Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

John Prendergast: Terrorists, Pirates and Anarchy, Somalia Style Top
Somalia has become the poster child for transnational threats emanating from Africa. By sea, pirates much more dangerous than their predecessors from centuries past prowl the Indian Ocean and Red Sea waterways and extort tens of millions of dollars in ransom. By land, extremist militias connected to al-Qaeda units ensure that Somalia remains anarchic and the only country in the world without a functioning central government. Until recently, this seemed to matter little to most Americans, as our only perceived connection to Somalia was the receding memory of the Black Hawk Down incident over 15 years ago, when 18 American soldiers were killed in what was thought to be a humanitarian mission. Suddenly, though, Americans have reconnected to Somalia in two distinct ways. First, the drama that unfolded on the high seas which finally led to the rescue of the American ship captain from his pirate captors has provided a glimpse into a modern day profession that most of us had thought was limited to Johnny Depp movies and the shores of Tripoli. Ships carrying oil, tanks, and other prized cargo have been taken hostage by Somali pirates, and a naval armada from Europe, Asia and North America hasn't stopped these sea-based predators. Second, at least 20 American citizens have gone to Somalia and joined jihadist militias there, mostly to fight against Ethiopian forces which until recently occupied swathes of southern Somalia. These Americans joined the al-Shabab organization, which the U.S. classifies as a terrorist group. Many came from America's Midwestern heartland, and were recruited mostly in mosques around Minneapolis. Both the land and sea phenomena have similar roots: in the absence of any state authority, predatory mafia and insurgent networks drive the informal economy, combining to extort, tax and ransom their way to multi-million dollar incomes. This reinforces state collapse, as the economic incentive remains in favor of disorder and predation rather than stability and the rule of law. In this vacuum jihadist recruitment has flourished, and U.S. actions over the last fifteen years have only fanned the flames of extremism. The Bush administration pursued a policy that prioritized military measures over political processes and state reconstruction. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. policy emerged from years of neglect to one of its most counter-productive chapters, in which American intelligence agents began to funnel suitcases full of dollars to Somali warlords that professed willingness to attempt to capture al-Qaeda elements there. After that approach only galvanized further support for extremist militias, the U.S. then supported Somalia's regional rival Ethiopia to invade, which led to an even faster rise in jihadist recruitment in Somalia and back here in the U.S. Counter-terrorism and anti-piracy efforts are both failing because they prioritize military force over state reconstruction diplomacy and real development, much more effective long-term antidotes to terrorism, piracy and insurgency. There have been fourteen distinct attempts to build a new government in Somalia in the past 17 years since the collapse of a U.S.-supported Cold War era dictator. The current effort has stumbled into something potentially successful, given the new president is a pragmatic Islamist himself, who sees the need for an inclusive process of state-building and who can deal directly with jihadist hardliners in ways that previous secular leaders could not. We can't afford to just sit back and wait and see if it succeeds. We must engage. If we do not, terrorist and piracy threats will only proliferate. The first challenge is rooted in security. The insurgency will be defeated primarily by political, not military means. News reports suggest that some Pentagon officials are advocating more military strikes inside Somalia. Airstrikes during the Bush administration occasionally took out one or two targets on the ground but inspired hundreds more Somalis to join the jihadist insurgency. Absent a state-building strategy, muscle-flexing military approaches are counter-productive for counter-terrorism. The second challenge is governance. A nascent transitional administration led by Sheikh Sharif Ahmed requires support. In our travels over the years in Somalia, we have found that the basics most Somalis are looking for are security and services, primarily education. We should start there. In fighting terrorism on land and piracy at sea, U.S. national security interests will be better secured if we aligned ourselves more with the interest of most Somalis in better security and effective governance. Helping to build the house and using the back door will be much more effective than barging into the front door of a house that has yet to be built. John Prendergast is co-founder of the Enough Project (www.enoughproject.org) David Smock is a vice president at the U.S. Institute of Peace (www.usip.org). More on Somalia
 
Tina Wells: Let's Talk About Privacy, Baby Top
There are simple steps we usually follow when we first meet someone. We generally ask where they're from, or what type of work they do or which school they attend; and, over time, the questions delve deeper into family and more personal issues. Sounds logical, right? Well, technology is changing our dynamic, including how we start our relationships and when we choose to share certain pieces of private information. Today's youth, the most tech-savvy and information-sharing generation in human history, have become so used to exchanging information digitally that they're immune to how fast it can spread (and how long it will remain archived and searchable online). The millennial generation has redefined expectations of 'privacy' by openly sharing some of their most personal attributes - from sultry sexual stories to nude pictures of themselves - in a new form of e-flirting called "sexting". A recent survey indicates that as many as one out of every five teens engage in sexting, making this type of communication prevalent and commonplace amongst peer groups. As adults, we frequently remind ourselves to be careful with our information online. For example, we create high-security passwords, clean out our browsing history, and verify websites before entering payment information. We're paranoid about identity theft and understand the need for maintaining a clean professional reputation on the internet. Teenagers, however, without their own personal finances to manage or career path to develop, see no consequence in making obscene information or images of themselves 'public'. These days, regardless of professional position or age, we're all developing our own digital profile to share with the globe. So here lies the fundamental difference in how teens and adults view privacy as it pertains to digital communication: the perception of consequence. Because adults are more exposed to the repercussions of being too loose and casual with their digital (and storable, searchable, sortable, etc) content, we have an obligation to educate and warn younger people about the consequences before their public images become tainted - potentially ruining future job or educational opportunities. For example, there are plenty of resources available online to show kids examples of how job seekers have been disqualified due to inappropriate content (both images and text) appearing on their public Facebook profile - which has become a favorite tool for HR departments and recruiters. A valuable exercise for a parent would be to walk through their child's Facebook (and other online social networks) profile together and point out any potential red flags for job recruiters or college admissions counselors. Now focus on the expectations that kids put on romantic relationships these days. An emphasis on dating and looking "sexy" begins at a very young age. Two people who have been involved for a certain period of time and are NOT yet engaged in a physical relationship are criticized for "moving too slow". Any sense of courtship and traditional romantic pursuit is thrown out the window. So what's next? Before long, the first step towards romance will be to download your new love interest's digital profile, complete with nude photos and sexual preferences. The 20% of our youth who are sexting regularly are also depriving themselves of something much deeper: valuable and meaningful relationships. By starting their relationships by exchanging very personal private information casually, they are reducing their chances of ever getting to know their peers on a more natural and meaningful level. I'd hate to think about how they'll handle these relationships when they're older and are forced to redefine 'privacy' all over again. This issue is not one that parents will be able to tackle overnight, but persistently encouraging children to develop positive relationships - beyond obscenities and sexuality - will align them with their peers who are also cognizant of the dangers of digital overexposure. In addition to the frightening cultural implications of sexting, teens may be susceptible to punishment in violation of school policies and state laws, including felonies that impose prison sentences. Although I do not believe our law enforcement should create a habit of arresting teens who are sexting, I think the legal implications of their behavior can be used as a scare tactic. Sometimes it is necessary to exhibit the worst-case scenario - criminal punishment and jail time - to deter future frivolous conduct. So, we now know that our problems have gone beyond Kim Kardashian using a private sex-tape to market her image, or the Detroit Mayor exchanging sexually explicit text messages with his chief of staff. Now, we're talking about our own children and their friends, in today's schools, exposing themselves to serious long-term personal hardship by damaging their online image, and potentially breaking the law. Just as adults must be accountable for the children's internet and website usage, they must also now educate their children on the dangers - personal, professional, and cultural - of sexting.
 
Rep. Mike Thompson: Tax Code Can Green Our Country Top
When Earth Day was founded 39 years ago, it was generally assumed that environmental ideals and the tax code were completely unrelated from each other. But as we've learned over the last few years, using tax incentives can be a powerful tool to help green our economy and protect our natural resources. For example, after Congress passed provisions to provide tax breaks for solar panels in 2005, there has been a 370% increase in solar panel installation in our country. Using the tax code to help generate environmental change can work. For all of the success that the conservation movement has had over the years, there's still a lot more to be done. In California, I'm especially concerned about the loss of open space and farm land. If current development trends continue in California, another two million acres will be paved over by 2050. To put that in perspective -- in the next forty years we'll lose an area larger than the state of Delaware to development. That's not just an empty statistic -- every acre that is paved over is a significant loss of our heritage and our environmental bounty. But it's a tragedy that we can act now to prevent. That's why I've introduced legislation that provides strong financial incentives for property owners to keep their land free of urban development. When landowners donate a conservation easement, they maintain ownership and management of the land and can pass the land on to their heirs, while forgoing their rights to develop the land in the future. These easements also ease the tax burdens that might otherwise force people to sell family farms that have been passed down for generations. Since Congress passed my provisions to enhance these tax benefits on a temporary basis in 2006, we've seen a fifty percent increase in conservation easements. With these enhanced tax provisions, 535,000 more acres were put into trusts in the last two years. It's time we made these protections permanent. By making sure that landowners can count on this program, we'll take a big step forward in preserving our agricultural lands and open spaces, and ensuring that our children and grandchildren can enjoy the same trees and open vistas that we enjoy now. More on Earth Day
 
Ambassador Swanee Hunt and Adria D. Goodson: Today's Movement Leaders are Alive and Kicking Top
Influential figures like Mahatma Ghandi, Gloria Steinem, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King Jr., Ella Baker, and Cesar Chavez transformed our lives through mass movements. These leaders motivated multitudes to get involved in shaping the society in which they lived. Ordinary people changed laws, molded a new culture, and drove America closer to ideals of social justice. We believe social movements, which can engage millions of people, are part of the answer to solving the big issues facing our nation - issues like poverty, climate change, health care, and immigration. Leaders of these movements must be innovative, tenacious, and willing to build on the wisdom of the iconic women and men who preceded them. They must be able to get you to pay attention and take action. To support them, Hunt Alternatives Fund created Prime Movers: Cultivating Social Capital, a multi-year fellowship for emerging and established social movement leaders working primarily in the United States. Prime Movers represent huge numbers of people who share their experiences and aspirations. This spring, we inducted six new fellows: • Kevin Bales was drawn into leading the movement to end modern-day slavery after examining the issue through his scholarly book Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy . He co-founded Free the Slaves , focused on eradicating slavery around the world. This nonprofit also provides pathways for everyday citizens to join the abolitionists' fight. • Roseanne Haggerty realized her volunteer work at a shelter wasn't going to solve the growing problem of homelessness. She founded Common Ground , which has become the nation's largest builder and operator of housing for the homeless. She has demonstrated that with public support, we can create affordable housing at a fraction of the cost of shelters, hospitals, jails, and other institutional responses. • Bill McKibben authored The End of Nature, the first mainstream book on climate change, and realized the need for mass mobilization to change behavior that was adversely affecting our environment. He and his team of activists at www.350.org are inspiring people on every continent to catalyze a coordinated worldwide response to global warming. • Billy Parish dropped out of Yale in 2004 and founded the Environmental Action Coalition, an alliance of 50 organizations empowering young people to turn K-12 schools, colleges, and universities into models of sustainability. In 2009, Billy co-led more than 10,000 young leaders who converged in Washington, DC, for Power Shift '09. They demanded that the President and Congress pass bold climate and energy policy by the end this year. • Maria Teresa Petersen recognized the need to engage the growing Latino youth population in the American political process. She transformed Voto Latino from a public service announcement campaign into a full-fledged organization that leverages new media, the latest technology, and celebrity spokespeople to increase civic participation across the Latino community. • Rinku Sen began her racial justice work as a grassroots organizer at The Center for Third World Organizing, where she trained new participants and created public policy campaigns. Now, she is president of the Applied Research Center, a racial justice think tank that popularizes the need for racial justice and prepares people to fight for it. In 2008, ARC launched Compact for Racial Justice, an interactive Web-based policy platform creating a continuing conversation with activists in thousands of workplaces, congregations, schools, and other nonprofit organizations. Our goal is to bolster Prime Movers' identities beyond their organizations as they take on broader, more pivotal roles within their movements. After participating in a comprehensive and highly competitive nomination and selection process, the fellows receive $60,000 over two years to strengthen their ability to get average Americans off their couches and into their communities. Fellows also learn from each other through small seminars and retreats. Eboo Patel, selected in 2005 and founder of Interfaith Youth Core , asserts, "It's the gestalt of the program, it's the people you meet, and the fact that every time I go to a Prime Mover event, I walk out thinking bigger." That's quite a statement from someone who already thinks about creating seismic changes in how people of different faiths move through life together instead of in opposition. Prime Movers aren't simply good people doing great work. They're women and men stirring masses of people to combat injustice, to become engaged in the civic decisions that affect their common good. One of these individuals may have already inspired you to get involved, to be an active citizen in your democracy. If they haven't yet, they will soon. More on Immigration
 
Jessica Catto: How Do You Do? Smile When You Say That Top
By Jessica Hobby Catto Manners. Well, what of them? After all, they are just some old-fashioned, lavender ladies tea cup stuff. Hardly the communication of choice for the macho, get-it-done set. Think again about how important signals are in successful relationships, political, business, and personal. How we meet and greet people tells a great deal about whether our negations and our friendships will flourish or fail. Good manners are about good will much more than they are about the use of the proper fork. President Obama's politeness and respectful attitudes toward his opponents as well as his fellow leaders have reaped great benefit for us as a country already. (I do, however, draw the line at bowing to the Saudi King. An American President can offer respect without the bending of the body.) Yes, there are critics who feel that he should not express politesse to the likes of Chavez, but if that simple handshake and smile produce some policy traction, then we are closer to pinning the tail on the donkey. What we want to accomplish in politics, business, and foreign relations is best begun with a genial gesture, no matter how peevish you feel. If you need to reverse course, you have lost nothing. On the contrary, you have put the other person on the defensive, just the right place for Chavez or Ahmadinejad. Politeness and manners do not equate with weakness; they equate with astuteness. Keep the eye on the doughnut not the hole. A handshake can turn into a fist as fast as a hummingbird can dive. You have a better chance at reaching your objective, however, if civility and acuity carry the day. World leaders appreciate being treated with deference by their powerful American counterpart. A respectful attitude is more likely to result in reciprocity farther down the road than heavy-handed "big kid on the block" conduct. Some columnists suggest that this is "apologizing" on behalf of the United States. Their naiveté is showing. An example of the folly of the snarl replacing the smile happened with Iran in May of 2003. From The Inheritance , by David Sanger: "A long fax appeared at the State Department from the Iranian government through a Swiss intermediary. It stated, among other things, 'full transparency for security that there are not Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD' and decisive action against {al Qaida}." Cheney and other hawks dismissed it out of hand. American success in Iraq would deal with Iran. So an opportunity for some steps forward was treated with disdain instead of interest. We will never know if opening talks then would have allayed the deep distrust in which we operate now and if the world now would be a safer place. Consider when a new arrival enters your house or a room: you rise to make them feel welcome. When you walk over to say hello to an acquaintance in a restaurant, they stand up to greet and show friendliness. There is another reason. When you rise you are then on equal footing; no one has an advantage. This old balancing act is reassuring. Handshakes are Western and equalitarian: no bowing and only fractional acknowledgement of position. Different cultures have different rituals expressing manners. Diplomats and business executives devote time and study to customs and manners in other countries and cultures in order to avoid embarrassment and offensive behavior. Just basic common sense. Knowledge is power. Manners evolve over time. Kissing of the hand has had its day and no great loss. The attitude, however, toward your fellow does not change. You still help someone across a street or a neighbor in need. You do not belittle someone in a weakened state. The Good Samaritan still prevails; he represents essential good manners. Entering an office as a visitor tells you a lot about the person behind the desk. Does he or she come around and shake hands, a sure signal of easy greeting; or does the person simply stand (you still have a chance); or not rise at all (you might as well turn off your PowerPoint). These are games we play for domination of the business, political, sporting and personal landscape. We are all familiar with tactics of intimidation and bullies. The practitioners of such tactics may seem all powerful to themselves for a time, but those methods fail in the end. We also all know the famous advice of Teddy Roosevelt, to "speak softly and carry a big stick." Ronald Reagan took that advice with Mr. Gorbachev as down came the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall. He did it with a smile and amiable manners. Worked wonders. Honey really does work better than sandpaper. President Obama, go the distance for us with the affable, collegial approach. Our future looks brighter as a result. Good manners come from strength and intelligence. GOOD MANNERS TO OUR EARTH, TODAY AND EVERY DAY More on Iran
 
First Criminal Charges In Bank Bailout Top
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A defense lawyer says a former financial adviser in Tennesee will plead guilty to criminal charges in the first fraud case related to the federal bank bailout program. Gordon B. Grigg was charged on Wednesday with four counts of mail fraud and four counts of wire fraud. Grigg's lawyer Mark Pickrell says his client will plead guilty to all eight charges. No date for the plea has been set. Grigg had already been charged in January with securities fraud after federal regulators said he used the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program as a front to lure investments. Prosecutors say Grigg embezzled nearly $11 million from clients since 1996 and began falsely claiming last year that his firm could invest their money in government-guaranteed debt as part of the program.
 
Rabbi Michael Lerner: Ahmadinejad Gives Another Victory to the Israeli Right Top
When representatives of many Arab and Muslim nations publicly applaud Ahmadinejad's racist rant, the real losers are the Palestinians. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the Durban II conference on racism turned into a racist rant against Israel and the Jewish people. The conference, intended to give the people of the world an opportunity to challenge racism, lost all credibility when many in attendance applauded Ahmadinejad's claim that the Jewish people used the Holocaust as a pretext to take over and dominate the people of Palestine. Ahmadinejad, you'll recall, won global attention when he became the first leader of a UN country to call for the wiping out of another UN country (though he later claimed he was only calling for regime change), and for denying the very existence of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's tirade makes quite a bit more sense in the context of domestic Iranian politics. Playing to anti-Semitism and anti-Western attitudes may be his only hope as he runs for re-election, given his failure to deliver on the promise to end poverty and powerlessness that he made during the last campaign. What makes less sense is why some of his fellow Muslims have not denounced this anti-Semitism more vigorously. The media accounts really don't give you the full sense of it. Ahmadinejad describes the history of the past century as though the Zionists were running the world and the imperialist countries were merely extensions of the Zionist project. Thus he ascribes to the Jewish people a power that exceeds that of all other forces on the planet. This reading, of course, has no way to explain how such a powerful group could end up getting murdered in their millions and why they were unable to get the Allied countries to intervene sooner against Hitler, or to bomb the concentration camps, or to impose an entirely Jewish state in Palestine. It is a reading of history that only sounds plausible to those who have no knowledge of the history of the twentieth century, but that, as it turns out, is the majority of the people of the world. So the story he tells, while seeming nothing less than paranoid insanity to those who are familiar with the facts, is precisely the kind of distorted reading that made it possible for Hitler to gain a following by claiming that all of Germany's problems came from the Jews, the communists, the gypsies and the homosexuals. Needless to say, communist, gypsies, and homosexuals are also in grave danger in Iran, though the primary public target of hatred is "the Zionist state." Today, Holocaust Memorial Day, we at Tikkun want to acknowledge that this kind of thinking is worthy of public challenge by all reasonable people on the planet, just as we at Tikkun challenge every other form of hate-mongering, including those forms that appear at times in sectors of the Jewish world. And we invite our Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, humanist, atheist, and all other brothers and sisters to join us in challenging this poison. The creation of the State of Israel was a product of a Jewish nationalist movement that arose at the end of the nineteenth century and sought to provide protection for Jews who were treated as second-class citizens in both Christian Europe and Muslim countries for many hundreds of years. The desire for a safe haven made perfect sense, though the antagonism that they encountered from many Palestinians made perfect sense as well given the previous history of Western colonialism and Christian crusades. Palestinians saw the Jews as an invading force that would uproot their own Arab society. Yet most Jews coming to Palestine were fleeing oppression, and simply could not understand how Palestinians would view them as agents of a Christian West that had been murdering Jews as "Christ killers" for at least 1,500 years. The mutual misunderstandings were predictable, though not inevitable, and both sides bear considerable responsibility for not reaching out in a more generous way toward the other. In the end, each party's insensitivity strengthened those elements on the other side that were most fearful for their existence (I've told this story in more detail in my book Healing Israel/Palestine, North Atlantic Books, 2003). The failure of most countries of the world to open their doors to Jews seeking to escape Nazi persecution -- and then the resolute opposition of the Palestinian movement to allowing Jewish refugees from coming to Palestine during and after the Holocaust -- set the stage for the first act of global affirmative action: the vote by the United Nations to create the State of Israel. Had the Palestinian people accepted the UN division of Palestine, the two states that Palestinians seek today would have already been in existence. Without trying to tell the whole story, I do believe that Israel's current policies toward the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza are cruel, repressive, and de facto racist. Many of us who support Israel's right to exist are strong critics of its current policies. Yet one reason why the peace forces are unable to win majority support in Israel or among the Jewish people as a whole is that too many Arabs and Palestinians seek not a two-state solution but the total elimination of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland. Ahmadinejad, like Hamas, and like many other voices in the Arab and Islamic world, conflate legitimate criticism of Israel's policies with an assault on Israel's existence; an error which becomes even more outrageous when linked to a denial of the Holocaust or the anti-Semitism that led to the flight of some one million Jews from Arab countries between 1947 and 1967. When Prime Minister Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, and other right-wing extremists are able to point to this irrational hatred of the Jewish people as the "real" underlying message of the critics of the Occupation, they stir up fears among Israelis that seem to be rationally founded, given the hatred being expressed. All the more so when one witnesses the striking silence about the racism that led to the Hutu-Tutsi massacres, the destruction of Buddhism in Tibet by Chinese racism, the oppression of women and gays in many Muslim countries, and so on. By singling out Israel, Ahmadinejad proves the case for many Israelis that the critique is not simply a matter of rational opposition to oppressive policies, but rather a manifestation of the very hatred that makes it imperative for Jews to protect themselves by any means necessary. We at Tikkun and our affiliated Network of Spiritual Progressives will not use the Ahmadinjad speech as an excuse to quiet our critique of Israeli policies toward Palestinians -- policies that are discriminatory toward Palestinians living in Israel and racist and repressive toward Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. But we also will insist that the real crimes of recent governments of the State of Israel pale in comparison to the crimes committed by China in Tibet, or by the United States in Vietnam and Iraq, or by the Arab government of Sudan in Darfur. They pale in comparison to the human rights abuses in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Åfghanistan, and several African states. We in the Jewish peace movement championed by Tikkun, and we in the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives, plead with our Muslim and Arab comrades and friends to denounce those who deny the Holocaust and who unfairly critique Israel. So it was with deep disappointment that we watched as representatives of many of these countries cheered Ahmadinejad's tirade rather than dismiss him as the racist demagogue that he is. The great losers in this are the Palestinian people. The more that Jews are scared, the less likely they are to be true to their own religious and cultural history, largely one of support for the most oppressed. So the anti-racist conference that calls itself Durban II actually succeeded in strengthening the hold of the racists, and in the process has made continued Palestinian suffering all the more likely. For those of us who believe that the God of all peoples wants all to be treated as equally valuable and as embodiments of God's image on earth, the failure of Muslims and Arab to disassociate themselves more publicly and forcefully is itself a problem that must be addressed with honesty and public confrontation, in a spirit of mutual respect and caring for each other. To do less would be to dishonor the God of the universe. We in the Jewish world who continually and publicly critique the misuse of Judaism to justify racist and repressive policies by the State of Israel have every right to demand a similar critique from our Arab Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters. P.S. I note with gratitude an immediate response we got to this from Iftekhar Hai, who informed us that the United Muslim Alliance Interfaith Alliance joins us in condemning Ahmadinejad's racism and Holocaust denial speech! If you want to help get this message out, feel free to put it on your own website, send it to everyone you know, or otherwise distribute and reprint this. Please help us continue to do this kind of messaging by joining the Network of Spiritual Progressives as a paying member. The NSP includes atheists who are spiritual but not religious. Visit www.spiritualprogressives.org to learn more. Comments and responses welcome to RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org. Please be aware that an edited version of your response may be printed on our website or in Tikkun magazine. More on Israel
 
Global economy may shrink for 1st time in 60 years Top
WASHINGTON — The world economy is likely to shrink this year for the first time in six decades. The International Monetary Fund projected the 1.3 percent drop in a dour forecast released Wednesday. That could leave at least 10 million more people around the world jobless, some private economists said. "By any measure, this downturn represents by far the deepest global recession since the Great Depression," the IMF said in its latest World Economic Outlook. "All corners of the globe are being affected." The new forecast of a decline in global economic activity for 2009 is much weaker than the 0.5 percent growth the IMF had estimated in January. Big factors in the gloomier outlook: It's expected to take longer than previously thought to stabilize world financial markets and get credit flowing freely again to consumers and businesses. Doing so will be necessary to lift the U.S., and the global economy, out of recession. The report comes in advance of Friday's meetings between the United States and other major economic powers, and weekend sessions of the IMF and World Bank. The talks will seek to flesh out the commitments made at a G-20 leaders summit in London last month, when President Barack Obama and the others pledged to boost financial support for the IMF and other international lending institutions by $1.1 trillion. The IMF's outlook for the U.S. is bleaker than for the world as a whole: It predicts the U.S. economy will shrink 2.8 percent this year. That would mark the biggest such decline since 1946. Among the major industrialized nations studied, Japan is expected to suffer the sharpest contraction this year: 6.2 percent. Russia's economy would shrink 6 percent, Germany 5.6 percent and Britain 4.1 percent. Mexico's economic activity would contract 3.7 percent and Canada's 2.5 percent. Global powerhouse China, meanwhile, is expected to see its growth slow to 6.5 percent this year. India's growth is likely to slow to 4.5 percent. All told, the lost output could be as high as $4 trillion this year alone, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner estimated. Besides trillions in lost business, a sinking world economy means fewer trade opportunities and higher unemployment. It raises the odds more people will fall into poverty, go hungry or lose their homes. And while keeping a lid on interest rates and consumer prices, the global recession increases the risk of deflation, which would drag down prices and wages, making it harder for people to make payments on their debt. The jobless rate in the United States is expected to average 8.9 percent this year and climb to 10.1 percent next year, the IMF said. In Germany, the jobless rate is expected to average 9 percent this year and 10.8 percent next year. Britain's unemployment rate is projected to rise to 7.4 percent this year and to 9.2 percent next year. Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight, estimates that at least 10 million jobs could be lost this year, mostly in the United States and Europe, because of sinking global economic activity. He and other economists said the 1.3 percent projected decline would be the first in roughly 60 years. In a report issued in mid-March, the IMF predicted global activity would contract this year "for the first time in 60 years," though it didn't offer a precise estimate then. Next year, the IMF predicts the world economy will grow again _ but just 1.9 percent. It said this would be consistent with its findings that economic recoveries after financial crises "are significantly slower" than ordinary recoveries typically are. All those factors tend to weigh against prospects "for a speedy turnaround," the IMF said. In 2010, the IMF predicts the U.S. economy will be flat, neither shrinking nor growing. Germany's and Britain's economies, meanwhile, will shrink less _ by 1 percent and 0.4 percent respectively _ it estimates. Others countries, such as Japan, Russia, Canada and Mexico are projected to grow again. And China and India should pick up speed. The financial crisis erupted in the United States in August 2007 and spread around the globe. The crisis entered a tumultuous new phase last fall, shaking confidence in global financial institutions and markets. Total worldwide losses from the financial crisis from 2007 to 2010 could reach nearly $4.1 trillion, the IMF estimated in a separate report Tuesday. The crisis has led to bank failures, wiped out Lehman Brothers and forced other big institutions, like insurance giant American International Group, to be bailed out by U.S. taxpayers. And it's triggered radical government interventions _ such as the United States' $700 billion financial bailout program and the Federal Reserve's $1.2 trillion effort to lower interest rates and spur spending. Actions by the United States and government in other countries have helped ease the crisis in some ways. But markets are still not operating normally. The 185-nation IMF, headquartered in Washington, is the globe's economic rescue squad, providing emergency loans to countries facing financial troubles. It has urged countries to take bolder actions to bolster banks. The IMF also has pushed countries to work more closely together. It favors coordinating fiscal stimulus efforts through tax reductions or greater government spending to stimulate the appetites of consumers and businesses. And it warned countries to resist the temptation of enacting protectionist trade measures. "Fiscal policies had made a gigantic difference," said IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard. Without them, the hit to the global economy would have been much greater and pushed it perilously close to "a depression," he added. Because the world economy won't be back to normal next year or perhaps even in 2011, Blanchard urged countries to spend money on big public works projects _ something the Obama administration is doing _ to bolster activity. Bold policy actions could set off a mutually reinforcing "relief rally" in financial markets and a revival in consumer and business confidence, the IMF said in its report. But it remains concerned that these policies won't be enough to break the vicious cycle whereby deteriorating financial institutions feed, in turn, weaker economic conditions. "The problem is that the longer the downturn continues to deepen, the slimmer the chances that such a strong rebound will occur, as pessimism about the outlook becomes entrenched and balance sheets are damaged further," the IMF said in the report Wednesday. With the global economy stuck in a recession, the risks of a dangerous bout of deflation _ a prolonged decline in prices that can worsen the economy _ has risen. The IMF cited a "moderate" risk of deflation in the United States and in the 16 countries that use the euro. It saw a "significant likelihood of deeper price deflation" in Japan.
 
Bush Torture Memos Recut In Song (VIDEO) Top
Jonathan Mann, the man who brought you the "Paul Krugman" song is back putting the Bush torture memos to music. This is the 109th video in Mann's "one song a day" project . He uses hot-button topics in the news to inspire him on his surely wearying journey, and this time he took language detailing "enhanced interrogation techniques" and put it to music. Last week the Department of Justice released the memos from the Office of Legal Counsel that discussed the CIA's use of torture under Bush. This decision by President Obama has been lauded by some, but several members of the last administration and their supporters have been less enthusiastic about the choice. Click here to read the memos . Scroll down for the transcript of Mann's song. The detainee is lying on a gurney That's inclined at an angle: 10 to 15 degrees A cloth is placed over the detainee's face Cold water is poured on the cloth The wet cloth creates A barrier through which It is difficult or in some cases not possible For the detainee to breathe If the detainee Makes an effort to defeat the technique By twisting his head to the side and breathing Out the corner of his mouth The interrogator may cup his hands around The detainees nose and mouth In which case it would not be possible for him to breathe! As we explained In the Section 2340A Memorandum, "Pain and suffering" (As used in Section 2340) Is best understood as a single concept, Not distinct concepts Of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering"... The waterboard, Which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, Does not, in our view inflict "severe pain or suffering". Even if one were to parse the statute more finely To treat "suffering" as a distinct concept, The waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, Lacking the connotation of a protracted Period of time generally given to suffering. More on Video
 
Wal-Mart Chicago Expansion Facing City Council Top
Whether the city should allow Wal-Mart to expand its presence here - a political donnybrook that gave birth to the big-box minimum wage ordinance that was snuffed out by Mayor Daley's only veto - is back before the City Council. More on Walmart
 
Adam Elkus: The Gates Revolution Top
Defense Secretary Robert Gates' military reforms are commonly portrayed in the media as a series of technocratic budget decisions. But Gates is doing something far more radical than just canceling big-ticket weapons programs: he's finally fusing theory and policy. The sad truth is that many of our soldiers and civilians largely predicted many of the "hybrid war" challenges we face today, but their ideas went nowhere without institutional support. The popular image of a complacent post-Cold War national security structure always preparing for the last war doesn't do justice to the explosion of essays, journal articles, and books published from 1989 to 2003 examining unconventional warfare and our vulnerability to it. A diverse array of soldiers and civilian analysts called attention to threats ranging from insurgents to Chinese information warfare strategies -- to no avail. Our extensive counterinsurgency focus would not come as a surprise to retired USAF Colonel Richard Szafranski, who argued in a 1990 Parameters piece that the US was likely to face more low-intensity counterinsurgency missions. His argument, published on the eve of the large conventional Gulf War, was echoed in dozens of other essays on "asymmetric," "fourth-generation," "non-trinitarian" and "low-intensity" war in the same journal over a 10-year period. Countless other authors published on irregular threats in service publications like the Marine Corps Gazette , the Military Review , and the Air and Space Power Journal . Research monographs published at the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) also reflected a growing interest in counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and other forms of irregular conflict. Military analysts largely foresaw the urbanization of insurgency and the stress it would put on frontline troops. In 1999, Marine Corps Gen. Charles C. Krulak wrote an eloquent article about the challenge of "Three Block Wars." In these engagements, tactical-level leaders' decisions made in the global media spotlight would have strategic consequences. To prevail, Krulak argued, "strategic corporals" should prepare to assume a greater level of responsibility for the success or failure of the mission. Four years later, Iraq's anarchic condition forced junior officers to simultaneously play policeman, lawmaker, and social worker to a fearful and distrusting populace. Fortunately, many "strategic corporals" were up to the challenge. And RAND Corporation analysts John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt largely predicted today's amorphous, decentralized terrorist networks with their 1996 works on "netwar." Arquilla and Ronfeldt cogently argued that technology and emerging network forms of organization enabled nimble decentralized networks to challenge stodgy hierarchies. The 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protesters in Seattle largely confirmed Arquilla and Ronfeldt's "netwar" vision, locking down the city of Seattle and running circles around the Seattle police. The gruesome assault on Mumbai also demonstrated that a small force could "swarm" a target and overwhelm a static defense, another danger that Arquilla and Ronfeldt had warned of . But the point of this piece isn't to push a simplistic Hollywood narrative extolling the maverick that got it right and castigating the higher-ups who refused to listen. However tempting it may be to blame the problem on "stuffed shirts" who keep Jack Ryan, Harry Callahan, or Jack Bauer down, the real problems lie in institutional decisions and strategic cultures that inhibit adaptation to today's complex security landscape. For too long, defense strategy and budgeting focused on high-tech warfare while treating the humanitarian interventions and small wars we increasingly engage in as afterthoughts. Fortunately, Gates' strategic direction is creating an impetus for institutional change. By tying budget and strategy to the need to dominate the " full spectrum " of warfare, Gates still overwhelmingly focuses on conventional operations but makes irregular warfare a " core competency ." This focus gives institutional support to soldiers and civilians already adapting to the challenges of two insurgencies and the ever-present threat of terrorism. We can already see fruits of Gates' Pentagon " reprogramming " in the new approaches taken by some of our more innovative soldiers. The doctrine writers at Ft. Leavenworth have been pumping out a celebrated series of counterinsurgency manuals , and military figures such as Admiral James G. Stavridis and Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV have embraced social media tools such as blogs and Twitter. Counterinsurgency and irregular warfare approaches have been integrated into the capstone Army Operation s manual and joint forces have performed relief missions in developing countries that bolster our badly damaged "soft power" abroad. The quickly approaching Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will likely cement Gates' strategic guidance. But the real test will be the largely acrimonious budget battles waged in Congressional hearings over the fates of big-ticket weapons systems -- programs that pork-addled lawmakers will fight dearly to protect. Foreign policy strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett isn't exaggerating when he states that powerful interests are waging "war" against Robert Gates -- and it's a war that Gates must win. Otherwise the promising revolution in military affairs that Gates is leading will be banished to the policy gulag.
 
Henry Blodget: King Obama Will See You Now Top
The WSJ 's Holman Jenkins goes off on the Obama administration's treatment of GM and its bondholders and applauds the bondholders for standing up for themselves. I'm actually glad that Obama is smacking GM around -- without our money, the company would already be bankrupt. But it's the inconsistency I can't stand. How can my favorite president (seriously) let car czar Steve Rattner charge in, fire CEOs, and demand that bondholders voluntarily give up 85 cents on the dollar...while Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner just keeps sounding and acting like a lobbyist for Wall Street? What's up with that, Mr. President? Holman Jenkins: It's good to be the king -- until you start tripping over your own robe. So King Barack the Mild is finding as he tries to dictate the terms of what amounts to an out-of-court bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM. He wants Chrysler's secured lenders to give up their right to nearly full recovery in a bankruptcy in return for 15 cents on the dollar. They'd be crazy to do so, of course, except that these banks also happen to be beholden to the administration for TARP money. Wasn't TARP supposed to be about restoring a healthy banking system? Isn't that a tad inconsistent with banks just voluntarily relinquishing valuable claims on borrowers? Don't ask... Why on earth would GM's creditors -- who include not just bondholders but the UAW's health-care trust -- want any part of this deal? Read the whole thing here. See Also : Yahoo's CEO Drops The F-Bomb More on Barack Obama
 
Betsy Saul: The Economy's Impact on Pets Top
Pets are feeling the pain of the country's economic downturn. We've been hearing this for the past six months or so, but we decided to survey our network of shelters and rescue groups to get the full story. The heart-wrenching facts show that indeed pets are the silent victims. According to the survey, 84 percent of Petfinder.com animal shelters and rescue groups are receiving more pets in need due to the overall economic downturn, foreclosures and/or job losses. And sadly, 74 percent said that they have seen an increase in pets being given away or abandoned since this time last year due to these economic trials. The specific economy-related reasons that people are giving up their pets vary: * 47 percent of shelters and rescue groups said the No. 1 economy-related reason pets are being surrendered is because of general financial difficulty. * 18 percent said the driving factor was people needing to relocate. * 16 percent said the No. 1 reason was primarily foreclosures. That's not the only bad news. Petfinder.com also found that 37 percent of shelters and rescue groups have seen a decrease in pet adoptions over the past year. Shelters are overcrowded and hurting financially, struggling to find homes for this influx of animals. What can you do to help? Fortunately, there are many ways individuals can positively impact homeless animals nationwide. You can volunteer to temporarily foster a pet in need, donate your time or money to a local shelter or rescue group , and of course, adopt a pet who is looking for a new, loving home. There are also a number of simple changes you can make to ease your own financial crunch. You can buy pet food in bulk, or even search for discounts on food, especially if your pet eats a premium brand. There are often coupons available - which can quickly slash the cost. You can also slowly transition your pet to a less costly brand to avoid an upset tummy (and a potential vet bill). If you cannot afford to buy supplies for your pet, look into a pet food pantry, which offers low-cost or free food to the needy. To cut costs on medical services without sacrificing your pets' care, search for clinics that offer low-cost vaccinations and/or spaying and neutering. In general, spaying or neutering is the responsible thing to do, and it may prevent costly medical issues. Larger pet stores can offer low-cost vaccinations. Know your pet's vaccine history to avoid over-vaccinating, and make sure the clinic is recommended by a friend, veterinarian or animal welfare professional to ensure quality care for your pet. No matter what the reason is for economic hardship, the best thing you can do to help your pet is ask for help from friends, family and the community around you before simply giving your pet away. For those of you who are planning to bring a new pet into your home, you can find over 270,000 adoptable pets on Petfinder.com who would benefit from your time, energy and love. And for those of you who aren't ready to adopt, be a voice for all pets and spread the "Adopt a Homeless Pet" call-to-action loud and clear. More on Animals
 
Rupert Murdoch's Transition Lenses: Love Them Or Leave Them? Top
Rupert Murdoch showed off his transition lenses Tuesday at a ceremony in Los Angeles for fellow Aussie Hugh Jackman . Transition lenses darken upon exposure to the sun, and as Murdoch watched Jackman get cemented in the sun Tuesday afternoon, his clear lenses transitioned into sunglass-equivalents. What do you think of the look? Vote: Watch the transition happen in the slideshow below: Still not sure what transition lenses are? Watch this ad below: More on Photo Galleries
 
DERRICK ROSE Named NBA ROOKIE OF THE YEAR Top
NORTHBROOK, Ill. — Derrick Rose, who led his hometown Bulls to the playoffs and restored hope to a franchise in disarray, was the runaway pick as the NBA's rookie of the year. Rose became the third Bulls player to win the award Wednesday, joining Michael Jordan and Elton Brand. He received 111 first-place votes and 574 points from a national panel of sports writers and broadcasters; runner-up O.J. Mayo of the Memphis Grizzlies received five first-place votes and 127 points. "When I first came into the season, my biggest thing was to get this award," Rose said. "I was telling you all that I didn't care, but I did. You really do want this award. There was a lot of talent out there that I had to go against." Rose's selection was hardly a surprise, after the No. 1 overall draft pick led all rookies with 6.3 assists per game and was second in scoring average at 16.8, and established himself as the franchise's first true cornerstone since Jordan. "I think there are very few people in the NBA who could do what he did this year," teammate Joakim Noah said. "You tell me another No. 1 pick who got to the playoffs in their hometown, especially in a big city with so many distractions and so many things going on. I mean, he's all about one thing and that's winning basketball games, and that's what I respect about him." The only other players who received first-place votes were Brook Lopez of the New Jersey Nets and Russell Westbrook of the Oklahoma City Thunder. Eric Gordon of the Los Angeles Clippers rounded out the top five. A point guard from Chicago's South Side, Rose used his strength, blinding quickness and uncanny maturity to help turn around a team that went 33-49 last season. Rose's approach, as much as his talent, also impressed veteran guard Lindsey Hunter. "Not many guys can transfer it from here to there that fast," Hunter said, pointing from his head to the court. "But he's able to do that. I think that's what's so unique about him." Rose was the Eastern Conference rookie of the month in November and December and again in March, helping the Bulls go 41-41 and reach the postseason for the fourth time in five years. In last Saturday's playoff opener against Boston, Rose matched Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's scoring record for a debuting rookie with 36 points and 11 assists in a 105-103 overtime victory. Rose added 10 points, seven assists and six rebounds in a Game 2 loss. "He can finish around the basket, and that's not easy for _ he's not small, but he's not a big guard," Lakers coach Phil Jackson said. "He's good at that, and that's impressive for a guy that size. His quickness to the basket is impressive." The Chicago Tribune first reported that Rose had won the award. Rose excelled from the start and never really slowed down, although he was at times benched late in games. That stopped after general manager John Paxson chatted with coach Vinny Del Negro, but whether he was playing in the closing moments or not, Rose never complained publicly. "He plays both ends of the court, which is refreshing to see," Lakers star Kobe Bryant said. "A lot of young players don't play both ends. He works hard at it, defense as well." Indiana coach Jim O'Brien even compared him to LeBron James. "They're different positions, but LeBron James has the same thing _ it's hard to knock him off his driving lane," O'Brien said. "And I think he's improved his outside shot. And I think he knows the game." From the moment he returned to Chicago, Rose has fit with the Bulls. They won the draft lottery despite 1.7 percent odds and could have picked Michael Beasley, the high-scoring forward from Kansas State. Instead, they went with the guard who grew up a few miles from the United Center in the rough Englewood neighborhood. They saw a dynamic floor leader, a selfless player _ a winner. Rose led Simeon Career Academy to the state championship and Memphis to 38 wins and the NCAA title game in his lone season. Now, he's helping the Bulls turn things around after what seemed like a solid plan went awry. Two years ago, Chicago won 49 games and swept Miami before falling to Detroit in the second round of the playoffs. And then? Failed contract negotiations involving Luol Deng and Ben Gordon along with Bryant trade rumors set a bad tone last season, and coach Scott Skiles was fired in December. Interim coach Jim Boylan was gone at the end of the season, and the Bulls settled on Del Negro after high-profile courtships with Mike D'Antoni and Doug Collins. Along the way, they scored arguably their biggest victory in a decade when they won the draft lottery. With Rose running the show, the Bulls believe their cornerstone is in place for the next decade. "I've got a lot of friends who are coaches," Hunter said. "I'm like, 'Man, you guys don't know how good he is. He doesn't even understand what he is yet.' ... I see him being that point guard that is going to push Deron Williams and Chris Paul to the limit." More on Sports
 
William Bradley: The Republican Choice: React or Modernize Top
Former McCain campaign director Steve Schmidt laid out a modernizer case to the Log Cabin Republicans, and urged support for same-sex marriage. It's been a strange week for the Republican Party, with noisy events pushing the old-time religion, a speech by a prominent consultant urging a new moderation, and back-to-the-future reactions to President Barack Obama's friendly gestures to Hugo Chavez and other critics of America. Who will prevail? The reactors or the modernizers? On the 15th, conservative media outlets like Fox News promoted the so-called American "Tea Parties" into lightly moderate success. There were a few, like the one I attended outside California's Capitol, where 3,000 made a noisy show of opposition to government, that drew into the four figures. Most were much smaller. Dominated by what I call the Talk Radio Wing of the Republican Party, the events were mini-festivals of reaction, with a collection of anti-government folks, gun enthusiasts, anti-gay rights and abortion true believers, and neoconservatives. Public enemy number one? America's first black president, Barack Obama. Think of it as politics in an echo chamber. Texas Governor Rick Perry, excited by the echo chamber activism of the American Tea Parties, brandished the threat of Texas seceding from the United States. Texas Governor Rick Perry, a rather telegenic character, sparked more controversy by suggesting that Texas secede from the union. Considering how much federal money has been poured into Texas, that didn't look like a good deal. 75% of his constituents didn't buy it. A good thing, because I'd hate to be importing my cowboy boots. This was par for the course for Perry, who appeared right after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told his California Republican convention in 2007 that it was past time for Republicans to get in touch with the center to avoid becoming a permanent minority. Perry disagreed with every point the once (and future) Terminator made. Then former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who lost power after trying to shut down the federal government, and former Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in again. Cheney defending torture as an effective means of intelligence gathering. Gingrich saying Obama is weak for shaking hands with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and offering a tentative opening to the Castro brothers in Cuba. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was very upset with President Barack Obama for shaking hands with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. I don't know, maybe it's me, but I don't think that running on a policy of torture, or of resentment about the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, is a pathway to the future. In the midst of this stuff, the guy who directed John McCain's presidential campaign, and ran Schwarzenegger's landslide re-election campaign in 2006, gave a speech to the Log Cabin Republicans national convention in Washington. Steve Schmidt told the group, the leading organization for gays and lesbians in the Republican Party, on Friday that the party needs to be more diverse and should back same-sex marriage. It was part of a larger critique which is captured in this passage: "To state the obvious: the Republican Party needs to grow. A review of the exit polls and current demographic trends in the United States should make it clear to all but the most determined optimist that our coalition is shrinking, and losing ground with segments of the population that are growing. Whether it's with suburban voters, working class voters, college educated voters, Hispanics or left handed Albanian psychics, the percentage voting Republican has declined. Perhaps, the most alarming of these various and generally worrying results of the last election is the huge margin by which we lost voters under 30. "Having said that, it is not a foregone conclusion these are long term trends or even trends at all. They might just be the results of two lost elections, although I doubt it. And even if they do represent movement toward a center left political realignment, unanticipated events could arrest or begin to reverse them even in the near term." I think the country is center-left, has been for some time, that the reigning media trope about it being center-right was a canard. What was lacking were politicians deft and forceful enough to break through and shrewd enough not to imagine that center-left is synonymous with left-liberal. I've discussed this with Schmidt many times, who I came to know after breaking the story that Schwarzenegger was making him his campaign manager. I described him then as something of a right-wing hatchet man. Which turned out not to be entirely accurate. Some say that Schmidt, who ran a very hardball campaign into the Obama head wind for McCain, replete with rather irritating political trick plays that worked for awhile, until they didn't, is a johnny-come-lately in urging Republicans to support same-sex marriage. That's not true. While McCain continued his traditionalist opposition to gay marriage during last year's campaign, Schmidt spoke to the Log Cabin Republicans at the Republican national convention. Schmidt advised Schwarzenegger to oppose Proposition 8, which he did. He had advised Schwarzenegger to sign a gay marriage bill, which he did not. Schmidt was very enthusiastic about Schwarzenegger's efforts on climate change and in promoting the biggest infrastructure investment program in two generations. In all this, he worked closely with Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial chief of staff Susan Kennedy, a Democrat who is also a lesbian. Which was not the sort of stretch that I had expected it to be for the former Bush/Cheney war room director, as Schmidt, who is married to a former Navy nurse, has a sister who is lesbian. This doesn't mean that this one-time counselor to Dick Cheney is a liberal. He's a moderate hawk on military issues and thinks Obama is spending way too much money. But he isn't anti-government and does think the financial sector got out of control. Former Vice President Dick Cheney did an exit interview with ABC News. The truth is that his view on same-sex marriage is not only a decidedly minority view in the ranks of active Republicans, it's nowhere near being a majoritarian view in the country. Yet. The courts in Massachusetts and Connecticut found that same-sex marriage is a civil right. The legislature in heartland Iowa did the same. So, too, did California's supreme court, with the opinion written by the state's Republican chief justice. But that right was taken away with the passage of Proposition 8 last November, a victory for conservatives fueled by what the winning campaign's consultant called "the gift that kept on giving," the feckless moves and statements of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who unwittingly starred in the very effective anti-gay marriage TV ads. Whether he liked it or not. With gay marriage losing even in California, at least for the moment, it's still a long ways off for America as a whole. Though it is inevitable, just as segregation could not stand in the long run of history. So the weight of the past will hang especially heavy over the Republicans. While many may privately agree with Schmidt, a moderate conservative, the party's center of gravity is far to the right. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com. More on Barack Obama
 
Paul Raushenbush: The Torture Memos: Dick Cheney vs. Jesus Christ Top
When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.... These are evil people. And we're not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek. --Former Vice President Dick Cheney, February 4, 2009[1] But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. --Jesus, Luke 6:27-31. These two opposing statements by former Vice-President Dick Cheney and Jesus Christ bring into sharp relief the contradictions of being a country that simultaneously lays claim to Judeo Christian values while going to any lengths to protect and preserve the American empire - including torture. There are compelling pragmatic questions that need to be raised about torture such as the evidence that shows that torture is ineffective in getting trustworthy information; and whether US torture practice has provided recruitment tools for al Qaida and severely damaging our global reputation. But putting these questions aside - what does the practice of torture by our government say about those of us who are American Christians and our commitment to Jesus? Some of the great evangelists of the early church were the martyrs (Paul and Stephen being the main figures) who were themselves tortured, but continue to profess what they believe. They never used violence or coercion to spread the faith; rather people came to Jesus in part because of the non-violent Christian witness of the early members. They were a strange crew these Christians who followed this even stranger Jesus who was himself tortured and killed and rose again. They espoused love in the face of hate, generosity in the face of theft, blessings for curses, and turning the cheek in the face of violence. They did this not out of a sense of weakness, but out of strength. They had been admitted into God's royal spiritual kingdom and so they granted a certain noblesse oblige of love and peace to the violent material world around them. This changed when Constantine made Christianity the official church of the Roman Empire and the church was co-opted. Members of the church began to use the violent techniques of force that had formerly been used against us - the Crusades and the Inquisition being two prime examples. George Bush and other professing Christians succumbed to the temptation of perceived expediency to employ torture in order to preserve national economic and security interests. Dick Cheney says "these are evil people" as a way to justify torture. But Christians have dealt with evil people before and Jesus taught us explicitly that evil is never overcome by evil; it is over come by Good. Plus, Jesus' final words in Luke 6 - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - have a chilling resonance when it comes to torture. These torture documents do make me frustrated that our legal system was subverted, and our national reputation damaged. But mostly they make me fearful for our national soul. Let us practice the time-honored tradition of confession and repentance. The airing of these memos by President Obama is a good place to start, now let us continue to rid ourselves of this stain on our society and banish the barbaric and un-Christian practice of torture forever. More on Dick Cheney
 
Jonathan Melber: The Harder They Con, The Bigger They Fall: Tribeca Film Festival Documentary On Artist Mark Kostabi Top
"A lot of people in the art world just hate his guts," said director Michael Sladek about Mark Kostabi, the one-time darling of the New York art scene whose meteoric rise in the early 80's was almost as rapid as his total collapse a decade later. Kostabi's recent attempts to reclaim his former glory is the subject of Sladek's documentary Con Artist , premiering at the Tribeca Film Festival this weekend. People despise Kostabi so much, Sladek told me, that it was hard to get anyone to participate in the film. "The second you say his name, they're like 'No. I don't like what he does, I don't like who he is, I don't want to have anything to do with it.' They think it's just another ad for him, because he does so much self-promotion." They're right, in a way: It is hard to tell if anything Kostabi does isn't just a publicity stunt. Take, for example, the game show he hosts on public access TV, where such art-world luminaries as Randy Jones , the original cowboy from the Village People, compete for cash prizes by suggesting titles to Kostabi's newest paintings. Sure, it's a "cynical conceptual art performance piece" skewering the pretense of authenticity in the art market. But it's also Mark Kostabi running around on television. In Con Artist , we learn that he wants to sell the show to HBO. Sladek was obviously not out to do a puff piece, and one of the things that makes Con Artist so interesting is its search for what's behind Kostabi's current act. Is there something new to his art, or its meaning? Does he really believe what he says on camera? Or is this just a rerun of his 80's antics, when--as Kostabi told porn-lover Robyn Bird on her public access show--everything he said was "hype and fake and not true." Although he was an exceptionally talented artist in his own right, Kostabi first made a name for himself by selling paintings he didn't paint, or even think of. He had assistants come up with everything but his signature, and, calling himself "the world's greatest con artist," he made sure everyone knew it. It was his version of extending Warhol's critique of mass media, and collectors ate it up. He insulted them to their faces as they bought his work. He made fun of them in the press. He was funny and sarcastic and rebellious. And it worked, for a while. The film pegs Kostabi's demise to Japan's stock-market crash of the early 90's, which is true insofar as many of his collectors (indeed, many of the collectors fueling the New York art market) were Japanese. But it's also true that Kostabi insulted a lot of people during his time in the spotlight and, whether performance or not, a lot of people grew tired of it. Probably his most notorious comment was a vicious, anti-gay remark about AIDS--which he has since retracted and apologized for--in a 1989 interview with Vanity Fair. (According to Sladek, a year into the filming, Kostabi exacted an agreement from the filmmaker, on threat of shutting down the project, that the documentary wouldn't address the Vanity Fair quote or its fallout.) All of which is just background for the real story in Con Artist , which, to Sladek's surprise, "ended up having a classic comedy structure: it's mostly about a lonely guy looking for love, who's made mistakes in the past, who wants to be redeemed. His only caveat is that he equates fame with love." Watch the trailer here . Showtimes are listed on the Tribeca Film Festival website.   Jonathan Melber is an attorney and co-author, with Heather Darcy Bhandari , of ART/WORK: Everything You Need to Know (And Do) As You Pursue Your Art Career (Free Press), a professional-development guide for visual artists. He and Heather twitter here .
 
Josh Goldin: Movie: Wonderful World Top
On April 27, my movie Wonderful World , which stars my good friend Matthew Broderick, as well as Sanaa Lathan, Phillip Baker Hall and Michael Kenneth Williams, will premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. Just as an aside, Wonderful World is a terrible title if you care about self promotion. Press lists of festival movies are arranged alphabetically and Wonderful World , I've noticed, is inevitably the last movie mentioned. If I had any commercial sense, I would've called the movie "Aardvark." It's less important for titles to make sense than be noticed. The same holds true for content, but it's too late for that as well. Early in the naming process, I toyed with the title It's Worse Than You Think , based on a statement from my then-seven year old after he spilled milk, but I didn't want to tempt reviewers who love double entendres. Now I think it would have been worth the risk to get to the middle of those press lists. The main character in Wonderful World has been dubbed reductively in various press clippings as "the most negative man in the world." I should admit here that I am the one who dubbed him that. When asked what your movie is about, you have to say something, and saying "... it's a comic fable about the most negative man in the world" seemed to grab people's attention. In fact, Matthew Broderick's character has many facets -- he's a former children's singer, avid pot smoker, weekend dad... and a certifiable crank. But he's not actually the most negative man in the world. There are dozens of competitors for that spot, all of whom vacation in Texas. One thing the movie is about is friendship, especially the friendship between Ben singer (Matthew's character) and his uneducated, but brilliant immigrant roommate, played by the great Michael Kenneth Williams (a.ka. "Omar" in The Wire ). In the movie, as in life, friendship trumps crankiness. Matthew and I have been good friends for almost twenty years. It's a friendship born of place (we both grew up in pre-gentrification New York City) and attitude (we both look at the world with an amused, but jaundiced eye). And, yes, crankiness. Cranky people seek each other out. Our complaints are a kind of balm. We use complaints to express oh so many emotions -- anger, irritation, frustration, pissines, you name it. Even joy. When we want to boast about having had a good year financially, we complain about how much we paid in taxes. It's true, we do. Just before production, I traveled to New York City to talk to Matthew about the role because I felt directors do things like that. I was a bit shy about it all. This was the first movie I directed and Matthew had been in dozens of movies and had dozens of these talks. Finally I told him I felt that the character he was going to play was like a dissident who had been banished to Siberia and had nothing left but his anger toward the world. Matthew turned to me and said, "Isn't he just a cynical guy like you and me?" Only after the movie was all done, did I realize the truth of this statement. In fact, I've come to believe that the different styles of our crankiness merged in the making of the movie to form the psyche of the main character. There's kindness in there (that comes from me) and intelligence and wit (from me). He's also very handsome (also, from me). He can be oblivious to other people's feelings (Matthew), but he can also be really, really sensitive (me). In other words, the main character was formed less by preconceptions of his character than by the alchemy of our friendship. Matthew and I rarely argued during shooting and when we did it was always about something incredibly petty such as who had it worse, Joe Louis after he was finished as a fighter, or Buster Keaton after he was finished as a movie star. These arguments, conducted while slumped on separate plaid couches in one of our corporate apartments over a bottle of Knob Creek after a seventeen hour day of shooting, were great bonding experiences. What I guess I'm trying to say is Wonderful World is as much about friendship as anything else, starting with the friendship between Matthew and me and ending, ultimately with the friendship between the character Matthew plays... and the world. Hence the title: Wonderful World (I guess I'll keep the title). WONDERFUL WORLD SYNOPSIS Could fish really fall from the sky? Matthew Broderick is Ben Singer, the world's most negative man, who refuses to believe even the tiniest miracle is possible. When his roommate, Ibou (Michael Kenneth Williams), falls ill, Ben is forced to host his Senegalese sister, Khadi (Sanaa Lathan). What starts as an awkward living arrangement soon turns into something more, and Ben's usual self-destructive nature gives way as he begins to find inspiration in the most unlikely of places. Wonderful World is directed by Josh Goldin and also features Philip Baker Hall. SCREENING AND TICKET INFO .
 
Earth Day: Readers Report Green Efforts (SLIDESHOW) Top
Last Friday the Huffington Post asked readers to send us stories and photos of volunteer efforts in the spirit of Earth Day. As usual, readers came up big, providing us with some great anecdotes and pictures. Check out a slideshow of some of their submissions: More on Earth Day
 
Tim Gunn: "I Haven't Been On A Date In 26 Years" Top
OK!: Are you in a relationship? I haven't been on a date in 26 years [laughs]. So no, I have no relationship. I'm not even remotely looking. To have a relationship would require time. I don't have any time, so it wouldn't be fair to someone else. It might sound selfish, but I'm very happy being alone.
 
CBS News To Report On Children Of The Recession Top
NEW YORK — CBS News is dusting off one of the most storied brands in its history: the documentary series "CBS Reports." It will use the format for several stories on how the economic meltdown is affecting children. The network will report extensively on the topic for a week in May on its morning and evening newscasts, on "Face the Nation" and on its Web site. The effort was signaled on Wednesday when "The Early Show" covered the exit from New York of medical vans outfitted by the Children's Health Fund and bound for Detroit. "We haven't done a real division-wide initiative for a while and it was time to do it," Sean McManus, CBS News president, said. So far, what's missing is what "CBS Reports" actually was: a prime-time documentary. McManus said he didn't think there was enough room in CBS' schedule during a May "sweeps" month to reinstate the program but he hasn't ruled out asking his bosses for time. As the first issue examined under the old brand, children of the recession has been a highly covered economy topic, McManus said. The importance of the issue was made clear to him last week when he met with the co-founder of the Children's Health Fund. "It occurred to me it was the one area that hasn't been given a lot of attention and, in the long run, it may be the longest-lasting effect of the recession," he said. This Saturday's "CBS Evening News" will be broadcast from Detroit after the medical vans arrive, he said. Other CBS platforms are getting to work on their own stories, although it's not clear whether "60 Minutes" will be involved in coverage about children of the recession. CBS' rivals have similarly tried to focus intensely on one story. For example, ABC News devoted a week each spring for a couple of years to extensive reporting in Iraq about what the war has meant to that country's citizens. NBC News has played a part in its parent General Electric's companywide emphasis on going green. "CBS Reports" aired as a regular prime-time documentary from 1959 until 1971, with Edward R. Murrow's "Harvest of Shame" report about migrant workers one of its most remembered editions. After it ended as a regular series, "CBS Reports" lived into the 1990s with periodic documentaries. Traditional documentaries have all but disappeared from prime-time television, as they're not considered competitive in the ratings with entertainment programming. Except for "60 Minutes," most prime-time news programming tends to be true crime yarns or sociology experiments. More on The Recession
 
Coleman Asks For More Time To File Appeal Top
Norm Coleman today proposed a more leisurely schedule for his election appeal than Al Franken wants, asking that oral arguments in the case be held no sooner than mid-May.
 
Freddy Deknatel: Refugee Chess Top
They lived well in Baghdad; their eldest daughter had two cars. Six years later, the Iraqi couple moves their mattresses out of the bedroom each night to sleep on the living room floor. The only bedroom is left for their daughters while they live in this concrete refugee suburb of Damascus. It was Friday and quiet on the balcony above the street. The fried fish lunch was over and the mother was reading fortunes in the bottom of coffee cups. The father skulked past the couch and flashed his pack of cigarettes. He didn't smoke before the war. He was a chain-smoker by the time he arrived in Damascus. He shrugged when his wife explained his new habit -- "he's always with a cigarette, always, but he never smoked before." She brought her index and middle finger to her mouth and mimed puff after puff. The father talked of his construction company in Baghdad. "We sold huge pistons for Caterpillars and other large machines," he explained. "I can know just by putting my ear to the gears or the engine if it's working well or not," he grinned behind his cigarette. "I'm very clever." A few weeks later in their living room, the table was cleared for a gorging of rice, grilled fish, kibbeh stuffed with egg, and salad eaten by plucking the cheese-draped lettuce from the bowl by hand. The family's hospitality is typical of Syria, but their food is much better. A wealthy Christian family, they became refugees when Shia militias began enforcing a fanaticism of piety in Baghdad's streets and thieves started roaming their neighborhood. Their son's fatal kidnapping and a younger daughter's death drove them to Damascus. "But we are here," he said, as he always said in response to his wife's war stories. "We are here, with new friends" -- he calls us, two Americans, his children, extending an amount of kindness that circumstance should have blunted -- "so thank God." Then he launched into jokes, spurred by the dessert of sugary cardamom tea and date cookies covered in sesame seeds. With the help of his wife, he explained Uday Hussein's speech impediment and its lethal effect on the players of the Rashid Football Club. Saddam's elder son meant to say "congratulations" to his players after a big win, but what came out was a command to line them all up to be shot. And we heard of the man from Ramadi, a contestant on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, who was asked to name the color of his wife's underwear and needed a life-line: "Can I phone a friend?" The last joke they told involved the church. A pauper goes to the alter every week, but instead of dropping a few coins in the donation box, he asks the Virgin Mary, the baby Jesus in her arms, if it's alright if he takes the money. She always says yes. Eventually the priest grows suspicious, until one day he waits behind the statue for the pauper, who arrives and pleads his usual request, expecting the same silent consent. "No!" comes a male voice in response. "Shh!" the pauper replies. "I'm not stealing from you! Just your mother!" They could joke about Iraq as they sat in their small one bedroom apartment, the television on in the background showing American cooking shows and Dr. Phil. They are another once-prosperous family from Iraq displaced in Syria. The country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs counts 1.2 million Iraqis living here with valid visas, designating them "Arab guests and visitors." The number of illegal residents is unknown but pushes the total number above 1.5 million, as Syria has hosted the bulk Iraq's refugees. In the fall of 2007, the government effectively closed its borders, though many refugees still arrive, including a wave of hundreds of Christians who fled violence in Mosul last fall. There is a slow trickle of Iraqis returning home, mostly for financial reasons: they cannot legally work in Syria and, when the money runs out, going back is the only option. The insistence on eating helping after helping of grilled fish -- "Iraqi food combines all the spices of Indian, Persian, and Turkish food," the eldest daughter said -- and the seemingly endless amount of family jokes reveal what the fall of Baghdad, the occupation, sectarianism, and callous American adventurism cannot erase: a sense of humor, of food, of hospitality and humanity that go widely unreported in so many stories from Iraq and its new diaspora. "When Saddam's statue fell, I knew Iraq was finished," the father said. Weeks earlier, on the balcony after the fish lunch talking about his pistons, he said emphatically that he was not a Ba'athist. That same afternoon the mother talked about an old friend who was Sunni. "We were in university together," she said. "Our children were schoolmates." Then, after Saddam fell and the occupation worsened, "all of sudden, she was speaking of me as a Christian and she as a Muslim. She started scolding relatives -- an uncle and his niece -- for kissing when they greeted each other in an apartment. 'A man and woman should not kiss like that,' she would say." The mother stirred her tea with force. "This is crazy." Before the table had been set for dinner and bowl after bowl of salad and rice and fish had been placed on the folding table before the couch, the father's phone rang as we finished a game of chess. A friend had just gotten the call from the United Nations and was going be resettled in America. They all cheered congratulations, and the father blessed his friend on the phone. Then he turned back to the chessboard. We were playing slowly, smoking cigarette after cigarette, barely speaking. His daughter sat next to him and was whispering strategies. "Come on Fredo, move!" he said. He told me he had loved playing chess in Baghdad, though it was hard for me to imagine him sitting in a cafe there, over a chessboard like this, and not smoking. But I easily imagined him playing with his son while his third and youngest daughter whispered her own strategies in his ear. I looked through the haze and down at the ashtray and pictured their smoke-free house in Baghdad and unlimited games of chess. Then he took a long drag and, exhaling, made a move and put me in checkmate. This article was originally published in Wunderkammer Magazine . More on Iraq
 
Deepak Chopra: Winning Freedom from Religion Top
How would you respond to radical Muslim clerics in northwest Pakistan -- now under Islamic law -- who are calling for expansion of Islamic law across the entire federal republic of Pakistan? Should any nation be governed by religious rules? Although it may not often be realized, freedom from religion is one of the rights we enjoy in this country. The fragility of that right has been tested repeatedly. At this moment we seem to be holding back the forces that attempt to impose worship. But the struggle has been dicey, as everyone knows. Even in the strongest political democracies, the right not to worship is viewed suspiciously by the devout, and if given their way, the most intolerant of fundamentalists would wipe it out. So when we look at societies where religion is enforced, it's helpful not to mark them down as primitive, authoritarian, or barbaric. The reality is that rights don't exist until they are won, and they aren't won until a large segment of society realizes their worth. Islamic countries with rare exceptions are not fully democratic, and those that consider themselves democracies are constantly subject to clerical interference. Such is the nature of power and the internal struggles to grab it and hold on to it. In Pakistan's case, it hasn't been clear for forty years that any faction is willing to cede power to any other. Civil authority wrestles with the military; a few elite families maintain their inherited privilege; the intelligence service runs a shadow government; and behind it all, the ordinary citizen is probably most loyal to his local mosque. Therefore, the question of Islamic law is entangled --or should we say strangled?--by a host of social factors. Looking in from the West, we cannot help but be mystified. The absence of women's rights offends us. We have contempt for the Taliban's extreme Puritanism that bans dancing, shaving, and television. But rather than fall for the right wing's propaganda about a "clash of civilizations," it's more realistic to view the Islamic world as a clash of the past and present. The glory days of Islamic culture are long past, but the nostalgia to restore a mythical Islamic paradise is extremely powerful. What we see as the benefits of modernism pose a threat to that nostalgia as well as to the reactionary forces that want to maintain their power. Will Muslims rise up against all the anti-democratic elites -- civil, military, and religious -- that hold them in constant oppression? Not as long as Shariah law and inflexible fundamentalism are seen as "good." That's the stark reality. If we find it noxious, we should take a moment and ask ourselves why the U.S., which enjoys enormous freedom, cannot do a simple, rational thing like ban assault weapons. The answer is that we have our own extremists, irrationality, and hidebound traditions. We have our own isolated factions unwilling to surrender their power. More to the point, we have our own struggle to be free of religion if that is our personal choice. Published in the Washington Post More on Religion
 
Nimmi Gowrinathan: This Time We Can't Say "We Didn't Know": The Deadly Cost of International Inaction in Sri Lanka Top
There is a saying that has become common amongst those in the United Nations Human Rights Council. When a tense stand-off arises someone will say "Lets not play the naming and shaming game -- lets try and work together." Perhaps this "game" played in the most elite policy circles is counter-productive -- but it does allow history to identify those in positions of power who were complacent, cowardly, and indecisive at a moment when hundreds of thousands of civilian lives were on the line. In the case of Sri Lanka, there is no shortage of those to blame, and the footage from the civilian carnage in recent weeks should put all of us to shame. The Government of Sri Lanka, representing the majority Sinhalese community in Sri Lanka, is calling its most recent operation a "Hostage Rescue Mission" -- claiming to have evacuated 30,000 civilians from the minority Tamil population from an active fighting zone. They say they are nearing the end of their hard-line military campaign to eradicate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a guerilla group who has been fighting to carve out a seperate Tamil state within Sri Lanka for nearly three decades. As they recaptured formerly LTTE-held districts in the North East of the island, Government forces have trampled on international humanitarian law, any semblance of free press, and committed human rights abuses on a scale that can be categorized as crimes against humanity. As we receive daily reports of civilian casualties, the international community continues to listen to briefings, debate, and make "strong" statements of condemnation which will not jeapordize the delicate geopolitical balance that the Sri Lankan Government is relying on. Developing world nations have rallied around Sri Lanka's cry of neo-colonialism against western nations who highlight human rights abuses. Some simply vote alongside Sri Lanka, while nations like Libya, Pakistan, and Iran, have given hundreds of millions in aid along with substantial military training and technical support. While the U.S.A has limited its support to only "non-lethal" weapons (since the Leahy amendment) and India provides mainly intelligence support (radars, patrol boats) -- both are warily monitoring the growing influence and involvement of China and Russia on the island. It seems that economic woes in the Western world have not only affected consumer confidence, but has sparked a crisis of confidence amongst policymakers who now hesitate to challenge countries like China. Some prefer to hide behind the safety of the War on Terror, promising to take on a more active role in Sri Lanka once the "end of terrorism" has been achieved. This week there will be a Tom Lanton Human Rights Commission hearing on Capitol Hill, where members of Congress will hear from Human Rights Watch, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Sri Lanka NGO Counsel. They will again detail gross human rights violations, the conditions in internment camps, and the concern for the lives of journalists and human rights workers. When approximately 1,000 civilians die in one day of shelling, are Special Representatives appointed and condemning statements made our only option? Is every international institution and powerful nation so restricted by geo-political and financial realities that any sort of meaningful action becomes impossible-and worse, something we can no longer expect of them? In the last few days 68,000 civilians have entered intointernment camps where they join nearly 200,00 others recently from the conflict zone; 57,000 are being "processed" with no outside monitoring; 600 injured are waiting for ICRC transport to the only remaining hospital in the area which was recently hit by a rocket-propelled grenade; and 50-100,000 remain trapped inside and active warzone. Since January of 2009, the International Community and the safeguards designed from lessons learned elsewhere have failed 5,000 civilians in Sri Lanka. The loss of the next 5,000 may come quicker than the first -- and history will claim Sri Lanka as yet another case of lessons learned by a failure to act. More on Sri Lanka
 
TIF Sunshine Ordinance Passes City Council 48-0 Top
It's about to get a lot easier to find out where the reams of city taxpayer money spent on Tax Increment Financing districts goes. On Wednesday the City Council voted 48-0 to approve the TIF Sunshine Ordinance , which requires City Hall to make all public documents related to the city's 160 TIF districts, including redevelopment agreements and annual reports, available online. Chicagoans seeking information about the murky development zones had been required to file a Freedom of Information Act request. The ordinance, sponsored by Alds. Manny Flores (1st) and Scott Waguespack (32nd), was abruptly put on hold last month, when Ald. Margaret Laurino (39th) refused to call it to a vote . But it met with unanimous approval and little debate at Wednesday's meeting, a sign, the Reader 's Mick Dumke notes , that Mayor Daley had no inclination to kill it.
 
Martha St Jean: Black Women and the AIDS Crisis Top
Every 9 1/2 minutes, someone in the U.S is infected with HIV. That is the premise of a campaign titled, " 9 1/2 Minutes ," launched by the Act Against AIDS Campaign. April is STD Awareness Month . As the month draws to an end, I have composed this message to one group that should be paying close attention to what is going on in the world of sexually transmitted diseases: black women. To say STDs disproportionately affect black women would be a gross understatement. Did you know that AIDS is the leading cause of death among black women aged 25-34? Besides men who have sex with men and bisexuals in the black community, black women are the most affected. Black women made up 35% of new infections among our racial group. As a racial group, this disease affects black women more than any other. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , the rate of occurrence or HIV incidence among black women is about 15 times as high as that of white women. According to Dr. Kevin Fenton , director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS at the CDC, one in 30 black women will be diagnosed with HIV at some point in her lifetime. That is unacceptable. Here's another startling statistic, gonorrhea is 19 times higher in African-Americans as it is whites. Earlier this year, we found out that black girls 15-19 are disproportionately affected by chlamydia. This high rate of STD/STI transmission aids in facilitating HIV/AIDS infections; it is a domino effect. Last year, I had the opportunity to attend the 17th Annual International AIDS conference held in Mexico City, Mexico. There, I sat down with Dr. Fenton and discussed AIDS and its ravaging affect in America. One of the things he told me in the interview was that the numbers, "should serve as a wakeup call to do more and do it faster." I also spent some time in Washington D.C studying a variety of health topics. The one that was covered the most intensely was HIV/AIDS. I learned from people, including, Jonathan Zenilman, M.D., Chief-Infectious Diseases Division at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, that the District of Columbia has a major HIV/AIDS problem on its hands. How can the nation's capital have rates that compare to that of third world countries? Therefore, it was not a shock when a report funded by the CDC and carried out by members of the George Washington University School of Health and Health Services concluded earlier this year that 3% of residents of D.C have HIV or AIDS . That 3% only includes residents who have been tested. When an illness effects 1% of a population that is considered a "generalized and severe" epidemic. The rates are higher than those in West Africa. Black women in D.C make up more than 25% of those living with the infection or disease. In the report, " Left Behind - Black America: A Neglected Priority ," released in August 2008 by the Black AIDS Institute, the United States was criticized for what the organization called a "timid and lethargic" response to the most serious health crisis facing black America. I interviewed Phill Wilson , the founder and executive director of the Black AIDS Institute and he told me that if black America were its own country it would be rank as number 16 in the global AIDS epidemic. When the White House and CDC announced the start of the "Act Against AIDS," it was a step in the right direction. In a country where blacks make up only 12% of the population, we should not be making up 46% of the HIV/AIDS cases. Let us not fail our children, our community and ourselves. The situation is not irredeemable. The solution to this crisis begins at home. Let's start thinking about the social and cultural norms that may be driving this epidemic. So today, I am urging black women to do more. Get tested; protect yourself. Women need to have a more intensified response to this killer. Let's not only count on governmental officials to take action. I urge you, my black sister friend to react to this threat as you would to an IED (improvised explosive device) killing your brother, father or son in the Iraqi war. Get as angry as you would at the random killings of our young black men by stray bullets in poverty stricken areas. Get the facts . Get upset and get mobilized. More on Bailout Bandits
 
Harry Moroz: The 40-Year-Old Stimulus Top
Perhaps it is the near doubling of the unemployment rate since February of 2008 that has kept us from asking whether President Bush's 2008 economic stimulus package - $100 billion in tax rebates and $50 billion in handouts to business - was effective. It seems almost ridiculous, or at least unnecessary, to talk about "demonstrable" results (let alone successes) from that package when the economy has so visibly deteriorated since its passage. In contrast, questions about transparency, accountability, and results have swirled around President Obama's stimulus package and have characterized much of the criticism (and some of the praise) the measure has received. If the legislation creates or saves 3 million jobs, will it have worked? If it only builds new highways without expanding transit capacity, will it have worked? If it does not regularize the use of health information technology will it have worked? If it does not keep the economy from sinking further into the gloomy abyss, will it have worked? Such questions were posed at a field hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that was held yesterday in Brooklyn. The main subject of the hearing was the role of state and local governments in implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), but each witness really testified about the importance of communicating challenges, opportunities, and results between the federal government and states. The emphasis was on how to make the stimulus package work and on figuring out what "working" actually looks like. David Robinson of Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy talked about the opacity of spending funneled from the federal government through states and on to local governments: Being able to say where the funds were initially sent is important, but incomplete: real transparency means knowing where the funds end up. The head of New York's Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Cabinet Timothy Gilchrist (known as "Captain Asphalt" ) called on the federal government to take control of estimating how many jobs are created at the state level by ARRA. The effort to report on jobs would benefit greatly from a common set of tools - developed by the Federal government, and made available to states, local governments any other direct ARRA-fund recipient. Instead of each state developing its own criteria for estimating the number of jobs generated by ARRA - and manufacturing the type of patchwork system of standards that weakens the No Child Left Behind Act - the federal government should be responsible for a generic system of measurement. Finally, community activist Colvin Grannum outlined the expected benefits of ARRA for Bedford Stuyvesant, one of the lowest income communities in New York City. But Grannum worried, quite compellingly, that the structural constraints of ARRA - the speed with which it must be carried out, its prevailing wage requirement - will "limit the number of local residents and minority-owned businesses engaged by the stimulus spending." Of course, as the conventional wisdom goes, Obama has ushered in a new era of transparency and accountability which, like a breath of fresh air, has swept over the country and relieved it of the malignancies of the Bush years. But the change is really less about transparency and accountability and much more about policy itself. Whereas President Bush was content to "stimulate" (or bribe) the economy with rebate checks, President Obama invested money in programs that are designed to create demonstrable results in communities throughout the country, from Head Start to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to transit infrastructure. Grannum, Gilchrist, and Robinson are debating the results they would like to see from ARRA, not just some increase in GDP or consumer spending. Just after the Bush stimulus (negotiated, admittedly, with Speaker Pelosi) was passed last year, I wrote : As an economic stimulus, ambitious, yet calculated, federal infrastructure projects stand starkly opposed to inducements to consumer spending. Such projects require foresight and forbearance on the part of politicians and constituents, alike. They demand consideration of long-term regional and national goals that range from transportation to sewage to drinking water. They compel consensus on issues as popularly amorphous as climate change and as strangely divisive as freight transport. Such projects at once transcend political opportunism and at the same time are subject to the worst vagaries of influence peddling. These projects ask the question: where should we be in forty years? As we (rightly) criticize and rethink and reevaluate the transparency and accountability and results of the stimulus package, we should keep in mind that the real debate we are having is about where we want to be in forty years.
 
Chip Ward: Too Big to Fail Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Ecological Ignorance and Economic Collapse "Too big to fail." It's been the mantra of our economic meltdown. Although meant to emphasize the overwhelming importance of this bank or that corporation, the phrase also unwittingly expresses a shared delusion that may be at the root of our current crises -- both economic and ecological. In nature, nothing is too big to fail. In fact, big is bound to fail. To understand why that's so means stepping away from a prevailing set of beliefs that holds us in its sway, especially the deep conviction that we operate apart from nature's limits and rules. Here's the heart of the matter: We are ecologically illiterate -- not just unfamiliar with the necessary scientific vocabulary and concepts, but spectacularly, catastrophically, tragically dumb. Oh yes, some of us now understand that draining those wetlands, clear-cutting the rainforests, and pumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere are self-destructively idiotic behaviors. But when it comes down to how nature itself behaves, we remain remarkably clueless. The Adaptive Cycle from Google to GM Science tells us that complex adaptive systems, like economies or ecosystems, tend to go through basic phases, however varied they may be. In the adaptive cycle, first comes a growth phase characterized by open opportunity. The system is weaving itself together and so there are all sorts of niches to be filled, paths to take, partnerships to be made, all involving seemingly endless possibilities and potential. Think of Google. As niches are filled and the system sorts out, establishing strong interdependent relationships, the various players become less diverse and are bound together in ways that are ever more constricting. This is the consolidation phase that follows growth. As the system matures, it may look ever bigger and more indestructible, but it is actually growing ever more vulnerable. Think of General Motors. The hidden weakness that underlies big systems is inherent in the consolidation phase. When every player gets woven ever more tightly into every other, a seemingly small change in a remote corner of the system can cascade catastrophically through the whole of it. Think of a lighted match at the edge of a dry forest. Think of Bear Stearns. As global capitalism is melting down around us, we are experiencing just how, in an overly mature system, disruptions that start small can grow exponentially. So, for example, unemployment goes up another percent or two, just enough to make those of us with jobs save our cash, fearing we might be next. As we buy less, stocks pile up, production lags, more people are fired, more fear spreads, and consumption contracts further. The above scenario, as familiar as can be, also provides an example of how easy it is to cross thresholds -- even just that slim percent or two can do the trick -- and fall into self-reinforcing feedback loops. Big consolidated systems are particularly vulnerable to such runaway scenarios. Think of the domino effect within the densely connected global economy that led to Bear Stearns, then Lehman, Merrill Lynch, AIG... The third phase in the typical adaptive cycle is collapse. If you want to know what that's like, turn on the TV, look out your window, or knock on your neighbor's door, assuming that you still have a window or your neighbor still has a door. Since everything's connected, when an overgrown system spirals out of control, collapse tends to feel like an avalanche rather than erosion. It may be hard to notice during the turmoil and confusion, but enormous amounts of energy are released in the collapse phase of an adaptive cycle and that leads to the final phase: regeneration. After seeds are cracked open by a forest fire, seedlings bloom in the nutrient-rich ashes of the former forest. They soak up newly available sunlight where the forest canopy has been opened. Then, as those open spaces start to fill, the growth phase begins anew. Hopefully, in our world, those empty auto-making factories will soon house a blooming business in wind turbines and mass transit. It is important, however, to recognize that sometimes the collapse phase leads to renewal and sometimes to an entirely different and unwanted regime. Fire, for example, can renew a forest by clearing debris, opening niche space, and resetting the successional clock, or, if combined with a prolonged drought, it can set the stage for desertification. In human systems, we can influence whether the outcome is positive or negative by setting goals, providing incentives, and creating policies designed to reach them. Building an Economy in Thin Air Once you tune in to the phases of an adaptive cycle, you see them unfolding all around you. They may seem overwhelmingly complex, especially when compared to the neater, more linear models that shape our conventional ways of seeing the world, but ignoring that cycle as you build an economy is akin to denying gravity as you build a skyscraper. Bigness is a warning signal that tells us to take a second look and consider whether the seemingly solid thing in front of us is far closer to collapse than it looks and, if so, to ask what can be done about it. If we were ecologically savvy, the conventional wisdom would be: If it ain't broke but it sure is big, then fix it. We do that by breaking it up and creating space for new niches and for the more dynamic diversity that naturally flows into such a system. It's easy to attribute the creative fervor of the growth phase to an absence of regulation, rather than seeing it as the natural process of niche-filling in a system with lots of available space. As is now plain, freeing an already big corporate system of almost all regulation so that it can grow even bigger does not, in fact, encourage creativity; it just hastens the consolidation phase. So, to offer but one example, letting GM off the hook on fuel efficiency during the Bush era didn't make the company more creative. It only added to its long-term vulnerability. It was surely no coincidence that, after the mammoth AT&T monopoly was broken up in the 1980's, cell phone technology emerged explosively starting in the 1990's. In a sense, cell phones were the technological equivalent of a new species emerging after the collapse and regeneration phases of an ecosystem. In the same way, it wasn't giant IBM which generated the revolutionary development of personal computers and the Internet. The next breakthrough in solar technology may be more likely to start in your neighbor's garage than in Chevron's lab. Driving Off Cliffs Our ignorance of the adaptive cycle is just one example of our ecological illiteracy. We are similarly inept at reading all sorts of natural signs. Take, for example, thresholds, those critical points where seemingly minor changes can tip an economy into recession or a climate into a new regime of monster storms and epic droughts. Thresholds are like the doors between the phases in the adaptive cycle, except that they are often one-way -- once you stumble through them, you can't get back to the other side -- so it is crucially important to understand where they are. Although we recognize that there are such things as "tipping points" and we recognize, belatedly, that we have already crossed too many of them, we're lousy at seeing, let alone avoiding, thresholds before we reach them. Understanding exactly where a threshold is located may be difficult, but we can at least look for such boundaries, and deliberately try not to cross them when the unintended consequences of doing so can be dire. There are, after all, usually warnings: the reservoir level is lower every year; the colors in the coral reef are fading away; mercury levels in the lake increase; you are more dependent than ever on imported oil... Once you have driven off a cliff, it does you little good to realize that you are falling. The time to practice water conservation is before your well runs dry. Our culture's ability to deal with thresholds has proven only slightly better than my dog's ability to solve algebra problems. Regeneration, Not Recovery Still, if we really were attentive to the natural cycles unfolding around us, we wouldn't be attracted to growth like moths to a flame. We wouldn't equate bigness with success, but with risk, with enervation awaiting collapse. We certainly wouldn't be aiming today to rebuild yesterday's busted economy so that, tomorrow, we can resume our unlimited looting of nature's storehouse. Believing that we are unbounded by nature's limits or rules, we built an economy where faster, cheaper, bigger, and more added up to the winning hand. Then -- until the recent global meltdown at least -- we acted as if our eventual triumph over anything from resource scarcity to those melting icebergs was a foregone conclusion. Facing problems (or thresholds) where the red lights were visibly blinking, we simply told ourselves that we'd figure out how to tweak the engineering a bit, and make room for a few more passengers. We got it wrong. A capitalist economy based on constant, unlimited growth is a reckless fantasy because ecosystems are not limitless -- there are just so many pollinators, so many aquifers, so much fertile soil. In nature, unchecked rapid growth is the ideology of the invasive species and the cancer cell. Growth as an end in itself is ultimately self-destructive. A (globally warming) rising sea may lift all boats, as capitalists like to point out, but it may also inundate the coastline and drown the people living there. If "recovery" from economic meltdown is just another word for a return to business as usual, we will be squandering a crucial chance to begin to build an economy that could be viable over the long run, without overloading the Earth's carrying capacity and courting catastrophe. We don't have to go big. Remember that regeneration phase of the adaptive cycle? Here's where that comes in. Yes, collapse is a nightmare, but it also presents opportunities. If we were more aware of the thresholds we've already crossed, we might think differently about the next iteration of the economy. We could always cross a threshold of our own making and decide to live differently. Unrestrained growth, after all, was never a prerequisite for health, happiness, and justice. It's not written into the Constitution. What would an end to separation from nature and from each other feel like? How might it be expressed day to day? The regeneration phase that is now upon us begs us to answer those questions. This much is clear. If we want to avoid endless darkness and hardship, we have to become ecologically literate -- deeply so. The future is, you might say, too big to fail. More on Global Financial Crisis
 
Matt Petersen: Support Non-Profits on Earth Day Top
In this weekend's New York Times Magazine Jon Gertner (" Why Isn't the Brain Green ?") evokes the Pew Research Center poll taken in late January that ranked concern about climate change in last place of the top 20 concerns Americans have. This is alarming, since scientists are repeatedly discovering that global warming impacts are accelerating at a pace more quickly than initially expected. Hence our need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is more urgent than ever. From all corners of our society -- whether it is over 3000 scientists that make up the IPCC or President Obama, Al Gore, business leaders, or even notable personalities -- we are hearing the call to action. Further, I and others posit if we merge the solutions to meeting our economic and environmental crises, we can create a long term sustainable economy while stemming the worst potential consequences of climate change (and economic collapse). As Earth Day approaches, we are seeing lots of appeals and reminders that Earth Day is every day in order to amplify the voices of scientists and environmentalists trying to raise the alarm bells and advance solutions to our climate crisis. One such person who is joining the call and shining the light on science and solutions is actor, activist, and Global Green board member Leonardo DiCaprio. As part of announcing a unique eBay auction he agreed to participate in, Leonardo recently joined those reminding us of the need to act by saying "as science continues to point for the need to urgently act on climate change, we need everyone -- individuals, nonprofits, politicians, and business -- to take action. We must urge our leaders to take the next step and arrive at the Copenhagen Climate meeting later this year with the next agreement in hand. President Obama and our leaders in Congress need all of our help to overcome the special interests that continually fight climate and clean energy legislation." With the economic and environmental crises converging, we must find ways to address them together. For example, we spend more money in this nation on energy bills for schools than textbooks and computers combined -- every school in every neighborhood in America can be part of solving global warming, and help put more money into classrooms. We need governments to urgently address the environmental and economic crises together by shifting subsidies for oil, gas and coal -- estimated at $300 billion USD annually -- toward solar and renewable technologies to create jobs, improve the lives of those in need, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This Earth Day, remember that we need to take action to protect our environment every day...and of course making donations to worthy, green charities who advocate on our collective behalf is one critical way to take action. Like all nonprofits, Global Green is finding creative ways to raise money in this economic climate, and are grateful that Leonardo agreed to participate in our Earth Day eBay auction. There are many items he donated to help raise funds for Global Green, but the most unique is the chance to walk the red carpet and meet Leonardo DiCaprio at the premiere of his next film. The auction runs through 7pm pacific on Earth Day and can be found at www.ebay.com/globalgreen . The green auction not only raises funds for Global Green's National Green Schools and Climate Solutions initiatives, it is also a reminder for the need to take action on climate change now. More on Earth Day
 
Jim Selman: Relating to the News: Are You a Spectator or a Player? Top
What is it about us that generates such endless fascination with conflict and suffering around the world? As I am watching the news from Afghanistan, I become resigned that the situation there will never be resolved and I fall into a kind of 'funk' about the Middle East mess in general. Now I don't know all that much -- just what I get from television, magazines and conversations with friends who don't know much more than I do. I have become like so many of us -- a spectator watching war (and other calamities) with about the same degree of engagement as I might watch a football game. What is even more interesting is that I can hear myself in conversations arguing one point of view or another as if my point of view were: a) relevant, b) informed and well grounded, and c) might make some difference--even in the context of whoever I am talking to. In fact, none of these are true and, more often than not, the conversation devolves into an argument that defies resolution. Like all spectators, I have become trapped in a story and lost the distinctions between what I think is happening and what may in fact be going on. With righteous indignation I rail at the bombings and violence by both sides and look to who I can blame for the "crisis du jour". I pray that our current administration can do something that the last seven or eight have not, while not really believing anything will happen. I find myself avoiding more and more conversations rather than risk friendships or provoke more of the kind of black-and-white fragmentation we've lived with for the past eight years. I find myself becoming a turtle on some issues and withdrawing into a kind of 'detachment' from current events. The fact that all this agitates me is a reflection of my ego's desire to control all that I perceive. This is a great example of how we can destroy our serenity when we can't accept life and reality as it is. It is not my point of view that is ever an issue. It is the mood and 'rigid position' that arises when I think I am 'right' or when I want to impose my view on others. It isn't that I can't care about the suffering (or insanity) of others. It is just that I can't do anything about it. If I want to 'take it on' then I would need to, first of all, be responsible for it and then go into action either politically or in some other way. I might or might not succeed, but I would no longer be just a spectator in the stands watching the conflict without any stake in the game. If we want to make a difference it begins, I think, by distinguishing between being a spectator and being a player. Then when we speak or listen to the news, we are engaged in the process and the possibilities that can be created. When we engage, we are no longer resigned and we are putting our wisdom into action in whatever ways we can. At the end of the day, the outcome will be beyond our control, but our day-to-day actions are not. If enough of us are engaged, then the world can change also. © 2009 Jim Selman. All rights reserved. More on Afghanistan
 
Doree Lewak: Is Green Lit So Green After All? Top
If you harbored shame reading that Tori Spelling tome before, imagine how guilty you'd feel if you knew about the egregious expenditure of natural resources used to produce it. With Earth Day upon us, booksellers are putting front and center not-so-subtle reminders to give back to Planet Earth. Although nowadays it seems like every day is Earth Day -- with an almost daily mandate to green the world or pay the price -- the sheer volume of self-styled "green books" has to make you wonder: how green is "Green Lit"? The explosion (and some say over-saturation) of the category -- with green solutions to every non-problem in your life (how to green your grandma, how to green your next dental visit, and of course, how to green your sex life) -- suggests that "Green Lit" authors may not be practicing what they publish. So what are they really offering, and more to the point, is it almost becoming a self-parody of that which the authors are trying to fix? To keep pace with the American book publishing industry alone, 30 million trees per year are used on book production, according to data from the Green Book Initiative. Now we know what reading a "guilty pleasure" really means. So the question raised is whether the production of these books in such high volume negates the spirit of their message. If the authors and publishers were serious about sending their message, wouldn't exclusively sold e-books work just as well? Even if it does feed a rapt market, might green authors serve the environment better to use an alternative means to publish? Sure, authors may stand on top of their soapbox of moral superiority and point fingers at everyone else, but there's a certain underlying hypocrisy with such striking figures on books' environmental impact. The Green Book Initiative reports that the production of one new book -- through the various stages of the publishing process -- expends 8.85 pounds of carbon dioxide, while scooping up used books online emits a mere fraction of that figure. While most publishers are mindful of their environmental impact and pledge to do their part, few real inroads have been made in the quest for a greener industry. It turns out, though, that some of those eco-friendly messages stuffed into those green books are getting through: a 2006 Opinion Research Corporation poll reveals that 80% of book buyers would spend more to buy books on recycled paper. As it stands now, less than 10% of US books use recycled fiber for paper. Now there should be no shame in holding a real-life book (unless, of course, Tori Spelling is on the cover of it), but not without exhausting every measure to make that process as environmentally-friendly as possible. I can see the next wave of Green Lit now: how to green the book industry. Now even the Kindle-averse may start to relent. More on Earth Day
 
Chip Ward: Too Big to Fail Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Ecological Ignorance and Economic Collapse "Too big to fail." It's been the mantra of our economic meltdown. Although meant to emphasize the overwhelming importance of this bank or that corporation, the phrase also unwittingly expresses a shared delusion that may be at the root of our current crises -- both economic and ecological. In nature, nothing is too big to fail. In fact, big is bound to fail. To understand why that's so means stepping away from a prevailing set of beliefs that holds us in its sway, especially the deep conviction that we operate apart from nature's limits and rules. Here's the heart of the matter: We are ecologically illiterate -- not just unfamiliar with the necessary scientific vocabulary and concepts, but spectacularly, catastrophically, tragically dumb. Oh yes, some of us now understand that draining those wetlands, clear-cutting the rainforests, and pumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere are self-destructively idiotic behaviors. But when it comes down to how nature itself behaves, we remain remarkably clueless. The Adaptive Cycle from Google to GM Science tells us that complex adaptive systems, like economies or ecosystems, tend to go through basic phases, however varied they may be. In the adaptive cycle, first comes a growth phase characterized by open opportunity. The system is weaving itself together and so there are all sorts of niches to be filled, paths to take, partnerships to be made, all involving seemingly endless possibilities and potential. Think of Google. As niches are filled and the system sorts out, establishing strong interdependent relationships, the various players become less diverse and are bound together in ways that are ever more constricting. This is the consolidation phase that follows growth. As the system matures, it may look ever bigger and more indestructible, but it is actually growing ever more vulnerable. Think of General Motors. The hidden weakness that underlies big systems is inherent in the consolidation phase. When every player gets woven ever more tightly into every other, a seemingly small change in a remote corner of the system can cascade catastrophically through the whole of it. Think of a lighted match at the edge of a dry forest. Think of Bear Stearns. As global capitalism is melting down around us, we are experiencing just how, in an overly mature system, disruptions that start small can grow exponentially. So, for example, unemployment goes up another percent or two, just enough to make those of us with jobs save our cash, fearing we might be next. As we buy less, stocks pile up, production lags, more people are fired, more fear spreads, and consumption contracts further. The above scenario, as familiar as can be, also provides an example of how easy it is to cross thresholds -- even just that slim percent or two can do the trick -- and fall into self-reinforcing feedback loops. Big consolidated systems are particularly vulnerable to such runaway scenarios. Think of the domino effect within the densely connected global economy that led to Bear Stearns, then Lehman, Merrill Lynch, AIG... The third phase in the typical adaptive cycle is collapse. If you want to know what that's like, turn on the TV, look out your window, or knock on your neighbor's door, assuming that you still have a window or your neighbor still has a door. Since everything's connected, when an overgrown system spirals out of control, collapse tends to feel like an avalanche rather than erosion. It may be hard to notice during the turmoil and confusion, but enormous amounts of energy are released in the collapse phase of an adaptive cycle and that leads to the final phase: regeneration. After seeds are cracked open by a forest fire, seedlings bloom in the nutrient-rich ashes of the former forest. They soak up newly available sunlight where the forest canopy has been opened. Then, as those open spaces start to fill, the growth phase begins anew. Hopefully, in our world, those empty auto-making factories will soon house a blooming business in wind turbines and mass transit. It is important, however, to recognize that sometimes the collapse phase leads to renewal and sometimes to an entirely different and unwanted regime. Fire, for example, can renew a forest by clearing debris, opening niche space, and resetting the successional clock, or, if combined with a prolonged drought, it can set the stage for desertification. In human systems, we can influence whether the outcome is positive or negative by setting goals, providing incentives, and creating policies designed to reach them. Building an Economy in Thin Air Once you tune in to the phases of an adaptive cycle, you see them unfolding all around you. They may seem overwhelmingly complex, especially when compared to the neater, more linear models that shape our conventional ways of seeing the world, but ignoring that cycle as you build an economy is akin to denying gravity as you build a skyscraper. Bigness is a warning signal that tells us to take a second look and consider whether the seemingly solid thing in front of us is far closer to collapse than it looks and, if so, to ask what can be done about it. If we were ecologically savvy, the conventional wisdom would be: If it ain't broke but it sure is big, then fix it. We do that by breaking it up and creating space for new niches and for the more dynamic diversity that naturally flows into such a system. It's easy to attribute the creative fervor of the growth phase to an absence of regulation, rather than seeing it as the natural process of niche-filling in a system with lots of available space. As is now plain, freeing an already big corporate system of almost all regulation so that it can grow even bigger does not, in fact, encourage creativity; it just hastens the consolidation phase. So, to offer but one example, letting GM off the hook on fuel efficiency during the Bush era didn't make the company more creative. It only added to its long-term vulnerability. It was surely no coincidence that, after the mammoth AT&T monopoly was broken up in the 1980's, cell phone technology emerged explosively starting in the 1990's. In a sense, cell phones were the technological equivalent of a new species emerging after the collapse and regeneration phases of an ecosystem. In the same way, it wasn't giant IBM which generated the revolutionary development of personal computers and the Internet. The next breakthrough in solar technology may be more likely to start in your neighbor's garage than in Chevron's lab. Driving Off Cliffs Our ignorance of the adaptive cycle is just one example of our ecological illiteracy. We are similarly inept at reading all sorts of natural signs. Take, for example, thresholds, those critical points where seemingly minor changes can tip an economy into recession or a climate into a new regime of monster storms and epic droughts. Thresholds are like the doors between the phases in the adaptive cycle, except that they are often one-way -- once you stumble through them, you can't get back to the other side -- so it is crucially important to understand where they are. Although we recognize that there are such things as "tipping points" and we recognize, belatedly, that we have already crossed too many of them, we're lousy at seeing, let alone avoiding, thresholds before we reach them. Understanding exactly where a threshold is located may be difficult, but we can at least look for such boundaries, and deliberately try not to cross them when the unintended consequences of doing so can be dire. There are, after all, usually warnings: the reservoir level is lower every year; the colors in the coral reef are fading away; mercury levels in the lake increase; you are more dependent than ever on imported oil... Once you have driven off a cliff, it does you little good to realize that you are falling. The time to practice water conservation is before your well runs dry. Our culture's ability to deal with thresholds has proven only slightly better than my dog's ability to solve algebra problems. Regeneration, Not Recovery Still, if we really were attentive to the natural cycles unfolding around us, we wouldn't be attracted to growth like moths to a flame. We wouldn't equate bigness with success, but with risk, with enervation awaiting collapse. We certainly wouldn't be aiming today to rebuild yesterday's busted economy so that, tomorrow, we can resume our unlimited looting of nature's storehouse. Believing that we are unbounded by nature's limits or rules, we built an economy where faster, cheaper, bigger, and more added up to the winning hand. Then -- until the recent global meltdown at least -- we acted as if our eventual triumph over anything from resource scarcity to those melting icebergs was a foregone conclusion. Facing problems (or thresholds) where the red lights were visibly blinking, we simply told ourselves that we'd figure out how to tweak the engineering a bit, and make room for a few more passengers. We got it wrong. A capitalist economy based on constant, unlimited growth is a reckless fantasy because ecosystems are not limitless -- there are just so many pollinators, so many aquifers, so much fertile soil. In nature, unchecked rapid growth is the ideology of the invasive species and the cancer cell. Growth as an end in itself is ultimately self-destructive. A (globally warming) rising sea may lift all boats, as capitalists like to point out, but it may also inundate the coastline and drown the people living there. If "recovery" from economic meltdown is just another word for a return to business as usual, we will be squandering a crucial chance to begin to build an economy that could be viable over the long run, without overloading the Earth's carrying capacity and courting catastrophe. We don't have to go big. Remember that regeneration phase of the adaptive cycle? Here's where that comes in. Yes, collapse is a nightmare, but it also presents opportunities. If we were more aware of the thresholds we've already crossed, we might think differently about the next iteration of the economy. We could always cross a threshold of our own making and decide to live differently. Unrestrained growth, after all, was never a prerequisite for health, happiness, and justice. It's not written into the Constitution. What would an end to separation from nature and from each other feel like? How might it be expressed day to day? The regeneration phase that is now upon us begs us to answer those questions. This much is clear. If we want to avoid endless darkness and hardship, we have to become ecologically literate -- deeply so. The future is, you might say, too big to fail. More on Global Financial Crisis
 
John Brown: Can America change hearts and minds? Top
Few US government activities have been more maligned in recent years than public diplomacy, defined by the US state department as "engaging, informing and influencing key international audiences". Dozens of reports, from all sides of the political fence, have argued that the US had failed to make its case overseas. Months after the president's inauguration, the Obama administration has finally selected an under-secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs: Judith McHale, a media and communications executive - close to the Clintons for years - who is little known to the general public. In the 2008 campaign cycle, the Washington Post reported, she contributed $109,600 to Democratic politicians and campaign committees. McHale, the daughter of a US foreign service officer and raised in England and South Africa, faces many challenges in her new job (if she is approved by Congress). First among these is the negative effect of the "Hughes legacy". Karen Hughes, a media-savvy George Bush confidante who ran the state department's public diplomacy from 2005 until her resignation in late 2007, was criticised from all sides of the political spectrum for her ignorance of foreign affairs and maladroitness in dealing with the Muslim world. Despite her "new initiatives", Hughes came to epitomise the previous administration's failure to improve America's overseas image. With a background not dissimilar to Hughes's - including having political connections rather than diplomatic expertise - McHale will have to convince sceptics the world over that she is not a Democratic clone of Hurricane Karen. Second, McHale - again, like Hughes before her selection - has no previous experience working within the state department bureaucracy. And yet she'll be dealing with an organisation, by some considered dysfunctional, that has its own, often arcane, way of doing things. With the consolidation of the agency that handled public diplomacy during the cold war - the United States Information Agency - into the state department in 1999, the role of public diplomacy practitioners at Foggy Bottom has been problematic. It's no secret that PD officers are often considered by their co-workers in other career paths to be second-class citizens who don't really count. McHale will have to demonstrate to her state department colleagues - and to the White House as well - that public diplomacy is an integral part of the foreign policy process and smart power, not just PR or using internet social networks ("public diplomacy 2.0"). McHale's third challenge will be the defence department, which during the Bush administration supported some widely criticised "public diplomacy" initiatives, including having one of its contractors, the Lincoln Group, covertly pay off Iraqi newspapers to print articles composed by the US military but published as straight news items. To be sure, Pentagon officials recently announced that the position of deputy assistant secretary of defence for support to public diplomacy had been eliminated, in an effort, according to the New York Times, "by the Obama administration to distance itself from past practices that some military officers called propaganda". But McHale may face an uphill battle in making it crystal clear that she - and not the "strategic communications" and psyops chiefs at DoD - is the public diplomacy boss. Many military officers, following the lead of secretary of defence Robert Gates, do welcome more aggressive civilian "soft-power" programmes, at least in theory. McHale, however, should be ready for bureaucratic turf wars with those in uniform who feel they, and not somebody at state, should be in charge of the battle for hearts and minds. McHale faces a final challenge: making the state department work harmoniously and productively with the growing number non-governmental organisations involved in public diplomacy. This expanding engagement of the private sector in PD resulted, in part, from the frustration of citizens concerned with foreign affairs with how the Bush administration was handling its relations with the outside world. In truly American style, US NGOs decided to take matters into their own hands. This certainly was the case of the prominent organisation Business for Diplomatic Action, which concluded that the US government's message was no longer credible overseas. Competition between the government and private sector is, of course, not necessarily antagonistic, but it needs much care and attention. As she prepares for her new job, McHale can take some comfort in the current popularity of Obama overseas. But honeymoons don't last forever, and anti-Americanism will not disappear overnight (if ever). So, if she is in fact confirmed, which appears likely, the new under-secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs may eventually regret having left Discovery Communications - unless she can pull off some minor miracles. Article originally posted at guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 April 2009 16.00 BST
 
John Feffer: Monsters vs. Aliens Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Why Terrorists and Pirates Are Not About to Team Up Any Time Soon In the comic books, bad guys often team up to fight the forces of good. The Masters of Evil battle the Avengers superhero team. The Joker and Scarecrow ally against Batman. Lex Luthor and Brainiac take on Superman. And the Somali pirates, who have dominated recent headlines with their hijacking and hostage-taking, join hands with al-Qaeda to form a dynamic evil duo against the United States and our allies. We're the friendly monsters -- a big, hulking superpower with a heart of gold -- and they're the aliens from Planet Amok. In the comic-book imagination of some of our leading pundits, the two headline threats against U.S. power are indeed on the verge of teaming up. The intelligence world is abuzz with news that radical Islamists in Somalia are financing the pirates and taking a cut of their booty. Given this "bigger picture," Fred Iklé urges us simply to "kill the pirates." Robert Kaplan waxes more hypothetical. "The big danger in our day is that piracy can potentially serve as a platform for terrorists," he writes. "Using pirate techniques, vessels can be hijacked and blown up in the middle of a crowded strait, or a cruise ship seized and the passengers of certain nationalities thrown overboard." Chaotic conditions in Somalia and other countries, anti-state fervor, the mediating influence of Islam, the lure of big bucks: these factors are allegedly pushing the two groups of evildoers into each other's arms. "Both crimes involve bands of brigands that divorce themselves from their nation-states and form extraterritorial enclaves; both aim at civilians; both involve acts of homicide and destruction, as the United Nations Convention on the High Seas stipulates, 'for private ends,'" writes Douglas Burgess in a New York Times op-ed urging a prosecutorial coupling of terrorism and piracy. We've been here before. Since 2001, in an effort to provide a distinguished pedigree for the Global War on Terror and prove the superiority of war over diplomacy, conservative pundits and historians have regularly tried to compare al-Qaeda to the Barbary pirates of the 1800s. They were wrong then. And with the current conflating of terrorism and piracy, it's déjà vu all over again. Misreading Piracy Unlike al-Qaeda, the Somali pirates have no grand desire to bring down the United States and the entire Western world. They have no intention of establishing some kind of piratical caliphate. Despite Burgess's claims, they are not bent on homicide and destruction. They simply want money. Most of the pirates are former fisherman dislodged from their traditional source of income by much larger pirates, namely transnational fishing conglomerates. When a crippled Somali government proved incapable of securing its own coastline, those fishing companies moved in to suck up the rich catch in local waters. "To make matters worse," Katie Stuhldreher writes in The Christian Science Monitor , "there were reports that some foreign ships even dumped waste in Somali waters. That prompted local fishermen to attack foreign fishing vessels and demand compensation. The success of these early raids in the mid-1990s persuaded many young men to hang up their nets in favor of AK-47s." Despite their different ideologies -- al-Qaeda has one, the pirates don't -- it has become increasingly popular to assert a link between radical Islam and the Somali freebooters. The militant Somali faction al-Shabab, for instance, is allegedly in cahoots with the pirates, taking a cut of their money and helping with arms smuggling in order to prepare them for their raids. The pirates "are also reportedly helping al-Shabab develop an independent maritime force so that it can smuggle foreign jihadist fighters and 'special weapons' into Somalia," former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia David Shinn has recently argued . In fact, the Islamists in Somalia are no fans of piracy. The Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which had some rough control over Somalia before Ethiopia invaded the country in 2006, took on piracy , and the number of incidents dropped . The more militant al-Shabab, which grew out of the ICU and became an insurgent force after the Ethiopian invasion, has denounced piracy as an offense to Islam. The lumping together of Islamists and pirates obscures the only real solution to Somalia's manifold problems. Piracy is not going to end through the greater exercise of outside force, no matter what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman may think. (In a recent column lamenting the death of diplomacy in an "age of pirates," he recommended a surge in U.S. money and power to achieve success against all adversaries.) Indeed, the sniper killing of three pirates by three U.S. Navy Seals has, to date, merely spurred more ship seizures and hostage-taking. Simply escalating militarily and "going to war" against the Somali pirates is likely to have about as much success as our last major venture against Somalia in the 1990s, which is now remembered only for the infamous Black Hawk Down incident . Rather, the United States and other countries must find a modus vivendi with the Islamists in Somali to bring the hope of political order and economic development to that benighted country. Diplomacy and development, however lackluster they might seem up against a trio of dead-eyed sharpshooters, are the only real hope for Somalia and the commercial shipping that passes near its coastline. From the Shores of Tripoli It would have been the height of irony if the sharpshooters who took out the three Somali youths in that lifeboat with their American hostage had been aboard the USS John Paul Jones , a Navy guided-missile destroyer. Considered the father of the American Navy, Jones was quite the pirate in his day. Or so thought the British, whose ships he seized and looted. We are left instead with the lesser irony of the sharpshooters taking aim from the USS Bainbridge . This ship was named for Commodore William Bainbridge, who fought against the Barbary pirates in the battles of Algiers and Tunis during the Barbary Wars and was himself taken prisoner in 1803. The parallels between the pirates of yesterday and today are striking. Then, as now, American observers miscast the pirates as Muslim radicals. In fact, as Frank Lambert explains in his book The Barbary Wars , those pirates actually served secular governments that were part of the Ottoman Empire (much as Sir Francis Drake plundered Spanish ships on behalf of Queen Elizabeth in the sixteenth century or Jones served the United States in the eighteenth). Then, as now, the pirates resorted to preying on commercial shipping because they'd been boxed out of legitimate trade. The Barbary pirates took to looting European vessels because European governments had barred the states of Algiers, Tripoli, and Morocco from trading in their markets. Back then, the fledgling United States accused the Barbary pirates of being slavers without acknowledging that the U.S. was then the center of the global slave trade. Today, the U.S. government decries piracy, but doesn't do anything to prevent the maritime poaching of fishing reserves that helped push pirates from their jobs into risky but lucrative careers in freebooting. The most improbable link, however, involves the conflation of terrorism and piracy. In the aftermath of September 11, pundits and historians identified the U.S. military response to the Barbary pirates as a useful precedent for striking out against al-Qaeda. Shortly after the attacks, law professor Jonathan Turley invoked the war against the Barbary pirates in congressional testimony to justify U.S. retaliation against the terrorists. Historian Thomas Jewett , conservative journalist Joshua London , and executive director of the Christian Coalition of Washington State Rick Forcier all pointed to those pirates as Islamic radicals avant la lettre to underscore the impossibility of negotiations and the necessity of war, both then and now. The battle against the Barbary pirates led to the creation of the U.S. Marine Corps (" ...to the shores of Tripoli ") and the first major U.S. government expenditure of funds on a military that could fight distant wars. For historians like Robert Kagan (in his book Dangerous Nation ), that war kicked off what would be a distinguished history of empire, which he contrasts with the conventional wisdom of a United States that only reluctantly assumed its hegemonic mantle. Will the current conflict with the Somali pirates, if successfully linked in the public mind to global terrorism, serve as one significant part of a new justification for the continuation of empire and a whole new set of military expenditures needed to sustain such a venture? The New GWOT? The United States has the most powerful navy in the world. But what it can do against the Somali pirates is limited. Big guns and destroyers are incapable of covering the necessary vast ocean expanses in which the relatively low-tech pirates operate, can't respond quickly enough to pin-prick attacks, and ultimately aren't likely to intimidate what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has quite correctly termed "a bunch of teenage pirates" with little to lose. "The area we patrol is more than one million square miles and the simple fact of the matter is we just can't be everywhere at once to prevent every attack of piracy," says Lt Nathan Christensen , of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Last year, approximately 23,000 ships passed through the Gulf of Aden. Pirates snagged 93 of them (some large, some tiny). Yet, in part because these trade routes are so crucial to global economic wellbeing, this minuscule percentage struck fear into the hearts of the most powerful countries on the planet. The failure of the U.S. Navy to stamp out piracy has led to predictable calls for more resources. For instance, to deal with nimble, low-intensity threats like the speedy pirates, the Pentagon is looking at Littoral Combat Ships instead of another several-billion-dollar destroyer. The Navy is planning to purchase 55 of these ships, which, at $450-$600 million each, will come in at around $30 billion, a huge sum for a project plagued with costs overruns and design problems. With the ground (and air) war heating up in Afghanistan and the CIA in charge of operations in Pakistan, the Navy is understandably trying to keep up with the other services. The Navy's goal of a 313-ship force, which boosters champion regardless of cost, can only be reached by appealing to a threat comparable to terrorists on land. Why not the functional equivalent of terrorists at sea? Pirates are the perfect threat. They've been around forever. They directly interfere with the bottom line, so the business community is on board. Unlike China, they don't hold any U.S. Treasury Bonds. Indeed, since they're non-state actors, we can bring virtually every country onto our side against them. And, finally, the Pentagon is already restructuring itself to meet just such a threat. Through its "revolution in military affairs," the adoption of a doctrine of "strategic flexibility," and the cultivation of rapid-response forces, the Pentagon has been gearing up to handle the asymmetrical threats that have largely replaced the more fixed and predictable threats of the Cold War era, and even of the "rogue state" era that briefly followed. The most recent Gates military budget, with its move away from outdated Cold War weapons systems toward more limber forces, fits right in with this evolution. Canceling the F-22 stealth fighter aircraft and cutting money from the Missile Defense Agency in favor of more practical systems is certainly to be applauded. But the Pentagon isn't about to hold a going-out-of-business sale. The new Obama defense budget will actually rise about 4% . George W. Bush's Global War on Terror, or GWOT, turned out to be a useful way for the Pentagon to get everything it wanted: an extraordinary increase in spending and capabilities after 2001. With GWOT officially retired and an unprecedented federal deficit looming, the Pentagon and the defense industries will need to trumpet new threats or else face the possibility of a massive belt-tightening that goes beyond the mere shell-gaming of resources. The War on Terror lives on, of course, in the Obama administration's surge in Afghanistan, the CIA's campaign of drone attacks in the Pakistani borderlands, and the operations of the new Africa Command. However, the replacement phrase for GWOT, "overseas contingency operations," doesn't quite fire the imagination . It's obviously not meant to. But that's a genuine problem for the military in budgetary terms. Enter the pirates, who from Errol Flynn to Johnny Depp have always been a big box-office draw. As the recent media hysteria over the crew of the Maersk Alabama indicates, that formula can carry over to real life. Take Johnny Depp out of the equation and pirates can simply be repositioned as bizarre, narcotics-chewing aliens. Then it's simply a matter of the United States calling together the coalition of the willing monsters to crush those aliens before they take over our planet. And you thought "us versus them" went out with the Bush administration... John Feffer is the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. His writings can be found at his website , and you can subscribe to his weekly e-newsletter World Beat
 
Jeff Schweitzer: The Immorality of Intolerance and Inconsistency Top
North Korea becomes a nuclear nation, and we do nothing. Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, and we do nothing. Government spending is out of control, creating the largest debts and deficits in our nation's history, and we do nothing except cut taxes and start a $1 trillion war. All of the above happened under the administration of George Bush, with a Congress controlled by the Republican Party for six of his eight years in office. During that time our nation suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. Yet today Newt Gingrich goes on TV and lambasts the Obama administration because we did nothing after North Korea launched a missile in spite of global protests. He accuses Obama of weakness, of endangering our national security because he did not prevent the launch of a missile -- a North Korean capability that exists as a consequence of a program developed while Bush was President. Korea went nuclear under Bush and he did nothing . Gingrich then goes on to disparage the President for excessive government spending, blissfully ignoring the inconvenient fact that the largest federal debts and deficits have all accumulated under Republican presidents, mostly with a majority of Republicans on the Hill. The national debt grew under Presidents Reagan and Bush more than the total accumulated under all other presidents combined. With raised eyebrows Gingrich notes that Obama shook the hand of arch-enemy Hugo Chavez, smirking that he, Gingrich, doesn't believe that smiles and handshakes will make the world safer. Surely Gingrich is aware of the disastrous results of wanton aggression during the last eight years in which we arrogantly isolated ourselves from the rest of the world. But he learned no lesson from America's decline under Bush. He is instead frightened by two men shaking hands, as is Dick Cheney who chimed in that countries will soon take advantage of a weakened president. Both Gingrich and Cheney forget that Nixon shook hands with Chairman Mao and Reagan met with Gorbachev at a time when China and Russia were considered bitter enemies of the United States. Mao certainly had more blood on his hands then than Chavez does now. We heard no howls of protest then. The premise of the objection from Gingrich and Cheney is absurd, particularly after eight years of touting the opposing example of failed international relationships. Cheney went on to say in his interview that Obama's decision to release secret memos on torture undermines future intelligence efforts. This from the man whose staff, with his knowledge, exposed an active CIA agent to protect his political interests, including support for starting the war in Iraq based on falsified evidence. In the case of the memos, the "secret" that we tortured people under Bush was well known in advance to our enemies, not the case when Cheney exposed an active agent, which really was a secret. Revealing the name of an active undercover agent is an act of treason. The inconsistent standards by which Gingrich, Cheney and Republicans, more broadly, are judging Obama are troubling on multiple levels. They profess outrage over actions they initiated or condoned when in power . They express concern for our national security after undermining our military with substandard and inadequate equipment, wasteful spending and an illegal war. They bemoan tax increases, and support "tea party" protests when Obama has cut taxes for 95% of all American families, and seeks to re-set capital gains taxes to levels established during President Clinton's term. Eight years of prosperity and growth under Clinton undermine any predictions of apocalyptic collapse due to high taxes. GOP leaders profess to be outraged by government spending after years of burdening our grandchildren with unprecedented debt. Holding contradictory views intentionally twisted to support previously held ideas is not simply hypocritical, although it is certainly that. Such demagoguery in the absence of core convictions is immoral. Outraged indignation suddenly caused by actions that were fully supported when done by the previous Administration demonstrates a gross level of intellectual dishonesty in those who should know better in the leadership of the Republican Party. And such dishonesty is indeed immoral if we believe that honesty is a core component of any ethical framework. The contradictions embedded in Republican views are astounding in depth and breadth. Never forget that the attacks on the World Trade Center, an ascendant Iran, Korea crossing the nuclear threshold and a collapsing economy all happened on Bush's watch. With that record to run from, the GOP has adopted a strategy that fully embraces disinformation as a core theme. Nothing else can explain the bizarre idea pushed by the GOP that Obama is endangering the country because he "did nothing" when Korea launched a missile, or because he shook the hand of an enemy, or came clean about crimes committed under Bush. Embracing dishonesty as a platform reveals a moral compass spinning with no north pole. In answer to that bumper sticker so fondly displayed in red states, building a house on a foundation of lies is not what Jesus would do. Speaking of which, the ability of the Right Wing to embrace inconsistent views unchained from reality with such conviction is entirely predictable given their predilection to comingle religion and politics. No document, after all, is more laden with inconsistencies than the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. That would explain, perhaps, the following glaring contradictions we hear from the right every day: • Hateful proclamations against homosexuality, while simultaneously touting a loving Jesus who turned the other cheek (not that one). Christians are supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner, but hateful proclamations against homosexuals are common. • Opposition to stem cell research on the basis of life's sanctity, while at the same time supporting the death penalty. Only some life is sacred, and they get to decide. • Support for teaching Intelligent Design in schools on the notion that evolution is "only a theory," while never questioning the "theory" of Relativity or insisting that we teach an alternative to Einstein in physics class. • Refuting the reality of climate change, citing lack of evidence, while promoting a Star Wars missile shield in the face of overwhelming evidence that such a system can never work effectively against much less expensive countermeasures. Evidence is cited or ignored at will, as if objective truth is one choice among many dishes in a lunch buffet. The real crime here is that Gingrich, Cheney and friends are inviting attack on the United States in their efforts to convince the world that Obama is weak. That is the most egregious of all the contradictions from the right -- professing to love this country while actively undermining our security for short-term political gain. Fortunately, the GOP badly underestimates the American people, leaders of the world, and Obama himself. Meeting with enemies takes strength and will, and a clear vision of purpose. Few people outside the extreme Right Wing believe that a handshake or respect for other cultures is a sign of weakness. More on Religion
 
Bush Administration Ignored Military's Strong Opposition To Torture Program Top
On Tuesday, President Obama reassured CIA agents that if they interrogated prisoners within the "four corners" of the legal authority given by the Bush administration then they needn't fear prosecution. But a Senate report released on Tuesday night shows that those four corners were constructed after the torture program had begun and were set so that they would encompass the program, rather than the program being built within pre-established legal guidelines. Memos previously released by the Obama administration confirm that the legal analysis was built around the practice and that for a time the torture took place without those "four corners" in place. The report shows that there was strong opposition to those four corners -- which were established by Bush administration and justice department lawyers -- from the military, which argued that the behavior it purported to justify was illegal. The administration squashed that debate and eventually spread the illegal interrogation tactics from Guantanamo to Afghanistan, Iraq and secret prisons scattered around the globe. The idea that torture is illegal, unethical and ineffective is well established in military circles. When elements of the military saw the interrogation plan being crafted by the White House, serious objections were raised. Those objections will be key to any prosecutions because they demonstrate that the White House should have been aware that what they were proposing was against the law. The architects of the torture program, however, seem aware of the power of those dissenting views and, according to the Senate report, repeatedly denied receiving them. Then-Captain and now-Rear Admiral Jane Dalton, for instance, told the committee that her staff discussed the military's concerns with DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, one of the architects of the program, and that he was aware of the military's objections. Haynes, meanwhile, testified that he didn't know that the military was opposed and had written memos to that effect. He later qualified that denial to say he wasn't "sure" that he hadn't been made aware. His deputy, Eliana Davidson, also told him his torture project "needed further assessment," but Haynes, again, said he didn't recall Davidson telling him that. As early as November 2002, the military was pushing back. The Air Force cited "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques" because they "may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in the military order to treat detainees humanely." The top legal adviser to the Criminal Investigation Task Force weighed in, arguing that the techniques "may subject service members to punitive articles of the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]." The "utility and legality of applying certain techniques" was, the lawyer advised, "questionable." Getting more to the point, he added that he couldn't "advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principle that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business." The Army didn't like it, either. The Army's International and Operational Law Division chief determined that the program "crosses the line of 'humane' treatment" and would "likely be considered maltreatment" under military law and "may violate torture statute." The request to torture was deemed "legally insufficient." The Navy wanted further review and the Marine Corps expressed "strong reservations," saying the request to torture wasn't "legally sufficient." The proposed techniques "arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Taking in the concerns, the top legal counsel to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capt. Jane Dalton, proposed a thorough review before approving the new methods. It wasn't to be. Chairman Richard Myers met with Haynes, Dalton told the committee, and returned to tell her to kill her review on Haynes' order. Haynes was concerned that a broader review would allow the military's reservations to leak out. Of course, both Myers and Haynes denied any knowledge of the meeting Dalton referred to and denied telling her to cut short her review. Tellingly, however, the committee reports that "neither has challenged Captain Dalton's recollection." It was the only time Dalton had ever been told to cut short a review, she told the committee. Despite the broad and deep concerns within the military, Haynes recommended to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the bulk of the practices be approved. On December 2, Rumsfeld signed off, famously scribbling in the margins: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

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

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)