Sunday, May 24, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Blog Alert
Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Lee Camp: WATCH: Water Boarding, Witch Burning, & Other Fun Family Activities! Top
 
Chris Kelly: I Knew Pussy Galore. Pussy Galore was a friend of mine. And You, Nancy Pelosi, are No Pussy Galore Top
"Seems to me I'm getting all balled up in high politics." -- James Bond, You Only Live Twice The Republican National Committee produced a little gag video criticizing Nancy Pelosi for being a James Bond villainess. (Or something. It's getting harder and harder to discern what they're on about.) The Daily Kos criticized the criticism, because there's three seconds in the video where Pelosi and Pussy Galore are on screen at the same time: "Pussy Pelosi? The GOP Thinks So" And Politico found some tame Republican congressman to object as well: "We have to get away from the politics of personal destruction." -- Jason Chaffetz (R-Obscurity) We Huffingtons are on board of course: "GOP Rep Slams 'Reprehensible' RNC Video Comparing Nancy Pelosi To Pussy Galore" And the Free Republic has the first right wing blog criticizing the criticism of the criticism: "One sure way to know that you've hit a homerun is to watch how upset the liberal media reacts." -- Stormin's Morning Java (My Conservative Blog on News, Politics, Current Events, Pop Culture, and Asian Woman) So we're all off to the races, because this is the Internet, and if you're not shocked, sounding off, melting down, slamming, blasting or shooting back, you're not doing your job. Even if you're getting offended about something that was clearly designed just to offend. As Kronsteen once explained to Blofeld, the simple reason some people can't resist a trap is because it's so obviously a trap. I don't know if Nancy Pelosi is a Pussy Galore or not; you'd have to ask Mr. Pelosi. The larger question is: How did the Republican Party get stuck in 1959? Last year, the McCain campaign produced an ad that called Barack Obama "Dr. No," because Obama was against offshore drilling. It was just a lucky accident that Dr. No was also a biracial communist murderer who fed white women to land crabs. Now it's laughable, apparently, that Nancy Pelosi - a woman! - thinks she's entitled to an opinion about the CIA, and it's just a coincidence that there's a fictitious spy named Pussy Galore who's a lesbian with a name that means vagina and wimp. (It's not a slur. It's just serendipitous semiotics. Like, say, if God made a guy who was a useless dumb dickhead and named him Boehner.) You work with what you've got. But if Michael Steele is giving the Republicans a "hip-hop makeover" why are they still getting their slams from the swinging sixties? I like James Bond as much as the next guy at the James Bond convention, but I know, in my heart, it's not really that hip. Here's the other problem with using James Bond to make the argument - again, I'd just guessing that this is the argument - that a ditzy broad has no business talking smack to spies: James Bond's boss, M, has been a woman since 1995. She's played by an actress named Judi Dench. It was in all the papers. Before that, another M and Bond worked for a woman prime minister named Margaret Thatcher for eleven years. And they've all answered to a female regent - I'll have to look this up - named Queen Elizabeth II. Bond's been serving her -- on her secret service, you might say -- for 56 years, since the coronation and the publication of the first Bond book, Casino Royale, three months apart, in 1953. Apparently, sometime after the last time anyone in the Republican Party got out of the house. And here's the problem with using Goldfinger , specifically, as an argument that we shouldn't let our politicians get in the way of our torturers: It contains the most famous exchange in the history of alternative interrogation. Do you expect me to talk? No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die. It's not the good guy asking the questions. The torturer is the villain, Pussy Galore's boss. And James Bond gives him misleading information.
 
Berlusconi Urged To Explain Relations With Teen Top
ROME — Campaigning in Italy for the European parliament election was dominated on Sunday by demands that Premier Silvio Berlusconi explain his relationship with an 18-year-old Neapolitan woman. The calls for the 72-year-old conservative premier to explain how he came to know Noemi Letizia appeared to be set off by an interview in La Repubblica newspaper with her former boyfriend, Gino Flaminio. Flaminio, 22, was quoted by the left-leaning Rome daily as saying that Letizia told him that Berlusconi invited her and other young women for a week's vacation at New Year's at one of the married media magnate's Sardinian villas, and that Letizia sometimes allowed him to overhear Berlusconi's cell phone calls to her. The politicians demanding Berlusconi say more about the Letizia case included his chief opponent, Dario Franceschini, who took the helm of the Democratic Party earlier this year after the center-left party suffered stinging defeats at the hands of the premier's forces in Italian regional voting. "A politician must respond to questions" about his private life, Franceschini told a campaign rally in Reggio Emilia. Berlusconi's spokesman, Paolo Bonaiuti, accused Franceschini of "grabbing on to gossip to try to stop Berlusconi" and his party in next month's Euro election. On Saturday, Berlusconi said he was "tempted" to brief Parliament about Letizia, but needed to reflect about it first. Berlusconi is betting that his new Freedom People's party will score big in the election. He boasts a comfortable majority in Italy's Parliament since his election a year ago. The premier has said he knows Letizia's father through decades-old Socialist party circles and that he recently attended the young woman's 18th birthday party because he happened to be in Naples that day. "In the United States, there would be a commission of inquiry to see if the premier has lied," said Emma Bonino, a leader of the Radicals, a maverick party outside both Berlusconi's conservative coalition and the center-left opposition. A few weeks ago, Berlusconi's wife, Veronica Lario, 52, criticized her husband's attendance at the birthday bash and said she wants a divorce because of his constant flirtations with young women. Berlusconi has denounced as a "lie" insinuations that he had a relationship with Letizia. Also demanding on the campaign trail that Berlusconi respond to the ex-boyfriend's allegations was another top Democratic Party leader, Enrico Letta. If the details in La Repubblica's interview are true, "it would be disgusting," the Italian news agency Apcom quoted Letta as saying. He is the nephew of Berlusconi's top aide, Gianni Letta. Letizia's mother, Anna Palumbo, was quoted by the ANSA news agency as saying she had no comment on the interview in La Repubblica, which for decades has been a fierce critic of Berlusconi. Letizia's father, Benedetto Elio Letizia, was quoted by the ANSA news agency as denouncing, through his lawyer, Flaminio's account as "seriously defamatory since it attributes to (Noemi) things never done, said, or thought" by her. More on Silvio Berlusconi
 
Tamil Tigers Admit Leader Is Dead Top
Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels have admitted for the first time that their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is dead. More on Sri Lanka
 
Gara LaMarche: Obama and the Left Top
As the Obama Administration has in recent days taken a couple of steps in the civil liberties/national security area -- opposing release of torture photos and declaring an intent to retain some form of military commissions for terror suspects (while considering a system of preventive detention), the media has had some fun with a story line about the left's "souring," as Politico put it, on President Obama. There were similar stories in the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal . As someone who spends a fair amount of time with a pretty broad spectrum of the so-called left, I think it's a bogus narrative, and moreover is telling about which people are perceived to speak for the left and what issues they consider important. I should say first off that while I think the president was dealt an awful hand on Guantanamo, military commissions, the misdeeds of the prior administration and the like, I do have some serious concerns about the discontinuity in several areas between his policies in this realm and those of the Bush Administration. I wouldn't use the kind of language in condemning them that the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU have been using, both because I think that is counterproductive with an administration that has explicitly rejected its predecessor's sweeping and disturbing claims of unlimited presidential power and because, more importantly, it fails to recognize real and profound differences both in policy and tone. But I think there are genuine concerns, and the human rights and civil liberties groups should continue to do their job and hold the Administration accountable. It is not their job to worry about the political environment in which Obama is operating, in which Guantanamo has become a "wedge" issue that has cowed many of his fellow Democrats in Congress. That said, there is something a little strange about a situation in which the president gives a thoughtful, passionate and eloquent speech on terrorism, national security and human rights, which he did on Thursday, which is extremely forceful in its reiteration of the end to torture and the closing of Guantanamo, despite the drumbeat of criticism he is getting from the right, and two things happen. First, TPM Café, to take one prominent blog of the left, reports all day a steady parade of dismay from human rights and civil liberties organizations. Second, Dick Cheney in his speech just following Obama's, and Rush Limbaugh on his radio show the same afternoon, essentially accuse the president of waving a white flag to al Qaeda. Both were categorical and withering in their attacks. They heard the same speech that, say, Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights did. Go figure. The bottom line in terms of Obama's leadership is that most people are likely to think he got it right, and is striking the right balance, in the metaphor he seems to favor. I think for various reasons he may strike the balance too heavily on the alleged security side -- the torture photos are going to come out anyway some way or another; we have a perfectly good judicial system to try suspected terrorists; long-term preventive detention violates core notions of human rights and due process -- but I think he makes a thoughtful case, in the context of principles and values that I have come to trust in him, for why he lands where he does, and what he plans to do to safeguard rights given the choices he is making. David Cole, no civil liberties slouch, said as much in a Times blog post Thursday , and Philip Gourevitch, who published a book on the Abu Ghraib photos with Errol Morris, makes a strong case for Obama's position on the torture photos in today's New York Times . But by all means let these fights go on, and I hope our civil liberties advocates win most of them and that they don't have to find themselves too often in opposition to the president. What I object to, though, is the characterization of this important debate as an abandonment or betrayal of the left by Obama. Here's why. In the first place, I think Obama and the people around him are operating in entirely good faith. This is not some kind of political triangulation, a Sister Souljah moment designed to show the broader public that Obama can smack down his friends -- the kind of false test the center-right is always demanding of progressive politicians. Obama has genuine real-world issues to balance, and I have no reason to believe he has not arrived at these few controversial decisions genuinely and in a typically thoughtful and engaged manner. Second, who decided that the civil liberties of suspected terrorists -- the toughest cases for almost anyone to figure out -- are the make-or-break issue for "the left"? Here we have an Administration that is making an all-out effort to pass national health care, and is nearer to getting it, or something close to it, than we have ever been, despite being in the middle of an economic crisis. The stimulus package and the proposed budget constitute the largest shift in social welfare policy -- the strongest series of steps to protect poor and working people -- since the Great Society over forty years ago. The long-delayed children's health insurance bill was signed into law, and with the full inclusion of immigrant children, thanks to the leadership shown by the White House. Great strides have been taken in changing our idiotic Cuba policy, with barely a whimper, thanks to Obama's exquisite sense of timing, and we are moving on various fronts to talk with our adversaries and deal respectfully with parts of the world given the back of America's hand by the Bush Adminstration. The EPA and Interior Department have taken step after step to strengthen environmental standards and conservation, after years of a government which substantially dismantled regulations. I could go on and on. There is a category of concern among progressives that is not so much about where Obama comes out as about whether he is moving quickly or deliberately enough. Despite being behind the tide of history, no one seems to fault him on his opposition to same-sex marriage. But there are other obviously wrongheaded policies, like the ban on gays in the military, that he has not yet moved to reverse, despite declaring his intent to do so. A number of steps, including the one I mentioned above on child health insurance, have been taken to bring about a more humane approach to the treatment of immigrants, but immigration reform is still in the pipeline. He's outspokenly pro-choice, and repealed the global gag rule on his second day in office, but has not moved on promised pro-choice legislation. Same is true with respect to labor and the Employee Free Choice Act. On all these matters, time will tell. At this moment I choose to trust Obama's intentions while working to create a climate in which he will have the room -- and face the pressure, where necessary -- to do the right thing. He is doing so many other things at once, particularly on key issues of vital importance to poor people, that it is hard to fault Obama for not moving more quickly on immigration reform or a few other matters that are guaranteed red meat for the far right. To judge from the Cuba policy and a number of other issues, the president has a better sense of timing than most of his critics. (Not to mention a more genuinely democratic base of support, and a considerably more diverse cabinet and White House staff than virtually any institution in the "progressive infrastructure," but I'll leave that discussion to another day.) Another development that seems to be causing anxiety among some progressives is the Supreme Court vacancy created by David Souter's resignation. Here no one expects the president to appoint someone hostile to civil rights and liberties, but there are a number of voices calling on him to begin to counter the forty-year rightward trend on the court by selecting someone of avowedly liberal views, someone who will be a balance to Scalia and Thomas, even if their voice may be raised for many years in dissent. I certainly think the court needs that, and over his four- or eight-year opportunity to shape the court, I hope the president makes some picks like that -- Harold Koh, for example, once he's spent some time at the State Department. But I think it's unlikely he'll do so now, guaranteeing a battle royal in the Senate when he is trying to move health care, the budget and other matters. And by temperament and instinct, Obama doesn't seem to think that way. That's fine with me. But if it ends up as Elena Kagan or a similarly non-ideological warrior, I expect some of my fellow progressives to cluck about missed opportunities. If I have any significant zone of worry about the Obama administration, it is not so much about discontinuity in national security policies as discontinuity in financial and banking policies. Some good steps have been taken, like the credit card reform bill he just signed (despite its being saddled with appalling pro-gun provisions, since Western and Southern Democrats are no less in thrall to the NRA than Republicans), but I have a lot of disquiet about the Summers/Geithner axis and the possibility that the markets will recover, if not thrive for some time, without the necessary corrective actions to an out-of-control financial sector that these guys had as much as anyone to do with creating, without genuine accountability, and without recovery in the "real" economy. We have progressive institutions that are strong and vocal on human rights and civil liberties, and that is vitally important. But we lack as many strong institutions and voices on economic justice, or the voices that are there lack the access to media. If what the left in America is most concerned about is poverty and inequality, Obama is shaping up as an extraordinary champion and deserves more vocal support. But that the media, looking as always for an intramural fight, focuses instead on an important but limited set of issues that have to do with identity and rights (arenas in which I have worked and written for thirty years), and can find dissatisfaction there, it is because what they see as the principal organs of the left have little to say or do about the issues of most concern to the lives of poor and working people. We have lost ground steadily in debates over the Supreme Court, and the role of judges generally in recent decades, because we have allowed those debates to be framed almost entirely in terms of issues like separation of church and state or abortion. I want a court that forcefully upholds those rights. But I also want one that is, as the president has put it to the derision of the right, "empathetic" to those who have been economically marginalized in a society all of whose key institutions have steadily sided in recent years with the rich against the poor. If we can get people to care about the Supreme Court not just because it is going to stop some Alabama judge from putting the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, not just because it is going to force the government to treat a suspected terrorist more fairly, but also because the court has a critical role to play in fairness for working people, we will have made a genuine and important change in this country's politics. Because I think Obama has a deep understanding of all this, despite doing some things -- and he will do more, no doubt -- that we may be bound to oppose, I have more confidence in him at this juncture than in most of his liberal critics. So this is one fairly satisfied liberal (or whatever we call ourselves these days) right now. More on Barack Obama
 
Iran Cuts Access To Facebook As Election Looms Top
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's decision to block access to Facebook _ less than three weeks before nationwide elections _ drew sharp criticism Sunday from a reformist opposition hoping to mobilize the youth vote and unseat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The decision, critics said, forces Iranians to rely on state-run media and other government sources ahead of the June 12 election. It also appeared to be a direct strike at the youth vote that could pose challenges to Ahmadinejad's re-election bid. More than half of Iran's population was born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and young voters make up a huge bloc _ which helped former reformist President Mohammad Khatami to back-to-back victories in 1997 and 2001 but failed to rally strongly behind Ahmadinejad's opponent, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, four years ago. Young voters are now strongly courted by the main reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, as the possible swing factor. "Every single media outlet that is seen as competition for Ahmadinejad is at risk of being closed," said Shahab Tabatabaei, a top aide for Mousavi, the leading reformist candidate. "Placing limits on the competition is the top priority of the government." Tabatabaei said the Facebook block was "a swift reaction" to a major pro-Mousavi rally Saturday in a Tehran sports stadium that included an appearance by Khatami and many young people waving green banners and scarves _ the symbolic color of the Mousavi campaign. Iranian authorities often block specific Web sites and blogs considered critical of the Islamic regime, but critics of the latest decision said the loss of Facebook _ and possibly other Web sites popular with reformists _ means Iranians must rely on the government for information. "Facebook is one of the only independent sources that the Iranian youth could use to communicate," said Mohammed Ali Abtahi, a former vice president and now adviser to another pro-reform candidate, Mahdi Karroubi, a former parliament speaker. During the last presidential race in 2005, information about rallies and campaign updates were sent by text message. In recent years, political blogs by Iranians in the country and abroad have grown sharply. Newcomers such as Twitter also are gaining in popularity. Iranian officials did not comment on the reported block, but Facebook criticized the decision. "We are disappointed to learn of reports that users in Iran may not have access to Facebook, especially at a time when voters are turning to the Internet as a source of information about election candidates and their positions," Elizabeth Linder, a spokeswoman for Facebook, said in an e-mailed statement following questions from The Associated Press. "It is always a shame when a country's cultural and political concerns lead to limits being placed on the opportunity for sharing and expression that the Internet provides," she wrote. Linder said the company generally does not give out details on the number of users in a given country, and could not say how many members Facebook has in Iran. ___ AP Business Writer Adam Schreck in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report. More on Facebook
 
Byron Williams: Pentagon attempts to show that God was on our side Top
What should we make of the reports that former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld sent cover sheets to President George W. Bush quoting biblical verses? Though it remains unclear if Rumsfeld were actually involved or personally sent the cover sheets to the president, I find the implications troubling. While I personally believe this practice blurs the line of separation between church and state, the contrarian response might be to suggest these were cover sheets sent directly to the president; and he's comfortable with it, so what's the problem? Beyond the sectarian/secular ramifications, what I find most troubling is the subliminal message. With an image of a tank at sunrise the quote above one cover sheet reads: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." With am image of a solider in Baghdad, it reads: "Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed." And with tanks entering an Iraqi city the above caption reads: "Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith." The notion of using biblical justification dates back to the Roman Emperor Constantine, who embraced Christianity after he was victorious in battle in A.D. 312. In fact, Roman expansion was as responsible, if not more so, for the spread of Christianity than the efforts of any individual/group. 

 The cover sheets are a reminder of how the misuse of biblical text has justified some of the world's great tragedies. There was biblical justification for the Crusades, the Holocaust, American slavery, Jim Crow segregation, Manifest Destiny, and Apartheid. The Pentagon cover letters indicate some form of moral justification for positions already held. It is a linear and literal approach to scripture that is not burdened by context in its interpretation. Given what we now know and the plethora of mistakes made in Iraq, we can also conclude the originators of the cover sheets were not only reading biblical scripture, void of any context to justify their predetermined objectives, but also they were not reading other theologians who may have assisted them in their understanding by offering a counter balance. Too bad no one seemed to be reading Paul Tillich who would have reminded them that the questions are more important than the answers. My favorite theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, would have been helpful, especially his cautions about the seductive way hubris blinds one from honest self-reflection; and that the choice is usually not between good and evil, but rather between evil and more evil. Did anyone at the Pentagon read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Cost of Discipleship?" Bonhoeffer's distinction between "cheap grace" and "costly grace" would have undoubtedly proved helpful. A comprehensive understanding of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas on just war theory might have also proved helpful. Given the emphasis placed on war, it doesn't seem like there was much reading or discussion about the emphasis Jesus placed on love--a common oversight with a number of Christians--including those with power as well as those that lack it. The bible, which is arguably the most quoted and least understood book in our history, still requires a critical approach. The failure to engage in this process condenses one to utilizing bad religion so that the ends can justify the means. In my experience, seldom do individuals develop their position by reading biblical scripture. What tends to happen is they already hold certain positions; they use biblical text, invariably taken out of context, to justify their preconceived beliefs. Lest we forget, Eugene "Bull" Connor, the architect of using police dogs and fire hoses during the Civil Rights Movement was also a Sunday school teacher. The Pentagon's biblical cover sheets are revealing because they offer the same type fundamentalist/literal biblical interpretation that has historically led to more division than inclusion. In the words of the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin: "Fundamentalist use the bible the way a drunk uses a lamppost--always for support and never for illumination." Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com
 
Komodo Dragon Attacks In Indonesia Terrorizing Villages Top
KOMODO ISLAND, Indonesia — Komodo dragons have shark-like teeth and poisonous venom that can kill a person within hours of a bite. Yet villagers who have lived for generations alongside the world's largest lizard were not afraid _ until the dragons started to attack. The stories spread quickly across this smattering of tropical islands in southeastern Indonesia, the only place the endangered reptiles can still be found in the wild: Two people were killed since 2007 _ a young boy and a fisherman _ and others were badly wounded after being charged unprovoked. Komodo dragon attacks are still rare, experts note. But fear is swirling through the fishing villages, along with questions on how best to live with the dragons in the future. Main, a 46-year-old park ranger, was doing paperwork when a dragon slithered up the stairs of his wooden hut in Komodo National Park and went for his ankles dangling beneath the desk. When the ranger tried to pry open the beast's powerful jaws, it locked its teeth into his hand. "I thought I wouldn't survive... I've spent half my life working with Komodos and have never seen anything like it," said Main, pointing to his jagged gashes, sewn up with 55 stitches and still swollen three months later. "Luckily, my friends heard my screams and got me to hospital in time." Komodos, which are popular at zoos in the United States to Europe, grow to be 10 feet (3 meters) long and 150 pounds (70 kilograms). All of the estimated 2,500 left in the wild can be found within the 700-square-mile (1,810-square-kilometer) Komodo National Park, mostly on its two largest islands, Komodo and Rinca. The lizards on neighboring Padar were wiped out in the 1980s when hunters killed their main prey, deer. Though poaching is illegal, the sheer size of the park _ and a shortage of rangers _ makes it almost impossible to patrol, said Heru Rudiharto, a biologist and reptile expert. Villagers say the dragons are hungry and more aggressive toward humans because their food is being poached, though park officials are quick to disagree. The giant lizards have always been dangerous, said Rudiharto. However tame they may appear, lounging beneath trees and gazing at the sea from white-sand beaches, they are fast, strong and deadly. The animals are believed to have descended from a larger lizard on Indonesia's main island Java or Australia around 30,000 years ago. They can reach speeds of up to 18 miles (nearly 30 kilometers) per hour, their legs winding around their low, square shoulders like egg beaters. When they catch their prey, they carry out a frenzied biting spree that releases venom, according to a new study this month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors, who used surgically excised glands from a terminally ill dragon at the Singapore Zoo, dismissed the theory that prey die from blood poisoning caused by toxic bacteria in the lizard's mouth. "The long, jaded teeth are the primary weapons. They deliver these deep, deep wounds," said Bryan Fry of the University of Melbourne. "But the venom keeps it bleeding and further lowers the blood pressure, thus bringing the animal closer to unconsciousness." Four people have been killed in the last 35 years (2009, 2007, 2000 and 1974) and at least eight injured in just over a decade. But park officials say these numbers aren't overly alarming given the steady stream of tourists and the 4,000 people who live in their midst. "Any time there's an attack, it gets a lot of attention," Rudiharto said. "But that's just because this lizard is exotic, archaic, and can't be found anywhere but here." Still, the recent attacks couldn't have come at a worse time. The government is campaigning hard to get the park onto a new list of the Seven Wonders of Nature _ a long shot, but an attempt to at least raise awareness. The park's rugged hills and savannahs are home to orange-footed scrub fowl, wild boar and small wild horses, and the surrounding coral reefs and bays harbor more than a dozen whale species, dolphins and sea turtles. Claudio Ciofi, who works at the Department of Animal Biology and Genetics at the University of Florence in Italy, said if komodos are hungry, they may be attracted to villages by the smell of drying fish and cooking, and "encounters can become more frequent." Villagers wish they knew the answer. They say they've always lived peacefully with Komodos. A popular traditional legend tells of a man who once married a dragon "princess." Their twins, a human boy, Gerong, and a lizard girl, Orah, were separated at birth. When Gerong grew up, the story goes, he met a fierce-looking beast in the forest. But just as he was about to spear it, his mother appeared, revealing to him that the two were brother and sister. "How could the dragons get so aggressive?" Hajj Amin, 51, taking long slow drags off his clove cigarettes, as other village elders gathering beneath a wooden house on stilts nodded. Several dragons lingered nearby, drawn by the rancid smell of fish drying on bamboo mats beneath the blazing sun. Also strolling by were dozens of goats and chickens. "They never used to attack us when we walked alone in the forest, or attack our children," Amin said. "We're all really worried about this." The dragons eat 80 percent of their weight and then go without food for several weeks. Amin and others say the dragons are hungry partly because of a 1994 policy that prohibits villagers from feeding them. "We used to give them the bones and skin of deer," said the fisherman. Villagers recently sought permission to feed wild boar to the Komodos several times a year, but park officials say that won't happen. "If we let people feed them, they will just get lazy and lose their ability to hunt," said Jeri Imansyah, another reptile expert. "One day, that will kill them. " The attack that first put villagers on alert occurred two years ago, when 8-year-old Mansyur was mauled to death while defecating in the bushes behind his wooden hut. People have since asked for a 6-foot-high (2-meter) concrete wall to be built around their villages, but that idea, too, has been rejected. The head of the park, Tamen Sitorus, said: "It's a strange request. You can't build a fence like that inside a national park!" Residents have made a makeshift barrier out of trees and broken branches, but they complain it's too easy for the animals to break through. "We're so afraid now," said 11-year-old Riswan, recalling how just a few weeks ago students screamed when they spotted one of the giant lizards in a dusty field behind their school. "We thought it was going to get into our classroom. Eventually we were able to chase it up a hill by throwing rocks and yelling 'Hoohh Hoohh.'" Then, just two months ago, 31-year-old fisherman Muhamad Anwar was killed when he stepped on a lizard in the grass as he was heading to a field to pick fruit from a sugar tree. Even park rangers are nervous. Gone are the days of goofing around with the lizards, poking their tails, hugging their backs and running in front of them, pretending they're being chased, said Muhamad Saleh, who has worked with the animals since 1987. "Not any more," he says, carrying a 6-foot-long (2-meter) stick wherever he goes for protection. Then, repeating a famous line by Indonesia's most renowned poet, he adds: "I want to live for another thousand of years." More on Animals
 
Jeffrey Sachs: Aid Ironies Top
The debate about foreign aid has become farcical. The big opponents of aid today are Dambisa Moyo, an African-born economist who reportedly received scholarships so that she could go to Harvard and Oxford but sees nothing wrong with denying $10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malaria bed net. Her colleague in opposing aid, Bill Easterly, received large-scale government support from the National Science Foundation for his own graduate training. I certainly don't begrudge any of them the help that they got. Far from it. I believe in this kind of help. And I'd find Moyo's views cruel and mistaken even she did not get the scholarships that have been reported (Easterly mentioned his receipt of NSF support in the same book in which he denounces aid). I begrudge them trying to pull up the ladder for those still left behind. Before peddling their simplistic concoction of free markets and self-help, they and we should think about the realities of life, in which all of us need help at some time or other and in countless ways, and even more importantly we should think about the life-and-death consequences for impoverished people who are denied that help. Nine million children die each year of extreme poverty and disease conditions which are almost all preventable or treatable or both. Impoverished countries, with impoverished governments, can't solve these problems on their own. Yet with help they can. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, and the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunizations are both saving lives by the millions, and at remarkably low cost. Goldman Sachs, Ms. Moyo's former employer, gives out more in annual bonuses to its workers than the entire rich world gives to the Global Fund each year to help save the lives of poor children. And when Goldman Sachs got into financial trouble it got bailed-out by the US Government. Rich people have an uncanny ability to oppose aid for everybody but themselves. Recently Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times praising Moyo's fresh thinking. This is extraordinary. His government has depended on aid for more than a decade. Nearly half the budget revenues currently come from aid. Rwanda currently imports around $800 million of merchandise each year, but only earns $250 million or so in exports. So how does it do it? Aid, of course, helped to pay for around $450 million of the imports. Without foreign aid, Rwanda's pathbreaking public health successes and strong current economic growth would collapse. Kagame's op-ed did not help FT readers to understand this. Americans are predisposed to like the anti-aid message. They believe that the poor have only themselves (or perhaps their governments) to blame. They overestimate the actual aid from the US by around thirty times, so they imagine that vast sums are flowing to Africa that are then squandered. Many believe, typically in private, that by saving African children we would be creating a population explosion, so better to let the kids die now rather than grow up hungry. (I'm asked about this constantly, usually in whispers, after lectures). They don't understand the most basic point of worldwide experience: when children survive rather than die in large numbers, households choose to have many fewer children, in fact more than compensating for the decline in child mortality. Africa's high child mortality is ironically a core reason why Africa's population is continuing to soar rather than stabilize as in other parts of the world. Of course, most Americans know little about the many crucially successful aid efforts, because Moyo, Easterly, and others lump all kinds of programs - the good and the bad - into one big undifferentiated mass, rather than helping people to understand what is working and how it can be expanded, and what is not working, and should therefore be cut back. Nor do Americans hear that many poor countries graduate from the need for aid over time, precisely because aid programs help to spur economic growth and successfully prepare countries to tackle future priorities. US aid to India for increased food production in the 1960s paved the way for India's growth takeoff afterwards. There are countless other examples in which countries have benefited from aid and then graduated, including Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Israel, and others. Egypt is on that path today, and Rwanda, Tanzania, Ghana, and others will be as well if both donors and recipients carry forward with a sensible assistance strategies. Here are some of the most effective kinds of aid efforts: support for peasant farmers to help them grow more food, childhood vaccines, malaria control with bed nets and medicines, de-worming, mid-day school meals, training and salaries for community health workers, all-weather roads, electricity supplies, safe drinking water, treadle pumps for small-scale irrigation, directly observed therapy for tuberculosis, antiretroviral medicines for AIDS sufferers, clean low-cost cook stoves to prevent respiratory disease of young children. Shipment of food from the US is a kind of aid that should be cut back, with more attention on growing local food in Africa. Out of every $100 of US national income, our government currently provides the grand sum of 5 cents in aid to all of Africa. Out of that same $100, we have found around $10 for the stimulus package and bank bailouts and another $5 for the military. It is not wonderful that what has caught the public's eye are proposals to cut today's 5 cents to 4 or 3 cents or perhaps zero.
 
Tim Giago: Memorial Day Speech at Black Hills National Cemetery Top
By Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji) © 2009 Native Sun News May 25, 2009 May 25, 2009 There is no greater honor than to be asked by my fellow veterans to make this address to you on this special day. I am truly humbled to be in the presence of so many Native American veterans who served this country with honor and distinction. Looking out across the fields of white crosses and at the faces of those Indian warriors gathered here today to honor their own and knowing that every branch of the military is represented by the Native veterans in attendance, I am reminded of the one thing everyone of us has in common. Some of you call it basic training and some call it boot camp, but it is the one thing that will forever be etched into the minds of each and every veteran. There is not a veteran here that does not remember his or her serial number. It was one of the first things drilled into our minds over and over. How many pushups did you have to do before you could shout out your serial number like you could your own name? I think that for most of the Native Americans here today, boot camp was a little different than it was for most non-Indians. In 1951 when I enlisted in the United States Navy I was 17-years-old. Like many Indians in 1951 I had just come from a boarding school where we had an obstacle course, we marched to and from church and other activities and we slept in dormitories. So that first week in boot camp was no big change. I remember marching to the mess hall for my first meal as a new recruit. It was on a Friday and as I walked through the mess line holding out my metal tray, the mess cooks dumped different foods on the tray. As I said, it was a Friday and I saw on my tray foods I had never seen before. There were scallops, shrimp and oysters. We never had this kind of food on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation where I was raised and where I went to school. I had never eaten any of this food before. I took a seat at a table shared with the guys from my company, Company 005, and watched carefully to see what the other guys were going to do with this strange food. It turned out to be pretty tasty and for the first time in my life I became a fan of seafood. Although many of us were familiar with, and some fluent, in our Native tongues, all of a sudden we had to learn a different language. It was the language every recruit strains to master in those first few weeks; the language of the military. Instead of a wall there was a bulkhead and you didn't go to the bathroom, you went to the head. There were no longer stairs to climb, you now climbed ladders. A door became a hatch and the ceiling became the overhead. There were no more windows, there were portholes. There was a fore and aft and on the wooden vessel known as the USS Recruit, there was a port and a starboard. A rope became a line and you didn't use clothe pins to hang your clothing out to dry, you used clothe stops. You no longer walked on floors, you walked on decks and your shaving kit became a ditty bag. The soda fountain became a geedunk and the place you bought clothing became a small store. You didn't just have a cigarette, but instead had to wait until you heard, "The smoking lamp is lighted in all authorized places." The Army, Air Force and the Marine Corps all had a language of their own, and the poor Marines, they not only had to learn the lingo of the Navy, they also had to learn the language that would transform them into Fighting Jarheads. We all marched on a grinder, learned about reveille and taps and learned to stop whatever we were doing and stand at attention when the flag was raised or lowered. And I do not believe there is a single veteran present here today that does not recall that special day, after we had survived several weeks of oftentimes brutal boot camp, that special day we donned our dress uniforms, formed company ranks, and marched in front of the reviewing stands on graduation day. When we passed the stands and the Drill Instructor shouted, "Eyes Right," our heads snapped as one, and we looked at friends and family, and of course, all of the big brass, sitting in the bleachers cheering us on. Those were the days every veteran in attendance here today recalls and these are the special memories most of us will carry with us to our graves. Go Navy! (Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, is the publisher of Native Sun News. He was the founder and first president of the Native American Journalists Association, the 1985 recipient of the H. L. Mencken Award, and a Nieman Fellow at Harvard with the Class of 1991. He can be reached at editor@nsweekly.com)
 
Rahm Emanuel Cracks Jokes, Gets Emotional At Alma Mater Sarah Lawrence (VIDEO) Top
AP BRONXVILLE, N.Y. — Hard-charging White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel paused for a reflective address at his alma mater Friday, describing the humiliation of being demoted by then-President Bill Clinton and the brutal illness he survived as a teenager. Emanuel told 450 graduates of Sarah Lawrence College that his most important life lessons have come from "a lot of pain, some anguish, and some soul-searching." Known for sharp elbows and brash words, Emanuel grew emotional, choking back tears as he recalled lying near death in a hospital bed as a teenager, fighting off a blood infection from a cut finger that later had to be partly amputated. "Nearly losing my life made me want to save my life and made me want to live my life," Emanuel said, advising students, "Don't be reckless with what's been given to you." He also recalled being demoted and nearly losing his role as a top aide to Clinton in 1993. "I probably shot off my mouth a few too many times and I probably picked one too many fights," Emanuel said. But he also cracked jokes and poked fun at the aggressive reputation that has earned him the tag "Rhambo." The Daily Beast compiled Emanuel's best laugh lines : "As chief of staff, I am humbled _ a quality that does not come naturally _ by the incredible array of problems that President Obama confronts on a daily basis," he said. Emanuel, 49, graduated from Sarah Lawrence in 1981. A ballet student, he attended the college in part for its strong dance program. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Rahm Emanuel
 
Mullen: Military to comply if gay ban law changes Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's top military adviser said Sunday the Pentagon has enough challenges _ including two wars _ without rushing to overturn a decade-old policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military and incites political and social factions on both sides. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is working on an assessment of what _ if any _ impact overturning "don't ask, don't tell" policies would mean for the military and its culture. In the meantime, the Pentagon plans to follow the existing rules, which say gays and lesbians can serve in the military if they do not disclose their sexuality or engage in homosexual behavior. "The president has made his strategic intent very clear, that it's his intent at some point in time to ask Congress to change this law," Mullen said. "I think it's important to also know that this is the law, this isn't a policy. And for the rules to change, a law has to be changed." During his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to overturn the Clinton-era policy and promised that gays and lesbians could serve openly in uniform. But he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. He has not set a deadline for repeal, has given the Pentagon no direct orders and has kept Capitol Hill guessing about when he might ask for a change in the law. Mullen said the military would not start on a timeline until Congress acts. Obama's go-it-slow approach has drawn criticism from gay rights groups, including activists and fundraisers who met in Dallas to organize a grass-roots lobbying effort to force Obama's hand. Last week, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs stood at the White House podium and reiterated the president's eventual goal, although he said the administration was fine with Congress taking the lead on the potentially divisive subject. "Try as one may, a president can't simply whisk away standing law of the United States of America," Gibbs said. "But if you're going to change the policy, if it is the law of the land, you have to do it through an act of Congress." Gibbs' counterpart at the Pentagon issued a similar statement. Obama's top advisers _ in uniform and in politics _ have urged restraint despite the issue's resonance among the president's left-flank base. They want Obama to move with a deliberate plan that accounts for all potential consequences during wartime. Retired Marine Gen. James Jones, the White House's national security adviser, said this month he wasn't sure the policy would be overturned. "We have a lot on our plate right now," he said. There is concern that reopening the socially and politically divisive question of gays and lesbians in the ranks could place an additional burden on a military stretching to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Buying time serves both the Pentagon's desire for caution and Obama's desire not to pick an unnecessary fight. Former President Bill Clinton never fully recovered from his miscues over the gays in the military issue. Mullen appeared Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
 
Michael Steele's GOP Critics Now Claim He's Found His Mojo Top
Not so long ago, after Michael Steele's rocky start as Republican National Committee chairman, there were rumors of impending coups and evidence of deep dissatisfaction within the GOP ranks. But after a shaky debut marked by a series of gaffes and a disappointing loss in a New York special congressional election, Steele is beginning to win over skeptical committee members and placate some of his toughest critics. More on Michael Steele
 
Bill Maher Dismisses Sean Hannity's Criticism: He's Just "Terribly Sexually Repressed" (VIDEO) Top
During Howard Kurtz's interview with Bill Maher today on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Kurtz played a clip of right wing Fox News host Sean Hannity saying that Maher had become "an angry, bitter guy" as an example of Maher's lack of popularity with the cable channel. Maher dismissed the criticism as Hannity just "projecting" what he feels onto somebody else: I'm a happy, single guy. He's a repressed, typical Republican. I'm sure just terribly sexually repressed and it comes out in all their sorts of hatred and vile and bile -- why would I be bitter? First of all, our side won. Watch the clip below (transcript below the video). KURTZ: You seem not to be the most popular guy on Fox News these days. Sean Hannity -- MAHER: Really? What changed? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HANNITY: I see this with Bill Maher. Bill Maher's become an angry, bitter guy. (END VIDEO CLIP) MAHER: No, he's an angry, bitter guy. That's called projecting. That's called taking what you feel and giving it to somebody else. I'm a happy, single guy. He's a repressed, typical Republican. I'm sure just terribly sexually repressed and it comes out in all their sorts of hatred and vile and bile -- why would I be bitter? First of all, our side won. You know, their side is in a wilderness like there's been before. So -- KURTZ: Hatred. I mean, he's arguing for what he believes in. MAHER: Well, you watch it. I don't. KURTZ: It's my job to watch everybody. More on Video
 
Frank Rich: Dems, Not GOP, Standing In Way Of Gay Rights Top
It would be easy to blame the Beltway logjam in gay civil rights progress on the cultural warriors of the religious right and its political host, the Republican Party. But it would be inaccurate. The right has lost much of its clout in the capital and, as President Obama's thoughtful performance at Notre Dame dramatized last weekend, its shrill anti-abortion-rights extremism now plays badly even in supposedly friendly confines. [...] So what's stopping the Democrats from rectifying that legacy now? As Wolfson said to me last week, they lack "a towering national figure to make the moral case" for full gay civil rights. There's no one of that stature in Congress now that Ted Kennedy has been sidelined by illness, and the president shows no signs so far of following the example of L.B.J., who championed black civil rights even though he knew it would cost his own party the South. When Obama invoked same-sex marriage in an innocuous joke at the White House correspondents' dinner two weeks ago -- he and his political partner, David Axelrod, went to Iowa to "make it official" -- it seemed all the odder that he hasn't engaged the issue substantively. More on Gay Marriage
 
Gore Pushes CEOs To Back Climate Change Deal Top
COPENHAGEN — Climate-change heavyweights U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and Nobel prize winner Al Gore urged more than 500 business leaders on Sunday to lend their corporate muscle to reaching a global deal on reducing greenhouse gases. The CEOs of PepsiCo, Nestle, BP and other major world businesses began meeting in Copenhagen, where politicians will gather in December to negotiate a new U.N.-brokered climate treaty. Despite the global financial crisis, both Ban and Gore said there was no time for delay in hashing out the specifics of how to cut greenhouse gases that contribute to warming the planet. "We have to do it this year. Not next year. This year," Gore said. "The clock is ticking, because Mother Nature does not do bailouts." The three-day World Business Summit on Climate Change is a precursor to the negotiations to determine what will succeed the Kyoto climate treaty that expires in 2012. "Continuing to pour trillions of dollars into fossil-fuel subsidies is like investing in subprime real estate," Ban said. "Our carbon-based infrastructure is like a toxic asset that threatens the portfolio of global goods, from public health to food security." A new global warming treaty would build on the Kyoto treaty's mixed success in requiring that 37 industrialized nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Gore said any of the ambitious treaty goals being discussed will depend on CEOs working out greener ways of doing business and governments reining in unrestricted pollution. "The business community and the leaders of the world must go together to safeguard the world," he told a forum that even drew Queen Margrethe of Denmark. Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission, pledged to play "a positive and a constructive" role to reach a global climate treaty, and already is putting in place its climate plan for 2015 and beyond. "During negotiations, developed countries always hope that a future China may do much better and greater efforts on addressing climate change issues," he said. Rajendra K. Pachauri, head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, said already "we are perhaps at the upper range" of predicted higher temperatures this century. "We have a very short window of opportunity," he said. "If we want to limit temperature increase to about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), then emissions globally must peak by 2015." About 300 anti-globalization activists marched Sunday toward the convention, heavily guarded by police. Some 40 teenage activists were handcuffed with plastic strips and detained after they were caught in woods nearby. The police removed two water pistols from one of them; another was carried away by three officers. Erik Rasmussen, the conference organizer, said business leaders are mulling specific and binding targets for reducing greenhouse gases within 10 years and 20 years that would be announced at the end of the conference. Anders Eldrup, CEO of Danish state-controlled oil and gas group DONG Energy, said businesses face a big choice. "There are two tracks being discussed now, one a tax on CO2 and a cap-and-trade," he said, leaning toward the carbon tax. However, Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's climate minister, told The Associated Press the best solution is global limits on pollution blamed for global warming instead of a tax on carbon dioxide and other warming gases. Hedegaard urged businesses to back such limits, called cap-and-trade, which require governments to issue pollution allowances, or permits, to businesses that could be traded. "I would hope that they would sort of agree that some kind of cap and trade will be the most efficient tool to achieve what science tells us what we must achieve," she said. "A carbon tax _ you can just pay that tax _ but you must also have the caps so that you start innovating from there." An emissions trading plan advanced in the U.S. Congress last week, increasing the likelihood that the full House of Representatives will for the first time address broad legislation to tackle climate change later this year. Gore predicted it would pass the House, gain Senate approval and be signed into law by President Barack Obama. The United States has said it is committed to reaching a deal in Copenhagen as long as other major polluters such as China and India do their part as well. ____ Associated Press Writer Jan M. Olsen contributed to this report.
 
Jim Randel: Credit Card Paternalism Top
Credit card reform is long overdue. The credit card issuers' drive for profits caused them to lose any sight of fair play. As a result cardholders have been abused for years. And now, in an accelerated and spasmodic fashion, our leaders have delivered us from credit card hell by enacting a new law: The Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. Today's posting is about one provision in this new law: a section of nutty lawmaking that makes it harder for anyone under the age of 21 to get a credit card. The new law prohibits card companies from issuing cards to "youngsters" without parental approval or a determination of the prospective cardholder's financial wherewithal. This law will seriously impact the ability of college students (not working) to get credit cards until their senior year. To me this kind of paternalism is ridiculous. Our young adults can vote, serve in the military and consume alcohol or tobacco. But, they are not capable of fighting off credit cards? Yes, some young people get into trouble with credit cards. But, there are also many college students who use the convenience of credit cards responsibly. And, here's a crazy idea: how about our institutions of higher learning spending a little bit of time and energy educating young adults about the potential use and abuse of credit cards!! By delaying the issuance of credit cards to young adults, we are not helping them. In fact, we are making it harder for them to build up a credit history and favorable credit score. We are impinging on their ability to access the convenience of cards and we are tying them to their parents' finances for periods beyond reason. Some of the other provisions of the new law are also paternalistic (no late fees unless cardholders say they want overdraft protection) but at least understandable. This age requirement, however, is to me an example of how our leaders never seem to act quickly enough and then when they do get around to acting, make up for lost time by going way too far. Jim Randel is the author of The Skinny on Credit Cards: How to Master the Credit Card Game (RAND, 2009). More on Barack Obama
 
Frankie Sturm: Barack Obama is the LeBron James of the Democratic Party Top
Barack Obama is the LeBron James of the Democratic Party. At least when it comes to national security. Republicans have dominated Democrats on the security question for decades, but according to a new survey by Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, President Obama is relegating that long-standing Republican edge to the history books - for now. Obama's personal numbers on national security are mind-boggling. Although derided by his critics as a naïve idealist in a dangerous world, 55% of the public believes President Obama is increasing American security. More than 60% of respondents approve of the president's handling of Afghanistan, Iraq, piracy, representing America abroad, leading America's military, fighting terrorism, and improving America's standing in the world. Most shocking - voters give Obama higher marks on national security (64%) than on overall performance (58%). President Obama's cachet has redounded to the Democratic Party as a whole. After suffering a 10-40 point gap over the last forty years, Democrats are now statistically tied with Republicans when respondents are asked which party is better for national security. In terms of working with allies, increasing respect for the United States, and "foreign policy," Democrats enjoy large double digit margins over Republicans. Nevertheless, we're better off keeping the champagne on ice. These results warrant little more than cautious optimism. Republicans tower over Democrats on "ensuring a strong military" by an overwhelming 18 points. In terms of patriotism, Republicans carry the day by 17 points. Moreover, it's unclear whether positive perceptions of Democrats have a solid foundation outside of President Obama's own popularity. While 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Democrats (it's only 28% for Republicans), President Obama gets 59%. So we really don't know where Democrats' popularity stops and President Obama's begins. That's why Barack Obama is starting to look like the LeBron James of the Democratic Party. The Cleveland Cavaliers have finally put together a strong enough supporting cast to bring an NBA title within the realm of possibility, but it still took a 3-point buzzer beater from LeBron for the Cavs to claim victory over the Orlando Magic in game two of their ongoing playoff series. A win is a win, but for the long-term prospect of the Cleveland Cavaliers - and the Democratic Party - this is a problem. Political gains that are heavily dependent on a single personality are easy to reverse. George W. Bush was America's most popular man for almost a year after 9/11. When his stock fell, so did that of the Republican Party. On the flip side, once the public comes to associate a political party with a particular issue, it's hard to disabuse the notion. Republicans have instant credibility on taxes and keeping the military strong. Democrats are easily trusted on education and the environment. Now that the two parties are tied on national security, the battle for issue ownership on that critical questions begins in earnest. But Democrats also need to build their own brand as a party because, popularity aside, President Obama needs it. Watching the Democratic Senate vote 90-6 against allocating funds for the closure of Guantanamo Bay was an exercise in embarrassment for party and president alike. The criticism that President Obama has not outlined a real plan for shutting down Gitmo is perfectly legit; the spectacle of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid parroting Republican talking points on " releasing " the detainees is not. Such incidents strengthen the popular notion that Democrats are fickle and lack clear beliefs, which is arguably the chief reason why Democrats have fallen short on national security for so long. After all, if a you can't follow through on an issue that has motivated your party (such as closing Gitmo) and stand up to a little political heat, how are you going to stand up to al Qaeda or Iran? For the American public, the answer to that question is very simple: you're not going to stand up to them, so we'll go with the other guy. Popular presidents transform parties and redefine political eras. FDR did so for the Democrats in the 1930s, while Reagan did the same for Republicans in the 1980s. President Obama and the Democrats of today have a similar opportunity to transform the age-old perception that the Democratic Party is not to be trusted on national security. So far so good. But so far isn't good enough. More on Barack Obama
 

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)