Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Twitter Lit: Inside The World Of Twitterature Top
Would you like to read Ulysses 140 characters at a time? Is a short story just too long? Then curl up with a BlackBerry and dive into Twitter Lit--micro novels, online book clubs, and (gasp) real books. Follow the author at twitter.com/isabelwilkinson . More on Twitter
 
Rick Wagoner's Life Of Luxury: Rolling In Dough As General Motors Went Bust Top
The man who was behind the wheel while GM motored toward bankruptcy has bailed out with a ton of loot! While General Motors lost more than $84 billion during the past six years, the president of the company, Rick Wagoner collected well over $50 million in compensation, a RadarOnline.com investigation uncovered.
 
G20: France, Germany Throw Down The Gauntlet Top
France and Germany drew the battle lines tonight ahead of tomorrow's G20 meeting, demanding stricter banking regulation than that being proposed by America and Britain, and vowing to speak with a united voice at the summit. More on G-20 Summit
 
Max Keiser: Paralytic Debt Poisoning Top
Financial rescue nears GDP as pledges total 12.8 trillion , reads the Bloomberg headline. As I turn from the almost daily news of the $12.8 trillion worth of rescues of Wall Street to the relative non-response from the taxpayer, I am reminded of a story that a South African friend told me about getting hit by a consequence of red tides , Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning. My friend had eaten some shellfish straight from the sea, not realizing there was a red tide. Within half an hour he was (temporarily) paralyzed. Fully alert but immobile on the ground, my friend watched as a man came over and calmly removed the wallet from his pocket. The robber, of course, knew that my friend could do nothing to fight back. The robber, furthermore, must have been aware of the poisonous red tide, but had done nothing to stop my friend from eating the shellfish, but perhaps waited for him to eat the poisonous shellfish so as to take advantage of the subsequent paralysis. I look around America and I see Paralytic Debt Poisoning (PDP). A red tide of toxic debt has poisoned the nation's financial system. And the American taxpayers are paralyzed as the financial oligarchs brazenly plunder their Fed and Treasury pockets . The collateralized debt obligations, the credit default swaps, the mortgage backed securities and other debt instruments were, of course, only able to bloom to toxic levels in an environment overly rich in the necessary nutrients (deregulation, lax oversight, etc.). And we over-fed the debt markets because we had lost our real wealth and incomes since the end of the gold standard and the beginning of financial deregulation. And the subsequent explosion in personal debt has left us further unable to respond to the financial meltdown. Without the resources to survive on our own incomes, we had grown ever more dependent on the very debt choking off the oxygen to our real economy. Many of the financial pundits who cheerleaded us into this toxic red debt tide are now calling the bottom. There are, however, hundreds of trillions of dollars of more toxic derivatives remaining in this red tide of debt. Do you think the Fed & Treasury pick pocketers are going to stop at the mere $12 trillion they have taken? My guess is that there is another round of bailouts coming for these 'too big to fail' financial institutions. And another. And another. Until we rise up and stop taking it lying down. There should have been only one institution too big to fail in America and that is/was the US Constitution. And we all know what happened to that 'piece of paper.' I know you are lying there paralyzed with PDP, but I also know you can hear me. You are being robbed! You will NOT have that private pension you think you have. And the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation will, apparently, be too broke to make you whole as it appears its pockets have also been picked: Pension insurer shifted to stocks : Just months before the start of last year's stock market collapse, the federal agency that insures the retirement funds of 44 million Americans departed from its conservative investment strategy and decided to put much of its $64 billion insurance fund into stocks. Switching from a heavy reliance on bonds, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation decided to pour billions of dollars into speculative investments such as stocks in emerging foreign markets, real estate, and private equity funds. Get up. Stand up. It's time to get all Howard Beale folks! By the way, I warned the red tides were coming right here on Huffington Post in January 2006 when I submitted this mash up to the Huffington Post "Contagious Festival ." Click here for more information.
 
Paul Blumenthal: How Congress Rushed a Bill that Helped Bring the Economy to Its Knees Top
As part of the Sunlight Foundation's Read the Bill campaign, we've been writing a series of case studies highlighting bills that slipped through Congress with little time for public input or for lawmakers to review. After reading the following, please go to ReadTheBill.org and sign the petition to tell Congress that bills should be made publicly available for at least 72 hours prior to consideration. And now, your case study: the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. I n the waning days of the 106th Congress and the Clinton administration, Congress met in a lame-duck session to complete work on a variety of appropriations bills that were not passed prior to the 2000 election. There were other, unmet pet priorities of some lawmakers that were under consideration as well. One of those pet priorities was a 262-page deregulatory bill, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Tucked into a bloated 11,000 page conference report as a rider, with little consideration and no time for review, this bill would be viewed only eight years later as part of the failure of our political system abetting a financial storm that brought the world to its knees. The saga of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act begins in 1998. At the time, the economy was booming, stocks soared, and new instruments of trading were found to make more money while evading the oversight of regulatory bodies. Two of those growing instruments were financial derivatives and credit-default swaps . As these new financial instruments emerged a debate began over whether or not to regulate them. The chairman of the Commodity Futures Trade Commission (CFTC) Brooksley Born issued a first call for her regulatory commission to have power to oversee financial derivatives. While previous legislative attempts had been made earlier, Born's efforts were the most direct and threatening to the financial industry. During an April 1998 meeting of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (and later Secretary Larry Summers), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Arthur Levitt opposed Born's efforts and attempted to derail her. [A]n unregulated derivatives market ... could "pose grave dangers to our economy." Soon afterwards, Born released a "concept" paper with ideas of what regulation of derivatives and swaps could look like under the CFTC's oversight authority. The response to Born's paper was swift. The financial industry and government officials responded fiercely in opposition to Born's ideas. Greenspan, Summers, and Senate committee chairmen all criticized her and her proposals. In the midst of this debate Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), a major hedge fund employing some of the top economists, collapsed. LTCM was highly over-leveraged and held a big portfolio of swaps. In the end, during the government organized bailout of the company, LTCM recorded a loss of $1.6 billion on swaps alone. Born felt that an unregulated derivatives market that spawned the LTCM bailout could "pose grave dangers to our economy." In the end, Born lost her battle and, in May 1999, asked to be replaced as CFTC chairman. The new chairman, William Rainer, was more amenable to the positions of industry leaders and the major government officials Summers, Greenspan, and Levitt. Later that year, the President's Working Group on Financial Markets released a report calling for "no regulations" of derivatives and swaps and began crafting a program to make that possible. Meanwhile in Congress, lawmakers were still up-in-arms over Born's attempts to regulate the financial derivatives market and began working to pass their own set of deregulatory language. L eading the charge in Congress were Sens. Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL). In May of 2000, Rep. Ewing introduced his Commodity Futures Modernization Act. While Ewing's bill sailed quickly through the House, it stalled in the Senate, as Sen. Gramm desired stricter deregulatory language be inserted into the bill. Gramm opposed any language that could provide the SEC or the CFTC with any hope of authority in regulating or oversight of financial derivatives and swaps. Gramm's opposition held the bill in limbo until Congress went into recess for the 2000 election. Throughout the better part of the year Gramm, Lugar and Ewing worked with the President's Working Group on Financial Markets--most specifically, Treasury Secretary Summers, CFTC Chairman Rainer and SEC Chairman Levitt--to strike a deal on the bill. "Details of the final language are not immediately available." Little attention followed Congress as the contentious 2000 presidential election was stuck in a stalemate as lawyers and khaki-clad protesters fought over the Florida recount to decide whether Gov. George W. Bush or Vice President Al Gore would be the next president. During a lame-duck December session, while the media was focused on the recounts and court cases, Gramm and Ewing sought to strike a compromise on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The day after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gov. Bush, December 14, Ewing introduced a new version of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. On December 15, with little warning or fanfare--aside from the overshadowed discussions on the floors of Congress--the new, compromise version was included as a rider to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001, an 11,000 page omnibus appropriations conference report. HedgeWorld Daily News, a trade publication for hedge funds and one of the few news outlets following the bill, stated, "Details of the final language are not immediately available. Congressional aides said Sen. Gramm did succeed in getting additional language protecting the legal certainty of swap, especially those traded by banks, which are the main users of the products." The final language, which the public was hardly aware of, contained some new sections not in the original Ewing bill that, for all intents and purposes, exempted swaps and derivatives from regulation by both the CFTC, which had already implemented rules that it would not regulate swaps and derivatives, and the SEC. Also, hidden within the bill was an exemption for energy derivative trading, which would later become known as the " Enron loophole " - this loophole would provide the impetus for Enron's nose dive into full blown corporate corruption. U ltimately, while the unregulated market in derivatives and swaps did not cause the economic downturn itself, it was a propellant of the crisis, accelerating the collapses of major financial companies across the globe. As of June 30, 2008, the global derivatives market had exploded to $530 trillion, while credit default swaps had grown from mere insignificance to $55 billion. When the credit crisis and the mortgage meltdown began to take hold, major firms found out the swaps made their investments far riskier than they could handle. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group (AIG) all collapsed due to problems with the unregulated market of credit default swaps. The major banks were also heavily involved with credit default swaps. A report from the Comptroller of the Currency recorded in the third quarter of 2007 that the top banks in the credit default market were JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America and Wachovia. Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia after it collapsed. Bank of America has received approximately $45 billion in TARP funds from the Treasury Department, mostly to offset losses from its acquisitions of Countrywide Financial in 2007 and Morgan Stanley in 2008. Citibank's parent company Citigroup faced a complete meltdown during the end of 2008, received $50 billion in TARP funds from Treasury, and is breaking apart into smaller companies. JP Morgan Chase, while weathering the crisis far better than the other banks, still received $25 billion in TARP funds. If ever there was a case where Congress should have given more time and listened closer, this was it. Consensus is nearly universal that the failure to regulate financial derivatives trading and the subsequent explosion of credit default swaps, by passing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, was a mistake. Deregulation supporter Chris Cox, a former SEC chairman under President George W. Bush and congressman from California, called the swaps "the fuel for what has become a global credit crisis." According to Bloomberg , Alan Greenspan "acknowledges he'd been 'partially' wrong to oppose regulation of such instruments." Former SEC chairman Levitt stated that if given the chance for a do-over he "would have pushed for some way to give greater transparency to products which turned out to be injurious to our markets." In the end, the country would have been better served had Congress not taken the 262-page Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which had trouble passing Congress on its own accord, and inserted it into a bloated 11,000 page conference report when no one was looking. If ever there was a case where Congress should have given more time and listened closer, this was it. Now, we're all paying for it. More on Larry Summers
 
Brandt Goldstein: Confirm Harold Koh as State Department Legal Adviser Top
Those hoping President Obama will restore the rule of law were delighted last week when he nominated Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as Legal Adviser at the State Department. I have known Koh for two decades and wrote a book that covered a key part of his early career. As scores of his colleagues in government, private practice and academia will attest, he is a brilliant and hard-working lawyer with a strong dedication to protecting America's interests and upholding our Constitution. Koh is, by any objective measure, the best qualified person ever nominated for Legal Adviser -- the lawyer who provides advice on the panoply of legal issues that face the State Department. Unfortunately, some on the extreme right have already begun to misread and misquote Koh's record to scrape together opposition to him. Hopefully, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will have the good sense to brush aside their attacks and swiftly confirm Koh -- taking an important step toward ensuring our security and standing around the world. After eight years during which officials were too often chosen for their politics, not their competence, Koh's record boasts the impeccable credentials we should expect of all nominees to top government posts. A Marshall Scholar at Oxford, a Harvard Law graduate, and a former Supreme Court clerk, he is a leading expert on national security law and international law and one of the most influential and productive scholars and practitioners in his field. Still in mid-career, Koh has authored or co-authored eight books and won scores of awards for his human rights work and achievements in international law. Koh's legal positions are grounded in the commonsense views that the president shouldn't have unfettered discretion in foreign affairs and that adhering to our treaty obligations, international law, and human rights makes us safer and stronger. Since the mid-1980s, Koh has argued that Congress and the courts have an important role to play in foreign policy and national security -- a sensible (and legally and historically accurate) position that the Bush administration ignored to disastrous effect. Koh has dedicated equal effort to showing that -- as the founders themselves believed -- our country will be at its safest and most secure if we respect our international obligations, rather than adopting go-it-alone unilateralism. Koh's writings are not only principled, pragmatic, and persuasive; he has also served with distinction in both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations, winning high praise from liberals and conservatives alike. As a young lawyer, he clerked for a Republican judge (Malcolm Wilkey of the D.C. Circuit) and worked in the Reagan Justice Department under Ted Olson (later George W. Bush's Solicitor General), from whom he continues to enjoy strong support. Later, Koh served as an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton State Department, working with both Democrats and Republicans on safeguarding religious freedom and preventing human trafficking. In court, Koh has challenged both republican and democratic administrations in the name of constitutional principle and the rule of law. In 1993, as a young professor, he led the legal fight to shut down this nation's first Guantanamo detention camp, which at the time held innocent Haitian refugees. As explained in my book Storming the Court , Koh sued both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration to establish the principle that Guantanamo is not a law-free zone. Koh later pressed this view on behalf of Cuban detainees in the mid-1990s and then again during the post-9/11 years, when the second Bush administration's lawless use of Guantanamo alienated all of our allies. Koh has staked out an equally strong position against torture. His views are firmly in the mainstream - in line with those of most Americans and similar to the views of Senator John McCain. Given Koh's sterling record, sensible views, and standing on both sides of the aisle, why should anyone challenge his nomination? His critics on the far right seem to want yes-men who will disregard treaty obligations, ignore international law, and construe the Constitution to let the president behave like a king. President Obama sees things differently. He believes liberty and the rule of law can advance security. And he expects the highest level of competence and independent judgment from officials in his government, not legal technicians ready to explain away the law so the White House can do as it pleases. I know from personal experience that Harold Koh has the qualities to be Legal Adviser. From 1999-2005, while working on my book, I spent many dozens of hours interviewing Koh about his views on Guantanamo, presidential power, and foreign policy. Koh is a man of integrity and conviction who holds the greatest respect for our Constitution - far more, I dare say, than many of those in the past administration. He understands and believes in the rule of law, and has lived and litigated that belief over a distinguished career. The son of South Korean immigrants exiled in this country after the downfall of a democratic government in 1960, he is a genuinely patriotic American. In office, he worked night and day to carry out the work of both Democratic and Republican administrations, and as a private citizen he has spoken out fearlessly against what he believes are mistaken, misguided policies. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will learn all of this when Koh appears at his nomination hearing next month, and the committee should swiftly confirm him as Legal Adviser. He deserves the position, but far more important, our nation deserves to have him there. More on Obama Transition
 
Eduardo Hauser: "The Daily Me" is Neither New Nor Bad Top
Certain journalists have recently expressed fear of a "new" trend they believe threatens their already struggling institutions -- the growing news personalization websites that Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. coined "The Daily Me." But they shouldn't be scared. The trend isn't bad, and it isn't new. In fact, far from being an enemy to news media, The Daily Me trend stands to help save journalism. Critics of the phenomenon believe giving us the power to "become our own editors" will encourage insulation and bias. But we have always been our own editors. Every time we consume media, we make choices, consciously or not. When we skip articles, choose one newspaper over another, switch television channels, or tune in to a radio station we decide what we want to consume. The Internet has simply provided tools to make the selection process broader, easier and better structured. If and how you 'personalize' your news experience is simply a question of new methods, not new habits. When readers actively select their own topics, as they do on DailyMe.com , for example, they are typically more engaged, not less, than those who rely solely on the editorial choices made for them in traditional outlets. Specifically, DailyMe.com users who personalize their news view an average of seven pages per visit, or about double the pages viewed by non-registered users. There are other important advantages to the personalization of news consumption. Few would argue, for instance, that it's better for a reader to have superficial knowledge of a broad range of subjects -- rather than deep, up-to-date information from various sources on a subject of intense interest. Readers who suffer from diabetes, for example, might rely on a Daily Me site to collect relevant articles from multiple sources in one sitting. Of course, the editorial choices of professional news organizations also play a critical role in informing citizens, and a good personalized news site will still direct users to quality reporting from newspapers and other traditional organizations. After all, just because the medium is different doesn't mean we should accept standards below those set by professional journalists. Quality news personalization is not about breadth or depth; it's about both. So while it's an unnerving time for newspaper reporters to be sure, and many harbor misguided skepticism about emerging news platforms, the industry should recognize that journalism isn't going anywhere -- it's only the devices from which we consume content that are changing. And personalized news sites best serve those new devices by trimming the headline fat down to content manageable on small screens. But going a step further, there is a fundamental question to be answered: Are we better off letting others -- namely news editors -- choose our daily news dose based on the common denominator of the audience? Of course not. Each of us has a responsibility to seek out and understand conflicting views. The Daily Me only makes this essential process that much easier. Personalizing the news is not only a reality, it is a necessity. The Internet, whether through search engines, news sites, portals or different versions of The Daily Me, will give every journalist the ability to find a true audience, not defined by geographical location, but by shared interests. In short, it's the best way to empower journalists to do what they do best and win far more readers than newsprint can hope to reach. If that won't make all of us more informed, what will? Your browser may not support display of this image. Hauser, a media entrepreneur and recovering lawyer is the CEO of DailyMe.com, a board member of National Public Radio and a journalism advisor of the Knight Foundation. Before starting DailyMe he spent 7 years at AOL's Latin American division and previously was head of news at the largest television network in Venezuela. More on Newspapers
 
Madonna's Lawyer: No Law in Malawi "Can Stop This Adoption" Top
Madonna's lawyer Alan Chinula tells Usmagazine.com he is confident that the judge will allow the singer, 50, to adopt 4-year-old girl Chifundo "Mercy" James at Friday's hearing. "I am not sleeping sleepless nights over this," Chinula tells Us. "I don't see any law in Malawi that can stop this adoption." More on Celebrity Kids
 
Ted Johnson, Maegan Carberry, Teresa Valdez Klein: Candid Camera: Video Journalism Alters DC's Media Culture Top
Remember when Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma brought us a truly awful rendition of Elton John's "Rocket Man," all because he made an unfortunate bet over the NCAA Football National Championship Game with Florida Senator Bill Nelson? Oy vey is right, but it MUST be seen! That video, among (perhaps more incisive) others, was produced by CQPolitics.com 's Andrew Satter, who joins the hosts of Wilshire & Washington to talk about video journalism and DC media culture in the Obama Era. What are the faux-pas of video-journalism? How do you balance between gotcha-videos that can go viral and honest reporting? And what are the benefits of experimentation in this new field? Satter (see more of his work here ) talks DC under Obama. Has access to the White House changed dramatically with new administration? Is the old guard left out in the cold? And does DC feel any different after such a momentous seachange? Ted, Teresa, and Maegan also tackle the new auto bailout/takeover and the G20 summit. Teresa isn't too happy with the cars produced by GM or Chrystler but she sounds happy that the CEO is a goner. Maegan and Teresa both share responses to the situation from their social network circles. Satter talks the psychological benefits of sending Obama overseas and the culinary benefits of how empty DC is right now (good restaurant reservations for all!). Finally, Ted brings up the latest development in gay marriage - but this time it's online dating! Apparently eHarmony has been forced to create an online dating site for same-sex people. Is it separate but equal? And isn't "Compatible Partners" just the most ridiculous and un-romantic name possible? Listen to the show here , subscribe to the iTunes podcast , or use the Blog Talk Radio player: And here's that marvelous CQPolitics.com video of our dear Senators Coburn and Nelson engaging in a few shenanigans, even if they never quite reach Elton's level: Wilshire & Washington, the weekly Blog Talk Radio program that explores the intersection of politics, entertainment, and new media, features co-hosts Ted Johnson, Managing Editor of Variety; conservative blogger Teresa Valdez Klein ( www.teresacentric.com ), and liberal blogger Maegan Carberry ( www.maegancarberry.com ). The show airs every Wednesday at 7:30am PST on BlogTalkRadio.com.
 
Rebekah and Stephen Hren: Let GM Get Crushed Like It Crushed the EV1 Top
When something has been around for one hundred years, as GM has, you can get to know its personality pretty darn well. And if there's one thing we should consider as the debate rages up on high about propping up this addled dotard, it's GM's long string of criminal, that's right, criminal , behavior over the last century. In our opinion, GM is guilty of three major crimes during its existence. As we go back in time, our memory fades, so it's worth a quick reminder of whose interests this corporation was serving as it went about its business of making and selling cars: its own or the American people's? First, and by far the least criminal, was the crushing of the EV1 at the beginning of the decade. This was a pioneering electric vehicle produced by GM's engineers to comply with California's Zero Emission Vehicle mandate passed in 1990, requiring that 2% of the vehicles sold in the state be zero emission by the turn of the century. GM leased the EV1 rather than sold it. When California buckled under oil industry pressure to drop their ZEV standards, GM called in all the leases on the car and crushed them all! Instead of perfecting its electric vehicle line as the evidence of global climate disruption became stupefyingly clear over the last decade, GM concentrated on producing mammoth-sized SUVs that often got single-digit mpg. If GM had kept its electric car, how many would it be selling today? Would it even need to be bailed out? Second, in collusion with Standard Oil (aka Exxon) and several others (including Firestone), GM illegally conspired to eliminate streetcar service to achieve a monopoly of the automobile and the elimination of widespread mass transit options in American cities. Guess what? It worked like a charm. In our city of a quarter million (Durham, NC), all evidence of street cars is long gone, except in grainy black and white photos of bustling streets with plenty of pedestrians and street vendors from before WWII. Last but not least, in the 1920's GM colluded with Standard Oil (of course) to add lead to gasoline to keep engines from knocking. Although higher octane gas would have done the trick, it was cheaper to simply add lead. Unfortunately for us Americans, leaded gas is a poison that severely damages brain development in children. Did they know this at the time? Oh, yeah. Did they care? Nope! They saved a few pennies and made that extra profit at the expense of the health of us all. Nothing has changed. GM's behavior has been consistent throughout its existence: put the profit of the corporation and its executives above the interests of the American people. Since it's becoming increasingly clear that worldwide oil production has passed its peak , what could save this company with its line of giant cars? It won't be the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid supposedly coming out at the same time as the Toyota Prius Plug-about two years from now. Why not let our many entrepreneurs take over the task of building of the next century of more sustainable transportation, from the Aptera to Tesla's Model S to the Think! , to name just a handful. One hundred years is enough. Stephen and Rebekah Hren are the authors of The Carbon-Free Home: 36 Remodeling Projects to Help Kick the Fossil-Fuel Habit from Chelsea Green . For more information about green living, the Hrens, or their book, visit chelseagreen.com .
 
Darryle Pollack: Connecting through Clutter Top
It's no joke. Shopping is our national pastime. We're choking in consumer goods. Exploding in excess. We have way too much stuff. At least in my house. I'm embarrassed to admit how much I've added to the planet's overload with my own clutter. At this point in life, I've been there, done that, and bought more. I have way more than I can use; way more than my grown children want or need. Start there, factor in the financial collapse, the election of Obama, and... Enter Cluttercast.com -- at the intersection where the downward economy meets the surge in hope. It's a new way of giving; it's even a new word: Clutter : a confused multitude of things Cast : to send forth, to shed Clutter + Cast = to shed or send forth a confused multitude of things Cluttercast started as my 2009 New Year's resolution -- the same one made by millions of other people -- to get organized and clear out the clutter. This year I added a new twist to my annual resolution: a blog. Every day I post an item, tell the story behind it, and give it away to someone who wants it. The internet was a natural, since I started blogging and discovered its connective power. And what could be a better use of the internet than this? I always give my clutter to charity -- and I figured it would be easier to let go -- knowing where certain things are going. So this is not charity -- but it is a way to give. 3 months later I'm still going strong -- shipping out stuff all over the country from a vintage quilt to a wallet made out of a toad -- and I even plan to cluttercast my mink coat. It's not only rewarding; it's surprisingly addictive -- possibly curing me of my shopping habit for good. And I learned from the response that this concept goes way beyond me and my clutter. Cluttercast works both ways. People don't just want to GET; they want to GIVE. It's catching on, as other people pick up on the idea -- and it's growing everyday. In this economy so many people are standing on the sidelines feeling powerless -- without the means right now to give -- or to get -- the way they want. Cluttercast provides a way to participate. I'm not suggesting that clutter is the answer to our economic problems. But I am suggesting that it's a small step; a way to come together, a way to give back, or pay it forward. It's economical, it's green, it's connecting. However you describe the spirit of hope and unity underway since the election of Obama, as one commenter wrote me, "Cluttercasting is a way to spread some positivity out into the universe." Check it out . More on Economy
 
Disgrasian: @MileyCyrus Should Stop Tweeting Top
Miley Cyrus took her creepy model boyfriend to Koi last night for some mediocre pseudo-sushi, apparently keeping her Blackberry close all night to Twitter constantly for her fans. From Gossip Girls : During the meal, Miss Cyrus let all of her Twitter fans know exactly how she was feeling, tweeting, "Eating sushi! Omgosh California Rolls are from heaven!!! Praise GOD!" Now, that's a tweet that we--had we been following the tween on Twitter--would have had to respectfully disagreet with via replytweet @mileycyrus (sorry, this is confusing for me twoo, I mean twoot, I mean--). Here's the deal: California rolls are baaaarely sushi, and--as I learned from Jen after she did months of research with a multitude of our fine city's famed sushi chefs-- borne from Los Angeles and not "heaven." Miss Miley followed up her food epiphony with another insider nugget of info: "My waiter at Koi looks like dude from HGTV! Is it weird if I ask for an autograph?" UH. Maybe we would just...say something ... @mileycyrus you aren't talking about vern yip , are you? @mileycyrus http://tinyurl.com/bleepox123 @mileycyrus surely yer not just saying that cuz he's azn!!! @mileycyrus maybe he'z not asian, maybe just has a goofy face @mileycyrus oh u must mean the other dude on hgtv, eric stromer ? hot! http://tinyurl.com/blargh345 @mileycyrus totally ask him for his autograph! @mileycyrus u can make your face look thinner if u tilt it slightly More on Miley Cyrus
 
Benjamin Netanyahu: A Man Shaped By His Family Top
In the land of the biblical patriarchs, the stories of fathers and sons matter. And the story of the Netanyahu family is something as ancient as Leviticus and as modern as the Kennedys. To understand Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, you need to understand the hard-line, uncompromising ideology of a father who pushed his sons to succeed and how the tragic death of the oldest son shaped the destiny of the younger brother, who Tuesday was sworn in as prime minister of Israel for a second time. All of this family history looms over Netanyahu as the 30 ministers in his newly formed government take their seats in parliament today. It shapes the life and beliefs of a leader on the edge of what many see as a last desperate chance to breathe life back into an Israeli-Palestinian peace process that has lingered on diplomatic life-support since it collapsed into violence in the fall of 2000. Netanyahu's father, Ben-Zion -- still alive and in his late 90s -- is famous for a towering intellect and renowned for bitter clashes with Israel's more liberal intellectual elite. Father and son share a great deal: tenacity, perseverance and above all a view of themselves as outsiders. But where the father is a rock-hard ideologue adamantly opposed to giving up even an inch of "Eretz Israel," or the biblically defined "Land of Israel," the son is a political survivor who has fought his way back to power and, according to many political analysts, is obsessed enough with his own legacy to at least contemplate forging an agreement aimed at ending the decades of Israeli-Palestinian violence and war. Just before his swearing-in ceremony Tuesday night, Netanyahu said his government would "work toward peace on three tracks: economic, security and political." Netanyahu did not voice support for a two-state solution. He appointed Avigdor Lieberman -- the hard-right nationalist who has a reputation for derogatory remarks toward Palestinians and a firm resistance to the peace process -- as foreign minister. Still, in his first term from 1996 to 1999 Netanyahu implemented the Hebron Agreement, which returned some portions of occupied West Bank land to Palestinians. And as history has proved, right-wing governments tend to make more progress in implementing peace agreements here than the more liberal Labor Party. Netanyahu said yesterday, "Under the final settlement, the Palestinians will have all the rights to govern themselves except those that endanger the security and existence of the state of Israel." The question is, would his father disown him if he did forge such a deal? And will Netanyahu be liberated from all that patriarchal judgment if the aging and ailing father does not survive to see it? During Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu's first term as prime minister in January of 1998, there were some limited steps forward on the peace process, but Netanyahu's deep mistrust of the Palestinian leadership blocked the process from hitting full stride. The Palestinians were locked in mistrust of him as well. As a result, the peace process ground to a halt and violence erupted. I was in his office in Jerusalem interviewing him for a profile when I asked about his father. He immediately dismissed any such questions as "psycho-babble." When I persisted in knowing more about his father, Netanyahu stood up and lifted off the book shelf behind his desk a heavy historical tome written by his father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu. The 1,388-page book -- a scholarly but dark and bitter history of the Spanish Inquisition and the virulent anti-Semitism of 15th century Spain -- landed on the prime minister's desk with a thud. The weight of the relationship between father and son was heavy in the air. By many accounts, they had grown apart. The father had three sons, all of whom served in the Israeli Army's most elite commando unit. The father instilled in all his sons a fierce, right-wing school of thinking in Israel known as "the Revisionists." They believe in rule by force and raw self-interest as the only hope for Israel's survival. They see the historic enmity between Arabs and Jews as something that will never be overcome and propose that there should be an "iron wall" -- to use the Zionist pioneer Ze'ev Jabotinsky's words -- between the two. Anything that compromises these beliefs, they hold to be dangerously naive. The oldest, Jonathan, was the more handsome and charismatic and was viewed as a natural-born leader destined for politics. But he died a national hero in 1976 while leading a raid at Entebbe, Uganda to free 103 hostages from Tel Aviv whose plane had been hijacked by pro-Palestinian terrorists. The stern judgments of his father and the great sadness over the loss of his brother are undeniably the twin strands of Netanyahu's DNA. They shape him and make him who he is. The family history has made for comparisons to Kennedy, but his political personality and insularity have also caused some to compare him to Nixon. In 1998, he told me, "We are not the Kennedys. We are a very different family. Nixon is the line now. It is intended to be negative certainly. It's the herd mentality of the media ... The comparisons are fatuous. Kennedy is Kennedy. Nixon is Nixon. And I am what I am." In the beginning, the prime minister's father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu, emigrated from Lithuania to Palestine before the birth of the Jewish state in 1948. His family name was Milikovsky, but like many Israelis, the family chose a Hebrew name. They chose Netanyahu, which in Hebrew means "God's gift." Some cynics quip that the name says much about how members of the family see themselves. Read more from GlobalPost.com . More on Israel
 
Michelle Madhok: Would You Wear Shorts To Cocktail Hour? Top
When shorts started hanging out past 7pm, I had doubts. But then celebs embraced the look by wearing them to clubs and parties, and suddenly every third woman at dinner was sporting shorts with a cami or jacket. It then dawned on me that this is an ingenious and superbly comfortable departure from your cocktail dress routine. Here are two of our favorites - click here to see the third : 1. The A-line shape of these See By Chloe High-Waist Shorts ($345) are flattering and the gold, metallic pattern looks great with tights or tan spring legs. 2. These Trina Turk Camden Bow Shorts ($188) are understated, yet still dressy enough to wear to dinner. If you're still resisting formal shorts, see some other choices in our Little Black Dress Alternatives Guide . More on Fashion
 
Tobacco Plant, HIV Drug: Griffithsin Could Prevent Infection Top
 
Sandip Roy: The Dark Twin of the American Dream in Santa Clara Top
Devan Kalathat exemplified all stereotypes. Until he allegedly gunned down his entire family in Santa Clara. It seems to be an unfathomable tragedy. He was the "good boy" software engineer that personified the brain drain from India. Jobs at Yahoo and Microsoft. A nice family in a tidy suburb in Santa Clara. Kids at the high-performing Challenger School. Regular family vacations to India. In an old photograph published in The San Jose Mercury News , Kalathat and the brother-in-law he allegedly shot even look the stereotype. It's from Kalathat's wedding reception but the men are not smiling. Their faces are serious. Their glasses are oversized. The men all have mustaches as if it is part of a uniform. I cannot read the sign behind them. I imagine it says plainly, "Devan weds Abha." I can imagine this because I come from the same stock as men like Devan Kalathat. We are the H1-B engineers, the green card holders, the poster children of conformity. We follow the rules and naturalize as citizens and assimilate into condo complexes. We drive sensible cars like Honda Accords in such numbers we call them Hindu Accords. Our neighbors call us quiet and family-oriented but they rarely know much about us. We are the nice families with unpronounceable names. We host potlucks and the women wear gorgeous saris. The men still wear unflashy striped shirts and jeans. The sheer numbers of Indians like Devan Kalathat have changed the face of Silicon Valley. Its strip malls now routinely boast Indian buffets and cash-and-carry Indian grocery stores. Novelist Bharati Mukherjee once wrote that when she came to the United States in the 60s, people would stop on Main Street and stare when she walked by in a sari. The Devan Kalathats who spread over cities like Sunnyvale in what Mukherjee called "an immigrant fog" changed all that. They normalized the Indian immigrant, gave him an identity beyond The Simpsons' Apu. They also became a stereotype - the model minority that played by the rules, didn't rock the boat and only took risks on the stock market. Now Devan's got a gun. Our whole world's come undone. We will shake our heads and say it is a senseless tragedy. More details will no doubt emerge of family tensions and strife. The tendency will be to particularize this gory tragedy as the implosion of one immigrant dream story. We who are ever ready to claim the success stories of our community, the super-achieving scientists and writers and lawyers, as communal property, will be equally keen to isolate this horrible tragedy as the Kalathat's alone. Poor family, we will tut-tut. We will commiserate with the elderly parents, twice bereaved, in India. We might raise money to send the bodies of the Kalathats and Poothemkandis back to India but will be loath to claim their tragedy as the dark twin of our own dream story. But it's hard to escape the questions. Why did Devan Kalathat, the quiet, level-headed engineer, buy two .45 semi-automatic handguns? I might be naïve but I don't know too many Indian Americans living in quiet suburbs who own (and know how to fire) handguns. What is the link between Kalathat and Karthik Rajaram, the unemployed MBA in Southern California who killed his entire family in a murder-suicide last year? And what does it mean that in cases far less extreme, we are unable to ask for help from American society or from our own South Asian organizations? We don't know how to access one and are terrified of losing face with the other. Back in India, we say proudly that we don't need counselors or therapists because the extended family acts as our safety net. That's true only in fragments. But here in America, in town homes in developments like Rivermark, even those fragments don't hold true. Instead we lead quiet lives of desperate conformity, hiding our demons from friends, neighbors, and members of the local Telegu Association. We are not allowed to have demons here. In 2001, in a horrible bloodbath, the crown prince of Nepal gunned down his entire family. That murder was allegedly fueled by drugs, alcohol, thwarted love affairs and royal hubris. But the horror of the young prince wiping out his entire family destroyed whatever moral stature the royals had. Within seven years of that fateful family dinner party, the monarchy had unraveled. The fallout of the trail of destruction Devan Kalathat left will probably be much less dramatic. He was an engineer, not a prince. But it might just explode the myth of the cul-de-sac in which the immigrant story is supposed to safely terminate - the shiny happy model minority nesting in orderly suburbs. Devan Kalathat has smashed the stereotype. More on Yahoo!
 
Patricia Handschiegel: The New Power Girls: Women Entrepreneurs and Executives Speak Up About The Recession Top
In September 2008, I launched the second startup of my entrepreneurial career, 9 , with two clients signed and the promise that what I envisioned would work. Two months later, our country's financial system imploded and threw all of us into what many called the "worst recession in history." I can recall instantly thinking we'd need reposition to adjust and got right on it. Within a month's time, I conducted enough research to determine a plan that would help pad 9 during the turmoil and repositioned to fit it. I instantly cut back on all overhead and expenses, and later raised a small round of capital in case needed. In addition, I took time to think through what markets might sustain or remain viable, and started the groundwork towards them. By January, we not only had a new client signed but up to four meetings a day every day for several weeks regarding new business. Themomentrepreneur.com founder Traci Bisson ramped up and implemented new marketing ideas to grow her company in other ways. Diane Helbig of Seize This Day Coaching advises to create refocus on how your product or service is needed not just wanted and form strategic alliances. "I choose not to participate in the recession," said Debra Freligh of DMF Media Services . "There are plenty of opportunities out there. Seek and you shall find. Look at things as you never have before." Today's business women notice there's turmoil going on. Then, they get back to business. It's a sentiment I've heard from a large number of women entrepreneurs and executives. The going might get tough, but they keep going - and are thriving in the process. Bisson looks for different opportunities to connect with her or another market to further her audience. Founder Karen Bullard of Karen Cole Paper cut spending and found new ways of revenue, including licensing her designs to other manufacturers. Monique Hayward of Dessert Noir Cafe and Bar reaches out to media to reach customers. "I've been even more vigilant about finding opportunities because they cost nothing but time," she said. "Partner up with a non-competing business and work leads as a team," added Freligh. While not everybody's an entrepreneur, recession-proofing and business growth strategies used by the new modern women entrepreneurs can be applicable to unemployed and displaced workers. Looking for opportunities in new areas, leveraging the internet to expand your marketability to employers and networking within your market can all help expand your chances of finding work. Most of all, keep at it. "Don't give up, just keep plugging away," said Bullard. "It may be at a slower, cheaper pace but keep going." This held true for entrepreneur Melanie Notkin, founder of SavvyAuntie.com , who had thought of the company idea while in between jobs and thinking about what she wanted to do next. "We need the quiet of being on our own to hear dreams "speak" to us - and really take the time to listen, she shared. "That's why I think now is the best time to start a company." Or, new career. Power Girls don't take lemons and make lemonade, but expand their work in every way to create the world they want versus settling for what's handed to them. More on The Recession
 
Mark Nickolas: Once Again, Real Journalism From Comedy Central Top
Leave it to Comedy Central -- this time Stephen Colbert -- to do the traditional media's job in exposing the fanatical charlatans like Glenn Beck , just as Jon Stewart masterfully dismantled CNBC last month: Have you thought about how amazing it is that a great deal of the recent turnaround in America's political fortunes over the past five years, and leading up to Barack Obama's candidacy, can be traced to the exceptionally effective work of...two comedians ( Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert ), a former sportscaster ( Keith Olbermann ), a former right-wing journalist ( David Brock ), a former Republican activist and author ( Arianna Huffington ), a dedicated group of Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans ( Jon Soltz , Paul Reickhoff , Brandon Friedman ), a number of former Republican White House officials ( Richard Clarke , John Dean ), a group of fearless bloggers ( Markos Moulitsas , Josh Marshall ), two unsuccessful presidential candidates ( Howard Dean and Wes Clark ), a number of very committed activist groups ( CREW , Center for American Progress , MoveOn , Sunlight Foundation ), and the man who should have been president ( Al Gore )? It was only through their efforts that we learned of, and then challenged, the true agenda (often illegal) of the Bush Administration, the feckless media who were too scared of challenging our government, and an uninspiring Democratic Party that was too nervous about pissing-off its big donors instead of looking out for rank-and-file Democrats. Only then were candidates like Barack Obama able to step onto the main stage, generate meaningful grassroots excitement and support, and hundreds of millions of dollars in small-dollar donations, and be able to win the presidency as well as electing an impressive group of Senators (like Jim Webb ) and Representatives (too many to name) who have given us hope that we will get our country back on path sooner rather than later. It's for this reason that I don't shed tears -- even though I really should -- when I see the implosion of the traditional media. Sadly, the number of lackluster reporters and editors and journalists are quickly overshadowing the truly fine ones while casting a pall over the whole field to the point where we no longer trust the media to be the relentless watchdog they once were. Sadly, instead of cultivating more journalists like Bill Moyers we're forced to accept the tabloid hackery of Politico , not to mention the propaganda outfits like Fox News , or those entities which happily promote its never-ending, self-serving conflicts of interest like CNBC. Instead, I'm truly grateful that we've had this organic uprising of the most unlikely and unconnected people, who began their work outside the formal political and media establishments, who have provided the desperately needed leadership to stop our country's slide into damaging right-wing orthodoxy and hypocrisy, and allow us to begin the process of fixing the horrific damage they have caused -- domestically and internationally -- and restoring America's role as a moral leader of the world and a country that tries to lead by example. We've got a long, long way to go, but I'm often reminded -- like with Colbert's incredible takedown of the clownish Glenn Beck and the election of Barack Obama -- that we're making real progress. Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base , and this story was from his original post, " Once Again, Real Journalism From Comedy Central " More on Stephen Colbert
 
Formula One's Power Players: Behind The Speed, Savvy, Skill And Sex Top
Covering social and contemporary culture, ASMALLMAGAZINE is the online publication of high- end private online community ASMALLWORLD . As the 2009 Formula One season revs up, the gas-and-glamour-fueled sport is facing radical changes on and off the track. But no matter how much F1 culture scales back to meet the times, it’ll always retain that magical, well, formula of speed, savvy, skill, and sex. From the playboys to the drivers to the playboy drivers, here’s an inside look at the people who kick the tires, light the fires, and keep F1 going 200 miles per hour, day and night. The Baby Jesus When 23-year-old Lewis Hamilton snatched the 2008 F1 championship away from Ferrari’s Filipe Massa on the final lap of the Brazilian Grand Prix, he became the youngest in history—and the first black driver—to win the title. Hard to say what’s richer: his five-year, $150 million contract with McLaren, or the extracurricular activity it affords him (conquests include Miss Grenada and a Pussycat Doll). The Survivor Last year, Max Mosley , the 68-year-old president of the FIA, redefined the term “auto erotic” when he was caught on videotape being punished by five prostitutes in German war paraphernalia. A sticky wicket—especially if your father just so happened to be the notorious fascist Sir Oswald Mosley. Despite widespread calls for his head, Max held on as president and recently made headlines for his controversial new cost-cutting rules. The Player Renault boss Flavio Briatore is everything that’s right with F1: women, money, flamboyance, women. The 59-year-old Heidi Klum babydaddy—who married a 28-year-old Wonderbra model—is a longtime Formula fixture and loud advocate of technical race rules that favour entertainment over engineering. Off the circuit, he owns a clothing brand non-ironically titled Billionaire, named after his club in Sardinia. The Professional Three months ago, Ross Brawn faced extinction when Honda abruptly pulled out of F1. But the 53-year-old British machinist—who helped steer Michael Schumacher to seven F1 titles—bought what was left of the team and re-entered the grid under the name Brawn GP. In just a few weeks, his drivers have dominated pre-season testing runs and, against all odds, finished first and second in the opening round in Australia. The Billionaire Ah, Vijay Mallya . Seventh-richest man in India, owner of the last-place Force India team, and sporter of a goatee and diamond earring. Whether he’s throwing parties on his 311-foot yacht Indian Empress —call him “DJ Vijay Mallya”—with the likes of Lance Armstrong, or pledging to bring the F1 circuit to India by 2011, Mallya thinks big and rolls deep. The Superfan Look for Greek-born British tycoon Stelios Haji-Ioannou at flashier circuits such as Monte Carlo. If you’re lucky, the devout Formulaphile will invite you to his penthouse on the harbour directly overlooking the Monaco Grand Prix starting line, where his friends (and, in the spirit of full disclosure, perhaps a crasher or two) gather on the balcony during the race for their very own vroom with a view. The Money Man Bernie Ecclestone has made a killing as the longtime owner of Formula One Management, which controls the sport’s lucrative commercial rights worldwide. Almost nothing comes too cheap to the septuagenarian (tabloid nickname: “Supremo”), whether it’s the $83 million London house he sold to an Indian industrialist or his recent-ex-wife’s rumoured $1.4 billion divorce settlement. Half his wealth, Gone In 60 Seconds! Photo Credits: Lewis Hamilton—www.topnews.in Max Mosley—www.topnews.in Ross Brawn—www.blogf1.co.uk Selios Haji-Ioannou—www.easyjet.co.uk Bernie Ecclestone—www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Disgrasian: Tila Tequila Latest Celebrity to Twitter Top
Tila Tequila Twitters . A lot. She joined less than two weeks ago and has already posted over 500 updates and has 67,000+ followers at last count. She claims not to have a ghost Twitterer microblogging for her, but she also claimed to be bisexual just in time for-- tada! --her bisexual dating show on MTV, so make of that what you will. That said, Tila's Twitter feed is her most interesting work to date. Here are the top ten things I've learned from "Twila": She has a crush on David Lynch . She takes Ambien/Lunesta to sleep, and when she runs out of pills, Nyquil. She's really pissed at Rihanna for not being a "better role model" and for "partying." She's been studying quantum physics "for many years." She's a conspiracy theorist . The "biggest celebrity douchebag asshole" she's ever met is Jared Leto, whom she calls "a self-absorbed cunt." She is BTF (Best Twitter Friends) with Meghan McCain ( @McCainBlogette ). She is always LOL. Her idols are "Kathryn of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth, Joan of Arc and Tupac Shakur." The only person she really hates in the world is Nadya Suleman, aka Octomom, because of the way that "hoebag...smiles when paparazzi's are swarming her." See what I mean? Pretty entertaining stuff. Who knows if a word of it is true, except for the part about Jared Leto being a cunt. That I would never dispute. More on Twitter
 
Arianna Huffington: Greening My House: Power Strips, White Light Lamps, Compost Jars, and Logs Made of Coffee Grounds Top
Ever since I saw the Green light, thanks to my friend Laurie David, and traded in my gas-guzzling SUV, I've tried my best to up my eco-awareness. But after reading Green Goes with Everything , Sloan Barnett's book about greening our homes and our lives, I decided to take a closer look at mine. Yes, I had a pair of Priuses in the driveway (my girls call them "the Prii"), and the recycling bins are filled and dutifully rolled out the curb once a week -- but I wanted a top to bottom assessment of things. Because, these days, "green" means a lot more than making your house energy efficient. It means making sure your house is a healthy place for you and your family. So I arranged to have Deep Green Living , a terrific company founded by Susan Short, come to my house and do what is known as an eco-analysis of my home -- including my home office (aka HuffPost West). Sloan Barnett and a crew from NBC came over to record the process (her news reports for the NBC affiliate in San Francisco are embedded below). The Deep Green Living team went everywhere and looked at everything -- from the light bulbs in my bedroom to the cleaning products in my kitchen to the logs burning in my fireplace. They gave me positive marks for some of the things I was already doing (using non-toxic cleaning products) and showed me a number of simple steps I could take right away toward creating a greener home and lifestyle. And, every step of the way, they helped remind me that going green is a process, not something that has to happen overnight. Every little bit helps, so don't think you have to be the second coming of Ed Begley, Jr. to make a difference. As President Obama said during his prime time presser last week: "I'm a big believer in persistence." Among the changes we made: -- Replaced conventional light bulbs with energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, which use one-third the electricity and can last 10 times as long. As Matthew Morris from Deep Green pointed out, "If everyone in America replaced just one regular bulb with a CFL, it would be the equivalent of taking 1 million cars off the road." And we replaced the floor lamps next to my desk and on our editors' desks with lamps and CFL bulbs that throw off a cool white light as opposed to yellow, and reduce eye strain caused by prolonged reading and writing. At first, it was really strange, and I was ready to go back to my beloved yellow light. But I persevered -- and now I love them. -- Installed power strips in the office and kitchen. Many appliances, including TVs, computers, and phone chargers still use electricity even when not turned on. Indeed, 5 percent of the electricity used in America is drawn by appliances that aren't powered up. For instance, the printer in my office uses 55 watts in standby mode, the copy machine uses 46 watts in standby, and the fax machine uses 10 watts in standby. Leaving these machines on overnight and when they are not in regular use can waste over 700 kilowatt hours a year (which is more than the average California household uses in a month). The easiest way to avoid this is to plug these appliances into a power strip that can quickly be turned off at the end of the day and back on in the morning. -- Installed digital thermostats. Heating and cooling, on average, accounts for half of our homes' energy use. These thermostats allow us to consistently set the temperature at the most efficient levels (According to Deep Green Living: "for every degree you raise or lower the temperature for 8 hours, you'll save one percent on your heating or cooling bill.") -- Replaced the wood-burning logs in my fireplace with logs made of compressed coffee grounds. You get warmth... and a contact caffeine buzz. (Okay, just kidding about the buzz, but the logs really do work.) -- Started a composting jar in the kitchen. Making this change brought back many memories of my mother, who never liked to let anything go to waste. The uses she could find for a lemon rind! -- Made the switch from a conventional dry cleaner using the eco-unfriendly perc process to a green dry cleaning service that uses non-toxic alternatives. The Deep Green team also reminded me and my family of some of the simple changes we can make in our daily habits that can have a big impact, including: Being more aware of our water use by not leaving the water running when brushing our teeth or rinsing the dishes, taking shorter showers (that's really a tough one for me), and making sure we only run the dishwasher and washing machines when they have full loads. Making sure to keep our cars' tires inflated to the right pressure (improves gas mileage by 3 percent) and that the air filters are clean (replacing a clogged air filter can improve mileage by as much as 10 percent). And something really, really obvious -- turning off the lights when we leave the room -- which I now do much more frequently because I finally understand how significant the cumulative energy savings can be. Most of these changes were easy to make, and have been easy to maintain (although we still sometimes forget to turn off the power strips!). Positive steps don't have to be painful. Of course, there is a lot more that can be done to make my house -- and my lifestyle --even greener. But as I said before, going green is a process. And every little bit helps. Here are Sloan's video reports on Deep Green Living 's eco-audit of my house: More on Green Living
 
Yasser Arafat Poisoned? Arab Doctors To Probe Top
AMMAN, Jordan — Nearly five years after Yasser Arafat died from what French doctors called a massive brain hemorrhage, Arab doctors will meet in Jordan to look into lingering suspicious the Palestinian leader was poisoned. Arafat's death at a military hospital outside Paris quickly spawned speculation he'd been killed by Israel, which viewed him as an obstacle to a peace treaty. The 75-year-old Arafat, who led the Palestinian movement for almost 40 years, fell violently ill in October 2004 at his West Bank compound in Ramallah. He was moved to a French hospital where he died Nov. 11, 2004. At the time, French doctors bound by strict privacy rules were tightlipped about Arafat's condition, and his widow refused an autopsy. Palestinian leaders have never given a definitive cause of his death. French doctors who treated Arafat concluded in a report later obtained by The Associated Press that he died of a "massive brain hemorrhage" after suffering intestinal inflammation, jaundice and a blood condition known as disseminated intravascular coagulation, or DIC. What brought on the DIC was not explained. The condition has numerous causes, ranging from infections to colitis to liver disease. "Consultation with experts and laboratory tests could not help to find a cause that would explain ... the group of syndromes," his French doctors wrote at the time. The report made no mention of poison or another popular theory, AIDS. Israel strongly denied any role in Arafat's death. French doctors declined to comment on the speculation. Jordanian heart surgeon Abdullah al-Bashir said the meeting Thursday involving seven to eight doctors _ many who treated Arafat when he fell ill _ will try to determine whether he was poisoned. The Palestinian leader battled Israel for years before signing peace treaties in the 1990s. But Israel blamed him for the failure of further peace talks, and he spent his last two years under siege in his West Bank compound, after Israel accused him of being behind a wave of suicide bombings. Dr. Ashraf al-Kurdi, a Jordanian neurologist who regularly examined Arafat, fueled speculation after Arafat died. Al-Kurdi said lab tests revealed Arafat had a low platelet count. He insisted doctors had excluded other reasons for the count, such as infection or cancer, and that poison could be an explanation. Platelets help blood clot. Although "not definitive, I believe the highest reason for Arafat's mysterious death is poisoning," al-Kurdi said in 2004. Arafat's nephew, Nasser al-Qidwa, who received a copy of the French medical report, said in 2004 that the lack of clear reason for his uncle's death raised suspicions it was from "unnatural" causes. Israel has been implicated before trying to poison Palestinian officials. In 1997, Israel tried to poison Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Jordan. The agents were caught, and King Hussein of Jordan forced Israel to provide the antidote in exchange for their release. Al-Bashir said the decision to undertake the inquiry was taken last week at a meeting in Cairo to launch the Yasser Arafat Foundation.
 
Conficker Worm: Computer Virus Wakes Up, But Is Quiet Top
The "Conficker" worm is live within Australia and elsewhere in the world, security vendors have confirmed, where it is April 1. At this point, however, it remains quiescent. Security company Trend Micro has seen the Conficker or Downadup worm increase the number of DNS resolutions, as expected, said Paul Ferguson, the lead researcher for security intelligence, advanced threats research. At this point, however, the worm has taken no other action.
 
Mike Bonifer: Why Ayn Rand Does Not Matter (and Viola Spolin Does) Top
Yesterday, an acquaintance of mine sent me a Nasty-gram for participating in Earth Hour. Now, I'm not exactly the greenest guy on the planet, and I think the environmental movement can do a better job of inspiring instead of proscribing participation. At the same time, I believe that sustainability is a powerful engine of economic growth that we cannot afford to ignore or restrain. My acquaintance on the other hand, believes that it's hypocrisy to engage in symbolic acts like turning out lights for an hour in support of sustainability. He writes: I don't want any pressure to act in ways that end up being uninformed in their end result. While "easy," using cardboard signs to promote a Green event is another living example. If you want to profit from the momentum, I applaud your business sense. I'll -- sadly -- stick to my principals and end up losing my house in the "reset" environment. Fighting City Hall is neither in-action, nor the road to riches, but I'll pick the Ayn Rand hero approach. I was ready to let the Nasty-gram pass without comment, but the 'Ayn Rand hero approach' lit me up, because when it comes to productive avenues for innovation and growth, especially in the current economic climate, the Rand approach is a recipe for personal and organizational disaster. Here's why: What Ayn Rand created was, and still is, fiction. It never existed and it never will. Objectivism is nothing but a fictional chimera. Rand built her objectivist heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt, out of what she perceived to be the failings of men. Her father lost his pharmacy to the Bolsheviks when she was young and it left a lifelong impression on her. For Rand, individuals were forever doomed by the whims of the collective, just like her father was. Period. Done She had it all figured out when she was 12. She spent her life inventing all the reasons that held men back from their greatness, and the forces of mediocrity (i.e. the City Halls and the Tooheys and the second-handers of the world) allied against them. Objectivism became a mask for her own disappointment in the world. She created a philosophy to accommodate this disappointment, depicted in fictional worlds where reason and the work of the mind constitute perfection. This has nothing to do with the truth, with reality, with the way the world really is. The truth is that individual fate and human destiny are shaped far more by emotion and the environment than by reason. That's just the way it is, biologically speaking. This gets to the the flaw in Rand's world view. Our feelings and the situations in which we find ourselves are far more important to our growth and evolution than our thoughts. When you get right down to it, objectivism as a way of believing and behaving is just Ayn Rand compensating for reality's shortcomings by making up something that doesn't exist. Howard Roark never existed. Nothing he designed ever got built, and anyway it was ugly stuff, architecturally speaking. Who is John Galt? He's a fiction living in a disappointed woman's head. Believing in Ayn Rand is believing in a chimera. It's like having Keanu Reeves as your role model. You become an empty vessel waiting to be filled by the fictions of others. In contrast, it was Ayn Rand's contemporary, Viola Spolin, who created a philosophy that has relevance today. She called it improvisation. Spolin was a loving, nurturing woman and mother, an educator who never stopped teaching and sharing her knowledge, primarily with children, through the art of improvisation. She confronted problems of poverty, immigration, multi-culturalism and assimilation head-on, and devised ways for people to grow and learn through the playing of games that solved problems. She created a body of work that has lasted, not as fiction, but as a real modus operandum. The 'Spolin approach' provides a way for people of different cultures, with different life experiences, to work together collaboratively to achieve productive outcomes. See, that's what improvisation is. The 'Group Mind' of Spolin's art is not Ayn Rand's dreaded collectivism. It is not the same as 'Group Think.' It is a way for individuals to participate fully and authentically in the solving of problems. It is a path to innovation and inspiration and personal commitment. That's how Spolin conceived of improvisation, and that's what it remains to this day. The constant outcomes of improvisation, as Spolin explained, are communication, learning and transformation, and what is more vital to our growth and well-being than those constants? What is more effective in this world, or more needed today, than collaborating effectively despite our different points of view? The principles Spolin established have been studied and practiced by tens of millions of people over the past 50 years, and by that I don't just mean folks read her book and think a character in it is cool and they want to be like that character. I mean they have actualized what's in her book, and learned ways of behaving that can be carried out of the theater and into the world, as a way of life. Her students and advocates have learned ways to be more of what they ARE, not more of what they are not. They have learned ways to expand the world around them, not diminish it. Improvisation is not a chimera. It really exists. This email is improvisation. The next unscheduled phone call you get will result in improvisation. Interestingly, 'the objective' is an important element of Spolin's teaching. And it means almost the opposite of Rand's objectivism. It means giving yourself over to the problem at hand, setting ego aside and letting the environment and the scene you're in determine the best course of action (knowing all the while that one's choices will be informed by but not determined by intellect.) Rand was all about flexing one's ego and intellect. Spolin, by contrast, recognized ego and intellect as preventing people from being in the moment and achieving the ego-less state that she called 'the objective.' Ego is subjective . It gives no credence to context. It is reality warped by reason and, as such, is counter-productive to any process but the process of inflicting one's own script on the world. And that is a sure path to Randian-style disappointment. Alan Greenspan? Disappointment, personified. As for what you describe as my opportunism, my hypocrisy, my front-runningness, my herd mentality in aligning with sustainability as an engine of growth, that's a fiction you're choosing to impose on me. It has nothing to do with my reality. The gulf between the script you're writing about me and the reality I am experiencing is so huge that you can only be disappointed by your inability to connect the two. Because you express concerns about losing your home, and because you're a car buff, I have a story that may shed a little light on the Spolin way of engaging with the world. During the Great Depression, my grandfather lost his job as a Cadillac mechanic in Louisville. He and my grandmother and their six kids packed up and left the big city for a small town in Indiana, where my grandfather opened a small garage. He was a good mechanic. The garage grew, and he and my dad and uncles started a small trucking company, and with the proceeds from that trucking company, they bought a small farm. My father was 12 years old (same age as Rand when her dad lost the pharmacy) when they moved from Louisville. He was crazy about cowboy movies and horses. There were no move theaters in this little town, and that had to suck for him. But my father was able to get his own horse when he was 16, and from that point on, his own life became its own kind of cowboy movie. By the time I was born, my grandfather was the only person in Ireland, Indiana, who drove a Cadillac. My family lived on the farm next to my grandparents. At one point, my dad owned upwards of 40 horses. (Not really what you'd call good horses , but that's another story. ) My grandparents' farm still belongs to our family, and my mom still lives on our farm. It was not easy for anyone. It was not without struggle and crises and tears. But it was, and still is, graced by happiness and laughter and beauty. See, my grandparents had a choice. They could have wallowed in their disappointment that life did not unfold according to their expectations. But they chose not to do that. They chose to make the best move they could make, given the situation. You may call this opportunism. I call it life. More on Green Living
 
Madonna's African Adoptions Part Of Growing Trend Top
LILONGWE, Malawi — Madonna's efforts to adopt two youngsters from Malawi have drawn the paparazzi. But she isn't alone: Westerners are increasingly seeking to bring home children from Africa as traditional sources like China and Russia cut back on adoptions by foreigners. The rising number of adoptions from Africa _ particularly by Americans in Ethiopia _ comes as the AIDS epidemic ravaging the continent leaves more orphans in impoverished countries and surviving relatives are unable to care for them. Americans adopted 1,725 Ethiopian children in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2008, about 70 percent of all U.S. adoptions from Africa, according to the U.S. State Department. The year before, 1,255 Ethiopian children were adopted by Americans. Thomas DiFilipo, president of the Joint Council on International Children's Services, does not attribute the increase to a celebrity factor, but he says some high-profile adoptions by celebrities have raised awareness of the availability of orphans in Africa. "One of the good things about the Madonna adoption or Angelina Jolie, those adoptions brought the need to the attention of Europeans or Americans," he said. "And it brought the possibility to people's attention." Rich foreigners have been adopting children from poorer nations for decades. Mia Farrow, now the mother of 14, adopted an orphan from the Vietnam War in 1973. Jolie adopted her sons Maddox and Pax from Cambodia and Vietnam and her daughter Zahara from Ethiopia. But critics have slammed Madonna's efforts to adopt a second child from Malawi this week, accusing her of acting like a rich "bully" and using her money and status to fast-track the adoption process. On Tuesday, Madonna insisted she was following standard procedures. Many adoption agencies and child rights activists argue it is preferable for children to be taken care of by relatives or in their communities, with foreign adoptions allowed only as a last resort. Others say that isn't always realistic. "Ideally more local adoptions would be best, but people aren't coming forward and if life is better out there then they should take it," said Zoe Cohen, a private adoption consultant in South Africa. Adoption experts say the rise in adoptions from Africa is due to developments in China, Russia, Guatemala and other longtime sources of orphans that have reduced the number of foreign adoptions. As a result, the number of foreign children adopted by Americans fell 12 percent last year, reaching the lowest level since 1999. According to the State Department, 2,399 visas were issued to African children adopted by Americans last year, out of 17,438 adoptions from abroad. China, which for a decade was the leading source for international adoptions, accounted for the biggest decline and dropped out of the top spot last year. It was replaced by Guatemala, which almost certainly will lose that status in 2009 because of a corruption-related moratorium on new adoptions. By comparison, only a handful of African children were adopted by Britons in 2007, the last year for which details are available. According to figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the largest numbers were from Ethiopia and Nigeria _ seven children were adopted from Ethiopia and six from Nigeria. But Africa was the second-most popular region for French adoptions in 2008, making up 29 percent of the 3,271 non-French children who were adopted, the French Foreign Ministry says, after the Caribbean and the Americas. The percentage was about the same the previous year. Orphans usually are absorbed into extended families in Africa, but AIDS and other diseases have affected many of those who might have traditionally provided support. In many villages across the continent, frail, elderly grandmothers do their best to care for children but often youngsters end up in orphanages or on the streets. The United Nations estimates 18 million African children will have lost a parent to AIDS by 2010. Simon Chisale, the Malawian welfare official who has been handling Madonna's adoption cases, said outsiders are being considered as adoptive parents because traditional family structures have broken down. "Times have changed," he said. "It used to be simpler but now it is more difficult. People have the heart (to look after their extended families) but the means are not there." Malawi, with a population of 12 million, is among the poorest countries in the world, with rampant disease and hunger, aggravated by periodic droughts and crop failure. The U.N. says 1 million Malawian children have lost one or both parents and estimates about half of those were because of AIDS. In the face of such problems, experts say few African countries are going to turn down help from well-meaning rich foreigners. Madonna's Raising Malawi charity, for example, is building well-equipped schools. DiFilipo, whose organization brings together child welfare agencies, child advocacy groups, parent support groups and others around the world to help shape adoption policy, warns that adoptions by foreigners can have unintended consequences. For instance, he said, wealthy foreigners often make donations to the orphanages where they find their children. That can result in orphanages looking first for foreign placements because they need donations. But DiFilipo said the solution is not stopping foreign adoptions, but strengthening laws and education, citing Malawi as an example. Malawian regulations now stipulate that prospective parents be resident in the country for 18 to 24 months, during which time welfare officials assess their suitability _ a rule that was bent when Madonna was allowed to take her adopted son, David, to London in 2006 before his adoption was finalized. A draft children's law, expected to be enacted later this year, seeks to address the shortcomings in the present legislation, including setting limits on how many children an individual can adopt from Malawi and the interval between each adoption. A clear legal framework making adoption relatively easy is one of the reasons cited for the boom of adoptions in Ethiopia, where there are 800,000 AIDS orphans. Ethiopia also allows unmarried women to adopt children. Gail Gorfe, director of the Ethiopia office of U.S.-based Adoption Advocates International, said the number of adoptions in Africa has been increasing steadily each year. "I think the exposure for Africa and adoption is growing," she said. "I think it is much less about the celebrities." Chisale, the Malawian welfare official, said there has been a slight increase in interest in adopting children from his country, mainly among Malawi's many international aid workers. He could not provide numbers and was reluctant to attribute this to attention drawn by Madonna's case but couldn't deny the enormous influence the star has had. "Madonna has put Malawi on the map," he said. ___ Associated Press writers Donna Bryson and Stuart Moir in Johannesburg, Jill Lawless in London, Katharine Houreld and Anita Powell in Nairobi, Kenya, and Scott Sayare in Paris contributed to this report. (This version CORRECTS Corrects that Malawi regulations require 18-24 months residence in country, ADDS that U.S. adoptions of foreign children have declined 12 percent in past year, adds figures on British adoptions.) More on Africa
 
John Delury: The Test: How Obama Can Pivot on North Korea Top
On March 10th, US National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the North Koreans announced that they were going to do a space launch and I believe that that's what they intend." But at a March 26th press conference, he described the satellite as cover for a missile test, and called for "international opprobrium and hopefully worse" if North Korea goes through with the launch. Which "intelligence" offers the wiser course for US policy toward the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? President Obama will no doubt discuss North Korea's anticipated rocket launch when he meets with Hu Jintao and Lee Myung-bak this week in London. In preparing for the meetings, the President may want to reconsider three critical questions, as he faces his first real test on the Korean peninsula: First, the factual question -- is the DPRK launching a satellite or a missile? Second, the legal question -- how to apply international laws and norms to the launch? Third, the political question -- how to best respond to a launch? The DPRK plans to launch a rocket between April 4th and 8th. Pyongyang has submitted to the international community that it is launching a communications satellite. Most outside intelligence experts and political analysts argue that Pyongyang is in fact planning to test launch a ballistic missile. Unfortunately, viewed from afar, the launch of North Korea's Kwangmyongsong satellite aboard a multi-stage rocket is indistinguishable from that of a test launch of its ballistic missile. The only visible differentiation between missile and satellite is functional, in terms of their end point. A satellite is a communications system attached to a rocket designed to reach orbit, where it carries out space-based communications, surveillance and research. A missile is a weapons system attached to a rocket designed to reach suborbit and then re-enter the earth's atmosphere, in order to hit an aerial or terrestrial target. Satellites are one of the few objects intended to go up and never come down. Missiles are made to come back to earth with a vengeance. So how can the world community determine if Pyongyang is launching a missile or a satellite? Basically, it can't. Just as it cannot when China, the US or Russia launch satellites. And just as it could not when Iran launched its Omid satellite in February; as it will not be able to when South Korea launches its next-generation satellite later this year. Instead, these space-faring nations self-report planned launches to governing bodies. In other words, the international community allows satellite launches on good faith (with no "verification protocol," to use a favorite phrase). So long as North Korea launches a three-stage rocket capable of reaching orbit, there is essentially no way, based on outside observation, to prove they have not launched a satellite. The only way we could know one way or the other is if the DPRK chose to show us. What, then, are the legal implications? Were the DPRK to test launch a ballistic missile, it would clearly be in violation of 2006 UN Security Council Resolutions 1695 and 1718. However, the DPRK is acting within its sovereign rights in launching a satellite into space. Pyongyang is not prohibited by treaty, convention, or UN Security Council resolutions from launching rockets for peaceful purposes. Moreover, Pyongyang took voluntary, legally-binding steps to act in accordance with international norms governing space use -- something it did not do prior to its last rocket launches in 2006. On February 24th, 2009, the DPRK announced plans to launch the latest version of its experimental communications satellite. On March 12th, the DPRK announced it had acceded to the 1966 UN Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space and 1975 Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. In keeping with the Convention, the North Korean government gave the International Maritime Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization and other world bodies advance warning and "necessary information for the safe navigation of planes and ships." Pending further evidence to the contrary, North Korea is legally protected in its planned launch. So finally President Obama comes to the politics and diplomacy of anticipating and responding to the launch. Should the US support Japan's consideration of shooting the rocket down? Should the US go to the UN Security Council seeking a new resolution to condemn the launch and apply new sanctions? Should "rocket launches" be added to the list of issues to be addressed in the Six Party Talks? Or should the Six Party Talks be suspended as a reprimand for Pyongyang's provocative behavior? How ought President Obama weigh the range of responses, and based on what long-term goal? For most of the last 60 years, the basic goal underlying US policy toward the DPRK regime was to hasten its demise. Throughout this time, there have been countless analysts -- many of them very knowledgeable about North Korea -- who anticipated imminent regime collapse. These voices can be heard today -- perhaps less forcefully in Washington than in Seoul, where South Korean "neo-conservatives" exert considerable foreign policy influence. The regime-collapsers may be proven right sometime in the future. But for six decades, they've been wrong. It might therefore be time to try a different overarching purpose: integration of the DPRK into the community of modern nations. What if Washington took the lead in shaking up the old pattern of hostility, distrust, misunderstanding and isolation? What if the White House unclenched its fist first, giving the ruling powers in North Korea reason to think they might survive opening gradually and peaceably to the world, and thereby giving them an incentive to try? If one takes trust building and integration as the goal, the rocket launch could appear as a strange kind of opportunity for the US to turn yet another confrontation into a very modest breakthrough. President Obama could publicly recognize that Pyongyang dutifully submitted to international norms governing the use of space. He could acknowledge that it would be hypocritical to force upon North Korea standards to which other countries are not held. He could add to this a request that, given tensions on the peninsula and in the region, North Korea provide further verification of the peaceful purpose of the launch. He might request "consultation" prior to the launch, or "observation" by a neutral party of the satellite, based on Articles 9 and 10 of UN General Assembly Resolution 2222 attached to the Outer Space Treaty. The President could acknowledge these requests as purely volitional acts of goodwill and confidence building on the part of Pyongyang, helping him prove to skeptics (among allies and within the US) that trusting Pyongyang bears some fruit. At best, this novel approach by Washington might turn another episode in saber rattling into a small exercise in trust building. Kim Jong-il has proven capable of bold diplomatic moves toward rapprochement when engaged directly by world leaders. North Korea may put down its sword to shake an outstretched American hand. Of course, if the satellite launch is indeed cover for a missile test, North Korea might refuse providing further positive evidence of the peaceful nature of the launch. But in letting itself lose the diplomatic standoff in the name of honoring international norms, the US would prove the power of these norms, something that might support moderates in Pyongyang down the road. Obama might lose the battle to win the war. The conventional, "tough" alternatives don't offer much hope for progress in any deeper sense. Beijing is unlikely to go along with strict sanctions at the Security Council (which, even if passed, would probably prove limited in actual impact). In seeking sanctions, the US, Japan and South Korea simply reiterate the tired old attitude of belligerent quarantine. Even in a "best case" scenario for those who support confronting Pyongyang -- Japan shoots the rocket down over its airspace, the Security Council approves new sanctions in a strongly-worded resolution condemning the launch, and Pyongyang is faced down by a united front among the five parties... what then? The Six Party Talks effectively end. The Yongbyon reactor goes back online. The joint North-South Korea economic zone, Kaesong, grinds to a halt. Food, fertilizer and energy aid are suspended indefinitely. Will we be any closer to an end to this interminable cold war? Will the North Korea people be any closer to an escape from their predicament? Are we so sure the regime will collapse, and that it will do so quietly and peacefully? Integration is not the path of least resistance. It is strewn with obstacles, roadblocks, reversals, details, and mistakes. But there seems only one path to peace on the Korean peninsula, and it demands increasing contact, building trust and understanding, honoring international norms, defusing conflict, and bringing North Korea into the family of nations. More on Foreign Policy
 
Thomas DeLorenzo: When will Americans Reach the Promised Land of Universal Health Care? Top
Why is Amazon.com pushing "Goodbye AIDS" while DC infection rates are on the rise? While our lawmakers are busy on CNN placing the blame for the financial crisis instead of just trying to solve it, Americans are dealing with an ever-increasing problem - poor or no health insurance. Just as things were beginning to look up for people living with AIDS, it seems as if our medical plans and financial means are running in completely different directions. It is April 1, and only last week I started to whittle down my deductible with my quarterly blood work. Regardless of the gratitude I feel for having a health insurance policy like I do, the company still designs creative ways to prevent me from reaching that elusive $2,000 goal. The annual co-payment maximum is so out of reach, I do not even bother to remember it anymore. I just know that it is going to take at least two weeks of major hospital care to reach it. Finally, after dozens of prescriptions and refills, I finally discovered generics that work, thus keeping that cost down as low as possible. However, it remains a challenge, thanks to the gods of financial deregulation, just making the $500 each month to keep the policy in place. I recently flew back from a trip to DC and NYC, enjoying the New York Times on my flight. There was a story discussing a man battling prostate cancer. To prepare for his "battle" his shaved his head, likening himself to a warrior. It made me think about my "battle suit". I realized it was my black Armani Suit. In a well-fitted Italian suit, anyone can look successful, confident, and, yes, even healthy. During one visit to my doctor, I was very sick but very dressed up. The nurse commented on that, saying that I could not feel that bad because I looked so good. I told her, "Start to worry when my sense of style leaves me. You know it's down to the final count when I start to dress bad." Dressing up is my way of saying, "fuck you" to the virus, "you have not won today." I was wearing it the other day in DC when I visited Joseph's House, a hospice for homeless individuals with HIV/AIDS. Last World AIDS Day I read about Joseph's House in the Washington Post. It was a story that should have been picked up by the national news. Joseph's House is an amazing place where hospitals and nursing homes send people with no other options to spend their final days. If individuals last a month at Joseph's House, they are considered long time patients. Patty Wudel, Executive Director at Joseph's House, invited me to learn more about their services first hand the next time I was in DC. Walking into the cozy three-story home in the Adams Morgan section of DC, I was instantly struck by the warmth of the place. It immediately felt like home, as if someone was wrapping me in an invisible security blanket and it was all going to be okay from now on. I expected to find a quiet, delicate place, but instead I found this hive of activity, with individuals running about making sure the work gets done. Chocolate chip cookies were even baking in the kitchen. Who could not fall in love with a place that greets you with a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie? Wudel shared with me the history and mission of Joseph's House. We discussed the recent reporting of the increase in DC area HIV infections rates. She also told me that their Ryan White Grant had been cancelled, for reasons yet unknown. Joseph's House's annual budget depended on that grant. With no knight in shining armor at her door, Wudel was left with no choice but to explain the situation to the staff, stating that she would be forced to make some cuts. Instantly the staff volunteered to do it themselves, working shorter weeks, taking days without pay, in the process solving the problem for Wudel. Such is the fiber that exists at Joseph's House. Wudel asked me if I would like a tour. I was eager to see the inner workings of such an incredible and much needed place, but was concerned about invading their clients' privacy. I allowed Wudel to do the guiding. She told me that prior to its current incarnation, two people shared this rather large home, as we walked up the stairs leading to the clients' rooms. Wudel took me into a room of a young man named Jimmy. Right beside Jimmy was a woman who reminded me of my grandmother. I had seen her downstairs and assumed that she was staff. I was wrong. She was Jimmy's mother. She stood beside her son and stroked his hair and caressed his face. I was introduced to them both, and, did my best to keep my composure. Jimmy is this very, very attractive 33-year-old man, with beautiful soft light brown hair, and blue-grey eyes. He was unable to speak clearly and was not able to move his body without difficulty. He was wearing only a hospital gown and diapers. So much was going through my mind, so many questions were screaming to be answered, but I focused only on him, wanting to make him feel comfortable. I reached out and touched his hand after our introductions, and started to make conversation with him. I told him that he had very beautiful eyes. I found out a few minutes after that that he could no longer see with those beautiful eyes. Jimmy had been HIV positive for quite some time, apparently believing that since he was healthy all was fine and therefore he did not need to go on any drugs or monitor his health. Apparently, he could not have been further from the truth. About a month ago, Jimmy was diagnosed with PML, a very, very rare opportunistic infection that affects people with AIDS. Jimmy's immune system had come crashing down and he was unable to rebuild it in time to fight this demon off. I was stunned for I had not heard of PML until that day. PML is very similar to MS, as it affects the white matter of the brain. However, unlike MS it has no treatment, and life expectancy is about six months. Oddly enough, on Reuters last week, Biogen announced a test for the virus that causes PML. Biogen is not doing this because of people with AIDS, but because it affected their profit margin as a nasty side effect to their recently launched MS drug. So this beautiful boy, with those amazing blue-grey eyes, probably has about a month left. This interaction struck me to my core, for it is easy to distance yourself from someone unlike you, but when they are a member of your tribe, and have something that could have just as easily taken you down, its becomes overwhelming. No amount of Armani could have saved me from this emotional bullet. How can we live in a country where people are only outraged when others make more than them - fairly or not. How can we call ourselves the richest, most powerful nation ever to exist when Jimmys all over the country continue to die? Why can't we just start to actually solve the problems with actions, rather than listening to talking heads drone on and on? Why, as a country, are we so resistant to preventing a problem, preferring instead to rely on the reaction to the crisis to fix the problem? America, for all of its forward thinking and wanting to be progressive, remains a country steeped in religious guilt. People, incredibly conservative, very religious people, called Puritans, who were seeking refuge from what they considered too liberal of an environment for them and their religious beliefs, founded us. This concept remains in the very fiber of what makes up our country. It is the basis for judging others because of a drug problem, a sexually transmitted disease, or even obesity. Many of us always take the holier than thou road, in order to distance ourselves from the situation, and avoid the pain involved with dealing with it head on. I had forgotten how lucky I was, that in spite of my own personal fiscal meltdown, that all parables involving your own good health remained true. Apparently, the universe felt I needed a reminder. As I fool everyone with my Armani suits, deep down inside I remain a scared boy, praying each day that no health crisis will happen that I cannot deal with, that the pills I take morning and night continue to work, that somehow there will be a end to this crisis called AIDS. More on HIV/AIDS
 
Resurrected Child And Ria Ramkissoon: Plea Withdrawn If Son Rises From Dead Top
BALTIMORE — A former religious cult member who helped starve her son to death believes he will be resurrected, but legal experts say her extreme faith doesn't make her criminally insane. The mother made an extraordinary deal with prosecutors Monday that her guilty plea to child abuse resulting in death will be withdrawn if her 1-year-old son, Javon Thompson, comes back to life. Law experts and psychiatrists said there was no problem with the agreement because Ria Ramkissoon, 22, was mentally competent and freely entered into the deal, and extreme religious beliefs aren't deemed insane by law. "To say that someone is crazy because they have beliefs is very difficult," said Dr. Jonas Rappeport, a retired forensic psychiatrist and the former chief medical officer for Baltimore Circuit Court. "If I believe that God wants me to starve my child, that gets close to the edge, but it's very questionable as to calling that an illness that would exonerate someone for a crime." The boy died more than two years ago when cult members stopped feeding him because he refused to say "Amen" after a meal, according to a statement of facts. His body was hidden in a suitcase packed with mothballs and fabric softener sheets behind a home in Philadelphia for more than a year. On Monday, Ramkissoon answered a series of questions from Baltimore Circuit Judge Timothy J. Doory about whether she understood what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. A court psychiatrist wrote she was both competent to stand trial and criminally responsible for her son's death. David Gray, a law professor at the University of Maryland, said he had never heard of prosecutors making a promise they knew they wouldn't have to keep. But he couldn't envision a legal challenge to the plea deal. The psychiatrist was right to find Ramkissoon competent despite her insistence on her son's resurrection, Gray said. "There is a long-standing distinction in the criminal law between fanatical religious belief and hearing commands from God," he said. "If she just subscribes to extreme religious beliefs, then that's not insanity. That's a decision to violate the law." The plea deal was a good one for Ramkissoon, who was initially charged with first-degree murder. She received a suspended 20-year sentence and only has to remain in custody until she testifies against four co-defendants who are charged with first-degree murder in her son's death. She could be out of prison in August, serving about a year behind bars. "Ria will be out of jail in a matter of a couple months and will still benefit from psychiatric services, cult deprogramming and whatever other services would be beneficial to her," said her attorney Steven D. Silverman. Prosecutors are eager to have her testify because their case against the other cult members is largely circumstantial. The plea agreement also calls for Ramkissoon to meet with Rick Ross, who has studied cults for more than 25 years and counsels former cult members. Ross said cult members often take years to realize how they've been manipulated. They exhibit behavior that "seems crazy to us because we're outside the control of the group and the environment of the group," Ross said. "In reality, what we're actually seeing is an individual under undue influence."
 
Christopher Brauchli: Condoms, Witches and the Pope Top
Get in line in that processional, Step into that small confessional, There, the guy who's got religion'll Tell you if your sin's original. . . . Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag He's batting 50-50 which isn't bad for most people. If you're infallible, however, it's not the sort of thing you'd brag about the next time you talk to your Father. The witches kept him from batting a zero. While traveling through Africa recently Pope Benedict XVI came out firmly against witchcraft. Addressing the multitude of Catholics that were lining the Angolan streets on March 21, the Pope told his audience that if they had friends or neighbors who believed in witchcraft they should try to convert them. At a mass in Luanda at which two people who had already been saved were trampled to death in the mob's eagerness to hear what the man from Rome had to say, the Pope said: "In today's Angola Catholics should offer the message of Christ to the many who live in the fear of spirits, of evil powers by whom they feel threatened." The Pope imparted the same message to a group of clergymen and nuns earlier in the day when he said they should be missionaries to the Angolans who live in fear "of spirits, of malign and threatening powers. In their bewilderment they end up even condemning street children and the elderly as alleged sorcerers." (It sounded remarkably like a description of the effects religion had on the early settlers in the United States.) It was not a particularly courageous stand for him to take since witchcraft has pretty much fallen out of favor in most parts of the world and a suggestion from him that it should be abandoned is not a suggestion that bespeaks great moral courage. Nonetheless, not everything that boosts your average is a great feat and so it was with the attack on witchcraft. It simply raised the Pope's average to 50-50. It was his observations at the beginning of the trip that kept him from hitting 100% with his attack on witchcraft. Joining the enlightened crowd that sits on the Texas Board of Education and would like to include in the Texas curriculum the fact (as they see it) that evolution is nothing more than a theory and there are other theories to be explored to explain the world) the Pope's first pronouncements on his trip to Africa was that the use of condoms worsens the HIV problem. The Papal pronouncement came on the first day of his visit. Believing that the power of the word is more effective than the power of the prophylactic, he said that the proven most effective way to prevent the spread of AIDS is to just say no. He said to reporters on his plane that: "You can't resolve it [AIDS] with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary" said he "it increases the problem." Long before AIDS had become a prominent member of society, the Pope and his predecessors opposed any means of artificial contraception. Once AIDS made its appearance, the Senior Vatican officials adopted the position that the most effective way of preventing the spread of AIDS, aside from remaining faithful to one's partner, was avoiding sex. Although the thousands of sexual abuse suits that have been brought against the Church and settled, conclusively prove that avoiding sex is easier said than done, the Vatican Officials are undeterred. The Church remains firmly opposed to condoms while nonetheless proclaiming itself a leader in the fight against AIDS. Twenty-two million people are infected with AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa according to UNAIDS. Two-thirds of all the deaths in the world from AIDS took place in that part of the world . The Church's position distresses those who instead of contemplating the disease from the bubble of the Popemobile must work with its victims on a daily basis. Speaking to a reporter from the Washington Post, a teacher in Yaounde said: "Talking about the non-use of condoms is out of place. We need condoms to protect ourselves against diseases and AIDS." Echoing those sentiments Rebecca Hodes with the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa said: "[H]is opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans." She's got that right. Even some of the Pope colleagues, if not equals, differ with the Pope. Monsignor Illidio Leandro, a Portuguese bishop has said that people with AIDS are "morally obliged to use them." Acknowledging the fact that some folks can't avoid sex he said such people are "morally obliged to avoid passing on the disease by using a condom." The Bishop is a realist. The Church and witchcraft have one thing in common. Neither believes condoms will prevent the spread of AIDS, the Pope because he doesn't believe they work and followers of witchcraft because they know witches give AIDS to those they dislike. It will be hard to reduce the AIDS epidemic in Africa. That's because it's hard to teach those whose creed is ignorance.
 
Tuesday's Late Night Round-Up: Bush's Hit Squads, The G20 Summit, And Al Gore's Birthday (VIDEO) Top
Jimmy Kimmel took on Bush's reported secret hit squads, Jimmy Fallon poked fun at JetBlue's baggage record, and David Letterman mocked the state of our nation in general. Oddly, Jay Leno reverted back ten years and made Clinton sex jokes. To see yesterday's round-up, click here . WATCH: More on Late Night Shows
 
Frank Schaeffer: Dear Democrats Who Are Criticizing President Obama Top
Dear Democrats, progressives and all those who voted for Obama but don't agree with some of his policy decisions and are now publicly criticizing him: No, you're not traitors. Yes, constructive dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. You may even be correct in the details of what you are saying. But this is not the time to criticize President Obama. President Obama is so calm, reasonable and unflappable that it may not appear so, but our president is in a knife fight. He is fighting for you and me. He needs rock solid friends now as steady in our resolve as he is in his. In the current economic context lefty critics of Obama are the moral equivalent of people playing with matches in a gasoline soaked room. Too many of them seem to not apreciate the context of their remarks. Maybe that's because they live isolated from people not like them, talk to too many progressives who agree with them. They act as if they have never met Republican. Well I have! And my in box of hate email keeps me in touch with my former right wing and fundamentalist "colleagues." I don't have a Nobel prize, but I did live, grow up in and work (frighteningly effectively) in the far right netherworld for years until I quit in the mid-80s. Maybe I know a bit more than some progressive Obama critics know about the alternative we face if Obama fails. I helped create it. Welcome to the eternally slimy moronic exploitative world of Glenn Beck, Joe the plumber and Rush. If progressives blow our Obama chance Palin, Crist, Hukabee, Bush (Jeb), Romney and company are waiting in the wings and will kill our country -- forever -- if one of them, or Republicans like them who pander to the far right "base" (e.g. anyone who believes Glenn Beck is sane) come to power four years from now. And don't be so stupid as to think that it could not happen. Hate is real and it is powerful. The biggest issue President Obama faces is not the dire emergency, or should I say dire emergencies , he's inherited from the failed Republicans. President Obama's biggest challenge is that the Republican Party is not a loyal opposition. The GOP has become a rabid money-worshiping insurgency (with racist overtones) of anti-American revolution seeking to undermine every single step our new president takes. They are led by opportunistic -- often stupid -- ideologues who would rather take us all down than admit that their anti the "other" pro-rape-the-earth-greed philosophy has failed. When I say the GOP is "anti-American" I mean that the Republicans don't love America as she is. They wave the flag for a neverland "America" of white "Christian" conservatives (a token person of color or two) and nutcase war-loving neoconservatives, rich people and their lumpen and paranoid rural dupes. The GOP leadership and base hate the actual America of multicultural diversity, higher education, racial equality, a place where gays can thrive and where science will not be beholden to theological moralists. That said, I'm writing to those who voted for President Obama, from moderates to members of the far left -- or even to people such as myself; a white, middle-aged, moderate, a lifelong Republican (and former Religious Right leader) who abandoned the forces of hate and worked hard to get Obama elected. (A story I tell in my book Crazy For God .) In my last Huffington Post blog I equated Krugman with Limbaugh. I was talking about the effect of their words spoken in criticism of the President and also their very apparent ego-driven motives. For the responders who pointed out that surely I must know the difference between a Nobel Prize winner in economics and a radio personality buffoon, let me note that the purpose of my piece was to start a discussion on what the sum total impact of the so-called loyal (progressive) opposition is having on the chances of President Obama succeeding in saving our country. So what's wrong with the give-and-take of, for instance, the Krugman onslaught in print and on television eviscerating parts of the Obama economic recovery plan and claiming it will fail? The Deadly Problem With Today's Progressive Dissent Context is everything . You can win a Nobel Prize and still get it wrong, when it comes to understanding the political, social and spiritual reality into which you publicly launch your ideas. You can be an expert in one area but dead wrong as far as the big picture goes... especially if you live in a privileged bubble, the sort of sheltered bubble wealthy tenured professors and/or top columnists and journalists live in. Some progressives (such as Krugman) tell us that our economic situation is so dire that they feel compelled to speak out publicly in order to "help" the Obama team come up with better ideas. There's a contradiction here. If our situation is so dire that it requires someone such as Krugman -- whose prestige guarantees him direct private access to the presidential advisers -- to go to the public instead of taking the private advisory road , then our situation is bad enough so that he, and other progressives with powerful voices critical of Obama, wittingly or unwittingly, will make things worse. Back-stabbing our president, while he is trying to protect the rest of us is from the Republican's frontal assault on America is wrongheaded. You can be right about the details but mistaken about the overall situation. You can win battles and lose wars. Context is everything. Getting lost in the details, say of economic theory, is meaningless -- even if you are correct -- unless it actually helps the big picture. The Problem of the Context of Today's Progressive's Dissent 1) Except for what Lincoln and Roosevelt faced, the severity of the inherited problems Obama finds himself confronting, in the first few short weeks of his presidency, are unique to American history. Saying things such as "So, we never get to criticize this president?" or "You must think he's Jesus," to people -- like me -- who criticize lefty Obama critics for being critical at this fraught time misses the point. The day after Pearl Harbor was a time to pull together, not to parse the details of Roosevelt's leadership. 2) President Obama confronts not only Rush Limbaugh and his ilk but a host of others -- including elected Republicans in congress -- who make no bones about the fact that they are actively seeking to undermine his presidency. Rush, Fox News, the Republican congressional leadership and their millions of not-too-bright hate and fear-driven followers -- have become an actual fifth column . They have met our contemporary "Pearl Harbor" with the words, "We hope Roosevelt fails! We hope the Japanese win!" They are traitors in a time of war, actually three wars; Iraq, Afghanistan and the economic war we're all fighting in order to survive. 3) Every commentator agrees that at least half (if not more) of our financial crisis is due to a psychological loss of confidence in our economic system. So criticism of the various economic remedies the President is trying to launch have to be examined in two ways. First, on the merits of the economic theory. But, second, from the point of view of the impact the critic's words have in further diminishing confidence in our system and thus destabilizing it. So ironically the greater the critic's intellectual or political standing the less good he or she will do by public -- as opposed to private -- criticism. So when a Paul Krugman goes on national television again and again and again or appears on a magazine cover pronouncing Obama's "failure" or writes one column after another for the New York Times claiming that President Obama's plans are wrong, it is the ultimate naïveté for the critic to then say (or pretend) that his comments are simply academic (or journalistic) observations. The progressive Obama critic in our present context is morally responsible for how his ideas will play when amplified by the sensationalistic press, and turned into news-cycle sound bites for the short attention span scared public, not to mention used by the Republicans. Conclusion I believe that Obama will succeed beyond our fondest hopes. (Read Linsky and Grashow in the Huffington Post for a great explanation of the scope of what President Obama is doing http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-linsky-and-alexander-grashow/obama-is-reset---are-you_b_181467.html ) I think President Obama is the finest leader we have had in my lifetime. That firm belief notwithstanding, do I think a time will come when progressives may (and should!) offer public criticism of President Obama when they disagree with him? Yes of course ! But now is not that time. Our new president needs to settle in, to do his job, to work for you and me. Now is the time to close ranks with President Obama and stand with him shoulder-to-shoulder, for the sake of what is right, just and good. Frank Schaeffer is a writer and the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback. More on Paul Krugman
 
Anne Wojcicki and Linda Avey: The Power of Pregnancy -- Working Together, Women Can Help Make it Safer Top
Every year, 130 million babies are born around the world. Yet little is known about why some women sail through their pregnancies, while others encounter issues such as infertility, miscarriage, pre-term labor, preeclampsia and gestational diabetes. Giving birth, whether in medically-advanced countries or in the developing world, is shrouded in mystery when it comes to predicting these conditions, and women have to face pregnancy with a "wait and see" approach to whether it will go well, or not. Modern medicine has certainly improved survival rates during childbirth, but research into identifying why some moms -- and which ones -- will go on to develop certain complications has been underserved. According to CDC figures, one woman in eight who gives birth is hospitalized during her pregnancy due to complications. 23andMe is launching a new research community to address that research gap. Pregnancy is difficult to study, partly because it is such a sensitive time in a woman's life. Researchers, institutional review boards and study participants have to balance the potential social benefits of any research against risks not just to the women themselves, but their developing fetuses as well. Often they decide the risk isn't worth it. Whether this has to do with men making the majority of decisions around research directives is unclear but oftentimes speculated. Up until recently, most women's health issues took a backseat to men's. There are also economic forces at work. Pregnancy is not a chronic and widespread condition like diabetes or high cholesterol. About four million American women will give birth this year, and those who do develop complications will require treatment for a few months at most. Compare that to diabetes: there are an estimated 23.6 million Americans with the condition, and the vast majority of them will have it for the rest of their lives. Even this argument may be less clear-cut than it appears, however. Because of epigenetic effects, what a mother experiences during her pregnancy could have long-term health implications for her child, even into that child's adult life. So we're inviting moms and mom-to-be to help us improve the experience of pregnancy for all women by changing the way research is done. We believe mothers like us, and soon-to-be-moms, would prefer to carry out their pregnancies armed with as much knowledge as possible, for the sake of themselves and their families. We've created a place where women can get the information they seek and drive research forward at the same time. By tapping into the broad reach of the internet, used in combination with the latest genetic analysis tools, we've created a powerful new means of not just distributing information, but for generating it as well. The hope is that this research effort will lead to discoveries about the genetic roots of pregnancy complications and, in turn, to improved preventive care and healthier future pregnancies. We founded 23andMe in part because we believe that everyone should have access to their genetic information. We also believe that grass roots initiatives can transform research and focus energy on important areas of health and wellness. By combining individuals' raw genetic data with their responses to easy, online surveys, we expect to find associations that could lead to new diagnostics and improved treatments. Scientists basically do the same thing when they perform massive searches for genes associated with diseases. We think we can do the same thing cheaper, faster and better by getting our customers directly involved. Most researchers and physicians agree that genetic information will become integrated into mainstream medical treatment but there isn't a clearly defined path to that vision. By developing a more consumer-integrated research mechanism, our goal is to close the gap from the concept of personalized health care to reality. The bottom line is that we need more data connecting our genetic profiles to what diseases we get and how we respond to drugs. It's not hard to fathom how much better our lives will be when people and their physicians have genetic barcodes indicating which drugs will work for them -- and those that don't -- and what diseases they're likely to develop. Knowing in advance the risks for pregnancy complications is just as important to us. Earlier this month, 23andMe launched an initiative that will genotype 10,000 people with Parkinson's disease in an effort to learn more about how genetics may influence that condition. We don't know yet what will come of that effort, but every person who enrolls has a very real chance of making life better for millions of people in the future. And we've already reached 20% of our goal, a recruitment rate unprecedented in traditional studies. We're excited to see our pregnancy community grow at a similar pace and have moms from around the world joining together and sharing information about their experiences. In passing their DNA down to the next generation, mothers literally give an essential piece of themselves to their children. Imagine how much more valuable that legacy will be when we really know what it means. For more information, please go to our website .
 
Patt Cottingham: Goodbye/Hello Post 2 - Consumer A Retro Concept Top
If you dust off an etymology dictionary and turn to the definition of consume, from which the word consumer comes, you will see references dating back to 12th Century words like: use up, devour, take up completely, do away with, one who consumes or destroys. This pretty much sums up what America's wanton consumerism has led to - a deep global recession in our first decade of the 21st Century. None of these words feel anything like what we are looking for in our new, more enlightened century. This is why the word consumer needs, at the very least, a face lift. "Conscious consumer" has been suggested as a more enlightened form of consumerism. However, that just seems to suggest a consciously aware devourer of "stuff". NO, the word consumer just needs to be shown the lexicon exit door leaving it behind in the 20th Century. On the other hand the word citizen dates back before 1300 borrowed from the Anglo-French citisein meaning "inhabitant of a city." Later on in 1380 its extended use in Middle English became "inhabitant of a country." Both of these give a sense of connection, shared purpose, and reason for each one of us to find ways, large and small, to serve our country's growth into a brighter future. And, that is a very good place to be for all of us. In Barack Obama's inaugural address he called on citizens (not consumers) to remake America. Declaring, "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America," Our American brand recovery can only be fully realized when we can shift from the consumer to a citizen mindset. The world is waiting for America to take the lead in this. When President Obama meets with the Group of 20 industrial and emerging market nations this week, he will be watched very closely for signals to see if has America learned from her recent failures in corporate greed and dysfunction. It could very well be a turning point for all economies to recalibrate to a more conscious, more sustainable way forward. Goodbye to the limiting branding and marketing models of consumerism. Hello to taping into the richer branding and marketing models of citizenry. Goodbye to unconscious consumption at any level Hello to mindful choices at every level Goodbye to seeing people as consumers. Hello to seeing people as citizens. More on Barack Obama
 
Carol Felsenthal: A South Shore Elementary School That Produced a President and a First Lady Top
The Sun-Times ' Neil Steinberg points out in his column Wednesday that Barack Obama is not the only president with roots in Chicago. Steinberg mentions Ronald Reagan, who, he notes, lived as an infant above a store in South Shore. He also mentions Valdus Adamkus, who lived in Chicago for 47 years before becoming president of Lithuania. And he mentions Janet Jagan (nee Rosenberg), who died last week in Guyana where she was elected president in 1997. Jagan, who succeeded her husband Cheddi Jagan as president of the South American country, also grew up in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood, where she attended Bryn Mawr Elementary School. What caught my eye about Steinberg's interesting item is that Michelle Obama also attended Bryn Mawr -- Now Bouchet Math and Science Academy--located at 73rd and Jeffery Boulevard. She's not a president, although some have suggested she has the stuff to succeed her husband. (I am steeped in all things Michelle since writing a profile of her for Chicago magazine.) She and her brother Craig both skipped second grade at the neighborhood school; Michelle went on to graduate as Bryn Mawr's salutatorian in 1977 before heading to high school at Whitney Young, then Princeton, Harvard Law School, and the law firm Sidley & Austin where she met Barack. More on Michelle Obama
 
Limbaugh: Obama May Give Gordon Brown "Anal Poisoning" Top
Wow. Whatever bet L.A. Times columnist Andrew Klavan thought he was making by daring people to listen to Rush Limbaugh and find one instance of the talk radio host saying a "single racist, hateful or stupid word" was lost today in dramatic fashion. Limbaugh went waaaaaay over the top in insulting Gordon Brown with a mental image that one must work at to un-think about, warning that if the British Prime Minister keeps "slobbering" over President Barack Obama, he'll "come down with anal poisoning and may die from it." [LISTEN.] Naturally, how Limbaugh gained such innovative insight into the epidemiological vectors of saliva-borne ass toxins remains an open question. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Barack Obama
 
Dem Senators: Use Rejected Stimulus Funds To Pay For "Cash For Clunkers" Top
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested in a statement today that stimulus funds rejected by Republican governors be used to fund a " Cash for Clunkers " program that would offer cash incentives for drivers who turn in their old cars for newer, fuel-efficient models. The Cash for Clunkers plan picked up some momentum this week when President Obama endorsed the concept. "The President expressed his support for this kind of legislation this week, and now it's a matter of finding the funding to pay for these incentives," Feinstein and Schumer said in their statement. "We believe that there are several possible options, including the stimulus funds that have been turned down for any reason. These would include funds that have been rejected by the governors of several states and money set aside for stimulus projects that are not ready to go."
 
Todd Palin: Spending $150K On Clothes "Out Of Our Control" Top
WASHINGTON — The husband of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says the Republican Party's lavish spending on her wardrobe during the presidential campaign was "out of our control." In the May issue of Men's Journal, Todd Palin was asked about the more than $150,000 that the Republican National Committee spent on clothes, accessories and beauty services for the GOP vice presidential nominee. He defended his wife, saying she was focused on preparation for her debate with Joe Biden. "She never went to Saks, or any of that stuff," he said. "You come into a campaign late, you put all your trust into the team, you got people who are working on VP ops for a long time, and we're just focused on debate prep. I couldn't give a rat's (expletive) about clothes. Please. I mean these are my Sunday go-to-meeting jeans!" Sarah Palin and Republican presidential nominee John McCain faced a storm of criticism over the tens of thousands of dollars spent at high-end stores to dress the Alaska governor and her family. Some of the purchases included a $75,062 shopping spree at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, one for $49,425 from Saks Fifth Avenue and $4,902 at Atelier, a stylish men's store. The buys were a stark contrast to Sarah Palin's image as a "hockey mom" who calls herself part of an average, middle-class American family. Sarah Palin has said she neither wanted nor asked for the wardrobe. Some of the clothing was returned immediately because it was the wrong size, or for other reasons, the McCain-Palin campaign said at the time. The Republican National Committee has said the remaining items would be donated to charity. Todd Palin told the magazine that his wife had been through tough campaigns before becoming McCain's running mate. "You got to remember, it's not like they just plucked us off the fishing boat with scales still under our nails, you know?" he said. Todd Palin, a champion snowmobiler racer, also told the magazine about his temporary Secret Service protection during the campaign. "They liked cruising around with me," he said, "because we went to the Arctic Cat snowmachine factory and then drove up to North Dakota, went to a Penn State-Michigan football game, went to a NASCAR race. Rough duty, hanging out with me." The Men's Journal issue reaches newsstands April 10.
 
Lawrence Lessig: A Big Moment Top
Yesterday, politicians across the country scurried to call big campaign contributors, begging for last-minute cash before the quarterly reporting period ended at midnight. Also yesterday, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced their groundbreaking bill to replace special-interest-funded elections with citizen-funded elections for Congress, so our representatives can spend more time working for the people they're supposed to represent. And today, Change Congress unveiled a new online "whip count" tool that makes it easy for citizens to call our representatives and demand they support this bill. The Wall Street crisis was a wake-up call for many people. For years, financial institutions like Bank of America and AIG donated millions to the very people who were supposed to regulate them. The result is obvious. What's less obvious to some is the solution. But thanks to Durbin, Specter, and a bipartisan array of sponsors in the House, the solution is now staring us in the face. The Durbin-Specter bill would put in place a new hybrid of public funding plus Obama-style small donations for congressional candidates. Candidates would receive a substantial chuck of funding if they agreed to raise no more than $100 per person. Plus, those small donations would be matched 4 to 1 and be augmented by reduced-cost TV ads. As I've written before , this proposal has the support of nearly 70% of Americans and would save taxpayers billions of dollars a year, the essence of fiscal responsibility. In announcing the bill, Senator Durbin said this : It is much better to spend your time out meeting the people you want to represent...if we spend a little more time with folks who aren't as wealthy, I think it's better for us and for the system. Plus, we have a big agenda here...if you even knew how much time we spend raising money or talking about raising money or begging people to take national trips to raise money, it's just nothing short of amazing." We urgently need to pressure Congress to support this reform . Some current and former Google employees volunteered with Change Congress to help design our new tool, replicating the "whip count" process that congressional leaders use to count votes, but putting this power in your hands instead. But crowd-sourcing the "whipping" of votes only works if regular people across the country each donate a minute or two to help change their democracy? Can you take a moment to help whip the vote ? Together, we can Change Congress.
 
Scarlett Johansson's Sexy New Moet Ads (PHOTOS) Top
Scarlett Johansson is the new brand ambassador for champagne Moet & Chandon. The newly-brunette bombshell was the guest of honor last week at a Moet party in London, and now ads of her promoting the bubbly are out, taken while she was still blonde. Notice the subtle champagne flute before her toes in one. PHOTOS: More on Celebrity Skin
 
Obama, Nascar In April Fools Prank "Gone Too Far" Top
Car and Driver magazine is now apologizing for a prank "gone too far," after they announced earlier Wednesday morning that President Obama had ordered Chevrolet and Dodge to pull NASCAR funding by the end of the season if the failing auto companies hope to receive further federal assistance. The Orlando Sentinel reports In a move sure to spark outrage, the White House announced today that GM and Chrysler must cease participation in NASCAR at the end of the 2009 season if they hope to receive any additional financial aid from the government ... A complete withdrawal from America's premier racing series is expected to save more than $250 million between GM and Chrysler, a substantial amount considering the drastic measures being implemented elsewhere. Although the story was clearly labeled as an April Fool's prank, it was making rounds on the internet, and upset fans were all a-twitter. The article has since been removed from the magazine's site, which notes that Car and Driver "has a proud tradition of April Fools' Day jokes stretching back 30 years."
 
Betwa Sharma: League of Democracies Top
The United Nations has failed to deliver international peace and security. Power politics and national interest have crippled the Security Council even as humanitarian crises claimed millions of lives. The purpose and relevance of the UN is being contested. The League of Democracies has been proposed as an alternate international organization. This was a brainchild of the Princeton Project, a bipartisan initiative to bolster national security in the United States, three years ago. It was endorsed by Senator John McCain as part of his foreign policy during the presidential race. The advocates of the scheme have also included several of President Barack Obama's top foreign policy advisors during the elections. Accusations of a "neo-con" agenda have been vehemently denied. The basis of this proposition is that US leadership, Democratic or Republican, needs to band together with other democracies to solve this century's problems, unprecedented in scale and impact. From Rwanda to Darfur, UN failure to take decisive action has triggered public disillusionment. Most recently, Intelligence Squared, Britain's leading debate society fronted the motion: "The United Nations is terminally paralyzed: the democratic world needs a forum of its own." Six leading diplomats from Europe, US and India spoke- for and against- in London. After hearing the arguments, the audience voted overwhelmingly against the motion. Branding the entire organization as useless is clearly inaccurate. Several achievements can be ticked off-- facilitating decolonization, consistent work of organizations like UNICEF, World Food Program and the UNHCR, deployment of thousands of peacekeepers and setting up of international criminal tribunals. On the other hand, the nerve center of the UN- the Security Council (SC)- is severely damaged. The critical question, then, is whether the League of Democracies will do a better job maintaining international peace and security. The plan is that when the SC is crippled, the League can organize international interventions and authorize the use of force. This assumes that like-minded states, which share common values and ideals, can turn words into action. Besides the practical challenges that the subtraction of China and Russia pose to the plan, critics also point out several conceptual flaws. It is difficult to establish the criterion for entry point into the League. The Project calls for regular multiparty elections, a criterion that has been dismissed as overly simplistic. "Who is to decide what is a democracy," said Elazar Barkan, who teaches international relations and human rights at Columbia University. "Iran has elections but is seen as a dictatorship." The doors maybe closed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran but open to an Iran under a reformist like former president Mohamed Khatami--a skewed standard. "What about Palestine?" asked Sir Jeremy Greenstock, speaking against the motion at the debate? Greenstock, UK's former ambassador to the UN was referring to the complicated situation on the Gaza strip, which is governed by Hamas- a group that came to power through elections in 2006, but is branded as a terrorist outfit by the US and Europe. Further, experts point out that the assumption that all democracies behave similarly is flawed. Regional and local environments carve out diverse priorities. India and Indonesia do not agree with the West on many issues. On the indictment of President Omar-al Bashir of Sudan by the International Criminal Court (ICC), South Africa holds a position contrary to France, Britain and the US. These differences are not restricted to the North-South divide. Foreign policy dissimilarities emerge on either side of the Atlantic, as well. The aggressive position assumed by Americans against Russia is not shared by the Europeans who prefer to cajole the regional giant in a gentler way. There is a stark contrast in the perception of international justice. While most European states are members of the ICC, the US energetically opposes the world tribunal. Foreign policy analysts also note the fault in the argument that democratic states follow the rule book more than non-democratic states. The past four years have seen two acts of aggression contrary to international law by Israel- a democratic state. Membership in a League will not inhibit a state from protecting its national interest. Will, for instance, the US hold its ally Saudi Arabia responsible for its objectionable human rights record? Both India and the US will continue to turn a blind eye to the imperfections of Sudan and Saudi Arabia, respectively, for the oil. League bashers warn against dividing the world into the democratic and non-democratic states, believing that such a division will ferment worldwide turmoil. At the debate, Lord Malloch Brown, Britain's foreign minister, said that it was wiser for the democracies to form a strong caucus within the UN than out of it. A strong and united front would eventually influence non-democratic states. "Jaw jaw is better than war war," he said, quoting Winston Churchill. Supporters of the League make two strong points. The first is that the UN is a 20th century relic, which is not equipped to handle 21st century problems. Second, the SC has failed countless times. The international community, however, has not been able to offer a workable substitute for this unsatisfactory mechanism. The only recourse is to gradually reform the Security Council, according to Barkan. "It will be a long and frustrating process," he said. Reforming the SC has been on the "To do" list for a long time. Till date, it has proven to be an abstract muddle. But, reorganizing the Council will not automate a flurry of action. The real paralysis is caused by the lack of commitment of its members. Likewise, replacing one institution is not the answer. Finally, what is fair? A League, without China, Russia and a chunk of the Middle East, can successfully sanction Iran, Burma and Sudan. But, will it pass judgment on American and Israeli adventurism? Even now, international norms are subject to power dynamics. At least, in the UN the underdogs can throw a tantrum. A club of like-minded democracies is the imposition of a black and white worldview- not the best antidote to the far grayer shade of global mayhem. More on Darfur
 
Scott Lilly: Should We Be Grateful to China for Buying U.S. Treasuries? Top
Read the entire report at AmericanProgress.org . The current economic relationship between the United States and China is perilous for both countries. The nature of that peril is quite different than is commonly perceived. China's large and rapidly growing stash of U.S. treasuries is only part of much larger debt issue that is driven by trade deficits rather than the size or direction of U.S. fiscal policy. In fact, there is little evidence to support a significant connection between budget deficits and trade deficits given U.S. experience over the past 18 years. U.S. trade deficits have grown from $80 billion in 1990 to $680 billion in 2008. Yet most of this growth took place during years in which the budget deficit or surplus was improving. The United States' fiscal condition improved steadily during between 1995 and 2006, swinging from a $164 billion deficit to a $236 billion surplus. There was not a commensurate improvement in the trade deficit during this period as many economists might have predicted; instead, the United States' trade deficit quadrupled going from $96 billion in 1995 to $380 billion in 2000. Again between 2004 and 2006 when the budget deficit shrank from $412 billion to $248 billion, the trade deficit continued upward from $607 billion to $753 billion. China has played a central role in the growth of U.S. trade deficits, and that role has grown steadily more important with the passage of time. China has accounted for 60 percent of the growth in the trade deficit since 2000. Unlike most nations around the globe and throughout history, China's interest in exporting has extended well beyond earning the foreign currency needed to purchase goods and services from overseas. China has dedicated 40 percent of its output to export production, severely limited the purchases of goods and services from outside its own borders, and built gigantic foreign reserves at the same time. Chinese leaders have furthermore made several key policy decisions that severely limit how the country can spend those reserves. Their desire to keep their own currency weak against other leading currencies--the dollar in particular--means that China cannot trade the dollars they collect on world currency markets. It can only invest in dollar denominated assets, namely U.S. real estate, equities, and debt. The U.S. Treasury has identified a significant portion of the dollars that have been reinvested into the United States by the Chinese since 2000. Of the $1.4 trillion in trade surpluses during that period, $96 billion went to buying stock in U.S. companies, $16 billion was invested in corporate bonds, $474 billion was used to buy the debt of government chartered organizations such as Fannie Mae, and $439 billion was put into U.S. treasuries. The remaining $400 billion remained in Chinese banks, was invested in American real estate, or entered the United States through foreign intermediaries and credited to the holdings of the countries in which the purchases occurred rather than the ultimate owner of the holdings. China's use of its export earnings has remained relatively constant over the past eight years. The portion allocated to ownership of corporate stocks and bonds has fluctuated between 5 and 11 percent. The portion allocated to treasuries and debt from government-chartered organizations has fluctuated between 89 and 94 percent. Examining the pattern of Chinese investments over the past year provides significant insight into how China is likely to invest the $300 billion or so it is likely to make from the United States in export and investment earnings during the coming year. China is struggling to learn more about investing in U.S. equity markets, but neither Chinese leaders nor the Chinese people are likely to develop sufficient tolerance for risk that ventures very far from the current pattern of dividing 90 percent of the nation's growing horde of dollars between U.S. government chartered debt and treasuries. If China were to substantially reduce the amount of treasuries it purchases and instead invest in real estate, stock, or corporate debt, it could be helpful for the U.S. economy. It would reduce the record high spread between what businesses must pay to borrow money and what the U.S. government must pay. Furthermore, the current reservoir of global savings, which is more than $15 trillion per year), is likely to grow due to savings from business and consumer caution. The economic downturn and investors' desire for safety in turbulent markets points to continued high demand for treasuries even in the face of lower Chinese participation. But China's accumulation of U.S. debt is unsustainable. It will ultimately force a devaluation of the dollar against other world currencies and a diminution of the value of Chinese holdings. Beyond that, China's current growth strategies are absurd at their foundation. China has a per capita gross domestic product that is lower than Congo, Namibia, Albania, or the Dominican Republic. It redirects half of that per capita GDP back into savings, which denies impoverished Chinese citizens much of the quality of life that their labors have earned them. Ordinary workers in China, who consider themselves lucky to be able to get a $40 a week job in an export-oriented factory, are loaning nearly $1 billion a day to a country where median family income approaches $1,000 a week. China's policies appear to have a lot more to do with politics than economics. The ruling elite are the revolutionaries' grandchildren and great grandchildren. They know that the whims of the masses can be fickle and that the occupants of the Forbidden City can be driven from its gates. They know that the nation is severely divided by region, dialect, and ethnicity. They know that more fully sharing in the fruits of China's success would make the economy more difficult to control, and while freer economies offer many benefits, they tend to involve cycles that can entail serious political risk. A realignment of this relationship will eventually be forced by the fundamental unsustainability of the status quo. Yet a precipitous realignment will be extremely painful to the economic wellbeing of both countries and the world economy, as well. If steps are taken now to rebalance the relationship the course forward can be much smoother and living standards in both countries will be placed at substantially less risk. Scott Lilly is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. More on Economy
 
Mark Weisbrot: G-20: Welcome to the Multi-Polar World Top
The run-up to the G-20 meeting has been interesting and colorful. President Lula Da Silva of Brazil declared that "this crisis was caused by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing." His full remarks made it clear that he was not promoting biological race theories but calling attention to the injustice that the vast majority of the world, who happen to be both poor and non-white, should suffer for the greed and stupidity of a few. China also let loose with an uncharacteristic broadside against the United States , basically saying that we (the Chinese) have gotten our act together and are mobilizing massive resources internally to counter the downturn; now how about you clowns who made this mess step up to the plate, before we take more losses on your stinking treasury bonds? It was worded somewhat less rudely, but still a stunning departure from the "hide brilliance, cherish obscurity" motto that has guided Chinese foreign policy. This is what happens when you change the composition of the Ad Hoc Committee to Run the World (the G-7), and the media spotlight wanders over to some of those previously excluded. The change was meant to be symbolic, but even symbolic changes can shift the debate, as new actors find themselves in the middle of an international forum where they can try to show some leadership. Welcome to the multi-polar world. It's not here yet but the direction is clear. President Obama will discover this week that as much as he is loved and respected around the world, he can't reverse the declining influence of Washington that his predecessor clumsily accelerated. U.S. leadership is taking an immediate hit because it was at the forefront in creating the current world recession. It's hard to believe that Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency of France barely two years ago by promising to make French capitalism more like the American brand. The idea that the "American model" was superior in economic terms has been promoted for years by the European press even though the statistical evidence has always been weak or non-existent (e.g. France has a productivity level about the same as the United States). But from now on these ideas will be a much harder sell. Still, the debate surrounding the G-20 meeting is missing quite a bit on the economic issues. The problem of asset bubbles did not even make it into the G-20's draft communiqué . Yet the housing bubble in the United States was the primary cause of its deep recession, and contributed enormously to the financial crisis - including through the over-leveraging of financial institutions and the toxic assets and derivatives that they spread around the world. This is also the second recession in six years in the U.S. -- which comprises a quarter of the world's economy -- that was caused by the bursting of an asset bubble (the 2001 recession was caused by the bursting of the stock market bubble). Housing bubbles in Spain, the U.K., Ireland, and other countries also contributed to their severe recessions this time around. How to prevent asset bubbles from reaching dangerous proportions - which is actually much easier than the other forms of regulation being discussed - should be a major item on the agenda. But it is the economic issues of the developing world that are most obscured and/or neglected. For most developing countries, the current economic crisis is a more acute form of what they have experienced for most of the last three decades - commonly known outside the United States as the era of neoliberalism. Since 1980, there has been a sharp slowdown in economic growth in the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries. As would be expected during a long period of reduced economic growth, there was also reduced progress in the areas of life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and other social indicators. This slowdown in economic growth, and its accompanying negative effects, is not attributable to "diminishing returns" - in other words, it is far beyond what would be expected from the natural course of individual countries facing reduced growth potential at a higher stage of development. A likely explanation for this massive economic failure is that it had something to do with the neoliberal economic policy reforms that were introduced since the 1980s: the abandonment of development strategies, the introduction of much more restrictive monetary and fiscal policies, an indiscriminate opening to international trade and capital flows, and of course the de-regulation and excesses of the financial sector - including its excessive political influence - that the world is now forced to recognize as harmful. It is noteworthy that China, which has had the fastest growing economy in world history over the last 30 years, has mostly avoided these neoliberal reforms, even as it moved away from central planning and began a period of export-led growth. A serious discussion of what has caused this long-term development failure is long overdue, but still not forthcoming. On the contrary, the draft G-20 communiqué reaffirms the importance of completing the current Doha round of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a set of rules that is so tilted against developing countries that it would not stand a chance of being approved by the legislatures of many WTO member countries today. Ironically, the WTO's Financial Services Agreement seeks to establish rules that would make it more difficult for countries to undertake the financial regulations that this crisis has so painfully demonstrated are needed. There is no talk of reforming the WTO - only moving "forward." The same is true for the IMF, which just a decade ago was Washington's main avenue of influence in developing countries. The collapse of the IMF's creditors' cartel in middle-income countries, in which many governments could not get credit from other sources without first agreeing to IMF conditions, was one of the most important changes in the international financial system since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in 1973. The U.S. Treasury department, with help from Europe and Japan, seeks to revive their lost power in a time of crisis by tripling the IMF's resources to $750 billion and making the Fund the arbiter of conditionality for loans to countries hard hit by the crisis. But regardless of how much money is added to the IMF coffers, the clock will not be so easily rolled back. Nor will the G-20 move us forward to a new financial architecture, as some had hoped. It took a Great Depression and a World War to get us the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944; fortunately we have not had either of these yet. And the leaders of the rich countries today are far more steeped in neoliberal ideology than the architects of Bretton Woods. In economics, as in the physical sciences during the Middle Ages, a significant amount of knowledge has been lost since the time of Keynes. For now, at least, the most important economic reforms will take place more quietly and without the fanfare of the G-20. China's decision this week to provide $10.2 billion dollars in a currency swap arrangement with Argentina is an unprecedented (in this hemisphere) and prime example. The creditors' cartel that forced Argentina to accept disastrous conditions from the IMF a decade ago is no longer operative there. That is progress, and there will be much more in the coming years, as national governments seek alternatives to failed policies, and co-operate with each other outside the structure of unreformed neoliberal institutions. This column was published by the Guardian Unlimited on April 1, 2009. More on G-20 Summit
 
Disgrasian: That Chinese Sperm Bank Photo: You've Been Shanghaied Top
I saw this NSFW photo on BuzzFeed this week, allegedly taken at a Shanghai sperm bank , and my immediate train of thought was, Yick Yuck What the Fuck Their Sperm Works but Their Hands Don't Being a Woman Blows . And then that quivery Kate Bush song, "This Woman's Work," came on in my head, and I was pissed. But I conducted a little investigation and found that this picture first surfaced on the interwebz in late 2008, and it was immediately dismissed as a hoax by officials at Renji Hospital in Shanghai, where the sperm bank is located. So why, then, does this meme still persist? A coupla theories: Because the world needs more Asian massage parlor jokes Because everything in China is wack and fucked-up and backwards, unlike in the West Because Asians are inscrutable, as are their customs The only good to cum (yuk yuk, me so funny) out of this photo is that I'm no longer outraged, I'm just bored. More on Asia
 
JOHN CALIPARI CONTRACT: Kentucky Pays $31.65 MILLION Top
LEXINGTON, Ky. — John Calipari cautioned the Kentucky faithful that he was not the "grand poobah" or "emperor" _ even if his eight-year, $31.65 million contract as the Wildcats' new coach pays him like one. Before his introductory news conference Wednesday, Kentucky's athletics board approved the contract that will make Calipari the highest paid coach in the nation. Athletic director Mitch Barnhart defended the salary, saying that the university paid a premium price to lure Calipari away Memphis because he can flat out coach. "I'm a regular guy, folks," Calipari said. "I do not walk on water; I do not have a magic wand." He might need to find one. Kentucky fired Billy Gillispie on Friday after two seasons and he went 40-27, including losing 14 games this season and failing to lead the Wildcats into the NCAA tournament. "The challenge of being here is (not) competing for national titles, but winning them," Calipari said. "But that's what you buy into when you come here." And Kentucky has demonstrated its willingness to pay whatever it takes to back to that level. "We're the pre-eminent basketball program in the country and if we want a premier coach then that may be what it takes to get it done," Barnhart said. Calipari's decision to take the job didn't come easy. He spent more than a day mulling Kentucky's lucrative offer while reporters camped outside his home. He told his Memphis players he was leaving during a meeting on Tuesday evening before hopping a plane to Lexington. The university received a faxed copy of the 20-page contract around 9 p.m. just before Calipari arrived in his new home. "This decision was extremely hard," Calipari said. "It wasn't coming here, this was easy. It was leaving Memphis. The support that my family and I received over the years there ... to walk away from that was very difficult." Calipari had such strong ties to Memphis that after his UK introduction, he was expected to fly back there for an afternoon news conference outside his home. Memphis officials planned a separate news conference to discuss the future of the program. It's a future Calipari said should include the highly touted recruits who have already committed to play for the Tigers next year. "What I would hope is all the players that signed at Memphis will go to Memphis," Calipari said. "That's my hope." Besides, he thinks he should have his pick of the nation's top players at Kentucky. His first recruiting pitch may be to Kentucky stars Patrick Patterson and Jodie Meeks. Both were weighing whether to head to the NBA. Having one of the nation's most successful coaches could help them change their mind. Calipari, 50, knows what he is getting into at Kentucky. He said before he made his decision, he reached out to several former Wildcats coaches. "I talked to coach (Joe B.) Hall. I talked to Tubby Smith. I talked to Eddie Sutton. And I talked to Rick Pitino about this job. And ... none of those coaches would trade their time here for anything in the world. "This is pretty heady stuff for me." The numbers are dizzying, even if he said it wasn't about the money. Calipari will be paid $3.3 million next season with a small raise to $3.4 million 2010-2014. He'll receive $2,850,000 a year from 2015-2017. The contract is guaranteed, though the athletic department will pay just $400,000 a season. The rest of Calipari's salary will come from multi-media rights contract, said Barnhart. "If done correctly, the investment in a coach will pay for itself and yield returns for the overall program in general," Barnhart said. Calipari is 445-140 in 17 seasons, leading both Memphis and Massachusetts to the Final Four. He said he has long dreamed of coaching college basketball's winningest program. "This was a dream I've had since we brought our team down here," Calipari said. "I believe it was 1992, we had won the Alaskan Shootout, came down here to play and I could not believe the environment. At that point I said _ 'I would love to coach there someday.'" That day has come and he has Calipari has work to do. The Wildcats have not been in the Final Four the past 11 seasons. And Calipari cautioned Kentucky's fan base not to expect too much too soon, as he had informed Barnhart and university president Lee Todd. "I told Dr. Todd and Mitch, if you want something to happen in a year, do not hire me," Calipari said. "That's now how I do things." Barnhart said after firing Gillispie that he wanted to hire a coach who embraced what the Kentucky job meant, on and off the court. Calipari sounded like he understood what they meant. "Our goals will be to make the entire commonwealth proud of this team, proud of their program, proud of their team by our work on the court and our integrity off the court," he said. Calipari's deal eclipses the $3.5 million average salary of Florida's Billy Donovan and dwarfs those of Calipari's predecessors Pitino, Smith and Gillispie. Pitino, now the coach at rival Louisville, never made more than $2 million a season during his remarkably successful eight-year run at Kentucky. Smith's compensation neared $2.1 million at the end of his decade with the program and Gillispie received a base salary of $2.3 million with another $750,000 available in incentives. The salary more than doubles the $1.6 million salary of Kentucky football coach Rich Brooks, a rarity in a conference where football reigns. Calipari has a reputation as one of the nation's best recruiters, and it's possible some of his latest recruits will follow him to Lexington. Still, the cupboard is hardly bare at Kentucky. At Kentucky he has the high-profile and rich history he lacked at Memphis and UMass. One look around the seven national championship banners around the school's glistening practice facility offered proof. "They don't put banners up here for anything else except national champions," he said. "That's why you want to coach here. We want to compete every year and hopefully add to this wall."
 
Iran-US Conference Talks Didn't Happen According To Iran Top
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran dismissed American government reports that senior U.S. and Iran envoys had a cordial _ and promising _ face-to-face exchange at an international conference, saying Wednesday that no "talks" took place. The competing accounts of Tuesday's encounter in the Netherlands appeared to reflect the different approaches to overtures to end the United States' and Iran's nearly 30-year diplomat standoff. Washington has seemed eager to build on President Barack Obama's surprise video message last month to seek engagement with Iran's ruling clerics. Iran has _ in public, at least _ been far cooler to making immediate contacts, but has not fully rejected some openings in the future. Iran's take on The Hague conference was just as nuanced _ not flatly denying that senior U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke and Iranian diplomat Mehdi Akhundzadeh met at a conference to discuss Afghanistan but concentrating on the semantics of whether official talks took place. "Maybe this _ the report on the meeting by the U.S. _ indicates that the other party is hasty to take advantage of the conference," Akhundzadeh was quoted by the official Islamic Republic News Agency. The statement noted that any exchange that occurred at the Afghanistan conference was not comparable with official talks, such as the ambassador-level meetings between the United States and Iran to discuss Iraq. "Rest assured," IRNA quoted Akhundzadeh, Iran's deputy foreign minister, "that if there is a decision to have talks with U.S., like the talks on Iraq, all will be informed about it. There is nothing to hide." Tehran-based political analyst Saeed Leilaz interpreted the Iranian response as trying to deflect any domestic suspicions of secret contacts. The issue of outreach to Washington is particularly sensitive before the June 12 presidential elections. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is seeking another four-year term, is careful not to anger his hard-line base with the suggestion of a quick outreach to the Obama administration. "Iran is carefully approaching the issue since confirmation of the meeting will have consequences inside Iran and the Islamic World. For more than one generation, Iran has portrayed the U.S. as the main enemy," he said. "Anti-American slogans by Iran will last for years even if the two countries resume ties." Significantly, Tuesday's reported meeting took place in an international conference on Afghanistan _ an issue many analysts believe is the most promising place to start in any thawing of U.S.-Iranian relations. Iran was a longtime foe of the Taliban and the two nations cooperated in 2001 in the initial U.S. invasion. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton described the encounter as encouraging but not "substantive." "They agreed to stay in touch," Clinton said at the close of the conference on Afghan security and development. Last month, Obama offered to begin "honest" talks with Iran's leaders in a clear break of past U.S. policy to shun the ruling clerics and encourage pro-Western dissidents in Iran. In response, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejected the overtures for a quick thaw in relations, but did not fully close the door on some future contacts, saying "should you change, our behavior will change, too." The U.S. and Iran have been estranged for nearly 30 years, since young Iranians stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took more than 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. But envoys from both nations have met occasionally before for both formal talks _ as with Iraq _ and informal exchanges. In 2007, then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki exchanged only brief pleasantries at a conference in the Egyptian resort Sharm el-Sheik. Hopes for deeper contacts where dashed when Mottaki decided to skip a delegates' dinner, apparently objecting to the low-cut dress of a violinist and a bar within view of the VIP table. ___ Murphy contributed to this report from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. More on Iran
 
Major Conservative Site Decries Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory Top
Just in time for April Fool's Day, Frontpage Magazine's Andrew Walden has a post up , beseeching at long last his fellow travelers to cease promulgating one of the more ornate and insane conspiracy theories about Barack Obama: A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama's upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama's numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu. What Walden is describing is the so-called "Birther" movement, of people who believe that Obama is not an American citizen. You see, by their thinking, a elaborate conspiracy and cover-up has been staged by Obama's parents, various foreigners, state and federal officials, and any number of bureaucrats to make it seem like Barack Obama is an American citizen when actually he is not. Then, the members of this strange cabal, having pulled off their diabolical trick, sat back for a number of decades, in the hopes that Obama might one day run for president. It's the perfect crime, obviously. For an added challenge, they gave Obama the middle name "Hussein" - betting that decades later, the United States would install a dictator in Iraq by that name and then, even later, go to war with that guy, twice! I tell you, it's genius. So it's nice to see someone, anyone, strongly inveighing against this nonsense. But if you look closely, what Walden is actually doing is substituting an utterly insane conspiracy theory with a thunderously obtuse one: By refusing media requests for a look at the actual paper birth certificate, Obama's campaign gave sly backhanded assistance to the forgery hype. The internet release of the birth certificate via hyper-partisan website Daily Kos on June 12 before posting it on a campaign website was likely calculated to fuel the frenzy. This is Obama's Gramscian strategy designed to redirect the opposition down a blind alley. It was so successful that Hawai'i government offices found themselves inundated with telephone calls from mainland voters in the days before the November 4 election. Ahh, you see! This whole annoying "Birther" phenomenon happened PRECISELY AT THE MOMENT OBAMA PLANNED IT, so he could...uhm...tie up some phones in Hawaii? Because Hawaiian government officials would have prevented a "Granscian strategy designed to redirect the opposition down a blind alley," where presumably all the "many questions about Barack Obama's numerous hard-left alliances," would have actually been raised. Leaving aside the fact that all of those supposed alliances were raised, repeatedly, by the media, over and over and over and over again (to the point that the reason McCain didn't raise them again was simply because their campaign, so bent on winning the news cycle, wouldn't have derived any benefit from picking over old news), there was another way this cunning Obama stratagem could have been foiled: EVERYONE COULD HAVE BEEN PERFECTLY REASONABLE ABOUT OBAMA'S OBVIOUSLY LEGAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Walden concludes his piece by saying, "It is time for folks to stop being played by the Obama campaign and drop this counter productive 'phony birth certificate' nonsense." And next year at this time, he can call on people to drop this counter productive "Obama manipulated the phony birth certificate nonsense" nonsense. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Barack Obama
 
Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau: Is Katherine Heigl Really Such a %$#@! Top
I get asked that question. A lot. You see, five years ago I wrote and directed an independent, low budget film starring Katherine Heigl called Side Effects . The film was loosely based on my ten years selling pills for big pharma and was just now ( finally ) released on DVD by Warner Bros. For 16 days Katherine, I and the rest of the crew worked 12 to 14 hours a day. She napped on my couch (we couldn't afford a 'trailer'), she played with my kids (we couldn't afford a babysitter), she knitted on my porch. She even wore my underwear. Given the current rumor mill about Katherine's on and off set antics as well as the time/money/stress involved with an indie production, most people assume that I must have had a nightmare on my hands during the shoot. The opposite was true. Katherine showed up ready to work . She was in 95 percent of the scenes and had to undergo multiple location, hair, makeup, and outfit changes each day with little to no privacy. She was tireless. Flawless. And gracious to everyone from key producers down to the lowest level extras and production assistants. But I most appreciated her humor. As a first-time director taking on a controversial issue and a powerful industry, I can tell you I needed all the joking I could get. Katherine had the cast and crew laughing their asses off from sun-up to late at night and I think most people who worked on the film agree that they had the time of their life. Breaking up is hard to do But like any production, once the curtain closed we were body slammed back to reality. For Katherine, that meant flying from our set to her first week on Grey's Anatomy . For the rest of the cast and crew, it meant moving on to the next gig. And for me, it meant that the real (and much less fun) work of post-production, endless promotion and media appearances was just beginning. We all moved on. I'd be lying through my teeth if I said this has been a complete love fest with the now fifth highest paid actress in Hollywood. There were moments on set that were challenging, but they were often more situational than personal. There have also been a few concerns, question marks and body blocks since the shoot in terms of bringing the film to market. This has led to some head-scratching. Is it overt? Or has the fatigue and white knuckles of independent filmmaking seriously messed with my imagination? And in the end, does it really matter? Because when all the beans are counted... Katherine delivered. I got a warm, funny, and authentic performance out of her. And for that I am grateful. Every one of us with a need to know message understands how difficult it can be to reach beyond the choir. Because of Katherine and her rising star, a much larger audience will inadvertently see what happens behind-the-scenes of the pharmaceutical industry and hopefully think twice before popping that next prescription pill. These are our families, friends and lovers who would never seek out such an inconvenient truth, but they'd definitely watch Katherine Heigl light up the screen. Gotta love that.
 
Dems Investigating Bush Administration Role In AIG Collapse Top
A House oversight panel is investigating the role Bush administration officials and regulators played in the collapse of American International Group. The first step of the investigation begins Thursday, House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Towns (D-N.Y.) tells the Huffington Post, when the committee hears testimony from former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg. In November 2004, the Bush Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed not to prosecute AIG for allegedly helping companies fudge their books. In exchange, AIG agreed to host a government-appointed auditor in company meetings. At the time, Greenberg said it brought "finality to the claims raised by the SEC and the Department of Justice." Towns said that Greenberg should be able to identify Bush administration officials involved in the decision-making around the settlement. Towns added the committee wants to know what Bush administration regulators knew about AIG's credit default swaps and other highly risky positions that brought the company down. Asked if he would be directly pursuing Bush administration officials, Towns said: "No doubt about it. That's the reason I want to talk to Greenberg first. He might even point some folks out. That's of great interest to us." Towns said the committee will also examine the AIG collapse to determine what legislation might be needed to make another occurrence less likely. Greenberg stepped down in 2005. "The committees have not talked to Mr. Greenberg. They've only talked to Liddy" -- AIG's current head Edward Liddy -- "and Liddy has basically said, 'It was Greenberg's problem,'" Towns said. "You can't have an investigation just moving forward. You have to look back as well. And that's what we're doing," said Towns. The Bush administration's preferred way of dealing with corporate scandal was to defer prosecution. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Bush prosecutors made 103 deferred and nonprosecution agreements with U.S. companies between 2002 and 2009. While Clinton was president, meanwhile, only 11 such pacts were entered into. Criminal charges could result from the investigation, Towns said. "All kinds of things could happen depending on what we find. And we're looking," he said. "Our eyes are wide open. Wherever the road leads us, that's where we plan to go."
 
Obama: Media Fabricated Rift With European Allies Top
President Obama this morning denied the widespread reports of major rifts between him and some key European allies about the best way to approach the global financial crisis. At a joint press availability with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he accused the press corps of hyperbole. More on Barack Obama
 
Obama Gives Queen Elizabeth An iPod Top
President Obama gave Queen Elizabeth an iPod during their private meeting at Buckingham Palace, the BBC reports . "It contains footage of her state visit to the US in May 2007. The Queen has given the president a silver framed photograph of herself and her husband. The official picture is what she gives all visiting dignitaries." The gift exchange was closely watched, the Wall Street Journal reports , "ever since the British press took high exception to the modest presents the Obamas gave Gordon Brown and wife on their visit to the White House last month: a box set of DVDs, allegedly in the wrong format, and a couple of models of Marine One for the Brown boys." A slideshow of the Obamas meeting with the Queen: And video: Read all about the G-20 summit and Obama's European trip at HuffPost's G-20 BigNews page . More on Photo Galleries
 

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)