Friday, May 8, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Doree Shafrir: Happy Mother's Day! (And Don't Forget To E-Mail Your Grandma) Top
My grandmother is 85 years old and, to my knowledge, never gone online. Ten or maybe 12 years ago my grandfather told my mom that they'd be getting a computer "soon." But now I think they've decided that they're going to let this technological innovation pass them by. So they make plane reservations by phone, use the Yellow Pages, subscribe to the daily newspaper, and conduct important business via fax. At their house, it's like being stuck in 1989. But I think it's safe to say that they're starting to be in the minority among the senior set. Last year a friend and I started the website Postcards From Yo Momma , which publishes emails, IM conversations and text messages between mothers and their adult children; a book based on the site, Love, Mom: Poignant, Goofy, Brilliant Messages from Home (Hyperion) came out last month. The website and the book have become windows into not only how grandmothers ( or "glam-mas," as the New York Times dubbed them recently ) interact with their adult grandchildren, but also into the relationship between new grandmothers and their adult children--who have recently become parents themselves. Some new grandmothers get upset when they perceive that their children aren't allowing them enough time with their grandchildren--especially if it's the first grandchild in the family. The tension that can arise was perfectly encapsulated by this new grandma : I am glad baby did fine this morning. I am praying for her. No, we won't be coming over tonight. You have made it perfectly clear that you don't want us "horning" in on the week nights and that you don't like company on the weekends because that is your only time with her and that is when your friends come over. Our time with her will be on Fridays when I pick her up from the babysitters. Which dad still won't get much then. But we will honor your wishes. We will suffer from it and (baby) will too. But we will abide by what you say. Hope you have a good one. But many grandmothers are also like this one, who was (perhaps overly?) concerned about making sure her grandson would be happy in her care : What vegetables does he like? Baked Beans?,salad? stewed tom? fresh tomatoes, carrots, celery, Fruit; peaches and pears i know he likes; what others? Flavors ice cream? Meat? Hot dogs? Chinese food? Hamburgers and sloppy joes are all know. Chicken, turkey? chinese food? You roast your potato chunks at 425 degrees for how long? Beef or chicken gravy. Sliced ham? What for sandwiches other than PB?J. What goes in his lunch box?All of this you may already have covered in your notes to me but if not, these are my questions! Love ya Mom Email also allows moms to communicate with their adult children about their own parents, and these emails allow moms to highlight the generation gap between themselves and their own parents. These moms seem to be explaining that they have more in common with their own children than they do with their parents, like this mom : I'm living in backwards world! Mother has on thick winter socks, a jacket, & is under an afghan. Dad has on a wool jacket. It is 75 n house cuz I sneaked thermostat down 5 degrees! When I get old, u r gonna have 2 tell me shit straight up. For their part, grandmothers use email to smooth the relationship between their children and grandchildren, like this grandma who emailed her granddaughter after Christmas : [I]t saddens my heart that you and K. have, with a few exceptions, refused to help your mother around the house (specifically dishes!). After fixing a big meal for all of you, she is tired! She has not been well for years, yet no one pitches in to help her out. When does she get a break? The first thing you know, she won't be around to "do" for everyone, and at that point, I expect there will be a few regrets. Please do me a favor and help her out once in a while when you're home! You are never a "guest" in the home of your parents. Love, Grandma We were (pleasantly!) surprised to discover that some grandmothers still feel--well, horny. Or at least, able to joke about sex! Take this chat between a grandmother and her granddaughter : Grandma: i really like that apron you got me for Christmas Granddaughter: oh, yeah, no problem, I thought it'd be useful Grandma: oh sure for when we're entertaining guests.....or if im just entertaining your grandfather Granddaughter: um.....sounds great Of course, one of the most prevalent themes in mother-child communication is the production of grandchildren. This mom may be a bit extreme, but it's highly likely that this is the email that many moms would, in fact, like to send: I bought some baby clothes for you today. I know you aren't pregnant, but I thought that maybe if I bought the clothes it would work in reverse...like I could will you to get knocked up. Are you knocked up? Tell that husband of yours to get busy. I want you two sexing it up like rabbits. Hear me...RABBITS. Love, Mom PS: Your father is getting a vasectomy. Happy Mother's Day! More on Relationships
 
Jesse Larner: Pete Seeger, "Folk Music" and the Left Top
May Third, 2009, was Pete Seeger's 90th birthday. WNYC in New York hosted a retrospective of his work, and an hour long program, "The Protest Singer: An Intimate Conversation with Pete Seeger." NPR aired an "appreciation." No doubt there were such tributes at cultural venues throughout the country. As someone on the left who loves folk music, I understand that I'm supposed to feel mystically uplifted by the dean of activist folkies. But for those very reasons -- because I believe in a humanist political order, and because authentic folk music speaks to me -- I never could stand Pete. I don't question his dedication or his energy. It's just that I think them unfortunate. His conception of "folk music" has done tremendous damage, and his politics have done tremendous damage, and these things are connected. Seeger's been very influential. Most Americans, when they think of "folk music," think of the 50s and 60s "revival" of that form: the songs, and versions of songs, made popular by him, The Weavers, Joan Baez, the Kingston Trio. This is a mistake. The songs these people became famous for singing are pretty, denatured coffee-house comforts that have little to do with the life that informed the originals. The thing to remember about folk music -- both in the common American sense, as meaning the music of the South and of Appalachia that goes back to the ballads of the British Isles, and in the larger sense, as any traditional music of a specific local tradition, such as the Delta Blues -- is that it is complex music by and for people who are not simple. Folk music is an oral tradition, which is why it is often thought of as the low music of hillbillies and sharecroppers. Literate culture looks down on what is not transcribable, and in doing so limns the limitations of snobbery. But griot cultures know and understand marvelous things. Morgan Sexton or Skip James expressed at least as much of the sense of life as Beethoven did. Griot culture preserves history and meaning and cultural identity in story and song. That's why there are so many murder ballads, because traumatic events have to be worked through, and when people can't read, this is how it's done. But the folk tradition is not a quantitative tradition; it doesn't deal in facts, it deals in meaning. And the most profound meanings can't be addressed head on. The wall is high Mr. Fox has a little red eye - Mr. Fox, traditional Oh he kissed her and he hugged her and he turned her around And pushed her in deep water, where he knew that she would drown - Little Omie Wise, traditional Ambiguity and suggestion are very powerful, and the whole matter can't be explained. Robert Johnson leads us on for several verses in what seems to be a mere love song, repeatedly telling us what a kind-hearted woman he has. Then he gets down to business: I got a kind-hearted woman But she study evil all the time She bound to kill me Just to have it over mine - Robert Johnson, Kind-Hearted Woman Blues If you think that Mr. Johnson can't be deadly serious about both the kind-hearted part and the evil part, you've missed something important about folk music, the blues, women, and men. The folk tradition is a deadpan tradition. It doesn't say too much, and it doesn't tell the listener how to think or feel. It describes, and suggests, and lets the listener find the depths in the song. Here's Doc Watson singing Tom Dooley: Hang your head Tom Dooley, hang down your head and cry You killed poor Laurie Foster and you know you're bound to die He sings it quickly, with very little inflection or obvious emotion. In this world then one more, then where do you reckon I'll be? 'Way down yonder in the holler, boys, hanging from the old oak tree There is a fatalism here, but it belongs neither to the narrator nor to Tom. It's the fatalism of unsentimental justice. The Kingston Trio recorded this song in 1958, won a Grammy for it. This version is pretty, with intricately arranged harmonies. The Trio's voices trail off on the chorus Hang down your head Tom Dooley... with anguished artistry. There's a poignant pause between "Tom" and "Dooley." But there's no power, no existential challenge in it. It is only what it sounds like, a cheap and gaudy theft by people who don't even know what they're stealing. Here's Peter, Paul and Mary singing Woody Guthrie's "Bound for Glory" (not technically folk music, but I'll get to that in a minute). Woody did understand the folk tradition, and this comes through in his original. Peter, Paul and Mary use it to make a point: their voices quaver with outraged, pious indignation. O the injustice! The effect is the same as hearing Joan Baez sing "A Maid of Constant Sorrow" with operatic control, or Ella Fitzgerald -- I know I'll get in trouble for this -- drain all the dirt and sex and rage and joy out of jazz with her famous technique. For this bowdlerization of the folk tradition -- deeply disrespectful to the people who created it, I may add -- Pete the tireless popularizer of fake folk music bears much of the blame. It's worse than that, and here's where the politics comes in. I've tried to describe the power of folk music, because it is important to understand that this power is not amplified when made explicit, when harnessed to an agenda. It is negated. Folk music is about life, and politics is only a small part of life. Not that a political tone must always be a failure in any music of the people. Woody drew on folk traditions for his melodies and style, putting his own lyrics on top. But he could do this effectively for two reasons: Because he deadpanned his biggest points, and because he was part of the life he sang about. He actually was a dust bowl farmer, he really did hobo around on the trains and pick fruit in the California camps and do factory work and get beaten up for standing up for the Union. He had a right. Who the hell was Pete? He came from a distinguished family of musicians and academics afflicted with self-conscious class-consciousness; his father, Charles Louis Seeger, although from an old Puritan patrician line, joined the radical Industrial Workers of the World in the 1930s, a form of ostentatiously slumming solidarity that predicted much about his son's future. Pete was a professional musician from a young age, Harvard dropout, assistant to folk archivist Alan Lomax, and dedicated political activist. He knew everything about folk music, except what it is. It's hard to play any music properly without bothering to understand its true context, which usually means being born into a culture, although it doesn't have to. One of the very few coffee-house folkies who understood the material was Bobby Zimmerman, a Jewish kid from Hibbing, Minnesota, pretty far from both the Mississippi Delta and Appalachia. With a lot of study, he did something remarkable: He was able to bend the tradition to his personal artistic purposes, while still being true to its essence and power. This is very, very hard to do, and after moving to New York and taking the name of a Welsh poet, young Bobby was able to put politics into his songs precisely because he didn't indulge in the righteousness of Pete, and because he mostly steered clear of overt polemic, letting the stories tell themselves through exquisitely observed detail. "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll," "Who Killed Davey Moore?" -- these are political masterpieces in cameo form, torn from contemporary headlines. Dylan could make the point without making the song about himself. Listen to him take elements of the old English ballad "Oxford Town" and successfully apply them to the atrocities of Philadelphia, Mississippi: Oxford Town in the afternoon Everybody singing this awful tune Three men died 'neath the Mississippi moon Somebody better investigate soon The casual ironic distance of that "somebody" is enormously powerful. Pete would have sung about how we're all in this together, we are all brothers and sisters! We must fight for a new world together! Dylan stands back and gives you room to think about that "somebody." Dylan sang "Only a Pawn in Their Game," his valedictory to Medgar Evers , at the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington at which Martin Luther King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. At that event he performed live in front of several hundred thousand people, and eventually for untold millions more who watched the documentaries and heard the recordings. He had just turned 22, and he was hailed as the new Woody -- he sure sounded like him! -- and drafted by the aging lefties of Woody's generation as the political troubadour of a generation. And oh how these folksong radicals, many of them communists or fellow travelers, were delighted at this bright young lad, so dedicated, orthodox and predictable! And how infuriated when it turned out that he wasn't! Dylan was nobody's spokesman, nobody's pet "protest" singer, and he was singing about life, not about politics. At 22, he had the adoration of millions as well as the artistic and erotic companionship of the beautiful Joan Baez , at that time far more famous and respected than he was. He could have translated this into a particular kind of role. He wasn't interested. When he got into the abstractions of Mr. Tambourine Man, and especially when he picked up an electric guitar at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, the folk establishment turned on him. Ewan MacColl , the British folkie (and Pete Seeger's brother-in-law) wrote, "I have watched with fascination the meteoric rise of the American idol and I am still unable to see him as anything more than a youth of mediocre talent. Only a completely non-critical audience nourished on the watery pap of pop music could have fallen for such tenth-rate drivel. But the poetry! They say. What poetry? The illiteracy of his topical songs, are the embarrassing fourth grade schoolboy attempts at free verse." ( Sing Out! , September 1965.) During Dylan's electric set at Newport, Pete Seeger himself threatened to cut the power cables with an axe, revealing himself as the blind reactionary he truly is. (I should say that Seeger has for many years insisted that he was only upset because the sound quality was so poor, that he wanted the crowd to hear Dylan. I believe this to be a lie; or, more charitably, an example of the malleability of self-interested memory.) And what were the politics that Pete wanted Bobby to take up with such earnestness? We can judge by the causes and the masters he gave himself to. The term "communist" is a charged one, and means different things to different people (although the legitimate spectrum of interpretation is not so wide, nor at one end so benign, as that of "socialist"); but it's perfectly clear that Seeger worked hard all his life for communism -- to be clear: for Leninism -- regardless of how long he was actually in the party. I've gathered over the years that he's been motivated by a particularly naïve vision of collectivist romanticism. Nothing really wrong with that, so long as it doesn't make one blind to the totalitarian mindset lurking behind the urge to perfect social relations. In Seeger's case, there's no sign that he ever confronted that problem. He joined the Party in 1939, and after the Hitler-Stalin pact he sang, on his 1941 album "Songs for John Doe," against going to war with Germany. After Operation Barbarossa in June of that year, he had the record pulled and offered FDR his support. Oceania is at war with Eurasia; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. His loyalties were pretty clear, and they were with American liberal democracy only insofar as it aligned with other forces. He went on to sing against standing up to the Soviets in the Cold War (whole thing was our fault), in praise of Ho Chi Minh ("He educated all the people, he demonstrated to the world: If a man will stand for his own land, he's got the strength of 10.") He made fun of the rubes who opposed Castro ("I believe in God and Senator Todd and in keeping old Castro down.") Seeger was always there to defend any left-wing totalitarian government or revolution, in word and song. He dutifully opposed the war in Iraq and even in Afghanistan. Some things this great humanitarian political troubador didn't write about? The Yalta Pact and its consequences, the East German rebellion of 1953, the Soviet Gulag, Kim Il Sung's death camps, the Soviet invasions of Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '68, the insanity of the Cultural Revolution in China, Mao's murderous career (maybe 30 million dead, but eggs and omelets, you know), Leninism in Nicaragua, Che Guevara's sadistic psychopathy... I could go on. OK, in 1993(!) he allowed that Stalin was a bad guy after all, and he admitted to Ron Radosh, former communist turned communist debunker (and a former banjo student of Seeger's) that he, Pete, "should have asked to see the gulags" when he was in the USSR (he also suggested that Radosh surely had better things to do with his life than to go around exposing the extent to which many American communists took orders from the Comintern, and served as active agents in the struggle to overthrow liberal democracy). But even in turning against Stalin, Seeger lets himself and his cause off the hook: the problem wasn't really Stalin, you see, or communism. It was "the human faith in violence." Radosh had a rather friendly and warm reaction to his old teacher's epiphany, a mere 70 or so years too late. The great polemicist Mark Steyn had this to say about Pete's observation, and Radosh, on second thought, endorsed Steyn's view. Explaining how Stalin had "put an end to the dreams" of a Communist utopia, Seeger told Ron Radosh that he'd underestimated "how the majority of the human race has faith in violence". But that isn't true, is it? Very few of us are violent. Those who order the killings are few in number, and those who carry them out aren't significantly numerous. But those willing to string along and those too fainthearted to object and those who just want to keep their heads down and wait for things to blow over are numbered in the millions. And so are those many miles away in the plump prosperous western democracies who don't see why this or that dictator is their problem. One can perhaps understand the great shrug of indifference to distant monsters. It's harder, though, to forgive the contemporary urge to celebrate it as a form of "idealism." One might even say that this form of "idealism," and the celebration of it, is disgusting. Seeger has the dubious distinction of having received both the Presidential Medal of the Arts from Bill Clinton, in 1994 in a ceremony at the Kennedy Center, and the Felix Varela medal, Cuba's highest honor, for "his humanistic and artistic work in defense of the environment and against racism." Accepting an award from Castro is one of those clarifying events for those who may be trying to figure out how to think of Seeger. You just can't do such a thing and expect to still have
 
Danny Gokey Takes 'Idol' To Milwaukee Top
MILWAUKEE — Hundreds of fans welcomed home "American Idol" finalist Danny Gokey on Friday. Gokey started his day at the local Fox affiliate, WITI-TV, where hundreds of people, many young girls, screamed his name and held signs that read "Ga Ga Gokey, ur our idol" and "We love you Danny." After the visit, Gokey said he's struggled with song selection on "Idol." "I've always done gospel music and I don't know much about the music outside of that realm," he said. "Literally every song I pick, I'm learning. I don't know what to pick and song choice has been the most difficult thing for me, and it only gets harder as it goes." On Tuesday, "Idol" judge Simon Cowell criticized Gokey's performance of Aerosmith's "Dream On." Cowell said Gokey's final note _ an elongated scream _ "was like watching a horror movie." But Gokey laughed about it Friday. "Rock wasn't my thing, and I bit off a song that was bigger than me," he said. "I loved it," he said. "It was terrible sounding, but it was funny. ... The thing is I can hit the note but that was like the 40th time. Finally, you get to a point your voice can only handle (so much). Right now my voice is sore from the rock. It takes a lot for my voice to get sore and that did it." Later Friday, Gokey was expected to sing at his church, Faith Builders International Ministries, on Milwaukee's south side. He volunteered as song director at the church before auditioning for "Idol." His audition came four weeks after his wife, Sophia, died of a congenital heart defect. The couple had agreed he would try out for the show, and Gokey has called her his "biggest inspiration." The city is hosting a parade with Green Bay Packers players Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Nick Barnett and Ruvell Martin. It will end at the lakefront festival grounds, where Gokey will sing again. Gokey will end the day throwing out the first pitch and singing the national anthem before a Brewers-Cubs game at Miller Park. ___ Fox is a unit of News Corp. ___ On the Net: http://www.americanidol.com/ More on American Idol
 
Candy Spelling: Is it Meshuga To Want My Daughter To Mesh? Top
TV's long-running FAMILY FEUD series isn't about a feud. "Play Together! Win Together!" the website says. The show has been around since 1976, more than half of my life and since my daughter, Tori, was only three. The series was never about a "feud." It was a game show. My husband, Aaron Spelling, thought the title was brilliant marketing. He was right. For a long time, it even aired back-to-back with Aaron's "The Love Boat" in syndication, fitting together like love and marriage. My life isn't a game show, but many people think I'm involved in a feud. (I'm not.) On April 20, USA TODAY headlined a story and chart: "Rating the celebrity feuds. Some are hot, some are not." I can only speak for my family's "feud." It's only marketing, and my daughter learned well from her genius father. I'm not feuding with my daughter. She just doesn't speak to me. And, she's a good marketer. Also on April 20, The Independent UK headlined: "Tori and Candy Spelling: the mother of all feuds." A week earlier, ET ONLINE quoted PEOPLE magazine for its own feud coverage: "Tori Spelling says any so-called feud between her and her mother Candy is greatly exaggerated," it began. "It's not like we're not talking, we just haven't talked," Tori tells People. "I love my mother. I've always loved her [and] no doubt she loves me. There's no feud. We simply never meshed." I don't know what "we simply never meshed" means. I thought we meshed well. We certainly enjoyed life together as part of a loving family. USA TODAY furthered the marketing theory in deciding the heat of celebrity feuds: "Though they might not be looking for a fight, stars get media heat when they are criticized publicly. What might seem like an innocuous remark could fuel a lasting feud, depending on the circumstances. USA TODAY asks Dina Sansing, Us Weekly's entertainment director, to check out the latest spats." My daughter and I were one of four "players" on the spat chart. Our "fallout" was rated as "intense." I read about "meshing" again in Tori's quote in USA TODAY via US WEEKLY's expert quoting PEOPLE Magazine slightly differently than ET quoted PEOPLE. (Who says celebrity media is fading? They clearly all rely on each other.) "Tori Spelling insists that the supposed rift between her and her mother, Candy Spelling, isn't nearly as bad as it has been made out to be. 'It's not like we're not talking, we just haven't talked," the actress tells People. "I love my mother. There's no feud. We simply never meshed.'" The other feuds, by the way, were Madonna vs. the paparazzi, Lindsay Lohan vs. Stevie Nix and Jamie Fox vs. Miley Cyrus. Who knew they were all related? Only Tori and I would have been eligible for the game show; but we're not feuding, so would we really be eligible? I always thought it took two to feud. I think of vendettas and blood feuds and Hatfields and McCoys, not of my daughter and me. I've told "Extra," "Access Hollywood," "The View," "20/20," Larry King, Chelsea Handler and "People" there's no feud. My daughter just refuses to speak to me, and she's using not "meshing" as the reason. My emails and postings are filled with heartbreaking stories from other mothers and daughters who have strained relationships. I'm sorry my daughter and I do, and I hurt for the hundreds, maybe thousands, of others who've written to me to tell me their stories. I'd love to mesh for Mother's Day and beyond. Now that my daughter has agreed with me and denied there's a feud (which was a heck of a marketing vehicle for her TV shows and books), maybe she'll define mesh for me. I'm ready. Let's mesh. This is meshuga to live this way.
 
Michèle Lamont: A Fairness Doctrine For Academia Top
An essay excerpted from How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Harvard University Press). In American higher education, excellence, merit, and quality are often captured by quantitative measures such as GRE and SAT scores (if you are a student) or number of citations (if you are a researcher). But when it comes to evaluating the proposed work of academics across disciplines, simple measures like these usually will not do. Instead, scholars are brought together to deliberate the merits of these proposals. As historians, political scientists, anthropologists, and literary scholars weigh in with their particular expertise, they also learn from one another, improvise, opine, convince, and attempt to balance competing standards. They strategize, high-ball, and follow scripts shaped by their academic disciplines, but they also contextualize and compromise. They respect alternative perspectives and expect reciprocity. They try to impress other panelists, save face, and help others do the same. They set the agenda, flex their muscles, see if they measure up, and enjoy intellectual barter. They invest themselves in decisions and share excitement with others. They reach "good enough" solutions instead of ideal ones, because they have to get the job done in the time allotted. They go home usually feeling that they have risen to the occasion, betraying neither "the system" nor themselves. They have stood for principles, but not so rigidly that they could not reach consensus. For them, panels are an opportunity to be influential, and to be appreciated. Within practical constraints, panelists aim to "produce the sacred" of fair evaluation, while respecting institutional, disciplinary, and other diversities. In particular, disciplinary cultures are tempered by the exigencies of multidisciplinary evaluation. Evaluators aim for consistency in standards across disciplines even as they use standards appropriate to the discipline of the applicant. They both engage in consensual and egalitarian decision making and defer to expertise. In addition, evaluators attempt to balance meritocracy and diversity, seeing these as complementary ideals, not alternatives. The panelists' experience reflects many of the system's tensions, and the doubts these tensions create. Just how biased is academia? Do people get what they deserve? Am I getting what I deserve? Their collective evaluation mobilizes and intertwines emotions, self-interest, and expertise. Moreover, it requires coordinating actions and judgments through a culture of evaluation that has been established long before the panelists set foot in the deliberative chambers. This story is fundamentally about fairness and the attempt to achieve it. What is presented as expertise may sometimes be merely preference ("taste"), described in depersonalized language. The reciprocal recognition of authority is central to the process, but it may lead to explicit horse-trading, which produces suboptimal results. Despite these potential hazards, however, panelists think the process works, in part because they adopt a pragmatic conception of "truth" (or at least of what constitutes a "fair evaluation") as something inevitably provisional and defined by the best standards of the community at the time.1 Indeed, the constraints on the evaluative process--particularly the considerable time that panelists spend preparing for deliberations and their dedication to convincing their peers of the merit of their point of view--go a long way toward creating the conditions for a more meritocratic system. The performative effects of positing a meritocratic system are comparable to those of having "faith in the market": the belief creates the conditions of its own existence--within limits.2 Some academics have a propensity to assume that quality is intrinsic to the work and that some scholars have a natural talent for finding it. But in fact the "cream" does not rise naturally to the top, nor is it "dug out" in unlikely places: it is produced through expert interaction, with the material provided by applicants. Neither the work nor the people are socially disembedded. Panelists' definitions of excellence are rooted and arise from their networks of colleagues and ideas. They aim for fairness, but the taken-for-granted aspects of social life--the cognitive structures they use routinely, the multiple networks of which they are a part--may lead them to assume that what appeals to them is simply best. So evaluation is contextual and relational, and the universe of comparables is constantly shifting. Proposals demand varied standards, because they shine under different lights. In some cases, the significance of the proposed work is determined by the likely generalizability of its findings. In others, how a topic informs our understanding of broader processes is more important. In yet other cases, significance is assessed by the deeper understanding that results from a particular interpretation. In panel deliberations, the ideal of a consistent or universalist mode of evaluation is continually confronted with the reality that different proposals require a plurality of assessment strategies. This plurality manifests itself starkly when disciplinary evaluative cultures are exposed in the kinds of arguments that individual panelists make for or against proposals, and in how these arguments are received--factors that together influence which proposals will be funded. In evaluating excellence, formal and informal criteria of evaluation are weighed differently by humanists, social scientists, and historians. Yet across fields, excellence is viewed as a moral as well as a technical accomplishment. It is thought to be a result of determination and hard work, humility, authenticity, and audacity. Other "evanescent qualities" count too, even if, as is the case for elegance and the display of cultural capital, they run counter to the meritocratic ideal that animates the system. The self-concept of evaluators is central to the process of assessment, especially to the perception that the decision making is fair. Panelists evaluate one another as they evaluate proposals. Their respect for customary rules sustains their identity as experts and as fair and broadminded academics, who as such deserve to serve on funding panels. Yet if their self-concept orients knowledge production and evaluation, panelists downplay its role, often viewing it as an extraneous and corrupting influence.3 For most panelists, interdisciplinarity and diversity are aspects of excellence, not alternatives to it. Because there is a lack of agreement on the standards of evaluation for interdisciplinary genres, panelists readily fall back on the tools they have available--existing disciplinary standards--to determine what interdisciplinary research should be funded. While debates about diversity in higher education have focused mostly on gender and racial and ethnic diversity, the scholars I talked to were most concerned with institutional and disciplinary diversity. They see diversity as a good that can lead to a richer academic life for all and to a broader production of talent for society as a whole. Like the panelists in my study, many American academics take for granted the legitimacy of the peer review system. Yet estimates of the fairness of the meritocratic process may ebb and flow with one's own academic successes and level of ambition. Empirical research should establish whether outsiders have the least faith. The peer review process is deeply influenced by who gets asked to serve as a panelist and what viewpoints and intellectual habitus those individuals bring to the table. Biases are unavoidable. In particular, program officers tend to extend invitations to the most collegial (who may be the least objectionable and most conventional) scholars and those whose careers are already established. Thus peer review is perceived to be biased against daring and innovative research--an explanation I have often consoled myself with when my own research proposals have been denied funding. And it is true that, at the end of the day, we cannot know for sure whether the "cream rises." But if panelists believe that it does, and make considerable sacrifices to do a good job, they contribute to sustaining a relatively meritocratic system. A system where cynicism prevailed at all levels would most likely generate much greater arbitrariness, and would result in less care being put into the decision-making process and into the preparation of applications. __________________________________________ NOTES 7. Implications in the United States and Abroad 1. This is much in line with the concept of truth in James (1911). 2. MacKenzie and Millo (2003); also Dobbin (1994). 3. See, e.g., Shapin (1994) and Daston and Galison (2007).
 
T. Boone Pickens: The Oil Price Roller Coaster is on the Upswing Top
It has been nine months since oil hit its high of $147 per barrel and the price of gasoline at the pump in the United States topped $4 per gallon for regular. In California, gasoline topped out at an average of $4.43 per gallon. Since then, the worldwide recession dampened worldwide demand and oil fell to about $39 per barrel in February of this year. But, guess what? OPEC has been fairly successful in cutting supplies and the world's economies are showing the earliest signs of recovery and oil prices are creeping back up. In March the average barrel of oil cost about $48 per barrel. In April that oil cost about $50. Today, it's back above $55. OPEC wants to push the price up to about $75 per barrel by the end of the year and they will probably be successful. The rise in oil (and, therefore gasoline and diesel) prices is not the biggest issue confronting facing the United States on its energy supply. In April 2009, we imported 375 million barrels of petroleum at a cost of about $18.6 billion. But that represented 68 percent of the oil we used during the month. Rather than decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, the percentage of oil we use which comes from non-US sources is continuing to rise. Seventy percent of the oil we import is used as a transportation fuel. And about thirty percent of imported oil is used to fuel heavy trucks - 18-wheelers. Neither wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, nor thermal - not even ethanol - will work as a substitute for imported diesel to move the goods that have to be transported from coast to coast and from border to border on 18-wheelers. The only domestic fuel which will work as a substitute for foreign oil in all classes of vehicles is natural gas. We have a virtually unlimited supply of natural gas in the United States. The new technologies now being employed to recover natural gas from the enormous shale deposits under Appalachia, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas have led independent researchers to conclude our reserves will last for more than 100 years. That includes using natural gas for electrical generation, as feedstock for the chemical industry, in compressed (CNG) or liquified (LNG) form as a transportation fuel, and for all other current and planned uses. Using natural gas to replace diesel-fuelled heavy trucks solves a number of issues when we talk about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The first issue is the size of the current fleet. We have over 250 million cars and light trucks on America's streets and highways. That is an enormous installed base so making dent in gasoline usage is a daunting task. To move just five percent of cars and trucks to natural gas would require the upfitting of about 12.5 million vehicles. That is not likely to happen. However, the national fleet of heavy trucks comes in at about 6.5 million. A five percent move from diesel to natural gas means replacing only about 325,000 trucks - a number we can get our arms around. And because 18-wheelers are such vociferous consumers of diesel, we can make real progress in decreasing our need for foreign oil by aiming at that goal. In addition, most 18-wheelers tend to run the same routes back and forth. Truckers stop at the same places to eat, rest and refuel so the infrastructure issue of natural gas fueling stations will be easily handled in the normal course of commerce. You don't need a natural gas refueling pump on every street corner as you would for passenger cars and light trucks. There is now a bill in Congress, H.R. 1835, which is known as the NAT GAS Act. This bill - which has generated more than 35 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle - will provide incentives to move heavy trucks from diesel to natural gas. It is crucial to avoid the "chicken-and-egg" issue - buyers can't find natural gas vehicles (NGVs) to purchase, and manufacturers won't build them until they are sure there is a market for them. When AT&T announced it was upgrading 8,000 trucks in its domestic fleet to run on natural gas, it found that while Ford Motor Company could (and will) build the chassis, they had to find other domestic vendors to do the upfitting to natural gas. H.R. 1835 will close that gap between builders and buyers. In 200 the federal government purchased almost 65,000 gasoline, diesel and E85 vehicles. In that same year the federal government purchased only 129 NGVs. Not 129 thousand, but one hundred twenty nine. This bill requires the government to purchase 50 percent of its vehicles purchased over the next five years to run on natural gas. This will provide a kick start to the NGV production capabilities of our struggling car and truck manufacturers and will have the additional effect of lowering the prices of NGVs as manufacturing ramps up. H.R. 1835 provides a number of tax incentives which can be utilized by public and private fleet managers. Municipal and school bus fleets; refuse and recycling trucks, taxis, municipal vehicles, express delivery trucks can all be replaced with CNG vehicles. This is the right time and H.R. 1835 is the right vehicle to show the world that the United States is serious about reducing our reliance on foreign
 
Andrea Chalupa: Must Watch Video: Forget swine flu, it's all about Toflu Top
With all the recent hysteria over swine flu, from the fashionable face masks to potentially panic inducing warnings from Vice President Joe Biden, it seems it's time to poke fun at a faction of society that's been relatively safe, until now: vegetarians. This video was written, directed, edited, ok, so produced by Rakesh Baruah of Modern Jackass Magazine and a contributor to WalletPop.com. For more from Walletpop More on Swine Flu
 
Vickie Karp: Third Screen: Louis Armstrong, In the Cause of Happiness Top
Photo: An original collage by Louis Armstrong Caught up with Phoebe Jacobs by phone just now -- you'll see her tonight on NBC News around 7pm (ET) alongside scholar Robert O'Meally, talking about a new book of Louis Armstrong's collages - Satchmo: The Wonderful World and Art of Louis Armstrong , and a big exhibit of his work now free and open to the public - The Collage Aesthetic of Louis Armstrong: In the Cause of Happiness - through September 26th at Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York. The original collages are a selection from an exhibit through July 12th at the Louis Armstrong House Museum in Corona, Queens, New York entitled A Little Story of My Own . Phoebe Jacobs, who is 90 years old give or take a minute, knew Louis Armstrong most of her life. She is no mere sound bite. Here's some vintage Louis Armstrong backstory in her own words. "Well, I've always had a passion for music. My whole family loves music. My uncle introduced me at the age of thirteen to Louis playing Stardust and to Duke Ellington recordings. My uncle was a saxophone player. He looked like Rex Harrison. He used to ride around in a Rolls Royce his father bought him, so he was quite the romantic figure. I just adored him. He owned a club called The Embers on 54th Street in the 40s and 50s. It was across from El Morocco, which was snooty and high-brow. Gloria Vanderbilt and Doris Duke would come out of El Morocco and cross the street to The Embers. They called it a late night spot. "In those days, clubs stayed open till three or four in the morning. The Embers served good eggs and had jazz pianists. Just piano players. Tallulah Bankhead was an ardent fan of jazz pianists. She just loved them. She'd go into the club -- and very often Louis would be there to hear somebody like Oscar Peterson -- and she and Louis would light up some pot and hang out. You know, whenever Tallulah Bankhead had a Broadway show, she'd always put in a scene where she turns on the phonograph and plays a Louis Armstrong record. "My father was a bootlegger and a gambler. We had a pianola and I'm old enough to tell you we had a Victrola that we used to wind up. My mother was so proud of it she put it on the fire escape in summertime, so the neighbors could hear all the recordings. "Ralph ran a series of clubs over the years -- The Kelly Stable, The Three Deuces, The Famous Door. Ralph was involved with Artie Shaw, Billie Holiday, Nat King Cole. And I quickly became a degenerate incurable music addict. At 16, I worked at the hat check room. I eventually went to work at Decca Records, where I met Sy Oliver and Milt Gabler. Milt Gabler was Billy Crystal's uncle. "When Decca started, they recorded Count Basie, Duke Ellington, so many. In those days they called them race records. I got a job sharpening pencils, answering phones. Jazz was everywhere. Over at Simon and Schuster , they were doing children's recordings then and books about music. They did the first Rodgers and Hart songbook and little Golden Records and Sing Along With Mitch with Mitch Miller. There was no tv in those days, honey. Just neighborhood movies with the bouncing ball. One of the sources for the bouncing ball was the Lucky Strike Hit Parade Radio Shows' Top Ten . What a time. We were struggling. There were breadlines and people selling apples on the street, and music was a lifeline for people to get their spirits up. To this day, I get letters every day from all over the world asking for What A Wonderful World . I just got one yesterday from a school in Brooklyn. "I first met Louis at a recording session at Decca . I was asked to bring the music to the studio and set it up on the music stands - the bass part, the piano part, the drum part. I was putting it out and when I got to the trumpet, I didn't have the part. I went back to the office, all upset, and said to this girl, Margaret, 'I lost the trumpet part.' Louis came in, they told him the story, and everybody got hysterical. Nobody wrote his part. He just played. After that, he loved to point at me and say, 'There she is. That's the one that lost my music.' "My uncle named one of his clubs in honor of Louis -- Ralph Watkins' Basin Street -- and Louis would come in twice a year. So I got to know him a little better. It's funny. When you're working in a night club, you can work all day, and then you go home and get all dressed up and where do you want to go? Back to the club. Or we'd all go out for coffee or to a Chinese restaurant and Louis would say something like, 'Jeez, I have to get this button sewn on my suit,' and I'd say give it to me, I'll take care of it. I'd just volunteer because I was there. "We went by our gut feelings in those days. We had nobody to teach us. You have to realize, many of the people I worked with didn't even graduate elementary school. You ask me what's wrong now? When I was going through the troubles and economic hazards of life back then, our values and our priorities were not about status symbols. It wasn't are you a celebrity and what have you acquired? I mean you can murder somebody these days and become a celebrity for it. Journalism has gotten sleazy about this. One time, when I worked at Rockefeller Center, the doorman at 30 Rock said to me 'Look across the street at all the people standing around the Christmas Tree. All these strangers interlocking arms and singing. It's so beautiful.' And it was. I ran back in and called the head of press photography at Associated Press and told him to come on down and snap a picture. And he said, 'Phoebe, call me if somebody throws a rock through a window at Saks Fifth Avenue. Nobody wants to see a happy picture anymore.' I liked it better when it was moon, June, spoon, once upon a time, and happily ever after. It was an escape, sure, but it also choreographed your attitude about living. Now we have survival of the fittest. But what kind of fittest? What are you fit for? "The new book and exhibit are about Louis' collages. It was his hobby. Something he could take with him wherever he went. All he needed was scissors and magazines. He used the collages to decorate his home-made recordings. He'd bought a reel-to-reel tape machine in Germany and he would tape his own stuff. He play Bing Crosby or Dean Martin or Kate Smith and take out his horn and play and make his own duets and record them. He wanted to decorate the boxes he put the recordings in, and that's what he did with the collages. He loved Scotch Tape. He was mad for Scotch Tape. "When Louis passed on July 6, 1971, he left everything he owned to his wife, Lucille, but prior to his death, in 1969, he asked me to be in charge of his legacy and heritage and I asked why are you doing this? 'I want to give back to the world some of the goodness I got,' he told me. 'You're gonna take my money and I don't want you to ask anybody to give you anything. Just take whatever money my records earn and use it for education and children and music.' "When Lucille died, she left his memorabilia for me to take care of. I knew she had done work with Queens College -- Louis loved Queens lived there, is buried there -- and that's where the archive and these tapes are. "What's the secret to Louis Armstrong? He had a capacity to make you feel all kinds of things. I was present once when he recorded with Ella Fitzgerald and she was just so smitten with the joy of him musically. Bing Crosby and Jack Teagarden loved him. Everybody loved him. "And in this business, if you live long enough, you meet everybody. Some people collect art. I collect people. It's like a checkerboard. Every square gets filled with a favorite person. You can meet somebody tomorrow and connect with them about whatever's in the air. There's something wonderful about them and then they're your favorite. It's like gathering a bouquet of flowers. Next one could be you."
 
Hoyt Hilsman: Time to Call Off the Predators? Top
No single issue that has fueled the flames of anti-Americanism in Pakistan more than the bombings of their country by our Predator drones. Since President Obama took office, there have been at least sixteen Predator strikes, which have killed about 160 people and led to widespread protests around the country. More serious than the wave of anti-Americanism is the instability that the continuing Predator strikes have brought to the fragile civilian government of President Zardari. There is real evidence that the air strikes have done substantial damage to the leadership of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and they are consistent with the policy announced by President Obama during his campaign that he would take the fight to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, even if it meant violating the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan. However, the value of the strikes may be diminishing, especially in relation to the growing anger in Pakistan which itself pushes people toward the extremists. Colonel David Kilcullen, formerly a senior adviser to General Petraeus, the US regional commander, in testimony to Congress, said "We need to call off the drones." He added that "The current path that we are on is leading us to loss of Pakistani government control over its own population." While a halt in the air assaults, even a temporary one, might give a reprieve to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, it may be a necessary step toward stabilizing the Pakistani government. The high-level meetings this week between President Obama, President Zardari and Afghan President Karzai represent an important challenge to all three of the leaders, and the American airstrikes are central to that challenge. Zardari must convince both Obama and Karzai that he is serious about stemming the flow of extremism inside Pakistan, and that he will have the backing in that effort from both the Pakistani military and intelligence services. Karzai must sign on to a regional solution to the crisis, and agree to the greater oversight of the funding that has been pouring into his country. Perhaps the greatest test will be for President Obama, who will have to demonstrate not only to those in the region, but also to the American people and the rest of the world, that he can be tough in taking the battle to extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and at the same time provide the political, military and economic support to governments on the front line. Finally, he needs to show the flexibility to adjust his course in midstream -- in this case, by grounding the Predators as a gesture of goodwill to the nation of Pakistan. Even though it might slow the progress we have made in damaging the leadership of Al-Qaeda and Taliban, in the long run it will prove our respect for and commitment to the Pakistani people. Because, like it or not, we are in this struggle for the long run. More on Barack Obama
 
Jack McCollough Needs Surgery After Kiefer Head Butt Top
Fashion designer Jack McCollough, who was allegedly headbutted by Kiefer Sutherland this week, required surgery for his injuries, his rep tells PEOPLE. "Mr. McCollough suffered a broken nose in three places as a result of the assault," his rep told PEOPLE exclusively on Friday, refuting reports that the designer merely got scratches on his nose. "He received medical treatment last night after consulting with physicians."
 
Libby Mitchell: An Open Letter to Kirstie Alley Top
Dear Kirstie, Remember when you were an actress? Yeah, so do I. I liked you so much better then. Now you have morphed into this big narcissistic ball of weight obsession, and it just is not becoming. All you do is talk about why you gained the weight, how you lost the weight, how you felt about losing the weight, how you cried about gaining the weight, and how other people should feel about you losing/gaining the weight. It is so boring I want to scream. Yes, I know that we are a nation obsessed with weight, and that every time you admit to gaining/losing a pound you get the cover of People . Really though, is this what you want to be known for? Is this what you want your legacy to be? The fat actress who stopped being an actress so she could rake in the cash just being fat? I mean, I guess that would be fine for some who didn't have any talent (cough, cough, Carnie Wilson), but as I recall you actually had some. You were even good in those ridiculous movies with the talking baby. I know there are people who are encouraging you to stay on this path, saying that your struggle with weight makes them "appreciate you more" because they can "relate" to you. Don't listen to them. What they are really trying to say is "I don't feel as bad for myself because there is someone famous I can ridicule." Also, why should you care if you cab "relate" to normal people? Normal people don't win Emmys, or hang out with Oprah. They sit at home and write stupid blogs about celebrities while feeling their asses grow. So, Kirstie, now it's up to you. Either you can keep riding this weight loss gravy train, eating gravy, and sink into mediocrity, or you can rise, like a phoenix from the ashes, say "I don't care what I weigh" and be an actress again (and don't give me that "no one will hire me" thing, Liza Minelli got a fresh start, and so can you). Oh, and if you pick the second one, you can't tell us about how you've picked the second one in a multi-page O.K. magazine spread. Choosing integrity means actually choosing it. Best of luck, Libby
 
Glenn Beck In A Minute: Our Favorite Moments From Fox's Finest (VIDEO) Top
Glenn Beck, a man Jon Stewart praised as, "a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking," that "GQ" begged the question "Is this the most annoying man in America?" about, that coworker Shep Smith doesn't even understand , has seeped into our national consciousness over the years becoming a pseudo-star on the talking-head stage. Before you decry this or try to challenge it, know that we've decided to condense Glenn Beck to one minute so you can have the full experience without actually watching his show. Believe me, you'll thank us. For more "In a Minutes" click here. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on In A Minute
 
Jimmy Fallon To Finally Get College Degree Top
ALBANY, N.Y. — Jimmy Fallon is finally getting his bachelor's degree in communications 15 years after leaving a New York college to pursue his comedy career. The "Late Night" host will pick up his diploma and speak at the College of St. Rose commencement Saturday at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. Fallon attended St. Rose in Albany from 1992 through 1995. He started as a computer science major but switched to communications. He left for Los Angeles just one semester short of graduating. The college says Fallon earned his degree after satisfying requirements for the remaining credits by presenting a portfolio of his work. __ On the Net: College of St. Rose: http://www.strose.edu More on Jimmy Fallon
 
David Roberts: Cap-and-Trade vs. Carbon Tax: A Bird in Hand Is Worth Two on Alpha Centauri Top
grist.org I find it really hard to believe, but the perennial "carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade" debate is still going on. It goes on and on and on and it never changes. It's like everyone's following a script now. I've been over this territory so many times that I hardly know what to say any more. So here's what some other people are saying: Joe Romm started this off by asking James Hansen to drop his quixotic and politically toxic campaign against the Waxman-Markey climate/energy bill. Kevin Drum chimed in, supporting Romm . Michael O'Hare responded with a heated defense of carbon taxes (or as he calls them, carbon charges), premised mainly on a basic misunderstanding of Romm's post. (Joe wasn't defending cap-and-trade as such against the carbon tax alternative -- he was defending Waxman-Markey , including all its complementary policies, against the tax alternative.) Ryan Avent says taxes and caps are not that different in effect and only one has a chance of passing, so carbon taxers should STFU. Andrew Sullivan responds that he thinks the tax will work better, and so no, he won't STFU. Kevin and Ryan both respond to Sullivan, pointing out that he seems to be suffering from some serious misunderstandings about cap-and-trade systems. (In this he has, to put it mildly, plenty of company). Meanwhile, Yale 360 has rounded up a group of "experts" to weigh in on the issue , though several of the purported experts seem to understand very little about the policies and/or the politics at hand. The submissions from Jeffrey Sachs and Roger Pielke Jr., in particular, are so poorly argued as to defy explanation. Michael Tobis says that Jeffrey Sachs' argument for a tax " makes sense " to him, but Kevin points out that Sachs' argument is somewhat hampered by the fact that virtually every single sentence is head-slappingly false . Is that it? I think that's it. For now, anyway. I'm sure the entire roundelay will repeat itself soon enough. Rather than tread all this ground yet again, here are what I take to be the three key points: • The policies are, or can be made, roughly equivalent. With a tax you get certainty about prices but uncertainty about emission reductions; with a cap you get the inverse. You can tweak a tax to shift the balance; you can do the same to cap-and-trade. Both can be weakened with loopholes and favors for special interests. Political reality being what it is, either is likely to impose a fairly low price on carbon for the first decade or so. Which means ... • In the short-term, complementary policies will spur the most action. The never-ending, chin-stroking carbon pricing debate perpetually overlooks this basic fact. (See: “ Cap and Trade is Not Enough: Improving US Climate Policy ” [PDF] from Carnegie Mellon.) What's going to knock us off the status quo path in the next decade is, above all, new targets and standards for energy efficiency. Also: a renewable energy standard, a low-carbon fuel standard, smart-grid standards and funding, government procurement policies, direct government investment, etc. etc. These are the policies that could get things rolling immediately. And guess what? • The Waxman-Markey bill contains those complementary policies. Also, it exists. Both these characteristics set it apart from the Alternative Universe Carbon Tax Pony Bill. Carbon taxers seem blinded by a misguided obsession with the specific mechanics of carbon pricing. By bashing Waxman-Markey, they are aligning themselves with people who want to block the best opportunity for climate/energy action in a generation. They're aligning themselves with people who want to block it not in favor of a pony alternative, but in favor of doing nothing , to protect corporate donors. In many cases, they are adopting the exact same rhetoric as conservative obstructionists. If taxers want to engage productively, they should advocate for tax-like features in the cap-and-trade provision of the Waxman-Markey bill -- price floors and/or ceilings, fully auctioned permits, expanded banking and borrowing, etc. Bashing the whole bill in order to argue endlessly and fruitlessly in favor of a hopeless alternative, the advantages of which exist entirely in the whiteboard fantasies of economists, is politically daft. The focus should be twofold: a) get complementary policies up andrunning quickly, and b) get some kind of carbon pricing scheme inplace, which in future years -- as the depredations of climate changebecome clearer to the public -- can be tweaked and improved. Passingthe Waxman-Markey bill would achieve both. More on Climate Change
 
Francine Hardaway: National Broadband Policy Will Affect Healthcare, Education, and Competitiveness Top
The FCC is holding a comment period for input as to what the nation's broadband policy should be. Before you let yourself skip this post, give me a minute. It's important to weigh in because the wrong policy can make the Internet inaccessible or unaffordable for large numbers of people in the US, and can derail our economic future as a country. We are already far behind other countries in allowing affordable broadband access to citizens, and now the stimulus funds can be used for good or ill to help us make up for lost time. We have until June 8th to add our input to the debate. I'm trying very hard to figure out how to comment on the proposed national broadband policy. There are so many moving parts to this puzzle that I don't know where to begin. But here are a few questions for the experts: 1) What constitutes true broadband? 768kbs is what the proposal says. Surely that's not enough for video, music, education, gaming, X-rays. 2) And what about the difference between upstream and down? Now that we're in Web 2.0 or its successor, people aren't just downloading, they are uploading. 3) Should it be wired or wireless? 4) Who should pay for it? And how much? Public? Private? 5) And who pays for the schools? The libraries? The Indian reservations? The thinly populated areas not served by cable? 6) Do we need a rural broadband project like the Rural Electrification Project? If so, is broadband a public utility? Do we regulate it like electric utilities? 7) Should certain traffic pay more and be prioritized, like commuters on toll roads? The debate on all of this started back in 1991 when Al Gore invented the internet, or at least the Information Superhighway, which in America looks more like the Information Back Alley compared to anywhere in Asia or Europe, where they have fast fiber to the curb. We have whatever the major carriers choose to invest in. In certain parts of the country there's no broadband, and in others there's no choice of provider. We should fix this, before we fall even further behind the rest of the world. You should see Singapore, for example. Or Tokyo. The FCC is asking for our comments , and there's a nifty spot called Comment Express where you can even upload a white paper on the subject. Don't forget to add the Docket #09-51 to your comment. Before you comment, you might want to read what Debi Jones (aka Mobile Jones) has written or what Ars Technica has to say. They've been studying this stuff. It's not just a question of net neutrality, as if anyone understands what that means. It's a question of costs, priorities, and national goals.If you don't take an interest. Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner will determine your future. Don't complain that you have no voice if you don't take the time. Small numbers of passionate people can move mountains.
 
Diane Francis: Let's steal sunbelt properties Top
Northerners and seniors from Canada and the U.S. have always been eager buyers of real estate in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and other points southern because of climate, investment and demographics. In winter 2008, I wrote a three-part series online called "Let's Steal Florida" looking at the collapse in prices there, but cautioning people to bid and suggested offering no more than 60% of the 2004 peak price. Then in July 2008 -after the Bear Stearns collapse and just before the wheels fell off in September - I wrote "Don't Buy Florida Yet". This was because there was no mortgage money, a condition that preceded the Americans, and world, hitting the credit wall. If not now when? So now that there are allegedly "green shoots" and stock market optimism, is it time to buy in Florida, Arizona or Nevada? My answer is yes, but only ruthlessly. Price is everything and the markets there are a complete disaster. One in five homeowners in the U.S. have upside-down mortgages, or values less than debts. Fore-closures are wrecking values and one California bank just bulldozed 16 empty, fore-closured homes because they were a safety hazard, and value drag, on the neighborhood where it had mortgages on other homes. This underscores the biggest danger: that your bargain home ends up being in the middle of a wasteland or subdivision of toxic assets. So what's going on in the rest of the neighborhood, gated community or building is critically important. For instance, the federal government lending rules (as set down by Freddy and Fanny) are that if more than 16% of condo units in a building are in default there will be no more mortgage lending in that building. This is critical information and condo buyers must request the last one or two year's minutes from the board meetings of the condo corporation to see what problems await from special assessments to default rates or board resignations. If this information is not forthcoming, walk away. Do your diligence But if you do your homework and are a vulture by sticking ruthlessly to a stink bid price, you could potentially come up roses. It's never been more of a buyer's market, especially since the crisis may have many more months to run and since the summer is deadsville in the sunbelt real estate market. Here's the handiest tool that I've come across to begin your search. It's a nifty free website service called www.zillow.com . Just pump in the municipality, or specific address, you are interested in and you will get a ton of information: house values going back for years compared with national averages; average house or condo prices by size; square footage values; what's on the market; what's sold; who are the top listing salespeople and more. As for the rest of the U.S. market, the value situation is uneven. In Manhattan, for instance, prices in moderate condos or coops in good shape are down by 10%, but still 25% higher than in 2005. Of course, this varies wildly according to neighborhood and building. So buyer beware, but buyers have great opportunities. No one knows whether this is the bottom or not, but sellers are still desperate or else they are delusional. More on Real Estate
 
Roger I. Abrams: The Return of the Prodigal Third Baseman Top
All Yankee fans have anticipated the return to the lineup of future Hall of Fame third baseman Alex Rodriquez. Although A-Rod was the first to take advantage of my proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission on performance enhancing drugs, there is some real question now whether he came clean - or even whether he ever became "clean." The media has been saturated with leaks of Selena Roberts' new book about his A-Rodship. Did Rodriquez use steroids in high school and continue to use them during his current tenure with the Yankees of New York? Are you bored yet with this stuff? The Yankees can certainly use some fresh controversy. Where's Billy Martin when we need him? Babe Ruth, now there was a soap opera. Bigger than life, the Bambino took excess to excessive lengths. The current roster of Yankees is just a dull collection of overpaid players and dreadful relievers who win just about as many games as they lose. The return of the prodigal third baseman could bring them to life before another season is wasted. The National Game needs at least one of the New York City franchises to win, and the Mets seem to be incapable of finishing the job over a full 162-game season. The Yankees were the consensus pick to win their division in the American League, and most observers had them prevailing in the league championship as well. A-Rod's hip surgery forced the Yankees to bring up to the Majors a rotating group of not-ready-for-prime-time infielders. A-Rod would have made a difference, because he plays extremely well -- at least before October. Just when you thought you might get a respite from drug-related stories, the Manny Ramirez saga hits the front pages. Manny is a unique baseball player in so many ways. Gifted with great reflexes, powerful legs and splendid eye-hand coordination, Manny is one of the game's great natural hitters. He is also one of the game's great characters. His shenanigans in Boston led him to the bright lights and palm trees of Los Angeles, where he would feel simpatico with the LaLaLand culture. He was and is a dazzling entertainer. Now Manny's run-in with a banned substance has changed the projectory of his career. The 50-day suspension he earned based on what he says was a doctor's prescribed medication jolts the image he cultivated with the Dodgers' faithful as a carefree, goofy, happy-go-lucky outfielder. While Manny was always Manny, that never connoted anything sinister. This changes the bidding. Baseball's Steroid Era seems to be ending with a bang and not a whimper. Too many of the game's stars have been victims of the apparently irresistible impulse to take pharmaceutical shortcuts. It is impossible to understand how men who make their living based on how their bodies perform athletic feats of skill can knowingly ingest something that places all their successes at risk. It would certainly be welcome if after Mr. Rodriquez gets back into the swing of things and Manny returns from the sin bin, we can begin to worry about baseball issues. Is Boston's Big Papi finally pooped? Can the Kansas City Royals and the Florida Marlins continue in first place through next week, next month, the All Star Break? Who is the next phenom to command the public's attention? Even when we are finally back to thinking about baseball and not A-Rod's hip surgery or Manny's fertility drugs, the public scrutiny will continue. Good thing that Commissioner Selig, the trusted steward of game, is vigilant. That should put everyone at ease.
 
Swine Flu Playing A Role In Mexican Politics Top
The slumping economy and the bloody drug war had been Mexican voters' top worries ahead of midterm elections in July. Then the mysterious A(H1N1) virus gave Mexicans the scare of their lives and made those who did not end up in a hospital bed -- or a grave -- feel fortunate. More on Mexico
 
George Lakoff: Health Care Reform: Some Basic Principles Top
Co-authored by Glenn W. Smith and Eric Haas Real health care reform is within our grasp. President Obama and Congress can create an American plan that can provide health care to all Americans. However, Democrats are not yet doing very well at describing what they are proposing in the area of health care. This has left an opening for Republicans to lie about it. Frank Luntz's 10-point memo, which he presented yesterday, is a good example. We'll come back to Luntz in a moment. First, let's look at ways Democrats can get their ideas out in public in a way that effectively tells the truth about what they intend to achieve. What they need are some guiding principles for effectively saying what they believe and what is true. Principle 1. Health care is part of our economic system. President Obama correctly sees the economy as an integrated system that includes more than just banking. The economy is a system that includes health care, education, jobs, energy, and the environment, as well as an effective, well-monitored banking system and stock market. Real health care is essential for our economy. Principle 2. Health care is a moral issue. America was founded on the most central of moral principles: empathy, on caring about and for each other. We are responsible for ourselves and for one another. That is why we have principles like freedom and fairness, for everyone not just the few who are powerful. To care about our fellow Americans is to care about their health. Principle 3. Health care is central to the moral mission of the American government. The American government has twin moral missions: protection and empowerment of the individual - equally for everyone. Protection includes not just the military and police, but also consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, safety nets, investor protection, and health care. Empowerment is what enables Americans to make a living and have a good life if they work at it. It includes systems of public road and buildings, education, communication, energy, banking -- and health. No one can make a dime in America or achieve their goals in life without protection and empowerment by America's government. Principle 4. The President's plan is the American Plan: it fits our principles and serves our people. It represents patriotism at its finest. The American Plan allows you the freedom to keep your current health plan or choose the American Plan. It is fair in that it allows everyone to afford excellent care. And it allows us to demonstrate in the most visceral way that Americans care about and for their fellow citizens. Principle 5. The American Plan is a doctor-patient plan. You and your doctor determine your treatment. There is no HMO bureaucracy standing between you and the care you get. Principle 6. The American Plan relieves oppressive HMO government. Right now HMO's govern your life. Unaccountable HMO bureaucrats decide what treatments you can be "authorized" for and they function to say No to care whenever they can justify it. They make you wait too long, and limit your choice of doctors, clinics, and hospitals. HMO's are oppressive forms of government. The American Plan diminishes bureaucrats' control over your life. Your American government could act only as a bursar, paying your bills and making sure there is no fraud. Your treatment is up to you and your doctor. Principle 7. The American Plan provides care instead of denying it. Why do HMO's have a high administrative cost - 15 to 20 percent or more? They spend money to justify denying you the care you need and all too often delaying care so much that you are harmed by the delay. The American Plan is there to provide you care, not deny or delay it. Its administrative costs would be low, about 3 percent. Principle 8. The American Plan costs less and does more. HMO's are big spenders, not on your health, but on administrative costs, commercials to tout their plans, and profits to investors. As much as 20 to 30% of what you pay does not go to your care. In The American Plan, 97% of what you pay goes for your care. It's a better deal for you and for our country. Principle 9. The American Plan helps primary care doctors. HMO's put the squeeze on primary care doctors and have created assembly line medicine. HMO's require doctors to take too many patients per hour, more than they can effectively treat. And they pay doctors as little as possible per patient, so that the HMO's make greater profits, while your doctor loses out -- and you may lose your doctor. As a result, many thousands of primary care doctors have left their profession. The American Plan will bring back the primary care doctors, paying them what they are worth, and letting them practice medicine instead working on an assembly line. Principle 10. The American Plan will make prescription drugs cheaper. Why? Because they can be purchased in greater volume and at a discount. No longer will Americans have to go to Canada to buy their meds, or order them from other countries. No longer will the cost of medicine threaten to bankrupt older Americans on a fixed income. The American Plan is America at its best. It fits our moral principles of empathy, freedom and fairness. It helps our economy. It allows freedom of choice. It links your health to you and your doctor. It removes the denial and delay of care. It provides an alternative to the oppressive HMO bureaucracy. It spends less on health and gives your more. And it keeps primary care doctors in business. Using these principles we can tell the truth about our vision of health care in America. Notice that Frank Luntz recommends "humanizing" Republican rhetoric to avoid humanizing health care in America. Our principles give us the power of truth. Lakoff, Smith, and Haas authored the Rockridge Institute's report on health care, "Don't Think of a Sick Child." The report can be found here . For policy details on the American Plan see "Healthy Competition," by Jacob S. Hacker here . More on Health
 
Mike Smith: ETS and Dept. of Education Cite Lack of Parental Support in Gap Study Top
The Educational Testing Service is a non-profit with a policy arm aimed at influencing legislation around childhood education. ETS has just released Parsing the Achievement Gap II -- a five-year update on its landmark study. The first release sent shock waves through the educational system citing biological, cultural and even language skills factors in the gap between minority and white students on standardized tests like the AP and SAT. Asked if the report was geared to promoting the test, and deflecting blame for poor performance to mom and dad, ETS' Mike Nettles said the achievement gap report was mainly to tell Congress that more focus is needed on how to fix the problems. Pre-K reading programs, more nutrition and school meals funding and even reducing gang violence were cited. The press conference at the National press Club was a highly "managed event" -- with three ETS PR people, an internal video shooting team, and an audience chock-a-block with support for educational reform. Since reporters don't like to be managed, told were to sit as moderator, and asked for a pre-review of the questions, the debate moved quickly to the Department of Education spokesman who was spoiling for a fight. Marshall S. "Mike" Smith, senior counsel to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and a former Clinton Deputy Education Secretary, seemed to differ on the import and meaning of this new Educational Testing Service report. He called for a laser focus on "turning around 1,000 schools" and closing language and fluency gaps as the number one objective. Richard Coley, director of the Education Testing Service's policy information center, wrote Parsing the Achievement Gap II -- a follow-on report to an ETS research product delivered in 2003 that makes clear 16 predictive factors for determining success in secondary education. Many of them environmental. Joining Coley and Smith were Nettles, senior v.p. of ETS for policy and research, and Edmund Gordon, professor emeritus of Teacher's College at Columbia. "Research has found a difference in the effectiveness between teachers," said the ETS report, "with less than five years of experience than teachers with more. White students were less likely to have inexperienced teachers than Black or Hispanic." Rigor of curriculum showed racial and socioeconomic disparity. Fear and safety at school also weighs more heavily on minority kids. Smith said: "Teachers, young teacher experience, has no effect beyond the third or fourth grade," challenging the report." Smith said the Education Department spends $100 billion per year on children; but noted disparity of spending $18,000 per child in nearby Arlington County Public Schools versus $6,500 in East Palo Alto, California's system. Both ETS and The Department of Education said reading to kids early in life and developing strong language skills is critical to higher achievement. ETS "left some of the variables out of its report," Smith commented. "Like a caring adult for a child to talk with about their work. That is not reflected here." Poverty has increased over 18% since the initial report five years ago. That has a "huge effect on society," said Smith. Smith noted, "God knows we need a comprehensive healthcare program." If we cannot achieve it, "we don't even deserve to be a society." "Don't take any of these indicators too seriously," added the Education Department spokesman. "Reading books will help close these language barriers. Speech and fluency in the language also promotes higher test performance." Smith also said "students need more control and context over why they are learning something." Ed Gordon noted that "government has not responded deeply enough or in a comprehensive way" to reforms provided under both the 1964 Civil Rights Act and equal opportunity amendments. He felt society needs to value teachers and create learning opportunity outside of school. Nothing new about that! NOTE - Copies of the ETS report "Parsing the Achievement Gap," are available for free download at www.ets.org/research/pic . Editor's Note: Mike Smith, Huffington Post columnist and a Washington-area public affairs exec, is not related to Mike Smith of the Dept. of Education. More on Civil Rights
 
Cheney, Gingrich, McCain: Old GOP Guard To Appear On Sunday Shows Top
A source sends over a list of guests who are set to appear on this week's Sunday Shows. And for those GOPers hoping to see newer faces representing the party it is not a pretty sight. 2008 presidential nominee, Senator John McCain will be on ABC's "This Week." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will be on "Fox News Sunday." And former Vice President Dick Cheney will be on "Face the Nation" on CBS. ("Face the Nation" confirmed that Cheney would be getting the full half hour.) The Obama White House and DNC must be salivating at the slate. The latter two officials have been actively elevated by Democrats as the face of the GOP. In fact, just yesterday, Cheney himself was discussing the need to have fresh names representing the party if Republicanism was to experience a resurgence. "I think periodically we have to go through one these sessions," he said. "It helps clear away some of the underbrush... some of the older folks who've been around a long time (like yours truly) need to move on, and make room for that young talent that's coming along. But I think it's basically healthy." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on John McCain
 
Waterboarding Not Discussed At CIA Briefings, Congressional Aide Says Top
A senior aide to another member of Congress briefed by the CIA around the same time as Speaker Nancy Pelosi tells the Huffington Post that the use of waterboarding was never mentioned at those briefings. Pelosi is under fire today after CIA logs showed that she was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques in 2002. Several media accounts asserted that the CIA report 'appeared to contradict' Pelosi's statements that she was never informed that such techniques were being used (the Associated Press was more careful, running a headline, " CIA docs unclear on Pelosi interrogation briefings .") And indeed, while Pelosi's critics have pounced on the new revelations, it's not at all clear that there is a contradiction. The back-story here is important. Pelosi has repeatedly said that while she was briefed on interrogation techniques being discussed by the Bush administration, she was never told "that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." During an appearance on MSNBC in February, Pelosi said, "They did not brief us that these enhanced interrogations were taking place. They did not brief us that was - they were talking about an array of interrogations that they might have at their disposal... They may have given inference that there was some debate that waterboarding could be legal. Of course, I disagree with that. But the issue is, are you going to use such a thing? And they had not ever briefed us that that was the case." On Wednesday, the CIA released a report describing the briefings it gave to members of Congress on the Bush administration's interrogation program. According to the report, Pelosi partook in a September 4, 2002 briefing on, among other things, "the use of [enhanced interrogation techniques] on Abu Zubaydah." The report, which was drawn from recollections of the CIA officials, did not, however, specifically mention whether waterboarding was discussed at the briefing -- an absence that Pelosi's aides say validates her statements. Republicans have also trumpeted the report as evidence that protests now over the Bush administration's policies are politically motivated (after all, they say, there were no public protests in real time). Unfortunately for Pelosi, the same day the report was made public she was traveling in Jordan and holding talks with King Abdulah II. The foreign trip has left her relatively defenseless to the new round of charges. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
4 British Soldiers Die In Afghanistan In One Day Top
The troops died in three separate incidents in Helmand province. The troops died in three separate incidents in Helmand province yesterday, taking the number of UK service personnel killed in the country since 2001 to 157. It was the bloodiest day for British forces in Afghanistan since February 25, when three soldiers and one Royal Marine died. The soldiers' families have been informed. Two of the soldiers, one from 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles and the other from 173 Provost Company, 3rd Regiment, Royal Military Police, were killed by a suicide bomber during a patrol in Gereshk yesterday afternoon. The attack also left at least 16 Afghan civilians dead and more than 30 wounded, according to the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). British military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Nick Richardson said: "With heavy heart we report another extremely sad situation, where lives of our courageous soldiers have been sacrificed for the greater good of the Afghan people. "Our deepest and heartfelt sympathies go to their families and loved ones and we offer our thoughts and prayers to them all at this most painful and distressing time." Isaf spokesman Brigadier-General Richard Blanchette added: "The insurgents repeatedly and intentionally harm the innocent Afghans we are committed to protecting, in support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. "This senseless act of violence was committed with the full knowledge that a large number of Afghan lives would be lost. "Afghan and international forces will not be deterred by these irrational insurgent tactics." Another British soldier, from 2nd Battalion the Rifles, was killed when his Jackal patrol vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device near Sangin last night. The fourth soldier, from the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, died from a gunshot wound sustained during a patrol with the Afghan National Army near Musa Qala. Read more from The Independent. Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Afghanistan
 
Rachel Brown: On Mother's Day: A Message of Hope and Survival Top
It is no secret that women have suffered disproportionately from conflict throughout the history of warfare. At first glance, this bleak reality leaves little excuse for celebration on Mother's Day. But in fact, Mother's Day is an ideal time to take advantage of existing optimism and understand how our own celebration fits into an international and interdependent network of mothers. It is an opportunity to recognize that the respect accorded to our mothers is compromised by the suffering of mothers in places like Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Because women are disproportionately affected by conflict, their experiences tell us stories about power politics, whether between US troops and local insurgents in Iraq, or armed groups in eastern DRC. They also tell us about economic hardships and changing social trends that we might otherwise overlook. In a disturbing and uplifting article, the humanitarian organization World Vision recently chronicled the life of "Esther," a sixteen-year-old girl who lives with her newborn daughter in a crowded camp in eastern DRC. Motherhood to Esther means caring for her child with only occasional help from neighbors. It means she is reminded daily of the time she was raped and impregnated by armed soldiers, and it means learning to talk about rape despite widespread stigma within her community. Mothers like Esther no longer collect firewood in safety, as mass rape has become the instrument of terror warfare used to uproot and disperse entire communities. According to the UN, unprecedented incidents of rape -- at least 6,766 cases were reported between June 2007 and June 2008 in Ituri province -- are devastating women's livelihoods, causing migration, disease, and death. Throughout the DRC, the suffering of mothers like Esther has become a grim symbol of who is winning the struggle for power between rebels, government forces, and local militias. Amidst the fighting, armed groups continue to establish dominance over territory by raping en masse. Still, the changing role of mothers in the DRC is not only shaped by rape. According to Nadine Puechguirbal, a Red Cross advisor on women and war, between 60 and 80 percent of women are also heads of household in the DRC, surely a result of men dying in conflict, fleeing home for safer terrain, or joining the lucrative coltan industry. Mothers are also sometimes community organizers, courageously speaking out against sexual terrorism and raising children alone despite the threat of violence. Widespread violence has equally permeated women's lives in Iraq, where an unusually high number of widows has forever changed the role of mothers. The BBC estimates that since 2003, one hundred women a day have become widows, many of them struggling to earn an income, raise children, endure social stigma and avoid sexual abuse. A revealing BBC story describes the life of Nadia Hussein, a widow who lost her husband, three brothers, and baby due to burgeoning violence. Sadly, numerous other widows roam the streets of Baghdad begging for money to survive. Some widows have also taken to suicide bombing, according to the BBC. This phenomenon results from family pressure and desperation over the loss of loved ones, as well as limited economic and social opportunity. As security slowly improves, some women have even become nightclub dancers, a livelihood that would have been a death sentence for women before the 2003 occupation, according to BBC reporter Mike Sergeant. Since 2003 the experience of motherhood in Iraq has increasingly been a story of widowhood, divorce, and grief, with occasional resorts to violence. Mothers' experiences in Iraq tell us how devastation and distress have colored civilians' experiences in war, and how military occupation and local insurgency have damaged social and economic opportunities. The stories of mothers also tell us how women and men alike have rebuilt their communities to create a prosperous post-war Iraq. As we celebrate our own mothers, we ought to celebrate the interconnectedness of all mothers, and recognize the relationship between a mother's well being and relative peace. This connection does not exist because women are naturally peace-loving and passively harmonious. It is because they are political actors themselves, and because they hold power over the next generation of peacemakers and perpetrators of violence. More on Congo
 
Michael Brune: Cuomo: Is Chevron Misleading Shareholders? Top
It's been a rough week for Chevron. First, there was the 60 Minutes public relations disaster on Sunday. Now, as reported by Bloomberg and AP , New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has expressed concerns that the country's second-largest oil company may be making false or incomplete statements to investors. For nearly 16 years, Chevron has been fighting a landmark oil pollution lawsuit brought by more than 30,000 residents from rainforest communities in Ecuador. More than 18 billion gallons of oil were spilled; a court-appointed team has concluded that the contamination led to 1,401 cancer deaths and damages of up to $27.3 billion. In a letter to Chevron CEO David O'Reilly on Monday, Cuomo explained that the New York Attorney General's office has responsibility under the Martin Act to investigate potential "financial fraud and material misstatements in connection with publicly traded companies." The New York State and New York City public pension funds have significant holdings of Chevron stock: other New York state shareholders include Amnesty International. Cuomo also challenged Chevron's claim that Ecuador lacks jurisdiction in the case, writing: "it is our understanding that Chevron has repeatedly stated in its public filings that, 'the company believes that the court [in Ecuador] lacks jurisdiction over Chevron.' However, our review of filings in Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco seems to state that Chevron consented to the jurisdiction of that very Ecuadorian court. " Read the entire letter here . Last month, the Wall St. Journal reported that major pension funds holding $1 billion in Chevron stock were growing increasingly alarmed that the company wasn't prepared for an unfavorable verdict in the case. In a letter to Chevron, Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot said that his state's pension fund was, "particularly concerned that a potential liability in Ecuador...represents a significant threat to shareholder value." For more information about the campaign against Chevron's egregious human rights and environmental practices, visit here and here . More on Climate Change
 
David Sirota: Piggish Capitalism - The Connection Between Swine Flu Outbreaks & Wall Street's Meltdown Top
Let's say you have a diversified industry of small, medium and large sized firms. Let's say you then gut anti-trust enforcement, eviscerate regulation, and massively increase subsidization to create textbook oligopoly. And then, finally, let's say the few mega-conglomerates that dominate the oligopoly make big mistakes and dangerous decisions. What are you going to get? As I show in my new newspaper column , you're going to get exactly what you got not just in the Wall Street meltdown, but also in the swine-flu outbreak. I call the mix of consolidation, deregulation and subsidization "piggish capitalism" - and if you're going to be honest about it, it's a bipartisan problem. Both parties in Congress and in the White House formed a consensus around that ideology in the 1980s and particularly in the 1990s, and now we're left with oligopolistic industries like finance and agribusiness whose ruthless efficiencies, vertical/horizontal integrations and lack of oversight have allowed them to turn relatively manageable problems into international emergencies. Interestingly, as both conservatives and progressives struggle to claim the populist mantle in these times of crisis, they are each seeking to criticize a different leg of piggish capitalism's three-legged stool. The right attacks the concept of spending (ie. subsidization) and progressives attack the deregulation and consolidation. Though I (obviously) think we progressives are far more correct in our analysis of the root problems, I think conservatives (at least the honest ones) are onto something in their criticism of government subsidization of huge business. As the Huffington Post's Tom Edsall reported , because the Obama administration is still playing into a conservative frame that demonizes public sector jobs, much of the new government spending is corporate welfare - ie. subsidization. It may be better targeted and less corrupt than Bush-style subsidization of Halliburton, et. al.*, but it's the same destructive economic principle: give a shit-ton of government money to the biggest of big corporations. I want to be clear: Subsidization unto itself isn't always bad. Sometimes it's necessary, and it can be particularly positive when it is targeted at small businesses so as to not underwrite oligopolistic consolidation. The problem is that, as the American Small Business League's Lloyd Chapman shows , so much of our current subsidization is aimed at the mega-conglomerates - even the subsidization that claims to be targeted at small business. The point here is that we're now suffering through two emergencies directly related to an three-pronged economic theory that we must confront head on - and change. The fact that the Wall Street crisis and the swine-flu outbreak are portrayed as two totally separate and random phenomena is positively absurd. Read the whole column here . The column relies on grassroots support - and because of that support, it is getting wider and wider circulation (a big thank you to all who have helped with that). So if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site . Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help. * Though I have my doubts about that specifically in relation to the bank bailout... More on Swine Flu
 
Paying It Forward: A Breakfast Surprise In Maltby, WA Top
With all the bad news swirling around these days, we have been sharing stories of good news, particularly random acts of kindness, and asking our readers so share their experiences of goodwill with us. Today we bring you a story of a random act of kindness from our mailbag. This story comes from Vanessa in Maltby, WA. It's not an exotic story but its definitely one of random kindness. This past Saturday we just weren't in the mood to make ourselves breakfast so we went to the ever popular Maltby Cafe, in Maltby, WA. You couldn't tell we were in a recession that morning. We put our name on the list for a table and were told it would be an hour (which is the way it's been on the weekend for years). To kill time, we headed up the road to a local nursery, which was also incredibly busy with customers. We got back to the Cafe after being away for 40 min. Apparently they had already called our name but were able to seat us right away. We ordered, food came, we really enjoyed it, then when it was time for the check, our waitress said, "Well...your tab has been paid for." "What?" my husband and I asked. "Yea, funny thing. We had a really large party here this morning and they decided to pay for another party's tab. Those people then paid for someone else's tab and those people have paid for yours!" It didn't even take a nanosecond for me to say, "Well, let's keep it going!" Our waitress let us know we had covered the tab for the couple who sat nearest to us. We only hoped they would some how enjoy it and then pass it on. BE THE CHANGE - Vanessa *** Difficult times have been known to bring communities together as people lean on one another for support. In this recession, there's no shortage of communities around the country that have rallied around a struggling neighbor, reached out a helping hand to those around them, or donated free dry cleaning to the job-seeking and unemployed . We know there are more stories like these and HuffPost wants to highlight them. If you read or hear about an act of kindness in your community, email us the story at goodnews@huffingtonpost.com. These vignettes are a much needed counterpoint to the doom and gloom surrounding the economy; let's help change the conversation -- we can't do it without you. *Follow HuffPostLiving on Twitter and become a fan of Huffington Post Living on Facebook * More on The Giving Life
 
Blagojevich Lawyers Accept Discount Rate Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- Ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich's lawyers have agreed to be paid $110 an hour, far below the rate some of them usually charge, in return for being allowed to use his $2.3 million campaign fund. They reluctantly agreed to accept the relatively low fee in court papers filed Friday morning with U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel. Blagojevich is charged with scheming to sell or trade President Obama's U.S. Senate seat and using the muscle of the governor's office to squeeze companies with state business for campaign contributions. He has pleaded not guilty. Federal prosecutors had said they would not object to tapping the fund if the hourly rate were limited. -ASSOCIATED PRESS More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Sarah Haskins: Target Women: Obama Arms Top
The first one hundred days of Barack Obama's administration have come and gone and America is excited: we've got stimulus! We've got a puppy! But there's STILL one thing all American women want: Michelle Obama's super buff guns. In "Target Women: Obama Arms," I explore the media's unbridled passion for our first lady's biceps, triceps and delts. You can check out other "Target Women" segments every Thursday night during "infoMania" at 10 p.m. ET/PT and online at Current.com . More on Michelle Obama
 
Beth Arnold: Letter From Paris: Travels with My Daughter Top
The rain fell softly as I wound around the tight curves of Highway One, heading north of San Francisco. My daughter Blair and I had left Tony's Seafood Restaurant in Marshall, California--an atmospheric old seafood shack with pine-paneled dining room sitting over the quietly lapping water--to make the swervy trip to Sea Ranch Lodge , where we would spend Blair's birthday. Since I live in Paris and she lives in San Fran, we don't get to spend as much time together as either of us would like. And even though she's grown up and has her own life to live, I have some mother's guilt that I'm not usually around when she needs me--when Blair wishes I were there to hug her tight, to simmer a pot of Southern greens, or wrap her in my motherliness. And, frankly, sometimes I need her--to ground me and connect me to myself. Not to mention that we enjoy each other's company. We're happy just hanging out no matter where we are. I know how Blair feels about wanting her mama to be there more. Her grandmother--my mother--dropped dead a week before my birthday in 2003, and I still wish she could mother me. There is something startling and sad about being a motherless child, no matter what age you are. After Mother died, her house--the house my parents built and where I'd grown up--was sold. This hit Blair, her sister Bret, my husband, Jim, and me pretty hard since we'd sold our house earlier that year when Jim and I moved to France. We thought Mother and her house would be waiting to welcome us all home. Like a lightning bolt, Jim and I had no home except wherever we were staying in France, and the girls were orphans, more or less, with no family home where they could come and feel safe. Blair and Bret still had me, but I was far across the sea. It was complicated and less than perfect, and has been ever since. ***** This wasn't a particularly big birthday for Blair, but she'd had a hard few months. Plus, my goal was to get to the U.S. more often so the time between visits was shorter. But all our time together is precious, so I spent every minute with Blair that I could, which meant I'd taken the train with her to Palo Alto, where she had to work one day. I got us a room in a lovely B & B, and we had a merry dinner with two of Blair's close friends. We rode the train back the next day, and while Blair went to work again, I shopped at the grocery and prepared the one mom-cooked dinner she got while I was in town. The day after that we drove up to spend the night with my oldest friend from Batesville, Arkansas, where I was born and grew up. My Libbi has lived in California for decades now, but her friends there call her Elizabeth. Our mothers were pregnant at the same time, and though Libbi was born a few months before I, you can see we have literally known each other our entire lives. Libbi has a daughter of her own named Madeline, and Blair and I had a wonderful night with them. It is somewhat surreal that when my husband and I sold some of our furniture in the auction of my mother's things, Libbi's mother bought our lovely dining table and chairs for Libbi. This furniture where my family and friends in Little Rock had countless sweet and raucous dinners together was moved to California. So Blair and I and Libbi and Madeline sat around this table of generous hospitality, a table of our and now their history. Libbi holds part of my living memory. She recalls many things about me that I've blocked or forgotten. She remembers details about the family I no longer have that reconnect me to them, to the events that happened in our lives, or that give me a clearer picture. Libbi is my sister whether we have the same blood or not, and on that night we knighted her Blair's fairy godmother--a good mother to have when you need one. ***** The following day Blair and I looped back down to Tony's, which is known for its BBQ oysters and fresh locally caught seafood. Tony's was Blair's choice for lunch. She and I had taken another trip in the area together on Mother's Day 2005. That time we'd driven up to Healdsburg and done some mighty fine degusting of wine, spent a scary night in Guerneville, and enjoyed a divine one in Bodega Bay. Bodega Bay is where we had first tasted BBQ oysters, and we knew then we'd be back for more. I talked to one of Tony's owners as he was cleaning crabs in front of his establishment--which, by the way, is only open on weekends and doesn't accept credit cards. (That tells you something about what kind of business they do.) The man told me Tony's has been owned and operated by his family since 1948. They'd immigrated to Tomales Bay from Croatia. "This looks like Croatia," I said, and he agreed. It was obvious why his family had chosen this spot. It felt like home to them--though they have a family home there as well. The trip to Sea Ranch Lodge seemed longer than it was. The slick highway overlooking the turbulent Pacific kept my foot pressed lightly on the gas pedal and my hands gripped tightly on the steering wheel. But once we finally arrived at the famous Sea Ranch, we found our hearts' desire for the next few days. We were delighted with our corner room with amazing sea views in two directions, where we lounged, slept, and read. We gazed through the glass to search for spouts of gray whales as they puttered up the coast, and we watched herds of deer grazing underneath our windows. Blair and I walked the path along the cliffs, breathing in the fresh air, with the Pacific Ocean crashing on the boulders far below us. We hiked to the rocky beach where the tide pools full of anemones, starfish, and other creatures called Blair, and she identified them for me. She always loved the ocean and its sea life. When Blair was maybe 10 years old, she dissected a squid for her gifted class. Blair was a kid who read the encyclopedia for fun. She was curious about all living things and investigated them, not being afraid of things like spiders and snakes that her mother doesn't like at all. Even in nursery school, she blew away her teachers with her intellectual vitality, not to mention her charisma and gusto. The lodge itself was bliss, the restaurant delicious under the direction of terrific chef Robert Schneider who had lived in Paris while I have. Of course, BBQ oysters were part of his menu. And there was a jewel of a wine list that was carefully chosen by the lodge's General Manager, Greg Hagin, who obviously loved his job. Blair is a talented food and wine person herself with a palette someone ought to be paying her for, and Greg and Blair passionately talked wines and wineries. Blair and I were as happy as clams at Sea Ranch Lodge and wished we'd been there for a week instead of the five days we'd booked. When the day came that my daughter and I pulled onto the highway from the lodge to head back down the beautiful and frightening Highway One, a gang of wild turkeys flew out in front of us. Another gang crossed our path down the road. It was a beautiful blue-sky day, yet the horizon sang a lonesome melody. I would be leaving again the next day. We timed our return trip to stop for another BBQ oyster lunch. This time we tried the funky-ish upscale Marshall Store . Again, we licked our lips. Now Blair and I have a Finding-the-Best-BBQ-Oysters mother/daughter quest, and I look forward to many more travels with my daughter, both there and here. What we've realized is that our home is wherever we are together, no matter where in the world that is. No matter where our lives take us. And those are the happiest mother's days for me. Blair Beth Arnold lives and writes in Paris. To see more of her work, go to www.betharnold.com.
 
Manisha Sinha: The Grand Old Party of Secession Top
Is the Grand Old Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln that saved the Union and destroyed southern slavery, becoming the party of secession and political extremism? Recent events that indicate an affirmative answer to this question would make most Republican Party founders turn in their graves. Some Republicans have even unearthed the constitutionally and militarily discredited notion of a state's alleged right to secede from the Union, albeit more as a flamboyant political gesture than a serious threat. Texas Governor Rick Perry's call for secession to crowds chanting "Secede!" was not only a politically bankrupt response to the economic policies of the Obama administration, but was also riddled with historical inaccuracies. In his speech, Perry curiously evoked the founder of Texas, Sam Houston, an unconditional unionist who opposed disunion even during the secession winter of 1860-61 when most Lower South states including Texas exited the Union. In fact, Houston gave one of the best speeches against the so-called right to secession on the eve of the Civil War. If Perry was searching for predecessors then he would have been better off using the name of Hardin Runnels, the secessionist Governor of Texas who recommended the re-opening of the African Slave Trade, an extreme proposal that startled even most southern slaveholders. And like secessionists of yore who tried to legitimize their movement by appealing to the American Revolutionary heritage, Republican conservative ideologues have used the symbolism of tea parties to bestow legitimacy on their extreme politics. In fact, the Republican party today resembles the Democratic Party of the 1850s, a party that was held hostage by its southern wing and regularly read northern Democrats who did not hew closely to an extreme proslavery position out of the party. Commentators across the spectrum view the rapid exit of moderates like Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania from the GOP as a culmination of its increasing political narrowness and ideological rigidity. Northern Republicans find themselves in an inhospitable environment where extreme conservatism is the norm and all dissenters are treated with disfavor. Senator Olympia Snowe has rightly bemoaned this self-defeating political strategy. For a party that in the last few decades launched a battle against liberal "political correctness," the GOP's own current brand of right-wing purity on issues ranging from abortion to corporate welfare is telling. Liberal Republicans, especially after the Reagan Revolution, have of course been a dying breed for a long time. But the untimely death of Jack Kemp, a Reagan conservative who bucked his party's line on race and civil rights, indicates the passing of an era when even relatively conservative Republicans who differ with the party on discrete issues were still a political presence in the GOP. Perhaps the greatest historical irony is that a party that began as a northern, antislavery party is now confined to the Deep South and a shrinking band of western states where white supremacy and right-wing militancy is still in vogue. If President Obama has been remarkably successful in channeling the ghost and words of Abraham Lincoln, Republicans should do a lot better than follow the losing tactics of Lincoln's opponents, southern secessionists from the nineteenth century. The right-wing media demagogues of today from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity to Glen Beck, who seem to determine the GOP platform, have much in common with the bunch of fire-eating southern separatists who destroyed the Democratic Party in 1860. Republicans should learn the lessons of American history and finally renounce their racially divisive southern strategy and narrow conservatism that only promises more electoral defeat and political oblivion. It would indeed be a pity if the Grand Old Party of the Union and the party of Lincoln became an increasingly regional party of political separatism and right-wing extremism.
 
Scott Mendelson: Huff Post review - Star Trek (2009) Top
Star Trek 2009 126 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson "You will always be a part of two worlds. And fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is which path will you choose." JJ Abrams's ambitious Star Trek reboot desperately tries to have it both ways. Not confident enough to choose its path, it straddles between affectionately campy homage and its own franchise. Like Bryan Singer's Superman Returns , it is too afraid to boldly chart its own destiny, but refusing to be a true extension of the original franchise. While it portends to separate itself from the Star Trek mythology that inspired it, the picture completely counts on said mythology for any and all emotional impact. A token amount of plot - Born on the very day his father died aboard a star ship, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is adrift on Earth, unable or unwilling to decide what to do with his life. Fate intercedes when Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) challenges him to live up to the courage shown by the George Kirk so many years prior. Meanwhile, on the planet Vulcan, the half-human, half-Vulcan Spock (Zachary Quinto) is torn between his destiny as a Vulcan, and his desire to embrace his human side and join Starfleet. Their destinies will soon intertwine, and the rest of our favorite USS Enterprise crew members will join in a maiden adventure that will test and define them and their novice crew. For the record, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and the rest of the gang are all in ship-shape form. While Karl Urban comes on a little strong right out of the gate as Dr. McCoy, his character works better once he actually has more to do than complain. With the exception of one first-act scene, Pine keeps the frat-boy rebel cliches to a bare minimum. Quinto gives an impressive interior performance when the script isn't forcing him to give on the nose speeches and engage in plot-mandated emotional outbursts (although I will concede that the follow up to said outburst is an affective and moving scene). The rest of the gang is barely sketched in, but our memory of the original actors does most of the work for us. Sulu's (John Cho) main character beat is cribbed from Galaxy Quest , although he does gets a major action scene. Chekov speaks in an ultra-thick Russian accent for comic relief and little else, making him the prime candidate to die in the sequel. Scotty (Simon Pegg) shows up fully formed, while Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana) is allowed to take her character in some surprising directions. Taken on their own, many of these characters are paper thin, and the film depends on our affection for their prior legacies in order for us to care about what happens to them. Further more, great pains are made to allow the plot to both set out on its own course while allowing to the prior Star Trek continuity to remain intact. While I won't reveal the details, the film eventually becomes the equivalent of an 'elseworld', except the characters are pretty much the same as they are in the regular Star Trek universe. The film lacks the courage to either stand firmly within Star Trek continuity or completely break free and tell its own story. As it is, we are stuck wondering why we should care about the exploits of basically the Enterprise crew of 'Earth-2'. Let's put aside the film's lack of courage in picking a path and my distaste for the concept of the 'multiverse'. Taking as its own thing, does the film work? Not really. The villain, played by Eric Bana, is the least interesting adversary in any tent pole adventure film that I can remember. While he is given token 'motivation' against Spock, it doesn't make much sense (had Spock actually been indirectly responsible for Nero's grievance, it would have made more sense and helped the drama), and he is given so little to do that the character becomes 'insert antagonist here'. Despite the huge budget and attempt at scope, the film is shot mainly in close up, leaving the film feeling more claustrophobic than epic. While the film never, ever stops moving, there is actually very little actual action. Said action beats fail to excite because most of the action involves people running in panic from one room of a star ship to another, or arbitrary scenes of one ship annihilating another (one-sided slaughter isn't action, it's just violence). Plus, much of it is shot and edited in that super-tight, million-edits a second fashion that only Steven Spielberg, John Singleton, and Martin Campbell seem able to avoid. Only a pointless but frightening chase involving a snowy monster and a swashbuckling duel involving Sulu atop a giant drill elicit any sense of excitement. By the time a climactic phaser shoot out occurs, I couldn't help thinking how much more emotionally involved I was in said shoot out at the end of, yes, Galaxy Quest . There are countless comic callbacks to the original franchise, but most of them feel so forced, out of place, and on the nose that they take us right out of the picture. Various lines of dialogue, action beats, and character moments are rudely inserted from previous films and television episodes. They do not feel organic and imply Abrams's lack of confidence in his own ability to please the Trek fans without resorting to 'oh, that's from that movie/episode' moments. Furthermore, the insertion of the fabled ' Kobayashi Maru' test takes up valuable screen time while seemingly missing the point of the original story. In this variation, Kirk is a cocky punk who cheats out of entitlement, rather than a stubborn refusal to fail. Ironically the best nod to the original show is the subtlest, involving the unspoken destiny of Chief Engineer Olsen. The biggest 'callback' (this could be considered a spoiler) involves the second act appearance of a major character from the prior franchise. Without going into details, said character becomes an hour long deus ex machina. He constantly offers helpful plot exposition, tells the characters exactly what they need to do in order to progress, and then tells the characters what they should do once the film is complete. Said character comes off not as one imparting wisdom, but rather as one who has already read the script. This element by itself kills much of the dramatic tension in the third act of the picture. In the end, despite fine acting, several moments of potent drama, solid production values, and high ambitions, Star Trek comes off as a ' Star Trek for dummies' variation on the fabled story. Similar to X-Files: Fight the Future , this film is Star Trek for people who have never seen the shows or the movies, and furthermore need their characters drawn in broad strokes and the philosophies explicitly explained in monologue. Maybe if I had no prior knowledge of the franchise I could take it all at face value and simply acknowledge that it is a broadly drawn big-budget B-movie with an incredibly weak villain and some poorly staged action beats. But because the film continuously reminds us of its legacy, I have no choice but to judge it in comparison to its predecessors. There is potential for a solid franchise with these actors, after all the even-numbered sequels are almost always the best. But, despite all the pomp and circumstance, J.J. Abrams's Star Trek remains merely another disappointing odd-numbered Star Trek picture. Grade: 2.5/4
 
Twitter Co-Founder Lobbies For Vegetarian School Lunches (VIDEO) Top
Twitter co-founder Biz Stone has taken up a cause that requires a few more than 140 characters to explain. The microblogging exec is lobbying Congress to add vegetarian options to school lunches, and sent a letter to Rep. George Miller, chair of the House Education and Labor Committee to support the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act, which would add a vegetarian friendly option to children's school lunches. Hundreds of thousands of students across the country don't eat meat, according to a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study. However, these young vegetarians often can't find healthy, meatless meals in the school cafeteria ... Even students who aren't vegetarian would benefit from having low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian options. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has released a video advocating healthier school lunches, which has aired on TV in Rep. Miller's district. WATCH: Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Twitter
 
Farrukh Rehan: The Battle For Pakistan's Soul Top
As an oddly smiling President Zardari of Pakistan stood behind a visibly concerned President Obama in the White House yesterday, one had to wonder what Mr. Zardari was smiling about. Seven thousand miles away, in the country over which he presides, the economy has tanked, the province of Baluchistan is in the grips of a secessionist movement, Karachi is embroiled in ethnic violence between Pashtuns and Urdu speakers, and that's not even the most pressing problem this nation of 170 million people is facing. As I write this, tens of thousands of refugees were pouring out of the Swat valley in anticipation of a major military offensive by the Pakistani Army against the Taliban. For weeks, headlines around the world have raised alarm about the proximity of the Taliban to the capital Islamabad, and analysts have puzzled over the curious detachment with which the civilian government the Pakistani Army seemed to be observing the situation deteriorate. Now that the Pakistani army is finally engaging the Taliban, there is one question on everyone's mind: Is Pakistan serious about this fight this time, or will it cut a deal with the militants, as it has done in the past with disastrous consequences? The answer to this question depends on the outcome of a larger battle for Pakistan's soul which is raging across Pakistan's cities, homes, television channels, newspapers and in heated conversations in people's living rooms. The fight for the hearts and minds of the ordinary Pakistani is the most important fight going on in Pakistan, as its outcome will determine whether the cancer of Talibanization can be localised and ultimately rooted out, or whether it will continue to metastasize and further destabilize a country which is already reeling from economic, political, and leadership woes. As in most battles there are two adversaries - in this case two competing views of Pakistan, and the nature of the challenge facing it. The conservative view held by many Islamist parties, populist politicians, retired army brass and hyper-nationalistic television anchors is that the Taliban are a reflection of the people's desire for an Islamic system of governance , with quick justice, order and compliance with God's will as the hallmarks of public life. Proponents of this view maintain that the excesses of the Taliban are greatly exaggerated, and that the real threat to Pakistan is from the US, which has destabilized the whole region with its Afghan war and its drone attacks on Pakistan. According to this view, the real aim of the US is to undermine Pakistan's sovereignty and deprive it of its cherished nuclear weapons. To date, the conservatives have been more vocal, and gained more traction with the Pakistani public - drowning out the concerns about the Taliban by pointing fingers at George Bush, the US and India. On the other side are people derided as "Liberals" and "Western apologists" by the conservatives. These liberals, many of them western educated, secular and belonging to the professional urban classes, have been reminding whoever will listen that while Pakistan is a Muslim majority country, it was created as a constitutional republic with the ideals of an independent judiciary, a parliamentary system of government, and representative democracy. Liberals argue that letting parts of the country become theocratic enclaves run by armed gangs of religious extremists undermines the ideals on which Pakistan was built, threatens its territorial integrity and is a recipe for disaster. Liberals insist that the Taliban, and their policy of "Islamicization at gun point" is the real threat to Pakistan, not India or the United States. Which narrative ultimately prevails is crucial to Pakistan's future because it determines whether the people of Pakistan see the fight against the Taliban and extremism as their own fight, or whether they will continue to see it as a US manufactured Global War on Terror into which Pakistan has been sucked. If Pakistanis see the fight in Swat as their own, then there will be public support for a continuing military offensive, there will be more latitude given to the bumbling civilian government of Asif Zardari, and there may even be some tolerance for the drone attacks which normally cause deep resentment among Pakistanis. But if the dominant narrative in Pakistan continues to be that Pakistanis are victims of global conspiracies, that the Taliban threat is exaggerated, and that Pakistan should have no part in fighting "America's war", then the military will most likely be forced to sign a truce with the Taleban, the civilian government will probably collapse under the weight of its unpopularity, and Talibanization will continue unchecked, one district at a time. The lack of singular narrative and of national unity in the face of the Taliban threat is the reason that the army has been reluctant to engage in battle. That is also why the civilian government vacillates between threatening the Taliban one moment and begging them for a truce the next. More than economic aid, more than drone attacks, the fate of Pakistan will be determined by whether the people of Pakistan will come to believe the conservative view or the liberal view as the legitimate approach to understanding the challenges they face. The good news is that in the one month that the Taliban ruled Swat under the peace deal, they committed so many atrocities and imposed such a grotesque version of Islam that many Pakistanis were repulsed. The bad news is that an equal number of Pakistanis are disappointed and disgusted with their corrupt and incompetent elected leaders, who aren't much of an alternative. More on Pakistan
 
Bruce Fein: Recommendations for the Armenian Diaspora Top
The ongoing high-level efforts between Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations, including establishing diplomatic relations and opening the land border between the two countries, have received President Obama's imprimatur during his recent visit to Turkey. While the negotiated resolution of any conflict is a desirable goal, the Turkish government would be wise to weigh the public's expectations of this dialogue with existing realities, which will affect the immediate and long-term outcome of bilateral developments between the two countries and Turkey's relations with the United States and Azerbaijan. First, there is a dichotomy of interests among the Armenian stakeholders in this dialogue. The interests of the Armenian Diaspora, even different Diaspora organizations, the American political establishment and Armenia are divergent. The increasingly boisterous voices in the Armenian Diaspora which object to the Armenian government's engagement with Turkey; the dismissal of the bilateral process by U.S. lawmakers who carry the Armenian lobby's torch in Congress; as well as the full blown campaign by all Armenian advocacy and lobby groups in furthering their legislative, educational, political and public affairs agenda in the U.S.and elsewhere, are proof of this divergence. On the other hand, the Turkish community abroad, particularly in the U.S., has by and large voiced support of the Turkish government's dual approach that manifests itself in engaging in diplomatic efforts to normalize relations with Armenia on the one hand, and in committing to accept the findings of an impartial international commission that will address the contested period of Armenian-Ottoman history and the "genocide" question, on the other. However, supporting the process does not mean turning a blind eye to competing Turkish interests and other realities. There are wide-spread concerns among Turks and others that Turkey will lose much and gain little from the entente it labors upon with Armenia. Without a doubt, the most significant loss Turkey may endure from this process, particularly from opening its land border with Armenia, could be estranging its natural strategic ally, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has shown significant reaction to Turkey's perceived "de-linking" of the continuing Armenian occupation from its negotiations with Armenia. Those in support of normalizing relations with Armenia frequently allude to the potential spillover effect this will have on a peaceful solution to the Karabakh conflict and also stem the "genocide" campaigns by the Armenian Diaspora. However, others argue that the economic effect of a closed land border with Turkey is the only incentive for Armenia to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Azerbaijan on lifting its occupation. Some Azeri analysts argue that removing this sanction may deprive Armenia of any incentive for peace and leave Azerbaijan with no option but a new war. The Turkish-Armenian dialogue is known to have been advocated by successive U.S. administrations as a way to "pacify" the Armenian lobby and to weaken the incessant congressional efforts for U.S. recognition of the "Armenian genocide," a development that would most certainly damage U.S.-Turkey relations. However, pursuing this advice without addressing the underpinnings of the global Armenian campaign against Turkey will most certainly result in great disappointment for Turkey. The "Armenian Genocide" narrative is an existential narrative for the Armenian Diaspora. It has become the glue that bonds the community across social, economic and political lines. Perpetuating this narrative and activating the community around legislative, educational, philanthropic and political endeavors has become the lifeline for Armenian Diaspora organizations, including the Armenian Church. Hatred against modern day Turks and Turkey has become an identity strengthening tool, particularly employed toward young Armenians, and examples of this hateful behavior against ordinary Turks abound. It is in this area where Turkish analysis about the Armenian Diaspora's state of mind, its wide-reaching agenda and impact seems to be most deficient. The benefits that Turkey expects from rapprochement with Armenia can not be achieved as long as the Armenian Diaspora's realities are ignored. Unless Armenia and other interested parties can engage the Armenian Diaspora in this process and help bring about fundamental changes in the community, the "genocide" issue will remain at the center of their agenda. Consequently, Turkey's outreach to Armenia will have no effect on the Armenian Diaspora and its international agenda against Turkey, including its lobbying of the U.S. Congress and the Administration. Bringing about change in the attitudes of the Armenian Diaspora needs to focus on: * Stopping hate: It is clear to everyone who follows the Armenian Diaspora that the pursuit of genocide recognition has turned into a campaign of hate against Turkey and modern day Turks. This hatred has been manifested in worldwide terrorism and the murder of 40 Turkish diplomats; the continuing adoration of these killers, as well as ongoing harassment and intimidation of Turkish Americans. More troubling, is the fact that hate against Turkey seems to grow among many young Armenian adults who hold more severely hateful perceptions of Turks. * Defending academic freedom and stopping intimidation and harassment of scholars: The Armenian Diaspora has successfully created an aura of intimidation in academia through their consistent vilification of scholars, who do not agree with the Armenian narrative of history. By slandering any scholar who deviates from the Armenian narrative as a "genocide denier" and attempting to deny such scholars access to academic and public platforms, the Armenian lobby is effectively stifling more research and debate on this history. * Exposing Armenian "buy-out" of scholars: Armenian foundations and wealthy Armenian Americans are pouring money into American universities to support scholars, including Turkish ones, whose positions corroborate the Armenian narrative. The existence of "Armenian Genocide" study centers at leading U.S. universities rests on the largesse of such Armenian donations. Research in this area has effectively been turned into an Armenian funded cottage industry. * Advocating the opening of Armenian Archives: Opening all Armenian archives to independent scholarly review will unearth the complete narrative of Ottoman-Armenian history, including the Armenian independence movement and revolt. * Stopping foul play: Armenian Diaspora groups must be held accountable to stick to the same rules that apply to all advocacy groups. Many of them have not. The best example of such foul play is the Armenian National Committee of America, which is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for possible violations of its legal status and other U.S. laws governing lobbying. * Exposing the futility of political lobbying: The Armenian Diaspora lobbyists have invested much stock and capital in lobbying efforts to legislate history. Turkey must unequivocally state that it is an Armenian Diaspora illusion that such third country political pressures can force Turkey to accept their narrative and issue an "apology," opening the way for other demands by the Armenian Diaspora such as reparations or territorial claims. * Looking forward: The Armenian community can gain tremendously by looking forward and reaching out to Turkey as their heritage country. Turkey and Turkish civil society should extend a hand of friendship toward the Armenian Diaspora. Turks, by and large, hold no animosity toward Armenians and will embrace Diaspora Armenians warmly. The rich Armenian culture continues to be part of Turkey's culture, its music, art, architecture, folklore and cuisine. These common bonds can be revived and the Armenian Diaspora, not Armenia, can herald this revival. * Ending Armenia's isolation: The Armenian Diaspora has played a significant role for Armenia. However, the Armenian Diaspora's efforts cannot replace the economic and political benefits of normalizing Armenia's relations with its neighbors, particularly Azerbaijan, and integrating the country into the economic and strategic regional framework. The Armenian Diaspora in the United States, in particular, should be the advocate of moving Armenia away from Russia and Iran and closer to Turkey and the U.S. * Believing in dialogue: The current Turkish government has long extended a hand of friendship and reconciliation toward the Armenian Diaspora and Armenia in its invitation to form an international historical commission. Turkey's invitation and willingness to support such a comprehensive effort and to accept its findings may not remain valid forever. The Armenian Diaspora should unclench its fist and take this hand, as it is the only way for peace and reconciliation. More on Turkey
 
Grant Cardone: Unemployment Benefits Can Destroy Future Job Prospects Top
Extended unemployment wages destroy recipient's future job prospects when taken for the full length offered by the government. While providing much needed immediate assistance, these so called "benefits," could be one of the most destructive government handouts ever offered and should carry a warning label much like those on tobacco products and prescription drugs. WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME COULD PROVE HARMFUL TO YOUR FUTURE JOB PROSPECTS, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN YOU BEING UNDESIRABLE AND UNEMPLOYABLE. IT IS RECOMMENDED TO GET EMPLOYED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. Before you start labeling me insensitive and uncaring with latent "right" undercurrents, know that I do understand the thinking behind these assistance programs which appear to provide support to those without work and the ridiculous hope that it would deter the economy from worsening. Also this article does not attempt to demean those that elect to receive unemployment benefits but serves as a warning that there are negative consequences. Unemployment benefits received for any period longer that six weeks will damage the recipient's future prospects in the job market. For those that elect to receive benefits for anywhere close to the full term, understand that your next job is almost guaranteed to pay you less and the possibility exist that they individual will be forever undesirable in the job market. How will you explain being out of the job market for 26 weeks? What happens to your skill set in that period of time? How well will you be able to compete against other applicants with a 26-week blank spot on your job record? This may be harsh to hear and not seem fair but the marketplace is never fair. Unlike many of the readers here the marketplace has no feelings or emotions, and shows no sympathy. It only takes a brief observation to see entire classes of people damaged long term by government handouts. Just beyond the immediate 'good' received by food stamps, unemployment and similar programs you will see entire demographics of people seduced by the immediate solution of the benefit that later either become less able or less desirable. WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED? 1) Do everything possible to make sure you immediately get back into the job market and replace the lost job! Even if you have to take something you consider beneath you, it is better to stay connected in the workforce with pay than disconnected from the workforce with unemployment benefits! 2) Disregard all the talk that no one is hiring! There is always companies looking for good people that can help their company grow. 3) Do not rely on your resume or the HR department. Get your story in front of decision makers of the company. 4) Do not talk about what you have done in the past, talk about what you can do to create a future for the company. 5) Do not go into an interview to be interviewed, go in to sell your self. Avoid communicating from the viewpoint of what the company can do for you but rather what you can do for the company. 6) Lastly, know that the only thing a company is interested in today is revenue . Anyone that can create directly or assist in revenue creation is desirable! Those that can sell their ability and willingness to do whatever it takes to assist in adding revenue to the company are always desirable regardless of the overall job market. I expect I will get a lot of heated comments regarding this article, for the rest of you make anyone you know that may find themselves in this situation that there exist serious consequences to receiving long term unemployment benefits. Also if you know anyone that is out of work that wants to work, is responsible and willing to do whatever it takes to assist in increasing revenue to my company I am always hiring! Send a sixty second video, not a resume, on how you can help my company grow to gc@grantcardone. Grant Cardone , Author of Sell to Survive and Sales Expert More on Layoffs
 
AIG Blames The Media Top
We'll borrow a line from our friend, Jeff Matthews: we are not making this up! In both the 8-K and the 10-Q that AIG filed yesterday, they repeatedly mention how negative publicity and/or criticism were "adversely impacting" various parts of their business. Here's a snip from the Q, which notes that the negative publicity has actually become a risk factor: More on AIG
 
Robert Koehler: The Hounds of Heaven Top
"The special forces guys -- they hunt men, basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down. Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom." It's worse than you think. Torture, religion, democracy, God. They're all part of the mixed-up, horrific business that George Bush unleashed in the Middle East and Central Asia, and that Barack Obama is struggling to control and rationalize. As the words above demonstrate, the 12th century is striving mightily to join hands with the 20th in the U.S. military: Unbridled religious arrogance is forging a link with high-tech weaponry and an unlimited defense budget. The speaker, Lt. Col. Gary Hensley, who is no less than the chief of U.S. military chaplains in Afghanistan, was videotaped last year delivering a sermon at Bagram Air Base. Since Al Jazeera first broadcast the footage at the beginning of the week, it has spread widely on the Internet. Like so much else that the Bush administration has bequeathed us, and the world -- pre-emptive war and torture, for instance -- this is nothing new, but suddenly it's overt. I can't exactly say this is a good thing, but certainly this is where we want it. A U.S. military spokesman has denied that American soldiers are allowed to try to convert Afghans to Christianity -- it violates Central Command's General Order No. 1 -- and said that Hensley was quoted out of context. U.S. military spokesmen, of course, also routinely deny that U.S. bombing raids kill civilians. And indeed, U.S. airstrikes this week in a densely populated area in western Afghanistan's Farah Province, during a battle between Afghan soldiers and the Taliban, may have killed as many as 100 civilians, according to the New York Times. The Red Cross, the United Nations and the Afghan government are all expressing shock at the death toll, but our government will only acknowledge that it is "investigating the reports of civilian deaths," which is the standard, meaningless comment that reporters work into such stories, seemingly with no obligation to follow up. This lets us forget about it and move on. The possibility that we are -- not officially, of course, but in the minds of many American soldiers and officers -- waging a religious war that parallels the secular one, an Ann Coulter war, if you will ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," Coulter wrote on Sept. 12, 2001), is both deeply disturbing and utterly appropriate. The arrogance required for both efforts is so similar, I can understand if the line blurs for many of the participants. What is the difference, for instance, between believing one can bomb a country into democracy and any sort of armed, uniformed proselytizing? Putting a religious spin on the war on terror may be an official no-no, but when I read about Bargram's "hounds of heaven" and other recent reports of the growing evangelical Christian influence in the U.S. military (such as Jeff Sharlet's stunning investigative piece in the May issue of Harper's, titled "Jesus Killed Mohammed"), I think first of the extraordinary Winter Soldier testimony I attended a year ago in Washington, D.C. This testimony, sponsored by Iraq Veterans Against the War, and vastly underreported in the media, featured vet after vet giving agonized, conscience-wracked testimony on his or her training and service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. If one word could describe the overarching theme of the four-day event (I attended two of those days), it might be "dehumanization." "When I joined the Army, I was told racism was gone from the military," said Mike Prysner, who enlisted in June 2001. "After 9/11, we heard words like towel head, camel jockey, sand nigger. These came from up the chain of command. The new word (we used was) hadji. A hadji is someone who takes a pilgrimage to Mecca. We took the best thing from Islam and made it the worst thing. "Racism is a vital weapon employed by this government," he said. "It's more important than the rifle, the bunker buster missile." "In our boot camp," said former Marine Matthew Childers, "we sang cadences about killing people." Occupation means implicit disrespect. The testimony went on and on, describing detainee abuse, humiliation and starvation; the terrorizing of families during house raids; the casual brutalities and killings at checkpoints; vandalism and joy-riding around the ruins of Babylon; the shooting of pets to relieve boredom. And this is the context in which we now hear about earnest American Christians harvesting the souls of Muslims. Let us bow our heads in prayer, America. The worst of who we are is stalking the world with religious fervor. - - - 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 Afghanistan
 

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)