Thursday, May 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Lincoln Mitchell: Supreme Courts and Party Politics Top
This has been a week of contrasts for our judiciary system. On Tuesday while the California Supreme Court handed down a decision that is the 21st century answer to Plessy v. Ferguson, President Obama announced the nomination of Second Circuit Supreme Court Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court. While the decision by the California Supreme Court upheld a discriminatory ballot initiative, it should not have been a surprise. The vote by the California Supreme Court was not even close as Proposition 8 was upheld by a 6-1 majority. The lone dissenter was Justice Carlos Moreno. Much of the coverage of the decision overlooked the important point that the vote was on, excuse the pun, straight party lines. All six judges who voted in the affirmative had been initially appointed by Republican governors. Moreno is the only Supreme Court justice in California appointed by a Democrat. The reason for this decision had less to do with constitutionality and the merits of the arguments, but more with simple partisan politics. Since Jerry Brown left office in January 1983, California has had Republican governors for 22 out of 26 years. This more than anything else has influenced the makeup of the Supreme Court, and this decision, in California. Party line votes do not occur on every vote in the California, US, or other Supreme Courts, but they are not unheard of, particularly on the bigger cases. In recent years, the most famous Supreme Court party line vote was, of course, Bush v. Gore, which landed George W. Bush in the White House. For conservatives, however, it was a mixed day. While the California decision about Proposition 8 was a victory for them, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama was a reminder that the long term looks less rosy for conservatives. While some on the left may not be entirely pleased with the Sotomayor nomination, she is, in many respects, the worst possible nominee from the perspective of the right. Sotomayor meets or exceeds the resume requirements for Supreme Court Justices in recent years. She also enjoys a good reputation, and like the president who nominated her, a compelling, and even uplifting personal story. Beating up on a Latina woman who played by the rules, worked hard and rose to the top of her profession is not a strategy that will help the Republicans get out of their current rut, yet the evidence so far suggests they may not be wise enough to put down that particular shovel and stop digging. What seems to irk conservatives is that Sotomayor, as well as many of her supporters, have suggested that her background may inform some of the ways she interprets the laws and therefore decides on future cases. Interestingly, none of these conservatives seemed to question whether the personal backgrounds of the six straight Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold Proposition 8 in California, informed their views or narrow definition of marriage. The notion that it is somehow a problem that Sotomayor's background will contribute to her decisions and views is troubling. Of course, Sotomayor's background informs her decisions, just as Chief Justice John Roberts' background, and extreme ideological views, inform his. This is why presidents make appointments to the Supreme Court, and perhaps why we have a Supreme Court at all-so that qualified legal minds can bring a range of backgrounds and experiences to bear on difficult and important legal and constitutional questions. Although the inevitability of personal background and ideology having an impact on how justices make decisions should be axiomatic, there is still some superstition surrounding this issue. It is almost as if a "don't ask, don't tell" policy is applied to potential justices. Senators and others tacitly agree not to ask about ideology and personal views, while nominees agree not to tell too much. Instead, the issue which always seems to come up in hearings, from both sides of the aisle depending on the party which opposes the nomination, is how the nominee views the role of the court, an interesting question to be sure, but one that has become something of a red herring often obscuring the true nature of the nominee. Many Americans, are less concerned with Sotomayor's views regarding the role of the courts, but understand the import of Sotomayor's background and are pleased to see our President nominate her. Many of us voted in November so that backgrounds like Sotomayor's could inform decisions made by our highest court. This week, California showed us the judicial past where courts dominated by conservatives, unrepresentative of the people for whom they are determining laws, restrict constitutional rights. Judge Sotomayor and President Obama showed us the future. The Republicans must be aware of this too, but their desperation to try to stop this progress is already showing. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Hermene Hartman: Warner Saunders, Renaissance Man Top
Warner Saunders is a Renaissance Man. His news coverage life has been full, exciting and varied. He's taught public school; he drove a bus; he was the executive director of the Boys Club on the West Side, and he played professional basketball. All of that was before he launched a second career. In the past 40 years, he has earned 20 Emmy Awards as a journalist. To put Warner Saunders in perspective is to know that he has served as the voice for the voiceless, a champion of the people. His career has spanned the riots that resulted from Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination to having a hunch about a young politician named Barack Obama. He was one of the first to interview Obama and something told him to save the interview. (I wonder what it would be like to watch it now.) He has had a front-row seat to record history along the way. He came into TV, at ABC, with the late journalist Vernon Jarrett, without a journalism background. He came as a social worker that knew the power of media and what it lacked. Believe it or not, there was a time where there were no black news personalities on television. When the West Side riots occurred after King's death, it was a terrible time for the city. The powers-that-be were trying to calm the storm. This was Saunders' entry into the world of television. It was an "ah-ha" moment for television and proved to be an "ah-ha" moment for television viewers. They realized what they were missing: a black presence and voice on television. Many black journalists were born or given an opportunity, as a result. So it was the case with Saunders who, along with Vernon Jarrett, hosted a program, For Blacks Only , on ABC. It was a public affairs program that discussed current events and offered the public a viewpoint that was often ignored or forgotten. The television duo engaged the communities with interviews, insights and commentary. Warner left ABC and went to CBS where he became the public affairs director and the host of a late night show, Common Ground . I was his first producer. It was an exciting time, and this is where Saunders increased his popularity and gave airtime to controversial people and topics. The rule of Common Ground was simple: "No one gets a pass." And he meant it. My first media job ever, with Warner, was met with what I would now call a lot of "creative tension." And in the process, we created some dynamic shows. You never knew what someone would say, and sometimes the show itself made news because of the exclusive conversations Saunders got. At the time, CBS was the No. 1 station, with Bill Kurtis and Walter Jacobson as the leading anchors. Common Ground was the only "black show" on air then. What I have come to realize, years later, is that while I was producing a TV program, Warner was producing a person who had media vision and perspective in me. Neither of us were trained journalists, but we were both activists and concerned citizens and knew that our perspectives were important and sometimes exclusive. Saunders has quite a scope on Chicago history. He has been a first-hand part of it. He saw the political drama in the election of Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago. This is important because downtown news absolutely and totally missed, misinterpreted and underestimated the power and presence of black Chicago and its political prowess. Saunders went to South Africa for the release of Nelson Mandela after his 27 years in jail for fighting apartheid. Warner was one of the first American journalists to interview him, thanks to the intervention of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Over the years, Saunders has covered Jackson from his days as a community organizer to his presidential bid and afterwards. This would be a fabulous documentary. He probably has more footage on Jackson than any other newsman. One of the few unknown elements regarding Warner is his work as a mentor and with interns. There are people all over the country, perhaps the world, who worked and interned as freshmen journalists in the making. He ensured that they all had good career advice, and those who strived to be on-air talent he made sure had a tape in hand. For those who took another path in media, he provided perspective and professionalism. Warner has never forgotten where he came from. The community was proud to have a friend on TV and someone who understood. Saunders' view of the news has been with a community perspective. He became a journalist and rose to the occasion. We became great friends when I started N'Digo , and his advice has been invaluable. He told me what I was doing was important and reminded me of little things that became important. He has never wavered with wonderful advice and I treasure every argument we ever had because the right decision always came from it. He worked hard, made history and he earned the "No. 1" distinction. Over the years, Saunders has given us quality coverage as he, himself, has become history, as he has watched, recorded and interpreted history in the making along the way. In retrospect, I realize something: I was Warner's producer, but it was he who produced an individual who's passionate about the media's impact and wants to use it to do good -- me. Thanks, Warner. Bravo! More on Barack Obama
 
Marcel Pacatte: Calling Out The Real Crybabies Top
For the record, Mike Jacobs, a state senator from the Quad Cities, has been aware of me zero times in his life. I say that to set the record straight, so that he -- or anybody else -- doesn't mistakenly think that I come to this debate with any high and mighty sense of self. I've never written any laws, sponsored any bills or voted on anything in Springfield, never stood in the public eye in the way any of our 177 state legislators have. And I realize that. But I do vote. And I am a citizen of this state. So I have a say. Now let's consider Jacobs. I've been aware of him three times in my life. First was when he replaced his father, Denny, in the Senate. Jacobs pere was a credible, if somewhat excessively partisan, lawmaker, but it was back in the days when the state needed strong Democrats to offset the strong Republican machinery of the Jims, Thompson and Edgar. When I saw fils following pere, I was worried. I'm always leery of elected office as a birthright, just as I am leery of it as a sinecure. But I'm also willing to be proved wrong. I thought I was proved wrong a year or two ago, when I was aware of Mike Jacobs a second time. The senator made news by storming into the Blue Room, as I recall, straight from a confrontation in the governor's office. He recounted for Capitol reporters and the rest of Illinois how Gov. Rod Blagojevich had threatened to punch Jacobs to get him to support a project the governor cared about. In addition to the knuckle sandwich as means of persuasion, the governor threatened to eviscerate Jacobs' career and gut funding for things in Jacobs' district. I was outraged at Blagojevich's actions and thrilled that -- at last! -- someone in the legislature was going to stand up to the charlatan governor in a baldly concrete way. It took a while longer for the pathetic Blagojevich to collapse, but I was heartened to see a legislature finally doing what was right, with no senators voting against impeachment on the day Illinois started to have a chance to breathe fresh air again. And now we have time three, with Jacobs the other day mocking former federal prosecutor Patrick Collins for Collins' anger over a legislative panel cutting him off at the knees by ignoring reform recommendations Collins has been pushing. Jacobs imitated a crying baby in ridiculing Collins, instructing him on the ways of legislative horse-trading, saying something along the lines of "that's how it works down here." I am so angry with Jacobs as I type this that for the first time in my life I think I can begin to understand Rod Blagojevich. How can the man who was so outraged at Blagojevich physically threatening him forget that moment and mock Collins? The audacity! I'd like to remind Jacobs that if there's anyone not in need of instruction in "how it works" in Springfield, it's the man who spent several years working to put former Gov. George Ryan in jail. Collins knows how it works, Sen. Jacobs. All too well. That's probably why he was visibly angry after being sold out by a bunch of arrogant lawmakers who think they know better how it works than Collins and fellow members of his Illinois Reform Commission, who spent weeks aggressively studying the culture of corruption in this state and how to end it. What Jacobs and the rest of the bunch in Springfield had better realize is that there are a lot more people lined up with Collins and commission patron Gov. Pat Quinn and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald than there are with the political status quo. Sure, Jacobs and the crew he fronts for may win this one. They control the machinery, after all. That's how it, y'know, works. But they won't win the war. It will be a hollow and short-celebrated victory. The people of Illinois need to contact their senators and representatives on this, today. Collins and the earnest, diligent commission members worked hard and thoughtfully to examine what went wrong -- what has been going wrong -- and to come up with ways to set it right. Illinois, inexplicably, has tolerated a certain level of corruption from its public officials. We can thank Blagojevich for being so brazen in pushing the limits that we have reached the end of our toleration. The reform recommendations put forth by Collins' commission may not be perfect, but with Jacobs running around making baby sounds and with Roland Burris on tape disgustingly trying out a little extortion of his own in coyly telling the governor's brother that if his firm didn't get a big client before the end of the year that he'd be forced to rake in his cash as counsel to a law firm, they deserve an up-or-down vote, unfiltered and untrammeled by the folks who know the way it's done in Springfield. That's a long sentence, but I'll make it short: Up-or-down vote on the Collins Commission recommendations, Springfield. Then we'll have clearly drawn lines for when we pick the next legislature. We're sick of this. The horses are out of the barn. No more trading, folks.
 
Todd Wilkinson: Does Sen. Barrasso of Wyoming Really Want Science to Guide Him? Top
As any principled public servant should, U.S. Sen. John Barrasso was right to intensely grill President Barack Obama's cabinet minister Lisa Jackson about the consequences of regulating carbon dioxide emissions on the American economy. Not long ago, the Republican lawmaker from Wyoming who sits on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, uncovered what he called a "smoking gun" memo that he implies was concealed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where Ms. Jackson serves as chief administrator. Barrasso says EPA is not being honest about the costs of regulating carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and halocarbons. In an opinion piece that appeared, interestingly enough, on the Heritage Foundation website immediately after Barrasso's interrogation of Jackson, the senator wrote that efforts to reduce emissions, using the federal Clean Air Act as a lever, are being driven by politics, not science. "This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business," Barrasso asserts. "This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America." On the face of it, it is inspiring that Mr. Barrasso is declaring himself a lawmaker who champions science over crass politics. It is also noble that the scientific process of rigorous peer review and scrutiny will be his lens for having a real public discussion about climate change, enforcement of the Clean Air Act (as it relates to, say, snowmobile pollution in Yellowstone National Park and ozone gathering over Wyoming's pristine Wind River Range linked to natural gas drilling), as well as to the impacts of federal regulation -- or lack of it -- on Main Street. Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that Mr. Barrasso's essay was published by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that during the Bush Administration was part of a concerted effort backed by the coal and oil industries to foment a deliberate strategy of public misinformation about the causes and effects of a warming planet linked to the burning of fossil fuels. Those attempts continue. And let us look past the Bush Administration's track record of suppressing science in the formulation of a national energy strategy and enforcement of environmental protection laws. And let us try to forget the same arguments of alleged economic catastrophe used by Barrasso were invoked by the Heritage Foundation as a reason NOT to regulate Wall Street prior to the current meltdown. Assertions of alleged doom are again rationales for why Republicans, namely, are fighting universal health care and refusing to make hard, necessary -- and inevitably painful -- decisions about the future of Social Security. Small business owners, local governments, public charities, land management agencies, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and parents who dreamed of sending their kids to college are today well versed in how the Heritage Foundation's anti-regulation agenda toward the financial markets has been a disaster of its own. All of us are hurting, resentful of using hard-earned tax dollars to bail out banks, pay for executive compensation packages, and keeping two of the major three automakers -- that bucked better fuel efficiency standards -- on life support. Senator Barrasso deserves praise for saying there should be transparency in government, and that any approach to regulate greenhouse gases ought to consider the impacts, all impacts, on citizens now and in the future. Therefore, let us hope that, given his unexpected grandstanding for science, the next document senator Barrasso waves before Congress will be the new report compiled by the National Academies of Sciences, the most respected, non-partisan scientific body in the world. The 24-page document is titled "Understanding and Responding To Climate Change" and it is available free to citizens at www.national-academies.org . In fact, Senator Barrasso and his colleagues ought to order up copies for every citizen in the country. The National Academies function as official advisors to Congress and federal agencies. The purpose of the report is to promote better understanding of a changing climate, document its impacts and help in "developing effective response strategies." The report puts to rest the gobbledygook claims that climate change is caused by the sun, volcanoes, or hot air rising out of Washington. In arid rural states like Wyoming, senator Barrasso will find the predictions of impending water shortages to be compelling at a time when large distant urban areas are eyeing its liquid resources. He will find the parts about future diminished mountain snowpack, and the implications for agriculture, fish, wildlife, drinking water, and recreation to be of keen interest to constituents, too. Science should indeed be the foundation of public policy. To say so, but then to act otherwise, is political hypocrisy at its worst. This column from Todd Wilkinson first appeared in the Jackson Hole News & Guide newspaper. Based in Montana, he writes about the environment for a number of national magazines and newspapers.
 
Rep. Jack Franks: Why Roland Burris Must Go Top
The embarrassment and shame that grows from the corruption that haunts the state of Illinois continues. Those who were hopeful that the ouster of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich would be the end of Illinois' political drama are surely disappointed by the revelations contained in the audio tape between Senator Roland Burris and Rob Blagojevich, brother and political fund-raiser for the former governor. We are all fatigued by the corrupt politicians that continue to come out of Illinois. We have the ignominious distinction of having more federal agents investigating corruption than any other state. Senator Burris is especially disappointing. His recorded conversations with Rob Blagojevich leave no doubt that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyway - for his own ambitions. Senator Burris only had to tell the truth to the House Special Investigative Committee, of which I was a member, to be seated in the U.S. Senate. That was the only prerequisite placed on him by Senator Harry Reid. Senator Burris' explanation of the recorded conversations was that he was not being truthful with Rob and was just placating him because he was interested in being appointed to the Senate seat. That is exactly how he treated the Special Investigative Committee. It is clear that he was seated under false pretenses, and the only reason he offered an affidavit following his testimony to the Special Investigative Committee is because the Federal authorities played the tapes for him. There are only two honorable alternatives: Senator Burris can step down or the U.S. Senate can unseat him. Unfortunately, Senator Burris' gargantuan ego will never allow him to resign. Disappointingly, I lack confidence in the U.S. Senate to follow through, as it has not unseated a member since 1865. But this situation is so different that the Senate may be forced to break that pattern. The one requirement of his appointment was that he had to be honest, and he did not fulfill that requirement. Simply by lying, Senator Burris has forfeited his right to the Senate seat. He is not what anyone can consider a profile in courage. He is a weasely opportunist and the epitome of what is wrong with Illinois politics. In February, I called for Senator Burris to step down because I believed then it was clear he had not fulfilled the requirement to be seated. At that time, I filed a House Resolution (HR 112) to formally reprimand Senator Burris for the contradictions made in his statements while testifying under oath. The Resolution also urges the U.S. Senate to expel him. These recent revelations further illustrate the necessity for the U.S. Senate to move forward and remove him from office. The Illinois General Assembly needed an indictment to be spurred to action to impeach our former governor. We need to restore the citizens' faith in our government. I urge the U.S. Senate to be more responsive and do the right thing now. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Dr. Jon LaPook: Female Health Taboo Top
Urinary incontinence affects millions of women -- 38% of women over the age of 60, yet only 45% ever seek help for it. Men suffer from the problem too but at about half the rate. Only 22% of men seek help. Why is this a taboo subject? One reason is that it's an embarrassing -- even infantilizing -- problem. But patients' shame is, well, a shame. Because urinary incontinence -- the involuntary leakage of urine -- can often be treated quite successfully. The first step is to make a proper diagnosis. One common type is "urge incontinence" -- the bladder contracting when a person isn't ready to urinate and can't get to the toilet fast enough. Another common type, especially after childbirth or in athletes, is "stress incontinence." It happens when there is a weakness in the pelvic muscles supporting the bladder and urethra (the structure through which urine exits the bladder), causing the urethra to lose its seal and allowing urine to escape when there is increased pressure on the bladder (e.g. coughing, sneezing, laughing, lifting, or exercise). As women get older, it's more likely they will develop urge rather than stress incontinence. A very simple three question test has been created to help with the diagnosis. It's important to get a complete, head to toe medical evaluation because urinary incontinence may be a symptom of an underlying condition (e.g., neurological problem, diabetes, urinary tract infection, chronic bladder inflammation, or even a tumor) or may be a result of medication. Talk to your primary health provider and/or gynecologist. If needed, a specialist (e.g., urologist or urogynecologist) can be consulted. Treatments for urge incontinence include bladder retraining and pelvic muscle exercises, medications to relax the bladder, and decreasing fluid intake. Approaches to stress incontinence include weight loss if obesity is present, a vaginal pessary , and surgery. In today's segment of CBS Doc Dot Com, Dr. Lori Warren and Dr. Jody Blanco, gynecologists with expertise in urinary incontinence, discuss the problem. You'll meet a woman who overcame her embarrassment, sought help from Dr. Blanco, and is now symptom free after surgery. There are several online resources on the subject, listed at the end of an excellent discussion in the online medical database, UpToDate.com .
 
Jarvis Coffin: Thinking About Online Video? Think Short Top
MediaPost's Online Media Daily recently reported on new research that consumers do not use the Internet like television. Based on pretty good sample sizes, independent analyst, Bruce Leichtman , found that only 8% of respondents said they use the Internet to watch re-purposed TV shows. Most people watch video in smaller, short form segments online, whether news or sports or user-generated content. Ultimately, only 3% of adults said they would consider disconnecting their TV in favor of the Internet to watch their programs. In juxtaposition to Mr. Leichtman's research, the New York Times had a piece over the weekend on the astonishing online video trajectory of Susan Boyle , the homely Britain's Got Talent performer that delivered a blow for the forces of goodness and light when she debuted on the show several weeks ago and became an extra-ordinary pop sensation. According to The Times' report, her April video singing "I dreamed a dream" has been viewed 220 million times. Only three videos have ever received more clicks, says Visible Measures, a company quoted in the story. These two stories should be viewed side-by-side. One says, look, I like TV for what it gives me: the chance to sit with my feet up and a bag of potato chips enjoying a program with my partner/children/roommate. During the commercials we talk about what everyone did that day. The other says, look, I like the Internet because without it I'd never have known about this Susan Boyle woman, and it made me glad to know that really good things still happen in life (without having to sift through days and weeks of programming). We can define the media experience of each in a variety of ways: one is passive and one is active; one is about shared experiences and one is about shared discoveries. Both cater to our social instincts. One is truly global. But, they are different and will probably stay different because consumers will keep them for different uses. The frustrating part, of course, is that the advertising industry can't decide how to take advantage of the Internet video piece -- which is the 220 million views piece in the Susan Boyle example. There are legitimate content rights issues in connection with opportunities such as Susan Boyle's appearance on Britain's Got Talent . We can't help with that problem from here. But pretending that how the money gets divided does not remain an issue, what should the Internet industry do to position its particular brand of video opportunity? Think short. Then, think big. The Internet is about segments and slices of content reached through countless entry points. YouTube and Hulu are successful aggregators of video content segments, but to create a viable ad model online video needs distribution. Distributing television style programming won't scale and won't cater to the uses and desires of the Internet audience. But delivering short form videos will: "How to" videos, such as home repair and recipes, movie trailers, TV excerpts, music videos, stupid pet tricks, etc. It follows that with distribution will come context: video content will seek its own levels. With context will come the advertising rationale and -- we hope -- user acceptance of the associated ad models, such as pre-roll. The key is to make video prevalent online and sensible with regards to how people use the Internet, which is frequently in parts and segments. More on Susan Boyle
 
Jesse Jenkins: Climate Bill's Renewable Electricity Standard Severely Weakened; May Have Little to No Impact Top
Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute Advocates of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, or "ACES" for short) argue that the bill is far more than just a climate bill. It's a comprehensive piece of clean energy, efficiency and climate legislation, and taken as a whole, they argue, it should be considered transformational -- even if the cap and trade portion of the bill may have been significantly weakened ( see Breakthrough's detailed analysis of the ACES cap and trade program here ). The ACES bill does indeed include many many provisions to set a new course for our nation's energy policy, including efficiency standards and regulations, authorization for new programs aimed at modernizing the nation's electricity infrastructure and paving the way for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles, and a national renewable electricity standard. Many of these will move America in the right direction. But the question remains: will ACES really be transformational? And will it propel American quickly away from business as usual and towards the prosperous clean energy economy and dramatic emissions reductions we need? Breakthrough's team has taken a close look at the bill's cap and trade provision , and discovered that the combination of offset provisions and a little-known provision called the "strategic reserve pool" could allow U.S. emissions to greatly exceed the supposed emissions "cap" set by the legislation. Here we examine one of the other major provisions of the ACES bill, the national renewable electricity standard (RES) established by Title I of the bill. Unfortunately, our analysis concludes that the RES has been severely weakened since initially proposed in the discussion draft version of the ACES bill; as it now stands, the RES may barely increase U.S. renewable electricity generation compared to business as usual projections. The discussion draft version of ACES, originally circulated on March 31st, contained a renewable electricity standard with a nominal target of 25% of U.S. electricity generation from qualifying renewable sources by 2025. I say nominal target, because several exemptions and specifications mean the 25% standard does not apply to all U.S. electricity generation. An April 2009 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) analysis of the originally 25% by 2025 standard concluded that it would really only require 21% of U.S. electricity generation from renewable sources in 2025, after excluding the small utilities exempted from the requirement (any utility that provides less than 1 billion kWh of electricity sales in a given year) and after excluding electricity served by existing hydropower (as the bill specifies). Furthermore, the original standard allowed a governor of any state to petition the federal government to reduce the renewable electricity requirement for utilities serving their state by 1/5th (to 20% by 2025) if they instead require utilities to achieve 5% energy efficiency savings as a substitute. If this provision were fully utilized, the renewable electricity requirement could have fallen to 16.8% of total U.S. electricity sales in 2025. That's where things stood at the end of March. But as the ACES bill moved through backroom negotiations and the Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee markup process, the renewable electricity standard was severely weakened. As passed by the E&C Committee, ACES (H.R. 2454) replaces the 25% by 2025 renewable electricity requirement with a combined 20% renewable electricity (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) requirement by 2020 (continuing each year thereafter). Again, this 20% target is nominal though, and after exempting small utilities and hydropower again, it really applies to just 16.8% of total U.S. electricity sales in 2020. (Actually the exemption is worse than that, since the threshold at which small utilities are exempted was expanded to exempt utilities selling less than 4 billion kWh of electricity each year vs 1 billion kWh in the discussion draft. I am unable to calculate the effect of this expanded small utility exemption however, and continue to rely on the EIA analysis as the basis of my calculations, which factors in the lower 1 billion kWh exemption figure. In short: this is a slightly optimistic analysis when it comes to exemptions.) Since this is a combined RE and EE standard, up to one quarter of the requirement (i.e. 5 percentage points in 2020) can be met with certified energy efficiency savings instead of renewable electricity generation. This means the renewable electricity requirement is really just 15% by 2020 nominally, and applies to just 12.6% of U.S. electricity sales in 2020 after exemptions. Furthermore, like the discussion draft version, the new standard allows governors to petition to allow further energy efficiency savings to be substituted for the renewable electricity requirements. If utilized, the renewable electricity requirement would be cut back to 12% by 2020 with an 8% energy efficiency requirement. After again excluding exemptions, the renewable electricity requirement would apply to as little as 10.1% of U.S. electricity generation in that scenario. The following table summarizes and compares the nominal and real targets of the ACES discussion draft version and the H.R. 2454 version as passed by the House E&E Committee (click to enlarge)... It is also worth noting that the cost containment provision in the renewable electricity standard have also been weakened/lowered (yes, like all cap and trade regulations , renewable electricity requirements always contain some form of cost containment). The provision, known as an "alternative compliance payment", allows utilities to pay a per megawatt-hour (MWh) fee instead of providing proof of qualifying renewable electricity generation. The alternative compliance payment was cut in half from $50 per MWh in the discussion draft version to $25 per MWh in the new version. That means that if complying with the standard is more expensive than simply generating dirty or non-qualifying electricity and paying the $25 per MWh (2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour) alternative compliance payment, utilities will choose to generate less renewable electricity than the supposedly required by the standard. We've updated the April EIA analysis of the discussion draft version of the ACES renewable electricity standard to reflect all of the above changes and calculate the effects of the standard now contained in H.R. 2454. We also compare these results with EIA's business as usual estimates of qualifying renewable electricity generation (recently updated to reflect the impacts of the recession and stimulus) to estimate the real impact of the new ACES renewable electricity requirements. As with all of our ACES analysis , all our calculations and assumptions are available for download as a spreadsheet (.xlsx) here , and our results are shown in the graphics below. We conclude that as it now stands, business as usual renewable electricity generation may exceed the renewable electricity requirement if the discretionary efficiency waivers are fully utilized, and will boost qualifying renewable electricity generation to just 2 percentage points higher than business as usual in 2025 if the efficiency waivers aren't utilized at all. In short, the ACES RES will have between little to no impact on renewable electricity generation through 2025 (little impact in a normal scenario and no impact in the worst-case scenario permitted by the legislation; note that this doesn't even factor in the potential use of alternative compliance payments to further reduce renewable electricity requirements...) See graphics below (and click any to enlarge)... We also compared the amount of qualifying renewable electricity required by the two version of the renewable electricity standards, and conclude that the H.R. 2454 version of the renewable electricity requirement, as passed by the E&C Committee, is 14% weaker than the originally proposed discussion draft standard in 2020 and 40% weaker in 2025 , as illustrated in the graphics below... It's no wonder neither the American Wind Energy Association or VoteSolar are particularly exuberant about the passage of the ACES bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee. Here's AWEA's remarks on the renewable electricity standard: The bill passed by the Committee includes an RES of 20% by 2020, permitting states to allow up to 8% of the standard to be met through energy efficiency improvements. AWEA has indicated that while it hails the recognition of the importance of a national RES, such a low level - less than one-half the level originally proposed by President Obama and in Chairman Markey's original discussion draft -- could severely blunt the signal to the private sector to invest billions of dollars and expand production, manufacturing, and job creation. And here's VoteSolar : Nearly any policy action that encourages more renewable energy is A-OK with us. ... However, as currently written, none of the pending RES policies will deploy significant amounts of solar. According to the Department of Energy's analysis of that 25 percent RES by 2025, which again is much stronger than the compromise goals emerging from Committees, the federal RES structure could lead to a 35 percent increase in solar compared to a 678 percent increase in wind. When you're starting at 0.001 percent, 35 percent growth doesn't amount to much. More on Climate Change
 
Balakrishnan Rajagopal: Securing Peace and Human Rights in Sri Lanka Top
The stunning and much deserved, defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) by the Sri Lankan army is as swift as it is rare in world history. Rarely has a government won so decisive a military victory against a long-running domestic armed group. The closest parallels to it are perhaps the defeat of the Khmer Rouge by the Cambodian government and the defeat of the Shining Path guerillas by the Alberto Fujimori government in Peru, both in the 1990s. The first blow against the Khmer Rouge came when the UN conducted elections successfully in Cambodia in 1993, among the population living in the non-Khmer Rouge areas, which constituted a majority. That was followed by an amnesty law in 1993, which weakened the Khmer Rouge by weaning away many soldiers and commanders to the government's side. The death-knell was sounded when Ieng Sary, 'brother number two,' split from Pol Pot in late 1996 with a sizeable armed contingent and joined the government. That was quite similar to the split by Karuna, the Eastern LTTE commander who has been with the government since then. Both campaigns against the LTTE and the Khmer Rouge were conducted through a great deal of repression, lawlessness and brutality on the part of the government, and certainly reciprocated by the militants. The use of heavy weapons against civilians is increasingly becoming clear, including during the visit of the UN envoy recently. The death of Pol Pot was also shrouded in some mystery, much more than that of Prabakaran, whose body has now been exhibited over and over again in a pornography of violent triumphalism. Fujimori's victory against the Shining Path came similarly at a high price in terms of human rights, consisting of a massive attack against free press and journalists, police brutality in the form of torture, and extra-judicial executions and disappearances. Indeed, public anger against Fujimori's high-handed tactics has now resulted in his arrest and conviction in a high-profile human rights trial for a massacre under his regime, a first for a head of state. What will happen to the rump elements of the LTTE and who will ensure that there is no return to the practices of the past? What would be the fate of the Rajapakse brothers, General Fonseka and other leaders of the Sri Lankan armed forces? After all, the Rajapakse regime is now widely known to have been responsible for some of the worst violations of freedom of the press, attacks against journalists, and widespread repression including disappearances and extra-judicial executions, not to mention grave violations of international humanitarian law consisting of the killing, maiming and displacement of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamil civilians during armed conflict. More importantly, how will the Sri Lankan government earn the trust of the Tamils and of the international community that it will in fact be able to convert the military victory into a foundation for sustainable peace based on full respect for the human rights of the Tamils? The first requirement for a way forward consists in the Sri Lankan government and the Sinhalese majority avoiding excessive triumphalism, a vindictive or vengeful attitude towards the Tamils and adopting an attitude of maturity, generosity and humility. The celebrations on the streets that followed the news of defeat of the LTTE are understandable in the short term but need to be followed by a concrete and real showing of attention to the humanitarian and development needs of the displaced Tamil population. If the Sri Lankan government lacks expertise in this regard or feels unsure about how quickly it will be able to turn around from a stance of militarism to rehabilitation, it should ask for help and allow a multi-national team to assist, led by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The second requirement for a way forward is to begin the political process for ensuring the rights of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. The political foundations of Tamil civic capacity are shattered thanks to the violence of the LTTE and the violence of the war effort, and this needs to be taken into account. An election in the Tamil-speaking areas is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a political settlement. The provisions of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord of 1987 envisioned a referendum to decide if the Eastern and Northern provinces should remain separate or united. After the recent visit by two Indian envoys to Sri Lanka, the government in Colombo has verbally assured the world f its intention to hold elections but it remains to be seen when and how this will be implemented. Following the provisions of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord, the fate of all Tamils in Sri Lanka needs to be now part of a comprehensive political settlement, especially because proper democratic rule has not been restored in the Eastern province yet. Indeed, it is now well-known that conflict over land, partly made worse by the Tsunami in 2004, coupled with lack of security and development on the ground and lack of meaningful devolution, have blocked any serious progress towards peace, development and justice in the East. Yet another provision of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord needs to be implemented swiftly, and that is to ensure that the Sri Lankan military is sent back to the barracks as soon as is practicable, and that certain areas are recognized as Tamil majority areas, before any electoral democratic process gets under way. This can only ensure that the election will occur in a neutral political environment and ensure a free and fair process that meets international standards. The best and perhaps the only guarantee to ensure that all this happens is to have the United Nations or a multi-national conference assist Sri Lanka in the capacity of an honest third party. In a climate characterized by decades of civil war, ethnic violence, terrorism and military triumphalism, both the Tamils and the Sinhalese need third party involvement to make the political process work. By itself, India cannot assume that role, not after the debacle of the 1980s, and not when its track record does not inspire great confidence among a substantial portion of the Tamil people. China, Russia and Japan, who have been playing spoilers at the UN Security Council, preventing it from dealing with the Sri Lankan issue in a misplaced display of Asian and anti-Western solidarity, need to explain to the world whether they have any plan to ensure that the Sri Lankan forces will not interfere with the electoral process in Tamil areas. The Sri Lankan government has assured India recently that the nearly 300,000 war-displaced Tamils who are held in camps, will in fact be resettled in the areas from which they were displaced. This is not only a requirement of international law, but also a political requirement for the peaceful resolution of the Tamil question. A third requirement is the need for a sound constitutional process, which is based on the principles of strong federalism, respect for the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and robust protections of minority rights. Particularly at issue would be the status of minority rights to language, education, and religion, devolution of power, local control of law and order and budgetary autonomy. All of those sensitive issues lie at the core of legitimate Tamil demands for equality and equal treatment. One of the key weaknesses of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord was that it lacked a common core of constitutional principles that would form the basis of a political settlement. Rather, it merely recognized that Sri-Lanka was "a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual plural society', which is merely a principle of political nationhood but not a statement of constitutional principles. Indeed, the East has not seen much political progress even after the defection of LTTE's Karuna due to the lack of meaningful devolution of power locally and the lack of constitutional safeguards for minorities that are implemented fairly towards the Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese. Any new political settlement needs to clearly articulate the guarantees of constitutional protection of minority rights of all, especially that of the Tamils, protected by the international community, as argued above. A related but sensitive political issue is the question of reckoning with the abuses of the past and the various resentments that it has built up. These abuses have been committed by both sides, but the Sri Lankan government bears a special responsibility to face up to its accountability, both because a state always bears more responsibility for its conduct under international law and because it is after all the victor. The Tamil community also needs to acknowledge a responsibility to reckon with the abuses of the LTTE, which was charged with the violation of grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, for example, by using civilians as human shields, and by drafting children as soldiers and suicide bombers. If the conduct of the ANC in South Africa is any moral guide, a more graceful way of winning (and accepting) the peace makes it much more sustainable. A huge part of how that is done is to establish a process for reckoning with the past abuses and earn trust in the capacity of rule of law as a foundation for peace. Finally, reconstructing the war-shattered parts of Sri Lanka is going to be a crucial but a difficult process. The Tamil people need to see concrete improvement in their livelihood and economic security swiftly, in order to begin to trust the Sri Lankan government's intentions. That must be done without altering the ethnic balance on the ground and without exacerbating landlessness, which is already one of the main sources of tension. Taking the recent Indian election as a guide, the Sri Lankan government should see that people do vote for better and effective governance over the forces of division and extremism. That is the need of the hour in the war-torn areas of Sri Lanka.
 
Frustrated Daley Blames Computer Glitch For Parking Meter Problems Top
An admittedly "frustrated" Mayor Daley demanded Thursday that Chicago's embattled parking meter contractor shape up to prevent problems like the pay-and-display box malfunction that gave downtown motorists a day-long reprieve from parking tickets.
 
Candy Spelling: I Know: You Didn't Write the Headline Top
One of the most-repeated phrases by reporters is, "I don't write the headlines." I just saw headlines on Foxnews.com, The Huffington Post and elsewhere that read: "Candy Spelling: Tori's Actions Killed My Husband Aaron Spelling." I don't know who is writing the headlines, but I wish he or she would read the rest of their own stories: "Candy Spelling is blaming the death of her husband Aaron Spelling on the heartache he suffered from daughter Tori's alleged decision to cut off contact from the family. "I've always been trying to work on the relationship [with Tori]," Spelling said. "I don't know what the anger is. My daughter one day decided that she wasn't speaking to my husband, myself and my son and that's how it's continued for the last, oh gosh, four or five years." Spelling went one step further however, saying Tori's abandonment ultimately cost Aaron Spelling his will to live. "It was sad because that's what killed my husband actually. He just didn't want to live after that. You know, he had done everything ... he could possibly do for his daughter and she wanted no part of him once he couldn't do anything for her." I didn't intend to create headlines. I was asked a question about my daughter not speaking with my family, and I answered truthfully. My husband was very ill, and he had stopped eating and taking liquids. He called Tori on a daily basis, and never stopped asking if Tori had returned his call. We had to say no every day. I should have known better, but it is the truth. Next, someone will refer to it as 'patricide.' Wait, sorry. Eonline just did that.
 
Obama Meets Abbas, Israel On Edge Over Settlements Top
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gingerly trying to advance Mideast peace, President Barack Obama declared on Thursday the U.S. is a "stalwart ally" of Israel but challenged the Israelis to stop settlement construction in the disputed West Bank to help advance the long and painful road to peace with the Palestinians. Obama's message came on the same day that Israel refused a demand to freeze all construction in the West Bank, land the Palestinians hope to claim for a future nation of their own. The president stuck to a hopeful tone, saying he had pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the matter only last week."I think it's important not to assume the worst, but to assume the best," Obama said in the Oval Office, sitting alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama said Netanyahu needed time to work on the issue back home, and the U.S. president said he was not willing to base his decisions on a week-old conversation. Obama and Abbas met privately before being joined by their delegations. The U.S. president made clear he expected commitments to be upheld by the Palestinians, too, including enhanced security in the West Bank so that Israelis have confidence they're safe there. Obama said he asked Abbas to reduce anti-Israeli sentiments that can be easily stoked in schools, mosques and the public square. Said Abbas: "We are fully committed to all of our obligations." Obama, like predecessor George W. Bush, embraces a multifaceted Mideast peace plan that calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Obama refused to set a timetable for such a nation but also noted he has not been slow to get involved in meeting with both sides and pushing the international community for help. "We can't continue with the drift, with the increased fear and resentment on both sides, the sense of hopelessness around the situation that we've seen for many years now," Obama said. "We need to get this thing back on track." Israel defied a surprisingly blunt U.S. demand that it freeze all building in West Bank Jewish settlements, saying Thursday it will press ahead with construction. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that President Barack Obama wants Israel to halt to all settlement construction - including "natural growth." She was referring to Israel's insistence that new construction is necessary to accommodate the expansion of families already living in existing settlements. Government spokesman Mark Regev responded by saying "normal life in those communities must be allowed to continue." He confirmed that this meant some construction will continue in existing settlements. Obama's administration has been more explicit in its criticism of Israeli settlement policy than its predecessor. The U.S. and much of the world consider the settlements an obstacle to peace because they are built on land the Palestinians claim for a future state. More than 280,000 Jewish settlers live among more than 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank. Regev said the fate of existing settlements will be determined in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He said Israel has pledged to build no new settlements and to remove unauthorized outposts in the West Bank. While Israel could flout U.S. opposition, it is wary of picking a fight with its closest and most important ally. Israeli officials proposed a compromise earlier this week. In exchange for removing some 22 outposts, they would ask the U.S. to permit new construction in existing settlements. Clinton's remarks followed that proposal. But even the limited step of removing outposts faces stiff opposition from the Israeli right. Settler news site Arutz Sheva reported Thursday that leading rabbis linked to the settlement movement had issued a call to soldiers to disobey orders to demolish the outposts. "The holy Torah (scripture) prohibits taking part in any act of uprooting Jews from any part of our sacred land," the site quoted the rabbis' statement as saying. The new Israeli and the U.S. leaders have strikingly different approaches to Israeli-Palestinian relations. Netanyahu refuses to endorse Palestinian independence, a notion supported by Obama, his predecessor and the previous Israeli government. Clinton said Obama told Netanyahu last week when the two met at the White House that the U.S. sees stopping settlements as key to a peace deal that would see a Palestinian state created alongside Israel. "He wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions," Clinton said. "We think it is in the best interests (of the peace process) that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly. ... And we intend to press that point." More on Israel
 
Minimum Wage Hike A Stimulus To Economy: Study Top
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A higher U.S. minimum wage is providing a cushion to the economy when it is most needed, according to a report released on Thursday.
 
Carl Pope: Sorry, Congress: Change Can't Wait Top
While Big Carbon is tying Congress in knots (with announcements from coal advocates that even the modest goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to one percent below 1990 levels by 2020 are too ambitious, and that they will try to water down this goal on the House floor), the Obama administration -- and the rest of America -- continue to move. Just this morning, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that only he, as Secretary, could approve any U.S. Forest Service projects that might be inconsistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.   While the job of placing a firm legal foundation underneath the wild-forest protections that the Clinton administration first promulgated in 2001 remains incomplete, Vilsack's order makes it clear that the Obama administration doesn't intend to let business as usual at the Forest Service threaten our remaining pristine public forests. In announcing Sonia Sotomayor this week as his first Supreme Court Justice nominee, President Obama chose a judge with -- almost certainly -- the best environmental credentials of anyone nominated to the Supreme Court in the modern environmental era. (William O. Douglas being the strongest environmental voice on the Supreme Court in history.) Sotomayor, as a Second Circuit Judge, wrote a decision, later overturned by the Supreme Court, that the EPA was not permitted to use "cost-benefit" calculations to grant public utilities the right to continue to postpone installing equipment that would protect fisheries from power plant cooling-system intakes. A few weeks ago, the Obama administration revoked Bush administration rules that cut government wildlife biologists out of the process of reviewing federal projects for their impact on endangered species. And this month, the Administration has been going to the American people and asking them a simple question: "Should the EPA start cleaning up carbon dioxide pollution because it endangers our environment?" And in hearings in Seattle and Arlington, Va, the public response was an overwhelming "Yes, do it now!"  And this public demand for action on a green-energy recovery and a clean-energy future is not just showing up around Obama-administration initiatives. Idaho Power and Light just held its shareholder meeting, and 52 percent of the shareholders voted in favor of a resolution sponsored by As You Sow, an environmental shareholder action organization. The resolution called for the establishment of greenhouse-gas reduction goals and was the highest vote total ever for any shareholder resolution on climate change. So Congress may still be bogged down in the fossil-fuel politics of the past -- but America is moving. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Burris: Blame Impeachment Panel For Bad Questions, Not Me Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — U.S. Sen. Roland Burris said Thursday that he did not mislead lawmakers investigating his Senate appointment because they failed to "follow up with the questions" that could have revealed a conversation he had about fundraising for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. "It is not upon a person who's testifying to go out of his way on anything. It is the person who has to ask the questions," Burris said. Burris has been under fire for his conversations with Blagojevich's brother Robert, who ran the ousted governor's campaign. Details of a conversation last November came out Wednesday when a judge approved the release of a federal wiretap recording of a telephone call to the Senate Ethics Committee investigating Burris' appointment. On the call, Burris tells Robert Blagojevich about his interest in being appointed to President Barack Obama's former Senate seat and his desire to help the governor raise campaign money. Burris said he could not do any major fundraising without looking like he was trying to buy the appointment, but he promised to "personally do something" for Blagojevich. The Chicago Democrat now said he was trying to stay on Blagojevich's good side and had no intention of helping him raise money. He did not make any donations to Blagojevich after the call. Burris did not disclose the call in January when he testified before a special Illinois House committee considering the governor's impeachment. He blamed lawmakers for not getting the information out of him. "I'm responding to questions. Why should I have to _ in your estimation, in your assessment _ go out of my way to answer questions when I was answering questions that were asked? Why didn't the impeachment committee follow up with the questions to ask me?" he said. U.S. Senate leaders required Burris to testify as a condition of seating him in Washington. They wanted him to state under oath that he had done nothing improper. Burris testified that he did not strike any improper deals with Blagojevich. When asked whether he had talked to any Blagojevich aide, Burris mentioned only one person: the governor's former chief of staff. Burris was later asked by a lawmaker if he had spoken to anyone else about the appointment, and Burris said he could not recall. State Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, who headed the Illinois House impeachment committee, said Burris could have done himself a favor by disclosing the call with Robert Blagojevich when he testified. "I certainly wish he had. I think it would have been better for him all around," Currie said. Burris was appointed after Blagojevich was arrested on charges that included trying to sell Obama's seat. Burris has denied wrongdoing. Burris said Thursday he would reveal in the "very near future" whether he will run for a full Senate term. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Maddisen K. Krown: Ask Maddisen - How to Ask for What You Want Top
Dear Maddisen: I definitely have a habit of being more focused on everyone else's needs and wants, at the expense of my own. Over the years, this has resulted in my feeling resentment and even like a martyr, but I don't want to be selfish. Do you have any insights for me? Signed, RSW Dear RSW, Thank you for bringing this important topic forward for discussion. Some of us may find it very difficult and even impossible to say how we feel or to ask for what we want because we're afraid of being labeled as selfish, or of being rejected, or we may have a subconscious and erroneous belief that we're not worthy to receive. As a result, we make other people's opinions more important than our own, and at the unfortunate expense of not being true to ourselves. The root-cause reasons why we please others at our own expense usually stem from early childhood experiences and unconscious conditioning. In this column, we won't get into too much detail about the whys , but rather, will focus on solutions that you can start practicing immediately. (If you are curious to explore the whys , that would be best handled in private coaching/counseling sessions or through selected readings.) My intention is to coach you in asking for and receiving what you want. There is nothing selfish in this pursuit, in fact, I offer this insight - when you express and ask for what supports your own highest good and highest joy, it will indeed support the highest good of all concerned. You are here to share your unique personal gifts, to express yourself authentically and be in fruitful conversation with your world. To accomplish this, you must be willing to take greater responsibility in speaking your truth with others, and it's absolutely possible to do this in a way that is caring and respectful of everyone involved, including yourself ! You may feel fear at first, but once you follow through a few times, it will get easier and easier, and you will most likely experience a great sense of relief and fulfillment as you move out of self-protecting and into self-honoring behaviors. Responses and reactions from others may vary, however, in most cases, you'll find that people respect you much more when you speak your truth and ask for what you want. Here's a simple process you can start using immediately to practice asking for what you want. Remember, practice equals mastery. I recommend doing this in a private setting, sitting down. ASKING FOR WHAT YOU WANT Step 1 Identify an unresolved situation in your life and the person(s) directly involved from whom you have withheld your opinion or your truth, in support of their needs but at the expense of your own. OR If you don't have a current situation in mind, identify a past situation when you sacrificed your opinion or truth in a similar way. Step 2 If there are hurts or judgments about you or others related to this situation, express them verbally. Step 3 Practice Self Forgiveness for the hurts and/or judgments. Remember, you can use the core phrases: I forgive myself for judging myself for..., or I forgive myself for judging (the person's name) for... To review the simple Self Forgiveness process, click here : Step 4 Acting as if the person is sitting right there in front of you, move into a dialogue with him or her, expressing everything you feel and everything you would like to express to them if you could speak your truth. The goal is for you to ask for what you want, and it's crucial that you ask for what you want in a caring and respectful way. In other words, you're not demanding anything from the other person but rather expressing what is true for you and what you need, from within your center. Step 5 Repeat Step 4 several times, giving yourself complete freedom of expression in asking for exactly what you want, in a caring and respectful way. Assume that they support your highest good, just as you support theirs. Practice this process as often as you like, and notice how you become more and more at ease expressing your truth with others. Specifically, practice speaking your truth and asking for what you want in the actual situations that were previously challenging for you. If it helps, remind yourself that you are practicing , and that you may stumble sometimes, and that the more you practice out in the world in real life situations, the more mastery and satisfaction you will experience. You might even practice with your friends, which will most likely help them as well. And so, dear RSW, it sounds like you're ready to engage in honest conversation with others, speaking your truth and asking for what you want, in a caring and respectful manner. If you do this with the intention of serving your highest good and the highest good of all concerned, you can expect to get what you want and perhaps something even better! Your Coach, Maddisen You may submit your questions for ASK MADDISEN at askmaddisen@krown.us
 
Tony Newman: Germany Approves Prescribing Heroin to Long-time Users Unable to Quit Top
The German Parliament today approved a new law that will allow doctors to prescribe synthetic heroin to people with long-term drug addictions in an effort to reduce crime, overdose deaths and the spread of HIV. The new law allows people over 23 who have used heroin or other opioid drugs illegally for more than five years -- and have failed at other rehab programs -- to receive pharmaceutical heroin in specialized treatment centers. The legislation follows a pilot project conducted in seven German cites between 2002 and 2006 that proved successful in reducing crime, HIV and overdose fatalities among people who had failed in previous efforts to quit heroin. The German results were consistent with those of similar projects in Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Last year Switzerland similarly legalized heroin prescription in a public referendum. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance issued this statement: The success of the German heroin prescription projects, combined with similar results in other countries, leaves little question that heroin prescription could reduce crime, HIV and overdose fatalities in the United States as well. And today's vote in Germany, combined with similar evidence of public support in other countries shows that the public will support even controversial drug policies when they are given a chance to prove themselves. There is no question that heroin prescription programs are needed and long overdue in this country. All that stands in the way is politics and the backward assumption that it can never happen in the United States. More on Health
 
Arianna Huffington: Why Sotomayor's Confirmation Debate Is the D.C. Equivalent of Rock of Love Top
Listening to conservatives like Pat "She's an Affirmative Action Pick" Buchanan, Rush "He Picked the Hispanic" Limbaugh, and Tom "Latino KKK" Tancredo play the race card in attacking the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, I've been marveling at just how self-destructive they've become. They have to know how bad this is for their party -- especially given the shifting demographics in America, and coming on the heels of the GOP xenophobia unleashed by the immigration debate last year. The Hispanic vote was a deciding factor in Obama's win (Hispanics went for Obama over McCain 67 percent to 31 percent), so the last thing the GOP needs is to be alienating Hispanic voters. BUT THEY JUST CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES! It reminds me of Robert Downey Jr.'s quote after his umpteenth drug relapse: "It is like I have a shotgun in my mouth, and I've got my finger on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." The GOP attack dogs have an electoral shotgun in their mouth -- and they are addicted to the taste of gunmetal. This week, I've heard numerous commentators describe the Supreme Court confirmation process as a "blood sport." I think of it more like D.C.'s version of reality TV: a bunch of spotlight-seeking people on their worst behavior in hopes of getting more air time. It's the political equivalent of Rock of Love . Another thing that always gets me about the process: without fail, every presidential campaign features endless talk about how important the choice is because the next president will get to pick the next Supreme Court Justice -- "so vote with that in mind." So how come everyone then acts shocked and outraged when the guy who won the election then nominates someone who... shares his beliefs! Oh no, not that! How dare he?! Newsflash people: that's what campaigns are about. To the victors go the spoils. Here's another question: in 1998 Sotomayor was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. By a vote of 67-29 , she was found worthy of the federal bench. What has she done in the last ten years to make the outcome any different? Joined the Kim Jong Il Fan Club? Voted for Adam Lambert instead of Kris Allen? Here's the bottom line: Republicans know Sotomayor is going to be confirmed, so the howls of protest are all for show. It's all about fund-raising and rallying the base. But it's already so super-heated, what will be left to get worked up about by the time we get to the actual confirmation hearings? Unless there are pubic hairs on Coke cans and secret porno rentals ("The Return of Long Dong Silver"!), it's going to be a total snooze. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Katie Naranjo: Liberty University Revokes College Democrats Chapter for Being UnChristian Top
Last Friday the students at Liberty University were notified that their recognition by the university had been revoked. Recognition by the university allows students to organize, use classrooms for meetings, and hold events on campus. Recognition was revoked despite the college democrats at Liberty University signing a statement saying they are all pro-life and uphold the University's Values. Chancellor Falwell suggested a compromise for students to disaffiliate with the Democratic National Committee with the additional restriction of no campaigning for democratic candidates on campus who are pro-choice. Conservatives are afraid of losing young Christians to the Democratic Party as they are finding their values aligning with Democratic Values. Students at Liberty University believe in caring for the environment, helping their neighbor, and ensuring that everyone is provided with healthcare. These are all causes championed by the Democratic Party. We need to prove that the continued scare tactics by the right wing, no longer works. The students at Liberty University are standing up for their right to organize on campus and share their commonly held beliefs. Yesterday the plot thickened: After a conference call with the officers of the College Democrats at Liberty University, Chancellor Falwell asked students to apologize for saying they were kicked off campus. After much national outrage at Liberty's actions, they are the ones now demanding that students apologize to them. In addition to emphasizing how the students are not allowed to organize anymore, Chancellor Falwell stated that the group's affiliation with the Democratic National Committee is one of the main reasons the student organization was revoked. The College Democrats of America are launching an email campaign to let Chancellor Falwell know that we stand behind the right to free speech and represent religious and political values. Our website has more information and a form email. More on Regulation
 
Roberta Lee: Guns in Parks - What are We Thinking? Top
President Obama signed the credit card reform bill this week with a rider permitting guns in National parks and wildlife refuges. As a primary care physician I feel that encouraging open access to guns in yet another public venue aggravates what is already a serious public health concern. We doctors are faced with myriad medical issues related to guns, including everything from traumatic injury and homicide to suicide and domestic violence. It is well known to all that acts of public violence are easier to commit when guns are already present. One study estimates that homicides are almost three times more likely to occur when there was a gun in the home. Firearms are found in 33-40% of American households with children. These firearms are the most common method of suicide, accounting for 52% of all such acts committed in 2005. Adolescents are 13 times more likely to commit suicide with a handgun in the home and 32 times more likely if the gun is loaded. In November, 2008 seven million people applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons, a figure that excludes those who purchased theirs without facing any background scrutiny at thousands of gun shows in states such as Virginia. Our healthcare costs are bloated enough -- clearly this rider is fuel to the fire of an already burning public health problem. What are we thinking?
 
Obama Administration Cites Secret Statements By Petraeus In Asking Judge To Block Abuse Photos Top
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration asked a federal appeals court Thursday to halt the release of disturbing images of detainee abuse, saying the photos could incite violence in Pakistan as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The court papers filed in New York cite two partially secret statements from two top U.S. generals, David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. Such arguments failed to sway the court in the past. In the new filings, Petraeus, who oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, said the images could also lead to more violence in Pakistan because it deals with Taliban attacks. The filings underscore just how worried U.S. officials are about the increasing violence in Pakistan. While past arguments about the photos referred generally to the Middle East, Petraeus' statement spends several pages discussing Pakistan's recent struggles against terrorism. The administration had planned to release the photos until President Barack Obama reversed the decision this month, saying their release would endanger U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Disseminating the photos poses "a clear and grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American and coalition forces, as well as civilian personnel, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the motion filed with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court. Meanwhile, the Defense Department on Thursday denied a British newspaper report that some of the images showed U.S. personnel sexually assaulting detainees. The Daily Telegraph had reported that a former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the pictures. The photos were ordered released as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The Bush administration had also fought their release, and lost. ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said the new filing by the Obama administration "has no new arguments" and will be opposed. She also criticized the Obama administration for redacting parts of the generals' arguments about the safety threats posed by the photos. "It's troubling to us that not only is the government withholding the photographs, but it's also withholding its arguments for withholding the photographs," said Singh. The court ruled in September 2008 that general concerns about public safety were not specific enough to merit blocking the release of the photos. The motion filed Thursday also notes that the government plans to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Congress is also considering stepping in to block the photos' release. Odierno, who commands the troops in Iraq, said in his statement to the court that the 2004 release of photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison "likely contributed to a spike in violence in Iraq" that year. He also said he has been told by senior political officials in Iraq that release of the photos would upset the democratic process in Iraq before national elections. The pleas by Odierno and Petraeus echo those in 2005 by Gen. Richard Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
 
Dr. Josh Dines and Dr. Rock Positano: Spinach wont help this Bicep Top
As the rumors swirl about the possible return of Brett Favre to the National Football League, we have learned more about his ailing shoulder. Per the reports of the media, he has a partially torn biceps tendon in his throwing arm that may be a source of discomfort and potentially limit his ability to "air it out" if he is the Viking's future quarterback. The biceps, as its name implies, is a two-headed muscle with origins around the shoulder that insert in the forearm just below the elbow. In this location, the biceps can function as one the key flexors of the elbow and rotators of the forearm. Disorders of the biceps can affect the muscle belly itself of the tendon components at either the shoulder and/or elbow. In Favre's case, the problem appears to be with the long head of the biceps tendon. This tendon is unique in that it takes origin and courses directly through the shoulder joint. For this reason, tears or inflammation of the long head tendon can be a source of significant pain in the shoulder. The presentation of biceps tendonitis or tear at the shoulder can be highly variable and therefore difficult to reliably diagnose. There may direct tenderness over the tendon in its groove at the front of the shoulder. Pain with or without clicking or catching may be experienced in the cocked position of the arm when throwing. Pain with resisted flexion or rotation of the arm can be consistent with long head of the biceps pathology. Any of these symptoms should prompt an evaluation with your local sports orthopaedist or shoulder specialist for further evaluation. Based on their physical examination, imaging studies and/or diagnostic injections may be performed to confirm the diagnosis. The treatment of long head of the biceps pathology is not straightforward. This is largely because the function of the long of the biceps tendon remains highly controversial. Some studies have shown the long head to be an important passive and active stabilizer of the shoulder. Other studies, however, have been unable to demonstrate a clear functional role for this tendon, particularly since the other "short head" tendon has a distinct origin and can function in its absence. For this reason, long of the biceps disorders have been effectively treated by simple release of tendon at its origin in the shoulder. While some loss in elbow flexion and forearm rotational strength is inevitable, simple tenotomy can provide effective pain relief. However, a "popeye" deformity with bulging of the released muscle in the upper arm can be predicted and is often undesirable to some patients. Furthermore, this loss of strength may not be well-tolerated in elite throwing athletes. In these patients, a "tenodesis" surgery may be more desirable; in this procedure, the tendon is released within the shoulder but re-attached under resting tension to soft tissue or bone outside of the shoulder joint. This procedure ameliorates the cosmetic deformity of an isolated release and may help to preserve some strength and function attributable to the muscle belly. The next time you experience pain in your shoulder serving a tennis ball or throwing a baseball, keep in mind that it could be your biceps tendon. While the stakes may not be as high as those for Brett Favre, seeking the counsel of your local sports specialist can certainly help you to diagnose the problem and design a treatment plan to keep you pain-free.
 
Rachel Thebault: Bring on the Lemonade Stands Top
Last night, on my way home from work, I encountered my first lemonade stand of the summer. It's pretty unusual to see one in New York, and something about the city atmosphere made me scream inside "don't take food from strangers!," but, of course, I stopped. The proprietors were two 'tween-age boys. One of them was attracting attention of passersby (no easy feat in New York) by spinning a dish on a magic wand. Once hooked, customers were asked "small or large" and directed to a sign that listed small for $1 and large for $1.50. (Yeesh!) I ordered one small and was told I could buy two and get one free. I complimented their strong sales pitch, but since I didn't want to be triple-fisting lemonade for the rest of my walk, I took the one and left. One sip of the "lemonade" and it went in the garbage. Seriously, I've had ice water with a lemon wedge that tasted more like lemonade. Not that I ever expect much out of the product--I think I can safely say I've made a purchase from every lemonade stand I could feasibly stop at (what can I say, I like to support budding entrepreneurs), and I've never reacted with, "wow, that is good lemonade!" Why is that? For one, kids know that the quality of the product is irrelevant to the sale. It's mostly about location and sales pitch. I mean, on a hot day, who can really resist a squeaky, "wanna buy some lemonade?" Or, in the case of these boys (who were probably too old to be considered "cute" anymore), they had the magic trick gimmick. Attracting repeat customers is not a concern, because by the time most people might consider going back, the kids have probably already packed up shop. Most importantly, I think, there's rarely head-to-head competition. Even if there were head-to-head lemonade stands set up, I'm sure the quality of product would still be irrelevant. You would probably stop at the first one you saw, or maybe both. Can you even imagine if you stopped at one, and another adult approached you and said, "don't stop here, there's another stand with much better lemonade down the road"? I mean, really? You'd have to be a real jackass to do that. In most industries, this is far from reality. The food and beverage industry, in particular, is extremely competitive and largely quality-driven. In fact, this summer, one of our direct (and bigger) competitors is moving into the neighborhood (though I won't say who or where). I would be lying to say I wasn't nervous. It makes me feel like an 8-year old lemonade stand proprietress watching older kids set up shop down the street. Their signs are fancier, their cups are bigger, and they've been around the block a few times before. If we really were talking about lemonade stands, the smart thing for me to do would probably be close up shop and find another corner. But that's the short-term lemonade stand world. In real life, we have multi-year leases, employees, equipment, etc., so we have to look the older, wiser, bigger competition in the eye and say, "look, I can take you." It won't be easy. But, then again, I've learned that nothing about owning your own business is easy. However, as long as we have a superior product and friendlier service, I think we'll come out ahead. Also, we can use our size to our advantage, and more nimbly react to our market's demands. I love a challenge, and my mind is racing with ideas. That's what being an entrepreneur is all about. I think we will fare well--I just wish I had more practice facing competition when I was eight. So, kids, let this be a lesson to you. And, parents, if you see me at your kids' lemonade stand orating about the reality of competition--please hand me a cup, and send me on my way.
 
International Rescue Committee: Deceptive Calm in Kabul Top
By Anne C. Richard Kabul - Spring in Kabul is beautiful. The temperature is pleasant, skies blue and normally menacing security guards pose for photos in front of the gorgeous roses in bloom all over the city. Kabul is also calm, not having had a major security incident for months. But don't be fooled: this is a city under siege. Violent episodes across the country are forcing changes to how international aid groups carry out programs. The new American leadership at the US Embassy brings fresh energy yet continues Bush Administration approaches to development that are overly reliant on the military. Despite the optimistic tone of the Americans, Taliban insurgents are undermining reconstruction of the country. Security incidents in Afghanistan are up from the same period last year. Data from ANSO, the safety office for aid agencies, indicate that suicide attacks are up, as are roadside bomb explosions, rocket strikes and small arms fire. In fact, armed opposition groups (called AOG here) thrive in their strongholds in the south and east and create havoc from Herat and Farah in the west to Kunduz and Baghlan in the northeast -- outflanking foreign militaries in Helmand and Kandahar. AOG attacks are usually targeted against the convoys or bases of international military forces, but the victims caught in the crossfire are overwhelmingly Afghan citizens. This may be why the deaths of four International Rescue Committee colleagues of mine -- three expatriate women aid workers and their Afghan driver -- in an attack last August on the road south of Kabul sent shock waves through the international community. Handing my business card to a US embassy education expert still elicits condolences; many months later, she remains shaken by their murder. This incident also triggered a re-thinking of aid agency work in Afghanistan. Longer-term development projects are being scaled back in risky provinces and short-term relief operations in more accessible areas are taking precedence. Expatriate staff must monitor aid projects from afar and avoid unnecessary travel. Compounding the difficulty of working in this insecure environment is the US government's strategy -- which has been adopted by other countries and NATO -- of using the military-led provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) to undertake relief and development projects as a means of "winning hearts and minds" and as platforms for engaging with provincial and district governments. This deliberate blurring of military and humanitarian activities further endangers foreign aid workers and Afghan civilians. Aid agencies' pleas to keep development projects divorced and at a distance from counter-insurgency activities and military facilities -- in order to protect the agencies' staff and preserve local support -- have fallen on deaf ears. Amid the deteriorating security situation, a new batch of Americans has come to town. The Obama Administration is restructuring the US Embassy and posting several seasoned diplomats to serve alongside the ambassador as deputy ambassador, assistant ambassador, overall aid coordinator, and elections expert. The increased American attention on Afghanistan is welcome. Learning that the leadership team is modeled on the embassy in Saigon during the Vietnam War does not, however, instill confidence. To his credit, the newly minted ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, is determined to reach out to the Afghans and aid agencies -- international and local groups -- and bring them inside the walls of the embassy compound. He tells me he wants to hear their views and expose visiting Congressional delegations to the range of voices in this city. Eikenberry insists on Afghan capacity, ownership and sustainability and understands that aid agencies like the International Rescue Committee are staffed by thousands of Afghans working constructively to rebuild their country. Can the enthusiasm of this new team mend old fractures in Afghanistan? Odds are against them. The Taliban can outwait the tenure of aid workers, diplomats and foreign troops and US and Afghan electoral cycles. With the international forces hunkered down in the south, insurgents causing havoc across the country and aid agencies forced to revise and restrict their programs, the only solution -- something on which the government of Afghanistan, aid workers and diplomats agree -- is a long-term investment in the Afghans themselves. Anne C. Richard is a Vice President at the International Rescue Committee, a global humanitarian aid organization More on Afghanistan
 
Peter Clothier: Are We Stupid? Top
In one corner of my mind, I have been watching the threat of the imminent meltdown of the California economy. What was once amongst the most thriving of states with an enviable infrastructure and an education system to rival any other is now approaching bankruptcy. Our once-vaunted system of schools, colleges and universities, already sinking low in comparison to other states, is now facing massive budget cuts that will ensure its further deterioration. Hospitals and medical clinics will likely be forced to cut back on already inadequate staff and services. The poor, the unemployed, the homeless will have fewer resources to protect them. Children, in this affluent society we have created, will go hungry every day because their pitiful lunch programs will be cut. So the question is, are we stupid? The taxpayer's revolt that started in the 1970s and brought us Ronald Reagan has now become an unquestioned axiom of our political culture. Our Schwarzenegger was elected on the promise that he would never raise taxes. He would listen to "the people" and obey their wishes. Now that "the people" have roundly rejected his last hope for budgetary salvation, he swears that he will listen again, and start making cuts into the last lean meat of surviving social programs. Friends, we have brought this on ourselves. We have chosen to believe, collectively, those who assured us that we could have all the services we need without paying for them. We have indulged in an absurd system of propositions and initiatives that purports to give voice to the people, without educating those same people to understand the simple connection between what we pay for and what we can expect to receive. We have kidded ourselves that this is true democracy, when it is in fact no better than mob rule. We have allowed greed and prejudice to substitute for reason and sane policy. Democracy is nothing without education. The capacity for critical thought and responsible, sometimes selfless action is its most essential ingredient. The ability to see further than the day after tomorrow is also a useful attribute. Sheer, blind, thoughtless, self-first stupidity is a poison that has slowly been killing it here in California and throughout the country. I had hopes, with the election of our new president, to have finally perceived a glimmer of electoral intelligence. Now I wonder if I was simply kidding myself again. More on Taxes
 

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)