural emotions as she tries to continue her dancing career and as she is tempted into a fling by her dance instructor. Foreign audiences filled cinema halls hoping to see these Palestinian women heroes (applies to both the director and the film's heroine). Arab audiences gave it a mixed reaction, but possibly the harshest reaction came after the film's debut in Ramallah. While many welcomed it, some felt that somehow Najjar treaded on forbidden territory when she took the audience inside the head of a liberal prisoner's wife, and then showed her conflict about going back to dancing and even exchanging special looks with her trainer. Some seemed to think it lunacy, others treason. A report highlighting the angry statement of a viewer appeared in the media and seems to have made its way inside the Israeli prisons where a campaign began by Hamas prisoners asking for the film to be banned because it negatively portrayed the prisoners' wives. The filmmaker's protagonist couple are patriotic Palestinians from the nationalist liberal wing of Palestinian struggle today, yet this did not stop the campaign. Some see this campaign as a reflection of the overall Palestinian political and social divide. Counter-campaigns, one led by well-respected Palestinian novelist Lina Bader, have also been initiated. A few years ago I had the privilege of touring in Palestine with Hollywood star Richard Gere who, during his stay, met many Palestinian artists, including Najjar who gave him then the script of this film. Unusual for an American celebrity, Gere took time to read the script and sent her a handwritten letter endorsing it. Despite this high-level endorsement it took Najwa about four years to raise the money, find the talent, shoot and edit the film (mostly in Palestine). One of the problems facing Palestinian creative talent and intellectuals is that they often give themselves the awesome difficulty of having to carry the entire Palestinian cause on their shoulders. Even paintings have to have the colours of the Palestinian flag, or some kind of embroidery, or cactus, or Handallah, or the map of Palestine in order to pass the test of patriotism. But artists are not obliged to do that. A Palestinian fiction need not be the official narrative of all Palestinians, neither should any other work of art of culture have that requirement. By attempting to mass everything into every work, Palestinians fall into exactly the stereotypical trap that has been set up for them. Pomegranates and Myrrh is a sensitive film by one Palestinian filmmaker about one Palestinian point of view. This is exactly how we can create our own genuine narrative, one stitch at a time, in order to produce the quilt that represents the people and cause of Palestine.
 
Michelle Lamar: Why I Spat and Why You Should Care Top
I'm not a reality TV star , but I'm a mom. I spit in a cup so that I could help other mothers and help my family. The more we know about our family history, the more we know about ourselves. I spat and became a founding member of the 23andMe Pregnancy community because I want to know more about my ancestors, and because I want to help other moms. 23andMe is a company co-founded and co-managed by Anne Wojcicki and Linda Avery. The company offers a personal genomics service, in which it scans the DNA submitted by its customers and provides information on their health risks, ancestry and other traits. 23andMe goes beyond personal genetic testing . The good the company is doing will impact everyone. My parents are dead. By being a part of the 23andMe community, I can pass along details of our family to my children. Our family history is full of explorers, pioneers and warriors. Grandmother's people were bodyguards to the King of Scotland. Our family was one of just twenty-three families to go west through the Cumberland Gap with Daniel Boone. My grandmother raised three children during the Great Depression as a widow. I know my family history but my family health history is a mystery. I can't ask my mom if she had problems in her forties with ovarian cysts because she's passed. In the health and medical world, the knowledge base has grown so much since my parents died. My dad has been gone since 1992 and my mom died in 2000. My siblings and I don't have our parents, so being able to spit into a cup and find some of the answers to our family health history is a blessing and a tremendous opportunity. I want my children and their children to know that we have strong ancestors of great character. However, more importantly, I want my kids to know there are high blood pressure and breast cancer genes in our family. Some people prefer to live without the information 23andMe can provide. I believe knowledge is power and can help my family prevent some diseases that took our ancestors too soon. What do you think? Is the information provided by genetic testing too much information? Do you think it's helpful?
 
Nathan Hegedus: What Europe Really Needs is a Good Shrink Top
Europe is in trouble. Everyone says so. Paul Krugman says so. The Swedish finance minister says so. The reasons given are legion. Not enough economic stimulus. A deluded sense that spending on the social safety net will pull economies through. Not enough political integration. Too much economic integration. Too much expansion. But the real problem is psychological. Of course it does not take a genius to see that Europeans really do not think of themselves as Europeans first. They are French or Germans or Swedes and they act accordingly. I knew this intellectually, but it hit me emotionally this morning at my breakfast table here in Stockholm, Sweden. I opened the business section of the newspaper. There were pictures of the leaders of all the G20 nations, with a little note about each of their goals. My first reaction? God help us. I just do not trust middle age men in suits. I am 36 and, frankly, thought this would have passed by now. I blame eight years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for not instilling any sense of institutional trust in my elders. But then I focused on the European leaders -- Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy (How did he get an invite?!? Can't we just give Italy's spot at these things to Spain?) and Angela Merkel of Germany. And I realized that I do not trust any of them to look out for me up here in Scandinavia. I do not trust them to help one bit with a Swedish unemployment rate that will likely hit 12 percent. I do not trust them to in any way protect my job, which depends greatly on the wider economy, or to do anything about my likely skyrocketing tax bill. Angela Merkel is not worried about Slovenia or Hungary or Sweden, except how they impact German banks. So I am especially thrilled that Sweden will take over the rotating EU presidency in the second half of 2009. The Swedish prime minister is simply the only European politician I trust to look after Sweden. I recently read some talk about how the EU really should have one representative at the G20 talks but that none of the faded old powers will give up their seat at the table (Italy? Really?) But this goes so much deeper, and I see no real efforts to change it. There must be a Europe-wide change in perception. Europeans must be Europeans. This seems so impossible, apparently, that the EU does not even try and so goes forth with constitutions that the leaders hope can be pushed through national parliaments without popular referendums, which are almost always voted down. I lived in the former Yugoslavia after the war there in the 1990s. I saw what propaganda could do, drive peoples with everything in common completely and utterly apart. I see no reason it could not bring people together. Continent building, we could call it. Honestly, someone has to think creatively. Maybe embrace the local identity but only in exchange for Europe-wide power. Or political parties that cross national lines. Why do these not exist? I am only thinking out loud. I just know that the euro will not do it. The European Parliament sure isn't doing it. Europe needs to make some huge psychological leap. Honestly, Obama seems to care more about me than any of the big European leaders. Or its future will be the same as its G20 present -- weak, divided and with Silvio Berlusconi sitting at the table supposedly representing me. More on Paul Krugman
 
Andy Worthington: Britain's Guantanamo Top
On Monday March 30, in a committee room in the House of Commons, Diane Abbott MP chaired a meeting entitled, "Britain's Guantánamo? The use of secret evidence and evidence based on torture in the U.K. courts," to discuss the stories of some of the men held as "terror suspects" on the basis of secret evidence, and to work out how to persuade the government to change its policies. A detailed report of the meeting is available here , and the profiles of five prisoners are available by following this link , but I thought it was also worth addressing a question posed by the meeting's title, and to ask if it is fair to compare the bitter fruits of Britain's anti-terror legislation with the iconic symbol of the Bush administration's "War on Terror." In some ways, of course, it is not. The British government, while clearly complicit, to some extent, in the rendition and torture of prisoners by or on behalf of the Bush administration, and in interrogating them while they were held in illegal and unjustifiable conditions, was not directly involved in their industrial-scale rendition, in the establishment of a vast offshore prison devoted to coercive intelligence-gathering, or in the direct implementation of torture , under the cover of flawed legal advice which included blatant attempts to redefine its very meaning. That said, there are, in fact, many unnerving similarities between the Bush administration's policies, which prompted universal condemnation on an unprecedented scale, and those implemented in the U.K., which have caused barely a ripple of protest. The similarities between Guantánamo and the U.K. terror laws At Guantánamo, since January 2002, the U.S. government has, at various times, held 779 men, mostly without charge or trial, who were picked up in 20 different countries but detained neither as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor as criminal suspects, to be tried in a recognized court. When, after three and a half years, the Supreme Court ruled that they had habeas corpus rights, the government responded not by allowing them access to the U.S. courts, but by holding military tribunals, designed to justify their detention through the use of secret evidence that the prisoners -- known as "detainees" -- were not allowed to see. In the U.K., since December 2001, the British government has, at various times, held around 70 men without charge or trial, refusing to try them as criminal suspects in recognized courts. The policy began with the imprisonment of 17 men in Belmarsh high-security prison, but when, after three years, the Law Lords ruled that their imprisonment was in contravention of the Human Rights Act , the government responded by introducing control orders and deportation bail, both of which involve draconian restrictions that amount to house arrest. Throughout this whole period, the government has justified the men's detention through the use of secret evidence that the prisoners -- known as "detainees" -- are not allowed to see. Another similarity concerns attempts by both the British and American governments to bypass their obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture -- which prevents the return of foreign nationals to countries where they face the risk of torture -- by reaching diplomatic agreements with various dictatorships in North Africa and the Middle East. These purport to guarantee that repatriated prisoners will be treated humanely, but in reality they have proved worthless. Deportation to Tunisia In June 2007, for example, after the U.S. government signed a "diplomatic assurance" with the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, so that prisoners cleared for release from Guantánamo could be repatriated, two prisoners who were returned -- Lotfi Lagha and Abdullah bin Omar -- reported that they were threatened and mistreated in Tunisian custody. They were then subjected to show trials, apparently based on evidence obtained through the torture of other prisoners, and received prison sentences of three and seven years. In the U.K., the British government has been involved in a similar policy, signing "memoranda of understanding" (MoUs) in 2005 with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon, and attempting, without success, to do the same with Algeria, in order to deport "detainees" held on the basis of secret evidence, instead of putting them forward for trial in the U.K. This is apparently because of the British government's refusal to join the rest of the world in finding ways to use information obtained by the intelligence services in court, while preserving the confidentiality of sources and methods ( PDF ), but it is difficult not to conclude that, in fact, the government has been swept up in its own rhetoric, and has actually lost sight of the correct balance between liberty and security. There are further disturbing parallels. After the demonstrable failure of the Americans' "diplomatic assurance" with Tunisia, a District Court judge intervened to prevent the return of a third Tunisian -- Lotfi bin Ali -- in November 2007, arguing that he could suffer "irreparable harm" that the U.S. courts would be powerless to reverse. Since then, no other Tunisians have been repatriated from Guantánamo, and, although the British government subsequently persisted in attempts to deport Tunisians from Europe, intervening in an Italian case, Saadi v. Italy , which was being considered by the European Court of Human Rights at the same time, the British attempts were struck down by the Court, which ruled, in March 2008, that attempts to return Nassim Saadi to Tunisia would be a clear breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"). Deportation to Libya Both the U.S. and the U.K. have faced struggles with repatriating foreign nationals to Libya, not because of any difficulties either government has with its enemy-turned-ally, the dictator Moammar Gaddafi, but because courts on both sides of the Atlantic have intervened to prevent Libyans from being repatriated: a Libyan in Guantánamo, Abdul Rauf al-Qassim , has been resisting his enforced return since June 2007, and in the U.K., attempts to return 12 Libyans accused of having connections with terrorism were scuppered when, in April 2008, as the Independent described it, the Court of Appeal "gave a damning verdict on promises" that two men -- identified only as AS and DD -- "would not be tortured in their home country." The judges ruled that the government "failed to give enough weight to the risk of torture." What is particularly galling in the Libyans' case is that nowhere along the line has a single voice in authority been heard pointing out that those who once opposed Colonel Gaddafi's regime -- and are now wanted in his dungeons -- would, not so long ago, have been regarded as our friends, but that observation, of course, succinctly demonstrates an uncomfortable truth: that yesterday's freedom fighters can all too easily become today's terrorists when the winds of politics change. Deportation to Algeria Where both the British and American governments seem to be in accord -- and seem also to be meeting with some success in their mission to discard the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights -- is with Algeria. Although some Algerians in Guantánamo -- most notably Ahmed Belbacha , who had lived peacefully in the U.K. for two years before he took an ill-timed holiday in Pakistan -- are still striving to prevent their enforced repatriation from Guantánamo, others are on record as having returned willingly, even though the fate that awaited them -- whether freedom, or a bent trial followed by further imprisonment -- seems to be akin to a round of Russian Roulette. Given the choice of two evils, eight Algerians (see here , here , here , here and here ) settled for Algeria over Guantánamo between July 2008 and January 2009, and the same thing has happened with a number of "terror suspects" in the U.K., who, exhausted by the imprisonment and house arrest foisted on them by the British government, on the basis of unknowable and unchallengeable secret evidence, opted to return "voluntarily " to Algeria, with mixed results, as Amnesty International has reported ( PDF ). Some were released without charge, while others received prison sentences after dubious trials, and in all cases it has been next to impossible for human rights observers to monitor what has been happening with the kind of diligence that is necessary. The British government -- or Britain's Law Lords, at least -- know how shaky is the assumption that Algerians returned from the U.K. will be treated humanely and given fair trials, for two particular reasons: firstly, because the Algerian government has refused even to sign a worthless "memorandum of understanding" and has also refused to allow any British representatives to monitor what happens to those who are returned, and secondly, because, when the Lords approved the deportation in February of two prisoners -- BB and U -- they resorted, as I explained in an article at the time , to claiming that President Bouteflika has improved Algeria's human rights record, and has "acknowledged and approved a letter from the Prime Minster which included the statement that 'this exchange of letters underscores the absolute commitment of our two governments to human rights and fundamental freedoms.'" In quiet desperation, the Lords also quoted the judges of SIAC (Britain's secret terror court), who had noted that "Very considerable efforts have been made at the highest political levels on both sides to strengthen these ties," and concluded that, as a result, "it is barely conceivable, let alone likely, that the Algerian government would put them at risk by reneging on solemn assurances." As I noted at the time, it was hardly reassuring that, if returned prisoners did find themselves abused, they could be comforted by the fact that the government, SIAC and the Law Lords had thought that such abuse was "barely conceivable." Deportation to Jordan And finally, while the U.S. managed to return all the Jordanians it was holding in Guantánamo without apparent incident , the British government faced an even more uphill struggle to conclude that it most-celebrated would-be deportee, Abu Qatada, would be treated humanely on his return. In the same ruling in which the Law Lords declared that it was safe for BB and U to be returned to Algeria, they concluded that Abu Qatada would not be tortured, and would receive a fair trial -- or at least, would not receive "a flagrant denial of a fair trial" -- for two reasons; firstly, because, in October 2005, a human rights organization in Jordan "signed an agreement with the United Kingdom government under which it would monitor the due performance of the obligations undertaken by Jordan under the MoU," and, secondly, because "the fact that he would have a very high profile, coupled with the MoU, and the diplomatic capital invested in it, meant that the Jordanian authorities were likely to make sure that he was not ill-treated in custody or when he emerged from it." The judges made their decision in spite of the fact that Abu Qatada had been previously tortured in Jordan, and had been convicted in absentia in a terror trial at which witnesses claimed they had been tortured to make false confessions. In addition, their ruling was disappointing because a "likelihood" that he would not be tortured is far from reassuring, and seems, instead, to be another form of Russian Roulette that plays games with a man's life and with the universal torture ban. An unnerving conclusion For now, the deportations of Abu Qatada, BB and U are on hold, pending a review by the European Court of Human Rights, which may mean -- if both torture and judicial secrecy are regarded with the horror and scorn that they deserve -- that the British government will eventually be obliged to abandon its blanket use of secret evidence and its labyrinthine attempts to circumvent the universal torture ban, by allowing the use of intercept evidence and reintroducing fair trials. Ministers might also want to reflect that, although Barack Obama has not magically dismantled the legacy of the Bush administration's "War on Terror," he is at least committed to closing Guantánamo within a year , has established a review of the prisoners' cases that has started to approve the release of prisoners, and is continuing to allow judges -- empowered by a
 
Jamie Stiehm: Michelle Obama in Black and White x 3 Top
The first time we beheld Michelle Obama and her husband as a vision in black and white was on January 20, 2009, the evening of all the Inaugural Balls. They looked charmed, as if like they could dance all night at each affair. But what was truly smashing was the subliminal message contained in their clothes: a happy harmony of black and white. Michelle Obama's one-shouldered chiffon gown showed off her beautiful bone structure and beaming face. The creamy white creation by designer Jason Wu made a striking contrast to the president's flawless black tux with white bowtie. Sparkling white on bespoke black: you can't beat that classic elegance wherever you sail or fly around the world. The Obamas, with their shrewd political horse sense, didn't do that just by chance. They were saying, America, wake up from the nightmare! Black and white are finally fused and we two are one in Washington tonight. So are we all. A dramatic sartorial statement, yet black on white got lost in translation on one of the most joyful evenings in American history. I let the Obamas' deft symbolism go down without a write. Next thing I knew, the First Lady's official White House portrait, taken in the Blue Room, was published. Another gorgeous sleeveless dress that showed off her bold countenance and strong shoulders, this time in black. But then again, the double strand of white pearls, made the portrait another Obama fusion in black and white. This simple, powerful coffee with cream blend showed up again today in London. Black and white proved for the third time in three months that it's not just a fashion choice. What better way to present oneself to the Queen of England if you are new, First Lady Michelle Obama? To Queen Elizabeth II and world leaders gathered there this week, the look makes crystal clear that we, the American people, are not the usual cup of tea anymore. Much has been said about a supposed effort to echo Jacqueline Kennedy of the early 1960s, but I think Michelle Obama knows exactly who she is and how she is playing on a vast stage. Her approval ratings are up to 76% and she seems easy and secure in her own skin, with a strong Midwestern no-nonsense streak running through her. She is 45, about a dozen years older than Mrs. Kennedy was during her White House years. Michelle Obama grasped going in that she reflects the state of the nation in a more personal way than her husband, President Obama. Just as Mamie Eisenhower represented the dowdy domesticity of the dark-sided 1950s, Michelle Obama has a historic opportunity to mirror us in the moment as a society that is both black and white. For the first time, really, we overcame our tragic racial past voluntarily -- without a fight, a march, or a court order. And look at how good they go together. More on Barack Obama
 
Kevin Grandia: About time someone called out the Republican Great Green Lie Top
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) went on the attack yesterday calling out a blatant falsehood being spread by Republican politicians about the proposed cap and trade legislation. Earlier this week Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) incorrectly stated that the proposed green economy bill being considered by Congress will "cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices." The basis for his claim is a 2007 study performed by a group of researchers at the MIT. John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, explained about this $3,100 claim: "It's just wrong. It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."" [...] "Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this," Reilly said. "I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time." The Republican spin machine has been in overdrive this week trying hard to shut down the bill drafted by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey. The $3,100 falsehood is doing its job bouncing around the internet and news outlets misinforming millions. No doubt that Sen. McConnell and his gang are employing the old adage, "If you repeat a lie often enough it just might come true." Here's Rep. Blumenauer calling out the lie:
 
Emma Ruby-Sachs: Falling Short of Full Constitutional Protection for Gays in Iowa Top
This morning, the Iowa Supreme Court released a decision expanding the definition of civil marriage to include same-sex couples. It is a huge victory. First, because Iowa now joins a handful of states to recognize same-sex relationships. Second, because it's Iowa that is allowing LGBT residents to fully enjoy the benefits of marriage. Iowa is a swing state. Although Obama carried it in the last election, voters turned out in favor of George Bush in 2004. 75% of Iowans subscribe to Protestantism or Catholicism with only 13% of the population declaring no religious affiliation. Iowa is also an incredibly homogenous state - 96% of its residents are white. None of these factors, alone, indicate a population's willingness to include same-sex couples in their legislative scheme. However, taken together, they paint the picture of a state that is just as likely to ally with Kansas (a staunchly Republican state) as Wisconsin (where the Governor proposed same-sex partner benefits just this month). The fact that the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of the lower court to include same-sex couples in civil marriage is a huge feat and one that should be greatly celebrated. In upholding gay marriage, the Iowan Court made a number of choices. Some of these were as progressive as the California Supreme Court in Re Marriage Cases and some were not. The Court determined that the equal protection clause is a fluid part of the Iowa Constitution and that it must be interpreted according to the modern understanding of inclusion and exclusion. It decidedly rejected any originalist or "framer's intent" argument when considering the protection of individuals based on their sexual orientation. The Court also expressly rejected the argument that the right to marry someone of the opposite sex essentially meant that the ban on same-sex marriages did not treat LGBT Iowans differently. Finally, the Court found that LGBT people have endured a history of discrimination despite the fact that sexual orientation has no bearing on an individual's ability to contribute to society. Sexual orientation is immutable, or equivalent to an immutable characteristic like race and LGBT people have insufficient political power to overcome the legislative discrimination they face. But, despite the fact that the above findings satisfy every element of a " strict scrutiny " analysis - the heightened level of court review traditionally reserved for laws that discriminate based on race - the Court chose to apply intermediate scrutiny - a level of review that applies to legislation that discriminates on the basis of gender. Their argument is that, because the law fails intermediate scrutiny, there is no need to proceed with a strict scrutiny analysis. Here, and only here, the Court got it wrong. Applying strict scrutiny to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is necessary to reaffirm the notion that sexual orientation is not a choice. It is not something that can be cured or "prayed away." Applying strict scrutiny would also reinforce the fact that American history has not always been exclusively one of racial conflict. Instead, many groups have felt the legal discrimination now experienced by LGBT citizens. Strict scrutiny should reflect each of these categories. Today, we applaud the Iowa Court, but we hope for better from them, too. More on Gay Marriage
 
Obama, Merkel Hold Joint News Conference (WATCH LIVE VIDEO) Top
President Obama holds a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Baden Baden, Germany. WATCH LIVE AT 11:45 AM EST: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy
 
Yvonne R. Davis: Fashion Critics You Got it Wrong! Not First Lady Obama. Top
All of the cable media chatter about what First Lady Michelle Obama is wearing, will wear, how she presents herself, what she says, and how she says it was for a moment completely silenced when she took the stage at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Language School in London to share a personal part of herself with the ethnically and religiously diverse girls attending this school. Her words of encouragement and tears from a woman who is a mother first, cradled the stage of participants as she held the audience of her symbolic daughters. We have a First Lady who is absolutely comfortable with being authentic; showing a level of Emotional and Spiritual Intelligence that has not ever been seen by any President's wife in History. The British Media despite the initial wind sucking sound that permeated the U.K. when Michelle touched Her Majesty in a moment of connectedness between the two women - breaking la non toccare (the don't touch) the Queen policy was forgiven. Known to be quite cheeky and down right harsh at times, the British Tabloids called her "Mighty Michelle." She charmed all of Great Britain rising to the occasion that was shamefully under estimated by our U.S. pundits and so called experts who think they are in the know. Huff Post Blogger Bonnie Fuller says Michelle Obama has "lost her mind and is a fashion disaster." I guess coming from a woman who has served as an award winning Editor-In-Chief to some of Nation's top fashion magazines , she of course knows more about fashion than I do. I am sure she also dresses better than me as well. However, with all due respect to BF's knowledge, expertise and fashion sense, she totally misses the point to who the First Lady really is to America and now the rest of the world. And while fashion is very important, it is also not important. First Lady Obama's kinetic energy with the Queen who requested to "stay in touch" with Mrs. Obama is the answer to BF labeling her a Fashion Dud. Seeing the smiles, hearing the screams of excitement and listening to the inspiring testimonies by the young girls at the school about what Mrs. O means to them is more priceless than Birkin Bags by Hermes or wearing a pair of Christian Louboutin shoes. Ms. Fuller did you pay that much attention to First Lady Laura Bush's fashion? Perhaps you did and you are an equal opportunity vitriolic critic. You of course are not alone as fashion buff detractor. Another Huff Post vogue type writer said the First Lady looks like James Brown and among other things compared her to something much more vulgar. Even journalists like Juan Williams who really should know better about making disparaging remarks about the First Lady's as being a "Stokely Carmichael" in a dress I am sure never said anything this viscous about the former First Ladies Bush, Clinton and Bush. He took a liberty that was totally inappropriate. First Lady Obama reminds me of Bush 41's wife Barbara. The former First Lady did not care what other people thought about what she wore or even the style of her signature white hair and white strand of pearls. Mrs. Obama cares more about how she impacts our military families who are suffering economically. She worries about youth in America who need someone to look up too. With her presence, words and deeds alone, she wants to encourage women to meet the challenges of the day to break the velvet and glass ceilings. However, most important to her are taking care of her daughters, and yes being her man's woman. BF, First Lady Obama cares about being a woman of substance, and you know you just can't dress that! More on Barack Obama
 
Anne Naylor: 10 Tips to Get More Energy by Being Thankful Top
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." Dr Wayne W Dyer Over the past few weeks, I have been looking at the magnificence of the human spirit that lives within each one of us. I do not think we fully appreciate this precious resource that we each carry. If we did, we would all be a lot happier. No one can take it away from you. However, you can either enhance or diminish your awareness of it. I love the American celebration of Thanksgiving. I realize that it is a few months away yet, but I would like to invite you to a pre-Easter Thanksgiving this weekend. Actually, I invite you to be thank-full at any time. Being grateful is a way to be expansive, especially when we are feeling lacking, negative, cast down. Great-fullness. What are some of the simple things you may be taking for granted? What joys do you find in the world around you, that do not cost money? How have challenges from your past proved valuable in the longer term? "Be thankful for what you have; you'll end up having more. If you concentrate on what you don't have, you will never, ever have enough." Oprah Winfrey Gratitude is at the heart of a renewed flow of giving and receiving. It goes like this. Count the small things you are grateful for. Experience the great fullness within you as you do so. Find ways to give from this fullness -- maybe your time, talent or a gift that can benefit someone else. Then be open and allow yourself to receive. Be grateful for what comes your way. "The thankful receiver bears a plentiful harvest." William Blake Your human spirit is capable of this expansion -- and much more. What you appreciate grows in value for you. So love you. Love the sweet spirit that you are. Here are 10 tips for becoming grateful: 1. Gratitude Journal Keep a Gratitude Journal. At the end of each day, write 5 things you feel grateful for from the day. A smile from a stranger, the hug from your child, an unexpected compliment, a good meal, a moment of laughter with a friend. 2. Before sleeping Go to bed with a smile, thinking about all you appreciate in your life. Breathe deeply and relax as you do so. 3. Gratitude Dance Take a few minutes and begin your day with the Gratitude Dance. Start as you mean to go on. If your energy is flagging during the day -- do it again. It will probably make you laugh -- and that will energize and refresh you. If you have not already seen it, you might enjoy this video of the Gratitude Dance taken around the world: 4. Appreciate Family, Friends and Co-Workers Bring to mind those close to you that you love and how you are thankful that they are part of your life. Make a note in your journal of your special people and why you appreciate them. 5. Express Appreciation At home, work or in your community, take a little time to communicate your appreciation to those you value - in person, over the phone, by email. "In everyone's life, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into flame by an encounter with another human being. We should all be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner spirit." Albert Schweitzer 6. Mid Day Break Take a short walk and count your blessings, feeling grateful as you do so. You will come back inspired and enthusiastic for the afternoon. 7. Blessings in Disguise When you are going through a tough time, it is harder to feel grateful. However, when you do, the results can be amazing. When things are not going your way, or the way you had intended, declare them a "blessing in disguise" and be grateful for them. This simple shift in attitude will make you a winner, no matter what happens. 8. Gratitude Gathering Bring a group of friends together for a Gratitude Gathering and recount the things you are grateful for. Conclude with a Celebratory Pot Luck meal. 9. Nature Walk Take a walk in nature and notice the beauty around you. Beauty might be in something very simple like a leaf, a bird in flight, sunlight on dew, an elegant branch of a tree, the colour of the sky, the crunch of gravel or softness of grass beneath your feet. Allow yourself to feel the beauty and your gratitude for it. 10. Be Grateful For You Last but absolutely not least. Take a moment to notice the goodness of your intent; the caring you express to others; the endeavours you take to be true to your ideals, even at difficult times. Be grateful for and bless your qualities and strengths. There is no one else quite like you. Honour and appreciate yourself. "Celebrate what you want to see more of." Thomas J. Peters Gratitude is a way of closing a door on the past and allowing a new door to open to the future you wish to be enjoying. It is simple, yet very powerful. Gratitude is in your heart and hands. What are some of the "small" things you sometimes take for granted? Have you been through any tough times that have turned into "blessings in disguise"? What do you most appreciate about yourself? I would love to hear from you, either as a comment here or contact me at Clear Results: ClearResults@mac.com More on Energy
 
Bruce Nilles: Questions & Concerns Linger Over the TVA Spill Top
This week's post from Bruce Nilles, director of the Beyond Coal Campaign. Primarily, we are worried about our children. Our kids are sick with chronic illnesses that are passed off as merely asthma. Parents don't know where to go for answers and are struggling to pay for the medical bills they are acquiring. Those are the words of Sarah McCoin , member of the Tennessee Coal Ash Survivors Network and a seventh generation resident of Harriman, Tenn. - site of the devastating December 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) coal ash spill. McCoin testified Tuesday before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee at a hearing about the TVA spill ( read her testimony here - PDF ). Committee members said they continue to investigate the potential causes of the coal ash spill at TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant, the response and cleanup, as well as hear about potential water quality implications from the ash spill. We stand with McCoin and her organization, as well as many others who see the two main goals in the aftermath of the coal ash spill: TVA must pay for a proper, comprehensive cleanup and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must regulate coal combustion wastes. "Our concerns have fallen entirely on the deaf ears of the TVA," testified McCoin . "We need more information and communications from them and any other involved government agency. "TVA must be held accountable for the damage they have caused. They must create and make public a plan that will make our rivers safe again, while being considerate of the health, safety and daily lives of the community." McCoin also used her testimony to point out that TVA's current river dredging plan is incomplete, especially as the dredged coal ash will be left in a temporary place until a permanent plan is in place . Without federal coal ash regulations, she said, "there are not consistent guidelines for coal ash storage." Currently there exists no uniform federal regulation regarding coal ash storage and containment . Coal ash is known to contain toxic heavy metals including, antimony, aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, iron, lead, manganese, radium, selenium, thallium and uranium. These metals can be linked to a wide variety of health impacts, many of which Harriman residents are experiencing. While these metals are toxic, coal ash itself is not considered a hazardous waste and therefore continues to be unregulated by EPA. We need federal coal ash regulations from EPA to help avoid catastrophes like the TVA spill and the other coal ash spills that have happened since then. There are more than 100 of these coal sludge containment ponds around the U.S. and without regulation, the next Harriman spill could happen in any of these communities, sickening families and contaminating the land and water. In early March, the Sierra Club joined 107 other environmental and community organizations in sending a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson calling for coal combustion waste regulations and listing 12 requirements for those regulations. You can read the letter here (PDF). So far, the Obama Administration has been receptive to this call, with Jackson saying she is committed to regulating coal combustion waste. For the residents around Harriman who are now dealing with the coal ash everyday, McCoin says fear has set in. The cleanup seems as if it will never be complete and residents do not yet see the light at the end of the tunnel. "It's like trying to get all the sand off a beach," said McCoin of the TVA's cleanup efforts. "For many community members, the worries about finances, property values, their health and their futures are more than they can bear." EPA should do everything possible to avoid another tragedy like this.
 
Does Jay Cutler Make Bears Contenders Again? Top
CHICAGO — A top young quarterback. An elite offensive lineman. And, maybe, one big playoff push. The Chicago Bears showed they're serious about contending in the NFC, trading for quarterback Jay Cutler and signing free agent tackle Orlando Pace on Thursday after missing the postseason for the second straight year. "I can't sit here and tell you we're pristine," general manager Jerry Angelo said. They are more polished, though. The Bears acquired the top passer they've lacked for decades by landing Cutler and a fifth-round draft pick from Denver in exchange for quarterback Kyle Orton, along with two first-rounders and a third-rounder. They also filled a hole on the offensive line by agreeing to a three-year deal with Pace, a seven-time Pro Bowl pick with St. Louis. Just like that, the offense got a different look. How different? That remains to be seen, but change certainly was in order after the Bears went 9-7 last season and missed the playoffs again. Now, they have a Pro Bowl quarterback who threw for a Broncos-record 4,526 yards, 25 touchdowns with 18 interceptions and figures to give them the stability they've lacked since Sid Luckman was calling signals in the 1940s _ all because Cutler's relationship with the Broncos crumbled. He asked to be dealt last month after his relationship with Josh McDaniels soured when the new 32-year-old coach talked to other teams about trading him. Cutler and his agent didn't think McDaniels was up front with them about the trade talks. Two meetings designed to clear the air only escalated the tension, even though McDaniels kept insisting Cutler was his guy. The coach said at last week's NFL owners meetings he would do everything he could to fix the relationship. But instead of a truce, there was a trade. Broncos owner Pat Bowlen issued a statement Tuesday saying Cutler would be dealt after the team was unable to reach him for 10 days. Cutler denied that on Wednesday, claiming he was never contacted and did not want to leave Denver. Either way, the quarterback is headed to the team he grew up cheering in Santa Claus, Ind. And he'll be joining several teammates at Vanderbilt, including tackle Chris Williams and wide receiver Earl Bennett. Angelo said he has no concerns about his new quarterback and added: "We felt that (Cutler) is a very good person, a good leader," Angelo said. "He had some things that happened in Denver. We recognized those, but we treated them as just speed bumps, part of the growing process. He's highly competitive, he's highly emotional. That just comes with the territory." In Denver, Cutler refused to be taken down by diabetes or John Elway's legacy, but one obstacle he couldn't overcome was a poor defense. That explains his 17-20 record as a starter, yet it also masks a 13-1 mark when the Broncos held opponents to 21 points or less. Whether the Bears' defense will contain opponents is anybody's guess. The dominant unit that led the 2006 team to the Super Bowl has been rendered mediocre the past two years by injuries and poor play. Angelo acknowledged he'd like to shore up the secondary. The same goes for the wide receivers. If Pace stays healthy and Williams develops the way the Bears anticipated when they drafted him in the first round last year, Cutler should be well-protected. He'll be working with promising running back Matt Forte and solid tight ends in Greg Olsen and Desmond Clark, but the wide receivers were a glaring weakness. They had trouble getting open, hanging onto the ball, and were a big reason the offense ranked 26th in the league last year. Given a bigger role, Devin Hester struggled while trying to be the No. 1 receiver and saw his production on special teams plummet after two record-setting seasons. Even though he led the team with 665 yards receiving, he had no touchdown returns and was only running back punts by the end of the season. Drops were an issue for Rashied Davis, and Bennett _ a third-round pick last year _ didn't catch a pass. Now, the Bears have a rifle-armed quarterback after making one of their boldest moves. The Broncos, meanwhile, barely are recognizable. The firing of coach Mike Shanahan started it, and the ill feelings mounted when Denver tried to acquire Matt Cassel, McDaniels' pupil in New England. The Patriots wound up trading him to Kansas City, and now, Cutler's in Chicago. The Bears got a great but often petulant passer who is halfway through the six-year, $48 million contract he signed as the 11th overall pick in the 2006 draft. His salary cap number for next season is just over $1 million. The Broncos now have Orton, fellow newcomer Chris Simms and Darrell Hackney at quarterback. ___ AP Sports Writer Arnie Stapleton in Englewood, Colo. contributed to this report. More on Sports
 
HuffPost To Profile Its Users Top
Welcome... And thank you for taking the time to participate in our survey! We value and appreciate your responses.
 
Rick Horowitz: G-20: I See England, I See France... Top
[Joint Communiqué -- an early draft...] We the undersigned signatory nations, having convened here in London as the "Group of 20" for the purpose of discussing the current state of the world economic system, and for the further purpose of considering certain adjustments to that system, which we acknowledge is in crisis, with serious implications for the nations represented here and for the rest of the world as well, do hereby issue this Joint Communiqué to summarize the various conclusions and recommendations arrived at after frank and cordial discussions among all participants. Conclusions and Recommendations * This mess is not our fault. * Not naming names or anything, but there's a certain country whose high-flying, debt-ridden ways have really made a hash of things, and now that their economy has gone off a cliff, they come here expecting the rest of us to pull them out of it. Good luck with that! * Rescuing the world economy will require, as a first priority, a new regime of far stricter regulation of financial institutions, including hedge funds, off-shore tax havens, and the so-called "shadow" banking system. * Rescuing the world economy will require, as a first priority, a major stimulus effort by all national governments to restore vitality and liquidity to markets, and to "jump-start" sluggish manufacturing sectors in the absence of effective movement from the private sector. * Tried reconciling those last two sentences? Don't bother. (* Hint: It's south of Canada, north of Mexico.) * In a global economy, the problems of one nation can no longer be confined to that nation, but demand the attention of all. * In a 21st-century economy, technology can be friend or foe. * [We need another economy cliché here.] * Did you notice how the Chinese delegation kept smiling even when everybody else was looking forlorn? Is it really just a matter of time before they control everything? * First the skinny guy shakes everybody's hand -- then he tells us he's got a cold! * Protectionism, while politically appealing in the short term, risks doing great damage in the long term, both to the country adopting such measures and to other countries forced to contend with them. * What you do is "protectionism." What we do is "vital support of local industries and workers." * He gave the Queen an iPod?! * Sure, if two of you have a few minutes free and want to negotiate nuclear-weapons reductions while the rest of us are knocking ourselves out over the global economic meltdown, go right ahead. * Enough about Michelle already! You think he's the only one with a good-looking wife? * The Japanese aren't so cocky now, are they? * Anybody here remember when "transparency" meant something totally different? * Germany and France against the United States and Great Britain -- pretty ironic, huh? * "India." (We told you we'd get you in there somewhere. Now back off!) * OK, so she has great arms. * How come he didn't give us an iPod? # # # Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com. More on Barack Obama
 
France To Take One Guantanamo Prisoner As Gesture Top
STRASBOURG, France — Welcomed with thunderous cheers, President Barack Obama pledged on Friday to repair damaged relations with Europe, saying the world came together following the 2001 terrorist attacks but then "we got sidetracked by Iraq." "We must be honest with ourselves," Obama said. "In recent years, we've allowed our alliance to drift." The new U.S. president said that despite the bitter feelings that were generated by Iraq, the United States and its allies must stand together because "al-Qaida is still a threat." Speaking before a French and German audience at a town-hall style gathering, Obama also encouraged a skeptical Europe to support his revamped strategy for rooting out terrorism suspects in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and said Europe should not expect America to shoulder the burden of sending in combat troops by itself. "This is a joint problem," Obama said on the cusp of the NATO summit. "And it requires a joint effort." He opened his appearance with a 25-minute prepared speech in which he set a dramatic, long-term goal of "a world without nuclear weapons." He said he would outline details of his nonproliferation proposal in a speech in Prague on Sunday, near the end of a European trip that is spanning five countries in eight days. "Even with the Cold War now over, the spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet," Obama said. He held the campaign-like event in the midst of his first European trip as president as he sought to strengthen the United States' standing in the world while working with foreign counterparts to right the troubled global economy. Obama said the United States shares blame for the crisis, but that "every nation bears responsibility for what lies ahead _ especially now." Back home, his administration was trying to weather the fallout of another dismal monthly jobs report that was announced as Obama spoke in France. The jobless rate jumped to 8.5 percent, the highest since late 1983, as a wide range of employers eliminated a net total of 663,000 jobs in March. Overseas, Obama invited questions from his French and German audience heavily made up of students in a sports arena. Even though Obama talked about the event as a way to interact with young foreigners, he did most of the talking and took only a handful of questions. He acknowledged "my French and German are terrible" but noted that translators were on hand. Much like during his presidential campaign, Obama paced the stage with a microphone, like a talk show host. In his opening remarks, he underscored European and American ties and appeared intent on improving the U.S. image abroad, which suffered under George W. Bush. "I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership," Obama said, bluntly claiming that the relationship between the United States and Europe had gone adrift, with blame on both sides. "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world," Obama said. Instead of celebrating Europe's dynamic union and seeking to work with you, Obama said, "there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." "But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans chose to blame America for much of what's bad," Obama said. He added: "On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth." Obama also encouraged Europe to support his new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. "I understand there's doubt about this war in Europe," Obama said. "There's doubt even in the United States." But he said the United States and its allies must continue to work to defeat the "terrorists who threaten all of us." And, he said Europeans and Americans had to look past disagreements over Iraq. Obama opposed the Iraq war, which divided America from many of its traditional allies and was the source of bitter relations between the U.S. and Europe. "We got sidetracked by Iraq and we have not fully recovered that initial insight that we have a mutual interest in ensuring that organizations like al-Qaida cannot operate," he said. "I think it is important for Europe to understand that even though I am president and George Bush is not president, al-Qaida is still a threat." The president said he wants to look back at his tenure and know his work drastically lessened the threat of terrorism, particularly nuclear terrorism. "We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons _ the United States and Russia _ take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," Obama said. "So we want to pursue that vigorously in the years ahead." Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this week pledged a new effort to both nations' nuclear arsenals. Touching on topics controversial in Europe, Obama also promoted his decision to close the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay within a year, and said "without equivocation that the United States does not and will not torture." Earlier, in a symbolic gesture, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told Obama that France would accept a prisoner from the detention center where terrorist suspects are held if that would facilitate its closing. Saying that he was determined to "speak the truth," Sarkozy said that Guantanamo "was not in keeping with U.S. values." He said democratic states have a responsibility to speak honestly and do what they say, and that Guantanamo was a contradiction in that standard. Obama said the U.S. needs help in finding a place to send those held at the center. He thanked Sarkozy for "being good to his word." About 240 detainees are still held _ some without charge _ at the Guantanamo Bay prison, which was set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hold so-called "enemy combatants" accused of links to the al-Qaida terror network or the Taliban. Spain and Portugal have already said they could accept prisoners, while Germany and others remain tightlipped whether they will accept non-nationals. (This version CORRECTS an Obama quote to say `this war' instead of `his war' )) More on Barack Obama
 
Patricia Amaya: "Change Begins Within": My Interview with David Lynch Top
Poster: Shepard Fairey This Is A Special Two Part Series Article. Part One. New York Press Conference On The Web David Lynch, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Russell Simmons are coming together for a New York Press Conference on the Web -- Friday April 3rd at 12:00 PM Eastern time. 2009's fab-four are coming together to teach at-risk children how to meditate. Registration to watch this event is required. The " Change Begins Within " Benefit Concert. On Saturday April 4th 2009, The David Lynch Foundation has put together a shin dig -- which is actually going to the a monumental event. The "Change Begins Within" benefit concert will be hosted by David Lynch, Laura Dern, and Russell Simmons. A concert to benefit the David Lynch Foundation (DLF) -- DLF reminisces back to 1968, to a time when The Beatles, Donovan, Paul Horn and The Beach Boys made a pilgrimage to India to study Transcendental Meditation® with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi . In return enlightening us with meditation and music -- changing the way we see the world. 1968 The Beatles In India Part 1. 1968 The Beatles Part 2. Headlining the "Change Begins Within" benefit concert at Radio City Music Hall are the biggest names in the music industry: Sir Paul McCartney Ringo Starr Paul Horn Donovan Moby Ben Harper Jim James Bettye Lavette Eddie Vedder Sheryl Crow DLF was founded in 2005. Pioneering Awareness of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique for students and educators is David Lynch, founder and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace. DLF is a registered 501(c)3, non-profit organization -- providing student scholarships and school and school district grants . Proceeds from the "Change Begins Within" benefit concert go to the David Lynch Foundation, and will be used to pay for TM program instruction fees and scholarships for students in approved in-school programs. The David Lynch Foundation was established to implement a simple and effortless personal development technique for every child to develop their full mental and physical potential -- a state of optimal health. No belief or change in beliefs is required to learn and practice the TM technique -- and to gain all the benefits. Regardless of race, religious beliefs, sex or education -- every child can benefit from the TM technique. Part two will go into in-depth scientific medical details as to how and why the TM technique is so instrumental for children. David Lynch explains how he started TM. David Lynch discusses his first TM experience. A Conversation About Making The World A Better Place To Reside In With David Lynch. As I'm drinking my organic fairly traded David Lynch Coffee on a rainy Seattle day -- David Lynch and I have a conversation. This is our first discussion in my new series; Conversations About Making The World A Better Place To Reside In. DL: Hello. Tea: Yes, good afternoon to you. DL: Good afternoon to you. Tea: Thank you dearly David for agreeing to chat with me. DL: No problem. Tea: This is the first in a conversation in a new series I've created called; Conversations About Making The World A Better Place To Reside In. My intention for interviewing you is to ignite a personal conversation -- What are you're thoughts about the world today? DL: Well, It's pretty much the same old world -- there's lots of problems and lots of negativity but I think the world is getting better and not worse. I think there is a field with in every human anywhere in the world. It's called by modern science a unified field -- the ocean of pure consciousness and that field -- when you experience it by learning the TM technique to dive in and experience that field makes life better and better. The more you meditate the better life gets. That's what my foundation is doing to raise money to give Transcendental Meditation technique to any student any where in the world who wants it. Tea: As you're amazing foundation concludes the finishing touches to the "Change Begins Within" benefit concert -- how are you feeling? DL: Well, It's a big concert -- it's going to be a very special concert. Fortunately, I'm not responsible for making it an absolutely smooth event. I'll be there and I'm really looking forward to it. Tea: you have quit a shin dig going on at Radio City Music Hall with a stellar line up Sir McCartney, Ringo Starr, Donovan, and Peter Horn -- I'm interested in hearing how the idea came together and evolved? DL: We've always talked about a concert -- musicians are such great people. A lot of musicians throughout time have been the ones who campaign causes -- they do benefits -- it always brings so much awareness and support for so many things. This is one of those cases -- where great great musicians have come in support of this foundation and to teach one million kids the Transcendental Meditation technique. Tea: Would you explain the TM technique and how it effects ideas and the creative process? DL: This ocean within -- the big treasury is an ocean of infinite creativity. It's a creativity that creates everything that is a thing -- it's mighty powerful creativity. When you dive in there you infuse it, every time you meditate, you grow in that creativity. It's an ocean of all knowingness -- it's an ocean that unfolds into intuition -- number one tool of the artist. The ocean of infinite energy you infuse that and fatigue starts going away -- you can work with so much more energy and in an ocean of infinite happiness and bliss -- you work in more happiness. It's really the most fantastic experience to meditate and then out of meditation, in whatever your doing -- that just gets better and better, more ideas flow. Negativity inhibits creativity it squeezes the hose -- the big conduit of ideas. So when negativity lifts, we expand consciousness -- negativity starts going away. All these things that are restricting us become less -- you work in freedom with all these positive qualities growing. Expanding consciousness means you can catch ideas on a deeper and deeper level -- the deeper you catch the ideas the more expansion they have the more of a thrill they are to catch. DL: That's the other line but I'm going to ignore it. DL: Arianna Huffingtion is as cute as a button and as smart as a whip. Tea: She's amazing -- I had the pleasure of meeting her at NCMR last year and pitched the idea of blogging for her on the Huffington Post Green Section -- she graciously embraced me as one of her bloggers. Tea: Okay, My last question for you -- I realize you have a very busy schedule this week and I'm so very grateful you took time out of your schedule to speak with me. Tea: Would you summarize what you're life was like before integrating the TM technique into you're life -- utilizing the TM technique into you're daily life -- and what's you're life like today? DL: I was a painter and then I got into film -- things were going pretty good. One day I looked at myself on a day when I should have been as happy as can be because I had a place to work I was starting my film Eraserhead I had a whole stables area down below and a 55 room mansion in Beverly Hills to work in with equipment I needed. I had the green light to make this film -- I only had a surface happiness. Inside it was hollow and I said: what is this going on? I had heard a phrase; true happiness is not outside -- true happiness lays within. I thought meditation would be a way to go in to tap into that. That is what drove me to start. It proved to be more then true -- dive within -- come in and enjoy all glories worldly and divine. Tea: Beautiful. I wish you a prosperous and fantastic weekend, David. This has been a great pleasure talking to you about making the world a better place to reside in. DL: Bless you're heart. It's great to talk to you. Thanks a million and we'll talk later.
 
Chicago's Polluted Water Killing Gulf Marine Life: Study Top
The U.S. Geological Survey yesterday released the results of a study detailing the root causes of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico, naming Chicago as the nation's top offender. That pollution has helped create an 8,000 square-foot "dead zone" in the Gulf, where marine life suffocates because of an excess of algae. More on Animals
 
Jane Hamsher: Melissa Bean Helps Banks Gut Bill to Limit TARP Bonuses Top
Melissa Bean of the Wall Street-friendly New Democrat Coalition led the effort to insert a huge loophole in a bill that would have forced TARP recipients like AIG to stop paying "retention bonuses" as long as they were being supported by taxpayer dollars. Eighty-one percent of Americans favor such legislation , but the "too big to fail" banks and their lobbyists the Chamber of Commerce opposed it. The bill, called the Pay Performance Act , passed the House on Wednesday.  In its original form, it required TARP recipients to make all bonuses performance-based, and sought to put an end to the $1 billion in retention bonuses still to be paid out in July and September this year by AIG per an agreement they reached with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner .   In other words, AIG could only pay out bonuses if the company actually did well, and couldn't be doling them out while the company was losing money and on taxpayer life support. The GOP took to the floor of the House with rage , and couldn't come up with a coherent reason to oppose the bill and mask their true intent -- kill it on behalf of the banks. They fiercely denounced a provision in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to be paid in the first place, but then objected to this bill, which would have essentially removed that provision.  As Barney Frank said , "What you have just heard is a denunciation of something that was done by the Congress a few weeks ago and a refusal to undo it. I have never seen people, Mr. Chairman, so attached to something they hate."  Freshman Alan Grayson, one of the bill's co-sponsors, has some experience taking on entrenched corporate power -- his background includes suing war profiteers.  In a piece of must-see TV , Fox's Neal Cavuto singled Grayson out for vitriol, calling him "Sweden in a suit."  Grayson responded by saying "These are government owned banks. Is anybody upset that some bureaucrat sets compensation for people who work in the State Department or the Department of Transportation? Why are they complaining when we're trying to put some kind of break on this vomiting of taxpayer money?" It looked like it was going to be smooth sailing for Grayson's bill, but then Melissa Bean decided to give the Republicans a hand.  Her New Democrat Coalition has an Executive Director, Adam Pase, who is a former bank lobbyist for predatory lenders . Their members brag about their Wall Street backgrounds and their close ties to the banks, and Bean herself took in $918,200 in campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector for her 2008 race. She was one of six Democrats who voted against the bill taxing AIG bonuses . So it was no surprise when Bean stood up and offered an amendment which allowed TARP recipients to get out from under the bill's limitations if they had started paying their loans back. Brad Sherman, known for being a genuinely fiscally responsible member of the House, objected (see video below). He said  "it would allow a large number of companies to escape the effect of the bill without doing much more than making a few monthly payments of a very small amount."  Sherman's own bill, which would have capped executive compensation for TARP recipients at a million dollars a year, was never allowed on the floor. Bean's amendment initially failed on a voice vote, but she called for a roll call vote -- which allowed bank lobbyists to see exactly who did and didn't vote for the bill.  This time, the New Democrats and the Blue Dogs made good on their threats to join with Republicans to pass legislation.  Sixty-three Democrats joined with 165 Republicans to pass the Bean amendment . Score one for the banks. I asked Brad Sherman how he felt about the amendment.  He said, "I could agree to exempt financial institutions that pay back all of the federal money they received under the Troubled Assets Relief Program within a 12 or 24 month time frame.  However, the amendment opens the possibility of agreements of far longer duration.  It would allow agreements with even a 10 or 15 year term."   It also doesn't prevent banks from using TARP money to make payments on their loans. The Pay Performance Act finally passed, but it will be interesting to see what happens with the rest of this year's AIG retention bonuses.  If the company uses this loophole to pay them, Melissa Bean will wear it around her neck. One last sad, final note:  one of the bill's co-sponsors, Jim Himes, is a former Goldman-Sachs executive who got more campaign contributions from Goldman than any member of Congress not running for President last year and his Chief of Staff is a former USB lobbyist .    So it was really gratifying to see him co-sponsoring a bill that seemed to be something his big donors would oppose. But in the end, Jim Himes -- also a member of the New Democrat Coalition --  joined with Bean and the Republicans to de-fang the bill. Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com More on Timothy Geithner
 
Lieberman, GOP Push For Military Spending Hike Top
The Democratic budget passed late on Thursday night may "tax too much, borrow too much and spend to much" -- in the oft-repeated words of its opponents -- but those critics tossed a few more borrowed dollars on the pile before moving it through. That taxing and borrowing was called for to increase spending for the military. Sen. Joe Liberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, joined with Republicans and "centrist" Democrats to argue that defense spending couldn't remain flat if President Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. "My one view of what is being recommended for defense spending is spending is just about flat from last year or this year," said Lieberman. "And I don't think that's adequate." Some Democrats, meanwhile, have called for big cuts in defense spending. "Our troops are under tremendous strains. The equipment needs to be, as we say, reset, fixed because it's been so used in combat," he said. An amendment introduced by Lieberman and Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) passed Thursday night and budgeted for an increased Army of 30,000 additional soldiers. "I agree with him on that," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), the GOP whip, before the amendment was introduced. "And I think there are several on our side. I just talked to Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.] who had similar ideas. It's very important that we fund our military while we're in military conflict and I think under the budget the president submitted, they're under funded." Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) doesn't like the trend in military spending, either. "Certainly military spending as a portion of GDP is not playing as big a role in this budget as it has in the past," he said. "I think for all of us on both sides of the aisle that know that we live in a dangerous world, that's something that should raise some concerns." Lieberman said he'd been in talks with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) about increasing the military budget. Nelson, however, said he wanted to look for cost-savings before increasing funding. "I wonder if he's talking to the other Nelson," he said, referring to Florida's Bill Nelson. "I think We're going to push DoD to find ways to reduce some of the overhead costs that are associated with procurement by delays and overruns." Nelson said he wants more military sharing. "We're also pushing for more inter-branch cooperation and sharing [of] information and equipment, so we don't have so much duplication," said Nelson. "Not everyone has to have a brand new style airplane." Kyl, though, said there's always an effort to reduce procurement abuse but it never succeeds. "There always is. There always is. We always try. It's always hard to do," he said. For Kyl, anyone counting on savings from fixing a broken procurement system will be disappointed. "So focus on the problem, but lower your expectations of how much you're actually going to be able to squeeze out of it, that's all I can say," he said. "It's a little bit like the tax gap. We know that unfortunately some people don't report all of the income and we should be collecting more taxes. But it's easier to identify the problem than it is to get a solution that's cost effective." More on Taxes
 
Rabbi Michael Lerner: A Passover Seder Haggadah Supplement Top
For Ethically Sensitive Jews and our non-Jewish allies. (You don't have to be Jewish to create or attend a seder -- or to adopt the approach to spiritual reality embodied in this text). This text is not meant to be a replacement for but a supplement to the traditional Haggadah. Feel free to make copies of this to use at any seder you attend, or to transform this in ways that work best for you! AS WE SIT AT THE SEDER TABLE: Seventy-eight percent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and a majority of non-Jewish Americans joined them. The message was clear: • End the war in Iraq and let our troops come home • End the war on the poor and the environment • Stop favoring the rich and corporate interests. Our Seder celebrates the first liberation struggle of our people, overcoming slavery and proclaiming to the world that the "way things are" is not the only way things can be. In the face of oppression, we proclaimed to the Pharoah's empire that there is a God (YHVH) who is the Force of Healing and Transformation in the world -- the force that makes possible the transformation from "what is" to "what ought to be." At our Seder tonight we celebrate the steps we've taken toward liberation. We look at where we are as a people and as human beings in our struggle to build a world of freedom and peace for all. We rejoice together at the election of an African American as President! But we are concerned about the outcome of the global meltdown of our economic and political system. We are now experiencing the results of decades of materialism and selfishness. Too many Americans closed their eyes to the suffering of those who have been living in poverty, even in the midst of American affluence. Now the suffering is spreading to the rest of us. The American economic system can create prosperity, but also cultivates greed, fraud, and a selfish "looking-out- for-number-one" mentality. This offends Jewish values, and has hurt our souls -- even if we ignored these spiritual and psychic costs while the system was providing material goodies for many of us. The media, corporations, and their friends in government urged us to translate our spiritual and intimacy needs into consumption. This worked for some but produced alienation, loneliness, widespread emotional depression and a huge global anger at our society from others around the world. With individualism tearing down communities and teaching the ethos of "looking out for number one," some people even turned to various religious fundamentalisms as a way to resist the global ethos of capitalism. These fundamentalisms cannot be defeated by our insistence on the value of democracy and human rights--not unless we simultaneously recognize and address what has been appealing in these old-time religions: their insistence that there is a hunger for meaning and purpose in life that cannot be achieved by material accumulation or endless new technologies, and that people hunger for loving community andconnection to the mystery and majesty of the universe as much as for money or power or sexual conquests. We do not want a return to the economic arrangements of the past few decades. The false equation of "progress" with the accumulation of material goods and endless new technologies produced a global environmental crisis as an orgy of consumption destroyed much of the life support system of the planet. Only a fundamental transformation of the ethical and spiritual foundation of our economic and political order can save humanity and the planet in the 21st century. Developing this new vision is the task for spiritual progressives from every religious background. Many progressive Jews are finding the ethical and spiritual foundation for this transformation in the Jewish tradition. Jewish values support generosity, caring for others, and loving the stranger, while rejecting the extreme individualism, alienation and loneliness that accompanies the dominant ethos of American society. At our Seder tonight we challenge Western societies to adopt specific economic programs that flow from these Jewish values: • A National Bank that gives loans without charging interest • A legal system based on the "obligation to care" for each other, not just look out for "number one" • An economy that prescribes a sabbatical year for everyone (the same year--the whole society taking off one year to not produce, but instead to focus on what we as a human race want to accomplish in the next six years) • A Global Marshall Plan as an extension of the Torah's notion of a tithe • Single payer universal health care • Unrestricted immigration • Protection of workers' rights. Unfortunately, we as Jews also have to face a rather troubling reality. Within our own community these wonderful Jewish ethical values have too often been ignored. Too many prominent Jews have followed the narrow path of self interest. Similarly, Israel, which describes itself as "the State of the Jewish people," has failed to embody the highest values of the Jewish tradition in the way that it treats our brothers and sisters the Palestinians. The human rights violations and the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, the seizing of Arab lands, the imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians without trial and the revelations by Israeli soldiers themselves of acts of brutality in Gaza and the West Bank are not isolated incidents. They are not the product of evil soldiers. They are the inevitable consequence of imposing and enforcing occupation. We are not Jews who reject Israel or think it is the worst human rights violator on the planet! The U.S. role in Iraq, the genocide in Darfur, the repression of Buddhism in Tibet, and the extremes of repression in Iran and several Arab states are moral outrages of equal or greater proportion. Nor do we excuse the human rights violations and terrorism perpetrated by Hamas. Every act of violence against civilians must be vehemently opposed. Tonight at our seder table, and again on the High Holidays, we affirm that our special responsibility as Jews is to look critically at our own individual and communal behavior. It would be hypocritical to celebrate the freedom achieved from slavery while ignoring the ways that we as Americans and/or as Jews and/or as supporters of the state of Israel have been acting as Pharaoh to the Palestinian people. We must not let our long history as victims of oppression or our anger at God for not having saved us from the Holocaust become the foundation for adopting the religion of our enemies: the religion that says that we can only trust in our power, our army, our ability to wipe out our enemies. This false God, parading under the title of "being realistic," stands in stark contrast to the traditional voice of Jewish compassion, generosity, and caring for others. The whole point of surviving as Jews is to challenge that religion of violence and domination and affirm instead the possibility of a world ruled by the logic of love and generosity. When we were utterly degraded as slaves, we experienced God as the power that was there redeeming us into freedom and sacred service. Now it is we who are powerful, and when our Jewish community aligns with the use of power in heartless and cruel ways against another people we feel deep grief. Our Torah says: "When you come into your land, do not oppress the stranger. Remember that you were strangers in the land of Egypt." The Torah commands us positively: "Thou shalt love the stranger." We must use our seder to begin a conversation about how to create a broad social movement for peace, justice, and ecological sanity. President Obama needs to hear from those who are not trapped in the "inside-the-beltway" logic that dominates the national media and our national political leadership. If we do not make fundamental changes in our economic system and in our approach to foreign policy, we may find ourselves in deeper despair this time next year. Tonight at our seder we will tell heroic stories of the past, but we must never imagine our past suffering gives us a moral pass to ignore the ethical distortions of the present moment. Our Seder must help us plan a way to transform the present. But we must do so with a strong dose of compassion, both for our own people and for the Palestinian people. We have co-created the current mess. We have both suffered from so much post-traumatic stress that sometimes people on both sides of this struggle fail to recognize the humanity of the other. As Jews, we must challenge our own people's distorted vision and blend that challenge with deep love and caring, not just chastisements. Americans of every faith can make a huge contribution to this process by challenging the dominant vision in the West about how to achieve "homeland security"--namely through domination and power over others. Our Torah, and almost every other major religious and spiritual tradition, teaches a different message: that security can best be achieved through generosity, caring for others, and love. This revolutionary message must be given teeth, which is why we at Tikkun Magazine and Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in the Bay Area have formed the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives and launched a campaign for a Global Marshall Plan that would have the U.S. and other advanced industrial societies dedicate between 2-5% of our Gross Domestic Product each year for the next twenty to once and for all end global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education, and inadequate health care, and to repair the global environment (details on this plan and on how to join us are at www.spiritualprogressives.org ). Rather than attempt to rebuild an economic system that has been destroying the environment and encouraging an ethos of selfishness, our goal as spiritual progressives is to build a new global economy based on ancient spiritual values of love, kindness, generosity and caring equally for the well-being of everyone on the planet. That this kind of miracle can happen, that what everybody thought was impossible can suddenly become possible, because there is a power in the universe that is the power of love and transformation, this is what we experienced in Egypt and what we are seeking to enliven within ourselves by creating this seder. We see that beyond the self, beyond family and country, we are part of the unfolding and evolution of consciousness in the universe, and we celebrate and recommit ourselves to that Force of Healing and Transformation. So let's now close our eyes. Can you see the universe and your place in it? Affirm now your role as partner with God in the healing and transformation of all that is. The Seder can also be a time to do "tikkun" (to heal and transform parts of ourselves and our society). KIDDUSH We are gathered here tonight to affirm our continuity with the generations of Jews who kept alive the vision of freedom in the Passover story. For thousands of years, Jews (and our non-Jewish allies) have affirmed this vision by participating in the Passover Seder. We not only remember the Exodus but actually relive it, bringing its transformative power into our own lives. The Hebrew word for Egypt, mitzrayim, means "narrow straits." Traditionally, mitzrayim has been understood to mean a spiritual state, the "narrow place" of confusion, fragmentation, and spiritual disconnection. Liberation requires us to embrace that which we have been taught to scorn within ourselves and others, including the split-off parts from our own consciousness that we find intolerable and that we project onto some "evil Other." The Seder can also be a time to reflect on those parts of ourselves. Israel, according to the Torah, left Egypt with "a mixed multitude." The Jewish people began as a multicultural mélange of people attracted to a vision of social transformation. What makes us Jews is not some biological fact, but our willingness to proclaim the message of those ancient slaves: (Say Together) The world can be changed, we can be healed. Blessing over the first cup of wine. KARPAS The saltwater on our table traditionally represents the tears of the Israelite slaves. The green vegetables we dip in the water suggest the possibility of growth and renewal even in the midst of grief. The greens on the table also remind us of our commitment to protect the planet from ecological destruction. Instead of focusing narrowly on what we may "realistically" accomplish in today's world, we must refocus the conversation on what the planet needs in order to survive and flourish. We must get out of the narrow place in our thinking and look at the world not as a resource, but as a focus for awe, wonder, and amazement. We must reject the societal story that identifies success and progress with endless growth and accumulation of things. Instead we will focus on acknowledging that we already have enough; we need to stop exploiting our resources and instead care for the earth. Dip the greens in saltwater and say your own personal blessings for the earth. FOUR QUESTIONS: THE ADULT VERSION Discuss as a group or in pairs at the seder table: 1. Egypt, mitzrayim in Hebrew, comes from the word tzar: the "narrow place," the constricted place. In what way are you personally still constricted? Are you able to see yourself as part of the unity of all being, a manifestation of God's love on earth? Are you able to overcome the ego issues that separate us from each other? Can you see the big picture, or do you get so caught in the narrow places and limited struggles of your own life that it's hard to see beyond your personal struggles? What concrete steps could you take to change that? 2. Do you believe that we can eventually eradicate wars, poverty, and starvation? Or do you believe that no one really cares about anyone but themselves, and that we will always be stuck in some version of the current mess? Or do you think that such a belief is itself part of what keeps us in this mess? If so, how would you suggest we spread a more hopeful message and deal with the cynicism and self-doubt that always accompanies us when we start talking about changing the world? 3. What experiences have you had that give you hope? Tell about some struggle to change something -- a struggle that you personally were involved in--that worked. What did you learn from that? 4. When the Israelites approached the Sea of Reeds, the waters did not split. It took a few brave souls to jump into the water. Even then, the waters rose up to their very noses, and only then, when these brave souls showed that they really believed in the Force of Healing and Transformation (YHVH), did the waters split and the Israelites walk through them. Would you be willing to jump into those waters today -- for example by becoming an advocate for nonviolence or for the strategy of generosity and the Global Marshall Plan? Would you go to speak about this to your elected representatives? To your neighbors? To your coworkers? To your family? MAGEED (TELL THE STORY): Tell the story of the Exodus, and identify the Pharaohs in your life today. Blessing over the second cup of wine. We are descended from slaves who staged the first successful slave rebellion in recorded history. Ever since, ourpeople has kept alive the story of liberation, and the consciousness that cruelty and oppression are not inevitable "facts of life," but conditions that can be changed. Because God makes possible the tikkun (healing and transformation) of the
 
Charles J. Brown: Obama's Foreign Policy: Nothing Personal Top
When I read Marc Ambinder's report of Obama's meeting today with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, the following passage stuck out: At a briefing with reporters this morning, senior administration officials seemed to go out of their way to define the content of the developing Obama-Medvevev relationship as being workmanlike, rather than personal. "Out strategy was not to make the goal of the meetings to establish some buddy relationship," an SAO said. "The goal is to advance our interests. Having dialogue is a means.... but the goal is not to have a personal relationship." Now take a look at what Obama said in his joint appearance with Gordon Brown at the White House last month: Well, first of all, the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain is one that is not just important to me, it's important to the American people. And it is sustained by a common language, a common culture; our legal system is directly inherited from the English system; our system of government reflects many of these same values. So -- and by the way, that's also where my mother's side of my family came from. So I think this notion that somehow there is any lessening of that special relationship is misguided. Great Britain is one of our closest, strongest allies and there is a link, a bond there that will not break. And I think that's true not only on the economic front, but also on issues of common security. At the time, much of the British press -- and a not inconsiderable portion of the MSM in the States -- hyperventilated over what Obama's supposed "snub" of the Brits. No State Dinner! He returned the Churchill statue! He gave the PM DVDs as a gift! OMG the Special Relationship is no longer special! In contrast, Obama's meeting with Brown this morning was low-key, restrained and focused on the the challenges facing the G-20 -- as it should be. Next, take a look at part of the President's statement on his Administration's strategy for Afghanistan-Pakistan : The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world. The object is to defeat al Qaeda, not get bin Laden. Similarly, the Administration has made it clear (albeit informally) that it no longer will refer to the conflict with al Qaeda as the "Global War on Terror." So what do these stories and statements have in common? For Obama, foreign policy is not a frat party. Brown is not his "staunch friend." Medvedev is neither a "soul" mate or "troublesome and unhelpful." And Osama bin Laden, no matter how despicable he may be, is the leader of a dangerous terrorist organization, not an "evil-doer." Unlike his predecessor, who personalized everything (see " Blossom, Turd "), Obama is keeping his distance, regardless of whether he is dealing with a friend, competitor, or enemy. He is pursing a businesslike approach to foreign policy, focusing on country-to-country relations, not private relationships. That is pretty much a textbook example of realism. He views relationships as a function of American interests, and acts accordingly. The downside of this approach is that some issues, such as human rights, are less likely to impress the President as priorities simple because it's the right thing to do. He still may ( or may not ) champion human rights, but he'll do so because it is in America's best interest. As I noted on my own blog, Undiplomatic , the morning after Obama's election, [A]n Obama administration is likely to pursue a foreign policy based on sound strategic principles and coherent tactics. Realism should trump ideology, and principles should trump interests. Call it pragmatic idealism, if you must apply a label. . . . [It] is possible that, to use Acheson's famous phrase, we are once again "present at the creation" of a new paradigm, one that focuses on what the United States can do for the world, not what the world can do for the United States. This may take more time than originally envisioned, in large part because the financial crisis will draw away important resources from the task. But in the end, Obama has the opportunity to remake the way the United States pursues its interests in the world. I still think that's pretty accurate, although it looks like the emphasis is more on pragmatism than idealism. Obama has to walk a pretty fine line on his current trip. He must demonstrate leadership without looking like the United States still has the ability -- or the credibility -- to define the agenda. He must demonstrate to other world leaders that he can push his ideas forcefully without trying to cram them down their throat. He must demonstrate a willingness to compromise without looking weak. If he pulls all of that off, it might be because he didn't try to treat everyone as his pal. It's a pretty sensible approach, and it mirrors his "no drama" persona. It's going to be a fascinating few days. More on Barack Obama
 
Iowa Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional Top
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal. In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman. "The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court. The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents. "Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson. Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day." Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa. "It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said. Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses. But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period. "Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do." The case had been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs. The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien. The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the state's constitutional rights of equal protection. The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature. Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned. Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships. New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor. The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision. ___ On the Net: Iowa Supreme Court: http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/ Lambda Legal: http://www.lambdalegal.org/ More on Gay Marriage
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)