Friday, May 15, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Mike Lux: Why I Am A Progressive Top
One of the main reasons I wrote my book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be , was to give progressive leaders and activists a narrative about American history that would let them argue the progressive cause. I am delighted to pass the word on that members of the Democratic caucus in the House have taken that idea, and run with it. Keith Ellison and the Congressional Progressive Caucus organized an hour-long special order on the subject "Why I am a Progressive." The first half-hour was on what progressives have done to make America a better place, and the second was on what bold progressive vision for America could be now. I was especially honored because Keith told me that The Progressive Revolution in great part inspired the idea of this special order, and because he used research and talking points coming from my book in his remarks on the floor. This is what progressives should be doing, on the floor of the House and Senate, and in their organizing on behalf of progressive causes everywhere across this country: telling the proud story of the progressive movement, and why we should be bold in pushing for more and bolder progressive change. Here are the thoughts I sent to Keith on their special order. I am a progressive because progressives have always fought for Jefferson's idea that all of us are created equal. I am a progressive because progressives embrace the idea of a government of, by, and for the people instead of a government run by the wealthy and powerful. I am a progressive because we need an economy built from the bottom up, not the top down; an economy that is built on rising wages and an expanding and prosperous middle class, not one built on getting scraps trickling down from the rich and investor bubbles; an economy built on producing quality products, not one based on moving money around from one wealthy financial conglomerate to another. I am a progressive because all of the great advances in American history come from the progressive movement, from people who believed in equality and democracy and justice and change fighting against the powers that be: -The American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence -The Bill of Rights -The abolition of slavery -The national park system -Consumer safety laws -Breaking up the big corporate trusts -Women's suffrage -Social Security -Minimum wage -Unemployment and worker's compensation -Rural electrification -The GI Bill -Child labor laws -The weekend and eight-hour days -Ending Jim Crow -Medicare and Medicaid -Head Start -Legal Services -Clean Water Act -Clean Air Act -The EPA -The Occupational Safety and Health Administration -Martin Luther King Day -Labor Day -Family and Medical Leave -S-CHIP All of these gains for the American people came about because progressives had the idea, organized for it, and passed it into law. If progressives could make all these things happen in our history, what can progressives do in our times if they think big and act boldly? -Build an economy that is run almost entirely on wind, solar, and other clean renewable energy by the year 2020 -Create a health care system where every American has access to health care services, with their own choice of a high-quality doctor, whenever they need it, and where they and their doctor don't have to fight with insurance companies over the treatment they need. -Create a full employment economy where everyone is paid a wage that will keep them and their families above the poverty line -Create an educational system where anyone who wants to get a college degree is able to do so without going deeply into debt, and where every single K-12 public school succeeds at getting their students ready for life as productive citizens. -Invest in a non-profit sector where citizens are empowered to build community organizations that make a difference in their lives. I would love to know how you would answer those questions , and frame the progressive argument. Here's some video highlights from the "Why I am a Progressive" hour on the House floor.
 
Michael Wolff: Cuomo and Carlyle: Who Wins? Top
The Great Recession was caused by, I believe we are all agreed, two or three decades of unleashed and unregulated ambition--that desire, on the part of a certain personality type, to get the most that could be gotten. The curious question is what happens now to that sort of rapacious desire and to those kind of Sammy Glick personalities in this new, earnest, cautionary, and reform-minded, age. The Carlyle Group, the Times reports, will pay $20 million "and make broad changes to its practices" to settle pay-to-play accusations by the New York attorney general. This presumably means that, not only will the Sammy Glick-types at Carlyle no longer bribe lesser Sammy Glick-types who might influence the direction of state-supervised pension funds, but that Carlyle will in some more profound sense, as the Times says, shift its ways. It is hard to imagine what that shift might involve--lower rates of return? Upper-middle-class, rather than baronial, compensation packages? Shabby offices? Even a kind of throwing off of the monkey of ambition itself? Carlyle becomes a reticent, cautious, conservative, lackluster, little firm of unglamorous green-visor types? I think that might be close to the romantic view of the new reformers--repress the Id of ambition. Continue reading on newser.com More on The Recession
 
Washington Governor Christine Gregoire On Why She Gave Newspapers A Tax Break Top
As she becomes the first governor in the nation to funnel taxpayer money into her state's ailing newspaper industry this week, Washington State's Chris Gregoire is being hailed as a crusader for the survival of the press. In an exclusive interview, she talks about why the folding of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's print edition affected her so profoundly, her own brief stint as a journalist--and why she won't get a free pass from the reporters whose careers she's helping to save. More on Newspapers
 
Chris Kelly: Meg Whitman Week -- Friday: Share the Wealth Top
Al Checchi spent forty million dollars of his own money running for governor of California. He didn't even get his party's nomination. Bill Simon lent himself ten million dollars to lose to Gray Davis. Let me type that again. To lose. To Gray Davis . Georges Marciano, one of the founders of Guess? Jeans, is running a self-financed run for governor right now. This is a man with so little to justify his own existence he actually started a company with a question mark in it. "Question mark," in Marciano's case, being short for "Who the fuck are you, question mark." And god bless 'em all. The key to a California vanity campaign is lots and lots of television advertising, and ad rates are down this year. The TV industry needs the money. Meg Whitman has already committed four million dollars of her own money to making herself governor, and the only person who's talking about her is me, and I ran out of things to say days ago. She's hinted that she'll spend another $40 million, and that's good. Let's get that money back in circulation. Don't think of her as a malevolent cipher on a midlife ego trip. Think of her as a stimulus package. For the advertising and consulting industries. There are crazier things she could do. In 1884, an aimless millionairess moved to California and bought an eight-room farmhouse in San Jose. Her name was Sarah Winchester. She had twenty million dollars from the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, and the way she revitalized the economy was by renovating, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the next 38 years. There was never a plan for any of the work. She built rooms and had them boarded up again. Staircases go nowhere and doors - eventually there were 467 of them - open onto brick walls and fourteen-foot drops. There are 47 fireplaces, some with chimneys that have no way of venting smoke to the outside. 50 skylights, including one that only lets light in from the room upstairs. 40 bdrms, 13 bths, 6 EIKs. Grt views! through 10,000 windows, most with thirteen panes of glass. She spent five million dollars between 1884 and 1922, which proves, once and for all, that we must repeal the estate tax NOW! If the state had gotten its hands on that money they would have probably just blown it on irrigation or fighting polio. Here's how Meg Whitman is completely different from Sarah Winchester: Sarah Winchester left us something. The house is a museum. All we're going to get from Whitman for Governor is sick of her ads. Here's another way they're different. Sarah Winchester was a nut. According to legend at least, she was building the house to ward off ghosts. A psychic had told her that the spirits of people who'd been killed by Winchester rifles were coming to get her. According to legend, at least, she was building the house to confuse them. She was crippled with remorse. In 2007, when Meg Whitman was running eBay, an Idaho gun shop used the service to sell extended ammunition magazines for a Walther P22 to a Virginia Tech senior named Seung-Hui Cho. Cho killed 32 people and himself. If this bothered Meg Whitman, we never heard about it. It certainly didn't make her crazy with guilt, like some people. EBay changed its policies, but she kept her cut of the money. And now, through her campaign, in a small, touching way, she's going to share that money with us.
 
Phil Ramone and Danielle Evin: Dog Ears Music: Volume Seventy-Two Top
Dustin O'Halloran Virtuoso classical pianist/composer Dustin O'Halloran, also half of '90s art-rock duo Devics with Sara Lov, was born in Los Angeles in 1971. O'Halloran's music training started at the age of 7. Uprootedness and early sorrow stole him from his piano, which remained untouched for over a decade, until he met Lov and formed Devics in 1996. O'Halloran's collaborations include Spoon, Soulsavers, Dustin Hoffman, and most recently William Olsson. With rushes of style and mystique, O'Halloran's work represents a sound that wraps itself into the future and the past in one breath. A truly elegant artist. Start with "Opus 23," from Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack). Buy : iTunes Genre : Classical/Experimental Artist : Dustin O'Halloran Song : Opus 23 Album : Marie Antoinette (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) Big Maybelle Soul songbird Mabel Louise Smith, a.k.a. Big Maybelle, was born on May 1, 1924, in Jackson, Tennessee. At 8, Mabel won a singing contest, and her trajectory was set. By 1936, she joined Memphis bandleader Dave Clark. In 1952, on signing with Okeh Records, she became Big Maybelle. She recorded "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On," produced by a young Quincy Jones, in 1955 (in a turnabout, it went to No. 1 for blue-eyed soul legend Jerry Lee Lewis in 1957). Her all-too-brief career included releases on Brunswick, Decca, King, Savoy, and Scepter Records. Cleveland, January 1972: The diva passed away from diabetic complications. Remember her with "Just Want Your Love," from The Complete Okeh Sessions 1952-55 . Buy : iTunes Genre : R&B Artist : Big Maybelle Song : Just Want Your Love Album : The Complete Okeh Sessions 1952-55 Hard-Fi Founded in 2003, alt-rockers Hard-Fi comprises English gentlemen Richard Archer (vocals), Ross Philips (guitar), Kai Stephens (bass), and Steve Kemp (drums). By 2006, the band gained momentum on the U.K. charts and eventually hit No. 1 with "Stars of CCTV." With three albums to their credit, they were nominated for two Brit Awards and Britain's Mercury Prize. Hard-Fi has toured with The Bravery and The Kaiser Chiefs. The title "Stars of CCTV," from the album of the same name, is dream filled. Currently touring. Buy : iTunes Genre : Rock Artist : Hard-Fi Song : Stars of CCTV Album : Stars of CCTV Tour : Visit The Spencer Davis Group Iconic '60s outfit The Spencer Davis Group, founded in 1963, blazed a trail for decades of rockin' soul. Members include Spencer Davis, Steve Winwood, Muff Winwood, and Peter York (later Phil Sawyer, Nigel Olsson, Dee Murray, and Ray Fenwick). Producer/label head Chris Blackwell helped catapult their thumbprint sound with first hit "Keep on Runnin'." TSDG toured with the summa cum laude of rock 'n' roll including the Who and the Stones. The classic instrumental "Waltz for Lumumba," from The Best of The Spencer Davis Group, deserves some revisiting. Buy : iTunes Genre : Soul/Rock Artist : The Spencer Davis Group Song : Waltz for Lumumba Album : The Best of The Spencer Davis Group Mark Kozelek San Francisco-based singer/songwriter and actor Mark Kozelek is the frontman, godfather, and founder of indie rockers Red House Painters (in 1989) and Sun Kil Moon (in 2002). The Ohio-born Kozelek is also the executive-in-chief of Caldo Verde Records. Kozelek's acting credits include Almost Famous, Vanilla Sky, and Shop Girl. His combined projects = over a dozen releases including soundtracks and TV. His 2008 title "Metropol 47," from Music From the Showtime Series Californication: Season 2, has a handsomely sparse arrangement and a tender resonance. Currently touring. Buy : iTunes Genre : Indie Pop Artist : Mark Kozelek Song : Metropol 47 Album : Music From the Showtime Series Californication: Season 2 Tour : Visit Rogue Wave Rogue Wave is the Oakland-based unit founded by Zach (Schwartz) Rogue (frontman, guitar, Wurlitzer), formerly of Desoto Reds, in 2002. Pat Spurgeon (drums, keyboards, vocals), Gram LeBron (guitar, keys, bass, vocals, drums), and Patrick Abernethy (bass, piano, keyboards) round out the quartette, which often becomes a quintette when guitarist Dominic East sits in. Currently signed to Jack Johnson's Brushfire Records, the band has placed songs on Weeds, Friday Night Lights, Heroes, The O.C., and more. The title "Eyes," issued as a single in 2006, also featured on the Just Friends soundtrack, is thoroughly captivating. Buy : iTunes Genre : Rock Artist : Rogue Wave Song : Eyes Album : Eyes - Single
 
Dina Rasor: Pentagon Acquisition Mismanagement Leads to Questionable Contract Awards: Or Oops, they did it again Top
I have been writing about the problems with Iraq and Afghanistan contractor KBR since 2006 but the beat goes on. My co-author, Robert Bauman ( Betraying Our Troops : the destructive results of privatizing war), has written an explanation of why we keep giving the contracts to a company that overcharges while threatening our troops. We can't afford to keep exporting the Iraq fraud and waste to Afghanistan as we move our troops. The entrenched DOD has to change. Let's hope that true DOD reform's time has come. Here is his blog: Recently, New Hampshire Congresswoman, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter complained that the Pentagon had failed to justify awarding a new $35 million contract to build a convoy support center in southern Iraq that includes the construction of an electrical power grid. The contract was awarded to KBR, the largest contractor in Iraq. The contract was awarded in spite of recent revelations that KBR was responsible for shoddy electrical work in Iraq that led to the deaths of at least three soldiers and causing electrical shocks to hundreds more. There has been a loss of confidence among some defense officials on KBR's ability to do electrical work. Also, many news stories and congressional hearing testimony have blamed KBR for other miscues that have affected our troops along with overcharging the Pentagon for its services. Given the dismal public record of KBR's performance in Iraq, it would be expected that any contractor that actually performed as poorly would not be given another contract to do the same work. But that is not how the strange world of DOD procurement actions works. When trying to explain why KBR, and other contractors that do not perform well are not put on the Excluded Parties List System, but, instead, get new contracts, one has to throw all logic out the window. I posed this problem to a source who was a high level procurement official in the Pentagon and is very knowledgeable on the subject. He explained it this way: The primary problem of putting a contractor on the Excluded Parties List System is a lack of a good system for accumulating past performance data and having it available in award decisions. In KBR's case, the performance record generated by the Award Fee Board process played a key role in awarding new contracts to KBR. The primary role of the Award Fee Board is to grade the contractor on performance leading to Award Fees paid to the contractor over and above their normal fees. The performance record accumulated for the award fee also establishes a record for additional contract awards. Award Fee Boards are "managed" by high-level Pentagon procurement officials and are subject to significant influence and undue pressure. The "managing" of the Board for KBR resulted in an average rating of about 92-94% and made it impossible for evaluators to give them anything lower than the highest evaluation. This record was the key part of KBR's past performance submission that led to that contractor's award for LOGCAP IV and other awards such as the new $35 million contract in Iraq. So, despite the continual media stories and congressional hearings on shoddy work and overcharging, the "official record" reflected good performance. These exposes did not count, only the Award Fee Board's record. Of course, that raises the question of why Award Fee Board evaluators give KBR such high performance marks when whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork talking about KBR's poor performance. There are several reasons for this. First, there is the problem of high level Army officials being to close and often even chummy to contractors, such as KBR, and the contractor knows how to satisfy the requirements that base commanders and evaluators consider important. On top of that, the government personnel who oversee these contractors often rely on the same contractors to give them a job after they retire from government service. Second, considerable peer pressure is imposed on evaluators to give the contractor high marks. Giving the contractor low marks would incur the wrath of government contract superiors who want to maintain a good, close relationship with KBR. In addition, the contractor would make life difficult for an evaluator who dares to give it low marks affecting his or her career. Third, DOD acquisition personnel engage in procurement practices that do not hold contractors accountable. In December 2005, GAO issued a report critical of DOD paying billions in award and incentive fees regardless of acquisition outcomes. GAO found that DOD's practices "included evaluating contractors on award-fee criteria not directly related to key acquisition outcomes." And fourth, DOD does not have enough oversight personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to evaluate contractor performance. GAO has reported that insufficient numbers of contract oversight personnel at deployed locations "limits its ability to obtain reasonable assurance that contractors are meeting contract requirement efficiently and effectively." In its most recent report , GAO found that DOD "continues to face challenges in employing sound practices when contracting and managing service contracts." Mismanagement, political influence, insufficient acquisition personnel, and poor documentation result in evaluations and ratings for contractors, like KBR, that often do not reflect the reality of performance outcomes and almost guarantee the contractor will receive follow-on contracts that can be justified by the "official record." To truly change this system would require a complete change in DOD procurement culture and a major growth in acquisition personnel. Changing the culture will not be an easy task since it has been ingrained in the system for decades, but it has to be done to restore some sense of rationality and accountability in DOD contracting. Congress needs to understand this culture in order to enact any changes. The White House has set down a marker to the DOD that wasteful and fraudulent business as usual will not be tolerated. Time will tell if either branch of the government can truly tame the ingrained DOD bureaucracy. Investigating and auditing KBR to get a truthful record on their performance would be a good way to start. More on Iraq
 
Christopher Herbert and Victoria Kataoka Rebuffet: Weekly Foreign Affairs Roundup Top
The Week's Top Stories in Foreign Affairs : A New Strategy for AfPak Facts : The US military leader in charge of operations in Afghanistan General David McKiernan is replaced by Lt. General Stanley McChrystal , a counterinsurgency and special operations expert and Director of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Meanwhile, Pakistan continues its military action against the Taliban in its Swat and Buner districts . Conflicting reports emerge debating on how the Pakistani Army is faring and how much of this remote region it actually controls. The fighting has prompted the massive influx of refugees into Afghanistan and other regions in Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan and the US enhance their (public) mutual cooperation with regards to drone surveillance in the country. SI Analysis : The nomination of General McChrystal suggests that the US is seeking a new approach to its actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, analysts are quick to point out that no one is entirely clear what that strategy will be. Many are heralding what they believe is a "new strategy" for the AfPak region and suggest that tactically it will depend more on covert counterinsurgency action coupled with a reinforced development agenda to better secure basic civil services and state foundations. But what is the end goal? A region free of Al-Qaeda, free of Taliban, or simply a stable region that will allow for some Taliban? Or, rather nothing short of a democratic, pro-American, extremist-free region? Arguably any of these prospects in their entirety are impossible. Moreover, they may not be the same for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It seems that presently the US has resigned itself to include "moderate" (if such a thing exists) Taliban as a permanent stakeholder and political reality in Afghanistan, whilst trying to defeat the Taliban in Pakistan. What is certain is that even the most modest imperatives for the US and the acting governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan will be extremely difficult to achieve. Somalia - Spiralling into chaos (again and again) Facts: Recently, most of the news coming from Somalia has been with regard to the lawless pirates off the coast that continue to disrupt the global shipping industry. However, the condition on land has grown more dire by day . Somalia's moderate Islamist (and UN-sanctioned) government led by former Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) leader President Sharif Shekh Ahmed has been challenged to the core. The radical al-Shabaab militants who increased their power after the UIC was ousted by the US in 2007, has now gained enough traction that it is on the verge of taking the Presidential Palace in Mogadishu. Fighting in the streets of Mogadishu has killed over 100 this week , and thousands of civilians are fleeing the city. Even though President Ahmed has signed a bill instating Islamic Law throughout Somalia , al-Shabaab appears determined to take control of the fractured country . SI Analysis: Surely, this latest round of violence in Somalia will lead to more chaos and instability in the country, allowing room for radical Islamists to seize more power in the lawless nation. Some possible political repercussions include the controversial return of locally-detested Ethiopian troops, a bombing campaign by the US (like the one carried by the Bush Administration in 2007), a UN peacekeeping mission (the African Union one has proven ineffective), or the continued cultivation of a safe haven for radical Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda. Looming over all of this is the stark inevitability of more famine, drought and humanitarian disaster . Netanyahu's Travels Facts: This week, Israeli Prime Minister had a series of key meetings with various foreign leaders including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordanian King Abdullah, and Pope Benedict XVI. Netanyahu's meeting with Mubarak in Sharm el-Sheikh had 2 foci: 1.) the Palestinian issue and 2.) Iran. Israel sought to gain more of a unity with Egypt regarding both subjects, especially in securing support against the Iranian nuclear program. Coming out of the meeting, Mubarak stressed that Israel needed to make progress in talks with Palestinians before there is a clear formal recognition of Israel by any Palestinian leadership. He also stated that Egypt has a different stance on the Iranian nuclear issue from that of Israel. Netanyahu's meeting with King Abdullah focused mainly on the Palestinian issue. While Netanyahu conveyed his plans to hold talks with Palestinian leadership over economic, security and political issues, Abdullah stressed that the only way to do so was to commit formally to the 2-state solution . Finally, Netanyahu's meeting with the Pope had a more distinct political aim: the Israeli PM asked Benedict to set his moral voice in order to counter Iran's anti-Israeli remarks . SI Analysis: All of Netanyahu's meetings can be viewed as a prelude to his meeting with US President Barack Obama on Monday in Washington. The real question: Is there a peace deal in the making? Is Netanyahu indeed serious about restarting a peace process? The Israeli PM has stated that he wants to resume peace talks within the coming weeks, and the meeting with Obama could lay the groundwork for such efforts. As Obama is going to speak in Cairo next month in his " address to the Arab world ", a strategic campaign could be launched by the US in cooperation with its regional allies to get peace talks under way and capitalize on the " moment of opportunity " as suggested by MidEast envoy Tony Blair. One of the key uncertainties is how much of a role Iran and its nuclear program will play. Finally, the "elephant in the room" is the still-divided Palestinian population, between Fatah and Hamas. As has been demonstrated, any negotiation with the Palestinians must involve both groups. Speculation of the week: The (Un)Probability of an Israeli Strike Against Iran Facts : Analysts and pundits have declared US-Israel relations at an all-time low . The US, Hamas, the Arab League, Europe, Iran, Russia and almost everyone else on the planet (including the Pope) seems focused on a Middle East peace deal and have declared their their willingness to accept a two-state solution ; meanwhile, Israel has demurred and reoriented the discussion claiming that the Iranian nuclear program is its foremost foreign policy concern and its resolution its greatest imperative. Indeed Iran continues to make progress on its civilian nuclear program, further advancing its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. And the US government has declared its willingness to engage with Iran directly on a host of issues as varied as its nuclear program, Middle East peace and Iraq and Afghanistan. As the prospect of Iranian-US possible relations improve and the state of US-Israeli relations are on the decline, the greatest concern then is that Israel, feeling existentially at risk , will launch a peremptory and surprise attack against Iran on its own sooner rather than later. SI Analysis : The likelihood of a surprise Israeli attack is at its lowest point this year. Indeed, Israel has pledged to duly inform and consult with the US before any such attack. As Netanyahu arrives in Washington, there is hope that there is movement both on Israel's willingness to pursue a Middle East peace deal and US' support of Israel's concerns with regards to Iran's nuclear dossier. Indeed, the diplomatic prerogatives for the US are to reassure Iran as to its security and its interest to engage with the west, while better engaging with Israel on Middle East peace and providing formal reassurance as to its strategic importance as the US' closest ally in the region (and therefore a commitment to its existential integrity). If however, events do not transpire over the next week that show real progress towards a new Middle East peace plan and improved US relations with Israel, the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran will be exponentially higher. The prospect of greater regional stability and peace is presently at a crossroads whose direction will be determined in the next few days. Hodge-Podge/Under-the-Radar Sri Lanka - nothing new Nothing much new happened in Sri Lanka's war against the Tamil Tiger rebels this week. The government's shelling of a small strip of land along the northwest coast side of the island has been confused due to the Tigers' encampment amid thousands of civilians . (On Thursday, Sri Lanka reported that 3000 civilians were able to flee the war zone.) US President Barack Obama and the United Nations Security Council call on Colombo to stop shelling civilians , to no avail. Wating for the results of Indian Elections India's massive 5-step and multi-week election came to a close this week with results expected on Saturday. Though exit polls are prohibited (except for some, such as this one in the Indian Express ) and though hundreds of parties took place, some analysts have made some predictions: most see a " shaky coalition " forming that will keep the Congress party-led ruling government in power. In any case, given the hard hit that the global financial crisis has dealt to India, this election is taking place at a very bad time for the ruling party. Saturday's results will be telling and a power scramble might take place . Torture - Can Obama take it back? This week, US President Barack Obama signaled a reverse in his position on controversial torture memos and photos depicting harsh interrogation techniques sanctioned by government officials under the Bush administration against terror suspects in order to attain sensitive intelligence. Although Obama had originally pledged to release all information -- including photos -- concerning the controversy, he is now backtracking out of concern for America's image abroad. At a time when the US is continuing its War in Afghanistan, trying to stabilize its withdrawal from Iraq, and assisting a violent Pakistan, this seems to be a judicious decision from a foreign policy standpoint. However, the decision could be a moot point as some photos have already surfaced in the press . Myanmar digs in On Wednesday, the ruling military junta of Myanmar moved dissident pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest to a prison for a trial . The charges are unclear but are mixed up in the circumstances of an American man swimming across a lake and spending 2 days in her house. Many Western leaders have criticized Myanmar for Suu Kyi's arrest, including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. START and Missile Defense linked SI Analysis : While the news has focused on how the NATO war games in Georgia have sidelined the commencement of new START talks between Russia and the US, what has gone unnoticed is a Russian initiative to link the nuclear disarmament talks with US Missile Defense plans in Europe. This makes strategic and logical sense (to discuss nuclear arms mitigation and amending plans for nuclear weapons shields) but until recently the Missile Defense issue had been more closely linked with the Iranian nuclear dossier, wherein the US has reportedly offered to stop its missile defense plan in exchange for Russian pressure on Iran. It seems clear now that talks will be underway and that all START negotiations will include discussions on NATO expansion, an EU-Russian Security pact and Missile Defense, rather than Iran. Nabucco vs. SouthStream SI Analysis: A war for control of the flow of gas from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia to Europe continues. The Western Nabucco pipeline project made significant strategic gains recently at a conference in Prague securing semi-firm commitments from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and, most importantly, Turkey . However, Russia's response was swift and hard, securing formal deals with Kazakhstan , making firm overtures to Azerbaijan regarding its theoretically Nabucco-destined gas supply and announcing a formal deal to be signed with Italy, Serbia, Greece
 
Is There A Forumla For Happiness? Top
Is there a formula -- some mix of love, work, and psychological adaptation -- for a good life? For 72 years, researchers at Harvard have been examining this question, following 268 men who entered college in the late 1930s through war, career, marriage and divorce, parenthood and grandparenthood, and old age. Here, for the first time, a journalist gains access to the archive of one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies in history. Its contents, as much literature as science, offer profound insight into the human condition -- and into the brilliant, complex mind of the study's longtime director, George Vaillant. More on Marriage
 
Sam Greenfield: Liberals Need Not Apply Top
The other day I was looking at an ad for a radio position in the West. The ad emphasized that a conservative host was an essential requirement. This prompted me to write them an e-mail. I emphasized that I was not applying for the job,but that I thought it was sad that being a liberal disqualified me. No matter how smart I was, no matter how qualified, no matter how highly recommended, how I voted left me out of the equation. What has happened to us? What has happened to this country? Barry Goldwater can be friends with John Kennedy, but a liberal can't take questions from a conservative caller without the perception of not being a patriot. William F. Buckley can think of George McGovern as a the nicest person he ever met, but I can't express my opinion without being labeled a traitor. We have poisoned ourselves. We have allowed vitriolic commentators to make a lot of money by convincing people that being different means being not just wrong, but bad. Is it really important that Obama asked for mustard on a burger? Is that all we have to say? Is it really important that a vacuous pageant contestant might lose her crown because she showed a little breast and thinks Jesus hates gays? Am I really less of an American than you because I opposed the war in Iraq? Is Sean Hannity right, am I a spineless coward (an appellation he used on the protesters at the U.N.)? Are the radio guys on the right really right all the time? Is Obama really that horrible? Am I the enemy? If so, then we are lost. We are not the America that my mother sat in steerage for eight days to reach ninety years ago. It is the country of the uncaring, the rigid, the partisan, the bigot, the plutocrat. It is not America. It is the Disunited States ,ruled by few, enjoyed by none, populated by the ignorant and scared, preached to by the insecure and obtuse. A tragic confederacy.
 
Jon O'Brien: The Real Idea of a University Top
On Sunday, President Obama will become the sixth US president to give the commencement address at Notre Dame and the ninth to be awarded an honorary degree. When President Obama was invited by the University of Notre Dame to deliver the 2009 commencement address and receive an honorary law degree both the university and the White House must have expected to take some flak. They may however have been taken aback by the vitriol that has erupted from a small but committed coterie of protesters. Largely, Catholics on campus and around the nation welcome the decision. A poll of Catholics by the Pew Research Center showed that, of those expressing an opinion, 64 percent favor the invitation. And voxpop polls by a variety of news sources have found that students are very much in favor of the invitation. Who wouldn't want the president to deliver their commencement speech, whatever one's political beliefs? Indeed many students and commentators have expressed serious reservations about the protests by ultraconservative opponents. That has not stopped those opposed to the president's policies on reproductive rights from orchestrating a series of stunts to draw attention to their unpopular cause. To be fair, it is probably not just the president's reproductive rights policies they object to. They probably don't agree with his policy towards North Korea or indeed what he eats for breakfast. In some ways, it is a little difficult to understand the furor. President Obama's approach to social justice issues very much mirrors that of the Catholic church. He is working towards an end to the conflict in Iraq. He wants to develop an equitable and affordable national health-care system. He has advocated for policies that will reduce the need for abortion. He wants to mitigate the impact of the recession on the poor. All things that the Catholic church supports. Therefore it is unsurprising that Catholics, who like all Americans place abortion very low down on their list of electoral priorities, have been among President Obama's biggest supporters. The majority of Catholics (54 percent) voted for candidate Obama in November, and he continues to have high approval ratings from Catholics six months on. It is also worth noting that campaigns against speakers at Catholic universities are waged unevenly. In ­­­­­­­­­2001, President George W. Bush made the commencement address at Notre Dame. Even though the former president ignored Catholic teaching on the death penalty and other social justice issues, conservative Catholics were not found protesting his presence. In 2006, Boston College, another Catholic university, awarded an honorary degree to Condoleezza Rice, who worked in an administration that used torture and waged wars that the Vatican had condemned on several occasions. The conservative lobby was mute again. The loudest opponents of President Obama share one thing in common, a self-aggrandizing obsession with placing themselves in the limelight. The campaign is orchestrated by a marginal, single-issue organization called the Cardinal Newman Society whose leader Patrick Reilly has spent the last 15 years trying to force the nation's 224 Catholic universities to conform to his views of what a Catholic university should look like. He is joined by self-promoting individuals like Randall Terry, who is willing to force a senior Vatican official into a humiliating apology to fellow bishops so that he can get himself some column inches, and Frank Pavone , who places his own face on his antiabortion billboards and for whom the term hagiographic was coined. Bringing up the rear is the bloviator-in-chief, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who has mastered the art of playground bully, about 50 years after he left school. Their concerns about the impact President Obama is having are easy to understand. Conservatives are running scared. Noting their loss of influence on lay Catholic opinion on a whole host of issues, they have been forced to seek to shut down debate and silence the views of those with whom they disagree in a futile attempt to enforce their unpopular ideologies by decree. They have failed. President Obama has started to take the heat out of the abortion debate by focusing on the needs of women and their families and proposing policies that will reduce the need for abortion. Ultraconservative antichoice campaigners want to wage a permanent war over abortion marked by overblown rhetoric and straw men, such as their campaign against the non-existent Freedom of Choice Act . But even they must see that Americans want to move away from such stunts and endless debate and towards policies that respect the right of women and their families to make decisions about the issues that affect their lives. So, when President Obama speaks to the new graduates on Sunday, he will do so knowing that the vast majority of Catholics will be interested in what he has to say and support him being there. The 54 percent of Catholics who voted for him in the 2008 election did not do so unthinkingly. They did so knowing that the Obama administration would work to promote the policies that they themselves support, around health care, social justice and minimizing the impact of the economic crisis on those it has hurt most. Jon O'Brien is the president of Catholics for Choice .
 
Richard Farrell: Begging for Help on Crack Street Top
How many female crack addicts with health insurance do you know? Not too long ago, my son Ricky called me. For three straight mornings, he had called every drug rehabilitation center in a 200-mile radius of his home in Massachusetts. Not one had a bed available for his mother -- unless, of course, she had insurance. My ex-wife had decided enough was enough. She had made a sober, clear, conscious decision to end a vicious cycle. At that specific instant, she no longer wanted to wake up and have the most important moment of her day be on the end of a crack pipe. My son asked for my help. I made about a dozen calls. He was right, there were no "free beds" anywhere available in New England. Finally, a woman who sounded like she was painting her fingernails told me "there were unlimited beds available for female crack addicts with insurance." Every morning across America, hundreds of addicts reach out to end the madness of their disease. Unfortunately, because of the magnitude denied immediate care, the "new war" against drugs within the United States borders will fail. America will never be safe from the gigantic ramifications of illegal drug use unless the Obama administration mounts a major campaign to rehabilitate drug addicts. Recently, after meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Obama announced an urgent coordinated effort to battle the drug cartels in Mexico. Calderon said his country's neighbors are "the largest market of consumption of drugs in the world." They both agreed that as long as Americans are buying, the cartels will supply. Earlier this month, Obama created a four-point plan of attack. First on his agenda will be an all-out effort to crack down on drug use in cities and towns. Next he'll be sending an increased, unspecified amount of US Border Patrol agents to facilitate his third point of action. For the first time ever, the US Border Patrol will inspect all trains and cars exiting the United States. And finally, Obama released $59 million to Homeland Security for immediate execution in the war against drugs. On paper it appears to be a comprehensive attack. But the goal of reducing drug use in America and thereby decreasing demand of illegal drugs entering from Mexico will not be effective without an emergency healthcare plan that allows access to rehabilitation hospitals for drug addicts seeking recovery. There simply are not enough jails in America to hold the mounting numbers of drug addicts. Those suffering from this addiction have only two choices every morning: repeat or recover. Ricky's mother has gone back to the pipe. She moved back in with the crack-addict boyfriend who beats her on a regular basis. Most addicts return to crime. Once the chance for recovering is gone, they will go to any extreme to accommodate the gorilla inside them. Don't be fooled by the argument that drug addicts are scumbags who make a choice every day to use illegal drugs. I'm a heroin addict. Although I shot my last bag of heroin on April 1, 1987, I'm as close to the bag of heroin as my ex-wife is to the end of the crack pipe. I was lucky. After nearly 20 failed attempts to recover from addictions, I got it right. There was a free bed available and I received the opportunity to become a contributing member of society. In 1996, as I climbed the stairs at Columbia University to accept the DuPont-Columbia University Award for excellence in broadcast journalism, I remembered that free bed. Mr. President, every American should be entitled to affordable, comprehensive health insurance that allows immediate access for individuals seeking an end to the insidious disease of addiction. If you forget about us, you will fail. More on Mexico's Drug War
 
Danny Schechter: Tweet, Tweet: Confessions of a twittering Newbie Top
Can the Latest Technology Be Useful for an Aging News Dissector? I am now following and being followed -- still not sure what that means -- but I am told it's a good start. I am on Twitter, tweeting to the beat. I realize I am really a retrograde product of another time, when my ultimate goal in journalism was creating substantive investigative reports or long form documentaries. That is increasingly passé. What is now valued, I am told, is short bursts of information, speedy technology that reaches the world, or your part of it. It's that old KISS Axiom -- keep it short and sweet, or simple and stupid. Everyone is adapting to and using the technology -- some as a messaging service, some as a networking tool, some to call projects or films or news to public attention and some just as a goof. I am a macro blogger trying to go micro. What does it mean? Of course, Wikipedia has an entry: Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read other users' updates known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length which are displayed on the user's profile page and delivered to other users who have subscribed to them (known as followers). Senders can restrict delivery to those in their circle of friends or, by default, allow anybody to access them. Users can send and receive tweets via the Twitter website, Short Message Service (SMS) or external applications. The service is free to use over the Internet, but using SMS may incur phone service provider fees. Since its creation in 2006 by Jack Dorsey, Twitter has gained extensive notability and popularity worldwide. Twitter explains its reason for being this way: "Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co-workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?" What am I doing? I am writing about Twitter and discovering that many journalists are adapting to it. There's a web site called Muck Rack to connect reporters who usually compete with each other. It's appeal? "What if you could get tomorrow's newspaper today?" Now you sorta can, by tracking the short messages on Twitter written by the journalists who do the muckraking for major media outlets. Muck Rack makes it easy to follow one line, real time reporting. They are not alone. There are designers, celebrities, musicians, venture capitalists, and even pets on Twitter. To tell the truth, it's fast and fun but I wonder how we can all handle the incredible overload of information. I created a DissectorEvents page, posting info on some of the things I am doing, including news of a broadcast this Sunday, May 17th of my film, Barack Obama: People's President , airing at 6-7 PM. There was no chance of doing more than throwing the time and the title out there. Just for the heck of it, I clicked "follow" to plug into the many outposts the technically savvy Obama social marketing heads use. And soon enough, I was told I had a message from Barack Obama. Wow! Here's a film I know he might be interested in, but a false alarm. No one in the Obama camp wants to talk to me, certainly not the man who is busy with the Presidential cha-cha. But, alas, they want to talk at me, to tell me their plans for 2012. I am on the list, not being listened to. In fact, suddenly I have Lesbian collectives and FOX stations following me, little or not so little ole me. Tweet me up Scotty. The buzz is buzzing and the hype is hyping. ABC News is launching a twitter show. A senator has a letter in the New York Times about how wonderful it is. Of course, critics are following the phenomenon, some like Liz Lawley is heartened by the wonder of it all: The big "P" word in technology these days is "participatory." But I'm increasingly convinced that a more important "P" word is "presence." In a world where we're seldom able to spend significant amounts of time with the people we care about (due not only to geographic dispersion but also the realities of daily work and school commitments), having a mobile, lightweight method for both keeping people updated on what you're doing and staying aware of what others are doing is powerful. Some feel that to even criticize the twitters as twits (or worse) is to show an old discredited way of thinking. A writer in Fort Collins, Colorado has no sympathy for some, like me, who sometimes feel dinosaurish in trying to keep up. He writes of "an admitted 'dinosaur' in the age of nanotechnology -- her views on the future of news and reporting seem about as inflexible as a fossilized stegosaurus. To survive as a business in the current economic paradigm -- adaptability, resilience and flexibility -- are not only recommended, they are necessary. Yes, indeed. Some question its reliability and its architecture, but so many are adopting it. In Germany, literary critics are dissecting various posts. As a site called, "AllHealthCare.com," faults posts they read on swine flu: "Amid this growing global crisis, blog-blurb site Twitter has come under fire for delivering misinformation. The site has become inundated with doomsday predictions and exaggerated figures that are confusing many in the public." Film critics fear the brief bursts of putdownish twittering can destroy a new movie's prospects. There are, depending on which post you go to, stages of Twitter acceptance, according to the Influential Marketing blog. I started at stage numero uno. Denial. It sounds stupid. Presence. I don't get it, but because others are on it, so I will be too. Dumping. I only use it to plug my latest ... Conversing. I can use it for conversations that get to the point. Microblogging. I use it to publish useful information and converse. With so many web sites out there, I can see Twitter's appeal. Progressives can certainly use it for action alerts and organizing. I am just a newbie wondering where to turn next. I was in radio until the conglomerates bought us out and some of us bought in. All the newspapers and many of the magazines I used to write for are long gone. I worked in TV until I couldn't take it anymore. I've written the NewsDissector blog for ten years, often weighing in at 3000-6000 words a day. I jumped onto Facebook and have all sorts of people I don't know -- and some I do -- wanting to "friend me." It's hard to keep up. I jump between two email accounts that are filled with "breaking news" that breaks my concentration. At home, I have a remote control that has me clicking through hundreds of unwatchable channels. I am up to the minute with more input than I can process. But just as I was contemplating technicide, along came Twitter. I have been born again. To use a Bushism, "bring it on." That's only 7 words and 26 characters and 32 characters with spaces. Perfect. - News Dissector Danny Schechter is blogger-in chief for Mediachannel.org. His latest film in the making is PLUNDER (http://www.newsdissector.com/plunder) Comments to Danny@mediachannel.org More on Twitter
 
Dr. Alex Benzer: The Ten Commandments of Modern Dating Top
This Sunday was Mother's Day, which reminded me of the Ten Commandments. That's because there's only one measly commandment telling you what to do : 'honor thy father and thy mother.' The remaining nine are a relentless barrage of 'thou shalt nots', telling you what not to do. So if you were to follow them to the letter, then every day is Mother's Day (or Father's Day), since all you can do is sit in a corner calling mom and telling her how great her tuna casserole is. Unless it's Saturday, in which case you probably aren't allowed to do that either. And don't even think of casually saying hi to a graven image, or worse, coveting your neighbor's oxen. So for somebody living in 2009, that Decalogue ain't all that useful. At the same time, perhaps there is another realm in which a barrage of negative directives would be useful. Some area in which people are hopelessly, repeatedly, incorrigibly screwing up their own chances. Ah yes -- that would be dating. I've been on the receiving end of enough stories from men and women to notice some consistent patterns of self-sabotage in the mating dance. The good news is that once you know about them, these behaviors are entirely avoidable. Call them the Dating Decalogue, the Ten Commandments of Modern Mating or just common sense -- here they are: 1) Thou shalt not flake. If you like your date at all, it's crucial that you show up -- especially to your first appointment. Besides being tremendously deflating to your date when you cancel, there's an even deeper reason that has nothing to do with your date and everything to do with you. Psychologists have found that humans have a perverse tendency to align their thoughts with their actions to avoid cognitive dissonance. So when you cancel a date or stand someone up even accidentally, something in the back of your head says, "Well, I must not have liked him/her all that much anyway." That makes it that much harder for you to accept a second date. So unless you think you've got swine flu, do your best to keep the date. 2) Thou shalt not yammer on your phone during a date. I'll never forget that soft summer night in the Boston Public Gardens when I was about to kiss a girl for the first time and her phone rang. She looked at it, said "It's Mom," and proceeded to catch up with her for the next two minutes. I walked away, never to see her again. You've both put in the time and effort to meet each other, so honor that commitment and give each other your undivided attention. 'Undivided' means no calls made, no calls received, no texts or emails checked. Just turn the pusher* off. Additionally, new studies show that fragmenting our attention with email, texts and other distractions lowers our IQ about as much as smoking marijuana does. A dumber you is usually a less attractive you, so stay sharp if you want to make a good impression. 3) Thou shalt not convey emotionally-sensitive content over email or text message. Email and text lack accurate indicators of tone, making them fertile ground for miscommunication. Additionally, they provide a permanent record of temporary insanity which can be disseminated all too easily. For these three reasons, you should use these media to convey data only -- where and when to meet, what to wear, etc. Mild flirting like "Miss you" or "You're kinda cute in a sombrero" is fine. "Only a jerk wouldn't call me after what we did" you'll regret, especially after it ends up on textsfromlastnight.com. 4) Thou shalt not get sloppy drunk during a date. This one's obvious enough not to require an explanation, but I'll belabor the point anyway. A date is an opportunity to make an accurate assessment of another person's potential as a companion -- and to allow that person to assess you in turn. Getting sloppy drunk ruins your judgment and alters your self-presentation. Which is a nice way of saying is makes you look like a slobbering, unappealing goober. 5) Thou shalt not have a first sexual encounter when of unsound mind. This follows #4, but I say 'unsound mind' so it covers all states of altered judgment: being drunk, high or desperate. At least the first time you get sexually intimate with someone, you want to be of reasonably clear mind. Otherwise the act could lead to regret or, worse, mediocre sex. 6) Thou shalt not argue. Being right is not the same as being liked. So if you want the other person to like you, avoid argument altogether. An argument is the only game both parties lose. Of course, somebody's going to argue about this, and -- well, it's still unattractive. 7) Thou shalt not be an open (Face)book. When you first meet people, you want to control the impression they get about you. Tools like Facebook provide too much information about you too fast to be placed in context accurately ("Why is he wearing a bra in public?"), facilitating misunderstanding. So don't become instant Facebook friends or otherwise overshare personal information with someone you've just started dating. Being an open book is not transparency; it's imprudence. So control the information about you so it's a trickle, not a flood. Not only will you forestall misunderstanding, but when people know less about you, you'll look more mysterious and interesting to boot. 8) Thou shalt not be judgmental. "Only a fool would do such a thing" is a judgment; ditto for "Only an idiot would vote for that guy," no matter how true it is. So ask questions instead of issuing verdicts. Mind you, "What kind of idiot would vote for that guy?" may look like a question, but it's still a judgment. "What was important to you about doing that" is a softer request likely to get you a higher-quality answer. 9) Thou shalt not whine. Complaining is unattractive, no matter how justified you think it is. Yeah, your middle seat in the back of coach was terrible -- and your litany of woe is not exactly charming either, so let's talk about something more fun, shall we? And if you're going to complain about complaining being unattractive -- see #6 above. And finally... 10) Thou shalt listen. I made this the only positive commandment since it's so darn important -- almost as important as honoring thy father and thy mother. Let people speak without interruption, and quit talking about yourself so much. People are dying to be heard, so if you're the one listening, you're giving them more life. And who doesn't want to be around more life? In the Tao of Dating for Women and The Tao of Dating for Men I much prefer to offer readers ideas for what to do versus what not to do. So in the next articles, I'll be sharing some useful positive principles for long-term romantic fulfillment. * Yes, I actually mean that your phone is like a drug dealer. And the way you compulsively check it is neurologically the same as the lab rat hitting the lever for another hit of heroin. Email: dralex(at)thetaoofdating.com Twitter: @dralexbenzer
 
Abby L. Ferber: Workplace Bullying: Are Women Their Own Worst Enemies? Top
Bullying is on our minds these days. Bullying in schools, bullying in the workplace, let's face it, bullying is a problem in all organizations. But lately some of the "reporting" I'm reading does more to contribute to the problem than help us redress it. For example, in the New York Times article " Backlash: Women Bullying Women at Work ," Mickey Meece examines the phenomenon of bullying among women. While feminism and the womens' movement have taught us to consider the gendered dimensions of significant social problems, there are many ways one can explore gender. This article provides a great example of how not to do it. Ask a researcher who actually studies gender and they will tell you that gender is about relationships of power that shape every aspect of our daily lives. Yet too many newspaper and magazine articles fail to examine what gender is, and assume it is some set of essential differences between men and women (which may tie to chromosomes, reproductive organs, cultural differences, or some other set of characteristics, depending upon the moment and who you ask). Too often they rely upon commonly held assumptions about gender differences that have no research to support them. This article is a case in point, and these assumptions about gender end up distorting the reality of bullying. The author starts by introducing the problem of bullying in the workplace: " It's probably no surprise that most of these bullies are men, as a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute, an advocacy group, makes clear ". Despite this fact, however, the article focuses exclusively on the fact that women also bully women, which for some reason is presented as both more surprising, and more disturbing. After all, " a good 40 percent of bullies are women. And at least the male bullies take an egalitarian approach, mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure. The women appear to prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time ." The issue is examined as another example of the all too common "Women are their own worst enemy" story we have all heard before. Suggesting that women themselves are undermining feminism's goal of advancement for women, Meece asks, " In the name of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, what is going on here ?" Well, let me tell you what is going on here, because this article certainly doesn't . Let's start by looking at the data in this study: The authors conclude that " Bullying is mostly same-gender harassment ," because 32% of cases are between men, and 29% are between women. But let's look at those numbers another way. Men bully both men (54% of the time) and women (46% of the time), whereas women primarily bully women (71% of the time). And keep in mind that 60% of bullies are men, and 57% of the targets are women. So what does this really tell us? It tells us that this is not primarily a problem within genders; framing it that way only serves to obfuscate the issue. Instead, this data reaffirms what we already know about the phenomenon of bullying: bullies tend to be those in power, who target people with less power. This fact is supported even further by the study's finding that 72% of bullies are bosses , while the lower one drops on the career ladder, the less likely it is that they will bully. So bullying is a tool of the powerful. When I was a graduate student taking a class on the sociology of the family, I always remember my professor telling us "nagging is a tool of the powerless." After all, if one had the power to actually make others follow one's commands, they would not need to resort to nagging (does "honey, would you pleeeeaaaassseeee take out the garbage" sound familiar?) So nagging is a tool of the weak, and bullying is a tool of the powerful. Think about it- if the bully were not in a position of power, the bullying would not be very successful. The fact that the bully has greater access to resources, control, and influence over the opinions of others is where their power lies. The same thing is true on the playground- it is most often the geeky nerd who gets bullied by the more popular kids. And bullying behavior increases when those in power feel that it is threatened. So why do women most often bully other women? Because they are rarely in positions of power over men. According to the article: " After five decades of striving for equality, women make up more than 50 percent of management, professional and related occupations, says Catalyst, the nonprofit research group. And yet, its 2008 census found, only 15.7 percent of Fortune 500 officers and 15.2 percent of directors were women ." In addition, women are more likely to work in careers and workplaces that are primarily populated by other women. Men, on the other hand, wield power in the workplace over both women and other men. Instead of examining the larger dynamics of power at work here, the article focuses on women as a group, asking why they bully other women. We are left with numerous problematic conclusions: *women's relationships with each other are problematic and women need to learn to better support each other *women are the problem themselves, and they are becoming too much like men as they move into positions of power *bullying itself is not a gendered phenomenon, men bully men and women bully women, so we are all affected by it *bullying by men is natural, and not in need of examination. We should expect that kind of behavior from men Looking at the exact same data, however, informed by an understanding of how the dynamics of gender and power operate, a very different story can be told. The reality is that: *bullying is about power, and people bully those they have power over *bullying increases when people feel their power threatened *our unequal gender system contributes to the problem of bullying because it reinforces the idea that some people should naturally have more power than others; that men are by nature more aggressive, and women should be more nurturing and supportive And bullying in the workplace contributes to economic inequality between men and women. As this study makes clear, bullying is a very serious problem, with real consequences: 40% of the time, the target ends up quitting her job (remember, most targets are women). So bullying is a tool to maintain inequality. The way in which the story of the data is told by the New Y ork Times ends up hiding the real problems, and blaming the victims. If our analyses are not informed by research and analyses of gender and power dynamics, we end up contributing to the problem, rather than developing real solutions.
 
Rick Shenkman: Are Americans Still Stupid?* Top
Exactly one year ago this week the hardback of Just How Stupid Are We: Facing the Truth About the American Voter was published by Basic Books. Now there's a paperback edition available. Is the book still relevant? After Barack Obama's election friends emailed me wondering if I still believed the voters are uninformed. Didn't Obama's election mean they were pretty smart? Alas, the answer is no, I believe. And I am baffled that anybody could reach a different conclusion after the campaign we lived through. The highlights of the 2008 election included controversies over Obama's bowling score, his middle name Hussein, and Hillary's crying. These were not exactly issues of much weight at a time when the financial collapse of the country was happening before our eyes. And yet they drew extended media commentary. The media was to blame for the deplorable low quality of much of the campaign. But I am firmly convinced that you get the campaign you deserve. If that is so we should be asking ourselves why did we deserve the campaign of 2008? Was it not because the voters found it easier to debate issues like Obama's bowling score than the complicated questions involving high finance? Take the question of Obama's religion. Millions of voters paid so little attention to the news that they were easily bamboozled into believing that Barrack Hussein Obama was a Muslim. On the eve of the election, confusion reigned. Polls indicated that seven percent of the voters in the key battleground states of Florida and Ohio and 23 percent in Texas believed that Obama was a Muslim. In addition, and worse, more than 40 percent in Florida and Ohio reported that they did not know what his religion was. The arithmetic is horrifying: seven percent + 40 percent = a near majority guilty of gross ignorance. Americans did not come by their confusion by accident. A deliberate campaign was launched by Republicans to convince people that Obama's faith was in question. But what are we to make of voters who could be so easily bamboozled? This was not after all a complicated issue. Obama was a Christian and he said so on numerous occasions. At the height of the controversy involving his pastor, Obama gave a speech in which he professed his deep faith in Christianity. Said speech was widely disseminated. Distinctions are in order if we are to understand these categories of uninformed voters. One such group, mercifully small, consisted of voters who were so busy living their lives in isolation from politics that when they were asked what Obama's religion was and they answered that they did not know it was because they really did not know, having paid little attention to the 2008 campaign. A second group, a little larger, was composed of voters who were either so racist or so suspicious of outsiders that they were prepared to believe almost anything about him. When they heard that Obama -- a politician about whom they knew little, given his recent introduction as a national figure -- shared the faith of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, they instantly believed it because it sounded negative, blocking out all contrary evidence. The third group, by far the largest, was made up of people who didn't know what to think, having heard conflicting information about Obama's religion. As one addled fellow told a Washington Post reporter, "It's like you're hearing about two different men with nothing in common. It makes it impossible to figure out what's true, or what you can believe." One is grateful that the third group was the largest. It gives one hope that for the vast majority of Americans information remains a vital consideration in the formation of opinion. But we are back again to the blasted problem that misinformation is as apt to be swallowed by people as factual information. More troubling, voters don't seem to know where to turn for reliable information. Why, we should all be asking, didn't people who were confused about Obama's religious affiliation know enough to consult a good reliable newspaper like the Washington Post or the New York Times to find out what professional journalists had reported? Has suspiciousness of the media gone so far that voters think they cannot trust mainstream journalists to give them the basic facts about a presidential candidate's religion? If so, then we are in far more trouble than anyone has imagined. This isn't Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The media can be trusted to get basic facts right most of the time. If people think journalists cannot be trusted to do this, then they are out of touch with reality. What the outcome of the election of 2008 proved is not that the voters suddenly got smart but that they will turn on a party that plunges the country into an unneeded war and brings on an avoidable economic collapse while at the same time mouthing platitudes about the virtues of small government. Our history is replete with similar responses. American voters have always been able to recognize batters who have struck out at the plate or made homeruns. What they are seemingly unable to do is participate in a sustained conversation about serious subjects. I address these questions in a new epilogue of about 7,000 words. Some readers may wonder if you can do justice to the campaign of 2008 in so few words. I myself have had the same question. I actually wanted to do a whole second book. The publisher was ready to allow me to write another whole book when it appeared that John McCain might win. But once Obama took the lead the publisher took the view that a new book wouldn't be commercially viable. Assuming the publisher was right, what conclusion should we reach about our democracy -- and the liberal critique of our society? Liberals were ready to believe the worst about American democracy when McCain's fortunes seemed to be rising. But once his campaign collapsed mid-September (along with the stock market and the banks, not coincidentally), they were inclined to take a far more sunny view. Was the liberal critique of American politics so limited that the election of a single human being eased all of our concerns -- or put us in such a frame of mind as to want to sidestep them? Had the audience for such a critique actually vanished, as my publisher seemed to believe? Are liberals open to criticism of the nation only when elections result in the triumph of conservative candidates (as conservatives often aver)? These are some of the questions I try to answer in the epilogue. I'd like to have the chance to explore them at length in a new book. If any publishers are reading this and are intrigued please get in touch! *This is just a headline, nothing more. Despite the title of this blog post and the title of my book I don't believe in calling the American people stupid. That's as stupid as calling them smart. You simply cannot generalize that way meaningfully about 300 million people. But are a majority ignorant about politics and government? You bet. More on Barack Obama
 
Carl Pope: America the Schizoid? Top
The contradictions that are slowing down our progress towards a green-energy recovery and climate recovery were on full display last week in our nation's capitol. On the one hand, you had the Southern Company, its polluter allies among power companies, and the ultimate parties with an interest in clinging to the past (Big Oil and Coal) successfully forcing major weakening provisions into the House Commerce Committee's version of climate legislation, and protesting loudly that cutting even 17 percent of our greenhouse pollution in 11 years would be a bridge too far. But while Congress was mired in a debate about the past vs. the future, the Sierra Club's first Climate Recovery Symposium featured the rest of America eagerly analyzing the urgency -- the opportunity -- and the means, of doing it much, much faster. We had giants in the field of biology like Donald Kennedy and Tom Lovejoy -- chair and co-chair of the Club's Climate Recovery Partnership, which sponsored the Symposium -- again laying out the impact of unchecked climate deterioration on the ecosystems on which human beings depend. Dr. John Sperling, the founder of the University of Phoenix, laid out his vision for how to creatively combine solar and wind power to make renewable electricity truly "dispatchable," and a group of a half dozen venture capitalists in the audience grilled him intently on the technical arcana of the idea. (They concluded it made sense.) Kleiner Perkins partner John Gage, GridPoint CEO Peter Corsell, Bluewater Wind's Peter Mandelstam, and Sunpower CTO Tom Dinwoodie debated how best to combine entrepreneurship, grass-roots advocacy, and public-private partnerships to rush clean, low-carbon energy sources to market. Lovejoy and John Moussouris of the VenEarth Group showed how by restoring ecosystems we can actually reduce the CO2 overload in the atmosphere and truly restore the climate -- Moussouris pointed out that just using biomass to create a small quantity of charcoal -- less than an inch -- to mix with every acre of the world's farmlands would actually reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm -- restoring it to preindustrial concentrations. No, we didn't ignore the politics. We heard from the Obama administration (EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson). Speakers as diverse as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode warned that unless the American people and the Obama administration demand that Congress break with the energy sources of the past, the green economic recovery and the hope of a healthy climate may be strangled in the cradle. But we spent most of our time learning how much fun this could be -- maybe Congress should have a similar session!
 
Film Industry Generated $141 Million, 5,400 Jobs For Illinois In 2008: State Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- State economic officials say the film industry spent $141 million and created nearly 5,400 jobs in Illinois last year. Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity officials said Thursday it was the second-most profitable year on record for Illinois film production. In 2007, films generated $155 million and nearly 6,900 jobs. Lawmakers enacted a 20 percent film tax credit in 2004. In 2003, the last year without the credit, the film industry contributed $23 million to the state's economy. Movies and TV shows filmed in Illinois last year include "Public Enemies" with Johnny Depp and "The Beast" with Patrick Swayze. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Widow Sues Suburb For Tainted Water In Death Of Husband Top
CRESTWOOD, Ill. (AP) - A widow who alleges contaminated drinking water contributed to her husband's death has sued a suburban Chicago village and its former mayor. Attorney Michael Mertz represents Michele Maan De Kok in her suit filed Thursday. He says former Crestwood resident John Maan De Kok died in 2003 at age 39 from stage IV non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Mertz says Maan De Kok was an attorney, but his illness is common to industrial workers exposed to chemicals. The Chicago Tribune recently reported that state officials in the mid-1980s found a Crestwood well contained chemicals linked to cancer, but village officials allegedly continued to draw its water. Officials haven't established a link between illnesses and the water. The Associated Press couldn't reach Crestwood officials early Friday. Information from: the Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Nick Bunzl: In Meetings with Mideast Leaders, Obama Should Push for 5 Steps Top
Today, Israel Policy Forum took out a full-page ad in the New York Times with a direct message to President Obama that when it comes to achieving a two-state solution: "Yes You Can." The ad also calls on the president to push for five attainable steps in his meetings in the coming weeks with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, President Mubarak of Egypt and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority: 1. An immediate renewal of US-mediated Israeli-Palestinian negotiations toward the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel; 2. the cessation of Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis and of weapons smuggling into Gaza, and an increase in the number of American-trained Palestinian security forces in the West Bank; 3. a freeze on West Bank settlement construction, the dismantling of superfluous checkpoints and illegal settlements, and the cessation of demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem; 4. the immediate reconstruction of Gaza with a focus on civilian needs, and the local economy; 5. the pursuit of a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors, including Syria, using the Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for negotiations. Ambassadors Thomas Pickering, Samuel Lewis, Robert Pelletreau and Edward Walker joined me, Peter Joseph and Larry Zicklin (the president and chair, respectively of Israel Policy Forum) in sending a letter to President Obama with these same points earlier in the week. First reactions have been positive . What is important to note is that none of our ideas are groundbreaking. In fact, none of them are even remotely new. We are essentially advocating for what George Mitchell proposed in his report eight years ago. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes about the lack of progress towards peace in recent years. But it also begs the question: How long can progress be postponed until the two-state solution no longer remains a viable option? This is a scary question for all of us who care deeply about Israel's security and its future as a homeland for the Jewish people. But it is also a question that we must confront urgently. Just yesterday, new figures were released which show that by 2016, there will be an equal number of Arabs and Jews living in Israel and the Palestinian territories. If a two-state solution fails to emerge, the threats against Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic state -- and its security -- will increase. President Obama is determined not to allow that to happen. He became actively engaged on day one because he knows that he only has one term to get the peace process genuinely moving in the right direction. Israel's security and its future as a Jewish, democratic state, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and American interests in the region are all at stake. Even so, the obstacles facing a two-state solution are enormous, and those who prefer the status quo have been vocal in letting the president know it. For weeks, detractors have been telling the President that in the face of these obstacles he cannot push for a two-state solution. Today, we made sure - and we must continue to make sure - that hears a different message . The bottom line is this: if we are serious about securing Israel's future alongside a Palestinian state, we have got to start laying the foundation for a two-state solution now. We urge President Obama to start by pushing for five highly achievable -- and long overdue -- steps forward. More on Barack Obama
 
Ron Howard Explains Jamie Foxx Video Appearance Top
Ron Howard appeared on Friday's "The View" and Sherri asked the director how he wound up in the booze-infused video for Jamie Foxx's "Blame It On The Alcohol," along with people like Jake Gyllenhaal and Samuel L. Jackson. (Watch the whole video below "The View" clip) As Tom Hanks teared up laughing beside him following a video clip they played, Howard explained. "We were at the inauguration, and there's this whole spirit of brotherhood, and I thought it was going to be some We Are The World thing." He also detailed how he was told not to smile during the shoot. WATCH: The video: More on Video
 
Don Belt: Pope to Arab Christians: Keep the Faith Top
This was their moment. For native Christians in the Holy Land -- that small, beleaguered Arab community whose ancestors, on this very soil, were among the first to follow Jesus of Nazareth -- the visit of Pope Benedict XVI was nothing less than a godsend. Finally, here was a western Christian who understood their predicament. Like envoys of a forgotten world, Arab Christians embody the fierce and hunted spirit of the early Church. They worship in simple, ancient churches, some dating to the fourth and fifth centuries, and they preserve, in their rituals and liturgy, the earliest expressions of what it means to be a Christian. Relatively wealthy, well educated, and politically moderate, they are the people Middle Eastern societies can least afford to lose. Yet today they are abandoning their homelands as never before, exhausted by political turmoil, robbed of hope and opportunity, and alarmed by the rise in Islamist violence in places like Iraq and Egypt, where they make a convenient target for those who hate the West. In the Holy Land, caught in the crossfire between Israel and all Palestinians, including Christians, their numbers have plummeted from perhaps 25 percent of the population a century ago to single digits today. Having covered these brave, close-knit communities for decades, most recently for this month's National Geographic , I consider their exit a tragic loss, and so does Pope Benedict XVI, who picked his way through the political minefields of Jordan, Israel, and Palestine this week to deliver a message of hope to Arab Christians: Keep the faith. It's important for all of us that they do. In a land of bitter conflict, Arab Christians have always been the go-betweens, the human bridge between the Islamic world and the Christian West. Their exodus now would leave a huge void -- not only in the ancient stone churches where they worship, but also in the Middle East's depleted reservoir of hope that so urgently needs replenishing. If the Pope's vision of Middle East peace were to be realized -- Muslims and Christians living together in a just, viable, prosperous Palestinian state at peace with Israel -- many of the reasons Arab Christians leave would disappear. But in the meantime, just having their 2,000-year history celebrated by the world's most prominent Christian is an answered prayer. According to my Palestinian friend Mark, from Bethlehem, most tourists to the Holy Land have never even heard of Arab Christians. "They think Christianity was invented in Italy or something. I had one lady ask me, 'What does your family think about you being a Christian? I suppose they must have been very upset!'" More on The Pope
 
Bruce Kluger: From the Mouths of Babes Top
It's always rewarding to have one's efforts recognized. But I was especially touched to read an essay in this morning's Daily Kos , in which writer Michael Raysses gave a warm nod to my new book (co-authored with David Tabatsky), Dear President Obama: Letters of Hope From Children Across America . Michael's a pal, and the plug was appreciated (hey, Raysses--thanks, bud); but I was even more uplifted by Michael's assertion that children's voices have become ever more important at this complex but promising time in our nation's history. Truer words couldn't be spoken. Here's what Michael had to say: I live in Los Angeles. For those of you who have been living in a bathysphere beneath polar ice caps that are melting faster than a popsicle left out in the midday sun, LA is ground zero for the Cult of the Youth-Obsessed. It's the epicenter of the tremors that roil our culture's tensile socio-tectonic plates. And it's the place where the highest compliment you can pay another person is to commend their youthful appearance, or better yet, to tell them how they (gasp!) don't look their age. Not surprisingly, children become the ultimate chit in this environment. If you assume the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, how great is it to have the cutest, smartest, sexiest apples in the orchard? Actually, for me that's a rhetorical question. I don't have children. But my status as one whose loins have born no fruit hardly disqualifies me from making observations that are easily within the grasp of a blind dead guy. What's appalling to me is how we don't at least let the other shoe drop in our dysfunctional pas-de-deux with our preoccupation with all that is young. Sure, we can trot out mindless entertainment that parrots the notion that, hey, kids sure do say the darndest things, don't they? But when it comes to actually heeding the gems that fall from their lips, we are conveniently missing in action. The most glaring example of this came recently when Misha Lerner, a fourth-grade student at the Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation's Capital, posed a question to the visiting ex-Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. In his query, the kid basically asked her what she thought about the things the Obama administration was saying about the methods used by the Bush administration to get information from detainees. Going full-metal-Nixon in her response, Ms. Rice asserted that if an act was ordered by the President, it was per force not illegal. So much for a lesson in revisionist civics. (Side note: In a virulent display of the kind of abdication of children by adults I am talking about, Misha's teacher actually edited his original question for Ms. Rice; originally it read "If you could work for the Obama administration, would you push for torture?" Personally, I am just proud of the kid for not taking his teacher's suggestion that instead he consider asking Ms. Rice who her favorite Jonas Brother was.) But I digress... If our kids are living messages we send to a time we will not see, what's the message we're sending? Isn't it bad enough that we have abandoned our roles as responsible adults, a group that should be on the endangered species list for my money, by not asking the obvious and necessary questions of our leaders, especially in times where their behavior has patently strayed beyond the bounds of decency? And where is the outcry over the fact that we are teaching kids with the shabbiest of examples by our own inactivity, blunting the sharpness of their heart-felt and justified curiosity about the state of the world we have created for them in the process? It's a situation that leaves me in great despair, like finding out I have an alter ego and it's Glenn Beck. But just when I had given up hope, I came across something that rekindled my spirits, and I found it in the oddest of places. Recently a book was published by writers Bruce Kluger and David Tabatsky. It is entitled Dear President Obama: Letters of Hope From Children Across America . In it, 178 kids from ages 4 through 18, from 29 states and every region of the country, wrote to and drew pictures for their dashing new President. And its contents reaffirm my faith in the innate wisdom found in a child's bottomless curiosity, and best of all, in their unflinching willingness to give it voice (Full disclosure: Bruce Kluger once served as an editor on a book I contributed to.) (Fuller disclosure: That has absolutely nothing to do with what I am writing here.) The book is full of missives and images that render what passes for "adult thought" as hollow and meaningless. Hannah Levine, a 12 year-old from New York City, chronicles watching the election night returns with her mother and father, and when the results are announced, she makes an observation worthy of Thucydides when she states that in the time it took to shudder, to sniffle, and to smile, history was made. In one of the most poignant letters I have ever read, 14 year-old Casey Mack talks about the significance of seeing a man who looks like him reach the plateau of the Oval Office. But beyond the meaning of seeing someone of the same race elected president, Casey details how his brother has a brain tumor and how he himself has his own set of rare medical afflictions, and how he believes Obama will actually make healthcare available to people like Casey and his family. It's the plea of a young man to someone entrusted with the responsibility of making his life better through leadership. It is a bull's eye to the heart of the issue of accountability and hope. There's even a letter from an eight year-old prospective lobbyist-in-training who opens his correspondence to the President by reminding him he donated $4.74 to his campaign. But the point of all this attention on the Obama presidency isn't about partisanship--it's about the intrinsic value of a historical event to a segment of our population with whom we need to come to a greater understanding of and relationship to--our kids. Misha Lerner shamed the entire White House press corps the day he put Condoleeza Rice's feet to the fire by posing a question that no one else had the guts to ask. In much the same vein, the kids who wrote letters and drew pictures for this book have unwittingly thrown us all a lifesaver. It remains to be seen whether we will be shrewd enough and strong enough to recognize it as such and grasp it fully. Dear President Obama: Letters of Hope From Children Across America is available at www.obamakids.us NOW ON SALE! Dear President Obama: Letters of Hope From Children Across America (Beckham Publications Group, Inc.) By Bruce Kluger and David Tabatsky Foreword by Linda Ellerbee
 

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)