Thursday, April 2, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Rep. Steve Israel: Incentivize Detroit to Get Efficient Top
I want the American auto industry to survive. But I don't want them to survive because of perpetual Congressional life support. What Detroit needs is a jump start. For years, Americans gobbled up clunker vehicles because gas was cheap. Because of the demand for what they were making, the American automakers didn't see a reason to seriously retool. Toyota and Honda were busy making smaller, lighter, more energy efficient vehicles. But Americans still wanted their SUVs, so Detroit kept selling them. Then, the bottom fell out. As oil prices spiked our tastes suddenly changed and SUVs became passé. Oil prices may have stabilized since then, but the future still demands the smaller, lighter, more energy efficient vehicles. So how do we get our auto industry to fast-track that future? It's not with a bailout, or with over-regulation of our businesses. Automakers, car dealers and parts suppliers understand one thing above all others: purchase orders. We need to incentivize Detroit to get efficient. We do that by generating demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act presents an opportunity for us to do this. We still have non-allocated funds from that bill as well as the funds declined by Republican governors. If our goal is to stimulate, I say we commit those funds to to one of our biggest, most historic and neediest sectors: the auto industry. Along with Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington, I introduced a "Cash for Clunkers" bill in the House of Representatives (H.R.520). We put this out there in January hoping that the quickly moving recovery package would embrace this idea. The bill passed without it, but there is still time to make it happen. Our bill puts the highest possible priority on one thing: efficiency. If we are going to reinvigorate the auto industry we need to modernize it at the same time. Our "Cash for Clunkers" program would let clunker owners, anyone with a car that got 18 miles per gallon or less at the time of purchase, turn in their old vehicle to be scrapped in exchange for a voucher to buy an energy efficient vehicle or public transportation. Vouchers range from $1,500 up to $4,500 for any car that exceeds CAFE efficiency standards by 25 percent. This year, that would mean a car that gets about 34 miles per gallon or better. If you buy a car that is 50 percent above CAFE standards, you'd get an extra $1,000 added on to your voucher. If we are going to help Detroit, we need to do it with a program that also helps our environment and the consumer. After four years, this program could reduce our oil consumption by 40,000 to 80,000 barrels a day, cutting our carbon emissions, cutting our dependence on foreign oil, and cutting costs for American drivers. "Cash for Clunkers" is a game changer and Detroit finally seems ready to change its game. More on Energy
 
Bill Chameides: Impressions from National Academies Climate Summit Top
Dr. Bill Chameides is the dean of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He blogs regularly at theGreenGrok.com . Follow him on Twitter: theGreenGrok I just returned from the 2-day climate summit at the National Academies sponsored by our America's Climate Choices study. Here are some of the take-away messages. Huge Technological and Lifestyle Challenge "The emissions of the future rich must eventually equal the emissions of today's poor." -- Rob Socolow , Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University Right now, each year, the average American is responsible for about 20 tons of direct emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the chief global warming gas. The average non-American emits about three tons per year. An average Pakistani is responsible for about one ton per year, and average folks from the poorest of countries like Bangladesh fall well below one ton. To meet emission targets to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate, the average annual emissions for each person in the entire world will have to fall to about one ton by the end of the century. That's a huge change for Americans. Accomplishing that while maintaining our standard of living is a daunting challenge. Huge Policy Challenge "The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal and unconventional oil." -- James Mulva , CEO, ConocoPhillips Should we choose to do so, we could easily increase instead of decrease our CO2 emissions. International Policy Will Be Key "Binding targets for the developing nations is out of the question." -- Eileen Claussen , President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change "Without emission policies in the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), it will be impossible to keep the CO2 concentration below 650 [parts per million]." -- Lorents Lorentsen , Chief, Environment Directorate , Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Note that many scientists believe that CO2 concentrations must be held at or below 450 ppm.) "How we [Americans] move [on climate] will determine the international direction. To lead, we must act."   -- Eileen Claussen, Pew Center Addressing the problem of climate change requires virtually all nations to curb their greenhouse gas emissions, but international action is unlikely without U.S. action. Yet, for many U.S. lawmakers, international commitments are essential before the United States acts. Adaptation Is Key Whatever we do now will have little impact on the climate for the next two to three decades; because of the inertia of the climate system, the climate changes of the next 20 to 30 years are already in the "pipeline." However, what we do now will have a major impact on the kind of world our heirs find at the end of the century. It is therefore essential that in addition to emissions reductions we make adaptation a high priority. Planning now is critical, but the institutional tools for adaptation have yet to be developed. Watch Out for Climate Extremes "We need to move [our focus] from the mean to the extremes." -- Carter Roberts , President and CEO, World Wildlife Fund We have already seen a significant increase in heavy downpours in large regions of the United States, especially in the Northeast. (paraphrased) -- Jerry Melillo , Director, The Ecosystems Center , Marine Biological Laboratory The real danger of climate change is not that mean temperatures will increase by a few degrees or that average rainfall may increase or decrease a bit. Global warming is really about climate disruption , which will mean an increase in the severity and frequency of extreme events like heat waves, downpours (and thus floods), and droughts. Extreme events are hard to predict and difficult to plan for. The Economy: The Double- or Triple-Edged Sword? The economic downturn makes passing climate legislation more difficult (because burning fossil fuels would become more costly). However, some have argued that a robust climate law could actually spark the economy by creating new jobs. On the other hand the economic downturn will undoubtedly slow the rate of increase in global emissions of CO2 and possibly lead to a modest decrease in them. This will buy us some more time to get the appropriate policies in place to put a brake on CO2 emissions over the long term. On the other, other hand, if we don't act now, it will be that much more difficult to catch up once the economy gets going again. By the way, the same holds true if the current quiescence in solar activity should continue for a number of years. It also will slow the warming. But if we use that as an excuse not to act or to delay action, such a choice will hurt when the sun comes back. A Major Advantage: Long-Time Horizon Perhaps the best thing we have going for us is the long-time horizon we have to get the job done. If we start lowering greenhouse gas emissions soon, we'll be able to make small reductions (of a percent or so each year) over the rest of the century. The reductions we make in the short-term can be the so-called low hanging fruit - taking advantage of what we already know how to do like increasing efficiency , using more renewables. The reductions we make further down the road will require new, innovative technologies. Will we be able to develop them? Obviously, we cannot know for sure. But if we consider how much the world has changed technologically over the past 50 and 100 years, it's not hard to imagine that we will be successful. The trick is to put policies in place today that encourage the development of tomorrow's low-carbon technologies. More on Climate Change
 
Burris: Blago Indictment 'Has Nothing To Do With Me' Top
With former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) expected to be indicted Thursday by the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, the man he controversially appointed to the Senate says it doesn't concern him. Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) told The Hill that Blagojevich is the one who will have to "deal with it." More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Becky Lee: The Workplace: A Victim's Potential Safe Haven Top
"To affect real change we must begin by changing attitudes about violence and get the public at large involved in our cause," says Brook McMurray, former victim and Chair of Safe Horizon's Board of Directors. Safe Horizons is a New York based organization dedicated to preventing and providing resources for domestic violence in the workplace. "My life seemed a quintessential New York success story. I graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude from Smith College and married an Ivy League graduate. Everyone thought I had married the perfect man. We lived in a brownstone just off Fifth Avenue and belonged to a country club. I was on the management track at Time, Inc., and my husband worked across the street at one of the city's leading investment banks. My life was a perfect hell." Brook's story is proof that domestic violence does not affect a specific type of person. She was beaten, tied up, locked out of her home, isolated from family and friends, and blamed for any problem that arose. Abuse is blind to race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, social or economic status. Thus, domestic violence will follow anyone into the workplace. It can be the cheerful secretary, your authoritative boss, or even yourself. It is important to open your ears for these victims or to express your situation to a close co-worker. In the 21st century, as evidenced by the cubical phase out and creation of open working spaces, corporations have been implanted with the desire to encourage interoffice collaboration and relationship building amongst co-workers. In 1995, Brook told her story for the first time to a New York audience. There was no need for her testimony before because no one had ever asked her to speak out. After her speech, she was approached by two women: Lucy Friedman from Victim's Services (the precursor to Safe Horizons) and former New York City District Attorney, Linda Fairstein. They asked Brook to join their board and travel the country to educate companies about the prevalence and severity of domestic violence in the workplace. "They needed me for credibility. When I stand up to the management looking the way I do with the credentials I have, it's hard for someone to argue that DV doesn't happen here because it happened to me in a workplace just like this one." Yet, companies have been slow to implement the infrastructure changes necessary to accommodate for domestic violence issues. The issue's pervasiveness is still commonly misunderstood and underrated. Brook, a manager herself, can appreciate the trepidation of CEO's when asked to improve standards. "There has been a deterioration of the line between work life and personal life. All of the sudden, the work place is required to take on many issues that simply were not considered part of the workplace. In the early 1970s, the one that you could probably get assistance with was drinking, but over the years that ballooned into assistance with all kinds of things and then when you start talking about this with a company that is already strapped with financial concerns, it's like 'oh my God, another problem.'" However, companies fail to realize the enormous financial loss for inaction. Domestic violence impedes productivity, costing American businesses millions of dollars. According to a recent survey conducted by Safe Horizon and Liz Claiborne Inc., American companies will lose eight million days of paid work this year because of domestic violence1 and cost employers an estimated $6 billion each year in aggregate costs, including more than $4.1 billion in direct medical and mental health services and $1.8 billion in productivity losses.2 "When you begin educating people about the connection between financial stability and domestic violence and overall office safety they become more willing to get involved," said McMurray. McMurray's goal is to have 200 C.E.O.'s sign a Domestic Violence pledge by 2010, demonstrating their commitment to raising awareness about the issue in the work place and creating a domestic violence policy for their company. "Dialogue about domestic violence would help eliminate the glass ceiling for women in the workplace. In some cases, the ceiling is deliberate - some men living in corporate America are abusers, but many men are not and simply don't know it happens in their workplace." The same study found that CEO's believe 6% of the workforce is affected by domestic violence, but if you ask an employee, the number triples. One in four female employees (26%) identifies as a victim or survivor of domestic violence and nearly one in four employees (22%) reported that they have worked with a co-worker who was a victim."3 The discrepancy between the leadership at the top and the employees illustrates a void in communication and a need for greater education. This is not to say American companies should be solely obligated to shoulder the burden of domestic violence. Public policy must provide both victim resources and funding for preventative education. In 2010, the Violence against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization and each American constituent is responsible to pressure his/her Representative to fully fund the legislation. Programs educating men about domestic violence and providing rape counseling are underfund and need VAWA resources to reach their target audiences. When activists and supporters reference domestic violence in the workplace as an issue, they are not only speaking about the company or victim, but also children, families and communities as well. Everything and everyone is affected. No one is immune - everyone is responsible to do what he or she can. Do your part. Find out if your workplace has a domestic violence policy. Even if you do not know of co-workers who are experiencing abuse, researching your company's policy can only make a positive impact for everyone. Speak out. To learn more about Safe Horizons, visit www.safehorizon.org Becky Lee is the founder of Becky's Fund, a national non-profit organization committed to ending domestic violence through prevention education, awareness, and advocacy. Please visit www.beckysfund.org for more information.
 
Matthew Cooper: A Letter to the President, From Hip-Hop Top
President Barack Hussein Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President Barack Hussein Obama, Where do I begin? Well, first and foremost congratulations on your presidency! It's been a long road to success with a dedicated grind, and for that I commend you. Victory is won and history has been made! You know, I'm not usually one to toot my own horn but I played a major role in your campaign. As far as your young urban America voters are concerned, I don't think you would've persuaded them without my influence. Don't get me wrong: you're an extremely charismatic guy, but I believe it was the intellect and passion of my people who got the attention you needed from Generation Y. Just look at who I had campaigning for you -- Jay-Z, P.Diddy, Nas, T.I, Young Jeezy, Big Boi -- I could go on, Mr. President, but I just want you to know how much I care for you. I know that a few of my folks got a little carried away with the support they were offering and you had to distance yourself from me. I took it personal initially but then I realized why you did it. I realized that too much of me would've been a hindrance to your success. All of that is behind me now, but I do want to apologize on behalf of those artists that were a bit over the top. They didn't mean anything negative by it. They just got excited; you made history! I have to admit though you are one stand-up guy! You showed your appreciation and gratitude for me by allowing us to perform at your inaugural ball. I can't even explain how that felt to be there for the first time. To be apart of something that historic is absolutely surreal. It amazes me every time I think of that night. But what boggles the mind even more is that I've watched you grow. We've crossed paths a few times before, but there is one time in particular that did it for me. It was the first date with you and your lovely wife, Michelle. The two of you went to see Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing . I was there; I wonder if you remember? I was blasting through Radio Raheem's speakers -- Public Enemy's "Fight The Power." Our chemistry has continued to bond us ever since. I've had to deal with a lot of issues over the past year. My brother and sister -- Neo-Soul and Pop -- are envious of our relationship. I hear about it constantly, but I take a page from your book and brush it off my shoulders (which is a page you took from my book, written by Jay-Z). I ignore it for the most part, although Neo keeps hinting towards some type of connection between himself and the First Lady. But never mind them. There are more important matters at hand. During the latter part of my existence, inhabitants of the inner-city and inquisitive minds of the suburbs have looked up to me and honored me. I have artists who sold millions of records, and drove expensive foreign cars, who became the definition of cool to this generation. However, you have changed that Mr. President. Now, you are that new face of cool. True, I continued to be adored, but people have deducted money from my sales and invested in your memorabilia. I can't say I enjoy it, but at the same time I know that this is the beginning of a new age. Its the start of change! There are no more excuses of: "I'm a black man, I can't get anywhere in America." Those days are long gone thanks to you. So now here's the biggest question and perhaps the most important one: "Can Hip-Hop change?" Of course I can! But it's going to take some effort from the both of us. You know, you said something deep in an interview once, "Hip-Hop is not just a mirror of what is, it should also be a reflection of what can be." That spoke volumes to me. I can work with my people to clean up our act, but you have to understand that poverty still exists in America. That young aspiring artist who lives in the projects and wakes up into welfare and drugs everyday is writing raps about what he's living. I'm not condoning my "gangster" image I'm just saying in order to change it, we must work together to change how these people are living. Like you said I'm a ''mirror of what is.'' It's going to take some time but we have at least four years to get it right! All in all Mr. President, I'm just writing you a letter of endearment. I'm letting you know that I'll be here for your current term and your next. If our country's security alert level reaches "Code Red" (and hopefully it won't!), I'll be there. When Sasha and Malia go to their junior and senior proms, I'll be there. All I'm asking is for you to believe in me. Work with me to make things better on my end, and help me make a change in my content. Its been a bittersweet journey getting here, so while were here lets enjoy it. We both have a lot of work ahead of us and a lot of goals to accomplish, but together we'll make it! Just one last thing I want to throw out there for you. I hope you get elected to a second term -- if that's your desire -- but when this four years is over and if you decide not to run again, I'll have an executive position at one of my labels waiting for you. But hey, it's just an idea. I wish you much continued success, and if you ever need me.....you know where to find me. Yours Truly, Hip-Hop "since 1973" P.S. We really have to work on the whole "White House" thing. Maybe you can rename it to..."The Home of Change". H.O.C. for short. Tell you what; just have your people call my people. More on Barack Obama
 
Tom Alderman: Mrs. O'Leary's Cow and Mt. Everest - Audio Book Reviews Top
TITLE The Fifth Floor AUTHOR Michael Harvey, The Chicago Way,/i> GENRE Private Eye Mystery LENGTH 7 Hrs, 57 min - Unabridged - 7 CDs or Download PUBLISHER Random House Audio NARRATOR: Stephen Hoye, narrator for William Bernhardt, Ursula K. Le Guin, Ben Bova, Orson Scott Card and 90-plus other audiobooks COMMENT Power is the propellant in this classic private eye, a who-did-what story with a distinctly Chicago overlay. The Fifth Floor here is City Hall, Office of the Mayor, where all power resides from a benevolent dictator who keeps the streets clean, encourages business and whose family-mayor-roots go back to the Chicago fire and Mrs. O'Leary's cow, which is one of the starting points in this engaging labyrinth of a story. This is the second book from Michael Harvey starring private investigator, Michael Kelly, a former Chicago detective with a seen-it-all attitude, who reads Cicero and Sophocles, and is just the wise-ass guy to find out who's behind the tangled web of duplicity and murder that always seems to lead back to City Hall. What makes Fifth Floor stand out in the PI genre is its Chicago, pragmatic perspective where crime and punishment are just rough guidelines. In other towns, a guy shoots another guy, its murder. In Kelly's Chicago, it's not so clear, it's situational, and there are always mitigating factors. One negative aspect about this audiobook is the narration. Kelly, and all the characters, tend towards snappy, blunt dialogue that often crackles with attitude. Narrator Stephen Hoye is a word-stretcher, a dramatic Floyd, the barber, who drags his syllables out so 'yes' comes out 'yeeeeeees.' The florid reading works against the material. How much more engaging it could have been with Chicago voices like Jim Belushi or Ed O'Neill. Too bad Joe Mantgegna is tied up doing Robert Parker's Spencer series. BOTTOM LINE Boston does have Spencer, New York has Myron Bolivar, L.A. has Elvis Cole - add Chicago's Michael Kelly to your list of appealing PIs with character. TITLE Paths of Glory AUTHOR Jeffery Archer, <>Prisoner of Birth , First Among Equals, Kane & Abel , , etc. GENRE Biographical novel LENGTH 11 hrs - Unabridged - CDs or Download PUBLISHER Macmillan Audio NARRATOR Roger Allam, Prisoner of Birth COMMENT If you're a mountain climber, this biographical novelization of the man who wanted to conquer Mt. Everest, because "it is there," might satisfy - all others could take a hike. All of his climbs, including an ascent on the Eiffel Tower and two Everest attempts are endlessly detailed here. Even Roger Allam, who does such an outstanding job narrating Archer's previous terrific thriller, Prisoner of Birth , cannot save this slow motion trek. BOTTOM LINE Paths of boredom.
 
James Boyce: April Showers Bring... Genocide? Top
Here in New England, people look forward to April as the days turn longer, and warmer and the first signs of Spring emerge. The young, and young at heart, often recite the old standard, "April showers bring May flowers." Unfortunately, in far too many parts of world, April is not a month to look forward to, as April is well on its way to becoming known as a month of tragedy; one with a strange and deadly history. In the last century, all of the six major genocides that have been perpetrated- Armenia, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Cambodia, Darfur and Rwanda -- all have major anniversaries that take place in the month of April, an eerie and unsettling coincidence. With this in mind, survivors from these genocides have joined together and declared April " Genocide Prevention Month ," and are observing the 30-day span to remember and mourn the many friends and family that they lost in their struggle to escape systematic extinction. Activists around the world have taken this a step further and organized nearly 50 events so far globally for the month to raise awareness of these atrocities. The Genocide Prevention Project , a foundation created to watch for warning signs of mass-scale atrocity crimes, is calling on the public and organizations to make a pledge to observe Genocide Prevention Month and further implement the harsh reality of the past and present into the social consciousness. Filmmakers Michael Pertnoy and Michael Kleiman are utilizing Genocide Prevention Month to premiere their documentary, The Last Survivor , a film featuring first-hand stories from one survivor of each of the six genocides. A 20-minute version premieres online tomorrow. If you haven't seen any of the previews that they've posted here, go have a look . Additionally, over 50 organizations from ten countries are using the month of April to call for a global movement to implement policies that prevent genocidal situations from occurring and also to take major action on the current escalating chaos in Darfur. Considering that the situation in Darfur is still going on after six years, and the government of Turkey still refuses to acknowledge their actions in the Armenian Genocide, it is vital that the public around the world speak up and demand that their governments take more action in preventing and stopping genocide. Many of us have remained relatively untouched by the genocides of the past century, but we can all do something this month to remember those who lost their lives. Please take a moment to head over to www.genocidepreventionmonth.org and pledge to commemorate the victims of these atrocities this April; and learn more about what we can do to return April to its place as a month of hope and rebirth. More on Darfur
 
SEX! 'Sex And The City' Sequel Gets 2010 Release Date Top
Carrie Bradshaw and friends have a summer date. A summer release date. The Sex and the City big-screen sequel will hit theaters May 28, 2010, the box-office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations noted Wednesday. More on Sex and the City
 
Tom Watson: At Skoll's Annual Oxford Confab, Capitalism In Shift Top
Even as the system of capitalism that supported the growth of social entrepreneurship in its more enlightened margins changes drastically, 800 delegates from 60-odd countries flocked to the 900-year-old University of Oxford last week for the annual Skoll World Forum - the sixth formal gathering of the leadership of the blended social sector that may well have to redefine its own model on the fly to keep up with a decimated marketplace. Much of what had become the accepted underpinnings of social entrepreneurship during three decades of general economic growth has been swept away since the Skoll forum last convened in Arnold's "city of dreaming spires," including the now-quaint twin notions of the permanence of massive, interconnected financial institutions and a self-regularing capitalist marketplace. As the Economist put it in an article on the global rise of the entrepreneurial culture, "The downturn is also confronting supporters of entrepreneurial capitalism with some awkward questions. Why have so many once-celebrated entrepreneurs turned out to be crooks? And why has the free-wheeling culture of Wall Street produced such disastrous results?" The world recession has placed government as square in the front and center of the social commons as it's been at any time since the end of the Second World War. As former Irish president Mary Robinson told the opening plenary session in Wren's 17th century Sheldonian hall, entrepreneurs can and should "come to the recognition that government matters." Yet, this is even now a somewhat controversial statement for the social ventures sector, which has long prided itself on self-sustaining models of finance and development - a sector that holds the large-scale success of Grameen Bank and the socially-conscious microfinance industry as a paradigm. The old school Skoll Forum crowd (not so much the newbies and the start-ups who flooded the halls of the Said Business School with their business plans and their constant Twitter streams) very much sees itself, in my view, as the enlightened adjunct to world finance - as a movement that prods capitalists to do well by doing good, and to fund new financial models of change. And so when Philanthrocapitalism author Matthew Bishop suggested in his panel on the economy that social entrepreneurs should consider seeking government stimulus funds to support their ventures, it was as if a modern-day Luther had nailed an anti-capitalist screed to the doors of the Skoll Centre. The "aid is not the answer" mantra attempted a riposte, but it died like a TARP-funded CEO's pay package. And besides, argued Bishop, there's opportunity in the to goverment and the widespread distrust of financial institutions around the world: "why not just get the people who run Charity Bank appointed to run Lloyds?" he suggested. The tone was set at the opening, when confab founder Jeff Skoll insisted that the debate has "shifted from the future of capitalism to the viability of capitalism." Or as Stephan Chambers, chairman of the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, said about the economic crisis: "it expands our definition of risk ... [and allows social entrepreneurs] to reconcile the brilliance of capitalism with its shortcomings." Well, it does certainly expand the definition of risk! And yet there were scores of young entrepreneurs with brilliant ideas walking around Oxford doing that thing that young entrepreneurs with brilliant ideas do: trying to raise money. What was clear when I attended this conference in 2007 - and even more in focus last week - is the fact that social entrepreneurship is, in fact, generally underfunded - that even with interesting models for self-sufficiency in the out years fully charted in their Powerpoints, founders pitching clean water solutions or education for girls in South Asia or new forms of microfinance in Africa are all seeking start-up or bridge capital. Indeed, this was clear on the panel I was privileged to moderate at Skoll. The world economic crisis tends to sharpen the focus at this year's Skoll confab, nicknamed the 'Davos of Social Entrepreneurship' but itself a mere baby against Oxford's ancient spires, yet the panelists in my session took the long view, despite the weekly press of funding challenges. Together, they represented a fairly broad spectrum of online social enterprises - from the pure philanthropy of Global Giving , to the popular online success of Kiva 's nonprofit peer-to-peer microlending community, to the for-profit start-up MyC4 which syndicates mid-range microcredit directly from investors who can expect a financial return on their social investment. "Our goal is to become the first public company owned by the world," said Mads Kjaer, the serial entrepreneur who founded MyC4 two years ago. MyC4, based in Copenhagen, allows users in Europe to bid on microloans to middle-range business owners in Africa, allowing investors to realize a return on their peer-to-peer online lending. Mads has facilitated 14,000 small loans to 4,100 businesses valued at 10 million euro with an average interest rate of 12.9 percent. It's not charity in any way, yet MyC4's founder says the site has an inherent social goal that stems from his belief that government aid and philanthropy will never really change the African economic climate. Premal Shah, the president of Kiva, has a challenge most social ventures would love to have: how to take a small but iconic brand with a model that works to a larger scale. After only three and a half years, Kiva's numbers are startling: $65 million in microloans from the general public, $25 at a time, with a current average of $1 million loaned per week and climbing and a payback rate of 98%. Yet as Premal noted - with partner Matt Flannery, Kiva's founder, looking on - that $65 million is still small in the grand scheme of things. When the idea of merging the three platforms at the speaker's table was used as a stalking horse for more collaboration in the online sector, Premal had a very clear response: these are still the early days - let's all continue to build and experiment and create brands. His message: collaboration by all means. Consolidation? Not yet. The collaboration question was taken up by Mari Kuraishi, Global Giving's president and founder. She said there's really no reason why the many platforms in the online social sector don't collaborate more - except for a lack of personal bandwidth in each organization. Like any small organization, said Mari, Global Giving has goals and taking their collective eye off of the goal "would be irresponsibility." And Global Giving has done some wonderful work, spotlighting projects big and small around the world - the nonprofit, which has been in operation since 2000 and has founded more than 1,200 projects for more than $20 million. Mari talked openly about the challenges of fundraising and the promise of crowdsourcing for the projects the Washington DC-based organization supports. She said that technology should never get in the way of good story-telling and developing trust with donors. And yet simple technology decisions can change the model. Twitter, she told the Skoll audience, has become the channel of choice for workers to file reports from the field. And Twitter was also the channel of choice at my panel: upwards of 20 people were Twittering during the 90-minute session - and even more are Twittering from Skoll using the #SWF09 hashtag . It's a huge flow of information that contains everything from the ideas of Ashoka founder Bill Drayton (originator of the term 'social entrepreneur') and Jeff Skoll, the eBay co-founder who created the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship here - to the information on locations for our "Tweetup" pub crawl last night. Yet as I stood on a darkened Oxford corner last night with Peter Deitz, founder of online aggregator Social Actions , we joked about Twitter overkill - since it had taken the equivalent of unreliable long-distance shortwave radio to finally connect over pints. When I wrote CauseWired last year, I argued that online social activism and peer-to-peer philanthropy and microfinance was developing into a real, discreet sector of its own - lodged between social networking platforms and social entrepreneurship, and taking the best of both worlds to increase citizen involvement in changing the world. I'd still make that case, even as the number of online platforms has increased wildly in the 10 months since I handed in the manuscript. This is a sector with real leadership and leading brands (like Kiva and DonorsChoose), a real depth of experience (like Mari and the folks at Global Giving), and a huge grassroots movement of small-scale entrepreneurs creating great projects in their garages. Yes, it should collaborate more - but it also needs support: a group of venture funders willing to lock into online social ventures as an investment area. Any takers? We'd hope so. For despite the world recession, there was still a palpable optimism in the lecture theaters and hallways (and pubs) of Oxford last week. "The economic crisis is, of course, at the forefront of the conversation," wrote Nathaniel Whittemore at Change.org . "Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a resigned optimism and silver-lining ethos among most of the people here. The two arguments that seem to be being advanced for the upside of this down turn are: first that the conversation about a more just, creative, and sustainable capitalism has moved from peripheral to central and second that in some ways, a dearth of resources makes us even more creative and focused on responding to real needs." And perhaps social ventures represent a way forward for causes and improvement of the human condition, even as the capital markets sort themselves out (or capitulate to central government). "The growing ranks of business innovators who also want to solve the world's social problems ... now seem the best hope for institutional innovation in the 21st century," wrote Marcia Stepanek at Cause Global . She quoted Colin Mayer, the dean of the Said Business School: "Our trusted institutions have turned out to be stunningly untrustworthy. While governments around the world believe they are in control and that the old order will soon re-emerge, you can be sure they are not and it won't. Now, more than ever, there is a need and opportunity for institutional innovations." He's right: the order is rapidly fading. And even amidst Oxford stones set a millennia ago in a time of agrarian feudalism, you can see the shadows shifting.
 
Mark Shriver: The G-20 and the Class of 2020 Top
The eyes of a recession-weary world are on the G-20 this week as an anxious global community awaits plans for a clearer and quicker path out of the recession. While we all want the leaders gathered in London to deliver recovery in the months and years ahead, they should also act on the enduring lesson of this economic catastrophe: prevention. If a head-in-the-sand mentality brought us to this precipice, then it's crucial that the G-20 act on preventing this kind of edge-of-the-cliff crisis from ever happening again. That means preparing the next generation -- the class of 2020 and beyond -- for success. Change can and should begin at home. With one quarter of the world's wealth, the United States ranks number one among G-20 nations. But we're lagging far behind when it comes to education and basic early childhood development, the keys to our continued economic leadership. - Children under five years old in the United States will receive less education over their lifetime than five year olds in Australia and Argentina, as much education as five year olds in France and Italy, and barely more than five year olds in Brazil and South Korea. - The United States had the eighth highest score out of 13 countries in the G-20 that participated in the PISA science test, a global indicator of academic achievement. - There are eight countries in the G-20 with under-five mortality rates lower than ours and we have double the rates of Japan and Italy. Even more disturbing is our lack of progress. From 1990 to 2007, we reduced our under-five mortality rate by less than two percent, the sixteenth worst improvement in the G-20. Making investments in the next generation will ensure our leadership role economically and as a beacon for a prosperous global future. There are many proven, innovative ways we can tackle the issue of education inequality. For example, Save the Children runs four public-private partnership projects in struggling rural communities that have a strong track record of boosting reading scores and teaching kids to lead healthy lifestyles. Our after-school reading program for elementary school kids boosted the percentage of children reading at or above grade level by 42 percent in just nine months. We should bring that model and other proven approaches to the table in Washington and to the G-20, ensuring our leadership as an education innovator, the model for economic success and the one place on Earth where each generation has an opportunity to be greater than the ones that preceded it. More on G-20 Summit
 
Dennis Markatos: Government Report: US Carbon Emissions to Grow Much Slower Top
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released their Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2009) this week and their numbers are a lot better than last year when the climate is concerned. It's exciting to see the progress. But reference scenarios still have emissions growing throughout the period, so we have plenty of work to do. For now, let's look at the numbers they present... Primary Energy Use Primary energy consumption is forecast to rise .5% per year, slower than a .7% rate predicted last year (translating into a 5.4% lower level by 2030). Electricity demand is expected to increase 1% per year, slower than 2008's 1.1% prediction . Increased efficiency and a demand response to higher expected oil prices drive this lower energy use. Lower energy demand growth is good news for the climate in general, but now let's dig deeper into the carbon composition of the numbers. Renewables Rise Renewables currently (in 2008) provide ~7.5% of US primary energy (March EIA Monthly Energy Review, p. 136). Most renewable energy comes from hydropower and biomass, with growing shares from wind, geothermal, and solar. While hydropower is expected to grow at a slow rate so that its market share remains ~2.5% of total primary energy, the EIA projects non-hydro renewables to triple, increasing renewables' total share to almost 15%. The largest renewable growth comes from wind power and biofuels. Shifts in US Electricity As I wrote about last week , the share of electricity generated from coal continues to drop in the EIA projection. But it falls slower than the climate needs it to -- going from today's ~48.5% to 47% in 2030, still an increase in coal consumption of 19% (p. 71). The ~25% increase in electricity demand requires 259 GW of new electrical capacity (p. 45), which is provided for primarily by natural gas (~137 GW or 53%), then renewables at 22% (~57 GW), coal at 18% (~47 GW), and nuclear plants at 5% (~13 GW). Approximately 30 GW of capacity are retired by 2030 (p. 72), mostly older coal and nuclear plants. Wind & Solar Remain Small In the reference case, the EIA expect wind and solar to remain mice compared to the elephants of fossil fuels. Wind grows to 44 GW (p. 48) or 2.5% of US electricity, only 75% higher than the ~25 GW at the end of 2008. It would take only 2 1/2 years at 2008's 8+ GW growth rate for 44 GW to be reached. Seems to me they are short-changing wind power. Solar is dismissed even further into the margins. Growth is expected to make solar less than half the size of wind today by 2030 (p. 140), rather than its potential greater than 100 GW in my opinion. Their models have probably not incorporated the 30+% solar modules price drop currently taking place since last summer. It's clear that the industry will have to prove themselves to EIA officials in coming months that they can emerge profitable in 2010 despite module prices below $2.50 per watt. Flat Oil Consumption In a big shift from previous projections, US oil demand is now predicted to stay flat through 2030. The 1 million barrels per day (Mbd) increase in liquid consumption is provided by biofuels and some Coal-To-Liquid (CTL). Demand stays flat amidst a growing economy because of a rising oil price that gets back into the triple digits by the early 2010s and arrives at a real price of $130 per barrel by 2030. Their high oil price scenario approaches $200 per barrel by 2030 and seems more reasonable to me. They project that US oil production increases above today's higher levels through 2030 due to a higher price making previously uneconomic deep-water projects profitable. While the increase in production thus far in 2009 is impressive, I am skeptical such a production plateau can be maintained going forward. After all, 2009 (if indeed production continues above 2008 levels) will only be the third year out of the last 24 that US oil production increased. Climate Implications This rise of clean energy allows greenhouse gas emissions to grow at a slower rate than overall energy consumption, a mere .3% per year (p. 5) compared to .65% per year growth projected last year. By 2030, the carbon intensity of US GDP falls 39% and per capita emissions fall 14% (p. 84). While this is an improvement from last year's projection, it clearly shows that our country must enact a federal climate bill or emissions will continue to increase. Climate Concern Scenario The reference case does not include early 2009 Green Stimulus Bill implications, such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) extension. So, renewable electricity is expected to grow faster than their reference case, but they predict increased growth from a PTC to be less than 20% by 2030 (p. 48). And the reference case does not include the passage of a federal cap-and-trade climate bill. For those projections, the EIA generated the scenario LW110. In LW110, more new low-carbon electrical capacity is added to replace the retirement of ~100 GW of old coal plants. The low-carbon sources include 65 GW more renewables than in the reference scenario, 93 GW more Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) coal, and 33 GW more nuclear power (p. 185). As a result, emissions from electricity generation fall more than 50% from today's level by 2030 (p. 53). Overall US carbon dioxide emissions from energy fall a more mild 23% by 2030 (p. 52). By internalizing the cost of climate change, the price of electricity rises ~20% from an expected plateau ~10.5 cents to a 2030 price of ~12.5 cents per kWh (p. 52). But we as consumers can still have lower our electrical bills by increasing our efficiency more than ~20%. Bottom Line: EIA projections in AEO2009 are much more climate-friendly than last year. But the reference scenario leaves a great deal of work for us to do. Federal climate legislation in the near term is crucial if our country is to be a responsible member of the global community. While the wind industry will contribute significantly to the solution, solar has a long way to go to earn the respect of the EIA as a major player in the next two decades. I hope you enjoyed these bits from their 230-page report. I'll be writing more using insight from this report in the weeks ahead as we all work hard to accelerate the Sustainable Energy Transition ! More on Climate Change
 
Jeff Biggers: Grammy Stars Unite for New Campaign: I Ain't Gonna Play Mountaintop Removal Top
Rob Perks at the Natural Resources Defense Council has just unveiled a wonderful website tribute to Grammy Award-winning country and rock musicians banding together to stop mountaintop removal in Appalachia. Featuring Kathy Mattea, Emmylou Harris, Sheryl Crow and Big Kenny Alphin, the Music Saves Mountains campaign is a great reminder of the indisputable role of the Appalachian mountains in shaping country, folk, jazz, bluegrass, blues and rock music--and why we need to protect the mountains and mountain heritage from the ravages of mountaintop removal mining. No one has been more important to this growing movement than Kathy Mattea, the beloved country music star, whose many number one hits include "Eighteen Wheels and a Dozen Roses", "Come from the Heart" and "Burnin' Old Memories." A coal miner's granddaughter, the West Virginia native released a powerful album last year, COAL, that explored the vast range of coal mining songs in a beautiful tribute to "my place and my people." The Appalachians, of course, have been the great crossroads of American music; there would be no Grand Ol' Opry without Roy Acuff; the modern-day Nashville scene could not have emerged without Chet Atkin's guitar licks and recording-producing genius, or the household recognition of Appalachian singers like Ralph Stanley, Loretta Lynn, Dolly Parton, Dwight Yoakum and the Judds. The first family of country, the Carter Family from Clinch Mountain, took part in the Big Bang of Country Music at the historic Bristol recordings with Jimmy Rodgers in 1927. The first country recording ever took place in 1923, by Appalachian fiddler John Carson. With the introduction of the banjo and guitar by African Americans, Appalachian musicians include blues empress Bessie Smith and Black Mountain Blues, Alabama hill native WC Handy, the father of the blues, and the High Priestess of Soul Nina Simone, who's breakthrough recording of the "House of the Rising Sun" was actually preceded by an eastern Kentucky coal miner's rendition of the great ballad. The treasury of music from folk musicians like Florence Reece (author of "Which Side Are You On?"), Jean Ritchie, Roscoe Holcomb and Hazel Dickens continue to shape folk and country traditions today. "The beauty of the Appalachian Mountains has inspired countless songs in country, bluegrass, gospel and folk music. We must do everything possible to protect them," says Big Kenny. "This campaign was founded out of the respect musicians, and especially people from Appalachia, have for our beloved mountains. We're calling on everyone to help keep the 'country' in country music." For more information, see www.musicsavesmountains.org or Rob Perks' post at: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rperks/keep_the_country_in_country_mu.html Here's a clip of Kathy Mattea on a flyover of the mountaintop removal sites in West Virginia: More on Barack Obama
 
Ilan Goldenberg: What Real Diplomacy Looks Like Top
Barack Obama showed up in Europe this week and the world did not simply swoon at his feet.  Some may choose to portray that as failure, but they would be dead wrong.  Diplomacy is about interests and hard bargaining to find areas of common understanding.  No matter how popular he may be around the world, the President was never going to be able to repair eight years of damage in only three months.  And he wasn't going to change the fact that sometimes the United States and other countries have conflicting interests.  But what we saw this week, after years where personal relationships and saber-rattling often substituted for foreign policy, were significant steps on a number of fronts.  In fact, since the invasion of Iraq more than six years ago it's hard to remember such a positive week for American diplomacy. First, the G20 summit set the framework for global actions that will help address the current financial crisis and put more checks in place to ensure that a similar crisis does not occur.  The Obama administration did not get support for the global stimulus package it was looking for, but it did get a dramatic increase in funding for the IMF from $250 billion to $750 billion and an overall commitment of $1.1 trillion to help support the global economy.  This was a critical step as the IMF acts as a lender of last resort and plays a crucial role in preventing countries from failing during financial crises.  The world also comes away from this conference with new agreements on international regulations of financial institutions and a strong statement opposing protectionism.  Is it everything that we might have liked to have seen come out of the G20 summit?  No.  But you never get everything that you want out of a summit of 20 countries and the steps that were taken are crucially important. Second, rather than looking into Medvedev's soul Barack Obama sat down with him and hammered out a path forward based on common interest.  The joint statement released by Obama and Medvedev was realistic but far reaching and set the road ahead for negotiations on a number of issues.  It recognized that there were issues where the United States and Russia would not agree, but it also set out an aggressive agenda on issues of nuclear non proliferation - issues that are absolutely crucial to both countries' security as well as that of the world.  The statement concluded: In just a few months we have worked hard to establish a new tone in our relations. Now it is time to get down to business and translate our warm words into actual achievements of benefit to Russia, the United States, and all those around the world interested in peace and prosperity. This doesn't mean that Russian-American tensions will disappear over night.  But it is a far cry from where the United States and Russia were eight months ago after the conflict in Georgia essentially froze relations. On Afghanistan we have also seen important movement in the right direction.  The international conference at the Hague earlier this week served to further internationalize support for the conflict.  And though it was only a first step it was an important one.  It also included recognition from the Obama administration that rather than loudly asking for troops, we ask for other types of support in Afghanistan.  After all, the U.S. has the most powerful military in the world. What it lacks is the civilian capabilities that are so critical for the mission in Afghanistan.  Many of our allies happen to have these types of capabilities and it is something they are willing to contribute.  This isn't just diplomacy, it's common sense. Finally, the administration continued its outreach to Iran this week.  Iran was invited to the Hague conference and pledged to work to curb narcotics trafficking out of Afghanistan while also providing more humanitarian aid.  During the conference Richard Holbrooke, the Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, had a face to face conversation with the Iranian representative - the highest level interaction between the Obama administration and Iran.  This is only a small step, but a positive one in preparing for greater engagement going forward. Barack Obama's administration did not redraw the geopolitical map this week.  We are still in the middle of a major financial mess.  America's position in the world is not what it was eight years ago.  But the administration did show that when the United States is not politically radioactive,  thinks seriously about its interests, and takes the time to listen, it can get important things done via diplomacy. More on Barack Obama
 
Lee Camp: Memos Between Geitner and Citigroup CEO Leaked to Press Top
 
Keith Boykin: Will The Wall Street Journal Apologize To Obama? Top
One month ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board complained that President Barack Obama had ruined the economy. As evidence, they cited the decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which closed at 6763 on March 2. "The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem," the Journal concluded, as it blamed Obama for the Dow's overall decline of 25 percent in two months. The Journal also attacked Obama's proposed budget . "The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise," the editors wrote. Never mind the nearly $11 trillion federal debt the president inherited, or the $1.3 trillion deficit, the 8.1 percent unemployment rate, falling home prices and astounding corporate losses. In fact, never mind the recession that started in December 2007. The Journal saw a short-term drop in the stock market and interpreted it as a guilty verdict against a new president who had been in office for just 6 weeks. But today the news was different. After the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised the rules on "mark to market" accounting this morning, the Dow climbed over 8000 , slightly higher than its close at 7949 on Inauguration Day. And this market rally comes on a day with bad economic news on employment. Will The Journal Apologize? So what will the Journal say now that the stock market has "rebounded"? Does this mean the market now loves Obama's policies? Will the conservative editorial board credit Obama for the rebound as it blamed him for the decline? And more importantly, will the Journal now apologize to the president? An apology may be too much to expect, but if nothing else, the Journal should at least acknowledge that presidents should not be judged by short-term swings in the stock market. First, the president serves a constituency broader than Wall Street. His job is not to cater to wealthy investors but rather to represent the best interests of all Americans, regardless of their portfolio, or absence thereof. Second, presidents are not entirely responsible for the rise and fall of the market. The editors of the Wall Street Journal should know this. Markets respond to a whole host of factors other than government policy. But if the Journal wants to continue blaming Obama for the stock market, then let's at least be consistent about this philosophy and apply it to other presidents. Stock Market Does Well Under Democrats For all the talk about Obama's negative impact on the stock market, let's not forget the Dow fell 5000 points (from 13,043 in Jan 2008 to 7949 in January 2009) in President Bush's last year in office. That's a 40 percent drop in 1 year under a Republican president. And for those who blame last year's decline on the election of Obama, not true. Most of the drop in the Dow took place well before Obama was elected. The Dow plunged 38 percent last year (from 13,043 in January 2008 to 8175 in October 2008) before election day. In fact, the Republicans don't want you to know this, but the Dow usually does quite well under Democrats. The only Democratic president in modern history to preside over a declining Dow was Jimmy Carter, and even then the Dow only fell 8 points (yes, you read that correctly, 8 points!) in 4 years, less than 1 percent of its value. The Dow rose under Democratic presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton, but fell under Republican presidents Nixon and George W. Bush. The worst performance in the Dow's history was October 19, 1987 , when the index dropped more than 22 percent in one day. And it happened under Ronald Reagan's watch. To find any comparable loss, you have to go back to another Republican president - Herbert Hoover in 1929. In fact, 4 of the Dow's 5 worst years (1931, 1907, 2008, 1930 and 1920) happened under Republican presidents and all 5 of the Dow's worst days occurred under Republican presidents. In contrast, the Dow's best day ever was March 15, 1933 , just weeks after Franklin Roosevelt was sworn into office. That year, Roosevelt also presided over the Dow's best annual performance in history. This doesn't mean the Democrats are always better for the stock market, or that the Republicans are always worse. Nor should the stock market be used as the sole indicator of a president's performance. That seems obvious, but try telling that to the editors of the Journal. More on Barack Obama
 
Joe Cocker: Subtitled (VIDEO) Top
Website designer ElBucko created this fabulous video that translates Joe Cocker for a non-drugged out audience. Cocker, known for his gritty voice and his Beatles covers, combines both in this clip. The editor then inserted visuals and text for those that like to understand the lyrics of a song (even if they're the wrong ones.) WATCH: (via Boing Boing) More on Funny Videos
 
Rabbi David Wolpe: My Last Cancer Treatment Top
In 2003 I suffered a grand mal seizure followed by the diagnosis of a brain tumor. After a 10 hour MRI assisted brain surgery and a year on anti-seizure medication, life calmed down. In 2006 I was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and had months of chemotherapy. Now after two years I am completing Rituxan, a follow up on the earlier treatment that is intended to extend remission. Recently I had the final infusion. But I was not at all sure that pulling away the safety net was a cause for celebration. My doctor poked his head into the curtained chamber to assure me that he expected a long remission. Kind of him, but what could he say? Remission is cancer's suspended animation. The renegade cells are poised to return but no one knows when. It could be a month or a decade; for my type of lymphoma (one of the more than thirty varieties of Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) there is no cure. So I am stuck in what Dr. Seuss -- in a book I used to read to my daughter -- calls "a most useless place. The Waiting place...." I have been here before; my wife was diagnosed with cancer when she was 31. Our daughter was ten months old, and we waited. Following my brain tumor and surgery, we waited. We thought then we were done. No more bullets in the chamber. We felt safe, but tentative. A swollen lymph node was the first warning of this new cancer. A biopsy confirmed our unspoken fear. It seemed incredible, overwhelming to think it was happening again, happening anew. The doctor called me at work. I came home to tell my wife and she was in the shower. I walked in fully dressed and we held each other; our tears combined with the cascade of water. I had the strange, surreal experience of hearing my congregants' shock that this could happen to the family of the Rabbi -- as though professional piety was a shield against disease. As though God played favorites. Right before my brain surgery I appeared in front of the congregation and asked them for their patience and their prayers. Three year later I was standing before them, bald. I witnessed the realization in their eyes that there are no guarantees, no protected people. No one is safe. At moments, my wife and I will look at each other and understand the unspoken. We have both been scared, on and off, more and less, for a long time. And now with the end of treatment we are scared anew and waiting once more. Well, what now? Do you live as if remission will go on forever? Or do you allow the thought of death to be before your eyes always, so as not to waste a precious moment of life? Every patient is surrounded by people assuring him "you will be fine." A woman in my congregation told me, with a sage look, "You are going to be ok. I know these things." I told her I would feel more comfortable if she had foreseen the cancer in the first place. Statistics are meaningless. Neither my wife nor I had risk factors. No one knows. We've rolled snake-eyes too many times to count on breaking the bank. What have I left undone? That marching song of purpose is quickly undermined by the whisper of nihilism: so what if you've left something undone? Will the world really be poorer for that article, that book unwritten? Then I hear my own voice counseling others, love more, care more, risk more, be more thoughtful. One afternoon in the middle of chemo, when my hair was gone and most of my energy with it, my wife was bringing our then 9 year old daughter home from school. I heard my daughter say as the door opened "Is Daddy on the couch again?" Nothing has ever made me sadder than those words. There may be stem cell transplant in my future. There may be a new regimen of drugs. They are always 'in the pipeline' I am told. For now I am just waiting. I am trying to find my own way through this because, inevitably, I will be asked how I did it. Rabbis are supposed to be figures of authority and calm. It was hard enough to reassure my congregation that a fickle universe does not mean that God is absent. That belief does not indemnify me against adversity. That my faith through all this is unshaken. How does one live, Rabbi, is the question my congregants ask, of not so directly. Tell me, Rabbi - it is your job to know. My answer, I now realize, is: Live as if you are fine, knowing that you are not. Death is the overriding truth of life but it need not be its constant companion. My safety net is gone. I feel, as all people in remission do, that each time I fly my hand may slip from the trapeze. But to live earthbound is to give the cancer more than it deserves. I was never taught that God promises us forever. Each day is graced with beauty, with the certainty that this world is not all. I am not owed more years. I do, however, desperately wish for them. I am grateful for the time I have been given. I am scared it is running out. And I pray with a new intensity -- not that I will be promised a cure, but that I won't waste my waiting in fear. I owe it to my family, my community and to God not to be done before I really am done.
 
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld: Does Iran Harbor Osama bin Laden? Top
Osama Bin Laden is in Iran, asserts Alan Howell Parrot, the director of The Union for the Conservation of Raptors (UCR), who for many years served as a Falconer for the rulers of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and members of Saudi Royal family. In that capacity he was a regular guest in the seasonal Falconry-hunting  camps and had access to all participants. Parrot has been offering evidence of Bin Laden's sighting in Iran since November 2004 to a great number of U.S. government officials at the Department of Defense, the FBI, Senators and even to the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Gen. Michael V. Hayden. Government officials who asked to remain nameless confirmed Parrot's contact with the government. Still, no one responded.   Parrot's story is as unconventional as he is. A Falconer, who in 1974, just 18 years old, began his career training hunting falcons for the Shah of Iran. He excelled in his work and was retained by wealthy Arabs in Kuwait and the Gulf States, who flew him regularly from Ithaca, NY -- he studied biology at Cornell University -- to the Middle East. He left school after 3 years in favor of trapping and training falcons for UAE president and Abu Dhabi's ruler Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayyan. From 1981- 1991 he continued to work for Zayed, who hosted him in his many palaces, where Parrot met and befriended many of the ruler's guests. Sheikh Zayed's recommendation opened doors to employment with other Arab leaders. Parrot also worked for Saudi Crown Prince -- now King -- Abdullah bin Abdulazi z. A true bird lover, Parrot could not tolerate the illegal smuggling and abuse of falcons he witnessed the world over. Thus, from 1978 -1984 he volunteered to participated as a civilian undercover agent in "Operation Falcon," conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) to stop the multi-million dollar international smuggling of North American falcons to the Middle East. That operation resulted in the arrest of 300+ falcon smugglers the world over. Parrot also helped stop Prince Bandar, the former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., from smuggling falcons from the U.S. on board a Royal Saudi Airlines charted plane. Bandar paid his $150,000 fine to the Department of Justice, from his Washington DC Riggs Bank account. It was the same account, which Bandar's wife used to pay two of the 9/11 hijackers. True to form, Bandar threatened the U.S. government with oil sanctions if the story leaked; not surprisingly, the public remained in the dark.   In praise of his work in Operation Falcon, Parrot received two letters of commendation from the Canadian government. Together with a dedicated team of like-minded falcon lovers, Parrot continued to collect evidence on falcon smuggling throughout Central Asia, Russia, China, and the Middle East. In 2001 he established The Union for the Conservation of Raptors (UCR), a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization. Its mandate pertains "to the conservation and sustainable management of raptors, with specialized expertise on Middle East falconry practices and smuggling cartels with operational linkage to al-Qaeda. Over the years, Parrot witnessed how the Secretariat for the U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has violated its own mandate to protect the birds, by licensing illegal trade in sport-falcons to Arab rulers and sheikhs. This led to the creation of 'five star' tented cities erected throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, and Afghanistan, like the royal falconry camp that served as Al Qaeda's de-facto 'Board room,' referenced in the 9/11 C ommission Report .   Falconry is a 2,000-year-old tradition among Arabs, especially princes and shaikhs. They gather several times a year in well- equipped hunting camps in the Arabian deserts, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, among other places, to hunt with falcons that cost $100,000, and in some cases more than $2 million. Not surprisingly, the illegal trade in falcons is valued at more than $300 million annually.   Falconry is so popular in the Middle East, that the founder of the Saudi kingdom, Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud, was known as "the Falcon of the Peninsula" (Al Saqr al Jazira). Saudi Prince Fahd bin Sultan, described Falconry as the Arabs' "form of golf, a place to relax and conduct business .''   Bin Laden is also known as an avid Falconer. Former White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, that in 1999 the U.S. " planned to bomb a  Falconry camp in Pakistan when Osama bin Laden was present." That raid, however, "was scrubbed because a minister from the United Arab Emirates was a member of the hunting party."   Encouraged by president-elect Barack Obama's statement on January 14, in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, that his " preference preference obviously would be to capture or kill him [Bin Laden]", Parrot sent a letter to the Rewards for Justice program at the State Department detailing his efforts to track Bin Laden, and providing information of bin Laden's whereabouts. Parrot also noted that he had discussed the matter with Iranian officials and that "a negotiated and political (i.e. not-military) solution is available" with the Iranian leadership. The letter was sent on January 20, but Parrot has yet to hear from Washington.   Parrot's passion to save the falcons led him and his expert team to bin Laden.   In November 2004 a UCR field operator in Iran happened to meet bin Laden. Parrot brought the very detailed and seemingly convincing evidence to my attention. I then introduced him to former senior US military officials. Between November 2004 and January 2009 Parrot says he has  "diligently reported UCR meetings with Bin Laden in Iran, to U.S. government agencies. At no time did the Bush Administration request interviews with any of the UCR field operators who tracked and met bin Laden in Iran." Parrot provided accounts of bin Laden's movement and details of six meetings UCR's operators had with bin Laden in Iran; some were held near Zehedan, in Southern Iran, others in a safe house North of Tehran and in Mashhad. This information was confirmed during a de-briefing by an expert interrogator on march 2008. Parrot claims that he has negotiated with Iranian officials the transfer of bin Laden from Iran "to the custody of the Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud al Faisal, whom I know personally" he said.   Since no one seems to know where bin Laden is located, why not explore Mr. Perrot's claims? Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It , is director of American Center for Democracy . More on Saudi Arabia
 
Rinku Sen: Racism Stinks Up New York Restaurants Top
On Tuesday, I spoke at the release of The Great Service Divide , a revealing new study of racial discrimination segregation in New York City's restaurant industry. The Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York (ROC-NY), which I wrote about in The Accidental American , sent matched pairs of applicants -- one white, one of color and virtually the same in every other way -- to apply for front of the house jobs in 327 high-end restaurants. The predictable results are still shocking. The people of color were half as likely to get offers, and less likely to get interviewed in the first place. The interviews of white applicants were more work focused and less skeptical about the truth of their resumés. The vast majority of managers were white males. Hence, we see the path to the racial hierarchy of restaurants, obvious to all who choose to look. Much of the discussion was about how we could focus on the impact of hiring practices, instead of on the employer's intention, which we can never really know. Although there were some terrible stories of blatant racism and sexism (we're only looking for Italian looking men today), the lead investigator Mark Bendick pointed out that most of the behavior was heavily coded and not obviously intentional. These days, people know that blatant discrimination is illegal and they take pains not to go there. But our unconscious biases persist and become deeply embedded in restaurant culture in the notion that diners want pretty servers, and pretty means white, or that diners find French accents more charming than Mexican ones. These unconscious biases are hard to rout out. A few years ago I met one of the principles of Harvard's implicit bias study , who said that even after working on this question for so many years, his own biases still show up when he takes the online test. We can only change our ideas about who belongs where, he said, is to explicitly remind ourselves that actual human beings defy those assumptions -- the essential idea behind matched pair testing. Social psychologists also tell us that these frames are hard wired into our brains, and that we dismiss facts that contradict the frame. When managers hear that Windows on the World (where ROC-NY founders worked until September 11) was the nation's highest grossing restaurant with a multiracial, multilingual, transnational workforce at every level, if that fact doesn't match up to their dominant frame, they will continue to hire only tall white people at the front of the house. This is why we have anti-discrimination laws and why ROC proposes internal job posting as a new restaurant practice. Katie Grieco, VP of Operations in Tom Colicchio 's Craft Worldwide Holdings, said that looking out for their employees is the first priority, because long term profit and reputation emerge from a happy and prosperous workforce. ROC-NY has done us a great service with the Great Service Divide. Diners can help solve the problem by first taking a conscious look around your favorite high-end restaurant, asking some questions about how people get jobs and promotions, and referring owners to this study. The only way to battle unconscious bias is to be explicit and set new standards. More on Immigration
 
Mark Nickolas: When Top Network Foreign Reporters Don't Know The Difference Between The Taliban and Al-Qaeda Top
I was flipping through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's one-on-one network interviews from yesterday and ran across something that I found disturbing. Below is an exchange between Clinton and CNN's Jill Dougherty , one if its top foreign affairs reporters concerning the Obama Administration's decision to offer an olive branch to moderate members of Afghanistan's former Taliban government to join our side, as we did in Iraq with Sunni leaders: JILL DOUGHERTY: And on this reconciliation, bringing members of the Taliban or al-Qaida -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Only the Taliban, we never said al-Qaida. We never said al-Qaida. We have no interest in any kind of reconciliation or any rapprochement by anyone with al-Qaida . JILL DOUGHERTY: I’m glad you clarified that . On this reconciliation with the Taliban, it sounds like the Awakening Councils in Iraq. I mean, you just mentioned there’s a similarity there. The U.S. paid for that. Will the same situation apply? Would the U.S. be paying for these reconciled (inaudible)? So, how is it possible that the seasoned Dougherty didn't understand the difference between the Taliban and al-Qaeda , as well as the policy which the administration has just articulated? Seriously? These are not the same groups. The terrorists are al-Qaeda. The Taliban was the government which harbored them and, in doing so, forced our hand into taking them down. Most people who pay attention to that region know this especially crucial difference. The policy is an effort to bring some moderate members of the previous government -- not the terrorist group -- back into the political fold in a constructive way to help fight al-Qaeda and stabilize the government, as we should have done in Iraq with some Baath Party officials at the very outset (we didn't). Nonetheless, one of the top foreign affairs reporters for CNN had to be corrected by Clinton for her question, and given that Dougherty thereafter remarked, "I’m glad you clarified that," that clearly suggests it was no inadvertent slip-of-the-tongue. She really did not understand such a fundamental issue of our Afghan policy and the real difference between the two groups. I find that somewhat scary. I would expect that some Republicans might deliberately conflate the two in hopes of confusing the public to undermine Obama. I would also expect that an ample number of ignorant Americans wouldn't know the difference either. But Jill Dougherty? Come on. That's an embarrassment. Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base , and this story was from his original post, " When Top Network Foreign Reporters Don't Know The Difference Between The Taliban and Al-Qaeda " More on CNN
 
Robert Koehler: Saving Obama Top
"Now, I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people . . ." I believe him, with a passionate urgency -- this new president, swept into office on a surge of hope and anger. I believe him without cynicism. After all, he has a terrifying job to do, a toxic legacy left to mop up. I cut him slack, listen for the sound, in his words, of the turning of the ship of state. How does he plan to engage the future? He's an intelligent and, I think, courageous leader. And he has a global constituency to back him up. All he has to do is speak to it, clearly and candidly . . . I was numb to the lies and simplistic rhetoric of George W. Bush. But when Barack Obama tries to fill those incredibly small shoes, to rev up the same constituency of true believers (the constituency that didn't vote for him) and sell the same war -- new! improved! -- to the American people, I am not numb. The hope in my heart bursts into flying shrapnel. You're making a serious mistake, Mr. President. In honor of the man I voted for, and who, I insist, must assert himself and address his constituency not just marginally but with the full measure of his intelligence and compassion, at the heart of what matters -- true global security, the building of a just peace -- I take a close look at Obama's most disappointing performance thus far: his speech last week "announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." Here are four ways the president's speech failed his constituency: 1. It was simplistic. In the fine old tradition of military solutions to whatever, which brook no complexity of analysis, he fed us the same old story of good versus evil, even invoking 9/11. The formula for war never changes: Hype fear into hysteria, then propose the application of righteous violence to save the day. The bad guys who pulled off 9/11 are still in the mountains of Central Asia and they're "planning attacks on the U.S. homeland." It's as simple as that. We must root them out. One of the prime assumptions here is that terrorism is subject to central control, as though aggrieved fanatics all take their orders from a single source, which can and must be bombed. Evil plans can't be hatched in London, Paris or New York. 2. The speech affected a selective concern for humanity. American dead matter most. "Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. Most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces." Missing from the speech were any references to the Afghan dead -- as many as 8,000 -- caused by U.S. and NATO forces since 2001. When the suffering of "the Afghan people" is evoked, the concern is suspect. ". . . a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights . . . especially (to) women and girls." Is American compassion limitless or what? Yet women and girls constitute a high percentage of the collateral damage we churn up. As Tom Hayden noted recently in The Nation: "Anything resembling genuine popular democracy in Afghanistan or Pakistan would end the Western military occupation, or at least the air war, house-to-house roundups, and mass incarceration at Bagram." 3. The speech, most speciously, presented war itself, as wielded by the U.S. and its allies, as consequence-free: an apparently surgical operation that will root entrenched evil from its mountainous redoubt. This aspect of Obama's speech is least forgivable. It failed to so much as hint that war is a clumsy tool, that high-tech violence wreaks incalculable environmental and human havoc, which always overwhelm its short-term strategic aims. A few days after the speech, Jacques de Maio of the International Committee of the Red Cross castigated both sides of the conflict for their indifference to civilian casualties: "My point is that there is no such thing as a clean war and . . . what's going on in Afghanistan and in Pakistan right now is an ample demonstration of that," he said. The agency is anticipating that fighting in the area will displace as many as 140,000 people this year, according to Agence France-Presse. Obama rode an American -- a global -- passion for peace into office, yet he spoke to us about expanding Af-Pak operations as though we had voted for ignorance and war. 4. The speech called for dialogue only among parties on one side of the conflict: the U.S. and the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There was no mention of communication with the evil Taliban, our former Cold War ally, and no mention that huge, festering grievances in the Arab world against the West (the Palestinian situation, for one) are fueling terrorist activities and merit serious world attention. The isolation of power has made our president a prisoner of the Washington establishment, whose "clear and desperate urge," Tom Engelhardt wrote recently, "is to operate in the known zone, the one in which the U.S. is always imagined to be part of the solution to any problem on the planet, never part of the problem itself." We must demand accountability from the Obama administration (202-456-1111). It's too late to surrender, again, to cynicism, despair and more of the same. - - - Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com. © 2009 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC. More on Barack Obama
 
Fortune 's Stanley Bing: Note to Europe: Shut up! Top
Our President is having a bit of a tough time at the economic summit in Europe right now. He's talking stimulus while Germany and France, those solid allies in a crisis, are hammering him with the demand for extensive regulation of hedge funds and other financial institutions, particularly those that operate in their sphere. As in, you know, multi-national corporations. Like the kind that recognize no national borders. That are, in a sense, countries unto themselves. Corporate nation states, in other words. They want to regulate them. How dare they! Obnoxious Europeans! Where do they get off telling American business entities what to do? Our guy should just tell them to shove off! Allez oop! Auf wiedersehn! On the other hand. Una momento, s'il vous plait? While it is obnoxious to have these pissant little countries telling us what to do, you have to wonder, if you take a minute between your call from London and your teleconference with Berlin right before you get on the plane for Tokyo, whether there might be a micro-pfennig of reason in what they're talking about. I mean, we're big capitalists all of us, for sure, since every other economic system that's been tried has failed, unlike ours, right? Um. Well, let's leave that be for a second. Anyway, we don't like government of any kind sticking its big nez into Business. That's bad Business. We don't like it when Timmy the Gee tries to do it, and we CERTAINLY aren't going to like it if a bunch of foreigners start poking their weltanschauungs into our operations. At the same time, come on, ladies and gentlemen. The large companies that caused the worldwide collapse of global capitalism, at least at this horrendous point in time, recognize no national boundaries. They have gleaned the benefits of a wide world market, reaping vast harvests wherever they went, except possibly in countries that do not pay their bills or that insist on paying them in vodka. When our corporations plied the seas like responsible merchant vessels that was one thing. But it's pretty obvious that quite a few of them, particularly the ones that shape the markets themselves, have been operating more like a cross between cruise ships registered in Liberia and privateers that recognize no national laws but those of the sea on which they float. It just may be that, you know, if we want to operate in the world theater, we might have to obey some of the world's laws and regulations. Just possibly, is what I'm saying. Unless we can get out of it in some way. Good luck, Mr. Obama. Win one for the team, will ya?
 
Howard Wolinsky and Alan Blum: FDA Regulation Provides Another Smokescreen for Marlboro Man Top
Officially, the FDA commissioner position is vacant. But symbolically at least, the new commissioner is the Marlboro Man. That may seem incongruous as Congress poises to pass legislation this week that would allow the Food and Drug Administration to add regulation of cigarettes to its portfolio of regulating food and pharmaceuticals. Under the new legislation, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Philip Morris, maker of the market-dominating Marlboro brand and by far the biggest of Big Tobacco, likely will have a seat at the FDA's table. Literally. A non-voting seat on an advisory board. In fact the industry will be footing the bill for the alleged regulation of its own products. This is window-dressing masquerading as regulation. The foxes will be guarding the henhouse. The lions of health policy, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Cong. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., favored FDA regulation of tobacco. But placing the nation's most lethal consumer product -- cigarettes -- under the control of the FDA would be unwise. And asking a food and drug bureau to promulgate "product safety standards" for cigarettes is an oxymoron that will perpetuate the myth, long fostered by the tobacco industry, that this inherently harmful product can be made safer. Placing cigarettes under the alleged watchful eye of the same agency that regulates cancer chemotherapy drugs is as hilarious as the Saturday Night Live skit for "The Lung Brush" -- a pipe cleaner you slide down your throat to clean your lungs -- or Homer Simpson promoting "Tomacco." Even more absurd is that the FDA can ban a cancer drug, for its deadly side effects, but can't lay a finger on Marlboro. The ardent support of this bill by Philip Morris, with fully 50 percent of the nation's cigarette market, should prompt skepticism about the measure and its purported public health benefits. Until 2004, Philip Morris was in lockstep with the rest of the tobacco industry in fiercely opposing FDA regulation. Then, it cut a deal with Waxman. Prof. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health, a prolific blogger on tobacco policy and critic of policy that's more symbol than substance, bemoans "the many loopholes in the legislation that were clearly inserted to protect Philip Morris and retain its support for the bill, rather than to protect the public's health." This continues the tobacco industry's tradition of doing seemingly surprising things that serve its economic interests. The FDA tobacco bill is déjà vu all over again. For more than 70 years, every report on the dangers of cigarette smoking was disputed by the tobacco industry, who claimed more research was needed and who promised to identify and remove any component of smoke that was found to cause disease. This led to marketing gimmicks to allay public anxiety about smoking such as filters that promised "Double-barreled health protection," or claimed to be "Just what the doctor ordered," and in at least one instance was made of asbestos. In 1969, the industry pushed through legislation that removed cigarette ads from TV after seeing the early wave of anti-smoking public service ads drive down cigarette sales. The industry knew that once its ads were off the air, the Fairness Doctrine mandating airing of opposing viewpoints would no longer apply. Indeed, when the cigarette commercials ended, the broadcast networks yanked the anti-smoking ads, while the industry re-emerged on TV immediately on billboards at sports events sponsored by Marlboro, Winston and Virginia Slims. This circumvention of the law saved the industry tens of millions of dollars a year in cigarette advertising costs. Five years earlier, with the backing of the American Medical Association (the lone major health organization to drag its feet in endorsing the Surgeon General's indictment of cigarette smoking) the tobacco industry pushed through legislation for placing unobtrusive and unthreatening warning labels on cigarette packages and ads These warning labels provided the industry cover against lawsuits for liability in smoking's role in disabling and killing millions of Americans. These moves, with the backing of the American Medical Association, saved the industry millions in advertising and enabled the industry to develop a powerful sports promotion strategy. And the warning labels provided the industry cover against suits for liability in tobacco's role in disabling and killing millions of Americans. Now the FDA can provide new cover for the industry. The FDA, which has a hard enough time tracking salmonella in pistachios and peanuts and conflicts of interest in pharmaceutical approvals, now would be given regulation of cigarettes. In effect the new FDA legislation would serve as a Marlboro Preservation Act. It used to be said that what's good for General Motors is good for the USA. In the new business calculation, where GM=USA, what's good for Philip Morris apparently is good for FDA, and vice versa. There is no evidence that this bill will save any lives at all. To the contrary, the bill will perpetuate great harm through its grandfathering of Marlboro and other existing brands and its elimination of litigation for consumer fraud. However well-intended, the bill is misguided. And it should carry its own Surgeon General's warning: "This legislation is deceptive, and it will prove devastating to public health."
 
Sam Graham-Felsen: Live from the G20 Summit: Another Blogger Breakthrough Top
Earlier this year, Huffington Post blogger Sam Stein was called on by President Obama at a press conference -- an historic first that signaled the rising influence of the blogosphere. Today, at the G20 Summit in London, blogger Richard Murphy was called on by Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- another historic breakthrough for the blogosphere. I caught up with Murphy right afterwards: Fifty bloggers from around the world were granted press credentials for the summit through G20Voice, the first time bloggers were give access to a major international political event. The G20Voice organizers -- who were already excited that bloggers were being given access to the G20 -- were elated when Murphy was given the opportunity to quiz Prime Minister Brown. "Getting 50 bloggers into a G20 summit was absolutely amazing," said G20Voice organizer Shane McCracken, "It's breaking molds, removing boundaries, and taking a great step forward for online media. The icing on the cake was having a blogger called upon to ask a question to the chair of a major global summit. It was entirely unprecedented." Sam Graham-Felsen blogged for the Obama presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008. Now he is the Director of Content and Research at Blue State Digital .
 
Jacob Dickerman: Why Do Anti-Vaccinationists Believe? Top
At the end of last week, I wrote an article which was eventually titled "Vaccine Denial = Scientific Illiteracy." The article was posted on Monday and has since received a lot of feedback on either side. Though part of me expected it, another part of me was confused as hell. True, my article contained some bile. It was a reaction to my feeling that the scientific side of the argument was not represented on the Huffington Post and this bothered me a great deal. More, I found the idea of non-scientific thought influencing public policy to be disconcerting, to say the least. More confusion came when I started actually reading through the comments. I tried to understand the anti-vaccination thought process. From my point of view, vaccines are good things. They keep us from getting a variety of horrible illnesses and make our lives that much easier. I tried to think through the anti-vaccine point of view, but as a man who thinks in terms of narrative, I had a problem with the story the anti-vaxers were telling. After all, if scientists and doctors knew that vaccines caused autism, wouldn't there be research scientists working furiously to create vaccines which didn't? Market forces would dictate that they not only create the new vaccines, but loudly trumpet their studies that conclusively showed the harmful side effects of the old. They'd instantly corner the market. But this hasn't happened. So I tried to think and I posed the question to myself "Why would this not happen if vaccines really did cause autism?" And the only thing I could come up with was some sort of vast, over-arching global conspiracy. But why? Who would benefit at all from kids having autism? Because it wouldn't really be the drug companies. There are no singular drugs to help kids with autism, most of the help for them comes from therapies, special education classes, and attentive parents. True, many sufferers of autism have other issues and are prescribed anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, drugs for ADHD or anxiety, and a smorgasbord of others, but there aren't any across the board treatments for all kids with autism. As far as I could tell, there were no benefits that would be gained by a drug company creating a vaccine that produced autism in children that they wouldn't get by producing a vaccine that didn't. The story just didn't work for me. I'll admit, I didn't see the point. So I turned the question around. And I asked myself "What do the people who believe that vaccines cause autism gain for their belief?" And I think I've figured it out. A friend of mine suspects that its about parents feeling guilt due to passing on autistic genes, but I don't agree. First of all, if they do, they shouldn't. We can't help what's in our genetic code or what we pass on. It's just not how our reproductive systems work. But more, I believe that fear is a far more overriding emotion in the human psyche than guilt. I can't imagine the pain that a parent would suffer, finding out that their child has an ailment that will impact the rest of their life. But I think what must be a worse feeling is knowing that nothing you could have done could have prevented it, and the dread from knowing that you can't stop something bad from happening again. As paradoxical as it may initially seem, I think the belief that autism is caused by vaccines gives anti-vaccinationists a sense of security. It's an exceedingly human reaction. It's how we react to everything that scares us. For example, 9-11 conspiracy theorists. No matter what flavor of the conspiracy you have, it comes down to it somehow being an inside job. The 9-11 conspiracist is able to believe that someone let these men do what they did, and that our security wasn't compromised by men who just wanted to do us harm, and that therefore they won't be able to do it again. None of us are completely immune to these fears. That the world is not ours to control, that random bad things can happen to any of us at any time, that perhaps it doesn't matter what we do -- this is a terrifying notion, and I can understand why it could be even worse for a parent who has to watch these random acts of horror to happen to their child. I don't hate anti-vaccinationists. I don't think that they're right, and I don't want public policy to be influenced by their beliefs, but I honestly have no vitriol for them in my heart. There are reasons why we view the world through the filters we have. Our brains are designed to construct patterns; we're marvelous at it. It's one of the true geniuses of the human brain. But we can sometimes construct patterns when they aren't there, seeing faces in wood grain, for instance -- because evolution has dictated that babies should be able to recognize a face in an instant. Since I declared myself a skeptic, I have often had to defend my lack of belief. I have come to accept that in many ways, I vigorously deny that which I can't prove because I know that in my youth, I was swept into believing a few rather ridiculous things and I don't want to allow that to happen again. This is why I believe what I believe. Ask yourself, why do you? More on Autism
 
Terrifying Horse And Rider Fall During English Race (SLIDESHOW) Top
A harrowing horse fall at the John Smith's Fox Hunters' Chase was caught in slow-motion today. There's no word on whether jockey, G Gallagher, and horse, De Luain Gorm, are okay. But according to this report that recounts the race, there are also no indications that the horse and rider are NOT okay. More on Animals
 
Vicente Carrillo Leyva, Wanted Mexican Drug Suspect, Detained Top
MEXICO CITY — Mexico has detained one of its most wanted drug suspects, Vicente Carrillo Leyva, who allegedly was the second in command of the powerful Juarez cartel, the federal Attorney General's Office said Thursday. The announcement came hours before the Obama administration's top security officials and their Mexican counterparts were set to discuss ways to stop arms smuggling across the border as well as new strategies for fighting the drug cartels that have fueled violence in both countries. Federal police said Carrillo Leyva, 32, was caught while he was exercising in a park in a posh Mexico City neighborhood early Wednesday. Carrillo Leyva is the son of drug kingpin Amado Carrillo Fuentes, who was one of Mexico's most important drug traffickers before he died during plastic surgery to change his appearance in 1997. Amado Carrillo Fuentes was nicknamed "the Lord of the Skies" because of his success in sending planeloads of cocaine to the United States. After his death, Amado's brother Vicente took over the cartel and Amado's son, Vicente Carrillo Leyva became second-in-command, the Attorney General's Office said. Officials displayed Carrillo Leyva to the press at a news conference early Thursday, bringing a young man in glasses and a track suit before flashing cameras. A week ago, the Attorney General's Office named Carrillo Leyva to a list of 24 of the country's most-wanted narcotics suspects and offered a reward of 30 million pesos ($2.1 million) for his capture. The same amount was offered for the capture of the cartel's alleged leader. Vicente Carrillo Leyva acknowledged to authorities that he was the son of Amado Carrillo Fuentes, said Marisela Morales, who is in charge of combatting organized crime at the Attorney General's Office. "Carrillo Leyva is considered one of the heirs of the Juarez Cartel after the death of his father," she said. Vicente Carrillo Leyva used an alias, Alejandro Peralta Alvarez, and was passing himself off as a businessman, said Federal Police Commissioner Rodrigo Esparza. But authorities were able to track him down through his wife, who did not change her name. The government had records showing her sister was married to Rodolfo Carrillo Fuentes, a brother of the cartel leader. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder were to meet Thursday with Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina-Mora and Interior Minister Fernando Gomez-Mont in Cuernavaca, Mexico. Soldiers last week arrested another figure on the most-wanted list, Hector Huerta, who was accused of controlling the flow of drugs through the northern city of Monterrey for the powerful Beltran-Leyva cartel. More on Mexico
 
ZP Heller: If David Brooks Thinks He Knows So Much About Afghanistan, He Should Debate Robert Greenwald Top
I'm curious to know what Afghanistan David Brooks visited? The deeply conservative NY Times columnist wrote about his recent trip to Afghanistan last weekend, making these sweeping generalizations that Afghans are "warm and welcoming" of our ever-increasing military presence; that the US military is "well through the screwing-up phase of our operation"; coalition forces are learning quickly; aid agencies have no chance until the military kills all the "bad guys"; Afghan leadership is improving; and that 17,000 troops indicate the US is "finally taking this war seriously." Either Brooks spent all his time hanging out with military leaders or there's a whole crisis he's deliberately trying to downplay. What war Brooks thinks we can win with 17,000 troops is anyone's guess. As I've written before, most foreign policy experts agree that 17,000 troops will be insufficient to achieve stability in Afghanistan. Andrew Bacevich, for instance, said 17,000 " hardly amounts to more than a drop in the bucket ." But if Brooks disagrees with critics on the left who claim the Obama administration is simply rehashing the Iraq surge strategy, what about voices on the right like Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who claim the only way to bring about "success" in Afghanistan (as they define it) is through an all-out war that requires a massive, long-term military commitment ? As a point of comparison to Brooks's limited revelations, let's look at Director Robert Greenwald's recent account of what's going on in Afghanistan. Greenwald, who was in Kabul last week, said that while there's love and respect for President Obama and the United States, nearly everyone he spoke to believes more troops aren't the answer . The Afghan people Greenwald met -- which included members of the Afghan parliament, Afghan Women's Network , Awakened Youth of Afghanistan, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan , and members of the Taliban committed to negotiating peace -- want to see the Obama administration commit 17,000 teachers or 17,000 doctors, not 17,000 soldiers. Absent from Brooks's column was Afghanistan's humanitarian crisis ; the rampant malnutrition and unemployment that can't be solved through military means. Absent was any mention of Afghan people, women included, who are opposed to both military escalation and the Taliban . As Greenwald mentioned in his recent MSNBC appearance, the only bomb Afghans want dropped is an education bomb. On the surface, it might appear, as Brooks suggests, that the US is taking this war seriously by committing 17,000 more troops and 4,000 trainers to build up Afghan security forces after the Bush administration left Afghanistan in the dust to pursue an unjust, unnecessary war in Iraq. But the reality is that the resurgence of militant Taliban fighters is due to the presence of more US troops. Read Gilles Doronsoro's Carnegie Endowment article, " Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War ," which concludes that US military presence will only perpetuate the Taliban insurgency, and the best way to weaken the Taliban is to reduce armed confrontations. Not send in a limited number of troops that will become targets for the Taliban. And definitely not wage more airstrikes, since the 522 Afghan civilian deaths the UN attributed to Western airstrikes last year are fueling Afghan animosity toward US forces and leaving Afghans with little choice but to support the Taliban. It's amazing to see two such intelligent Americans come away from their trips to Afghanistan with such disparate takes on the crisis. While Brooks was meeting with military leaders and counterinsurgency experts who seemed likely to tell him coalition forces are ahead of the learning curve, Greenwald was witnessing 25 members of the Taliban lay down their weapons because all they want are jobs. What's clear is that both Brooks and Greenwald reaffirmed their respective views from having spent time in Afghanistan. Brooks more firmly believes military escalation is the answer, while Greenwald is more convinced than ever that more troops will further destabilize both Afghanistan and Pakistan, while failing to address Afghanistan's dire humanitarian needs. What I'd like to see is Brooks and Greenwald go head-to-head in a substantive debate on this war, share their experiences, and let us decide how we think the Obama administration and Congress should proceed. More on Barack Obama
 
Taliban Whips Young Girl For Being With Married Man Top
A video showing a teenage girl being flogged by Taliban fighters has emerged from the Swat Valley in Pakistan, offering a shocking glimpse of militant brutality in the once-peaceful district, and a sign of Taliban influence spreading deeper into the country. More on Afghanistan
 
Michael Wolff: Michelle Is the New Bling, as Celebs Go Broke Top
In our system of government, private enterprise has traditionally created the stars and icons of our culture. We like our stars rich and sexy--the opposite of government issue. But in this depression, with riches drying up and the government exerting control over private enterprise, the whole icon standard is beginning to come under revision. Michelle Obama is the national star, government issue. Young and black to the queen's old and white, Michelle and the queen were nevertheless ideally matched in their studied ordinariness. It was all quaintly, reassuringly, hellzapoppin' cheesy. Mrs. O touched the Queen. She gave her the damn iPod. Jamie Oliver cooked for everyone. Mrs. O kicked Sarah Brown's butt in the wardrobe department. Carla Bruni didn't turn up because she couldn't compete with Michelle. And, about all this, everybody went crazy. It's not just that wholesomeness is back. It's that Hollywood celebrity is dead. Or anyway, it's broke--which is the same thing as dead in movie terms. Continue reading at newser.com More on Michelle Obama
 
The Progress Report: The American Clean Energy And Security Act Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Brad Johnson To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Following President Obama's call for investment in a clean energy economy, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chair Ed Markey (D-MA) this week unveiled green economy legislation. The 648-page "discussion draft" of the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act sets national standards for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and global warming pollution, but it does not specify whether industry will be subsidized to achieve those standards. However, the Center for American Progress Action Fund's Joseph Romm still gave the bill a "B+," because it "boosts the economy, creates green jobs, and puts the country on a path to preserve a livable climate." The global warming cap-and-trade system described in the bill would restore American technological leadership and steer us away from planetary catastrophe. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) claimed it would "raise energy taxes in the midst of a serious recession." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) echoed industry talking points by saying that the pollution targets "impose too much of a burden." Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) claimed that the bill would "save the planet by sacrificing the economy." ECONOMY VS. ENVIRONMENT?: The attacks on green economy legislation are based on the premise that protecting the environment comes at a cost to the economy. But the premise is false. Our fossil-based economy comes with great costs for society -- and not just the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Saudi oil. Global warming-fueled disasters already cost the United States billions of dollars a year, and their cost will eventually reach trillions. Clean energy standards will reduce the 24,000 premature deaths, 550,000 asthma attacks, and 38,000 heart attacks caused each year by power-plant pollution and disproportionately harms children and the elderly. According to an analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the ACES standard requiring all utilities to obtain 25 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025 would create 297,000 new domestic jobs and save consumers $64.3 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills. Building a green economy that would cut United States greenhouse emissions by 45 percent by 2030 could create a net 7.8 million jobs versus business as usual. The economy versus environment myth was debunked 10 years ago when a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researcher found that states with stronger environmental policies "consistently out-performed the weaker environmental states on all the economic measures." The true choice facing the American public is a green economy that offers jobs, opportunity, and a healthy planet, or a gray economy of pollution, debt, and inequity. THE 'LIGHT-SWITCH TAX' LIE: Republican leaders like Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are attacking cap-and-trade proposals before Congress by claiming that researchers at MIT found that it would create "a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year." This is a deliberate lie, distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee to dozens of districts. A Progress Report analysis has found 11 different Republicans repeating the lie this week, from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), who inflated the number to $4,560. In an interview with PolitiFact, John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, said of the $3,100 claim: "It's just wrong. It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin." Republicans arrived at the figure by taking the value of the cap-and-trade market and dividing it equally among American households. But the value of the market doesn't equal the cost to citizens. The pollution cap would "push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices." On Wednesday, Reilly sent a forceful letter to Boehner and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to denounce this blatant distortion. Reilly noted that $3,100 was actually "10 times the correct estimate, which is approximately $340," and that the costs on lower and middle income households can be "completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households" -- as called for by Obama. 'APRIL FOOL'S' ALTERNATIVE: On Wednesday, April 1, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, released his party's alternative proposal that outlined an "inspiring vision" for American energy policy. The GOP budget would achieve the goals of "reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth," Ryan argued, "by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction." This plan is indistinguishable from Bush-Cheney energy policy, in both language and policy. In every State of the Union address he delivered, President Bush promised to to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Bush opened the floodgates to domestic drilling and oil and gas companies enjoyed record profits, as gas prices exploded and our dependence on foreign oil rose to record highs. Bush rejected cap and trade as "bad legislation" that "would raise fuel prices and raise taxes on Americans" and "demand drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized." Meanwhile, U.S. greenhouse gas pollution rose and climate disasters skyrocketed. Bush established a cornucopia of "clean energy" initiatives while slashing funds for renewable energy and blocking energy efficiency standards to maintain our dependence on coal. Admitting that in "the recent past, the Republican Party failed to offer the nation...innovative and principled solutions." Ryan said he does "not intend to repeat that mistake." As the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen said, "April Fool's." More on Climate Change
 
Bonnie Fuller: Michelle Obama's First Fashion Disaster! Top
Touching the Queen wasn't the only major misstep Michelle Obama made yesterday at Buckingham Palace. April 1, 2009 will now forever be remembered as the day the First Lady wore her first fashion DUD! Yes, there were debates about her upholstery-like Inaugural dress suit and her wedding cake-ish Inaugural ball gown BUT each choice had arguable merits. However, the black and white silk satin crepe Isabel Toledo sleeveless dress worn with a shapeless black Azzedine Alaia cardigan, was just WRONG,WRONG,WRONG! WRONG because it looked too casual for a momentous royal visit. One does not meet the Queen every day. The Toledo dress LOOKED like a skirt and top worn with a casual cardigan — an outfit more appropriate for a fundraising cocktail night at her daughters' school than for meeting the woman whose profile still appears on the coins of numerous countries. Why the First Lady bothered to spend big bucks on an Alaia cardigan, I have no idea. It could have been any old cheap schmatte, it appeared so shapeless. WRONG because in almost every way for Michelle, the outfit was a figure DON'T. At 5'10" Michelle has a strong statuesque figure that is striking in outfits with clean, long lines. This black and white dress cut her length in half, making her suddenly appear short-waisted. Then to add injury to insult, the big flaring bell skirt ballooned out over her curvy pear-shaped hips adding feet to her width. Yeah, Michelle looked like a bell all right from her wide base all the WAY up to the tippy top of her new disaster do. WRONG because that new hair do made our gorgeous First Lady join the mile-high club — the mile-high forehead club, that is. Had you ever noticed that Michelle had a landing strip across the top of her head? Me neither, until now. But exposing her huge forehead wasn't the only thing wrong with this 4 inch hair pullup — the world now thinks we have a conehead for First Lady. Then as if the First lady's outfit wasn't disappointing enough for her debut on the world stage — boy, Carla Sarkozy must wish she had come after all, it would have been a no-brainer fashion contest — Michelle dragged her husband into one of the style world's worst crimes: clone couple-itis! The Obamas totally coordinated their black and white outfits. We had two presidential penguins and not just one. Why couples think they need to dress in matching colors when appearing in public, I have no idea. But is a highly disturbing thing. And in this case, in the photos of the enormously tall Obamas towering over the tiny royals, they looked like two funeral directors accompanying an elderly couple to a wake. A wake is what should be held for this first dud outfit. Michelle, it's time to own your good looks and striking figure. Sleek, sophisticated lines, bold colors, clean, fitted shapes - that's what will make you look best. And now that we're over the election, you can wear a suit or even just a short, fitted suit jacket. You don't need to fear looking too powerful. Disguising yourself as a bell, will not do America proud! Sadly, the First Lady's first fashion messup wasn't a random event. It now appears she's on a losing streak. New photos of her in an argyle cardigan and hip-extending blue prom skirt on her second day in London indicate we have a nuch bigger problem on our hands. Michelle, it's time to get out Jackie Kennedy books out, hire a stylist — do whatever you have to do to get back on the style icon path. For more on Michelle Obama's style follow Bonnie Fuller at twitter.com/bonniefuller . More on Michelle Obama
 
Martha St Jean: Why Gen-Y is Kinda Screwed Top
"We're kinda screwed." Ivy League Grad on state of the economy "Yeah, in case you didn't realize it, yet, we're kinda screwed," commented a friend on her facebook page a couple of months ago in response to the article, "Under 30? Looking for a job? You're not alone," written by MSNBC.com contributor Eve Tahmincioglu. Being smart, young and ivy league educated does not keep you from being one of the twelve million four hundred sixty-seven thousand of Americans out of a job, an increase of 851,000 in just one month. Joblessness does not discriminate, but the chances are if you are Black or Hispanic you have it worse. It's been six months and 25 days since I have had a job, by that I mean something that pays regularly and comes with certain perks like health insurance. I didn't see this coming, but then again many of us did not, except maybe for the guys at AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I obtained my masters from an Ivy and attended New York University for undergrad. I held a prestigious internship at a prominent cable network after getting my masters, and have worked at building my resume. Like many, I figured it would not take long to find a new job at the end of my internship; it's obvious that my thinking was flawed. Growing up, Generation Y'ers (born between 1977 and 1998) were promised the world. Dynasty, the prime time soap that ran through most of the 80's, promised that we too could have the "American dream." Oliver Stone's Wall Street captured the idea if you worked hard you could reach the top, but it also ended with the warning that cheaters never truly prosper. Life in the 1980s was about big business and even bigger hair. Growing up with that legacy today leaves many frustrated as they grasp at straws for whatever semblance of the dream that is left. Many are asking, "Where's our life, liberty and ability to pursue happiness?" We were supposed to be better off than our parents, now there is a very real chance that we will not even be able to keep up with them. Those who do have jobs are dealing with stagnant incomes while managing the high cost of living. After going to school and obtaining the best degrees money can buy, you expect a certain standard of living. Instead we wonder, "Where's the promise?" This is not a case of the usual suspects; Wall Streeters are as worried as those on Main Street, college grads are in the same boat as those with GED's. In early March, Goldman Sachs economists predicted that unemployment rates would rise in the near future, saying, "We have boosted our expected path of the unemployment rate, to 9.5 % by year-end 2009 and 10% by year-end 2010; both figures are .5 point above the previous forecast." In February, when former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan said, that this would be the "longest and deepest" recession since the 1930s, I like many others are wondering what else will hit the economy. The gross domestic product had already fallen 3.8% in the last quarter of 2008 ( read more here .) The foreclosure rate is rising and the auto industry is failing. "We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish. This industry is, like no other, an emblem of the American spirit; a once and future symbol of America's success," said President Obama on March 30th. In anger, I want to say, "Let it vanish," but that's just not a smart idea. We need to do whatever it takes to get this economy back on track, even if that includes a bailout that many do not even begin to understand. (For more info on the credit crisis bailout click here .) Many young people are left wondering, "Where's my bailout package?" This year's college graduates need more than a wish and a prayer to land a job. Time magazine reported that 44% of companies surveyed by the National Association for Colleges and Employers (NACE), said they will not hire many new graduates and 22% said they will not be hiring anyone at all this spring. So maybe my friend has it right, "We're kinda screwed."
 
Phil Bronstein: Where's the web 2.0 freedom of information (and Al Gore) for the journalists captured in North Korea? Top
I know we're enmeshed in the drama of newspaper necropsy lately, with friends who are also valuable professional contributors to the fabric of society walking out the door of newsrooms. But we must have at least enough gumption left over for some collective journalistic interest, concern and howling over the two Al Gore-TV reporters snatched by North Korea. When the Chronicle's BALCO watchdogs, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, were facing 18 months in jail each for refusing to hand over confidential sources to the government, the paper's owner, Hearst, spent two years and I'm guessing around a million dollars, both to keep them out of the slammer and fight the larger battle between the press and the ravenous, prying Bush Justice Department over our ability to do our job. And that was home town hard time involved, not the prospect of dungeons in one of the most dysfunctional, isolated and irrational places on earth. Internationally, when reporter Jill Carroll was kidnapped in Iraq a few years ago, not only her employer, the Christian Science Monitor, but her family and just about everyone else participated in a campaign for her release. Before she did ultimately get freed , there were giant posters of her on Rome's city hall, white balloons released in Paris, 25 organizations calling for her to be let go and front page newspaper banners in Baghdad saying, "She loves Iraq. Now she needs your help." In between spasms of international adoption and rescuing the rest of the world, even some celebrities gave their time to the cause. So where's the love for U.S. citizens Laura Ling and Euna Lee, arrested two weeks ago by North Korea? Except for a few short, fact-sparse stories in the media about the Current TV correspondents, there's been barely a ripple. Even after officials in Pyongyang announced the women would be tried for "hostile acts." That's 10 years, hard labor. I take it back. Gawker wrote a piece saying they sure wouldn't want the former Vice President or his "everybody report now" TV operation covering their asses if they were in a similar situation (which will never happen, no matter how sassy they are.) And State Department spokesman, Gordon Duguid, did say authoritatively that "of course we would like to see our citizens released and returned home." Wow. I'm not sure what good that's going to do, Mr. Duguid, master of the obvious. I know in the nine years I covered conflicts in other countries, we all understood that if we got in trouble doing journalism, it was like "Mission Impossible": hope for a hand but don't count on being acknowledged for your good intentions, never mind rescued. It was a lonely feeling then but, in today's world of video decapitations, it has to be terrifying. Where is Mr. Gore , Nobel winner and formerly the second most powerful person in the world in all this? How about anything from SF-based Current TV , say maybe even just a public expression of concern? At the moment I wrote this, the big story on their web site is, "Top 10 Sexting Acronyms For Adults." A call to their chief flack, Brent Marcus, went unreturned. What Current VC2 "pod" does this one fit into? That silence has raised the notion that perhaps old liberals just sit back and let the young impressionables do their dirty work. Prison is hard. Seeking out the story, SF Weekly glimpsed the security guard hired by Current TV to keep the media out , and Gawker is still on the case. Bless their snide, slapping, snappy sense of style, which gave them another opening. They came back after that first post and seem to have busted Current for actually censoring stories about the incident. The blackout of information has not gone unnoticed. But all that still leaves the women out on their own. Is this what happens when information becomes more democratic? No one's willing to step up? If you work for a viewer-supplied TV cable network, does that mean no one has your back? This does not help the argument that the value of large news organizations is dwindling to nothing in favor of small entrepreneurs. There's no encouragement for 2.0 reporting when its practitioners can disappear into the gulag with no one to fight for them. Maybe there are furious back door efforts going on and these two reporters aren't just pawns in the overarching political drama of North Korea's imminent launch of a long-range missile . CNN, where wikipedia says Ms. Ling's sister works as a reporter, and other news outlets report that a Swedish diplomat is hot on the case. But that shouldn't stop some public uproar. Do we have to ask Google to go in there and flex a little muscle on behalf of the free flow of information? More on North Korea
 
Urban Myth No More: Fresh, Free Food...In The City? Top
As Americans begin to realize that their food doesn't always have to come from a supermarket, urban gathering and gleaning are experiencing a surge in popularity. (For the record, "gathering" is the collection of wild or uncultivated food, while "gleaning" is collecting leftover crops after a farmer has finished harvesting.) Maybe you're trying to cut back on food costs and don't have the time or space to start a garden. Maybe you have extra time on your hands and want to help your community and spend time outdoors. Here are a few organizations dedicated to gathering and gleaning the free food growing all around us. Check them out and get involved. More on Health
 
Leonardo Da Vinci Portrait Unveiled In Rome (PHOTOS) Top
ROME -- Experts unveiled Thursday a previously unknown portrait of Leonardo da Vinci showing the artist and inventor as a middle-aged man with piercing eyes and long, flowing hair. The painting, displayed at a news conference in Rome, was discovered in December in the collection of a family from Italy's southern Basilicata region. Who made the painting and when it was done is still being investigated, but experts have ruled out it being a self-portrait. Medieval historian Nicola Barbatelli, who found the painting, said carbon-14 analysis of the wood supporting the canvas dated the material to the late 15th or early 16th century, when Leonardo (1452-1519) was alive. However, experts cautioned that the age of the wood didn't necessarily mean the portrait was painted at that time and said more tests must be conducted. Alessandro Vezzosi, the director of a museum dedicated to Leonardo in his hometown of Vinci, said the painting may have been made much later as it is consistent with the depiction of the artist found in a 17th-18th century portrait kept at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. The newly discovered portrait, partially damaged by scratches and measuring some 60 by 45 centimeters (24 by 18 inches), shows Leonardo wearing dark robes and a black, feathered hat. It will be displayed along with other portraits of the artist at an exhibition in the southern town of Vaglio, in the "instep" of the boot-shaped Italian peninsula, from April 8 through Aug. 31. More on Italy
 
Ayers Appearance Canceled For Safety: Bookstore Top
It was concerns with patron and employee safety that prompted Anderson's Bookshop in Naperville this week to cancel a scheduled appearance by controversial author Bill Ayers, store officials said Wednesday.
 
Armchair Charity: 6 Easy Ways To Give Top
Color me cheesy, but President Obama's call for action for more Americans volunteering their time inspired me to take volunteering more seriously. This is to me is hardly a matter of party loyalty, but simply a matter of principle: sitting back and riding on the coattails of other ordinary citizens' generosity and hard work does not make me feel very good. Dedicating a chunk of my personal time--even if it is a very small chunk--to something bigger than myself keeps me inspired, hopeful and busy. Daunted by the burdens of the world? Minimal, lazy action is so much better than no action at all. If you are a wide-eyed volunteer newbie, here are six lazy-daisy ways to dip your feet into the wonderful world of altruistic love. More on The Giving Life
 
Heavy Security In London For Continued Protests [SLIDESHOW] Top
This article includes content from HuffPost and Demotix photojournalists. Photographs by Ted Allen, Claire Barthelemy, Amelia Gergory, Sean Hicks, Jools, Steven Punter, and Alex Yeung. LONDON - Police were out in force for the G-20 summit Thursday, swarming the east London riverside site as small groups of demonstrators protested world poverty and climate change. A French daredevil scaled a London insurance building to unfurl a banner, entertaining people on the ground. At the ExCeL center in the Docklands area, where leaders of the Group of 20 financial powers held talks on the global economy, police manned barriers and checkpoints around the security perimeter, turning away anyone without accreditation within a half-mile (800-meter) radius. Police boats patrolled the River Thames. Outside the summit venue, dozens demonstrated with signs that read "Stop Ethiopia from Starving." At the Bank of England in central London, demonstrators returned to the scene of violent clashes to express anger at the death of a man near a protest camp late Wednesday. The circumstances of the 47-year-old man's death were unclear. Hundreds of protesters were gathered near the bank Thursday, when police cordoned the group off and started searching individuals. The protesters observed a minute of silence and set up a wall of condolences before yelling "Shame on you!" at police. As more protesters arrived, police tried to contain them within the search area. Some protesters broke away and were being chased through the streets by police and dogs. Many streets in the city's financial district were still cordoned off, and some 300 police were deployed in the area. Journalists were being kept away from the cordon line. A spokesman from Scotland Yard who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with police policy said journalists were barred from the area as a safety precaution, but he would not elaborate. A new British anti-terrorism law can be used to bar photographers from taking pictures of police or military personnel. Earlier in the day, French daredevil Alain Robert scaled Lloyds of London's high-rise headquarters as office workers gathered below to snap photos. Robert, dubbed the French spider-man, has scaled dozens of tall structures around the world without ropes or harnesses as part of a campaign to draw attention to global warming. He unfurled another climate change banner in his climb Thursday, before later being led away by police. Other protesters sat and played a giant Monopoly game near the London Stock Exchange. "The question is of course who has got the monopoly? It is fairly obvious the G-20 are the global financial elite," said protester Clare Smith, 27. "Meanwhile the poor are getting poorer and that has even started to show in this country, but has obviously been going on across the world for some time," she said. Police said there had been 111 arrests so far, most of them Wednesday, when some protesters broke into the Royal Bank of Scotland building and vandalized the Bank of England building. Tens of thousands of demonstrators, meanwhile, were descending Thursday on two southwest German towns and the French city of Strasbourg to protest a cross-border NATO summit marking the alliance's 60th anniversary. President Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy are among 28 world leaders expected to be on hand for the two-day summit beginning Friday after the end of London's G-20 summit. More on G-20 Summit
 
Lisa Derrick: "Twilight" at Root of Teen Hysteria? Vampires at Boston School? Top
The movie Twilight , Goth fashion, teen cliques, teen angst and internet access added up to a sucky scare at one of New England's oldest high schools, Boston Latin. Last week students began emailing news outlets claiming there were vampires at their school, that students had been bitten and that the police were called into investigate. One student wrote to the TheBostonChannel.com Supposedly 3 students believe that they are vampires and today when a student was bitten the police were informed. I heard that one girl was arrested another suspended Police came by the school on "an unrelated matter," accelerating rumors, and did speak to some of the students and quelled the rumors that were going and kind of told them the effect those rumors could have on the rest of the student population said police spokesman Eddy Chrispin. Headmaster Lynne Moone Teta assured parents, students and faculty there were no real vampires at Boston Prep (whew), issuing this statement: I seek your cooperation in redirecting your energy toward the learning objectives of the day. Please do not sensationalize or discuss these rumors...At no time was anyone's safety in jeopardy. Meanwhile students interviewed by news agencies admitted that there were a few kids who claimed to be vampires. Several girls carry umbrellas to avoid sun exposure, and allegedly Goth girls were being harassed by by not-Goths. None of the Goths were available for interviews. The release of box office vampire smash Twilight on DVD may have added to the teen-vs-teen unease. But really, this whole incident points out the holes in today's educational system. Any student who had read Dracula , or even Interview with the Vampire , or seen a traditional vampire movie--would know that teen vampires would not be attending classes. They'd be home schooled after dark. Lisa Derrick is La Figa at Firedoglake.com
 
Kathy Ireland's Shocking Weight Gain (And Loss) Top
As a top model, Kathy Ireland is used to seeing pictures of herself that have been retouched to hide her flaws. But when the former Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue cover girl saw a photo taken by her son as she baked cookies at the family's Santa Barbara house recently, the raw image took her breath away. "He said 'Mom, you look pregnant,' " Ireland tells PEOPLE in its latest issue. "I didn't recognize the person I saw. I saw someone who looked overwhelmed, overstressed, overweight, over-everything." In her latest book, Real Solutions for Busy Moms. Ireland talks about how mothers tend to put everybody else's needs before their own. Case in point: she had put on 25 lbs. without even really realizing it.
 
Steve Ralls: Disrespecting the Troops, One Thousand Officers at a Time Top
Throughout their history, right-wing activists, when left with no facts to defend their case, have often turned to scare tactics to keep their crusades going. Whether it is "code red" terror alerts a few days before an election, or dire warnings about hurricanes seeking revenge for our pro-choice ways, the far right has long been fond of playing Jungian psychology to prey on ancient fears. That is certainly the case with one of the right-wing's darlings of the moment, Elaine Donnelly, who heads up the misleadingly named Center for Military Readiness. Donnelly, who rose to fame by maligning brave, patriotic women who sign up for service in the armed forces, has recently set her sights on another set of troops, and set out to malign gays. From warning - before a Congressional committee, no less - of the "inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community" to repeatedly calling an Army command in Texas in an attempt to get a gay soldier fired, Donnelly has crossed lines of decency and respect again and again. In fact, Donnelly's attacks on women ( she recently said - you just can't make this up - that "to treat [women] equally would be unfair") and gays has become the subject of constant ridicule. Everyone from Jon Stewart to The Washington Post have lambasted her 18th century sensibilities. Yet, while it's easy to use her rhetoric as fodder for news media comedy, the furor she spews is also based on outrageous bigotry that is not just inherently anti-woman and anti-gay. It's anti-military, too. Which is why it's all the more perplexing why some of those who have worn our country's uniform have also signed on to her campaign of disregard and disrespect for our country's troops . . . and given her more fuel to fire up her campaign of irrational fears. Earlier this week, Donnelly released a list of 1,000 military officers - from a slew of 1-stars to a select few who wear 4 - to the Associated Press . The officers, who were surely recruited by Donnelly following a 2008 "secret meeting" she convened in Washington, urged President Obama to step back from his campaign promise to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and keep the counter-productive ban on gay troops permanently in place. But if a picture is worth a thousand words, a thousand officers are surely worth a look at the big picture. And the picture Donnelly and her minions paint is neither pretty nor based on what's best for our country, our military or our troops, whether straight or gay. There is little doubt that Donnelly's newest salvo in her relentless public relations campaign is meant to scare President Obama and Congressional leaders into thinking that any move to lift the ban will result in a '93-esque debacle over gays in the military. By testing Obama's resolve with a group of military veterans who disagree with him, Donnelly is sending a clear message that she believes she can recreate the hysteria of the Clinton administration's early days and cause political pain for a new commander-in-chief without a military background. The truth, however, is that she can't, because even though a list of 1,000 officers might seem impressive, the number pales in comparison to the growing army of Americans, both military and civilian, who can see past manufactured fear. Of all the things we have learned since 1993, one of the most important is this: That heterosexual service members, by and large, do not buy into the gay panic press that Donnelly wants to push on the American people. And that when 'leaders' live up to their title, service members, both gay and straight, are inspired to see - and do - the right thing. "Besides being discriminatory to gays, the policy demeans all the heterosexual men and women who honorably serve our country by assuming that they, too, are driven by small-minded prejudice and bias," Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, Dean and President of Franklin Pierce Law Center , told me. "If they are told by 'leaders' that gays are unworthy to serve, they will act accordingly. On the other hand, if they are told that they are mature and disciplined and that gays will enhance, not undermine, unit cohesion, they will act according to that. We must display confidence in our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and not presume they are too immature and ill-disciplined to accept gays in the military." That is to say, it's all about leadership. And as a new generation of military personnel begin to move up the ranks and take the helm of the armed forces - alongside a new generation of political leadership reflected in the current commander-in-chief - old stereotypes and prejudices are quickly falling away . . . even if officers of an older generation continue to push their anti-gay ways. Indeed, a quick look at the list supplied to the AP by Donnelly shows a few tell-tale things: There are very, very few women who endorse the gay ban, even though women continue to play more and more important roles throughout the ranks. And among the signatories on the list, one has had to apologize for suggesting African-American Marines were somehow less competent than whites, and the same one, in 1993, hand-delivered a virulent, anti-gay videotape, titled The Gay Agenda , to federal lawmakers considering then-President Clinton's proposal to lift the military's ban. Surely, those are not the "leaders" President Obama will look to for sound policy guidance . . . or the ones he will allow to bully and scare him into doing the wrong thing. In truth, Elaine Donnelly's list of 1,000 officers proves only one thing: That the more things change, the more the agents of intolerance will fight to keep them the same. But, as we did so proudly and patriotically in November, the American people can, once again, side-step the politics of fear and see the big picture again. Because, while 1,000 generals may paint one picture with inflammatory words, no amount of right-wing hysteria can, ultimately, cover up the truth. And not even 1,000 starred officers should be given the authority or stature to undermine, disrespect or dishonor the service of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or straight troops.
 
Obama G-20 News Conference (WATCH LIVE) Top
President Obama is holding a news conference at the G-20 summit in London. Earlier Thursday, G-20 leaders pledged an additional $1 trillion to restore credit, growth and jobs in the world economy, announcing a broad raft of measures designed to deal with the global financial crisis. Watch Obama live at 1:15 PM: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy ------ Keep in touch with Huffington Post World on Facebook and 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)