Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Michael Savage Tees Off On Limbaugh Top
All is not well in the world of talk radio today, as an internecine spat is being brewed up by right-wing host Michael Savage, who today spent a portion of his airtime criticizing fellow conservative talker Rush Limbaugh. Oh noes! What has come between the two men? England, it seems! Well, according to Media Matters, here's what Savage said: SAVAGE: And yet here in America, I've had some people come to my aid. They see the bigger picture. They're not like [Bill] O'Reilly; they're not like Limbaugh, who's the biggest disappointment of all. Limbaugh has turned out to be the biggest phony of all of them, all of them. Amongst all of them, he is the biggest fraud. Rush Limbaugh is a fraud. When he was accused of the drug usage, I supported him. But that man is a one-way street. It's all about him. He's in it for nobody but himself. [LISTEN] I guess that Limbaugh wronged Savage by not coming to his aid when Great Britain's Home Secretary Jacqui Smith barred Savage from entering the United Kingdom , along with white supremacist Stephen "Don" Black and anti-gay gadabout Fred Phelps. In Limbaugh's defense, I find it hard to believe that Savage actually wanted to go to England. I mean, wouldn't all the socialized heath care anger him? Wouldn't he be revolted at the thought of "bangers and mash," which Savage would inevitably misconstrue? Anyway, I'm guessing it was news to Limbaugh that Savage actually wanted to piss off to dear old Blighty, but there you have it. In another month or so, these two will be fighting over what remains of the ad revenue generated by the auto industry. So, look forward to that! [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
 
Amnesty International: Innocence, Schminnocence. We've Got an Execution to Put On. Top
By Brian Evans , Death Penalty Abolition Campaigner at Amnesty International USA. Imagine a case where someone is sent to death row solely on the testimony of nine witnesses, and then, some years after the conviction, seven of those witnesses recant (many alleging they were coerced by police to testify falsely at the trial), and several other people come forward to provide statements suggesting that one of the remaining two witnesses is the actual killer. Most people with a modicum of common sense would think, "Hold another hearing to examine all these witnesses to find out what's really going on here." Unfortunately, our court system does not operate primarily on the basis of common sense; it is more of a blind lumbering bureaucracy, where process is more important than truth , and if you don't present evidence in the right way, at the right time, you can be sent to your execution without ever having a hearing that might have proven innocence. Anger over this bureaucratic approach to justice is one of the factors that has led over 100 groups to organize events for today's Global Day of Action for Troy Davis . On April 16, Troy Anthony Davis was denied a chance to get an evidentiary hearing on his case. Davis was sentenced to death in 1991 in Georgia for the murder of police officer Mark Allen MacPhail, but his conviction was based almost exclusively on the testimony of nine witnesses, and seven of those witnesses have now recanted, many alleging police coercion. No murder weapon as ever found and no physical evidence linked him to the crime. For several years now, Troy Davis has been seeking an evidentiary hearing of the kind described by former FBI director William Sessions , who wrote this about Davis' case in November of last year: "Only a full hearing, with all witnesses subject to rigorous cross-examination and a full exploration of the circumstances of their testimony, will provide a means to determine the reliability of this conviction." But the April 16 ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was just the latest in a series of decisions refusing to give Davis a chance for such a hearing. The reasons for denying Davis an evidentiary hearing have been procedural, not substantive. In the mid 1990s Federal habeas corpus appeals were subjected to "reforms" like the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) , a measure passed by Congress in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing which was designed to "speed up" the federal appeals process, so that there could be more "finality" in death penalty cases. As the Atlanta Progressive News highlights in its analysis of the recent ruling in Davis' case, AEDPA was passed with the endorsement of Senators like Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, who said at the time: "The proposal to limit inmates to one bite at the apple is sound in principle." "In principle" maybe, but maybe not in practice. The passage of AEDPA meant that evidentiary hearings, and other forms of relief, were limited as more procedural hurdles were set in place. From the beginning, there were concerns that this legislation would seriously damage the capacity of federal courts to review death penalty cases, merely for the sake of expediency. That has certainly happened in Troy Davis' case, where compelling evidence that the state may have the wrong man is not getting a full hearing. A Vanderbilt University study of the effects of AEDPA on federal appeals in death penalty cases found that the percentage of Federal habeas appeals that resulted in evidentiary hearings has been cut in half since AEDPA became law: 19% before AEDPA, to only 9.5% afterwards. So if fears about AEDPA's negative impact have come to pass, what about the hopes? Has the appeals process in fact "sped up"? In the Troy Davis case, the answer is clearly no. In fact, though it may seem counter-intuitive, sometimes it may be faster for a court to say "yes" than to say "no". If the District court that ruled on Davis' first Federal habeas appeal back in 2004 had said "yes", and ordered an evidentiary hearing, would we still be talking about this case, some 5 years later? Instead the court said "no", and the process of appealing that "no" continues to this day. The Vanderbilt study also looked at this question and found that, since AEDPA, Federal District court habeas proceedings have taken almost TWICE AS LONG as before AEDPA (29 months after AEDPA, as opposed to 15 months before AEDPA). For many of us it is ethically dubious, to say the least, for a system to risk the execution of an innocent person for the sake of "speeding up" the appeals process. But to tolerate an increased risk of wrongful executions WITHOUT speeding things up makes no sense at all, either morally or practically. This is why so many people have rallied around the Troy Davis case, because the injustice is so clear, and so pointless, and the solution - an evidentiary hearing with the recanting witnesses - is so obvious. A last ditch appeal will be filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court, but, failing that, our courts will have utterly failed to adequately review this case, and it will be up to politicians in Georgia to decide whether Troy Davis lives or dies. Help us push them to stop this execution !
 
Justin Cosby, Harvard Shooting Victim, Dies Top
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A 21-year-old man shot inside a Harvard University dormitory Monday while students studied for finals died Tuesday. Justin Cosby, of Cambridge, was shot in the abdomen late Monday afternoon while standing on a stairway leading to a common area inside the Kirkland House, an undergraduate dorm. He was found outside the building by police. The dorm has an electronic security system, and Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said authorities were looking into how Cosby got into the building. Cosby's mother, Denise, said her son attended Salem State College. He lived a few blocks from the Harvard campus. "It's just so strange. He was fine, healthy yesterday," Denise Cosby told The Boston Globe. "I just can't believe my son is not here today. Inside I'm just torn up, I feel like someone has murdered me." No arrests had been made by Tuesday afternoon. Harvard referred all questions to the district attorney. Leone said it appeared the shooting was isolated. After the shooting, students were told to remain in the dorm for several hours as police interviewed potential witnesses. Harvard police added security, mainly as a precaution, and students were allowed to move freely inside the dorm Tuesday.
 
Stuart Whatley: Moral Majority Or Immoral Minority? Top
In the upcoming hearings to vet and confirm Supreme Court Justice David Souter's replacement, Senate conservatives are expected to center their focus on same-sex marriage , marking a departure from the past when abortion ruled the culture war divide. Their new strategy seems ill advised, unless of course there is something to gain from making oneself the Hector of the political battlefield. Indeed, the right is demonstrating a continued inclination to be stubbornly loyal to stale, unfashionable arguments (torture; global warming; government spending during a recession), establishing a trend that could ultimately see it falling on its own political sword. The fact is that, compared to abortion, there is less and less going for the anti-same-sex marriage side of the fight. With abortion, the divide is a toss-up between the stipulated life of a first trimester fetus and a woman's right to privacy over her own body, ruled to be implicit in the Constitution. Abortion is a far more intractable issue because it is centered on a third party who is argued to lack any representation or defense. However, with same-sex marriage, the consideration of this third party is absent, leaving little to no justifiable claim for two peoples' relationship to be subjected to government intervention or refutation. And as such, an April Washington Post-ABC News poll found 49 percent of those asked to be in favor of legalized same-sex marriage, versus 46 percent who are opposed. The shift towards tolerance is especially due to younger constituents who, regardless of personal beliefs, can't see how who marries whom is any of their business. Moreover, they find it civilly and democratically -- and indeed, morally -- questionable to deny to one group of the citizenry rights and benefits enjoyed by everyone else. If conservatives wish to elevate their fight against same-sex marriage to primus inter pares without a smarting backlash, they will have to somehow justify this exclusive denial of rights as something other than hidebound bigotry. Indeed, a mis-tackle of this issue could very well transform the soi disant 'moral majority' into an immoral minority, considering that an increased percentage of people will consider such a position to be driven more by social sadism than personal righteousness. One often hears a claim that same-sex marriage would sully traditional heterosexual couplings, or that same sex parents would raise heinous miscreant children. The problem is that most real-life examples of these scenarios suggest the complete opposite (and there was never any evidence to support the claims in the first place). With these arguments falling flat, all that is really left is the sad position articulated recently -- and hysterically -- by Miss California's Carrie Prejean: that it's her belief, and nobody can touch that. Prejean's controversial answer to a same-sex marriage policy question stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman, which lost her the Miss America contest -- a venue where real-life blow-up dolls with the erudition of a toddler are sometimes asked to proffer informed opinions on the most intractable issues of the day. The Prejean debacle underscores a crucial distinction between one's own beliefs and others' rights that is rarely appreciated by opponents of same-sex marriage. Prejean and her defenders are correct that everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs, but they are wrong to think that personal beliefs should be allowed to have any bearing on the private, individual rights of strangers under law. In fact, the notion that the government should decide if two people may marry, or which married couples may enjoy federal benefits, flies in the face of traditional, no-government-involvement conservatism -- how conservative same-sex marriage opponents reconcile this contradiction seems a rather pertinent question. *** For his part, President Obama treads the line gracefully. As The Economist put it last week, "Barack Obama says he supports civil unions but, as a Christian, opposes gay marriage. The incoherence of this stance makes it conveniently difficult to attack." However, this position should not be viewed as incoherence, but rather as one where personal beliefs are appropriately compartmentalized from public policymaking. In fact, as soon as this is achieved, the issue ceases to really be an issue at all. In New Hampshire's same-sex marriage debate, Democratic Governor John Lynch is working to establish protection for churches and religious leaders who fear being forced to officiate and bless marriages for same-sex couples. This is not only fair, it also seems to all but eradicate the point of most contention. As with many divisive issues, the same-sex marriage debate is falling more and more into the realm of farce, due to unremitting straw man attacks. Paranoid conservatives cry shrilly that same-sex marriage is an affront to their religion, except that most gay couples just want equal recognition under law and could care less about religious dogma. According to the Washington Post , the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples over 1,100 federal benefits that are enjoyed by other couples. Most same-sex couples presumably couldn't care less about the traditional religious definition of "marriage" because they know they would immediately and arbitrarily be precluded -- the government, being a secular entity, shouldn't care either. A dozen states already recognize some form of same-sex union under law, revealing that the dispute need not be irresolvable. The risk the GOP takes by centering on this issue now is that it could indelibly be identified as nothing more than the Frivolous Asshole Party -- using paranoid arguments to attack a group of people for demanding personal rights they've been exclusively denied for centuries, as if anyone can blame them. One wonders when Republicans are going to figure out how to appeal to people rather than traditions. Touting antediluvian principles may very well make someone a good, loyal Burkean or Reaganite (read: Luddite), but without some updates to the political outlook, it's quite easy for that conservatism to become atavism. There are a slew of crucial issues confronting the nation; if GOP congressmen have decided to expend what is left of their political capital fighting a battle more and more people consider inane, unnecessary and, indeed, easily resolved, then it may be a presage for a rather forlorn Republican future. More on Gay Marriage
 
John Marshall: Aborting Abortion Debate's Tone Top
In his speech at Notre Dame, President Obama asked for a change in tone in the nation's debate over abortion, somehow missing the point that the debate's main appeal IS the awful, strident tone. Nevertheless, abortion debaters wishing to tone it down can adopt some new ideas immediately: Redefine "When Does Life Begin?" Some believe life begins at conception. Others say that life begins at 40. Like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. From now on let's say that life begins when you've completed your high school gym requirement or when you no longer have to live with a roommate. Choose More. The pro-choice movement is ironically filled with women who cannot pick out a dress or decide what shoes to wear on a Saturday night. The deal should be that women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies, but men no longer have to help them choose what goes on them. Politicize Other Personal Issues. Abortion used to be a personal matter that became political. We should inflame other bodily procedures, like dental hygiene. The Anti-Floss movement could congregate on sidewalks and taunt passers-by with posters of innocent bacteria being killed by waxed and unwaxed nylon ribbons. Update the Propaganda. Americans are embracing new media from FiOS to Imax, yet pro-life forces are umbilically attached to old school agitprop - the truck that drives around with a giant billboard showing fetus photos. Give these nameless, unborn models hip tags and let people follow them on Twitter. Cultivate New Protests that Seem Similar. For example, instead of protesting Abortion on Demand, protest HBO on Demand. A sidewalk rally could be just as big, but passers-by wouldn't be repelled by pictures of Big Love or True Blood . Oppose Other Forms of Abortion. The first step toward uniting pro-lifers and pro-choicers is to focus on other things that have been aborted. The U.S. government prematurely removed $700 billion - yet this abortion has been barely protested. Other unfairly aborted items include Boston Legal and the Virgin Megastore.
 
Christian Nwachukwu, Jr.: The Discontents Top
"Jackie Robinson was a Republican," Clark said to Anwar, then he turned to the bartender. "Do you have white tea? Jasmine, then? Okay, let me get that. So, who do you think should be Speaker?" "Clyburn," Anwar said. "That's not going to happen. I think Pelosi is doing a good job. Besides, she's much more effective than Harry Reid." "Pelosi is too liberal," Anwar said. "Let me get a Bourbon and water. You still not drinking?" "Not since senior year," Clark said. "Locke doesn't let me drink." "Locke's in L.A." "Yeah, but I see his face when I think about drinking, so it's the same difference. And what do you mean she's too liberal? 'Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.'" "Who said that?" "William Lloyd Garrison. You've got this, right?" "I've got my Bourbon," Anwar said. "What about dinner?" "You offered." "Yeah I offered. And now you should return the favor." "You shouldn't give expecting to receive." "Your girlfriend should leave you," Clark said. "I told her she could," Anwar said. "Which is exactly why she should. You can't say that to a woman: 'If you want to leave me, I'll understand.'" "What? I'm being considerate. She wants to get married. I'm not ready yet. I told her I'll understand if she doesn't want to wait for me." "You make it sound like you're going off to war." "Life is war," Anwar said. "Melodramatic," Clark said. "Maybe?" "Maybe a little," Anwar said. "Maybe. Look at this: a pot of hot water; one bag of tea." "That's why when it's my week to choose, we always go to Charlie Mom. They always bring you a fresh pot of tea." "The tea is definitely a plus," Clark said. "How long were we there?" "Four hours at least." "One of the many wonders of New York: when the restaurant runs you away, the bar is there to take you in. But back to what we were saying: the two Johns -- Boehner and McCain; Mitch McConnell; Eric Cantor. Old Man Rush and Michael Steele. The Republicans are going to criticize Obama just because. I agree that the Left has to be critical, but it doesn't have to start from a position of skepticism." "Personally, I think you're in Obama's pocket," Anwar said. "Well, personally and speaking for myself, I'm not in anybody's pocket." "You don't even like Bill Maher anymore." "I don't like his show anymore," Clark said. "I have nothing against Bill Maher. But his show is redundant. It's like cable news for grown-ups, which, frankly, is still not grown-up enough. Liberals, Progressives, Moderates, Conservatives--everyone who had some vision of love when they thought of the President needs to dial it back. But Liberals especially. We're a nation of three hundred and four million people. We've just extricated ourselves from a conservative quagmire of immense proportion--forget the last eight years; we're really talking since 1979, the last generation, longer than either of us has been alive. And people want Kum Ba Yah and kisses by bedtime? 'He's a hypocrite; he's a liar; he's a Conservative in Liberal's clothing; he's, shock of shocks, a politician.' He's President Obama, Number 44; not Emperor Barack I. And your pen pal Tavis Smiley...." "See, here we go with Tavis." "I know you want to bring him up, so I'm going ahead and raising the Specter of Smiley." "I have no problem with Tavis, and I'll tell you why. Tavis and I are on the same page when it comes to Obama. We have to remember that, like you said, Obama is a politician. That's why Tavis' new book is called, what? Accountable ." "Tavis is just trying to position himself as the last great arbiter of African American aspiration," Clark said. "Since his performance in the primary, though, I don't pay Mr. Smiley any mind." "You don't, but a lot of people do. And Tavis still plays an important role in articulating issues that affect black people to white people in a way that they'll understand." "White people understand black people," Clark said. "What do you mean?" "Just what I said. This is one of the great myths of the Western Way: Black people are the people on the margins, the outsiders. And while it's necessary for the Marginalized to understand the Marginalizers, the Marginalizers can ignore the people on the margins. Make sense?" "It's true," Anwar said. "It's not true, and it's ridiculous. People say, 'That's just White Privilege. They don't have to understand us, because they don't even think about us.' My uncle works in a prison. He's a Sergeant, which just means that he supervises the guards. Now, it's a given that the prisoners are perceptive. After all, they're criminals. And they're in there: watching the guards; knowing their coming and going; their moods, who's nice and who's a prick; who they can get a few extra minutes of yard time from and who they'd better avoid. And you'd say, 'Yes, of course.' But if I also told you that my uncle and all the guards don't pay any attention to the prisoners, that they can barely keep track of who needs what medicine, yet alone their moods or behavior, you would call me a liar, because you would know that within a week those prisoners would have that prison and the guards, too. You can't enslave a people for two hundred-fifty-eight years, Reconstruct them for twelve and Jim Crow them another eighty-nine and not know anything about them." "But that doesn't mean white people can't still be racist, which is what you said last week." "Racism is about power. There's no requirement that I really believe you are inferior for me to want to dominate you, or for me to devise a system that allows me to dominate you. I still say, black people believe the stereotypes about black people much more than white people do." "I think they believe it." "And you probably believe whites are scared of blacks, too." "Now they're not afraid of black people?" "Whites in America have no reason to be afraid of black people. What have black people ever done to make white people afraid of them? When we riot, we tear up our own neighborhoods. So they can't be afraid of that." "Fear isn't rational," Anwar said. "Racism is," Clark said. "I still say some white people are scared of black people." "As a group? Sure, there are outliers in any group. But what have blacks as a group done to make whites so afraid?" "They're afraid that blacks will want revenge, retribution." "When? We haven't wanted it since 1607, so why are we going to suddenly want it in 2009? Look, say you discount what I've said; you think black people really are some great mystery to whites in America. If a woman walks into this bar and comes over here and starts talking to you, I mean really talking to you, you'll know that she likes you without knowing anything about her. You won't need a treatise to decipher how she feels. And black people really like white people. White people don't need the Annals of the Fallen to figure that out." "Lots of black people don't," Anwar said. "Don't what?" "Don't like white people." "That's what you think," Clark said. "I woke up one morning, maybe two weeks ago, and I realized that there aren't any black radicals in America." "Malcolm X was a radical." "Malcolm X was an idealist humanitarian and an exponent of freedom and peace. Jesus crossed that bridge two thousand years ago. Those aren't radical positions. But the fact that you think he's a radical just goes to prove how deep in the weeds we are. All those Black Power radicals trampling through your mind right now, what did they do after they put down their fists? Many of them moved into white neighborhoods and sent their children to white schools? Those dashiki wearing women sporting naturals in the Sixties got perms and white best friends after Integration, and their children hardly know their parents ever fought for anything. Black people don't want retribution. They want reparations and to be invited to some white person's barbecue. And they would give up the money for an invite. They want to be friends. That's all black people have ever wanted. And when marching and wearing suits and being peaceable didn't work, some people picked up guns, but the goal was the same. The last black radical was probably a slave." "Well, I don't see why you dislike Clarence Thomas so much," Anwar said. "You both have opinions outside the mainstream. All Thomas ever advocates is his right to think for himself." "Anyone who could have a conversation with a sexist, racist, misogynist homophobe from 1776 and be in complete agreement ought to be ashamed," Clark said. "Justice Thomas should be embarrassed to even talk about Originalism. Listen, Anwar, all I'm saying is: If you want to be a Republican, be one. But don't blame Nancy Pelosi." More on Political Humor
 
Anna Post: Gibbs Delivers White House Press Briefing on Etiquette Top
"Turn your cell phone off!" Yeah, yeah, we've heard that before. It's up there with "get your elbows of the table" and "wipe your mouth". I've taught this more times than I can count, and while everyone knows it, it doesn't do any good if people don't actually think -- or worse, choose -- to do it. At a White House briefing yesterday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was speaking to members of the press when a cell phone rang. He handled it perfectly , asking the owner, John Gizzi of Human Events magazine, to put it on vibrate. His tone used humor to stem Gizzi's rudeness -- especially as it was the third time he'd asked it to be shut off. I know some corporate cultures are lax in their attitudes toward cell phones and BlackBerries, but this is, um, the White House. And televised. Show a little respect! Figuring the third time was the charm, Gibbs returned to his briefing, only to have the phone ring a fourth time. Not only was Gizzi thoughtlessly rude to have left it on so many times, he was actively rude to ignore the request to switch it off. Gibbs then did what so many of us have dreamed of in restaurants, movie theaters, and crowded airports: He confiscated the phone and tossed it down an adjacent hallway (claiming someone caught it), and then literally shut the door on the while thing. It made my day watching how well he handled it. But it gets better. Another phone goes off, and instead of ignoring it, the phone's owner, CBS reporter Bill Plante, actually takes the call! He blew it twice: He should have had the phone on vibrate -- especially after Gibbs made his nationally televised point -- and if he was going to take the call, he should have left the room first and then answered. Perhaps it was a play to get some face time and attention for CBS? If so, I can only say that in this case, not all press is good press. The White House press corps clearly needs an etiquette briefing: Keep phones on silent or vibrate when in a meeting, or better yet, turn them off. That's what voice mail, annoying as it is, is for. If you simply must take a call, step outside first and then answer. I can already hear the follow up: Why? Attention is a sign of respect. When you've chosen to commit your time to someone, whether it's in business or your personal life, you owe them your attention -- you owe them your respect.
 
Daley Admits City Fumbled Parking Meter Deal: 'I'll Take The Responsibility' Top
Mayor Daley acknowledged Tuesday what Chicago alderman and motorists have known for months: City Hall botched the privatization of Chicago's 36,000 parking meters by not transferring meters to a contractor more gradually.
 
John Norris: YouTube Takes on Conflict Minerals Top
I am pleased to announce that the Enough Project is now partnering with YouTube in a video contest focused on ending the trade in conflict minerals from Congo. We are the first non-profit to be highlighted by YouTube as part of its new 'Video for Change' program, which leverages the reach of the world's most popular video-sharing site to spotlight pressing social causes. YouTube has not only highlighted our conflict minerals campaign prominently on its homepage, it has also set up a special page to feature the Enough Project and this contest. Check it out. Our Come Clean 4 Congo video contest calls on contestants to craft the most compelling short video highlighting the link between conflict minerals used in cell phones and the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- the deadliest since World War II. The creator of the winning video will be flown to Los Angeles, where the video will be screened at an entertainment industry event; it will also be featured on the Enough Project's website and YouTube page. Judges for the contest are Oscar-nominated actor Ryan Gosling, actress Sonya Walger from "Lost," and Oscar-nominated director Wim Wenders. We already have some terrific videos up on the page, including one from several talented young actors , including Sandra Oh and Mary Louise Parker, that have already been viewed more than 127,500 times. Much of the violence in eastern Congo continues to be driven by armed groups competing to dominate the illicit minerals trade. These are the same minerals that ultimately end up in our personal electronics devices such as mobile phones, laptops, and digital cameras. It seems only fitting that we can use something like YouTube and the immense creativity of its users to help end the scourge of conflict minerals. We are calling on electronic companies to pledge that they will certify their products are 'conflict free.' We're not asking consumers to boycott electronic devices; we're working to help consumers be better informed so that we can all pressure electronic companies to audit their supply chains and shine some light on the illicit mineral trade. Next time you buy a cell phone, digital camera, or laptop, you deserve to know that you are not inadvertently helping sustain one of the worst conflicts in the world. More on YouTube
 
Frances Beinecke: Everybody Wins with Obama's Clean Cars Plan, Including a California Teacher Top
Tuesday I went to the White House to hear President Obama announce his plan to issue new greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. This plan, based on California's groundbreaking emissions law, makes everybody a winner. Drivers will save money when they fill up their tanks. The auto industry will become more competitive by making the clean, high-mileage cars of the future. America will reduce its oil dependence and stabilize its national security. And our planet will have fewer global warming emissions to contend with. NRDC and other environmental groups have long called for federal regulations of global warming emissions from cars. But it is heartening to see the auto industry finally back such an effort as well. Car makers welcome Obama's plan because it creates nationally uniform standards. No matter what state you buy a car in, by the year 2016 it will release 30 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than it does today. I was pleased to be invited to the White House for this historic breakthrough. It was an honor to be with President Obama, Governor Schwarzenegger, and other leaders who support this clean car transformation. But in my view, the real hero of the day was Fran Pavley, the former state legislator who wrote the California law upon which this national plan is modeled. Pavley spent 25 years teaching history at a middle school north of Los Angeles. Over the years, she had seen many of her students suffer from asthma, using inhalers in class and missing school. Hot summer days made the air quality worse in her community. As Fran learned the connections between carbon dioxide, global warming, and rising temperatures, she decided to do something about it. When she went to the state legislature in 2000, she used her first term in office to draft--along with NRDC--a bill that would slash global warming pollution from cars and trucks. It was a noble effort, but few in the legislature took it seriously. Here was this freshman legislator taking on the automobile industry. How could she win? She won by using her main skill: teaching. She educated the other legislators, one at a time, about why global warming was so important to the future of California. As one of her fellow state senators said, "You know she doesn't have any leverage, except for the truth." Once other legislators started learning the truth, they were persuaded. In 2002, California passed what is now know as the Pavley bill, which cut global warming emissions from vehicles by 30 percent. Now, thanks to Pavley remarkable, underdog victory, all of us will win the benefits of cleaner air, better cars, and lower gas bills. This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
Lanny Davis: The Cheney Dare: Indict Him for Complicity in Torture Top
I have written many times in this space that I oppose any criminal prosecution of prior-administration officials on torture or other issues relating to the Iraq War and the war on terrorism, especially those CIA interrogators who relied in good faith on the instructions of policymakers and the legal opinions issued by Justice Department senior officials. I have agreed with President Obama on the need to look forward, not backward. But I have changed my mind about the need to indict former Vice President Dick Cheney for complicity in illegal torture. His insistence on putting himself on multiple TV programs and conservative radio talk shows, not only defending torture but offering the defense that it worked, has changed my mind. Not only that -- he went on to attack Mr. Obama as weakening the United States in the war on terrorism because Mr. Obama immediately announced that torture would no longer be allowed. Dem's fighting words. They are also, in my view, reckless and irresponsible. They seem to be laying down a marker that in case, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack, Mr. Cheney can be the first to blame it on Mr. Obama's policies and say, "I told you so." Even more, they seem to be an in-your-face dare by Mr. Cheney to the U.S. criminal justice system: "I am Dick Cheney, I approved violations of the law in the name of the war on terror, and what are you going to do about it?" It reminds me of Gary Hart's reaction in the early days of his 1988 presidential campaign to the rumors of his womanizing. Mr. Hart denied the charge and then dared the media to catch him. Well, they took him up on his dare (specifically, the Miami Herald did). And they caught him at least in a compromising situation that led to his withdrawal from the campaign. So as to Mr. Cheney: I think it is time to take him up on his implicit dare and indict him for violating the 1994 federal law against torture. Not to do so, in light of Mr. Cheney's arrogant public challenges, may reinforce the notion that Mr. Cheney can get away with lawbreaking, and be proud of it, because he is a former vice president, and because he is the tough, intimidating Dick Cheney who everyone (at least many) in the Bush administration feared. So I think it's important to take Mr. Cheney up on his challenge, despite all the disadvantages that had led me to oppose prosecutions of the former administration. Here is what the indictment of Mr. Cheney would look like; it's not that complicated. First, as to the law: The 1994 federal law making torture illegal defines torture as "any act that causes severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on a person for such purpose as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession." The two top officials at the Office of Legal Counsel -- Jay S. Bybee (who is now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) and John Yoo, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley Law School -- tried in 2002 to "reinterpret" the term "severe pain" out of existence by requiring a torture victim to feel pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." But their colleagues at Justice, not only at the OLC, but also the Criminal Division, repudiated their legal gymnastics and restated the definition of torture plainly set forth in the 1994 federal law and the Convention Against Torture. For this and other reasons, both Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee should at the very least be investigated for ethical violations and possible disbarment. Second, as to the facts, here is what we know or have good reason to believe: We know that waterboarding was intentionally used against detainees to obtain information. We know that waterboarding causes "severe pain or suffering." It involves strapping a man to an inclined board with his head below his feet, wrapping a cloth across his face, and pouring water into his nostrils and mouth, which convinces the victim that he faces imminent death by drowning. It has been used as torture from the Inquisition to Nazi Germany, and was prosecuted as a war crime after World War II. Finally, there is strong circumstantial evidence that Mr. Cheney knew waterboarding was being used against detainees, that he expressly approved its use, or that he actually directed interrogators to use it. If any of these are true, then Mr. Cheney could be guilty under U.S. laws of being a co-conspirator or an accessory to a crime. An indictment, of course, is only an accusation of criminal conduct. Mr. Cheney must be presumed innocent until a jury of his peers finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Many people still think, and I was among them until recently, that it would be better not to put the country through the divisive and backward-looking experience of seeing a former vice president on trial for crimes committed while in office. But given Mr. Cheney's decision to publicly attack the president on the subject, perhaps we have no choice but to take Mr. Cheney up on his challenge. I am hoping that in the final analysis, the case of the People vs. Dick Cheney will provide all Americans with an opportunity to answer the vital question as to whether a democratic society based on moral values should defend the use of torture, even if at times it successfully obtains important information from a terrorist. I am hoping our answer as a nation will be similar to the eloquent one provided by Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak regarding the use of torture by the Israeli Security Services: This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual's liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day, they strengthen its spirit and its strength and allow it to overcome its difficulties. Lanny J. Davis, a Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton, served as a member of President George W. Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America." This article appeared in Mr. Davis's weekly column, " Purple Nation ," in the Washington Times on Monday, May 18, 2009. More on Dick Cheney
 
Juliette Powell: From Homo Erectus to 'Homo Brandus' ? Top
Ever notice how companies are becoming more like people and people are becoming more like brands? In a world of celebrity 'ghost tweeters' and online micro-celebrities , has digital media begun to affect our human evolution? The point was raised recently at the Kinnernet USA "unconference", another spinoff of Yossi Verdi 's successful annual event in Israel where tech innovators connect and conspire for a week-end to recharge their batteries and share ideas (between gadgethons and power tool drag racing events). Earlier this month, one hundred tech innovators, ranging from Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales to former AOL chairman Steve Case , convened in a secret location in Maryland for the first annual Kinnernet USA, co-hosted by internet entrepreneurs Vardi and Jeff Pulver . The highlight of the weekend was former Technorati Chairman Peter Hirshberg 's humorous and searing presentation, which gave context to many of the more 'serious' talks conducted at the fun-filled retreat. Hirshberg, currently Chairman of The Conversation Group which helps companies reinvent employee and market relationships using social technologies including blogs, forums and social networks, related his thoughts on where social media is going in the era of ME 2.0. As we all become more like brands, will we all need PBA's, or Personal Branding Assistants to help us maintain our personal brands? To answer this question, Hirshberg takes us back to basics and explains how our fascination with broadcasting ourselves is just a matter of branding. I caught up with Hirshberg in his NY headquarters to film his Andy Rooney inspired rant and share it with you. Click on the video to see Part 1 and share your own food for thought in the comments below. Watch this space for Part 2 of Peter Hirshberg's tongue-in-cheek rant on 'how to make your brand fabulous' as he explores the hiring of man's new best friend, the PBA (Personal Branding Assistant). Juliette Powell is an entrepreneur, digital media consultant and author of 33 Million People in the Room ( Financial Times Press , 2009), a book about social networking for business. Powell is co-founder of the Gathering Think Tank Inc., an innovation forum at the intersection of media, business, advertising and technology. You can connect with her on Twitter and Facebook . More on Technology
 
Robyn Hillman-Harrigan: The Way We Get By -- Interview With Filmmakers Top
Last week I looked at the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, through the eyes of a journalist and his fixer in the film Fixer: The Taking of Ajmal Naqshbandi, Today, I revisit the subject, but this time through the lens of the Troop Greeters of Bangor, Maine who are portrayed in the film The Way We Get By . I had the chance to interview the filmmakers when their film screened in New York a few weeks ago at Stranger Than Fiction . The Way We Get By is a film that cleverly navigates the subject of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, without clearly choosing sides. It avoids the left/right dichotomy and instead focuses on the human experience of loss, bravery and kinship. It is about the Troop Greeters of Maine, who gather day and night at Bangor Airport to welcome and see off all of the soldiers who fight in Iraq. Although it is such a remote airport, 90% of the flights in and out of the war zones, pass through there. The greeters have already seen almost 1 million members of the military return through Bangor. The majority of the greeters are senior citizens and the film follows 3 of the most committed and older members of the group, including the mother of one of the directors. What is so interesting about the subjects is how they seem to live just for the opportunity to brighten someone else's day. This reveals the isolated state that many older folks live in, believing that their utility has passed. People who have worked their whole lives, raised families and some who have personally served in the military reach their 60s and 70s and begin to feel that society no longer values them. If they are not providers, what is their purpose? Although, they may be of great value to their families and respected by their communities; living alone, and sitting idle, the subjects in The Way We Get By seem to be at a loss when they are not giving their time and support to the troops. The dignity and integrity of these people will stir even the coldest heart. Read More on the Brooklyn Socialite. Here is what producer, Gita Pullapily and director, Aron Gaudet had to say about their film, and the process of filming Aron's mother, who is one of the main Troop Greeters featured: Robyn: When did you begin working on The Way We Get By and how did you know it was the idea that you wanted to pursue? Gita: Aron and I started working on this Dec. 2004 and ended almost exactly to the day Dec. 2008 (when we took it to the post-house). Aron and I were dating at the time and were based in MI where we worked in television news. He took me home to meet his mom and while at home with her she got a call at 2am and we decided to get up and go to the airport. That's when we discovered Bill Knight and Jerry Mundy as well. R: Aron, how was it to film your mother, you mentioned in the Q&A at STF that she was a little reticent. Do you think she felt a need to self-censor in any way? Aron: It was a challenge at first to get her to agree to be on camera, but I really think she forgot about the camera very quickly after we started. And I don't think she censored herself in any way. The great thing about all of them is really how open and honest they each were, and she always surprised me in how she forgot about the camera. R: Did she feel under pressure to be supportive of the war perhaps, because of her grandchildren's involvement? A: No, I don't think so, I think my mom thinks about the war in simple terms, like how the war will effect the families of the soldiers, not through a political lens. R: This is your first feature film, what were you doing before and what filmmakers are you inspired by? A: I have always been inspired by Wernor Hertzog, and a lot of the greats... I like versatile filmmakers that make a narrative, a documentary and then a music video! People who express their creativity in lots of different ways. I always wanted to make films and wanted to just do the creative side of things. I would often tell people that I wanted to be a filmmaker, in fact that's one of the first conversations I had with Gita when I had just met her. I told her I wanted to make films and she said, "Lets do it". She was really professional and organized, and said, "Let's form a production company." and "This is how we do it." She had been a reporter for 7 years, I was making 30 second ad spots. First we made a short in India together, then we started looking for an idea for a feature. We were great working partners and then started dating, now we're great partners in general. R: Why did you decide to leave your political views out of the film, and would you now like to say where you stand on the war? A: I'd rather not say what my personal views on the war are. I didn't think the film needed it. I have seen a lot of films about Iraq and Afghanistan and I wanted the film to work for people on both sides of the debate. It's really a personal story not a political one. That goes for the greeters themselves as well. They have different views on the war, but their main goal is to support the troops. I didn't want people to leave the film angry. I met soldiers who said, "No one knows about all the good work we do there." and those that said no one knows how bad it is there." It's a complicated issue. R: How long do you think the Troop Greeters will remain there? A: Some of the Greeters are in their 70s and 80s, but I believe they will stay until the last soldier returns. --- More of my reviews, interviews, rants, photos and commentary can be found on The Brooklyn Socialite. More on Iraq
 
Casey Gane-McCalla: Malcolm and Barack Top
Happy Birthday Malcolm El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz May 19, 1925 - February 21, 1965 Many people may see Malcolm X and Barack Obama as opposites of each other in the sphere of black political figures. While Malcolm pushed for black nationalism, didn't renounce violence, came across as very militant and scared white people, Obama has pushed for an inclusive nation that includes people of all backgrounds, pushed a message of hope and change, and came across as very amiable and acceptable to white people. However the comparison cannot be as cut and dry as that. Are we comparing the militant Nation of Islam disciple Malcolm X who railed against blue eyed devils or the Malcolm X who split with the Nation of Islam and renounced racism and met with Martin Luther King? Even if we were to compare the nation of Islam's Malcolm X to Barack Obama it is hard to cast them as opposites. Obviously one of the main differences between the two is the places and eras they grew up in. Malcolm X grew up in a time of segregation, police brutality, lynchings, and Jim Crow laws. These circumstances did a lot to shape his world view. As someone whose father was killed by the KKK and whose world views were shaped by the NOI, Malcolm had a lot of hostility towards white people and America in general. Barack Obama grew up in the multiracial society of Hawaii and later in equally diverse, Indonesia, where he was minority in more ways than one, being both American and of African blood. It wasn't until Malcolm X went on a pilgrimage to Mecca that he abandoned the principles of racism upon meeting people of all colors who prayed to the same God as him and saw that they were good and decent people. Barack Obama grew up within that same diversity, with two white grandparents and a white mother who helped raise him, as well as with people from all sorts of backgrounds so he probably came to the realization of the futility of racism earlier in life. Malcolm X Grandson Breaks Silence! However even the militant Nation of Islam has endorsed Obama. Farrakhan has spoken very kindly of Obama, even referring to him as the Messiah and the hope of the entire world. With the leading figure for black nationalism in America praising the man who is now the President of the country he once demonized, the black nationalism of Malcolm X may have been replaced by inclusion in the greater United States of America. This is not to say that the struggle is over, but that it has taken a different form and philosophy. Obviously Obama's message of hope, unity and diversity counters against Malcolm X's 'blue eyed devil rhetoric.' However the views that Malcolm X had after leaving the Nation of Islam are more in line with Obama's. Here are some quotes from Malcolm after his epiphany of race in Mecca. I realized racism isn't just a black and white problem. It's brought bloodbaths to about every nation on earth at one time or another. In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument. I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then -- like all [Black] Muslims -- I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. I am not a racist.... In the past I permitted myself to be used...to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true...Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people. VIDEO: Behind The Scenes Malcolm Shabazz The last lines that Malcolm X said sound like something out of the declaration of independence or a Barack Obama speech. Here Malcolm, like Obama and MLK is tracing his struggle to himself and black people in general to n American struggle, a struggle based on the same principles that America was founded on. Many people have compared Obama to Martin Luther King. People have compared King to Obama on their similarities but most often compare King and X on their differences. Despite the fact that they employed different tactics and rhetoric, in many ways King and X had the same goals. Here are some things that X had to say regarding King I'll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King. Dr. King wants the same thing I want -- freedom! After leaving the nation of Islam, X decided that he would work with leaders in the civil rights movement but wanted it to become a global human rights issue, rather than a domestic issue. In many ways Obama's struggle for global human rights can be traced to Malcolm's. Malcolm also was one of the first black leaders to talk about the importance of the black vote, claiming that it was it would take the ballot or the bullet to bring about true change. Malcolm also realized and preached about the importance of the black vote, one of the major factors that got Obama elected. Malcolm's own family has come out publicly for Obama. Malcolm's daughter Malaak said Actually, him and Michelle remind me of my parents, and what they have to face with children, and with the climate that we're dealing with politically. She's brilliant. My mother's brilliant. He's brilliant. My father was brilliant. And they're still sticking to the community. So, no, they are not Betty and Malcolm. But they are the present day Betty and Malcolm. Obama himself has said that he admired Malcolm and even used some of his rhetoric. Obama used the 'hoodwinked and bamboozled phrase' made popular in Spike Lee's epic Malcolm X bio-pic. Spike Lee, one on the biggest proponent's of Malcolm's legacy, has been very enthusiastic of his support for Barack Obama. Obama would talk about the impact of Malcolm X's Autobiography on his life and identity in his own Autobiography, Dreams From My Father. Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. All the other stuff, the talk of blue-eyed devils and apocalypse, was incidental to that program, I decided, religious baggage that Malcolm himself seemed to have safely abandoned toward the end of his life. And yet, even as I imagined myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that tan through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged. I knew that, for Malcolm, that wish would never be incidental. I knew as well that traveling down the road to self-respect my own white blood would never recede into mere abstraction. I was left to wonder what else I would be severing if and when I left my mother and my grandparents at some uncharted border. Reverend Wright, an important figure in his life can be seen as Malcolm to Obama's Martin. While the media may have put a wedge between the two, it is clear that Obama understands the anger that both Malcolm and Reverend Wright have displayed against America. Reverend Wright obviously drew a lot of inspiration from Malcolm X. His whole infamous God Damn America speech drew from Malcolm's famous 'chickens coming home to roost' statement after Kennedy's assassination. Reverend Wright is not the opposite of Obama and definitely helped shape Obama's worldview as did Malcolm. After the controversy of Reverend Wright's statements, Obama spoke on the anger that both Reverend Wright and Malcolm X in his More Perfect Union Speech. The anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races. Maybe because Obama grew up vastly different than Revend Wright or Malcolm X he is less cynical about racism and believes that progress can be achieved. The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. So in no way is Barack Obama the 'direct opposite' of Malcolm X. Rather the two are complimentary figures. Malcom's anger and militancy allowed white America to be more accepting of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Malcolm came around before his death to incorporate his idea of Black Nationalism into the Civil Rights movement that set the groundwork for Obama's presidency. Malcolm's struggle developed into a struggle not only for black people but for oppressed people, a struggle that Obama has continued. Remember, like Obama, Malcolm X had his roots as a community organizer. Here's some final quotes to show the connection between Malcolm X and Obama Malcolm X Was a Patriot and Died For This Country: It is a time for martyrs now, and if I am to be one, it will be for the cause of brotherhood. That's the only thing that can save this country. Malcolm X Realized The Factors For Change Before Obama: Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change. OPINION: Malcolm X To Barack Obama, 44 Years Of Change More on Obama Election Day
 
Tears Flow At Astor Trial Top
Anthony Marshall, accused swindling son of philanthropist Brooke Astor, watched his own son testify against him in a Manhattan courtroom, and the experience appeared to reduce him to tears.
 
Jonathan Handel: SAG's Strange Voyage Top
Where did the Screen Actors Guild go? After months of news--a near daily barrage covered diligently by various journalists and citizen-journalists, including this author--the guild fell off the radar screen. It was as though 5757 Wilshire, SAG's national headquarters, somehow disappeared into the black hole that features so prominently in (spoiler alert) the latest "Star Trek" movie. The quiet was deceptive however. Last week, SAG's Hollywood board, controlled by the hardline Membership First faction, passed a resolution establishing a task force "to explore the acquisition of actors of AFTRA." That appears to violate an agreement between the two unions that prohibits disparagement and raiding. The AFL-CIO is currently investigating, and monetary fines are a possibility. The irony is that the guild, controlled (albeit narrowly) by a moderate majority (composed of the Hollywood-based Unite for Strength faction coupled with Hollywood independents and New York and regional members), could find itself punished because of the actions of the autonomous Hollywood Board, controlled by the hardliners. Unfortunately, SAG's governance structure ensures that there will always be too many starship captains on the bridge at once. Meanwhile, within SAG itself another battle is looming, and here again the phasers will not be set on stun. Tensions between the hardliners and the moderates rival those between the Federation and the Romulans, and are about to break out again into open war--this time, as the guild membership prepares to vote on the TV/theatrical contract, which was recently approved by the SAG negotiating task force and the guild's national board. Ballots are being sent to the membership at large today, May 19. The stakes are high. Ratification will end an almost eleven month stalemate and restart studio theatrical production, which has been at a virtual standstill since the previous contract expired on June 30 last year. Rejection will plunge the union and the AMPTP--the alliance that represents studios and producers--back into stalemate, once again adrift in uncharted nebulas. Nonetheless, the hardliners have pledged to defeat the deal. Although they seem unlikely to succeed--a recent picnic/rally drew at most 70 attendees--they will drive the percentage of ratification down. For almost two years, the hardliners have acted as though they come from another galaxy, or at least from Planet Claire, where (as the B-52's explained) "no one has a head." They started by trying to unilaterally reduce AFTRA's power on the committee that for decades has jointly bargained the TV/theatrical contract. AFTRA ultimately responded by abandoning the joint arrangement, called Phase 1, and negotiating its own deal with the studios. The hardliners, who at the time controlled the guild, should have foreseen this result, and its effect, which was to reduce not AFTRA's power but SAG's. Compounding this misstep, SAG delayed negotiating with the AMPTP until the contract was almost at the point of expiration. The studios' response was unsurprising: they accelerated production, stockpiled films, then presented SAG with a take it or leave it offer whose terms mirrored that of the AFTRA deal and, in a key area, mirrored the terms of the Directors Guild and Writers Guild deals as well. That key area, as even those on the dark side of the moon probably know, is new media. The deal terms in this area, from a union perspective, have significant gaps in jurisdiction and residuals structure. In this, the SAG hardliners make a significant point. But those gaps flow largely from the revenue-draining effect that new media is having on Hollywood . Technology is driving the perceived value of content towards zero, a matter I discuss in a just-published article in the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. That's a pressure that both management and labor struggle to deal with. Several additional factors helped make the search for better terms than three other unions a doomed mission to a dead planet. These were (1) the general uncertainty surrounding new media business models, (2) the economic fatigue suffered by actors and the rest of the industry in the wake of the 100 day writers strike, and (3) SAG's lack of bargaining leverage, the latter a circumstance engineered by the hardliners themselves. (The recession, whose severity was at first unclear, only made things worse.) It's as though the hardliners thought they could run at warp speed on cubic zirconia rather than dilithium crystals. Failure was not only an option, it was the predictable outcome. What's more, the stalemate itself led to further injury, of four varieties. First, it meant that SAG actors working in TV (a field in which production had continued) did so under the terms of the expired contract, meaning that they missed out on the 3.5% raise that AFTRA received on June 30 of last year by dint of its new deal. That's amounted in aggregate to tens of millions of dollars foregone. Second, it means that SAG will be behind AFTRA by 3.5% for at least the remainder of the new contract, because each union will continue to receive annual increases but SAG won't get an extra bump to bring it to parity. Third, if SAG wants to catch up in the next round of negotiations, in 2011, it will need to trade off some other deal point that it might otherwise have gotten. Fourth, the stalemate put into play the date that the new contract would expire, which is significant because it determines whether SAG's deal will expire concurrently with those of the other guilds, allowing it to make common cause with them and increase the leverage of all four above-the-line unions (SAG, AFTRA, DGA and WGA) in the 2011 negotiations. SAG won that point, but at a cost of another two months of delay, from February (when the studios made an offer that would not expire concurrently) until April (when they made the offer that is now on the table). SAG was also forced to compromise pending claims for over $60 million dollars in force majeure payments--claims for actors' wages lost due to the writers strike--but this may be less of a hit to the guild than it appears, since the contract language on the subject is at best ambiguous. So where are we now? The ratification ballots are due back June 9, so we'll know in less than a month whether the long stalemate is finally over. I anticipate ratification will be achieved, but with a percentage in the 60%-75% range, well below the over-90% that's usually achieved when Hollywood union leadership recommends a contract. Meanwhile, the ballots for the SAG-AFTRA commercials contract with the advertising industry are out to the members, and are due back in two days, on May 21. That one will pass easily, as there's no organized opposition. Also of note: several months ago, SAG president Alan Rosenberg and three other hardliners (1st VP Anne-Marie Johnson and board members Diane Ladd and Kent McCord) sued their own union, seeking to enjoin negotiations and reverse personnel and procedural changes that they correctly anticipated would pave the way for a deal on terms the hardliners are pledged to oppose. Although their requests were denied by both the trial and appeals courts, the lawsuit nonetheless continues in both of those forums (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC406900 and Second Appellate District 2d Civil No. B214056). Why do the plaintiffs not drop the debilitating two-track lawsuit, which flouts the concept of unity trumpeted by the hardliners when they were in power? Their motivation for proceeding in the face of near-certain defeat seems political at this point: dropping the suit would damage the hardliners' campaign in this fall's SAG elections, where the SAG presidency, and control of the board, are at stake. (Indeed, the political elbows are so sharp that several of the hardliners are also running in the now-in-progress AFTRA elections, seeking to undermine that union's leverage from within.) Dismissing the suit would also doom the likely attempt the hardliners will make in the SAG boardroom to obtain reimbursement of their burgeoning legal fees. Meanwhile the guild is, of course, incurring significant fees of its own to defend itself and the forty-odd Board members also named as defendants. Even assuming the TV/theatrical agreement is ratified, the guild has a long way to go before it's back in our solar system. SAG's been without a franchise agreement--the contract between the union and the talent agents--since 2002, and four other agreements are expired as well. The union is riven not only by factionalism but by economic and geographic divisions as well. New media issues will recur in 2011, which is just around the corner, and every three years thereafter, since technology continues to evolve faster than Hollywood can respond, let alone than union agreements can be renegotiated. The guild's new leadership has made impressive progress in its few short months in office, but there are many light years yet to travel. -------------- Subscribe to my blog ( jhandel.com ) for more about SAG, or digital media law generally. Go to the blog itself to subscribe via RSS or email. Or, follow me on Twitter , friend me on Facebook , or subscribe to my Huffington Post articles. If you work in tech, check out my new book How to Write LOIs and Term Sheets .
 
Texting And Driving Ban Approved By Senate Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- The Illinois Senate has joined the campaign against motorists who send text messages while driving. Senators voted 45-6 to make texting behind the wheel a traffic violation like speeding. Sponsoring Democratic Sen. Martin Sandoval of Cicero says texting distracts drivers and banning it would save lives. Rockford Republican Sen. Dave Syverson (SEE'-ver-sun) says the legislation was changed to allow texting if the car is on the side of the road and not moving. But critics say existing law covers the problem and that texting could be a vital safety necessity. The bill returns to the House for approval of the change. --- The bill is HB71. On the Net: http://www.ilga.gov -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Bill Maher: New Rule: General Erection Top
New Rule: Porn stars have to stop confusing us by running for office... Check out Real Time with Bill Maher live Fridays at 10PM ET/PT - Only On HBO. More on Bill Maher
 
Andy Borowitz: NBC to Produce Just One Episode of Jay Leno Show; Will Rerun It Until Someone Notices Top
In its boldest move yet to cut costs, NBC announced today that it would produce only one episode of its new "Jay Leno Show" and rerun it until someone notices. The new Leno program, heralded as a way for NBC to reduce programming expenses, had originally been conceived as a series that would have an original episode every night. But after looking at the network's ailing balance sheet, NBC chairman Jeff Zucker decided to greenlight what some within the network have called "the nuclear option": producing only one episode and rerunning it ad infinitum. "To many Americans, Jay Leno is their favorite comfort food," Mr. Zucker said. "We can think of nothing more comforting than offering them the opportunity to watch the same episode of Jay's show over and over and over again." Mr. Zucker confirmed that the network downsized the order of the new Leno show after conducting focus groups revealing that viewers were equally satisfied after watching the same episode of "Law & Order" ten times in a row as they were after watching ten different episodes. "In retrospect, we could have just ordered one episode of 'Law and Order' all those years," Mr. Zucker said. "That means we bought 4,000 episodes we really didn't need." Elsewhere, in its last official mission, the Hubble telescope took amazing pictures of Brad and Angelina. Read a great interview about how to be happier here . More on Jay Leno
 
Eric Margolis: Kicking a Hornet's Nest in Pakistan Top
Pakistan's once beautiful Swat Valley has been turned into a battlefield. Last week, Pakistan finally bowed to Washington's angry demands to unleash its military against rebellious Pashtun tribesmen of Northwest Frontier Province(NWFP). Islamabad's army and air force claimed to have killed 1,000 `terrorists' (read: mostly civilians) and almost emptied the valley of its inhabitants. UN sources now say the operation has created a staggering 1.5-2 million refugees. When Serbs did this to Albanians in Kosovo, Washington rightly called it a war crime. Since many Pashtun men routinely carry weapons and congregate, Islamabad's claims its strike aircraft, helicopter gunships and heavy artillery can differentiate between civilians and militants is as untruthful as similar claims by the CIA and US military when targeting Afghanistan and Pakistan. Dead civilians inevitably become, 'suspected Taliban terrorists.' The US keeps kicking hornet's nests around the globe and wondering why it continues getting stung. These Pashtun tribes that were attacked are collectively mislabeled `Taliban' in the west. While Pashtun tribesmen, they are not the Afghan Taliban. But it's convenient for western media and Pentagon to slap this convenient label on them, just as `al-Qaida' as a wide assortment of anti-American groups in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia that have nothing to do with Isama bin Laden are branded, `al-Qaida.' Now, add Pakistani `Taliban' to Washington's `bad guys' list. The Obama administration had threatened to stop $1.2 billion annual cash payments to bankrupt Pakistan's political and military leadership, and block $5.5 billion future aid, unless Islamabad sent its soldiers into Pakistan's turbulent NWFP along the Afghan frontier and crushed attempts to re-establish Islamic Law and autonomy. The unpopular, isolated government of Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, which many Pakistanis call American puppets, was understandably reluctant to unleash its armed forces against Pakistani citizens, but Washington's angry demands became irresistible. Washington further demanded that Islamabad crush the reinstatement of Islamic law in Swat. Many people in the Northwest Frontier region and other parts of Pakistan want Islamic law because in utterly corrupt Pakistan it represents the only honest and swift justice. The only other `law,' government civil courts and administration, are bought by the highest bidders and held in contempt. Pakistan's armed forces, who are being paid by the US to fight Pashtun tribes, have scored a brilliant victory against their own people. Too bad Pakistan's military does not manage to do as well in wars against India. Blasting civilians at home, however, is much safer and more profitable. Unable to pacify Afghanistan's Pashtun tribes (again, lumped together as `Taliban'), a deeply frustrated Washington has begun tearing Pakistan apart in an effort to end Pashtun resistance in both nations. CIA drone aircraft have so far killed over 700 Pakistani Pashtun. Only 6% were militants, according to Pakistan's media investigations, the rest civilians. Pashtun, also called Pathan by outsiders, are the world's largest tribal people. Fifteen million live in Afghanistan, forming half its population. Twenty-six million live right across the border in Pakistan. Up to three millions Afghan Pashtun are refugees in Pakistan. US policy in Afghanistan has excluded the majority Pashtun from power, handing it instead to their blood enemies, the minority Tajiks and Uzbeks. True to their strategy of divide and rule, Britain's imperialists split the Pashtun by an artificial border, the Durand Line(which became today's Afghan-Pak border). Pashtun reject this artificial colonial border. Many Pashtun tribes agreed to join Pakistan in 1947 provided much of their homeland remain autonomous and free of government troops. The princely Pashtun state of Swat, where Islamic Sharia law was in force, only fully joined Pakistan in 1969 after assurances of autonomy and religious freedom. As Pakistan's Pashtun increasingly aided Pashtun resistance in Afghanistan, US `Predator' drones began attacking them. Washington forced Islamabad to violate its own constitution by sending troops into Pashtun lands. The result was the current explosion of Pashtun anger. I have been to war with Pashtun and have seen their legendary courage, strong sense of honor, and fierce determination. They are also hugely quarrelsome, feuding, prickly, and notorious for seeking revenge. One learns never threaten a Pashtun or give him ultimatums. These mountain warriors defied the US by refusing to hand over Osma bin Laden because he was a hero of the anti-Soviet war and their guest. Doing would have violated their ancient code of `Pashtunwali' that still guides them. Now, Washington's ham-handed policies and last week's Swat atrocity threaten to ignite Pakistan's second worst nightmare after invasion by India: that its 26 million Pashtun will secede and join Afghanistan's Pashtun to form an independent Pashtun state, Pashtunistan. This would rend Pakistan asunder, probably provoke its restive Baluchi tribes to secede, and might tempt mighty India to intervene military, risking nuclear war with beleaguered Pakistan. The Pashtun of Northwest Frontier have no intention or capability of moving into Pakistan's other provinces, Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan. They just want to be left alone. Alarms of a `Taliban takeover of Pakistan' are driven by ignorance or propaganda. Lowland Pakistanis have repeatedly rejected militant Islamic parties. Many have little love for Pashtun, whom they regard as mountain rustics best avoided. Pakistan's Islamist parties have traditionally won less than 10% of the national vote. Nor are Pakistan's well-guarded nuclear weapons a danger - at least not yet. False alarms about Pakistan's nukes come from neoconservative fabricators with a hidden Mideast agenda. The real danger is in the US acting like an enraged mastodon, trampling Pakistan under foot, and forcing Islamabad's military to make war on its own people. Having wrecked Iraq, Washington now seems bent on doing the same to fragile Pakistan. At some point nationalistic Pakistani soldiers may rebel against the corrupt generals and politicians on Washington's payroll and overthrow the government. That is what happened in Iraq in 1957 and Iran in 1979. Equally ominous, a poor people's uprising spreading across feudal Pakistan - also mislabeled `Taliban' - threatens a radical national rebellion similar to India's spreading Maoist Naxalite rebellion. As in Iraq, ignorance and military arrogance continue to drive US Afghan policy. President Obama's people have no more understanding what they are getting into in `Afpak' than did the Bush administration. Obama is getting extremely bad advice from his so-called Afghanistan `experts' and the Pentagon's gung-ho, would be crusaders.
 
Ted Kennedy's Cancer In Remission Top
Sen. Edward Kennedy's brain cancer is in remission and the Massachusetts Democrat is expected back in the Senate after the Memorial Day recess, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Carol Smaldino: A Note on George Carlin about Steroids and Sports from a Practical Idealist Top
In his satiric, acerbic, jolting and irreverent wit, the late comedian George Carlin tended to be cynical about most things, though not all. About cynics themselves he said, "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." Perhaps his cynicism about the hoopla he saw regarding the use of steroids in major league sports of all kind had as much to do with what he found to be the hyper critical attitude towards drugs in general; he tended to find hypocrisy always more harmful than any subject in and of itself. In When will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops Home? , Carlin laced into what he felt to be the exaggerated avidity with which various drug-related scandals of professional athletes were being handled. He wrote, "Consider the Greek Phidippides, a professional runner who, in 490 B.C., ran from Athens to Sparta and back (280 miles) to ask the Spartans for help against the Persians in an upcoming battle that threatened Athens. Don't you think his generals would have been happy to give him amphetamines if they had been available? Grow up, purists. The body is not a sacred vessel, it's a tool." The last quote is what I woke up to on talk radio a couple of years ago, and as usual when I heard him or saw him, he jolted me into a different perspective, a different way of seeing things. At that time in the early morning I didn't know what I thought, but I'm fairly sure I do now. I am only a tennis aficionado for the most part, but I also follow the news and do psychotherapy with both children and adults. I have observed the toll taken by the competition that fuels individual, social and educational existences. Battle and competition have become not only endemic to the sports of our times but to how we see the world and how we teach our children. We teach them commandments more or less than the 10 Carlin ridiculed quite brilliantly, and usually we teach our children to do their best, that their valiant efforts are good enough. But can we really mean it when they see us competing through them on a constant basis? We tell our children to not be shy because shyness is something looked down upon in little children but insisted upon in the next few years when we warn them against serial rapists and predators lurking everywhere. Perhaps there is some ground to stand on without being either prissy or purist, either moralistically religious, or entirely cynical. Perhaps we can include an idealism bound by practicality, which fights for integrity precisely because the effects of ignoring it can decay a culture and negate chances for fixing any problems. There is the reality of disappointment of seeing heroes fall, but we are better off if we can see we are the people who pay the advertisers to create those same heroes and that we have a choice in the matter. While it is true we need heroes, and good entertainment, the price we pay is also an indicator of our desperation for diversion. Most people in this country turn on a sport or a recycled sitcom or reality show which demeans at least a few people in the plot. In this plot of performance-altering drugs in sport, we are being humiliated as much as anyone else, as we show our desperation to be fed our excitement no matter what the price. Baseball players have gone on strike. Could we, the viewers, stomach a strike through the summer if these guys don't clean up their act? Could we face our addiction to the electricity of winning no matter the cost? Who knows, but it might begin a hugely encouraging epidemic of evaluating our addiction to the sports of humiliation we watch while we name them reality shows. We are ingesting huge doses of toxic chemicals that damage the brain, but with the baseball-drug connection we are dulling our judgment as we speak. George Carlin woke me up in so many ways, also because he never stopped working on new material. I think he would find some right here -- not in the triteness of drug use, per se. The material might just as well contain bits about the addictions of a public, the rush at the speed of the greatest hit and pitch to the extent that we no longer care what message our children are receiving. This bit, every bit of it, would be about our addiction, the addiction of a public filled with the rush of the feeling of speed all the way to the end of the game and beyond. More on Sports
 
Roderick Spencer: YES WE ARE THEM AND THEY ARE US Top
I had a philosophy professor in college who described human savagery, and grace, and everything in between, by using the metaphor of a dial. He suggested that a couple of circumstantial clicks in one direction or another can render any human capable of luminous compassion, or obscene cruelty. What matters, he said, is recognition of ourselves in others, even - in fact especially - in others who do terrible things. His point was that there is no 'them', only 'us'. We are all capable of anything, and the moral universe does not have roped-off VIP sections where only good people are allowed. He confronted us with the idea that there is only one kind of human being, and it's therefore perilous to assign less capacity for redemption to others, than we hope for ourselves. In fact, he continued, the impulse to separate along rigid moral lines is the very thing that leads to gas chambers, inquisitions, and suicide bombings. He asked whether, if we acknowledged our own capacity for cruelty, we'd be more or less inclined to act upon it under duress. I remember the way he turned the metaphorical dial with his hand, suggesting that just because we feel exalted by Good, we should not deny the dark thrill of so-called 'Evil'. He finished that memorable lecture with what I still consider to be a profound moral assertion, that neither darkness nor light, both of which we all carry, exempts us from capacity for the other. I miss my professor's metaphorical dial these days, because I think it might help elevate the debate over President Obama's recent decision not to release the photos and video of American military and civilian personnel doing hideous things to their fellow humans at Abu Ghraib and other less infamous prisons. Instead of a dial, the loudest on all sides seem to have embraced a much cruder vertical metaphor: with 'us' at the top of a radiant ladder of virtue, and 'them' at the bottom of a dark pit of corruption. The Left brays highfalutin outrage at President Obama for his 'capitulation', 'hypocrisy', 'pandering', and 'abandonment' of the very values that 'we' are supposed to stand for. And the Right honks with equal certainty that 'our' morality is unsullied by these sins, since 'we' don't like having to commit them, and only do so because 'they', our evil enemies, force our hands. I suggest that until both sides have the courage to recognize themselves in each other, and in those terrible pictures, the debate is useless. People on the Left are just as capable of rationalizing cruelty as people on the Right. The only difference, at the moment, is that after eight years of decisions based on a particularly questionable set of moral absolutes, the Right's assertions are flimsier than the Left's. To even begin a fair consideration of President Obama's decisions, both sides need to step off their pedestals and first examine the inconvenient notion of consequences. The question of what will happen to Americans in uniform throughout the world, if the classified images of torture are released now is not unreasonable just because it's being asked more often by conservatives. Nor is it proof of capitulation that the President has stepped back from a promise to release this material, since the truth is that anyone with an internet connection can find previously unseen horrors online right now, courtesy (most recently) of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a very good bet that horrifying pictures will keep coming, and the story of our extended visit(s) to the dark side will continue to be told, whether or not President Obama gives an order now, later, or not at all. Meanwhile he does have an urgent obligation to protect our men and women in uniform, almost all of whom are as appalled by what happened at Abu Ghraib as the civilians they are sworn to protect. And yes there is also the politics of the moment, which again appears to have resulted in Obama doing what he's done throughout his career, creating space for compromise, on his terms, with people whose cooperation he needs. I am hopeful that Barack Obama recognizes the humanity of even the grinning torturers in the recently revealed pictures from Abu Ghraib. If he does, it will help him make the right decisions regarding the wretched mess the previous administration dumped in his lap. And I am hopeful that he recognizes his own ruthlessness, and affinity for power in, say, Dick Cheney. If he does, it might help him understand what not to do, if he really means to leave a legacy of renewal and hope. And I am hopeful that he recognizes his own vanity and economical relationship with the truth, in, say, Bill Clinton, who squandered so much of his promise by never admitting, to himself or anyone else, how unbelievably full of shit he could be. More troubling than his current maneuvers, is Obama's unwillingness to rescind the expanded Presidential powers captured by Dick Cheney and his operatives and then approved by frightened legislators of both parties, over the last eight years. Troubling, but not surprising. Who among us would spend one minute of our first term in elected office figuring out ways to reduce our own power? Anyone that quickly answers, "I would!" hasn't thought it all the way through, or wouldn't really want the job. This President will not find it easy to give back the new powers that his predecessors left behind, even if he knows he should. After all, 'they' were using them to do the wrong things, while 'we' aren't like that at all. Yes 'We' Are! It's not as catchy as Yes We Can, but it's just as true.
 
Jill Brooke: Rename Cost-Cutting Financial Slimmers And It Doesn't Feel So Bad - What Are Yours? Top
It is fitting that one of my financial "aha" moments came about because of a wallet. When I lost my adored embossed bubblegum pink leather wallet from the designer Karen Cullen I was momentarily depressed because I couldn't justify, with my reduced circumstances, a reason to repurchase it. So I reluctantly shifted gears and went to T.J. Maxx where I found an orange leather substitute for $16.00. In a few days, I found a way to like my orange wallet, appreciating the fact that its design allowed openings not only for my driver's license but a family picture I saw every time I flipped it open. Sure enough, three weeks later, my wallet was found and returned. But guess what? I still really like the orange wallet. The lesson learned here is that there are many painless financial slimmers all around us. For the same reason I hate the word "diet" is why I wince at the words "can't afford." Makes me feel like I'm starving or deprived. However, a financial slimmer seems positive which is why I now look at life through that prism, especially since the years of living dangerously have been radically replaced with the year of living frugally. There also is a surge of victory every time I find a replacement for something I paid more for in the past. This is "The New Normal" and since necessity is the mother of invention, revel in your resourcefulness and share your financial slimmers with us. Here are 10 of mine. 1) When at the grocery store buy generic. It saves you a fortune -- as much as ten cents to a $1 on each item ranging from cereals, canned tomatoes, frozen vegetables, household cleaners to club sodas. You can also have similar savings on items at the pharmacy ranging from aspirin to mouthwash. The difference between Tylenol and the generic brand was $4. However, there are certain items where the quality brand is worth it and those companies deserve your business. While America's Choice frozen vegetables are worth it, their pie crusts taste like dust while Pillsbury reigns supreme. (Although I've tried, I can't seem to master the pie crusts at home). Nestle's chocolate chip cookie dough is another example as is Paul Newman's Lime-AId, which also benefits charities. 2) Another money slimmer is buying in bulk at places like Costco once a month. This is where my friends have loaded up on items like detergent, paper towels and dog food. However, buy only what you need and an amount you will use. Too many overbuy. If like me you are also doing triple duty as soccer mom, career mom and gymnastics mom, another solution is using the delivery services like Stop n' Shop. They charge a little extra for delivery but drop off all the bulk items so you save time and costs of transportation and lugging all the groceries to your house. 3) I used to buy several bunches of fresh flowers every week. I'm from the school of Andrew Weill who says that part of the 8 essential things for a healthy life -- along with broccoli, soy, garlic and blueberries -- is fresh flowers. They are rejuvenating and elevate your mood as well as add a cheerful burst of color in your house. I now use bud vases for flowers vs. vases. Don't have one? I've also substituted long stem glasses for bud vases that I bought another time at Pier One for $1. To be more inventive, I've also used cuttings from colorful bushes in the backyard to add to the floral mix -- and it's free. 4) When you use the washing machine, use the cold cycle. Makes no difference on whether the clothes are clean and saves a whopping 50 percent of energy costs. Also since as much as 60 gallons of water is used for each cycle, make sure that the washing machine is full. Ditto for the dishwasher. 5) According to Kiplinger's, appliances that include a clock or operate by a remote, as well as chargers, are sucking electricity even when you're not using them. Of the total energy used to run home electronics, 40% is consumed when the appliances are turned off. The obvious way to pull the plug on so-called energy vampires is to do just that -- pull the plug. Or buy a device to do it for you, such as a Smart Power Strip ($31 to $44, at www.smarthomeusa.com), which will stop drawing electricity when the gadgets are off, and pay for itself within a few months. By the way, an unused toaster uses 1000 watts per hour compared to a laptop that uses 75 for the same period of time. When I read that I was amazed. 6) Consolidate electronic costs in your family. We were paying for my mother's cell phone but now I put her on a family plan. I'm embarrassed to admit but I wasn't paying attention to our cable costs either. There were hidden costs that I questioned and got removed. With my stepdaughters now out of the house, I also removed the cable boxes which is a savings of $6 a month. When they visit, they can watch TV in my son's room or the den. 7) Use fruit for displays. I now put green apples in red bowls and add a few green leaves from outside as a garnish. It's pretty and also useful. After a few days, I use the fruit for apple crisps. 8) Renegotiate with your credit card company. The companies know President Obama is on their case and can no longer take the position that the company won't budge. Or have someone do it for you since there are some reputable companies that help with your debt consolidation. 9) I love scented candles because candles, flowers and music create an inviting ambiance to soothe the nerves and restore the spirits. Often the cheaper candles smell awful. However, Pier One's Aspen Flower is as good as any high-end brand. Another well priced brand is Archipelago and the candles last for months. 10) Make weekly menus. I should have done this years ago. Since we're eating at home for almost every meal, I plan each dish and as a result never buy extra food. According to one study, people buy between $10-$40 extra by not planning menus. Also, wasted food adds up. I bought a $8 pair of pants on sale at the Gap for my son last week which is the equivalent of salad and a few vegetables that rotted in the fridge after a few days. The amount of food that is wasted is a money zapper. Be vigilant and creative. Weekly dishes -- spinach pie, meat loaf and roast chicken -- also make good leftovers. Planning menus is far more organized and efficient and I feel virtuous knowing I'm not being wasteful anymore and can use the savings for other necessities as well. Now tell us what are your financial slimmers. We are all in this together and can help each other out with examples of resourcefulness. More on Financial Crisis
 
Steele's Speech: 32 Mentions Of Obama, Zero Of Economy Top
Michael Steele's speech at the RNC Chairman's meeting in National Harbor, Maryland, was touted as the first page of a new chapter in the GOP's history. Speaking to a crowd of fellow Republicans, the Chairman made the case that President Obama had drastically overreached in his short time in office. He argued that conservative principles were as fresh and relevant as in years past and deemed the moment right for a political resurgence. "This change comes in a tea bag!" he declared triumphantly at one point, referencing the populist anti-tax protests that erupted several weeks ago. But while the address was long on prophecies and proclamations, it lacked -- quite noticeably -- substance. Insisting that the "era of Republican navel gazing is over," he focused almost exclusively on defining the opposition. And when it came to actual ideas, Steele either glossed over or ignored many policy proposals that could have gone some way towards reasserting the GOP as a party of new ideas. A search of the advanced copy of his speech reveals that Steele made no mentions of the words: economy, terrorist, terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Social Security. He only mentioned the word "health care" twice, both times in the context of attacking Obama. "President Obama and Democrat leaders want a brand new tax on our health care benefits and are devising a plan to give federal government bureaucrats control of our health care system," he said. Similarly, Steele mentioned the banks just twice. Again, in both instances he was attacking the president. "Under President Obama the federal government is now in the banking business," Steele said, adding later: "While the Obama Administration is giving the banks a stress test, they are also giving the American people a tremendous amount of stress." In addition: * Steele only twice said the word "economic." * He said the word "poor" twice, once as a way to criticize Obama for "destroying the rich." * Five times he said the word "job." * Six times he said "tax" -- (either as tax, taxes or taxing) * Only one time did he say the word "security." As for individuals, Steele again tried to deflect the spotlight away from the GOP and firmly toward the opposition. The Chairman made one mention of "Bush," zero mentions of Cheney, three mentions of Reagan, three mentions of Pelosi and two of Reid. There were 32 mentions of Obama. To be sure, the job of the RNC Chairman is that of a flame-throwing partisan. Unlike a conservative think tank scholar, Steele is specifically tasked with drawing political blood. And, on that front, he's had a semi-decent week, with good fundraising numbers and a respectable appearance on "Meet the Press." His speech on Tuesday was the type of red-meat address that may endear him to others inside the RNC that have quietly complained about his rocky tenure. But not everyone ready to turn the page without an intellectual basis for that new chapter. Speaking on MSNBC shortly after Steele's address, former Congressman Chris Shays lamented the fact that he "didn't hear any new ideas." "But, but, that's the point," he added. "I mean, we need to be talking about ideas." More on Michael Steele
 
Matthew Kavanagh: Paul Farmer Joining the Obama/Clinton Team? We can hope... Top
In Washington, change can be slow, difficult work or it can come swiftly when smart leadership and circumstances converge. The financial crisis has shown just how quickly as sweeping changes to the US economy--for better or worse--came through quick, far-reaching actions by the Treasury department. This year Congress and the administration have signaled their intention to overhaul US foreign assistance. I've thus far been deeply skeptical--worried that the process would be long, slow, and fail to change the paradigm of US-funded development programs (which too often fail to serve their purposes of lifting people out of poverty and improving health and education). But the Obama administration is reportedly on the brink of what could be a truly game-changing appointment. Friday the Boston Globe reported that Dr. Paul Farmer, the McArthur "Genius Award" winning physician and visionary global health pioneer, is being considered to direct foreign assistance within the administration. The rumors seem to be true and he seems to have a great deal of support within the administration--and that reality says a lot about the boldness of Obama White House and Clinton State Department. It could go a long way toward healing some of the deep frustration over the 2010 budget. Dr. Farmer would be a truly inspired choice. He has dedicated his life to providing healthcare and a higher standard of living to some of the world's most impoverished populations. He is a visionary thinker, a bold advocate who has challenged policy-makers, and an expert in international development who has shown he knows how to transform the way we fight systemic poverty. I hope he can be convinced to come to Washington. For those less familiar with him, Paul Farmer founded Partners in Health over twenty years ago and he and the organization quickly rose to prominence by going against most every convention when it comes to providing for the health of impoverished people. Instead of providing poor-people medicine, Dr. Farmer has worked to provide world-class care in places like Haiti, Rwanda, the former Soviet Union, and Peru--pioneering AIDS treatment in resource-poor settings when many said it could not be done, providing child-health programs that looked at the whole child, and providing mothers and women with health services in communities that had never seen it. Even more critical for his potential new job, though, has been Dr. Farmer's revolutionary understanding of just what's included in "health." Paul Farmer and his team have extended their commitment to life-changing services far beyond doctors and medicine to include food, water, shelter and education. Partners in Health has worked with the World Food Program to distribute food to thousands. They have worked to install clean water systems for communities, started schools and education centers, and build simple, decent homes for hundreds of rural families in places like rural Haiti. They have simultaneously helped respond to emergencies like hurricanes and build strong long-term systems. In short, Paul Farmer has shown that with commitment and smart use of resources, international development programs can work--can change lives and make human rights into human realities. The US Agency for International Development and other US development initiatives are very much in need of this kind of vision. Mired in bureaucracy and political calculations, these institutions are too often serving a myriad of interests but failing to truly address the needs of those the programs purport to help. The successes--initiatives like US-supported AIDS programs (which are in need of change themselves)--succeed when they are focused on clear, measurable outcomes judged in services provided and lives saved rather than dollars out the door. This is the kind of vision Farmer has helped build. With Congress set to re-write the US Foreign Assistance Act, this year offers a once-in-a-generation kind of opportunity to actually re-vamp our development aid. Only bold, visionary leadership will enable this process to rise above narrow interests to focus on outcomes for impoverished people and fighting destabilizing global poverty. With Dr. Farmer, President Obama and Secretary Clinton may just have found the person who could lead the kind of sweeping change to Washington that they have so often promised. If they can convince him to come to DC, they will have shown the kind of political courage and commitment to bold leadership on international development I worried I wouldn't see. Millions around the world have been holding their breath to see the direction of his administration's foreign aid policy as their lives literally depend on it. If this Dr. Farmer's appointment comes to fruition it will be a bold signal that the administration is serious. More on Barack Obama
 
Russ Baker: The Ponzi-Pulitzer Scheme Top
Earlier in May, the New York Times ran an intriguing piece about William McMasters, the Boston publicist who had helped unmask the con artist Charles Ponzi, after whom the term "Ponzi scheme" is named. One noteworthy passage, near the end of the article, notes McMasters's frustration at his dealings with the Boston Post , the paper that published an article based on his information. When the Post won a Pulitzer Prize for the story the following year, Mr. McMasters should have been happy, but he wasn't. "No mention was made of my having given the paper its first shot at Ponzi," he grouses in his typescript. "Instead it was made to appear that The Post editors had gone after this first story, which was not so." "The truth is that I almost had to beg the publisher to take the story," he wrote. But, he said, the newspaper "in its self-laudation could hardly give credit to anyone outside of its staff." As most whistle-blowers and journalists know -- including presumably the Times reporter who wrote the recent piece -- what happened to McMasters was hardly unusual. It is a common practice among news organizations to make it look like scoops were the result of initiative on their own part when in fact the original tip and much of the detail may have come from an outsider or outsiders who had to struggle mightily for a hearing from the media. Once a reporter is persuaded, he or she, too, often has to wage a battle to persuade bosses to run a story. After which, when the prize comes in, everyone rushes to take credit -- and the source practically disappears from the picture. In fact, if more news organizations were transparent about the process that led to the story, prize committees might sometimes find themselves morally obligated not to hand out awards to news organizations -- but to members of the public.
 
Shelley Hendrix Reynolds: Band of Brothers Creates A Brother's Bond Top
Growing up, my little brothers and I were the best of friends. Our family was particularly close. We rarely fought and I knew that those boys would always be there for me no matter what. We covered for each other. We learned German so we could talk to one another without our parents knowing what we were talking about at the dinner table. We built 20 foot Go-Karts out of scraps we found out in the store room. We caught creatures in the neighborhood ditch. We rode our bikes to the 7-11 to play Asteroids, drink crème sodas and buy some Big League Chew. We hung green lizards from our earlobes to gross out the girls that lived next door. We had a bond that could not be broken. To this day, no one makes me laugh as hard as my brother Chris. He keeps me in stitches on a regular basis. I know that when I am having a bad day, I can IM him. He is always right there and he will have something hilarious at the ready, whether it is a crazy story about my little nieces or a funny YouTube clip. When we were young, we spent every waking moment outside playing together -- we were aliens, monsters, Eskimos, Indians and safari hunters. As adults, he has kept me laughing through unimaginably painful times over the last decade. I can't imagine what my life would have been like without him. I don't want to imagine because in a sense I already know. Our youngest brother, Joseph, died 7 years ago, suddenly and without warning. April 18, 2002 was just a regular day until, without warning, he passed out at work at the end of his day and disappeared without the chance to say goodbye at the age of 23. You accept that you will lose people that you love that are older than you; you don't expect to lose a sibling and certainly not one that young. Our bond has surpassed death. He loved the color red and it is sprinkled all throughout my home. His whispers are everywhere as I raise my children to show them everything I can. No one on this planet taught me how to live life more fully than that boy. He tried everything. He was not afraid to live. He lived every day like it was his last and was loved by everyone who knew him. Knowing brothers and sisters have a very special bond, I was thrilled when I gave birth to a kid of each flavor. First a boy. Then a girl. I just didn't realize how special my kids' bond would be. Liam was diagnosed with autism when Mairin was just six weeks old. His diagnosis was grim. We were told he would never talk again. He would need an institution by age five due to the severity of his symptoms. He would never, ever run through the ditches in the neighborhood showing her how to get dirty and catch crawfish. He wouldn't be there to beat the boys from school off with a stick when she was a teenager. He wouldn't have friends over to cramp her style and make her girlfriends cry. He wouldn't take her Barbies, shave their heads, throw them out of second story windows with homemade parachutes and pull their limbs off in horrible war re-enactments in the backyard. He wouldn't ride bikes with her around the neighborhood. He wouldn't be able to play with her the way other siblings do... or would he? Every day, Liam emerges more and more from his autism haze. Over the years, he and Mairin have compromised on the things they do together but have maintained separate interests. She tolerates still watching Winnie the Pooh on Friday Movie Night and he tolerates going to see chick flicks in the theater like Bride Wars. It is clear that they love each other. They look out for one another in their own way. They interact if I force it but I always wondered when they would hit their stride and bond without an adult coaxing them to do so. Enter The Jonas Brothers. Our family has so much to thank Walt Disney for over the years. Without Disney, I doubt Liam would talk. Without Pixar, he might not sing. Disney made Pinocchio a real boy and in an odd way gave me my own boy back. Liam can tell you anything and everything about any Disney movie made. His world revolves around them. He knows what year they debuted. He knows who the directors and which actors does what character's voice over. He learns social situations from them and has scripted their dialogues more times than I could ever imagine. He uses the scripts appropriately and unless someone really knows Aladdin or Tarzan, they might not realize the conversation they just had with Liam came directly from the movie. Now I can thank Disney for the Jonas Brothers -- a Band of Brothers who have created a brother's bond in our home. Mairin would marry Nick Jonas if she could close enough to let him know how much she loves him. She broke up with her boyfriend last summer because her crush on Nick was getting a little too intense. Those feelings were real and she didn't want to "cheat on Will." She finally came to her senses and realized that would Nick's proposal would never materialize, but deep down, every girl loves a rock star. I suspect Nick is still included in her bedtime prayers. Liam thinks The Jonas Brothers are the coolest band ever, primarily because they rocked Year 3000 in Disney's Meet the Robinsons. They fit the criteria. They wear black. They are teenagers. They are cool and girls scream for them. Liam desperately wants to be a cool teenager too. When the kids found out that tickets were going on sale for an August concert at the New Orleans Arena, they begged me to set our alarm clock for 10am so we wouldn't get busy and forget. When I say kids, I mean both of them! They both reminded me over and over again for two weeks. On Saturday morning, all three of us held our breath for 10 incredibly stressful minutes until Ticketmaster confirmed that yes indeed, come August 15th, we will indeed get to experience them live. At 10:10 am Mairin and Liam yelled, "Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssss!" and high-fived each other all over the first floor of house. They both broke out singing Year 3000 at the top of their lungs, making air guitars out of wooden spoons in the kitchen. They ran upstairs to look for posterboards while discussing what would be on the signs they will hold. Mairin squealing that she was going to put a giant heart on it for Nick. Liam yelling back that Joe Jonas is way cooler than Nick. It got quiet. They thundered down the stairs again asking who we knew that could get us backstage. Are we going to get glowsticks? Will we buy t-shirts there or get them before we go? Mom -- Have you seen our Jonas Brother's CD? Can we have your cell phone to call Madelaine, Kathryn, Alexis, Elizabeth, Hannah, Terry, Nicole, Paul and Ross to let them know we are going to a rock concert? Back upstairs again as this big ticket item had inspired them both to clean their rooms in utter appreciation. I went back to my coffee and my laptop. I updated my Facebook status proclaiming our ticket victory. Immediately the condolences started pouring in. "Sorry you have to sit through that." Or "I would rather die." Little did my friends know that every single note played, every lyric that those boys will sing, every single penny spent on those tickets, the gas to get down there, the glowsticks, the t-shirts and the concert programs so worth it. It is worth it to watch the moments they shared on a warm spring morning nearly eleven years to the day that Liam was diagnosed, not to mention the moments I know that are coming later on this summer. If nothing else, knowing I have an entire summer with the best chore carrot ever, made me grin from ear to ear. Autism has been the strangest experience of my life. Positives and negatives, hope and despair, triumphs and defeat, laughter and tears. One of the oddest blessings it has brought into my life is a new family I have come to know and love over the last decade. A new band of brothers, and sisters, that I never knew or could have hoped existed. They are there for me whenever I need them and I am here for them. We have a bond that won't be broken. We cover for each other in ways some of our own blood families cannot understand. Somehow, through it all we have learned to laugh again, to live again and to dance. More on Autism
 
Michael Pento: Who Will TARP America? Top
Last week the nation's number one trucking company, YRC Worldwide Inc., announced that it will seek $1 billion in TARP assistance to bailout the company's pension plan. Never mind the fact that the request is light years away from the original intention and approval given by congress to purchase toxic assets from banks' balance sheets. The point is that the troubled company's request of the government to cover its pension obligations should remind us of the bigger issue; who will bailout our country's pension plan and can the USA TARP itself? The question has particular saliency given the recent release of the Medicare and Social Security Trustees report. The report provided more sobering news about the long and short term insolvency of our nation's retirement plans and revealed the problem of funding our nation's entitlement programs is becoming much worse. The Social Security trust fund will run out of assets four years earlier than previously forecast. It should be noted at this time that the continued belief in the existence of any government trust fund (including FDIC insurance) is tantamount to a belief in the tooth fairy, because the special-issue bonds will need to be redeemed just as would any ordinary Treasury obligation. Therefore the only date of importance is the date at which expenditures exceed revenues, which in the case of Social Security, has been moved up one year to 2016. The report also bumped up the amount needed over the next 75 years to fulfill its benefit obligations by $5.3 trillion. Medicare, which is by far the bigger issue, is already in a cash flow negative situation. Medicare Part A turned cash-flow negative in 2008, as payments exceeded revenue by $21 billion. The trust fund is projected to run out in 2017, two years sooner than predicted just last year. How big is the entire problem you ask? According to the Trustee's report, if you add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, it comes to more than $100 trillion over the infinite horizon-talk about the mother of all bailouts. There is no doubt in my mind that if the government conducted a stress test on its own ability to remain solvent given the amount of entitlement program spending we face; they would receive a failing grade. A study done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that for 2/3 of Americans over age 65, Social Security provided half or more of retirement income. As for the remaining third, it provided 90% or more! That is why any proposed reductions in benefits will face an impenetrable line of defense from AARP and other lobbying groups which represent retirees-a voting bloc with increasing numbers and influence. When you factor in the wealth decline from the Dow Jones Industrial Average that has declined 42% from its October 2007 high, home prices that are off 31% from their high water mark set in 2006, and the decline in influence of most private pension plans, you understand that the reliance on entitlement programs is increasing substantially. So back to the original question: Who will bail out the USA? Up until now it has been foreign Central Banks. For instance, the Chinese now have $1.9 trillion in currency reserves of which $740 billion are in US Treasuries. The notion that they will continue to provide the United States with an unlimited supply of Treasury demand is specious in nature. Premier Wen Jiabao has already expressed his concern over his country's concentrated dollar position. Additionally, the Chinese have a waning trade surplus and their own stimulus program to fund. This means that they may not have the desire or the means to fund our ballooning debt. Increasing taxes have been proposed by some to close the gap. In reality imposing new taxes or increasing existing tax rates does not necessarily equate to increased revenue. In fact, an increased tax burden imposed on this already fragile economy may prove to have the opposite effect on government income. A partial solution is to grow the economy as much as possible. But the truth is that the antithesis of growth is what is being deployed. Higher taxes, inflation and debt are the antidotes to growth and will only exacerbate our funding issues. That leaves the Federal Reserve in charge of bailing out the entire country. TARPer in Chief Banana Ben Bernanke--who has unlimited counterfeit funds to deploy--will be looked to once again to provide relief by leaving interest well below inflation and keeping the monetary base incredibly high. The worst fear of all is that he will be the buyer of last resort and purchase an ever increasing quantity of US Treasury debt. Any relief experienced by his prodigal efforts will be fleeting. Unfortunately, we will have to learn the hard way that inflation solves nothing and seeking a panacea through the printing press leads to perdition. *Tired of paying fees while your account value plummets? Learn about our new performance-based pricing. Michael Pento is the Chief Economist for Delta Global Advisors and a contributor to greenfaucet.com
 
Seth Goldman: An Honest Mission... in a Bottle Top
As we wrap up the third annual AmeriCorps Week , I've had the chance to reflect on the importance of this program -- not only to the communities served but also to the individuals involved -- I know because I'm one of them. Yes, it's an unlikely path, but my career as a beverage entrepreneur actually has its roots in the national service movement. In 1993 I managed a "Summer of Service" demonstration program in Baltimore, which helped lay the groundwork for the creation of the Corporation for National Service. The experience instilled in me several lessons about service and about myself that continue to shape my work at Honest Tea. Among other things, I learned that: * I work best when I'm passionate about the cause(s) I am serving * I love creating and building a team of engaged and committed people who care about their work. Managing diversity in a team can make it more challenging, but that is often where the magic comes from. * Mission-driven work is tough and requires patience and persistence * The short-term rewards are not always apparent, but the opportunity to work for something you believe in is often a reward in itself. I found my experience in Baltimore so rewarding that I came close to pursuing a career in non-profit national service. But in a late night decision, I opted to go to the Yale School of Management, and got connected to the world of socially responsible business, which I like to think of as national service in the private sector. And though our team doesn't do calisthenics every morning, there is certainly a spirit of service to the work we do. * Some of our employees are on a mission to help change the American diet and replace sugary drinks with Honest beverages, which contain less than half the sugar of mainstream options. * Some of our team members are passionate about our efforts to expand organic agriculture and help reduce the amount of toxins going into our ecosystem and our bodies. * Others are fired up about spreading Fair Trade-certified goods which protect workers in the developing world. It's true that some just want to make a lot of money, but that's fine with me because to the extent they are successful, they are helping the first three groups achieve their goals. This is a confusing time in our economy. Many people entering the workforce are having trouble finding jobs. And if they can find work, it's hard to know just where those jobs will take them. In addition to addressing important needs in our society, national service offers the chance for participants to learn about themselves and their work in a way that will benefit them for the rest of their lives. It's hard to know what our society will look like in twenty years, but it's not hard to guess who will be leading it -- the generation of Americans coming of age now. The world will be better off if they bring their hearts and hands to their work today, and to the world tomorrow.
 
Jim Luce: Endorsing a Haitian-American Candidate in Brooklyn Top
When I first met Jimmy Toussaint, I was startled by his last name. Having founded an orphanage in Haiti , I have traveled back and forth enough, and learned enough Haitian history to recognize his family: Toussaint. From a Haitian senator, to two ambassadors, a prominent defense attorney, a few military officers, and even ties to past Haitian presidents, the history of the Jimmy Toussaint's family is well known in Haiti. It is about to become well known in New York City. Meet Jimmy Toussaint, a friend and new face to Brooklyn politics, living in the 45th District. Jimmy Toussaint, Brooklyn's new kid from an old family. In the depths of Flatbush, you may find yourself surrounded by the sights and sounds of West Indian culture. From the steel pans of calypso to the bass-heavy tunes of reggae, Flatbush is permeated with the customs of the relatively recent arrivals of New York's West Indian population. Look even deeper and you will find something else brewing: Jimmy's friends and supporters. They are moving forward to elect Jimmy to the New York City Council. "Public office is an inescapable desire for me," says Jimmy. "All my life, local politics were considered a joke, because local politicians are known to be useless in this area," Jimmy told me recently at a cafe on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn. "You see their faces on posters around the neighborhood when they want your vote, but afterwards, you hear nothing from them for another four years. I never wanted to become a politician. That word is derogatory to me. I am running because I want to protect my community from politicians," Jimmy told me. In his community, Jimmy represents young, educated, West Indians born in America. Jimmy's district in particular has a large Haitian presence. The Haitian population has historically been underrepresented in our city's political system. "We are here and we are numerous. This election is our time. We need a voice. We value education and yet our schools under-perform. The West Indian community has needs that are never met. Within the West Indian community, the Haitian community is the last to get aid from politicians for anything." "I won't stop working towards obtaining what we need over here in Brooklyn. We have been without adequate schools for our children and sufficient services for our most needy long enough," Jimmy explains. Jimmy represents a young, educated, West Indian generation born in America. There are many issues that Jimmy intends to resolve if elected. Charter Schools. He wants to bring them to Flatbush. "Charter schools perform significantly better than regular public schools. This is what we need here. We want our children to go to good colleges and come back to this community with their degrees and help as, I am doing," Jimmy explained. Tax Hikes on the Middle Class. "How can you expect people to better themselves or better their situation if we punish them for doing so? The cost of living is rising. We should not raise taxes on workers or those who are just getting started in their careers. We should make it easier for them to live in New York City. They are the city's backbone," Jimmy stated. Being from a good family only gets one so far. Jimmy grew up in one of the many disadvantaged neighborhoods in Brooklyn, during a time when violent gangs ran the streets. "The poor public school system, lack of access to adequate social services, and the gang epidemic were challenging," Jimmy admits. "I have friends who were killed or are currently in jail. I have friends from elementary school who stand on the same corner they did when we were in junior high school. I shared an eighth-grade classroom with young mothers. It was bad. I want to prevent kids in the future from going through that." This young candidate is someone you should definitely be on the lookout for. He is more conservative than I am on a few social issues, but West Indian values are often more conservative than my own. He is rock solid and represents his community. I endorse Jimmy Toussaint because he is my friend and I trust him as an intrinsically good person. He is a rising leader in New York City. Win or lose this election in Brooklyn, we will be hearing much about Jimmy Toussaint for years to come. Edited by Karen F. Davis. More on Rick Perry
 
Cuomo Ousts Ezra Merkin As Manager of Funds Top
Financier and money manager J. Ezra Merkin agreed to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's demands to step down as manager of his hedge funds and place them into receivership, according to a person familiar with the matter. More on Bernard Madoff
 
Sprint's Palm Pre's $200 Pricetag Top
NEW YORK -Sprint Nextel Corp. plans to start selling Palm Inc.'s much anticipated new smart phone, the Pre, on June 6 for $200. The device could give Palm a much-needed boost in sales and help Sprint stop the defection of subscribers to other wireless carriers. The price -- which requires a new two-year service and data plan and a $100 mail-in rebate -- and the launch date are both close to what industry watchers were expecting.
 
Carla Sosenko Discusses Having Klippel-Trenaunary Syndrome Top
Carla Sosenko, a freelance writer and full-time copy editor at Bauer Publishing who lives in Brooklyn, has revealed in the new issue of Marie Claire that she is suffering from a potentially fatal disorder called Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome. Sosenko explains in the Marie Claire piece that she was born with the disorder.
 
Michael Pento: Who Will TARP America? Top
Last week the nation's number one trucking company, YRC Worldwide Inc., announced that it will seek $1 billion in TARP assistance to bailout the company's pension plan. Never mind the fact that the request is light years away from the original intention and approval given by congress to purchase toxic assets from banks' balance sheets. The point is that the troubled company's request of the government to cover its pension obligations should remind us of the bigger issue; who will bailout our country's pension plan and can the USA TARP itself? The question has particular saliency given the recent release of the Medicare and Social Security Trustees report. The report provided more sobering news about the long and short term insolvency of our nation's retirement plans and revealed the problem of funding our nation's entitlement programs is becoming much worse. The Social Security trust fund will run out of assets four years earlier than previously forecast. It should be noted at this time that the continued belief in the existence of any government trust fund (including FDIC insurance) is tantamount to a belief in the tooth fairy, because the special-issue bonds will need to be redeemed just as would any ordinary Treasury obligation. Therefore the only date of importance is the date at which expenditures exceed revenues, which in the case of Social Security, has been moved up one year to 2016. The report also bumped up the amount needed over the next 75 years to fulfill its benefit obligations by $5.3 trillion. Medicare, which is by far the bigger issue, is already in a cash flow negative situation. Medicare Part A turned cash-flow negative in 2008, as payments exceeded revenue by $21 billion. The trust fund is projected to run out in 2017, two years sooner than predicted just last year. How big is the entire problem you ask? According to the Trustee's report, if you add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, it comes to more than $100 trillion over the infinite horizon-talk about the mother of all bailouts. There is no doubt in my mind that if the government conducted a stress test on its own ability to remain solvent given the amount of entitlement program spending we face; they would receive a failing grade. A study done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that for 2/3 of Americans over age 65, Social Security provided half or more of retirement income. As for the remaining third, it provided 90% or more! That is why any proposed reductions in benefits will face an impenetrable line of defense from AARP and other lobbying groups which represent retirees-a voting bloc with increasing numbers and influence. When you factor in the wealth decline from the Dow Jones Industrial Average that has declined 42% from its October 2007 high, home prices that are off 31% from their high water mark set in 2006, and the decline in influence of most private pension plans, you understand that the reliance on entitlement programs is increasing substantially. So back to the original question: Who will bail out the USA? Up until now it has been foreign Central Banks. For instance, the Chinese now have $1.9 trillion in currency reserves of which $740 billion are in US Treasuries. The notion that they will continue to provide the United States with an unlimited supply of Treasury demand is specious in nature. Premier Wen Jiabao has already expressed his concern over his country's concentrated dollar position. Additionally, the Chinese have a waning trade surplus and their own stimulus program to fund. This means that they may not have the desire or the means to fund our ballooning debt. Increasing taxes have been proposed by some to close the gap. In reality imposing new taxes or increasing existing tax rates does not necessarily equate to increased revenue. In fact, an increased tax burden imposed on this already fragile economy may prove to have the opposite effect on government income. A partial solution is to grow the economy as much as possible. But the truth is that the antithesis of growth is what is being deployed. Higher taxes, inflation and debt are the antidotes to growth and will only exacerbate our funding issues. That leaves the Federal Reserve in charge of bailing out the entire country. TARPer in Chief Banana Ben Bernanke--who has unlimited counterfeit funds to deploy--will be looked to once again to provide relief by leaving interest well below inflation and keeping the monetary base incredibly high. The worst fear of all is that he will be the buyer of last resort and purchase an ever increasing quantity of US Treasury debt. Any relief experienced by his prodigal efforts will be fleeting. Unfortunately, we will have to learn the hard way that inflation solves nothing and seeking a panacea through the printing press leads to perdition. *Tired of paying fees while your account value plummets? Learn about our new performance-based pricing. Michael Pento is the Chief Economist for Delta Global Advisors and a contributor to greenfaucet.com
 
Martin Garbus: There is No Need for Wretched Un-American Military Commissions Top
The changes that Obama is suggesting are little more than giving the defendants an aspirin. The main reason urged for the continuance of the military courts is that they will permit hearsay testimony that a federal court will not, and that they will be more sensitive to classified information. They also supposedly will allow us to use information gotten through coercion. But they violate the law of the land and American concepts of justice. None of that is true and none of this are reasons to set up jerrybuilt courts that Obama rejected as he ran for President. As both a lawyer and a constitutional law professor, he knows better and is bowing to political expedience. The federal judges and federal courts in an attempt to get at the truth have attempted to deal with these issues for over 200 years. There are procedures to protect classified information that have been developed over decades. There are procedures to evaluate hearsay; there are exceptions to the hearsay rule; and there are valid grounds for applying the hearsay rule when appropriate. Otherwise, prosecutors rely on rumors and stories that are offered by fourth and fifth parties that bear little or no relationship to the truth. When the hearsay rules were enacted, it was decided by Congress that they were the best way to get in reliable, potentially trustworthy testimony before the court. They work. They have worked in those prosecutions that have thus far occurred in the federal courts We are not talking about a great number of cases, less than 220. The criminal system can deal with them today. The real reason Obama is giving in is because of resistance by local communities to house these defendants. But that's not a reason. Also the extent there is a concern over political wrangling it will increase it in the Senate fight. Pushing new controversial legislation before Congress to get a new court system that will not be able to function for months and be subject to every conceivable appeal, is wasteful and, may I dare say, un-American.
 
Tamil Tiger Leaders Were Shot 'While Trying To Surrender': Rebels Claim Top
A pair of Tamil Tiger leaders were shot dead as they tried to surrender following desperate last-minute negotiations to guarantee their safety, it was claimed last night. More on Sri Lanka
 
Brad Grey Divorce: Ex-Wife Jill Grey Signs Papers With A Smile Top
After 25 years of marriage Brad and Jill are officially divorced -- as of May 15. The divorce papers don't say exactly how much Jill got, but judging from her signature -- it's a lot.
 
Katie Holmes And Suri At Hollywood Dance Class Top
Yesterday we spotted Katie Holmes and little miss Suri leaving the dance studio in Hollywood, and the adorable celebritot was totally decked out in ballerina gear. More on Suri Cruise
 
Madeleine M. Kunin: China Journal: Last Days Top
May 18, 2009, China Journal, last days Will have spent two and a half days in Beijing, which, according to our guide (we will call him John) is the size of 24 Hong Kongs, has 81 McDonald's, 70 Kentucky Fried Chickens, lots of Pizza Huts, Subways and Starbucks. The permanent population is 16 million and an additional 7 million called "floaters" who are the migrant workers who do not have any social safety net. Approaching the city from the airport, it feels as if we have landed on a new planet. Large clusters of exciting architecture designed by world-class architects is startling, innovative, and bold. There is so much new construction (not all of it good) that every time I think I have seen the final family of high-rises, I discover a new one that has sprung up on the next street. This is a city which hasn't just grown; it has exploded and taken great risks and without a doubt, experienced "a great leap forward," a phrase coined by the Communists for an earlier time. The virtue of one party rule, John explained, is that once the party decides to do something, it gets it done, moving full speed ahead without the cumbersome obstacle of public input or debate. That is how they prepared for the Olympics, and much of the new city was created to become the showcase to the world. The downside, of course, is that by moving so fast without the usual brakes provided by public input, they may move in the wrong direction. The variety of the architecture here was made clear to us when we entered our hotel, oddly named The Opposite House. We can just guess that it is opposite of what one might expect. It was designed by a Japanese architect, Kengo Kuma, but Chinese owned. The government owns all the land in China, but hotels and restaurants generally are privately owned, contrary to my first assumptions. Developers, government officials, and the families of government officials are the rich people. There is a market here for Lamborghinis and Ferraris, owned by the children of government officials. "Connections" are very important. The hotel lobby is spacious and minimalist in its design. Our room is made almost entirely of bamboo, including a wooden sink and bathtub, which I had to try out. The effect is that the room smells of fresh wood and the gauzy white drapes allow a soothing light to filter through the floor to ceiling windows. The staff is everywhere, standing in the entrance and ready to respond to every request. With such a large population it is clear that restaurants and hotels employ a lot of people, most of them "floaters." Some observations continue to surprise me. I happily discovered solar panels attached at the top of lampposts on the way to the Great Wall and some solar hot water heaters on three- or four-story houses. If they could have them everywhere (including the U.S.), think of what a difference this could make. Good luck and bad luck seem to dominate much of daily life. In every temple and most homes, one must step over a high threshold, "to ward off evil spirits." When I received a red tassel as a gift after having bought things for my grandchildren, I was told that means "happiness forever." Two lions guard the gates of most restaurants and hotels, and of course the temples. It is their roar which keeps bad spirits away. One can distinguish the male from the female lion easily. He has his paw on a round ball, symbolizing the world. She has her paw on a cub lion, lying down. On these hot days, the streets have been dotted with pastel colored umbrellas, some decorated with lace and sequins. The material is special to protect women against the sun. Almost all the women carry them, in part because pale skin is considered beautiful. Estee Lauder, Oil of Olay do a big business here, promising good skin, (the models are always ivory white) evidenced by the billboards and TV advertisements. The streets of Beijing are spotless. Street cleaners in orange jackets clean the streets three times a day, according to John. The effect of the Olympics are still visible, flower lined streets and newly planted trees. The sign in the back seat of the taxi we took to a restaurant said in both English and Chinese: "Over 3 million people ride taxis in Beijing every day. That's over 90 million a month. No wonder I am so busy!" Our first stop Sunday morning was The Great Wall, built by soldiers and farmers during a period of 200 years from 1368–1644 to protect China from Mongolian invaders. About 25% of them died in the construction process, some because of lack of food. Often they were buried inside the wall. The mentality behind this gargantuan undertaking is what is so striking—to conceive a project on such a grand scale—it is 3,500 miles from east to west. Fear was the motivation. Anything to keep the enemy out. And it seemed to have worked. Advanced as we think we are, we are not far removed from that concept. We have built sections of a wall (more recently converted to a virtual wall) along the U.S. Mexican border and Israel has constructed its wall for self-defense. Only Robert Frost observed that there "is something" in us that does not like a wall. Who do we keep in and who do we keep out? How to describe it? It is a winding wall that goes up and down mountains, curving gracefully, forming its own calligraphy. It is high. In this section of the wall, they built a gondola lift, just like the gondolas in Stowe. We walked up and down many steps. There are watchtowers about every quarter of a mile. Each time we thought we had walked far enough, we were enticed to walk further. The crowds were mostly Chinese and visitors from other Asian countries. Groups of tourists from the country side, some wearing all red caps, others yellow caps, crowded the wall. Families with a child, parents and grandparents were having a picnic on the wall. I heard a bit of Russian from a young threesome, some British English from a group of middle-aged women, but Westerners were a small minority. The Wall is revered by the Chinese themselves. I was surprised to be asked to have my photo taken with one of the Chinese tourists. It happened again in the Forbidden City. I tried to figure out why. In some areas of China they still have not seen many Westerners, and probably not white haired elderly women like me. Up on a hillside, next to the wall, some large white Chinese characters have been painted on flat rocks. It looked like graffiti. "What do they mean?" I asked our guide. "Long Live Chairman Mao." On the other hand, when we took the gondola back down, these words were printed on the window, "President William J. Clinton took this car down the Great Wall on June 28th, 1998." Of the 100 gondolas going up and down, we happened to catch the right one. The Chinese proclivity to give people instructions sometimes does not translate well. While waiting for the gondola I read the notice. "No drunkard and people who are insane. No smoking, setting off firecrackers. No monkey around in cable car. Culprits should be punished." The Great Wall is the most important site for Chinese tourists. Next on their list is the Bird's Nest built for the Olympics. Driving to and from the wall we passed beautiful green fields and fruit orchards. Farmers were selling their produce by the roadside. The sky was blue here and the sun was out, in contrast to the city. All of this area, however, was still Beijing. Driving to and from the Wall we had lots of time to talk. I asked about the preference for boys. I learned that 65% of the population ages one to twenty is now male. "If I want a girlfriend, I will have to come to America," our guide joked. John talked quite freely about not believing in Maoism (he was revered like a God and his large portrait dominates Tiananmen Square), but instead he believes in capitalism, though he said he could not say that publicly. His parents were members of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. "But they have changed their thinking." Some of the older people who were in the Red Guards are nostalgic for those days when salaries were equal and they knew what to believe in. Possibly that is why the horror stories of the Cultural Revolution have not been addressed because not everyone is willing to condemn them. It also would mean that Mao made a terrible mistake, something that is impossible for the government to admit. But when we toured a small section of the Hu-Tong, the old Beijing of narrow streets and one-story buildings that is now a tourist attraction, we spoke to a woman in her home who talked freely about those days. She was a student of 15 when she was sent away to the countryside and was persecuted because her father had been on the wrong side when the Communists took over. "I remember those days as if they were yesterday," she said. It is still unacceptable to talk about the Cultural Revolution and novels that have been written about it, like Wild Swans , are banned. But John supports the Communist Party because "it has helped me improve my life. They did something for ordinary people. We live so much better." As for the student protests in Tiananmen Square—another taboo subject—he believes that some of the students were motivated by people "who wanted to conquer China." He thinks that China may move to Democracy in 20 or 30 years, but not now. The wall that China is not capable of building is around the Internet. There was a story in The Financial Times this morning about the memoirs of Zhao Ziyang, the former Communist Party head during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. He had opposed the government crackdown and was then put under house arrest for 16 years. He secretly recorded his memoir. I asked John if there was any mention in the Chinese press about this. He said no, but he had learned about it on the Internet. I asked him what the most important thing was for young people today. Without hesitation he said, "To make money." At the age of 29, he already is distinguishing himself from the younger generation in their teens. "They are just interested in going to bars, music, sex, material things. They reject things Chinese and do not even like to eat Chinese food." Perhaps that is one explanation for why the Pub bar in our hotel was hopping, the Italian restaurant was crowded, and the Asian fusion restaurant where we ate was almost empty. This morning we visited The Forbidden City. I had been there on two previous visits to Beijing, but the sight of this huge, beautiful palace struck me with amazement all over again. For the first time I learned that the marble terraces which lead up to the Emperor's palaces are clouds. He is the dragon above the clouds. The fealty paid to great power, privilege, and wealth (10,000 people served the Emperor here, including 3,000 concubines) exemplified by the Forbidden City is one dramatic indicator of the plight of ordinary people. The city was forbidden to them; they could not walk through these gates or have any hope for a better life. Perhaps this was the fertile soil in which communism was able to take root. It is impossible to draw firm conclusions about China because there are so many contradictions. There is a love of nature and a veneration of harmony, yet nature has been desecrated here ruthlessly. There is great respect for family, and yet families are being uprooted on a grand scale by migration and by relocation. There is great pride in China's great and long history, and yet it is moving into the future faster than any other country. There is political control, but entrepreneurial freedom on a scale that democracies would not permit. One conclusion is inevitable. This is a great country, which by virtue of its population and its ambition to continue to grow and prosper will be an increasingly powerful force in the world that will affect everyone on this planet.   Addendum This morning, before heading to the airport we had time to visit the Lama Buddhist temple known as the Yonghegong Lamasery. It was once a royal palace of count Yong and was converted to a Lama Temple in 1744. It is now both a museum (displaying some extraordinarily beautiful and impressive Buddhas) and a holy place of prayer. One brass inscription placed before an exhibit talked about "the religious nexus connecting inland, Qinhai-Tibet, plateau and inner Mongolian Grassland of China." Another plaque boasted that the temple displays "exquisite techniques, elegant arts and rich culture connotations." Next to one gold Buddha sign read, "all of them show you a kind of joyance from the feeling of the men who have conquered the perplexity." Perhaps that is the point of all religions, "conquering the perplexity." The official party line in regard to the Temple was spelled out at the first gate. "Since the founding of the PRC (People's Republic of China), the government has attached great importance to this ancient temple and allocated large sums of money to renovate major historic site under state protection. The Yonghegong Temple has survived the Cultural Revolution from 1966–1976 thanks to Premier Zhou Enlai. In 1981 it re-opened to the public." Is this their public response to the destruction of temples and repression in Tibet? It may very well be, but what I had not expected was that this is a holy site for prayer. Iron incense burners were placed throughout the outside series of structures and people purchases sticks of incense, knelt on a cushioned slab before them, and bowed their heads, again and again, in prayer. A young mother, holding her one-year-old baby, was bending him back and forth trying to teach him to pray. Those praying were mostly young, and predominantly women. As they knelt, their shoes formed a row of every type of heel, from stiletto, to sneaker, to sandal. Children accompanied aged grandparents, one couple carrying their aged grandmother up the steps. But most of those praying were young and Chinese. Another mystery. On one hand, China is notoriously known for suppressing religion, but here at the Lama Temple, it is freely expressed. I have only begun to understand this country. This was originally posted at Chelsea Green . Madeleine M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state's first woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be Clinton's VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing .
 
Sheldon Filger: Why Barack Obama Cannot Prevent America's Next Great Depression Top
Barack Obama, America's 44th President, is one of the most brilliant, hard working and innovative politicians to occupy the White House. If the current economic crisis were a typical post-war cyclical recession, there is no doubt that President Obama would be up to the challenge, and lead the United States to renewed growth and prosperity. Alas, we are in different times, with a uniquely devastating and dangerous economic disaster of worldwide scope. Not even as gifted a leader as Barack Obama, I fear, will prove sufficient in arresting the rampaging Global Economic Crisis. No one can accuse Obama of not recognizing that the U.S. faces a severe economic recession. Most of his administration's initial activity has centered around crafting policy responses to the recession, primarily involving the unprecedented expenditure of borrowed money in an attempt to revive growth. However, the very character and essence of his administration's economic policymaking reveals the lack of comprehension of how dire and unique the Global Economic Crisis is on the part of President Obama. At his core, Obama believes that the American economic system is basically sound, but slid into a severe recession because of irresponsible behavior on the part of some actors within the financial oligarchy. Hence, by restoring growth through deficit spending and enacting a new regulatory regime to restrict the destructive greed of some Wall Street tycoons and bankers, we can return to the happy economic days of yore. In effect, Obama is acting like a nostalgia buff, hoping that the correct policies will recapture the solid economic model of pre-George W. Bush America. Unfortunately, this view of America's political economy is mythological. The U.S. economy was unhinged under the presidency of Bill Clinton as much as it has been under Bush, yet Obama has chosen Clintonites to serve in the most important economic policymaking positions in his administration. Cheerleaders for a failed model will not lead America to a new economic Jerusalem. A major part of the problem Obama is facing is philosophical. He is following a conventional view of counter-cyclical economics; when a recession occurs, the sovereign can go into debt and use borrowed money to artificially increase demand and thus arrest the decline in growth. Once the recession is arrested, government fiscal policy can return to a more prudent policy of balanced budgets, as restored economic growth eliminates the need for the government to maintain demand. Sounds simple, as this has been enshrined as the recession-fighting bible created by economist Maynard Keynes. The only difference, the Obama administration would argue, is that this recession is much bigger than previous economic downturns, and therefore requires much more significant deficit spending. Otherwise, the Keynesian model remains unaltered. This perspective by the Obama administration, in my view, is myopic. Like many contemporary politicians and economists, President Obama and his senior economic advisors have misread Maynard Keynes. Contrary to public perception, Keynes was no economic radical, but a centrist in dealing with the challenge of managing economic cycles within a capitalist system. Though Keynes did believe deficit spending was justified as a means to stimulate economies in deep recession, he also advocated budget surpluses during times of relative prosperity. In effect, Keynes believed in "rainy day" economics; in times of plenty you put away a little fiscal cushion that can then be spent during a recessionary period to enable the sovereign to maintain economic demand during a time of private sector contraction and declining tax revenues. This is actually a conservative philosophy that many farmers are familiar with. In the United States, even during times of sustained economic growth, massive government deficits have been de rigeur during the past nine years, in the process doubling the national debt. There is no rainy day fund to speak of, so the staggering deficits that are now being enacted by the Obama administration are, in my judgement, fiscally unsustainable. Already, the projection for the current fiscal year's deficit has risen by $200 billion to a stratospheric $1.8 trillion; my own estimate is that it will top $2 trillion. Looking into the future, the current Obama fiscal agenda foresees annual deficits of $1 trillion or more for several years into the future, gambling that the recession will be short-lived, with growth returning as early as the last quarter of 2009, leading to increased tax revenue and declining deficits. But are we in a recession? The current downturn is already the most protracted and destructive since World War II. However, there is another ingredient that has been added into this toxic economic stew: globalization. We are in a Global Economic Crisis in which synchronized contractions across the world create multiple negative feedback loops that reinforce the underlying negative causation. The subprime collapse in the United States crippled banks in the U.K. and devastated Japan's export machine; the Eurozone economic contraction is now impacting America's export driven manufacturers. When China's exports to America decline, commodity exporters and peripheral economies that supply value-added components to China's export goods get whipsawed. This phenomenon is occurring at an accelerating pace, despite attempts by the Obama administration to portray minor statistical anomalies to the prevailing trend as "rays of hope" and "green shoots." Reading tealeaves is no substitute for critical analysis. The ongoing Global Economic Crisis has proven to be so severe, sustained and virulent that if it is not yet a global depression, it has embarked on that dangerous trajectory. However, another flaw in the Obama administration's approach is its failure to recognize that a substantial part of the financial system is rotten to the core, and not merely a fundamentally sound system with a few bad apples populating it, who can be restrained by improved regulation. More importantly, the Obama economic team seems to have convinced themselves that "mind over matter" is the best palliative for the nation's stricken banking system. When a sovereign's private banks are essentially insolvent and not engaged in normal loan activities, this is another manifestation of an economic depression. Rather than admit the truth, the Obama administration cobbled together a make-believe series of bank stress tests, which supposedly show that America's banking system, with a few minor problems, is essentially sound and fiscally healthy. This conclusion is an utter fraud, designed to artificially create a climate of economic confidence. It won't work, and by delaying an honest approach towards the nation's crippling level of bank insolvency, the policymakers are insuring that the final cost of the inevitable day of reckoning will be far more costly to the taxpayers. The economist Hernando de Soto has captured the essence of the Global Economic Crisis as few others have. In his view, the Western world, and principally the United States, who have for so long railed against Third World inefficiency and corruption, have created the largest, most toxic shadow economy in the history of human civilization. More than one quadrillion dollars in unregulated financial derivatives paper, according to de Soto, has destroyed inter-bank and financial counter party trust to such an extent, credit flows have largely frozen despite unprecedented levels of taxpayer-funded borrowing to bailout the global financial system. Nothing short of an honest accounting of the true value of the toxic assets underlying these colossal derivatives products, which equal twenty times the entire world's GDP, can put the global economy on the road to recovery. Until these unregulated "unknown unknowns" become fully transparent, all other government interventions, including Obama's massive borrowing binge, are doomed to failure. Sadly, as the bogus bank stress tests reveal, President Barack Obama and his Clinton-era economic advisors have financial transparency as the least important objective on their agenda. It seems that President Obama, despite his obvious leadership gifts and towering intellect, has chosen to place his faith in a team of advisors who are tied to the Wall Street oligarchy by an umbilical chord than cannot be severed. In a sense, Obama is following the path of the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who also sincerely wished to resolve his country's economic problems, but believed that the system was fundamentally sound and only required a modicum of reform to correct its distortions. Only after the collapse of the USSR did Gorbachev conclude that the system itself was unsustainable. Now it appears to this observer that President Obama may be fated to travel the same path as Gorbachev, and like him, end up as a valiant failure. More on Obama's Economic Team
 
McCain Abruptly Flips On Climate Change Legislation Top
Sen. John McCain now appears to oppose climate-change legislation, an abrupt switch that could seriously threaten any movement on such a bill. "Nearly 1000 page Climate Change legislation -- appears to be a cap & tax bill that I won't support," McCain wrote in a Twitter message Monday, a reversal of the position he took on the Senate floor in March. Two months ago, McCain and his close friend Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, took the floor in strong support of climate-change legislation. This marked a return to form for McCain, who co-sponsored a 2002 climate-change bill with longtime friend Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), but had tamped down his rhetoric during the 2008 presidential campaign. "Let me just say to my colleagues, I'm proud of my record on climate change," McCain said in March. "I've been all over the world and I've seen climate change, and I know it's real, and I'll be glad to continue this debate with my colleagues and people who don't agree with that." Though he stressed the need for investment in nuclear power and so-called 'clean coal' -- as well as bipartisanship rather than a budget-reconciliation process -- McCain lauded a prior cap-and-trade system dealing with acid rain, which is often cited as a model for climate-change law. "I believe that what we did in addressing acid rain, which was through a cap-and-trade kind of dynamic, that we were able to largely eliminate the problem of acid rain in America," McCain said. "So it has been done before and we can do it again." Without McCain's help, however, a new climate-change bill seems unlikely to gain the necessary bipartisan support. McCain's Senate office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! Reporting contributed by Ryan Grim More on Climate Change
 
Robin Sax: How Far Have We Come? Not Far Enough Top
In 1983 President Ronald Regan proclaimed May 25 National Missing Children's Day. Each administration since has honored this annual reminder to the nation to renew efforts to reunite missing children with their families and make child protection a national priority. But have we come far enough since 1983 or is National Missing Children's Day only a reminder that we still have so far to go? Are we still are failing our children by choosing to disbelieve them, discredit them, and fail to honor them as the people who deserve to be heard and protected? Are the cases that we know about -- the Caylees, the Haleighs, the Natalees -- really representative of the hundreds of cases that don't get media attention and yet are happening in cities and counties all over the country every day? So what do the numbers say? According the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC): 85% to 90% of the 876,213 persons reported missing to America's law enforcement agencies in 2000 were juveniles (persons under 18 years of age). That means that 2,100 times per day parents or primary care givers felt the disappearance was serious enough to call law enforcement. The number of missing persons reported to law enforcement has increased by 468% since 1982. According to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2000: Based on the identity of the perpetrator, there are three distinct types of kidnapping: kidnapping by a relative of the victim or "family kidnapping" (49 percent), kidnapping by an acquaintance of the victim or "acquaintance kidnapping" (27 percent), and kidnapping by a stranger to the victim or "stranger kidnapping" (24 percent). Family kidnapping is committed primarily by parents, involves a larger percentage of female perpetrators (43 percent) than other types of kidnapping offenses, occurs more frequently to children under 6, equally victimizes juveniles of both sexes, and most often originates in the home. Acquaintance kidnapping involves a comparatively high percentage of juvenile perpetrators, has the largest percentage of female and teenage victims, is more often associated with other crimes (especially sexual and physical assault), occurs at homes and residences, and has the highest percentage of injured victims. Stranger kidnapping victimizes more females than males, occurs primarily at outdoor locations, victimizes both teenagers and school-age children, is associated with sexual assaults in the case of girl victims and robberies in the case of boy victims (although not exclusively so), and is the type of kidnapping most likely to involve the use of a firearm. If any other segment of our population were so impacted, we would declare an epidemic! The Center for Disease Control would fund a cure; we would pass and enforce legislation and increase private and public security. But, since it is only our children, many in our society accept these appalling numbers as status quo. Although there are no quick fixes to the problems of child safety, there are many things that we can do as adults to address and positively impact the issue. So, like everything else, the lessons start at home and that means parents need a reality check and must make time to talk to their kids, share with their kids, and communicate about how to be safe. So how do we talk to kids about safety both on and offline? The key to keeping talks about internet safety from being scary, for both parents and kids, is for the parent to take the position that discussions of this nature are nothing to be afraid of! Just because we, as adults, are nervous about "the world out there," we needn't convey our fears to our children. However, there are things kids must know before they dive into the sometimes treacherous world of independent adults. As trite and over-used as the expression seems, "Knowledge truly is power." I am not suggesting that parents need to tell kids about the gruesome details of every case in the news, or grill them with statistics. But youngsters need to have a solid understanding of how they can defend themselves in ways appropriate to their age. On its website, the California Department of Justice reminds parents that "we provide safety information to our children in a number of other areas that may seem pretty scary, such as "drop and roll" if your clothes catch on fire or "look both ways when you cross the street." When it's time to discuss potential or actual sexual abuse from online encounters, the best way to combat the fear associated with such talks is to just start talking! It's never too early to begin to give children information that can help them stay safe. However, you need to treat personal safety like any other parenting lesson -- finding appropriate times, not tackling too many lessons at a time, and considering the child's personal development and ability to understand the discussion. As teachable moments arise in your daily life, keep these safety tips in mind: 1. Be consistent with your messaging. Watch for and avoid messages that are not realistic or don't make sense. For example, avoid contradictions, such as saying "Don't talk to strangers" and then later, at the store, telling your child to "say bye-bye to the nice grocery man." 2. Become tech savvy, not tech-fearful. The internet is here to stay and it's a great way to learn, research, and connect. Parents must learn about and use social networking sites such as Facebook. Better yet, it's a great idea for children to teach their parents how to navigate them, which naturally opens the communication process between parent and child or tween. The amount of people of all ages on Facebook is equivalent to the 6th largest city worldwide, making it wide open for every kid to explore. Parents must learn to understand this tool so they can create rules that make sense. 3. Empower your children. They already have the tools to teach us how to keep them safe. Talk with them, learn what they know, have them educate you so you know where you need more knowledge. Then discuss these things with your children. 4. Listen to your instincts and teach your children how to find theirs. Instincts rarely lie. When in doubt, trust your instincts. I'm often amazed at how often we as parents would rather give the benefit of a doubt to perfect strangers. If an elevator door opens and something is telling you that the person in there is creepy, don't go in. Too often we worry about political correctness or appearing rude. However, we want our kids to develop that inner "uh-oh" feeling. In order to do that we must listen to our own inner "uh-oh's" and discuss them as they come up in real life. 5. Parents need to teach children to find a trusted adult, even if it is not the parent, as a safe person to disclose to, if necessary. This will be the person they can confide in, talk to, and trust. Kids need to know it is okay, if they don't feel comfortable talking to a parent, to find another trusted adult the parent knows and approves of, who can help them And, they should keep sharing until they get the help they need. Safety talks are difficult for many parents to broach, as they bring them face-to-face with fear of events out of their control. However, children depend on adults to teach them how to be safe. Such talks are also a great opportunity to bond and learn from your child. May 25 is simply one day, one reminder about our children, but use this day to remind yourself that our children depend on us to empower them, honor them and especially protect them.
 
Kenneth C. Davis: Memorial Day: A History Top
Mother's Day has just passed. Memorial Day is around the corner. At least on the surface, the two occasions would seem to have little in common besides falling in May. But there is an intriguing connection between the two that comes through American history's bloodiest chapter, the Civil War. Memorial Day was born in 1868, in the Civil War's wake, as Decoration Day. It was a day set aside to honor fallen soldiers by "decorating" their graves with fresh flowers -- an occasion originally fixed on May 30, when the most flowers are in bloom. For years, it was a profoundly solemn occasion that kept alive the passions of the war that had killed more than 600,000 Americans -- an astonishing tally that equaled some two percent of the population at the time (a comparable loss today would mean 6 million dead). In 1882, it was renamed Memorial Day. A few years after that first Memorial Day, Julia Ward Howe, a prominent abolitionist best known for writing The Battle Hymn of the Republic , first promoted the idea of a "Mother's Day." But her ambitious concept called for more than a simple celebration of "Mom and apple pie." Reacting to the carnage of the Civil War and Europe's Franco-Prussian War, she later noted in her memoirs: The question forced itself upon me, 'Why do not the mothers of mankind interfere in these matters, to prevent the waste of that human life of which they alone bear and know the cost?' In 1870, Howe issued a "Mothers' Day Proclamation" that read, in part: Our husbands shall not come to us reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience... From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own. It says, "Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice! Blood does not wipe out dishonor nor violence indicate possession. Howe's international call for mothers to become the voice of pacifism found few takers. Even among like-minded women, there was greater urgency over the suffrage question. Her passionate campaign for a "Mother's Day for Peace" fell by the wayside. (Mother's Day, as we know it, is not the invention of Hallmark; it started in 1912 through the efforts of Philadelphian Anna Jarvis.) Today, sadly, both Mother's Day and Memorial Day are largely commercial bonanzas. Mother's Day is a big one for flowers, chocolates and greeting cards. Memorial Day -- a movable feast that was changed by Congress to the last Monday in May in 1968 -- has morphed into the summer's long weekend kickoff, with ever more emphasis on picnic pointers and swimsuit sales. Last week, I heard the first mention of this solemn occasion in a radio ad for a "Memorial Holiday Mattress Sale!" Perhaps not so coincidentally, I was driving through Dover, Delaware, at the time. Earlier that day I had seen a newspaper photograph of the flag-draped casket of an American soldier killed in Baghdad. The sight of our war dead being lovingly and respectfully carried through Dover Air Force Base had been denied to America for eighteen years -- an unfortunate Pentagon decision that attempted to mask and sanitize the grievous losses suffered since the first Gulf War, right through Afghanistan and Iraq. But the solemn, sad image of that casket in the morning paper brought Memorial Day and its meaning starkly home for me. War. Supreme Sacrifice. Loss. The flag-draped coffin means another mother's child gone, another of Julia Ward Howe's "sons taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience." Is it possible to truly honor Memorial Day and what Lincoln called "the last full measure of devotion" and still work towards Howe's original -- and perhaps utopian -- vision of Mother's Day? If only we remember the history behind the holiday and what it's really all about. See more at my blog at dontknowmuch.com and follow me on twitter@kennethcdavis More on Mother's Day
 
Palin Clothing Complaint Dismissed By FEC Top
WASHINGTON — The Federal Election Commission has dismissed a complaint over the $150,000-plus designer wardrobe the Republican Party bought to outfit vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The good-government group that filed the complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argued that candidates aren't supposed to use donor money for personal expenses such as clothes. The FEC ruled Tuesday that the ban doesn't apply to party money, however. The Alaska governor was Sen. John McCain's pick for vice president. The purchases from such high-end stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus drew criticism for Palin, the self-described hockey mom. The Republican National Committee told the commission that party money rather than candidate campaign money was used for the purchases, and that the shopping spree was allowed under campaign finance rules that let the party spend on behalf of and in coordination with presidential campaigns. The controversy over Palin's clothing overshadowed the Republican campaign in the final weeks. The RNC spent at least $150,000 on designer clothing, accessories and hair and makeup services for Palin after she became McCain's running mate in September. The designer duds contrasted with the practical, down-to-earth image that Palin and the campaign sought to craft for her. The purchases included $75,062 worth at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis; $49,425 at Saks Fifth Avenue; $9,447 at Macy's; and $789 at the luxury retailer Barneys New York. Goods were also bought for Palin family members, such as $4,902 spent at upscale men's store Atelier and $92 at Pacifier, a Minneapolis baby boutique. The McCain-Palin campaign said some of the clothing was returned almost immediately because it was the wrong size. After the November election, the RNC sought to get all the items back and planned to return them to the stores or give them to charity. The McCain campaign and Palin characterized the purchases as legitimate campaign expenses and said there was never any plan for Palin to keep the items. ___ On the Net: Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov/ Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: http://www.citizensforethics.org/ More on Sarah Palin
 
Obama Ad Compares President To JFK, Lumps GOP With Oil Companies Top
The Democratic advocacy group Americans United for Change is releasing a new ad comparing the president's economic policies to John F. Kennedy's Apollo project and lumping Republicans alongside "oil companies" in the opposition. Titled "Jobs of the Future," the spot will begin airing on D.C. cable starting on Wednesday and throughout the week. "Fifty years ago, a young President challenged us to put a man on the moon. John Kennedy's vision put America in the forefront of the technological revolution that created the jobs of the future -- for a generation Americans," reads the script. "Today President Obama has challenged us again -- to create the jobs of the future for our generation -- millions of clean energy jobs. But the oil companies and the Republicans just say no." The ad comes roughly a week after several media outlets reported that Obama's stimulus package was not being implemented in an expeditious manner, and as Congress currently debates a climate change bill that proponents say would create "millions" of new green jobs. Two key Democrats in the House -- Reps. John Dingell of Michigan and Gene Green of Texas -- have signaled support for the legislation, increasing its odds of passage. But Republican opposition won't be light. "When the time comes," said Jeremy Funk, the communications director at Americans United for Change, "will the Party of NO help President Obama create millions of green jobs -- or keep looking out for big oil's bottom line?" Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Sparack: Meeting with Bibi Top
Meeting with Israeli Prime minister Netanyahu went a bit better than expected. We gave a little on the Iran timeline thing and I heard some noises - words, too, but mostly noises - about a move toward a two-state solution. Since the Gordon Brown dvd debacle, we have taken steps to tighten up the ceremonial gift giving. On that front I believe we can count this an unqualified success. Rahm said we needed to give something that sent a strong message: yes, we are staunch allies, we appreciate Israeli resolve and grit...but we will be pushed only so far. He suggested a display of authentic Gene Simmons memorabilia: Israeli-born, tough, yet vulnerable sans his signature make-up. Interesting. Ax (David Axelrod) suggested something a bit more cryptic: a talis autographed by famed Nixon supporter Sammy Davis Jr. I was baffled, but intrigued...mostly baffled. We decided to split the difference: we asked Gene Simmons to record a Sammy Davis medley, which naturally included Mr. Bojangles and Candyman. "Who can make the sun rise, sprinkle it with dew?" Perfect. And to play it safe, we included a talis signed by all of the original members of Kiss. Tight.
 
Aubrey Louis Berry Arrested In Killing Of Rapper Dolla Top
LOS ANGELES — Up-and-coming rapper Dolla was killed in a shooting at an upscale shopping mall, and a man was arrested for investigation of murder, police said Tuesday. Los Angeles County Coroner's spokesman Ed Winter said the man killed Monday afternoon at the Beverly Center was 21-year-old Roderick Anthony Burton II, the birth name of rapper Dolla. Police said in a statement Tuesday that 23-year-old Aubrey Louis Berry of Georgia was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport with a gun Monday night. His bail was set at $1 million. Burton was shot several times in a parking structure at the Beverly Center, and was declared dead at a hospital, police said. Police did not say what may have motivated the killing. Records in Georgia show that neither Burton nor Berry had been convicted of a state crime there. Police wouldn't say exactly where in Georgia Berry was from. Burton's publicist, Sue Vannasing, told the Los Angeles Times that the rapper was waiting at a valet stand after a shopping trip when he was shot. She did not respond to repeated calls and e-mails seeking additional comment. Police said Berry was found hours later in a ticketing area of Los Angeles International Airport. He was believed to have dropped off a rental car before he was found, said airport police Sgt. Jim Holcomb. "As the officers approached the suspect, they asked him 'Do you know why we're here?'" Holcomb told The Associated Press. "He put his (hands) up in the air and said 'Yes, I've got a gun in my waistband. Don't shoot me.'" Airport police found a loaded 9mm semiautomatic handgun and turned Berry over to Los Angeles police. Dolla, a protege of hip-hop artist Akon, worked on the soundtrack for the 2006 dance film "Step Up" and recently released two singles with Akon: "Like This" and "She So Fine." Dolla was "an incredible artist," Akon's Konvict Entertainment said in a statement Tuesday. "This is a senseless crime and the industry has lost a real talent. Our heart goes out to his family, friends, and fans," it said. Dolla's MySpace page said he once modeled for Diddy's Sean John clothing line and was signed to Jive and Elektra record labels. Diddy's publicist did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment Tuesday. Burton was working on his second album, "A Dolla and a Dream," which was due to be released on Akon's Konvict Muzik label. A song with T-Pain was titled "Who in the (Expletive) Is That?" On one of his songs, "Rainy Nights," Burton seemed to foreshadow his own death: "Papa died at 25 so he must have been great, they say the good die young, I guess I'm on my way."
 
Swings Mysteriously Appear On San Francisco Trains Top
Somebody decided to make the world just a little bit more interesting, and three red swings appeared on the BART Public Transit System in San Francisco for the public to enjoy. You really need to check out the photos below, they're great. More on Moving America
 
Miss California Coverage In A Minute (VIDEO) Top
Carrie Prejean stormed into our lives last month when she responded to Perez Hilton's question about gay marriage by showing her firm support for opposite marriage. Since then she's come out again satan , signed up with the anti-gay marriage group NOM , caused a Miss California rep to resign , caught the eye of the Donald probably with her pageant-funded boob job , become Sarah Palin's BFF , had many topless pics of her released and became a Fox News anchor . That all seems about right. But what of the coverage? What of the hours and hours of cable news devoted to Ms. Prejean? Are we supposed to forget it or, worse yet, watch it? We here at the Huffington Post wouldn't let either of those things happen so we've condensed hundreds of hours of talking heads and sound bites to (roughly) 60 seconds for your consumption. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Miss California
 

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)