Thursday, May 14, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Bruce Nilles: EPA Hearings and House Parties - Taking Care of Coal? Top
This week's blog post is co-written by Mary Anne Hitt, deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. This week, friends of big oil and coal fired one of their first shots across the bow of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency's power to set limits on global warming pollution. The frenzy that followed in Washington and in the media should serve as a wake up call to anyone who has not yet weighed in to support EPA's proposed finding that global warming pollution endangers public health and welfare. By pulling one line out of an obscure government document and circulating it out of context, Republicans in Congress tried to make the case that they had found a "smoking gun" revealing that the Obama White House predicts economic collapse should the EPA regulate global warming pollution. The White House quickly issued a statement making it clear they had said no such thing, in a statement with the fitting title " Clearing the Air ."  A hat tip to David Roberts at Grist for unraveling how this non-story became national news . Fortunately, you now have the chance to weigh in and counter the fear mongering by demonstrating that Americans want strong action on global warming. Monday marks the first of two public hearings on EPA's draft endangerment finding issued in mid-April, a historic finding by the agency that global warming pollution endangers public health and welfare. The endangerment finding is a comprehensive science based review of expected threats that our nation faces from global warming, including more severe heat waves, disease epidemics, water shortages, and crop failures. We need to turn these hearings into a powerful demonstration that our country's future will not be set by the coal industry and their allies. The hearings will be held in Seattle, Washington on May 21 and Arlington, Virginia on May 18. If you live in those areas, there is still time to sign up for both hearings - you can do so on our Big Picture website. The response has been great so far: our organizers tell us that although both hearings now are filled to capacity during the day and they only have evening spots left, EPA officials have said they will remain until every last commenter is heard. If you don't live in those cities, don't worry - there's still a great chance for you to organize for clean energy options and against coal. First, we'll have many of our folks inside both these hearings ready to Twitter and blog about what's going on. If you're on Twitter, follow the hashtag #nocoal to see the updates from all our attendees. Secondly, as part of our Big Picture campaign - climate change leaders across the country will be hosting parties on June 2nd so that everyone can be a part of the Big Picture solution, no matter where you live. Join us as we watch videos from the EPA hearings, hear more about the Big Picture campaign on a conference call with Sierra Club leaders, and discuss the issues and actions that you the volunteers believe will make the greatest impact in bringing about a clean energy future. We're looking for Big Picture House Party hosts right now, so check out the Big Picture website to learn more. Finally, if you have not yet sent in your written comments to the EPA, please do so right now . The coal industry is working hard to prevent the change we need, but together we can help build a clean energy economy for the U.S.
 
Tom Cosgrove: Let's Bail Out Newspapers With First Amendment Ads! Top
The White House has expressed "concern" and " sadness" over the decline of the newspaper industry but, as the Associated Press reported last week, has made it clear that a bailout is not in the cards. The White House is making a mistake. If the greedy auto and financial companies getting federal dough are too big to fail, American newspapers are too important to fail. Neither the collapse of General Motors nor the demise of Lehman Brothers has threatened our democracy. A loss of daily papers would. Here's what I propose: Congress should finance a series of First Amendment ads to be placed in daily and community newspapers. These ads would balance the books at America's newspapers and give the public some badly needed civics lessons. In January NBC News reported that "a recent study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found finds that only half of U.S. adults can name all three branches of government, and just 54% know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Almost 40% incorrectly said that it belongs to the president." Congress can create a "stress test,"a la Timothy Geithner, that assigns the ads based upon the circulation and finances of each paper. The ads can run daily, weekly or monthly depending upon how dire the situation is at each paper. Sure, the American newspaper industry bears some responsibility for its own decline. Publishers did not adapt well to the changes wrought by the Internet. But, as Frank Rich of The New York Times suggested on Sunday, there's too much at stake to get caught up in arguments about business models. "It's not only journalism that is now struggling to plot a path to survival," he wrote. "But, with all due respect to show business, it's only journalism that's essential to a functioning democracy... Whatever shape journalism ultimately takes in America, make no mistake that in the end we will get what we pay for." Some day, the business will sort out its model. And at that point, the federal government can stop subsidizing newspapers. But until then, we need a bridge. Badly. More on Newspapers
 
Frankie Sturm: The Torture Debate Will be Won or Lost on National Security, not Morality or Legality Top
Whenever I want to figure out whether a politician is worth supporting, I take a look at the "issues" section of his website. Different candidates are bound to care about different issues, so no two lists are exactly alike. I wouldn't expect a Senator from Mississippi to have a page devoted to LGBT issues, just as I wouldn't expect a Congressman from an urban district in California to put farm subsidies front and center on the website. Yet to the list of standard issues that all politicians must take a stand on, I fear we may have to add a new one - torture. Social Security, Honoring the Troops, Immigration...Torture. The combination of 9/11 and the Bush administration's penchant for legal and moral sophistry has turned torture into a household discussion. We all have that one uncle who can't help but turn Thanksgiving dinner into a political shouting match, and this year all those crazy uncles have "enhanced interrogations" as a new ax to grind. (We would do well to put of that conversation until after the Turkey has been carved). Like so many other legitimate political issues, the debate about torture is breaking down along partisan lines. The Republican Party is taking up the pro-torture side of the debate. They aren't saying so explicitly - although Rep. Pete Hoekstra did coin the disturbing phrase "American torture program" last week - but Dick Cheney, Lindsay Graham and others are making the case that "enhanced interrogations" are a-okay because they keep America safe. It's Sadism for Security. Democrats need to tackle this claim head on. Torture undermines our national security and makes us far less safe. There's a long line of military and intelligence professionals who have condemned torture as ineffective and counterproductive, so those of us who oppose torture have a strong leg to stand on. However, these arguments have been made ad nauseum, and I've already made this case myself in an op-ed and a white paper , so I'm not going to repeat them here. Instead, I want to focus on the politics of the issue. Torture is both immoral and illegal, and it's well and good for us to point that out. But if our goal is to maintain a lasting ban on torture, then we're going to have to do better. Polls conducted by the Pew Research Center , the Washington Post/ABC , and the New York Times/CBS reveal that the American people are split right down the middle on the question of torture. Those who believe that torture can sometimes be justified aren't making moral or legal arguments. They're making national security arguments. "Torture may be evil," so the thinking goes, "but if refusing to torture a terrorist will lead to the deaths of innocent people, then torture is a lesser evil that must be tolerated." This view is factually incorrect, but it doesn't change the fact that millions of Americans believe it out of a sincere desire to keep America safe. This means that we need to go on the offense and argue very clearly that torture undermines our security and makes us less safe . We also have to show that we're not demonizing Americans who mistakenly believe that torture works. Their hearts are in the right place, and since we all wish to keep America strong and safe, there's no reason why we can't carry on the discussion at that level. We don't have to leave morals or laws on the sideline, but unless we're satisfied with preaching to the choir, national security needs to be the focus of our case against torture. Maybe that will get our crazy uncle to sit down and shut up this year. More on Guantánamo Bay
 
Frank Bruni Leaving New York Times' Food Critic Position Top
New York Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni is leaving the food beat, Executive Editor Bill Keller announced Thursday. Bruni, who became restaurant critic five years ago after serving as the newspaper's Rome bureau chief, will step down this summer after the publication of his memoir, Born Round: the Secret History of a Full-Time Eater . He will then move on to a role as writer-at-large for the Times' Sunday magazine. Keller's full memo below: Dear Colleagues: When we recruited Frank Bruni from the Rome Bureau to be the restaurant critic of The New York Times, there was a quizzical buzz in the food-o-sphere. Sure, Frank had shown himself to be a gifted reporter on subjects domestic and foreign. Yes, he was indisputably an exquisite writer. And there were unmistakeable clues to his affinity in his travel pieces, with their vivid evocation of Italian food, and in other features -- the profile of the makers of Italian grappa, the visit to the University of Gastronomic Science in Polenzo. But he lacked what the foodie establishment would regard as suitable credentials. He was not the obvious choice. Five years later, the choice seems not only obvious, but inspired, proving that sometimes editors get one really right. Not content to review his way around New York with authority and brio, not content to blog discoveries that do not yet merit a fullblown review, he has also performed more ambitious feats of criticism: his unforgettable cross-country tour of the iconic fast food joints of America, for instance, and his quest for the best brand-new restaurants in all of America. In his spare time, between aerobic eating and the requisite gym time to burn it all off, he has managed to produce a memoir of his lifelong, complicated relationship with food. Recognizing that the book is certain to seriously compromise his ability to be a spy in the land of food, Frank picked this as a natural time to move on. He will be turning in his restaurant-critic credentials when his memoir, "Born Round: the Secret History of a Full-Time Eater," is published in late August. After a break for book promotion and some overdue vacation, Frank will become a writer-at-large on the staff of our Sunday magazine, where he will have license to follow his appetites -- his journalistic appetites -- whereever they lead him. Jill and I have insisted on the right to draft him occasionally for projects large or small, but the magazine will be his base and main outlet. Readers are in for some great reading. As for the restaurant beat, the search for a successor begins now. Bill
 
What We Can Learn About Racism From The Swine Flu Scare: Analysis Top
Front-page images of Mexican soldiers wearing surgical masks armed with Baretas. 71 healthy Mexican citizens quarantined for two weeks in a Hong Kong hotel. A congresswoman from New York declaring that the border with Mexico should be "immediately and completely closed." Countries like Argentina and Cuba banning travel to Mexico. An Israeli-led campaign to change the name of the mysterious disease from swine flu to "Mexican flu." And then, at long last, news from Mexico's Health Minister José Angel Cordova declared that the death toll of swine flu had been "less than feared." The dreaded H1N1 virus -- which had originally been blamed for over 170 deaths in Mexico -- had killed only 50, giving it a mortality rate comparable with that of the regular flu. Now that the panic about the H1N1 virus has subsided, perhaps it's time to examine that reaction. The overwrought response from the media and the governments of various countries not only amounted to a public relations crisis for Mexico (which has already lost an estimated two billion dollars in tourism revenue), it also smacked of racism. Ask yourself this: if the outbreak had occurred in Canada, rather than Mexico, would we have been equally as frightened? If the people it infected were white (rather than brown) and comfortingly middle class (rather than poor and lacking health care), would the world have felt as threatened? And what U.S. lawmaker would dare to request -- or even consider viable -- an immediate and complete closure of the Canadian border? No. Three times, a hundred times, no. Because we lack precedent for discriminating against Canada (aside from the odd "South Park" joke), the media would be unable to evoke stereotypes in their coverage of the disease. If Americans didn't already stereotype Mexico as a lawless and violent place, images of machine-gun toting police in surgical masks -- a fearsome sight to be sure -- would never have appeared on the Washington Post's front page. And without the preexisting debate about building a wall to stem illegal immigration, the useless measure of closing the border would never have been floated. Finally, if Americans didn't fundamentally doubt the ability of the Mexican government to manage crises -- an unfounded concern that resulted from the media blitz surrounding the drug war and from the Joint Forces Command's February declaration that Mexico could become a failed state -- we would not have assumed that the initial 17 deaths could explode into global pandemic. Prejudice against Mexico and its citizens is a fact of life in the United States. Americans are happy enough to party on its pristine beaches and show-off the colorful textiles or handmade sculptures they bought in touristy Oaxaca markets -- but we are bad, bad neighbors to Mexico. 30 percent of Americans think that illegal Mexican immigrants currently working in the U.S. should simply leave (immediately and completely), and 52 percent supported the 2008 effort to construct a 700-mile-long fence along the border. As a caller who voiced his opinion to a CNN panel about swine flu recently summarized: "We should build that wall -- it'll keep out the drugs and the disease." Yikes. If we can learn anything from this flu scare (other than that in general we should endeavor to keep cooler heads), it's that Americans are profoundly prejudiced against Mexico. But to be sure, if our southern neighbor were France or England, we would never have employed such insulting vocabulary and imagery to discuss the virus. Call it racism, call it classism, call it xenophobia or whatever other ism you will. Personally, I think it's a combination of the above. To his credit, Barack Obama avoided such pitfalls by exhorting calm and referring to the disease exclusively as H1N1. But shame on the media for exploiting Americans' racism to create hype, and shame on us for eating it up. Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Mexico
 
Ben Nelson Tougher On Obama's Nominees Than Bush's Top
Sen. Ben Nelson's opposition to President Obama's choice to head the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel appears to be the key obstacle to her confirmation. Democrats say Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor, has 59 backers in the Senate -- just one vote shy of cloture. Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, is standing firmly against her appointment, pointing to Johnsen's job 15 years ago as a counsel to the abortion rights group NARAL. All of which has left Nelson's critics furious. Where was the principled opposition from the Senator during the Bush years? Why is he refusing to show Obama the same deference that he offered the previous administration? The votes, they argue tell the story. Nelson supported cloture or confirmation for some of Bush's most controversial judges and political nominees, including several who were never able to be confirmed even under a GOP-controlled Senate. Moreover, Nelson often defended his positions by citing presidential prerogative. "The president's nominees, especially to the Supreme Court, deserve an up-or-down vote," he said of the nominating process, "even if the nominee isn't popular with the special-interest groups in Washington." Indeed, Nelson voted for cloture twice on former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and once for former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. He backed the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, as well as John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales to the Attorney General post. He supported cloture for the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on seven separate occasions. He did the same three times for the nomination of then Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, before ultimately supporting confirmation as well. In one of the very few cases where Nelson voted against a Bush nominee -- Priscilla Owen (whose nomination nearly led to the "nuclear option" in the Senate) -- he did so only after backing cloture first, though this was part of the deal struck by the Gang of 14. Nelson even voted against cloture on one of the judges excluded from that bipartisan deal: Henry Saad, whose nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was ultimately defeated. Nelson's history of support for Bush appointees is enough to produce heavy cynicism from his own party members when he discusses his opposition to Johnsen now. And in conversations with several Democratic strategists, a few theories were put forward. The first: that Nelson is likely waiting on some sort of quid-pro-quo from the Obama White House in exchange for his vote. After all, during the stimulus debate he was one of the last remaining hold outs, securing in the process some changes to the overall package. The second: that this is payback. As reported by Ryan Grim , the White House has bucked Nelson on one of his top legislative priorities, maintaining government support for the large student lending firms based in his state. Nelson's office did not immediately return a request for comment. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Michelle Obama Spends Afternoon Reading To Children In Drop-Out Prevention Program Top
***Scroll down for slideshow.*** First Lady Michelle Obama spend Wednesday afternoon visiting with third-graders in an after-school program at Ferebee Hope Elementary in Southeast Washington, DC. Ferebee Hope Elementary is a member of Communities In Schools, the nation's largest dropout prevention organization. According to the press release: Communities In Schools works in partnership with public schools to identify and connect students with the community resources they need to stay engaged in school. These resources are then coordinated through a school-based coordinator and brought directly to the children who need them. Examples include mentoring, tutoring, health care, after-school programs and cultural enrichment. After meeting with the Communities In Schools' Board Of Directors, Michelle Obama spent the afternoon reading to the students. See the details on what Michelle wore, including her alleged false eyelashes here ! More on Photo Galleries
 
David Roberts: Debate: Roberts v. 'Clean Coal' Flack Joe Lucas Top
grist.org In early April, the excellent investigative journalism show NOW on PBS ran an episode called " Can Coal be Earth-Friendly? " In conjunction with the episode, NOW hosted an online debate between me and Joe Lucas, spokesflack for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). We were given a series of five questions. We each answered the questions, and were each given an opportunity to rebut the other's answers. When I received Lucas's answers, I responded to them. When he received mine, he ... ran off like a pansy. I don't think he likes arguing with people who know what they're talking about and have more than a 30 second soundbite with which to respond. The debate is reprinted below, with NOW's kind permission. ----- Is there such as thing as "clean coal"? Joe Lucas: Of course there is. Our opponents like to claim that we invented the term, when in fact clean coal (which is short for clean coal technology) has been an accepted term-of-art for several decades now. The facts are simple. To date, we have used advanced emissions control technologies (i.e. clean coal technologies) to reduce emissions currently regulated under federal clean air act laws. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other emissions have been dramatically reduced over the past several decades . This type of reduction didn't just happen—especially given that our use of coal for generating electricity nearly tripled during this same period. It happened because of the use of technologies. And like other technologies, clean coal technologies are truly evolutionary. Going forward, this same type of technological innovation will lead to reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. David Roberts: No. When coal is mined, it destroys the land and surrounding communities . When coal is washed, it produces millions of tons a year of toxic, water-polluting slurry . When coal is burned, it produces millions of tons a year of toxic ash and periodic disasters like the December spill in Tennessee . Coal combustion produces mercury and particulate pollution that leads to some 24,000 premature deaths a year and billions in healthcare costs , with pregnant mothers and young children particularly at risk. All these problems would go unaddressed by so-called "clean coal," which would reduce just one pollutant, carbon dioxide. And even that promise is a phantom: Not a single commercial coal power plant in America captures or otherwise prevents CO2 emissions. "Clean coal" is a PR gimmick. David Roberts' Rebuttal: Mr. Lucas is right about one thing: reductions in conventional air pollutants from coal plants "didn't just happen." They were forced on the industry by federal law. The industry fought those laws tooth and nail for years and has been fined and sued hundreds of times for breaking them. Hardly something to boast about. Incidentally, those air pollutants scrubbed out of smoke stacks? They end up in toxic coal ash waste —the kind that flooded Kingston, Tennessee last December. Now the industry's fighting efforts to regulate waste ash. And fighting off efforts to clean up its Appalachia-destroying mining operations . For a "clean" industry, Big Coal sure does seem averse to getting cleaner. Joe Lucas' Rebuttal: Joe Lucas declined to write a rebuttal. Coal-fired plants provide America with half of its electricity. Are we too reliant on coal? Joe Lucas: Coal is a fuel that is uniquely positioned to meet the needs for base load (constant, steady, on-demand) power. It is domestically abundant—we have more energy in the form of coal than the Middle East has oil. It is an affordable fuel and is getting cleaner everyday. We support the use of all domestic fuels to meet America's growing energy needs. However, energy sources are more likely to be compliments to one another than competitors. Take wind and solar for example. They do not displace coal or other base load fuels because wind and solar are intermittent power sources - only producing electricity under certain optimum environmental conditions. To add these intermittent energy resources to the transmission grid, they have to be backed-up with a non-intermittent resource—like coal. What's more, it would take a one-mile band of windmills spanning across the entire equator (around 25,000 miles) just to generate enough power to meet 20% of America's electricity needs. David Roberts: Yes. Putting aside the health and environmental effects above, coal is increasingly uneconomic. For one thing, a whole array of new studies suggests that U.S. coal reserves could begin declining within 20 years (not quite the "300 year supply" the industry touts). As this fact and the inevitability of greenhouse-pollution restrictions become more widely understood, new coal plants are being exposed as risky and unsound investments, which is why nearly 100 proposed plants have been canceled in the past two years. States dependent on coal are already seeing their electrical rates skyrocket, and coal utilities are requesting further rate hikes. Despite coal industry claims, U.S. coal power is neither "abundant" nor "cheap." It's a sinking ship. David Roberts' Rebuttal: Here's a detailed plan to meet America's energy needs without new coal plants, using a combination of efficiency and clean renewable power. Here's another , another , another , another , and more . Just last week the Department of Interior released a study showing that offshore wind alone could satisfy U.S. electricity needs. The pressure to build new coal plants is political—a result of the $40 million PR campaign Mr. Lucas is running—not technological. The message that there's "no alternative" to coal's enormous health and environmental costs is fear mongering. It's a vote against American ingenuity and resourcefulness. Joe Lucas' Rebuttal: Joe Lucas declined to write a rebuttal. Such plants are America's biggest source of greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming, according to NRDC . What should be done to contain this? Joe Lucas: We support a mandatory federal carbon management program. In order for such a program to achieve its goals, it must 1) achieve emissions reductions, 2) promote greater energy independence by maintaining fuel diversity, and 3) ensure that businesses and families are not paying higher than necessary energy costs. In that regard, technology is the key . Recently, more and more policy makers have adopted the notion that a federal climate policy necessitates developing and deploying carbon capture and storage technologies as the foundation for such a policy. President Obama has talked about this as a part of his strategy. Other distinguished academic, governmental, and non-governmental organizations have indicated that CCS (carbon capture and storage) technology is essential to meeting the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. David Roberts: Asked whether human greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change, coal pitchman Joe Lucas famously said, "I don't know. I'm not a scientist." Happily, non-scientists can use Google to find out what scientists think, and they overwhelmingly agree : climate change is urgent and potentially catastrophic. In the face of this kind of problem, "containing" coal's emissions—which equal those of the entire transportation sector—is unambitious at best. Those emissions need to be phased out, as quickly as possible. It's simple: the industry should be forbidden from building new coal plants unless they meet stringent CO2 emissions standards. And over time, all existing coal plants should be required to meet those standards as well, or shut down. If coal can compete in a carbon-constrained world, good. If not, it should move out of the way for solutions that can. David Roberts' Rebuttal: Big Coal sure has a funny way of "supporting" a plan to reduce climate pollution. It has sponsored, with its allies in Big Oil, a decades-long effort to confuse and deceive the public about global warming. It is still funding groups and politicians that work to block mandatory pollution reductions. Mr. Lucas even linked to such a politician in his response! With public pressure building, the industry has shifted from battling to co-opting energy/climate legislation, attempting to transform it into a corporate welfare slush fund. An easy tip for spotting subsidy seekers: they repeat the word "technology" a lot! (As Mr. Lucas does several times.) Joe Lucas' Rebuttal: Joe Lucas declined to write a rebuttal. Do you think the idea of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the way forward for the coal industry? Joe Lucas: Absolutely. Not only a way forward for the coal industry, but, as I stated above—essential to meeting the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. David Roberts: Put it this way: there is no other way forward for the U.S. coal industry. Coal is effectively made of carbon, so there's no way to use it without producing millions of tons of CO2. The best case scenario for the industry, then, is to be able to capture the stuff and bury it back underground. But despite the misleading PR from industry, experts agree that CCS is at least 10-15 years out and will be extremely expensive when it finally arrives. Sequestration is arguably important for the developing world, and worth researching for that reason, but it's unlikely to save the U.S. coal industry. David Roberts' Rebuttal: CCS may well be needed for meeting global carbon reduction targets, though there is considerable debate on that point. (It's a genuine dilemma what to do about the spread of dirty coal in China and India.) But it is crystal clear that America can meet its carbon-reduction goals without CCS. More to the point: Mr. Lucas's group is fronting an effort to smuggle dirty coal plants into the U.S. under the 10-15-years-off promise of CCS . The industry calls such plants "CCS-ready," much like my driveway is Ferrari-ready. Watch for the shell game. Joe Lucas' Rebuttal: Joe Lucas declined to write a rebuttal. President Obama has said he supports "clean coal." How do you think that will shape his environmental policies? Joe Lucas: Recently, the President said that if the cost of a federal carbon management program were too high, people wouldn't do it. Similarly, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that if you make a country choose between growing their economy or reducing emissions—they'll choose their economy every time. So we need to find a solution that allows us to have both—and President Obama and other policy makers realize that. By deploying CCS technology we can preserve access to affordable energy. This protects and hopefully creates jobs in the manufacturing sector and helps families balance household budgets. Additionally, a study done with several of the nation's leading industrial unions showed that deploying CCS technologies will create over one million job years—and as one of the union representatives said in describing these jobs, these are jobs that pay enough so that you can afford to raise a family. So investing in clean coal technologies for carbon capture and storage is clearly a part of the President's energy goals. Doing so meets his three primary objectives of 1) creating jobs, 2) promoting greater energy independence, and 3) increasing environmental protection. David Roberts: Obama supports "clean coal" for a simple reason: coal-state legislators wield a great deal of power in Congress. No national politician can afford to directly confront the network of industry lobby groups and legislators that defends coal's interests. Obama will direct considerable federal money toward research and deployment for CCS; it's part of the price he has to pay to bring coal-state legislators on board for serious climate change legislation. The key issue is whether Obama will allow the coal industry to build new dirty coal plants—plants without CCS. He said on the campaign trail that he will not. We'll see if he keeps that promise. David Roberts' Rebuttal: Mr. Lucas's first paragraph is absolutely correct, but the second is a head-smacking non sequitur. If we want the transition to a clean, green economy to produce jobs and prosperity, why would we focus on the most costly path forward? International consulting firm McKinsey & Co. has produced the definitive cost
 
Greenhouses Produce 21st Century Crops Top
High-tech facilities hoard water, generate electricity and produce 20 times more tomatoes per acre than conventional farms. But the seed money needed is also far greater. More on Green Living
 
Pelosi: CIA Briefing Notes Should Be Released Top
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Thursday for the release of notes from a CIA briefing in 2002. Pelosi, a California Democrat, said that the agency is lying when it says that she was briefed on the ongoing use of waterboarding and that, rather, she was only told that the administration had determined that they could use the technique in the future. The notes, she said, would show that she is telling the truth. "I would be very happy if they would release the briefings," she said. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who read those notes at CIA headquarters last Thursday, did not dispute her characterization. Hoekstra was asked, after Pelosi's comments, if the notes would show her to have been untruthful. "I'm not going to make that judgment based on those materials. I think there's a lot of information that needs to be available to us to get into that," he said. Hoekstra is preparing a "broader document release request from the CIA," he added, and will be requesting notes from before and after the meeting to attempt to ascertain the purpose of the briefing. But, he said, the only people who know the truth were those in the room. "I can't make that judgment. I was not in that meeting. I know that there were people in that meeting with a very different recollection of the meeting and what was told," he said. "Only the people that were in the meeting know today." Hoekstra too called for the release of the notes. George Little, a spokesman for the CIA, said that the agency's assertion that Pelosi was briefed accurately reflect its records, which are based on the recollections of agents. "The language in the chart -- 'a description of the particular EITs that had been employed' -- is true to the language in the Agency's records," he said. EIT stands for "enhanced interrogation techniques," a euphemism for torture. The chart Little is referring to lists Pelosi as a member of Congress briefed on interrogation methods. Pelosi disputes the accuracy of that chart. CIA Director Leon Panetta, in a letter to Congress, said the he couldn't be certain the chart was accurate. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs [Memorandum For the Records] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review," he wrote. More on Nancy Pelosi
 
CIA Denies Cheney Request To Release Intelligence Documents Top
The CIA said in a press release that it cannot comply with the request from former Vice President Dick Cheney to declassify and release interrogation documents. The process for Mandatory Declassification Review is governed by Executive Order 12958, as amended. That Order excludes from review information that is the subject of pending litigation. The two documents that former Vice President Cheney sought contain information that falls into that category." "For that reason--and that reason only--CIA did not accept Mr. Cheney's request for a Mandatory Declassification Review. The Agency simply followed the Executive Order. This request was handled in accordance with normal practice by CIA professionals with long experience in information management and release. It was for them a straightforward issue." Cheney claims the documents would prove "enhanced interrogation methods" were effective. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Dick Cheney
 
Bill Making It Easier To Override Cook County President's Vetoes Languishes Top
Who shoved Illinois Senate Bill 1868 into the grave? It proposes a very simple, very sensible and very timely reform to the state law governing counties ...
 
RACHEL ALEXANDRA: Preakness Stakes Favorite Top
BALTIMORE — Rachel Alexandra was made the early 8-5 favorite Wednesday for the Preakness Stakes, the first filly accorded that status since 1988. She brings a five-race winning streak into Saturday's 1 3-16-mile race at Pimlico. Trained by Steve Asmussen and ridden by Calvin Borel, Rachel Alexandra drew the No. 13 post on the far outside. "It's beautiful. She's going to be able to get position," said Scott Blasi, Asmussen's assistant. Borel chose to stay on as Rachel Alexandra's regular rider, switching off Kentucky Derby winner Mine That Bird, who gets Hall of Fame jockey Mike Smith. "Calvin knows this filly so well, I don't think we have to tell him anything about where he wants to be with her," Blasi said. "He's very comfortable with her and we're very comfortable with him." No filly since Nellie Morse in 1924 has won the Preakness. The last filly to go off as the wagering favorite was Winning Colors at 2-1 odds in 1988. She finished third. "I am trying to help the industry," said Jess Jackson, the filly's co-owner. "I hope this helps revive horse racing in the United States." Jackson, who founded Kendall-Jackson winery, and Harold McCormick bought Rachel Alexandra for an undisclosed price last week. They paid a $100,000 supplemental fee _ above and beyond the entry fees _ to get her into the Preakness because she wasn't nominated for the Triple Crown races by her previous owners. They had expected her to only run against fillies. "I think the fans deserve to see the best horses compete regardless of sex," Jackson said on a conference call. "This isn't about male or female, it's about the best athletes." Rachel Alexandra has a front-running style, and hasn't been farther back than second while running her last five races. "It's a good spot for her," said Bob Baffert, who trains rival Pioneerof the Nile. "She's out there in the clear. If you're in the middle and you don't break well, they can jam you up. She's going to be (running) one, two or three; that's a good spot for her." Pioneerof the Nile, the Kentucky Derby runner-up, was made the 5-1 second choice in the 13-horse field by Pimlico oddsmaker Frank Carulli. The colt drew the No. 9 post. Mine That Bird and Friesan Fire were the co-third choices at 6-1. Mine That Bird will break from the No. 2 post, while Friesan Fire is in the No. 5 spot. Bennie Woolley Jr., who trains Mine That Bird, was happy with his colt's post, pointing out that speedster Big Drama is in the No. 1 hole and Musket Man will start from No. 3. "They should clear away from us, put us in a nice spot to coast down the front side," he said. "I like the fact that Big Drama is inside of me. He will move on. It should leave me a little bit of a spot there." Musket Man, third in the Derby, was 8-1. The draw was done in a tent near the stakes barn at Pimlico after being held in downtown Baltimore in recent years. It was a traditional "pill pull" where the horses' entry blanks were drawn simultaneously with a numbered pill to determine their position in the starting gate. The field, from the rail out, is Big Drama (10-1), Mine That Bird (6-1), Musket Man (8-1), Luv Gov (50-1), Friesan Fire (6-1), Terrain (30-1), Papa Clem (12-1), General Quarters (20-1), Pioneerof the Nile (5-1), Flying Private (50-1), Take the Points (30-1), Tone It Down (50-1) and Rachel Alexandra (8-5).
 
Tom Hayden: Congressional Progressives Offer an Alternative to War Top
After six weeks of forums on Afghanistan-Pakistan, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is weighing a series of recommendations to de-escalate the war, offered by CPC co-chair Rep. Raul Grijalva and Rep. Mike Honda. The good news for the peace movement is that the recommendations, taken together, present a plausible alternative to the Obama blueprint for escalation. The key proposals are to reverse the present ratio of military to development spending, leaving the Pentagon with twenty percent of the proposed budget, while eighty percent would be allocated to education, health, infrastructure, women's rights and development. Remaining US military operations would be folded under a United Nations security umbrella. Aerial attacks by US Predator drones would be immediately ended due to their adverse effect on civilian populations. On the $84 billion for Afghanistan and Pakistan requested in the administration's proposed Supplemental Appropriations bill, Grijalva and Honda conclude that the measure would only "exacerbate the trends" they identify as counter-productive; they question whether the bill is worth funding at all. Many in the anti-war community will be dissatisfied with the recommendations' failure to include an exit strategy with a withdrawal deadline. But the CPC recommendations represent a fundamental shift of priorities from the Obama policy. A more glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the human rights crisis at Afghanistan's Bagram prison, where Obama faces another Guantanamo. The great value of these CPC recommendations, based on extensive hearings limited as they were to testimony by security experts and diplomats, is offset by the realities of a Democratic Congress presently unwilling to engage in open disagreements with the new President. The Grijalva-Honda recommendations are only advisory, not even reflective of an overall Progressive Caucus stance. At this point, none of the recommendations will be offered as amendments to the supplemental for up-or-down votes, so there will be no roll-call votes recorded. The only proposals introduced thus far are a call for the Secretary of Defense to report on an exit strategy by this December [Rep. Jim McGovern] and a proposal approving the phased withdrawal pact signed by the Bush administration with Iraq [Rep. Sam Farr]. The CPC recommendations therefore constitute a constructive work product, but only an initial step in the future arguments within the Democratic Party and between Congress and the Obama administration. The increasing question from now on, spurred by the Grijalva-Honda report, will be whether to escalate or de-escalate from the quagmire. More on Pakistan
 
Rinku Sen: It's Legalized Neglect: Low-Income Children at Risk (VIDEO) Top
As our state legislatures struggle with impending budget deficits, American families are going to be presented with a bunch of terrible "choices." Do we want less healthcare or affordable housing? Fewer teachers or trash collectors? Childcare policy has gotten very little attention, but devoting resources to ensuring the safety and early education of kids in subsidize day care needs to go to the top of our agenda. As we see in this video and in our new report at the Applied Research Center, " Underprotected, Undersupported ," state childcare policy too often constitutes "Legalized Neglect" of the low-income children, as always disproportionately of color, who deserve so much better. A handful of commentators here on the Huffington Post and leading childcare advocates have pointed out the recession's devastating impact on the childcare industry and parents' ability to pay for childcare. We need federal and state governments to provide more support to low-income families as we shift "from a culture of greed to a culture of care" in the United States which ranks 18 th out of 25 other developed nations on early childhood education according to Save the Children's 2009 State of the World's Mothers Report . But our childcare licensing and inspection systems also need a major overhaul if we're going to do more than just warehouse kids. In fourteen states, for example, you essentially don't need a full license to operate a childcare center. Requirements vary, but policies and practices in these states often allow significant exemptions to their childcare standards and regulations - including child-staff ratios and even basic health and safety standards like criminal background checks and regular inspections. In the case of Alabama, deregulation of childcare centers removed the expectation of any inspections at all. While some unlicensed centers that we visited were of excellent quality, concern is growing about the small storefront centers exploiting the state's "faith-based" exemption to avoid basic standards and inspections while simultaneously benefiting from state subsidies for "caring" for low-income kids. Call yourself a church, and avoid the cost of proper licensing. In the state's most populous county, the proportion of licensed to unlicensed childcare centers has flipped on its head in the past eight years. Licensed centers started at 232 and went down to 159, while unlicensed centers rose from 141 to 213. Meanwhile, other states like California do require full licenses of all center-based caregivers, but the oversight is dangerously lax because of underfunding. State inspectors have a staff-to-facility ratio (1:256) that is five times the rate recommended by leading advocates (1:50), which means that a child can spend more than four years in a center before it receives a single inspection. Expansive state support of early childhood education is critical if we want to make things right for future generations and provide all children with the best care and education possible. We need to abolish state exemptions where they exist, and adequately fund oversight and both federal and state subsidy programs. Yes, state budgets are tight, but progressives cannot be cowed by conservative scare tactics around deficit spending. For some, the time is never right to adequately fund social programs. For low-income kids and their families, the time is long overdue. More on Poverty
 
Lane Hudson: Obama's marriage position sounds eerily familiar Top
Yes, it does apparently seem in line with Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean. Or at least Governor Palin says so . But that's not exactly what I had in mind. Here's an exchange on Tuesday between ABC News' Jake Tapper and Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary (emphasis added): Q Okay. And the second question on a completely different topic -- the President opposes same-sex marriage, but he supports giving same-sex couples the same rights as married people. MR. GIBBS: And benefits. Q Same rights and benefits. What's your response to critics of his policy who say this is exactly separate but equal ? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to the any number of times that he was asked this during the campaign and addressed it. Q I don't think he was ever asked is this separate but equal. MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, it was asked on multiple occasions, and I can pull you something on that. It's the President's belief -- he strongly supports civil unions, and supports ensuring that they have access to the rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation and things like that, that are enjoyed by others. First of all, kudos to Jake Tapper for pressing the issue. President Obama is a constitutional law professor. That he doesn't openly acknowledge the separate but equal nature of civil unions is ridiculous. As I intimated in the final paragraphs of my most recent post here, the position isn't fooling anybody. But, for now, the White House is perfectly happy telling me and millions like me that we should be satisfied with (the promise of) the same rights as everyone else, just without being allowed to call it what society would otherwise recognize it as: marriage. Same rights, different name. Same rights, different vehicle. Same rights, delivered in a different way. Same rights, but.... Now I know what it sounds like: More on Barack Obama
 
Youth Radio -- Youth Media International: To Do: Get a Job Top
Originally published on Youthradio.org , the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe. By: Julie Civiello I'm on the cusp of graduating from Boston University with a BFA in Acting and Theatre Arts, so I'm on a non-traditional job hunt. This means my job search involves acting showcases, headshots and talent agencies instead of craigslist and the college career center. As far as I can tell, finding stage acting jobs these days is just as hard as getting a job at a major bank. Broadway productions require a generous budget, especially the extravagant musicals. Playwrights are actually revising scripts and slimming down eight-person casts to two people or one to save money on productions. And since my age bracket is not in high demand for Broadway shows, my classmates and I are left scraping the bottom of the casting bucket. In some ways, I guess I'm more prepared for the job market because my acting training at school included prepping for a showcase in New York City. It's the showcase that leads to the job appointments. Otherwise, it's hard to get anyone to pay any attention. You basically have two minutes to showcase yourself and your talent in front of New York's talent scouts, film casting agencies, and managers...many coming from huge names like Paradigm and Abrams, as well as Warner Brothers. Then, come the envelopes - the acceptance and rejection letters essentially. They hold the results, which are hopefully requests for appointments and resumes and headshots. But there's no privacy involved in this "moment of truth." Each classmate who did the showcase in New York got an envelope at the same time - in a bar with everyone together mingling. We each deal with this in our own way: Some ask for the encouragement, opening the envelopes in front of everyone, passing around the sheets marked with X's for appointments! Others, including me, run to the bathroom and wait until the stall latch is locked to peek inside. I tried to examine the weight and potential of the envelope before finally unclasping it and pulling out the damage. I was lucky -- I got requests for my headshot and better yet several requests for appointments. One appointment was with the almighty Paradigm. I met with an assistant to an agent, who was not much older than I am, and very forward in her advice. She strongly suggested I immediately move to New York the Monday after graduation and make appointments and introduce myself to casting agents all over the city. I found this advice to be incredibly rash and risky, especially with the job market offering zero opportunities in the artist world. Her response to my concerns was the almighty question: "What do you want?" I stammered out an answer, something involving a roof-top garden, and a wish to be a part of a company of artists who share my values in the creation of art. In other words, something incredibly vague and eye-brow raising, full of pot holes and question marks. Her advice again was, "Just answer that question and do it." Another appointment was with a more seasoned agent from the agency About Artists. She was a character and a saleswoman, who somehow found the right sticky note amidst the mountain range of papers and files that roll over her desk and most surfaces of her office. She also offered advice. She told me to change a lot of details on my resume. She even advised several of my friends who had appointments with her to change their names to something more pronounceable. In both my meetings I was told I have comic timing, a unique look, and an individuality that is marketable (whatever that means.) So where has it gotten me? Not far yet. Despite all the prep for these interviews by my theater program (mostly training us how to both sell ourselves and be humble and to flatter playwrights and somehow not seem so desperate), I'm still in the position of hustling for jobs and more appointments, while lining up waitress and nanny gigs on the side. Luckily, I've got a back up plan - one that's gotten popular for my age group facing a tight job market. I've lined up more schooling for the fall: a graduate program in LA. Youth Radio/Youth Media International (YMI) is youth-driven converged media production company that delivers the best youth news, culture and undiscovered talent to a cross section of audiences. To read more youth news from around the globe and explore high quality audio and video features, visit Youthradio.org
 
Wednesday's Late Night Round-Up: The Pope, Cell Phones In The White House, And Promises On Your Cereal Box (VIDEO) Top
Jon Stewart marveled at the Pope's big plans to bring peace to the Middle East--a place that has been in turmoil for hundreds of years--in five days. David Letterman on the other hand marveled at Sarah Palin's book deal, saying: "Sarah has got a deal to write her memoir. I believe it's titled "The Book To Nowhere." In all fairness she says she's not writing the book by herself, she's a hired a guy to help: Joe the Ghostwriter." More from Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel on the FDA's crackdown on cereal claims and Stephen Colbert on Gibbs's crackdown on cell phones. Click here to see yesterday's round-up. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Late Night Shows
 
Alon Ben-Meir: Obama's Two-State Challenge Top
President Obama's March 18th meeting with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will introduce a new dimension to the long standing American-Israeli alliance. The changing circumstances in the Middle East and the potentially diverging views each leader holds in connection with the Arab-Israeli conflict could make finding common ground more challenging than in the past. To preserve the integrity of the bilateral relations, both leaders can be expected to engage in some serious give and take. President Obama is likely to insist that there must be significant progress made in the Arab-Israeli peace process, especially regarding the Palestinian front. Similarly, Netanyahu, a master tactician, will find a way to accommodate the President while also exacting assurance that the US will deal pointedly with the Iranian nuclear threat. The United States' commitment to Israel's national security is embedded in the American psyche and transcends shared values or an influential lobby. A long history of moral commitment to a homeland for the Jews, strategic cooperation, evangelical grass-root support, cultural and political affinity have all cemented the relationship over the years, making Israel the closest US ally perhaps with the exception of Great Britain. That being said, however militarily powerful Israel might be, the country's ultimate security still depends on the United States and only together can they fashion a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict while safeguarding Israel's national security. This has guided previous American Presidents and will certainly guide President Obama--no Israeli prime minister is oblivious to this reality. The United States' dedication to the two-state solution is not a new policy and it has been central to the Road Map, Oslo accords, Madrid Peace Conference, and to every interim agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and previous American administrations. Mr. Netanyahu cannot simply deny or defer the discussion in hopes of persuading or coercing the Palestinians and the Arab states to settle for much less. President Obama finds himself in a unique position to push for the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations not only because he feels committed to the idea, but because of the conversion of events and developments that offer both the opportunity for a solution and also bear ominous implications if nothing is done. Mr. Obama has inherited the wrath of the Arab and Muslim world, precipitated mainly by his predecessor's policies: two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a third shaping up in Pakistan, a potentially nuclear Iran and the continuing rise in extremism, terrorism and Jihadi movements. By every conceivable account the Israeli-Palestinian discord feeds into these violent conflicts, making it impossible for any American President to articulate practical solutions without attending to the Israeli-Palestinian issue first. Neither Netanyahu nor any of his coalition partners can avoid this reality. Obama faces an international community that was less than supportive of Israel's recent military incursion into Gaza, and allies who want to see once and for all a final solution for the Palestinian people. For President Obama to unravel some of these menacing developments with the support of any international partners, he must first put out the Arab-Israeli fires. Driven by their concern over Iran's nuclear program, the growing Sunni-Shiite schism, and the threat of Islamic extremism, the Arab states--for the first time since the creation of Israel in 1948--appear ready to negotiate in honest a comprehensive peace deal with Israel. Anyone who underestimates the significance of the Arab Peace Initiative in this regard misses the historic dimension of the Initiative, which offers Israel the ultimate security it seeks. Fortunately it was not missed by President Obama. The President's embrace of the Initiative, which he expressed personally to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, is pivotal to changing the dynamics of the conflict and reaching a solution. For Israel, this represents nothing less than a revolutionary transformation in the Arab states' attitude and it must find a way to capitalize on its long-term implications. President Obama is as keen as Mr. Netanyahu that Iran's nuclear program is, at a minimum, politically destabilizing and may indeed pause a threat to Israel's national security. To suggest however that a resolution to Iran's nuclear ambition must take precedence over a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on a false premise. As long as the Palestinian conflict persists, one can count on Tehran to fan the flames and continue to undermine the prospect of a comprehensive solution which will have to include Syria. In one form or another, President Obama's commitment to pursue the Israeli-Palestinian track has already paid some dividends. Hamas leader Khaled Meshal--under pressure from the Arab states and certainly in a nod to Mr. Obama--has indirectly supported the idea of a two-state solution by supporting a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. This development considerably improves the prospect of a unity Palestinian government that can speak in one voice, and has the potential to deliver on a long-term ceasefire. Hamas is here to stay and it is now impracticable to count them out of the equation on any peace agreement. Netanyahu can take solace in the fact that Hamas moderated its stance under his watch and respond with a favorable gesture, especially now that Hamas has suspended all acts of violence against Israel. As he understands Syria's central role in any future Arab-Israeli negotiations, President Obama's outreach to Damascus is most significant and overdue. Damascus is ready and eager to resume, this time directly, serious peace negotiations with Israel while seeking normal relations with the United States. Surely the price tag is the return of the Golan Heights--a price that Israel will have to pay if it ever chooses to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. But for Mr. Obama, this also represents an historic opportunity not only to end the Israeli-Syrian conflict but forge a grand regional security arrangement that would address Iran's ambitions. Indeed, only a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace that can eventually draw in Iran will usher in a period of real calm and open the door to credible talks about a Middle East free of nuclear arms. In the end, the incredible bond between Israel and the United States will prevail, as it is stronger than any one administration or leader. Obama has the maneuverability to push on Netanyahu because it is guaranteed that the US would never compromise Israel's security. It is with the Arab states that the US has lost major capital, and President Obama knows that if he does not deliver soon, he can risk losing any partners in peace. If he cannot regain the confidence of Arab leaders in countries like Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the US will have another major conflict on its hands. There is no doubt that the discussions between the two leaders will be tough, but neither can lose sight of what is really at steak here. Netanyahu knows only too well that in the final analysis, only a comprehensive peace will offer Israel the ultimate security it seeks. President Obama sees an historic opportunity to achieve just that, while both understand the ominous implications if they fail. More on Middle East
 
Mark Shriver: Shared Responsibility to Help the Most Vulnerable Kids Top
Last week, Save the Children Ambassador Jennifer Garner and I lobbied DC decision-makers, including more than a dozen members of Congress, to support an additional $2 billion in federal funding for private and public early-childhood-education programs. Our message was simple: Since 85% of our brains develop during the first five years of years of life, it is tragically farcical that our public education efforts don't begin until a child is six years old. Consequently, millions of the youngest and most vulnerable Americans simply don't get the kind of cognitive and emotional development they need because their families don't have the resources for books, music, learning games and other tools. Some struggling parents can't even afford blankets that give babies an important sense of security. While we lobbied the federal government to do more, including support for Save the Children's innovative public-private Early Steps program, an important part of our message is that taking action is a shared responsibility. As much as we need the government to do its part, we need families, governors, churches, mosques and synagogues and corporate America to do their part, too. Well, just as we were making the rounds on Capitol Hill, one corporate leader was taking action with a very meaningful and extensive new effort. Toys"R"Us, Inc., in partnership with Save the Children's U.S. Programs, launched a new campaign this week - Bundled in Hope - that asks for donations during checkout at Toys"R"Us and Babies"R"Us stores across the nation as well as on-line. Funds raised will be used to purchase desperately needed baby blankets for infants and toddlers living in some of the most isolated and impoverished parts of the United States as well as for Save the Children's Early Childhood Development program. The campaign also includes celebrity-designed, one-of-a-kind baby blankets from Jennifer, Kyra Sedgwick, Julianne Moore, Jamie Lee Curtis and others, each of which will be sold to the most generous bidder on www.Toysrus.com/BundledinHope . Blankets will be auctioned through July 11, and money raised there will also benefit Save the Children programs. This is just one example of a business that understands its role to serve the communities where it does business. More than just an example, it's a model for just the kind of innovative and responsible action that will make a difference in the lives of millions of children. More on Poverty
 
Jim Luce: U.S. Border Policy: How To Fix What's Broken Top
How are we doing on sealing our long, long border with Mexico, all 1,952 miles of it? The Secure Fence Act of 2006 calls for 670 miles of new fencing, running along one-third of the border. As of last fall, 370 miles had been installed -- at a cost of some $5 million per mile. How much success has our country enjoyed as a result? We do know that there have been more than 5,000 documented deaths at the border since 1995 -- 21 times more fatalities than in the history of the Berlin Wall -- making it the deadliest land border in the world today. U.S. Immigration policies fail strategically, economically, and morally. A classmate of mine calls this strategy of immigrant control wrong-headed and ineffective. Dr. Wayne Cornelius is the director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego. Wayne's findings call for a searching look at what the U.S. accomplishes with our border enforcement build-up, ongoing since 1993. U.S.-Mexico border is the deadliest land border in the world today. For starters, is it keeping would-be unauthorized migrants out of the country? The answer is clearly no. The probability of being caught on any given trip to the border is rising, but nearly all succeed in entering on the second or third try. I have personally known Mexicans here in New York who have made this journey - and their tales are all horrific. In 2000 an estimated 275,000-300,000 Mexicans -- mainly from the state of Puebla -- were living in our five boroughs. No one knows how many of them are documented. Urbanized border areas are double- or triple-fenced. Photo: Maria Teresa Fernandez Are border controls discouraging Mexican migrants without documents from going to the border and trying their luck? The numbers depend not on the fences, but on the current U.S. economic crisis. Would-be migrants are pragmatically asking themselves, "Does it make sense to pay a coyote (people-smuggler) thousands of dollars and risk my life in the desert or the mountains if I may not have a job once I get to the U.S.? Maybe it's better to wait until the U.S. economy improves." What is driving decisions to postpone migration today is not fences, not border enforcement, nor Immigration raids in the U.S. It is the lack of jobs in the States. This means that as soon as a sustained U.S. economic recovery returns, the flow of unauthorized migrants will quickly rebound, as it has after every recession in recent decades. Razor-sharp concertina wire has been added between San Diego and Tijuana. An eye opener: Wayne and his research team also found that U.S. Immigration enforcement away from the border area does not scare undocumented workers to return to Mexico. There is not yet enough enforcement activity to induce most employers who use this kind of labor to stop hiring. Latest section of fencing on the San Diego-Tijuana border. Photo: Maria Teresa Fernandez. More than three out of five undocumented migrants interviewed by Wayne and his team in early 2009 reported that their U.S. employer probably actually knew, or knew for sure, that they were unauthorized to work in the U.S. But they were still hired. Wayne's research shows that experiencing a workplace raid -- or having a relative or friend who had been caught by Immigration -- does not discourage most Mexicans from migrating again. There is no deterrence caused by Immigration raids. Immigrant detention center in south Texas, operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Wayne's interviews with more than 4,000 Mexican migrants and potential migrants to the U.S. since 2005 suggest that a reallocation of immigration enforcement resources would be far more effective. Wayne concludes that funding could be better used to investigate and sanction U.S. employers who habitually hire undocumented migrants. This would not only be cheaper, but more humane. Berlin Wall: 239 deaths in crossing attempts, over 28 years. There is plenty of money for fencing solutions. At least $6.7 billion has been earmarked for SBInet -- the "virtual" fencing of the U.S.-Mexico border -- a project led by the Boeing Corporation. The plan: 1,800 high-tech towers equipped with advanced radar systems, video surveillance cameras, and ground sensors to detect movement and sound. Homeland Security officials promise to install the virtual fence along nearly the entire border within five years. I have thought for years that assisting Mexicans to cross into our country would be the moral equivalent of working in the Underground Railroad 150 years ago, helping blacks move up into the North where they could survive. Creating alternatives to migration in Mexico would clearly have the strongest and most durable impact on unauthorized flows. How could the U.S. help Mexico's own economy improve so that there would be jobs to hold people there? Because of his groundbreaking work on U.S. Immigration policy, Wayne will be awarded the Distinguished Alumni Award from The College of Wooster in June. I wish Obama's immigration team would attend so that Washington could grasp how misguided and ineffective U.S. Immigration policy is. Here are some solutions. Edited by Ethel Grodzins Romm. More on Mexico
 
Iran Missiles Not An Existential Threat: Study Top
Iran is currently capable of carrying out a conventional missile attack on Israel - a substantial but not existential threat, say two Israeli analysts who will present their research on Tehran's missile capacity tomorrow. More on Iran
 
Kim Hendren Apologizes For Calling Sen. Schumer "That Jew" Top
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A Republican candidate for Senate from Arkansas reportedly referred to Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer as "that Jew" during a recent appearance before a Republican group. State Sen. Kim Hendren told The Associated Press on Thursday that he was wrong to refer to Schumer's religious affiliation during a Pulaski County Republican Committee meeting last week. Hendren said he doesn't remember the exact wording of his comment, but he was quoted by conservative blogger Jason Tolbert as calling Schumer "that Jew." "I ought not to have referred to it at all," Hendren told the AP. "When I referred to him as Jewish, it wasn't because I don't like Jewish people." Hendren said he made the reference as he talked about comments the senior senator made criticizing some elements of the Republican Party. "I shouldn't have gotten into this Jewish business because it distracts from the issue," Hendren said. Representatives of Schumer declined to comment on the matter. Hendren, who once ran for governor as a Democrat against Bill Clinton in 1982, is the only person to have declared their candidacy to challenge Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln in 2010. Hendren is also the minority leader in the state Senate. Lincoln is seeking a third term in the Senate. More on Senate Races
 
Michelle Obama Does Polka Dots And Falsies (PHOTOS) Top
Michelle Obama spent Wednesday visiting third graders in DC (read about it here) dressed in sleeveless polka dots and what seem to be fake eyelashes. Her lush lash line could have been several things: really good mascara, great genes, Latisse , or some glued on false eyelashes. PHOTOS: More on Michelle Obama Style
 
Geoffrey R. Stone: What's Wrong with this Picture? Top
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both." -- James Madison President Barack Obama yesterday changed his mind about releasing to the public hundreds of photographs that apparently document abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by American military personnel between 2001 and 2005. Mr. Obama apparently changed his mind after he was reportedly warned by top Pentagon officials that publication of these images might inflame anti-American sentiment in the region and therefore endanger American soldiers. The President is right that the dissemination of these photographs might inflame anti-American opinion and possibly put our soldiers at greater risk. But he is wrong to focus on that risk rather than on the importance of these images to public debate in the United States - debate that is at the very core of our self-governing society. We value free speech not because it is harmless, but because it is essential. The free-wheeling dissemination of ideas, images, and information causes all sorts of harm. The old adage that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me," is dead wrong. Speech can offend, injure reputation, fan prejudice or passion, and ignite violence. Critical discussion of the war in Iraq turned the American people against the war and therefore made it more difficult for our military leaders to achieve their goals. Certainly, criticism of the war in Iraq - including the criticism voiced so powerfully by then-Senator Obama, encouraged and emboldened the insurgents in Iraq and increased the danger to American soldiers, as many conservatives charged at the time. Did Mr. Obama silence himself? Of course not. Because he understood that public debate about even the most controversial and inflammatory public issues is the very lifeblood of American democracy. If we were to take seriously President Obama's view that the government should not release information to the American public if doing so might increase the risk to American soldiers, then surely the government would also be right not to disclose to the American people that (a) American military personnel tortured enemy detainees; (b) American soldiers massacred innocent civilians; (c) American soldiers were defeated in a fierce battle and suffered huge losses; and (d) the American military is using outdated equipment that does not adequately protect our soldiers. Mr. Obama might argue that all that is at issue here are mere pictures. The American people already know (sort of) about the abuses themselves. The value of these images to robust public debate, he might argue, is therefore relatively slight. Of course, the same can be said about the harm from release of the photos. But the more important point is that visual images matter a lot in public discourse. Think, for example, about the response of the American people to such events as the Holocaust, the Mai Lai massacre, the use of fire hoses and riot police against peaceful civil rights demonstrators in the American South, and the photographs of Abu Ghraib. Without the reinforcing impact of those images, those events would never have had the effect they did on the American public. Here is another misleading adage: "What you don't know can't hurt you." President Obama is wrong on this issue, and he is wrong in a big way.
 
Michael Vazquez: Tune In NOW to Freepress.net's Media Summit Top
Right NOW through 5:45 PM EST, in Washington DC, activists, watchdogs and journalists are gathered for Freepress.net's inaugural Media Summit happening at the Newseum. Topics on the agenda include the digital divide, net neutrality, the shrinking newsstand, new business models, the absence of a national broadband policy...fun fact just delivered by Obama economic advisor Susan Crawford: in Japan 150 MBPS broadband costs 60 bucks. Good luck finding that here in the U.S. Why? That's a good question, just one of many that will be asked today. TUNE IN for the live webcast. Also, be sure to download your free copy of "Changing Media" as well as activist tools as we endeavor to remedy what one panelist just called the "100-year accident of centralized publishing..." And thanks to journalist Ray Suarez for pointing out "the difference between delivery and access" and what our government's role in this should be. This question remains unanswered, as does the age-old question of how and why telecommunications companies enjoy a bizarre business model which allows them to profit so greatly from tax-payer infrastructure and publicly-owned airwaves without paying a fair price when the Fed holds auctions and when local public access centers negotiate for greater citizens' access...FULL DISCLOSURE: I am not connected with Freepress.net, but I think you should watch and participate in this summit as well as the post-summit follow-through. YOUR voice is needed.
 
Carl Pope: The Logic of Terror Top
Washington, D.C. -- A classic definition of the logic of terror is "the severing of the link between the target of violence and the reason for violence."   By this definition, hostage-taking is the original terrorist act. Recent behavior by the Republican Senate leadership, although violent in a political rather than a physical sense, reflects the same underlying logic: We are in the minority, but we know we are right, so we can attack innocent parties until we get our way from the majority. Yesterday's case study was the successful Republican filibuster to block the confirmation of David Hayes as Deputy Secretary of the Interior. Hayes's nomination was blocked when only a majority of the Senate voted, 57-39, to approve him -- falling three votes short of the 60 needed to overcome the Republican leadership's filibuster. No one even pretended that they objected to Hayes. Indeed, many of the Republican Senators who voted against him, at the behest of their party's leadership, had voted to confirm him for exactly the same job when he held it during the Clinton administration. And in between, Hayes worked for a prominent firm that represents major corporations on issues relating to natural resources. Hayes was merely the latest hostage in the leadership's campaign of political terror. Utah Senators Bennett and Hatch, and Alaska Senator Murkowski, are upset with Interior Secretary Salazar, who would be Hayes's boss, for canceling oil and gas leases approved by the Bush administration in Utah and off our coasts. Since Salazar, who by law is responsible for leasing, wouldn't let the three senators dictate how he does his job, they decided to punish him by denying him the ability to put his deputy in place. The Republican leadership, stunningly, chose to make this vote a matter of party loyalty -- and almost every Republicans in the Senate went along. Only Arizona's Jon Kyl and Maine's Olympia Snowe had the courage to vote against the logic of terror by saying, in effect, "Hayes is a good nominee. He deserves to be confirmed. Therefore it is my duty under the Constitution to confirm him." The rest of the Republican caucus, in my view, violated their Constitutional duty to give "advice and consent" to the president on the matter of nominees. Most of these Republican senators are on the record, vociferously, as arguing that the president's nominees should be confirmed unless they are morally corrupt or manifestly unqualified. But they gleefully threw all of their past statements overboard when their leaders declared that party loyalty trumped the Constitution. There is something profoundly sick in the culture of the U.S. Senate that allows the personal preferences of individual senators to be elevated to a virtual government by a minority of one (or, in this case, three). This personalization of public services exists on both sides of the aisle -- but it is the Republican leadership that has put minority rule on steroids, beginning in 1993 when Bob Dole decided, for the first time in American history, to use the filibuster against every program Bill Clinton offered that he didn't like -- and now, with Mitch McConnell's decision to convert the "hold" by which an individual senator can slow a confirmation into a veto by which an entire party caucus will turn such a hold into an actual veto of an appointee.
 
Obama Notre Dame Degree Leaked By Anti-Abortion Activist Top
President Barack Obama's scheduled appearance at Notre Dame's commencement on Sunday has caused a fuss, with antiabortion activists and students promising they will protest. One of those leading this effort, Randall Terry, a longtime, controversial, and extreme anti-abortion crusader, claims he's obtained a leaked copy of the text of the honorary degree Obama will receive. In a press release he zapped out on Thursday morning, Terry said the text had been given to him by "someone connected with Notre Dame" whom he would not identify, and he published the purported text:
 
Donald Rumsfeld Loudly Harangued At White House Correspondents' Dinner Top
This video has been making the rounds, but in case you haven't seen it, here's Donald Rumsfeld getting shouted at by Desiree Fairooz and Medea Benjamin of the ubiquitous protest organization known as Code Pink. I gather that the big takeaway is that, in Code Pink's estimation, Donald Rumsfeld is a "war criminal." But don't take my word for it! Maybe my impression is based in a flawed parsing of all this subtlety. [WATCH.] Naturally, I'm not a big fan of Donald Rumsfeld, or the Iraq War strategy, or the foreign policy -- if it can be called that -- that came out of the Bush White House. And, on principle, I'm sort of okay with messing around with the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Nevertheless, I find it hard to divine the value of Code Pink yelling at Rumsfeld in this setting. In the first place, there's the pointlessness: the Beltway press are fully on board with "looking forward, not backward," and preserving comity, and not troubling their pretty little minds with the hurtful thoughts of the people they cover going to jail. And I promise you, this yelling at Donald Rumsfeld will only harden their position in this regard. But more to the point, I've watched Code Pink shout at Al Gore , of all people, at Netroots Nation, of all places, as he was explaining his national environmental policy initiative, of all the things to shout down. When you basically go out and disrupt EVERYTHING, it's hard to know where you stand on ANYTHING. So, yeah, I find this stuff relentlessly unimpressive, but I've also found that plenty of people object to me saying so. Just like the Tea Parties! I nevertheless believe that just as crisis demands we not abandon our principles, our response to crisis demands we at least attempt to preserve a measure of dignity. And with that, everyone can start, you know, TOTALLY YELLING AT ME. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Video
 
Netanyahu To Pope: 'Sound Your Moral Voice Against The Iranian Threat' Top
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday asked Pope Benedict XVI to condemn the anti-Semitic declarations of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. More on Iran
 
Laurence Leamer: The Peace Corps Crisis Top
On a cold inauguration morning, hundreds of former volunteers marched down Pennsylvania Avenue carrying flags from the 139 countries in which the Peace Corps has served. It was a powerful moment as they saw confirmed that they were part of a 195,000 strong army of former volunteers who embodied President Kennedy's most enduring visible legacy. Most of them entered the Peace Corps fresh out of college and have gone on to be Super Citizens, bringing idealism and commitment to whatever their endeavors. Many of them have gone back to the developing world working for NGOS, as diplomats or aid officials, carrying with them in their kit bags an intimate awareness that they had gained living for two years with the people they served. As powerful as that experience had been, as large as they contributions many of them have made to their communities and the world, as they walked arm in arm they knew that they were part of a promise that had not been fulfilled, a dream not yet realized. The Peace Corps is the embodiment of philosopher William James' brilliant idea of a moral equivalent to war, an army of youth seeking the risk and challenge they need to become true adults bearing the laurel branches of peace not the weapons of war. Kennedy envisioned a million volunteers across the world, an army of such magnitude and moral power that it would belittle the Pentagon's soldiers, and create a new world of understanding and hope. The Peace Corps reached its largest size in 1966 when there were 15,000 volunteers. There are 7,800 volunteers now on an earth peopled by close to double the inhabitants, and although the Peace Corps goes on, it has receded from the consciousness of most Americans. As the former volunteers marched that morning, they knew their time had come once again. There was a new president for a new age and Obama was one of them. He had been a community organizer in Chicago and he had promised to double the size of the Peace Corps by its fiftieth anniversary in 2011 and to expand massively the domestic volunteer corps. As the group passed in front of the reviewing stand at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the new young president appeared visibly moved, and those in the march knew that they were at the beginning of a great new era for the Peace Corps when it would assume its rightful place as America's shining presence in the developing world. It is now four months later, and the flags have been put away, and the shouts of exhilaration have grown still. While Obama is building the domestic program up to at massive 270,000 volunteers, he intends to increase the Peace Corps budget only 10 percent, and envisions a 20 percent increase in volunteers by 2012. It would appear a betrayal of his campaign promise and of his ideals, a tragic failure to change America's image and its very presence in the world. A mark of that failure is that there are only two Arab countries that have volunteers, and while American drones fly above Pakistan there are no volunteers in the villages beneath. Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, has asked for volunteers but with this new budget there will be few Americans to live in the world's fourth biggest country. Obama has a desk full of nothing but massive, intransigent problems and although he perhaps deserves some blame for a failure of nerve, most of the responsibility lies elsewhere. The Peace Corps bureaucracy told the new administration that it was incapable of doubling the volunteer corps by 2011 and asked for little more than what the President wants to give them. The Peace Corps is a broken bureaucracy. It has lost its way. It is a shell of what it once was. And in the most important moment in Peace Corps history since the Kennedy years, it is unready and unwell. It is concerned more with the security of volunteers than their service. It is impassioned only by sinecures and ease. Obama could not force the Peace Corps bureaucracy to do what it is incapable of doing, but he can appoint a new director who will radically reform the organization. James Arena-DeRosa is apparently the leading candidate. His resume is far thinner than those of any of the other names being bandied about. For the last nine years Arena-DeRosa has been the Peace Corps regional director in Boston, a mid level bureaucrat whose primary responsibility was recruitment. The Peace Corps has a famous rule limiting service to five years. That Arena-DeRosa and so many others have held on far longer suggests how far the bureaucracy has fallen from its original ideals. He has been a creature of the very organization that must be changed. He has never managed anything important in his life. Many of those concerned with the future of the Peace Corps think that Arena-DeRosa would be an inexplicable choice. His friends attest to his wonderful qualities and his concerns for the Peace Crops. But does this man have the abilities to do what must be done? Those serving the president in the White House involved with the Peace Corps appear not to care very much. It's just another pesky issue to deal with and move on. They are making a dreadful mistake. There are all kinds of talented, unusual people who can do this job. What the president must choose is a new director will take the position only if he or she is mandated for reform. He must appoint someone capable of turning it into an organization that is not seen as the aging child of the Sixties, but as a passionately informed player in the world of the 21st century. If Arena-DeRosa is that man, fine. If he is not, the administration must move on. The president must listen to those who speak with wisdom of our world. "We've become accustomed to the title of 'military super-power,' forgetting the qualities that got us there -- not just the power of our weapons, but the discipline and valor and the code of conduct of our men and women in uniform. The Marshall Plan, and the Peace Corps, and all those initiatives that show our commitment to working with other nations to pursue the ideals of opportunity and equality and freedom that have made us who we are. That's what made us a super power. " That wasn't JFK. That was Barack Obama in his commencement address at Arizona State University yesterday.
 
Sandy Maisel: Filbusters and Holds Have No Place on Confirmations Top
David Hayes will someday be an answer to a trivia question. Or maybe even Alex Trebek's successor will pose the query on Jeopardy! : "The first Obama nominee thwarted by the U.S. Senate." The Senate did not move forward to consider Hayes' nomination for the second ranking position in the Interior Department, refusing to end a filibuster when the vote total came up three votes short of the magic number 60. Frankly, I've never heard of David Hayes. But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar got into a brouhaha with Utah Senator Bob Bennett, and Bennett and the Republicans decided to hold Hayes' nomination hostage. Score one victory for GOP, one loss for good governance. Tara Hendershott, Bennett's staff assistant, admitted to CNN that the vote was not about Hayes, it was about Salazar's refusal to play ball with her boss on oil and gas leases. The Senate role in confirming presidential nominees should not be about personal vendettas, it should be about finding qualified individuals to fill political jobs in a new administration. It seems clear that Hayes will eventually be confirmed, probably as early as next week. Three Democratic senators -- Kennedy and Kerry of Massachusetts and Mikulski of Maryland did not vote on today's procedural vote. Maine's Olympia Snowe and Arizona's John Kyl broke ranks with fellow Republicans to support moving forward to an up-and-down vote on the nomination. If they hold their positions against what will undoubtedly be GOP pressure to go along, the nomination will move forward and be approved. But the point should not be lost. One senator has delayed this nomination by imposing a "hold" and then convincing his partisan colleagues to go along with a procedural vote that denied confirmation. Holds are inherently undemocratic. The filibuster was never meant to be used for such purposes. And it is time for the United States Senate to mend its ways. Holds should no longer be respected. Pure and simple. The Senate Democratic leadership should make those who want to hold up legislation by a filibuster, exercising the rights of the minority, to do just that -- filibuster, on into the night for as long as they can. No more pro forma votes on an intention to filibuster. Half a century ago filibusters were used rarely -- and only on those pieces of legislation that changed the course of the nation. Breaking a filibuster, as was done on the major civil rights bills of the 1950s and 1960s, meant convincing those set in their ways that time for change had come. Today, any significant piece of legislation needs 60 votes to get through the Senate. And increasingly, the same is going to be true of presidential nominations. Republicans are threatening a filibuster of President Obama's nomination of Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor, to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. I suppose one should take some solace in the fact that they oppose Professor Johnsen because of her views. But wait! The views that are so objectionable were expressions of dismay over Bush Administration memos permitting torture. But of course, she was right to ask "Where's the outrage?" . GOP senators shouldn't let a little fact like that get in their way. And after Johnsen the daggers will undoubtedly be aimed at whomever Obama nominates to succeed Justice Souter. Filibusters of Supreme Court nominees have been few and far between. The Senate will do itself and the nation a huge favor if it returns to that practice. The Hayes' defeat -- even if it is only temporary -- focuses attention on the issue. Senators Snowe and Kyl deserve credit for putting nation and the institution of the Senate ahead of partisanship. Other Republicans -- those in the Gang of 14 would seem to be potential followers of Snowe and Kyl -- would do well to follow their example and return procedural sanity to legislating in the Senate L. Sandy Maisel is director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Colby College.
 
Iris and Louis Andros: US Couple Trying To Adopt On Trial In Egypt Top
CAIRO — An American couple, Iris Botros and Louis Andros, thought they were finally reaching their dream of having a child when they came to Botros' homeland, Egypt, to adopt twin orphans. Instead they found themselves in a cage in a courtroom, on trial for alleged child trafficking. The pop star Madonna's attempt to adopt a second child from the African country of Malawi has shown how complicated international adoptions can be. But in Muslim countries like Egypt, such adoptions are nearly impossible, snarled in religious tradition and murky laws. Botros and Andros, who live in Durham, N.C., also may have been caught up in an attempt by the Egyptian government to show it is cracking down on human trafficking after criticism from the United States. The trial of Botros, Andros and another couple is the first of its kind in Egypt. In the tangle of the country's regulations and customs, even lawyers are unsure whether adoption is allowed. "I don't know if it is legal or illegal. Really, I don't know," said Aameh Saleh, the Egyptian lawyer representing Botros and Andros. What is known is that Islamic law forbids adoption, and that is the law applied to Muslims in Egypt. The religion emphasizes maintaining clear bloodlines to ensure lines of patrimony and inheritance. At most, Muslims can take a child into long-term foster care, but such a situation does not allow the child to inherit from the foster parents. Most often, orphans are informally taken in by their extended family, without any legal provisions. Almost all other Muslim countries in the Middle East have similar practices. The law is far less clear concerning Egypt's Christian minority, to which Botros belongs. Adoptions within the Christian community _ including by Egyptian Christians living abroad _ do take place, usually involving a donation to a Christian orphanage. Proponents say this type of adoption is not explicitly banned, but still faces monumental barriers. Many government officials are resistant to adoption _ believing it is not allowed _ and Muslim conservatives are opposed because they fear that Christians will adopt Muslim orphans and raise them as Christians. The process is so long, confusing and tedious that the few Christians who try it often turn to backdoor methods like forgeries and bribes, sometimes organized by churches and mainly Christian orphanages. "Adoption is organized throughout Egypt, through the churches," Saleh said. "The government knows about it all the time but turns a blind eye." Botros, 40, and Andros, 70, likely thought they could do the same. "She wanted to adopt children. She came to Egypt where there are so many poor and orphans," said Iman Faltass, Botros' aunt, who also lives in Durham. "I lived in Egypt until college and I knew people who adopted kids. It was simple and not illegal." The couple, who own a Greek restaurant in Durham, tried for years to have a child and attempted to adopt in the U.S., where the two married 15 years ago, said Saleh. But several factors stood in their way, especially Andros' age. On the advice of Egyptian friends, the two traveled to Cairo in the fall and were put in touch with a Coptic Christian orphanage that was caring for two newborn orphans. The orphanage gave them forged documents to say Botros had given birth to the children, and the couple donated $4,600 to the orphanage, Saleh said. In November, Botros and Andros brought the twins, whom they named Victoria and Alexander, back to their temporary home in a mostly Christian neighborhood of Cairo. But when they tried to get American passports for the babies, a U.S. Embassy employee became suspicious of them, Saleh said. When asked by an embassy official, Botros admitted she wasn't the biological mother, the lawyer said. The couple was turned over to Egyptian police, who questioned them for several days before formally arresting them in December. The charges leveled against them were far more serious than either expected _ child trafficking, forging documents and trying to smuggle people out of the country. The two could face up to seven years in prison if convicted. In their first court session in March, Botros and Andros appeared in a metal cage in the courtroom _ as defendants in Egyptian courts are always held during hearings _ and pleaded not guilty. They are to appear for a second session on Saturday. Several doctors and orphanage administrators have also been charged. A second couple _ Suzan Hagoulf, an American of Egyptian origin, and her Egyptian husband Medhat Metyas, who have been living in Egypt since 2003 _ were also arrested in December. Hagoulf and Metyas adopted a newborn from the same orphanage almost a year ago, according to their lawyer, Naguib Gibrail. When they wanted to visit the U.S. in late 2008, they applied at the U.S. Embassy, where officials asked for a DNA test on the child. The couple were reluctant to present one, and the embassy notified Egyptian police, Gibrail said. He said he did not know where the couple had lived in the U.S. before coming to Egypt. They were charged with forging documents in their adoption _ though not with child trafficking because their donation of about $70 to the orphanage was so much smaller than the other American couple's, the lawyer said, adding his clients deny any involvement in child smuggling. "I know so many people who adopted children in Egypt but they were all kept secret," Gibrail said. The lack of a clear legal way for Christians to adopt "is pushing these people to forge documents. The state is pushing these people to commit a crime," he said. Saleh says his clients, Andros and Botros, don't know the other couple. He said Andros and Botros didn't realize they were doing anything wrong, saying Botros asked workers at the orphanage if the process was legal and they assured her it was. Saleh noted that Botros has not lived in Egypt for 15 years and her husband has no connection to the country, so they were not acquainted with the country's laws. The orphanage has been closed by authorities since the couple was arrested, and its managers could not be found for comment. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo would not comment on the case. According to the State Department, few Egyptian children are adopted by American citizens. In fiscal year 2008, the U.S. issued two Egyptian orphans immigrant visas, which must be obtained for internationally adopted children to enter the United States, according U.S. government figures. Given that most adoptions are clandestine, it was not possible to get figures on children adopted by citizens from other countries or adopted domestically within Egypt. Some speculate that Egypt may be using the case to show the world it is fighting human trafficking. The U.S. and Israel have criticized Egypt in recent years for not doing enough to stop the flow of African migrants to Israel in search of jobs and a better life. The arrests came soon after Egypt's First Lady, Suzanne Mubarak, launched a highly publicized campaign against human trafficking. "The United States describes Egypt as a country of transit for human trafficking. The government wants to clear itself of this," Saleh said. Egyptian officials did not respond to several requests by the AP to be interviewed. Egypt's minister of family and population, Moushira Khatab, told parliament this spring that the country should reconsider its laws pertaining to orphans and adoption. But she didn't elaborate. Adoption experts said the case highlights the importance of being well-informed and working with governments and reputable agencies to make sure laws and social norms are followed. "Every country whether we like it or not, whether it's good or not, whether it's healthy or not, every country has the right to make its own laws and if you are in that country, you are obligated to follow those laws," said Adam Pertman, executive director of the New York-based Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, an advocacy group that researches ways to improve adoption policies. Now Botros and Andros are in separate cells during their trial, allowed to write short letters to each other, which are delivered by guards, Saleh said. The babies now live with 60 other children in a Cairo orphanage. "She called me once and she was so excited when she had the kids. She was telling me how beautiful they are and how she loved them," said Faltass, Botros' aunt in North Carolina. "I can't understand how this is a crime." More on Egypt
 
Robert Koehler: Goliath's Vulnerability Is the Truth Top
The desperation of our military efforts is showing around the edges of the carnage and tragedy. This past week has brought three official U.S. denials that we have done what eyewitnesses and/or other evidence indicates we did: a) used white phosphorous as a weapon against Afghan civilians; b) killed nearly 150 Afghan villagers in a sustained bombardment; c) killed a 12-year-old Iraqi boy as he stood innocently by the side of the road selling fruit juice. Note to David: Goliath's vulnerability is the truth. We are living on the brink of profound change, hard as that change is to see through the smoke and rubble -- but why else would the U.S. military, or any other military for that matter, find it so hard to accept responsibility for its own actions? Why the fumbling evasions rather than a sneering "It was necessary"? If might makes right, why take the trouble to worry about public relations at all? Governing morality may not have changed much since the days of the Roman Empire, but the seething mass of the governed -- humanity itself -- has evolved beyond barbarism to a higher state of values. Vaguely articulated ideals pulse amid the shrapnel of politics: We want a fair and just world. Every child deserves a chance. We are (ahem, cough) all one, at some core level. Thus our official goals in the Middle East and Af-Pak grudgingly reflect this: safety and security (and oil) for America, yes, but democracy for the world, too. And women's rights! Aw, look at those purple fingers that those first-time voters raise proudly for the photographers -- that's what our bombs are accomplishing; that's why our endlessly deployed troops are self-destructing with PTSD. Does the heart good. Could it really be that a gossamer layer of official spin is all that's protecting the military-industrial status quo from a groundswell of change in how we think about and plan the human future? How close are we to telling President Obama that drones will not secure anything for us in Afghanistan, but if we're committed to that country's transformation, if America truly represents an alternative to all that is cruel and repressive about the Taliban, we should experiment with positive investment in the region and redefine "diplomacy" to mean respectful listening rather than coercion? Yeah, right, that's going to happen -- maybe in the next hundred days. I guess my point is that we have no right to give up: "Shouting 'Death to America' and 'Death to the Government,' thousands of Afghan villagers hurled stones at police . . . as they vented their fury at American air strikes that local officials claim killed 147 civilians," Patrick Cockburn reported last week in the U.K.'s Independent. Cockburn added that U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking in Kabul, suggested that the dead -- some of them, anyway -- may have been the victims of Taliban grenades for failing to pay an opium tax. Eyewitnesses and photos of bomb craters in the three destroyed villages in Farah Province said otherwise, however, and Gates ultimately "expressed regret for the incident but did not go so far as to accept blame," Cockburn wrote. In Mosul, Iraq, last week, American soldiers turned machinegun fire on a 12-year-old boy after their convoy had been hit with a grenade. Because the boy had Iraqi currency on him worth about nine U.S. dollars, a military spokesman told McClatchy Newspapers, "We have every reason to believe that insurgents are paying children to conduct these attacks." Once again, however, eyewitness accounts lend no credence to what simply seems to be wishful thinking (a strange, jarring sort of activity for a superpower). A man in his 20s had tossed the grenade, witnesses said. But, "When attacked, the Americans just open fire, whether on the gunman or just randomly," Mosul member of Parliament Usama Al Nujaifi later said, according to the McClatchy account. "The American presence in the cities is wrong. We urged them to stay outside from the beginning." And, oh yeah, the shooting is still under investigation, according to an American military statement. As far as I know, no such investigation is under way into the allegation by human rights groups that some of the civilian injuries in the Farah Province battles -- "unusual" and serious chemical burns -- were the result of the U.S. use of white phosphorus, which sticks to the skin of victims as it burns and is banned for use as a weapon by a treaty the U.S. has signed. The U.S. is trying to effect changes in the world that cannot happen militarily, but old forces of habit and economic interest keep us plunging forward into greater and greater violence anyway, and when we only succeed at creating the horrors we attribute to our enemies, we deny, deny, deny. In the immortal words of the former president, "America doesn't do torture." This lie's days are numbered. - - - Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com. © 2009 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC. More on Afghanistan
 
Lesley Stern: How To Live On $0 A Day: Keeping Up Appearances -- Revising Your Beauty Regimen Top
Probably the most jarring thing about going broke is the effect it can have on your appearance. Imagine the horror of realizing that those one inch gray roots you're sporting aren't going away and you can't afford to continue paying Monsieur Groovy Pants $120.00 plus tips to fix it. Needless to say, the panic and loneliness are mind-bending. Or worse, those doggone "elevens" between your eyebrows come back and you start to look as worried as you really are. What do you tell the children? But poverty doesn't have to age you if you're creative. If you have scientific tendencies, you can always grow your own botulism toxin. In fact, you may have some growing in your refrigerator or cupboard right now. Keep your eye open for bulging cans and jars. If you don't have any botulism lying around, improperly jar or can some food (old fruit and vegetables found in the nearest dumpster will do), wait two weeks and you're good to go. Click here for self-injection tips. Cut and dye your own hair. Give yourself some really heavy bangs if you feel uneasy using homemade botox. Sure, dying and cutting your hair for the first time is a little scary. But if you've watched a few episodes of "Shear Genius", you probably know all you need to know. Consider the advantages. Trying new things keeps you young. The rush of fearful adrenaline is exhilarating (particularly now that you can't afford coffee). Styling your own hair is one of the few creative outlets you can afford to pursue. Unlike your retirement account, your hair will grow back if you screw up. Which leads to the beauty and splendor of scarves. Chances are, you've still got a few designer scarves tucked away somewhere in the bottom of your drawer. Now's the time to dig them out. In a pinch, an old pashmina or Ikea dish towel will do. Here are a few examples of how a scarf can be used in your beauty regimen: A poorly executed haircut or dye job can be camouflaged by creative use of the scarf. Click here for stylish scarf wrapping ideas that won't make you look like a chemo patient, hippie or mammy (not that there's anything wrong with it). You've finally scraped the last molecule from your $500 dollar Kanebo neck cream, your neck is starting to resemble a shar pei, and you've already sold all your cashmere turtlenecks on ebay. Of course, the scarf can also be used to mask other cosmetic issues such as deflating lips, the "elevens" between the brows, even crows feet and drooping eyelids. Use your discretion to determine how liberally you wish to apply your scarf. Always make sure the designer logo is in plain sight. It'll make you look classier. To learn about more invasive do-it-yourself cosmetic procedures, see my article about duct tape. More on Economy
 
Andy Plesser: Google to Whining Publishers: Use a Robot to Block our Spiders Top
It must not be not easy for the Google crew to being called " parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet ," by Robert Thompson, the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal. Well fine, if publishers don't want their content crawled, they easily tag their content with a "Robot" which blocks Google's spiders from crawling and indexing their pages, says Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker in this interview with Beet.TV Blocking Google is easily done with a simple tag, called Robots Exclusion Protocol or robots.txt protocol. Google explains how Robot.txt is used here. Gabriel told us that the reports coming out a recent meeting of newspaper publishers was "confusing." He told us that Google sends 1 billion clicks per month to the world's newspapers. He says the company hopes to work with newspapers in helping them make money in an expanding online universe. Andy Plesser, Executive Producer More on Newspapers
 
Michael Wolff: Torture Pictures: When a Flip-Flop Isn't a Flip-Flop Top
Sure as shootin', the torture pictures will be released. The courts will authorize them or some exceptional leaker will free them. In the digital age, if you know a picture exists and it's in hot demand--whether it's a nude Miss California or a gruesome bit of aggressive interrogation--there's little or no chance it won't be found. So what's the Obama game, opposing the release of photographs he knows will be public and whose release he previously supported? What we're starting to see emerge here is the Obama PR doctrine. It's a series of ritualistic bows, and even the appearance of tacit submission, to the other side. Opposing the release of the pictures is like the flag pin in his lapel. Having made the pin an issue in the early stages of his campaign--precisely articulating what all non-flag-pin-wearing people feel--he then reversed himself. This was a tacit victory for the pin-wearers, while at the same time sending an altogether different signal to the non-wearers: We have to fight the people who make us wear these pins . Continue reading on newser.com More on Barack Obama
 
'Very Large Bomb' Parts Discovered In UK Top
The component parts of a very large bomb have been found near Rosslea in County Fermanagh, police have said. More on England
 
Jim Jaffe: Proposed Health Premium Tax Exempts Most Top
Conventional wisdom suggests that taxing employer-paid health programs to finance health reforms is a non-starter because an overwhelming majority - 85% according to the New York Times suggests (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/business/economy/13leonhardt.html?_r=1) - would confront a tax increase to subsidize coverage for those who now lack it. Conventional wisdom may once again be wrong. In any event, it is based on bad numbers. In fact, some helpful data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute suggests that such a tax would only have an impact on a minority of Americans - albeit a substantial minority that has significant political clout. Any such move would be consistent with our progressive income tax system where a small number of affluent people pay for services provided to a large number of poorer people. Here's how the numbers look. About 62% of non-elderly people have employment-linked insurance. But America has a large and growing senior population. When you factor them in, the percentage of the entire population with employer coverage drops to 55%. But not everyone who's employed pays income taxes. Many simply don't make enough to be taxed. A few years ago, the Tax Foundation estimated that nearly 60 million Americans were earning some money, but had no responsibility to pay income taxes. Finally, the number shrinks a bit further if you try to tease out the number of Americans who can afford insurance but don't currently have it and thus wouldn't need a subsidy under a reform plan. When you consider that pattern, it becomes clear that less than half of the population enjoys employment-linked health insurance and pays income taxes. Making premium payments taxable would reduce this number slightly because the extra income reported would push some of these non-taxpayers over the line into taxpaying status. That doesn't suggest taxing premiums is a done deal. In fact, raising taxes is always difficult. But the task isn't quite as daunting as it now seems and that realization may grease the process in the months ahead. More on Taxes
 
David Axelrod's 'Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me' Appearance Top
Axelrod, appearing on stage in Washington as the star guest of National Public Radio's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!, will attempt to answer questions about a job which he knows nothing about. That's the shtick for the "Not My Job'' segment of the popular quiz show, which will be taped Thursday night and air this weekend. NPR says it has a full house for the show at George Washington University's Lisner Auditorium. More on David Axelrod
 

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)