Monday, May 25, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Wes Isley: The Terrorists Are Already in My Backyard - and I Still Feel Safe Top
It seems that some members of Congress and various political pundits must live in an alternate version of the United States, unaware that American prisons now safely house convicted terrorists. As President Obama discusses how to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and what to do with its inmates, some of our leaders have lost complete faith in the ability of our justice and correctional systems to function. The argument goes that if we move the alleged terrorists now held in Cuba to U.S. soil, American lives will be placed in danger. I disagree. Apparently the talking heads have forgotten Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid and Jose Padilla, among other convicted terrorists now imprisoned in some of this nation's most secure facilities. Do you suddenly feel in danger? I don't, and I doubt I would feel in any greater danger if the detainees currently in Guantanamo joined the current prison population. Despite the horror of 9/11, the one and only time I personally felt in danger from a terrorist-style attack was when John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo went on their sniper spree in Washington, D.C. back in 2002. Simply pumping gas became an act of courage. But here we are several years later with both men convicted and in prison. For the most recent example, consider that on Thursday, May 21, four Americans and one Haitian were arrested for plotting to bomb two Jewish community centers and possibly bring down military planes. Sounds pretty bad. But these men will be imprisoned here at home, in someone's back yard. But won't that put Americans at risk? Maybe they should be transferred to Gitmo -- but, of course, they won't be. If our court and prison system can handle these men, why can't they handle the worst of the worst from Guantanamo Bay? Sure, there's always the risk that a prisoner will escape, but we live with that reality every day. Given the right conditions and a little luck, a convicted murderer or rapist might slip free from the guards and then appear on the next episode of "America's Most Wanted." I'm more worried about these guys, your garden-variety criminals. Terrorists are high-maintenance bad guys. They need plans, financing, co-conspirators, blueprints, ingredients for bombs, safe houses and so on. It takes time to pull that together. But your average murderer just needs a handy gun or knife and adequate motivation to kill again. I want Gitmo closed because it represents America at its worst. Bring those detainees here, charge them, try them and, if evidence wins out, imprison them. If not, deport them. I think we're getting caught up in technicalities. If we had caught any of these guys on U.S. soil, they'd be in a U.S. prison right now. But I'm supposed to believe that they're so much more dangerous only because they were captured in another country? At this level, how do you evaluate how dangerous a criminal is? Are John Muhammad and Lee Malvo somehow less dangerous than a Gitmo detainee? President Obama apparently thinks so, saying that some detainees are simply "too dangerous" and may never be charged with a crime. But that excuse sounds like the same one governments in Cuba, China and elsewhere use when they hold political prisoners. Yet when those governments say prisoners are too dangerous to be tried in court or released, we cry "human rights abuse!" And what does this debate say about our prison system? If we can trust the most secure facilities in this nation to contain serial killers and violent drug dealers, will the walls just collapse in the face of a "real" terrorist, whatever that means? If we cannot find a way to charge these individuals at Gitmo with a crime, and if we doubt the ability of our judicial and corrections systems to adequately prosecute and contain them -- while keeping Americans safe -- then we truly are in great danger. It means our institutions are broken, we are at heart hypocrites and we are inching ever closer to handing the terrorists the very victory they seek. More on Crime
 
Debbie Tenzer: Good-Bye, Cruel World! Hello, 'Do One Nice Thing' Top
Despite everything going on in the world now, you can make it better. Yes, you can. And you don't have to spend a lot of money or time to do it. How do I know? I'm a kindness detective, and this is my story. During lunch one day in 2005, my friends and I bemoaned the huge problems facing us -- the wars, crime, poverty, climate change, and more. We felt pounded every time we turned on the news. Suddenly I couldn't take it anymore; I was fed up with feeling helpless. I thought, "I can't solve the big problems, but I know I can do something ." And then it hit me: I can't end hunger, but I can donate cans to a food bank. I can't fix needy schools, but I can give them my kids' old school books. I can't end the war, but I can send a phone card so a soldier can be comforted by calling home. What else could I do? A lot, as I was about to find out. I committed to doing a nice thing once a week. Not every day because, frankly, I'm not that nice. But once a week was a promise I could keep. I chose Monday, my crankiest day. I thought if I could make Mondays better, maybe the rest of the week would go more smoothly. I started a website, DoOneNiceThing.com , and researched and posted a new idea each week. Then I sent an email to sixty friends. Word spread by word of mouth and word of mouse. Now the website attracts millions of people in ninety countries. I call our members "Nice-o-holics" because when they start doing nice things, they get hooked. So I hunted for nice things to do, and Nice-o-holics sent their ideas to me too. Working together we have: Mailed more than seventy tons of school supplies to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, who give them to local children so they can study Sent countless books to schools, libraries, and hospitals Contributed thousands of gifts for foster children, whose birthdays are often forgotten Donated tens of thousands of packages of pasta, cans of food, and other food items to food banks, and much more. People asked me to write a book. Parents and teachers, among others, wanted it to teach the children in their lives how to make the world better. And now, my book, Do One Nice Thing:Little Things You Can Do to Make the World a Lot Nicer , has just been published. It offers more than 100 easy ways to help children, friends, soldiers, animals, the planet -- in town and around the globe. I also included a chapter called "Just Click" -- umpteen ways to help even if you only have a minute. The book also contains a journal to record your weekly nice things. I find that when I'm having an "off" day, I feel better when I remember the nice things I've done. That's fifty-two good deeds a year! Helping every week is strength training for the soul. With all the bad news in the world, it's easy to become numb. But when you make kindness a regular habit, you keep your compassion muscles strong. With so many people out of work or on tight budgets, is it unrealistic to expect people to help each other now? Just the opposite. In today's world of bad news and pink slips, helping gives us the emotional lift we crave now. And there are endless ways to help that don't cost a dime. In fact, unemployed people are turning up in astonishing numbers to volunteer at nonprofit organizations of every kind. The truth is you don't need a lot of money to help someone. All you need is a kind heart. Maybe we can't solve the big problems -- yet. But by working together we can solve a lot of smaller ones. When you help someone, you give them hope. And the more hope you give, the more hopeful you feel. Join us. Help us make the world better on Mondays - or on any day that ends in "y." Sign up on DoOneNiceThing.com for ideas and stories, and to connect with other nice people. We'll send you our e-newsletter twice a month. That's good news in your inbox, free. What's Your Nice Thing? Suggest a project idea for Do One Nice Thing. If your idea is chosen, it will become our project of the week featured on DoOneNiceThing.com and in our e-newsletter to all the Nice-o-holics. A project must: 1. Be inexpensive 2. Be easy to do 3. Not ask us to donate money This is an opportunity to help a cause you embrace. Thousands of people could participate in your project. I'd like to hear from you. Please post a comment here or send me an email: dtenzer@DoOneNiceThing.com . More on Happiness
 
Deepak Chopra: Can We Have Security Without Fear? Top
The war of words between President Obama and Dick Cheney has exposed a rancorous divide over national security. Mr. Cheney states flatly that there is no middle ground on the issue. There is no such thing as being half-safe, he declares. On the face of it, his statement is nonsensical. Unless he has a way of screening the thoughts and intentions of every potential enemy in the world, we will always be half safe. But is that the real issue? Aren't we talking about our right not to be afraid as much as our right to defend ourselves? Better be safe than sorry is common sense. Better be afraid all the time is toxic politics at its worst. When the Senate voted overwhelmingly to deny funds for closing Guantanamo, they acted out of toxic motives. President Obama accused them of being irrational, and he was absolutely right. The issue of national security was a Republican gold mine for eight years, during which time not enough objection was raised over waterboarding, domestic surveillance, and holding detainees indefinitely without bringing them to trial. The tide turned with the new President, but the underlying dilemma remains with us. Can we be secure without resorting to fear? The Bush administration profited from fear to a huge extent; therefore, they couldn't resist the temptation to wield it. As if the 9/11 attacks were not terrifying enough, they created bogeymen with no justification. The primary one was Saddam Hussein, who posed no threat to the U.S., had no weapons of mass destruction, and made no alliance with Al-Qaeda. But the detainees being held without trial at Guantanamo were also a bogeyman. We still have no idea who among them was or is a danger to this country, but in a massive refusal to be fair, adult, and rational, we allowed all of them to be lumped together and treated as imminent threats. Cheney's round defense of torture is morally bankrupt, but the right wing knows -- as it knew in the McCarthy era -- that scapegoating an unpopular minority works. Fifty years ago it was Communists; now it is Muslims of any stripe, including the most harmless. We have been detaining harmless Muslims at Guantanamo for years without due process; we have also been imprisoning dangerous Muslims and others who fall between the extremes. The only way to sort them out is with fair trials, adequate evidence, and rational consideration of potential threats. Or you can just play the fear card. In his ongoing efforts to treat the American public as they have rarely been treated -- that is, as adults -- Obama pointed out several rational things: - Our supermax prisons are safe. No one has ever escaped from them. - America stands for constitutional principles. - No one's fate should be decided by one man, even if he is President. - The issue of releasing potential terrorists is difficult and troubling. Notice the one thing he left out: fear. That's the difference between him and Cheney. If he didn't play the fear card over and over, Cheney's vision of national security would fall apart, just as McCarthy's argument about Communists infiltrating the federal government fell apart when he couldn't find any. The show of smoke, mirrors, and fear collapsed. In a decent moral scheme, Obama would have pointed out the cruel injustice of holding anyone in prison without charges or the chance to defend themselves. How would any of us like to be in such a position, knowing that we were innocent? It doesn't matter if the accused happens to look like a bogeyman. He's a human being and should be treated like one. Published in the San Francisco Chronicle More on Barack Obama
 
Jim Jaffe: Who Said A Good Newspaper Has to Be Affordable? Top
One of the traditional charms of the New York Times is an untethered audacity that sometimes suggests it lives in a universe very different from the one it reports on. So it was perversely reassuring that the Times has responded to current economic conditions with a double-digit increase in subscription rates - 10.5% to be exact. This came a few weeks after we learned that falling prices generally have led to a situation where there will probably be no Social Security cost-of-living increase next year (and the Congressional Budget Office says this freeze will likely continue until 2013). The Times goes its own way. And, indeed, if their plan succeeds it may well send ripples through the economy and lead to other price increases that will force an increase in Social Security benefits. But don't bet on it. We all understand these are tough times for the newspaper industry and that we readers have an obligation to help out. But where will this spiral dynamic end? The big price increase will probably lead to a drop in subscriptions (from people like me) and, perhaps a further drop in advertising revenue as the audience declines. So the remaining readers will be asked to pony up a bit more. The Times has always been a newspaper for the elite, but in today's America there's probably an absolute limit on the number of readers willing to pay a thousand dollars annually for something that is, ultimately, despite the bells and whistles offered on the website, just a newspaper. At the rate we're going, the Times subscription rates will cross into the magic four-digit range before Obama exits the White House. The stresses of the moment force a lot of us regular newspaper readers to ask how much the paper is worth to us. The Times has taken an audacious gamble by upping the ante. Part of me really hopes they succeed, but the prudent gambler within suggests it would be wiser to bet against them.
 
Analysis: NKorea widens threat, limits US options Top
WASHINGTON — North Korea's nuclear test makes it no likelier that the regime will actually launch a nuclear attack, but it adds a scary dimension to another threat: the defiant North as a facilitator of the atomic ambitions of others, potentially even terrorists. It presents another major security crisis for President Barack Obama, already saddled with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a nuclear problem with Iran. He said Monday the U.S. and its allies must "stand up" to the North Koreans, but it's far from clear what diplomatic or other action the world community will take. So far, nothing they've done has worked. At an earlier juncture of the long-running struggle to put a lid on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, the administration of former President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s discussed with urgency the possibility of taking military action. That seems less likely now, with the North evidently nuclear armed and the international community focused first on continuing the search for a nonmilitary solution. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that if the North Korean claim of a successful nuclear test can be confirmed it would represent "a clear violation" of a U.N. Security Council resolution. The council called an emergency session Monday to discuss the matter. The North's announcement that it conducted its second underground test of a nuclear device drew quick condemnation across the globe, including from its big neighbor and traditional ally, China. The Obama administration, which said the North's action invited stronger, unspecified international pressure, has consistently called for Korean denuclearization but seemed not to have anticipated a deepening nuclear crisis. Just two weeks ago, the administration's special envoy for disarmament talks with North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, said during a visit to Asian capitals that "everyone is feeling relatively relaxed about where we are at this point in the process." If so, they are no longer. Obama, appearing in the White House Rose Garden, condemned the nuclear test and North Korea's subsequent test-launch of short-range missiles. He called the actions reckless and said they endanger "the people of Northeast Asia." North Korea conducted its first atomic test in 2006 and is thought to have enough plutonium to make at least a half-dozen nuclear bombs. It also is developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, in defiance of U.N. actions. Obama made clear his intention to work with other world leaders to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Pyongyang, and the United States could still try to resuscitate so-called six-party talks with the North as well as work with other members of the United Nations. North Korea has vowed not to resume participation in the six-party talks with the U.S., Japan, South Korea, China and Russia. Reflecting his view that only unified international action will compel North Korea to change course, Obama said that Russia and China, as well as traditional U.S. allies Japan and South Korea, have come to the same conclusion: "North Korea will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons." The Bush administration worked hard to get China, in particular, to press the North Koreans to denuclearize, and it seems likely that Obama will push equally hard with Beijing, which sided with the North Koreans against U.S. and United Nations forces during the 1950-53 Korean War. In recent years the Chinese have openly criticized the North Koreans for the nuclear arms program. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke by phone Monday to her counterparts in Japan and South Korea, and she planned to speak later with the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers in what Clinton spokesman Ian Kelly called intensive diplomacy in response to the North's nuclear test. "The secretary stressed the importance of a strong, unified approach to this threat to international peace and security," Kelly said. Such broad language leaves unsaid at least two of the main worries about North Korea: Would it use a nuclear bomb to attack a neighbor or the United States? And might it continue an established pattern of selling nuclear wherewithal and missiles to foreign buyers? Launching a nuclear attack would be an act of likely suicide by North Korea, given overwhelming U.S. military firepower and U.S. defense commitments to Japan and South Korea. Graham Allison, an assistant secretary of defense in the first Clinton administration and now director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, said Monday that the latest North Korean nuclear test should alert people to the fact that the international community regularly underestimates North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's willingness to do the unexpected. "Could this guy believe he could sell a nuclear bomb to Osama bin Laden?" Allison asked in a phone interview. "Why not?" It would be easier, he said, than helping Syria construct a nuclear reactor, which the North Koreans are accused of having already done. The U.S. has believed for years that the North Koreans pursued the bomb mainly to use it as political leverage, or blackmail, against its perceived enemies. That is a main reason the Bush administration pushed hard to build a missile defense system, which it explicitly described as protection against a North Korean threat. It was more a matter of preventing nuclear blackmail than expecting an attack. Victor Cha, a former director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council and now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Monday that one of the first things he expects the Obama administration to do is send a high-level official to the region to reassure allies like Japan that their security is guaranteed by U.S. nuclear weapons superiority. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE: Bob Burns covers national security for The Associated Press. More on North Korea
 
Deborah De Santis: Blogging from a White House Committed to Ending Homelessness Top
Today I had the honor of attending a bill signing ceremony transforming a major initiative that helps combat homelessness across our country. With the sweep of his pen, President Barack Obama has accomplished what many of us have been fighting for since the early part of this century: the re-invigoration of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and a new focus on ending homelessness. This significant event was the culmination of Herculean efforts by organizations and advocates from around the country, and by some conscientious leaders on Capital Hill that found common ground and stuck with it. I am humbled knowing that CSH joined others who spent year after year fighting for legislation that will do so much to help so many people. They all deserve our praise. The importance of McKinney-Vento cannot be underestimated. It has been the centerpiece of the federal government's efforts to end homelessness since 1987. Now, more than ever, with our economy in recession, Washington needs to show its commitment to caring for our vulnerable populations in ways that produce real results for those without a place to call home or proper medical care. When first enacted, McKinney-Vento had some fifteen programs providing a spectrum of services to homeless people, including the Continuum of Care Programs: the Supportive Housing Program, the Shelter Plus Care Program, and the Single Room Occupancy Program, as well as the Emergency Shelter Grant Program. It also established the US Interagency Council on Homelessness and extended education rights to children of homeless families. Under McKinney-Vento, homeless children are assured transportation to and from school, with their choice of what school they want to attend, regardless of where their family resides. It further requires schools to register homeless children even if they lack normally required documents, such as immunization records or proof of residency. States are given funding to comply with the terms of McKinney-Vento. McKinney-Vento has helped thousands of Americans free themselves from the despair of homelessness. But the original act needed improving and CSH and its partners have been working toward that end. President Obama's swift action reauthorizing McKinney-Vento means billions more to help vulnerable people break the cycle of homelessness. But his support and approval does not throw more money at a problem simply with a hope and prayer. The President has assured fundamental changes in the systems and programs designed to help homeless persons, where innovation and accountability will mean lasting progress toward the goal of ending homelessness. The new McKinney-Vento provides communities with better tools and resources at a time when they desperately need them. It increases prevention resources and changes the current Emergency Shelter Grants Program to the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program. It requires HUD to provide family rapid re-housing incentives so long-term stability becomes the emphasis. This re-authorization continues the chronic homelessness project and adds families with children, and it also designates 30 percent of total funds for permanent housing solutions for families and individuals with disabilities. McKinney-Vento now incorporates an expanded and more realistic definition of who is homeless, streamlines the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's grant programs for the homeless, and improves homeless assistance in rural communities and gives them more flexibility. Just as important, the re-authorization requires a much greater emphasis on performance so that states, communities and nonprofits aiming to help homeless people are measured not by their intentions, but by their results. We can take pride in the quick response of this Congress and President Obama to the many pleas to reform and reauthorize McKinney-Vento. With rising foreclosures and unemployment, the attention and help from Washington comes in the nick of time. I am confident Senator Stewart B. McKinney and Congressman Bruce F. Vento would be pleased by the new, promising direction of their legacy. More on Barack Obama
 
Amy York Rubin: If the Government Won't the People Will Part II: The Hand in Hand Schools Top
The construction paper artwork taped to the wall is the same as in every other elementary school across Israel, and the world. The crooked cutouts of trees decorated with sparkles and magic marker are no different than what I am sure is hanging on the walls of the school down the street. The titles and captions scrawled on the bottom of the colored paper at the school down the street, however, are in Hebrew. Or maybe they are written in Arabic. It is only in this school that the children's artwork feature titles scrawled in Hebrew and Arabic, side-by-side in big, curly, teacher-handwriting. The artwork, the signs around the building, the voices over the loudspeaker, the words overheard in the hallway -- at the "Hand in Hand" school in the Beit Safafa neighborhood of Jerusalem everything is double, everything is done twice -- in Hebrew and Arabic. As their website explains, Hand in Hand was founded in 1997 to "build peace between Jews and Arabs in Israel through development of bilingual and multi-cultural schools." There is no doubt that this is an ambitious, and maybe even slightly idealistic, goal but with a four schools now up and running in Israel from the Galilee region all the way down to Beersheba it certainly does not seem like an impossible one. At first glance, visiting a Hand in Hand school is like boarding a peace time-machine and entering an alternate universe where the team of architects most likely included folks like Arlo Gunthrie and Joni Mitchell. Kindergarten teachers name their classroom the "Peace Garden." Children whose people and families are living in an all-consuming fear of each other just down the road are jumping rope and playing kickball together as if the words "suicide bomber," "Right of Return" and "Hamas" are not included in their impressively expansive vocabulary. After the first glass, it is clear that despite the peace bubble that engulfs the school these words are most certainly part of everyone's vocabulary, and their reality. Johar, a tenth grade physics teacher, articulates this underlying reality: When I am teaching here, I am not really teaching physics. I mean yes, we learn physics, but in everything I am doing I am bringing my students together for the sake of our country. When I assign partners for an experiment, when I use everyday examples to explain a principal of physics, I am bringing together, integrating our cultures, our language and our people. It is about much more than physics. Every teacher here has their own story, their own history that brought them to this point, but they all share this same agenda. From the young kindergarten teachers to the older, more experienced principals when they talk about their students they are not really talking just about students, they are talking about their country. It is as though they are all willing participants of a very emotional experiment. Many of them have a sense of having been through hell, having seen the alternative and now, as their only hope left, they have invested themselves in the next generation and in the school's educational approach. When they teach, when they interact with the students, it is clear that there is something between everyone at the school, something much stronger and much more fragile than a regular teacher-student relationship. For the teachers, the students are their only hope for an end to perpetual war, and for the children, the teachers are their constant reassurance and guidance that it is okay, in fact it is commendable, to behave in a counter-culture way. This relationship and commitment are apparent in every aspect of the structure of a Hand in Hand school day. The announcements over the loud speaker alternate between Hebrew and Arabic. Half of the student body is Arabic and half is Jewish. Each classroom, until grade seven, has two teachers -- an Arab and a Jew. After grade seven the idea is that students are acclimated enough to both cultures and both languages that the ethnicity or religion of their teacher is a moot point when it comes to learning physics or geography. The effects of this educational and ideological approach are hard to miss in the stories and behaviors of this unique and outspoken group of students. In response to the often repeated mantra about the "reality" that Arabs want to wipe Israel and the Jews off the map, one Jewish student offered a simple, counter-demonstration when he turned to an Arab classmate and asked: "Do you want to kill me?" With impressive comedic timing the 16-year old girl replied: "No...well, sometimes, but not because you're Jewish." Even for the younger students this idea of conflict and hate between the two peoples is ridiculous enough to joke about because to them, there really is no difference, they have grown up together. Any inquiry about getting along or problems between Jews and Arabs is lost on them. They have a sense that there is something different about their community, but that is about it. Mostly, they just find it silly that the rest of Israel would live any differently. Alia, an 11 year-old Arabic girl in the middle of some sort of complicated jumping game that involves rope and chalk, stops for a moment to explain this concept to me: I have to learn Hebrew because there are some people that don't like Arabs but there is no difference. We are learning and we are together [pointing to students involved in the jumping game]. Like she is speaking Hebrew and she is speaking Arabic but it is okay because we are still the same. It's okay. For some students, however, it did not come quite that easily. Many students transferred to Hand in Hand after years of a more isolated educational experience. "I used to go to school only with other Arabs but my parents made me come here because it is better preparation for the University. At first I was afraid. My cousins warned me, they thought it might be dangerous. It took them awhile, I try to show them that it is okay to be friends with Jews, that they are the same but I don't think they really believe me." Fatin's story hints at the only real problem with Hand in Hand. She came to the school for a better education. Her family was in a position to pay a tuition fee in order to give their daughter the best education possible. Most of the students at Hand in Hand come from middle or upper-middle class families. Many of the families are secular, or even progressive. In some ways, this is Hand in Hand's biggest challenge: they may very well be preaching to the choir. The group that would really benefit from a Hand in Hand education most likely cannot afford to attend the school, or if they could, would never send their child to the school. At the moment, Hand in Hand survives primarily on private donations, tuition fees and some minor support from the Israeli government. They are able to offer a small amount of scholarships but not nearly enough to really address this challenge of reaching the most "at-risk" students. This is not to say that middle-class students and families do not benefit, or do not need, this type of integrated immersion. In fact they are often just as resistant to the idea of integration as other classes of Israeli and Palestinian society. When the Jerusalem Hand in Hand school was first created there was a major protest from the surrounding middle class neighborhoods -- from Arabs and Jews. However, it is certainly clear that this new generation that Hand in Hand is investing in and pinning their hopes on is a generation made up of decidedly upper class students. The homogeneous socioeconomic makeup and the physical similarities of most Middle Easterners creates an environment at Hand in Hand where, to the untrained eye, most of the students don't look much different from each other. It's not as though we are walking the halls of a Hand in Hand school in Harlem or Anacostia. However, everyone knows who is Jewish and who is Arab. There are subtle physical differences but more apparent are the circumstantial differences -- what it means to be a Jew or an Arab in Israel. One of the biggest differences between the two groups is the looming reality of Israel's mandatory military service for all Jewish Israelis. Half of Hand in Hand's students will go to the army at some point, the other half will not. For the older students, this is a major point of difference. The students at Hand in Hand appear to have a very clear understanding of what they should expect to find in the army. When two 16-year-old Jewish students talk about how they will handle going to the army, their two Arab classmates listen carefully, with tentative and distant expressions. Talking about the army is the only moment that incites awkward glances and uncomfortable looks between classmates. "I think it is going to be very hard for me. I grew up like this, this is what makes sense. I think it will be very hard for me to have to join the army in two years. I don't know how I will be able to handle it." Jamie is 16 and in the tenth grade at Hand in Hand's Jerusalem school. He's not the only one who wonders what it will be like when he joins the army. His class will be the first graduating class of Hand in Hand. There is a pervasive feeling of anticipation and anxiety about Jamie's class. In fact, this seems to be the big, unanswered question: what will happen to these graduates? Will everything they learned at Hand in Hand, the friends and connections they have developed be enough to create a new generation that finds the idea of war more ridiculous than the idea of actually living in peace? It is clear that when it comes time for the mandatory service of the Jewish students, this new generation will face a defining moment. How the Jewish students respond -- passive or active resistance, acceptance or refusal of the "army education" -- and how the Arab students react -- resentment or understanding, maintaining relationships with a drifting group or isolation within a new community -- will be a serious test of the limits of a Hand in Hand education. More on Israel
 
Norb Vonnegut: Bandaged Futures? Top
After 2008 -- the year Hurricane Excess pummeled the markets -- we're all struggling with our investments. Is anything safe? What can we trust? Who can we trust? Today, The New York Times described the search for answers in "Time for a New Strategy". I keep hearing two words: managed futures. Supposedly, they herald the dawn of an enlightened age for investments. Sounds interesting. I want to manage my future. The Wall Street Journal reviewed this asset class last Saturday: "Should Managed Futures Be in the Cards for You?" Many advisers are extolling the virtues of these investments. What the heck are they? Jason Zweig of The Wall Street Journal offered a fair and balanced review. Let's break down his article and figure out why I've labeled them "bandaged futures." WSJ : "The returns on this commodity-trading strategy don't look good -- they look spectacular. The average managed-futures program, as measured by the Barclay CTA Index, was up 14% last year -- beating the stock market by a staggering 51 percentage points. Run by commodity-trading advisers, or CTAs, these funds manage an estimated $199 billion and may traffic in anything from corn, cotton and crude oil to interest rates, currencies and stock indexes. They often use technical analysis and mathematical formulas to trade on price patterns." Norb : Good overview of the asset class. I find it odd that corn and interest-rate futures sit in the same bucket. I understand the reason. Algorithms and charts drive trading decisions -- not the underlying entities. Futures and commodities are separate securities just as real estate and mortgages are two distinct investments. But still, corn and interest rates in the same breath? We use manure to grow corn. Interest rates are more a function of fiscal policy, money supply, and political jawboning. On second thought, maybe the two do share something in common. WSJ : "The Barclay CTA Index has gained an annual average of 12.2% since 1980 and lost money in only three of those calendar years. Academic research shows that commodity futures have kept pace with inflation and rivaled the returns on stocks, with the extra virtue of tending to go up whenever stocks or bonds go down." Norb : Several years ago, we were all reading about a commodity super-cycle. The BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) -- China in particular -- were consuming more and more of the world's natural resources. We watched prices spike with incremental demand. Intuitively, it seems there is a link between the performances of managed futures and underlying commodities. But what happens if commodity prices flat-line or drift lower? How will global recession affect managed-future returns? Attached is a must-see documentary. The film explains the correlation. It offers enduring images from mavens who made their mark in the brass-knuckled world of commodities and derivative instruments. All it takes is 7.12 minutes of your time. Can you afford not to watch? WSJ : "Still, flameouts are common. A 1997 study found 20% of managed-futures programs disappear each year. Sol Waksman, president of BarclayHedge in Fairfield, Iowa, estimates his firm's Barclay CTA Index replaces roughly 15% of its constituents annually." Norb : Uh-oh. The returns suggest survivor's bias. The asset class sounds great. Unless we back the wrong horse and fall into that 15 percent category. WSJ : "Most futures traders put up 15% or less of the purchase price of the contract as "margin" or cash collateral." Norb : In other words, the traders borrow 85 percent or 5.7 times their equity stake. Isn't that how we got into this mess? WSJ : "Fees on managed-futures funds make mutual funds seem cheap. Many CTAs charge a 2% management fee, plus 20% of any "net new profits." The fund can incur high trading costs. You may have to pay an "introducing broker" as much as 6% to get into the fund. All told, the costs can hit 6% to 8% annually, says Ruvane's Mr. Lerner. Of course, returns are reported after all fees (except sales charges) are deducted." Norb : Excuse me? You're kidding, right? I'm skeptical about the long-term viability of any investment with fees of 6 percent to 8 percent annually. A six percent front-end fee is a non-starter for me. It reminds me of that card in Monopoly : "Do not pass go. Do not collect $200." I know some readers will disagree. Let me hear from you. www.acrimoney.com More on Interest Rates
 
Labor Ad Calls On Obama To Aid Health Care Workers With Whom He Campaigned Top
The labor community is ramping up the pressure on Barack Obama to intervene in what could be drastic and costly wage cuts for health care employees in California. A source with the Service Employees International Union tells the Huffington Post that the union is making a six-figure ad purchase in Los Angeles and surrounding markets, calling on the President to come to the aid of the state's home health care workforce. The spot, which should be released on Wednesday, will tell, in part, the story of Pauline Beck, the homecare worker with whom Obama famously spent a day walking "in her shoes." It will coincide with the president's visit to L.A. for a DNC fundraiser scheduled that evening. The dueling images could be politically touchy for the White House: health care workers pleading with the president to help them keep their salaries as he attends a high-end event with Democratic donors. The back-story to the ad is equally compelling. In August 2007, then candidate Obama spent a day with Beck drawing attention to, and getting a sense of, life as a health care worker in California. Beck, in turn, was granted a speaking slot at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the president's staff deeming her story the type of message that would help bolster the working class image of the campaign. Now, it's Beck who is in need of the president's help. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in an effort to get the state under budget, has proposed cutting salaries for health care workers to levels that -- SEIU reps say -- would approach those of Taco Bell employees. The Obama White House had initially threatened to withhold billions of dollars in stimulus funds from California if this were to happen. Earlier this week, however, the administration backed off this threat. The SEIU has been drawing attention to the scheduled salary cuts for the past week, hoping to influence the President into intervene in the matter. The television advertisement is the next step in that campaign. The SEIU source did not have a final script for the ad that will run. According to a tweet from the union's president, Andy Stern, Beck will play a prominent role in the spot.
 
Bill Scheft: You Want Crazy? Top
You got it.This time, it is me posting as me. I have decided to reproduce, in full, an email chain between myself and a man named Scott Thompson. But first, a little back story. Over two weeks ago, I went to Washington for a Writers Guild event. There was a stand-up show, then a panel about late night writers and their influence on the news and elections. (I don't buy that crap about our influence, by the way, but this is one of those times where people fall in love with the idea rather than the reality.) I sat in the back row with the guys I had done stand-up with, piping up sparingly. Towards the end of the panel, I mentioned that I had been with Letterman for almost 18 years, written over 100,000 jokes (which had garnered "dozens of laughs") but my proudest moment at the show had been last year, before John McCain returned after canceling on us to not rush to Washington and not save the economy. Before the show, I gave Dave the note that McCain had a long-time friendship with G. Gordon Liddy. This was relevant because at the time McCain was beating the Bill Ayres/"Obama pals around with terrorists" drum. Sure enough, midway through the segment, McCain brought it up out of nowhere. Dave, to his credit, raised the Liddy question, and McCain phumphured something about him being a good man who served his time. I repeated that I was proud of Dave and of the moment, and got a nice hand. My mood was obviously lighter later, when someone asked the panel why we don't make jokes about Obama. Is it because he's black? I said, "It's not because he's black. It's just that so far, he's been a little too damn competent. We need him to trip on a oriental rug. Or would it kill him to mispronounce a foreign leader's name?" Okay, done. Nobody gets hurt, right? Well, my remarks were picked up by a couple of conservative blogs and folks started writing me. The kind of folks that would have written to Marty Fleck. Except this was no novel, and there was no Jim McManus to explain it away as "big-time wrestling." The letters died down after a couple of days. I only responded to two people, and the fact that I chose to engage them is regrettably on me. Mr. Thompson took two weeks to write me back. Here's the chain. I feel compelled to point out that we have told several jokes about Obama's mother-in-law living in the White House, the best being, "Mother-in-law living in your house? I thought the United States doesn't torture." Enough. To get the full cyber effect, read from the bottom up. Mangia. From: Scott Subject: Re: Brilliant To: "Bill Scheft" Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 3:33 PM Bill, Yea he is exceedingly brilliant! How many times does he have to f-up before you realize just how brilliant this guy is? Were you in NY when Scare Force One flew over? Probably Michelle and the girls on board for lunch! Your job is to write jokes about current events! That means the current admin. your nothing but an apologist! Your explanation about the McCain joke is a little deep, isn't it Bill? If you have to go that far to explain a joke on Letterman then no one got it. Remember, this is Letterman, and the average tool watching that is the same morons that were bamboozled by your beloved Messiah. See howobamagotelected.com. Hahaha, as far as not making millions for his freinds then WTF is ACORN? What about the millions going to fund abortions, and the 10,000 tax relief checks that went to dead people. Yea he is a genius, and Letterman is still funny. This idiot has you so suckered it's hilarious, at least most folks with common sense realise they were lied to just for their vote. The best part is that the admin. you have in now is 10 times more evil then Bush. Rahm Emmanual "don't let a crisis go to waste". Wake the fuck up Bill they got you hypmotized! Saying what ever the far left kooks want to hear just to appease gets you in trouble (close Gitmo uh oh 96-6 vote). Libs don't deal with reality real well. Do you think Barney Frank, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have the peoples best interest at heart? Let me lay it out for you Bill No significant troop reductions in Iraq Increased troop levels in Afghanistan More right wing stance on wire tapping then Bush (you have to dig for this one it's not exactly msm stuff Billy) The sad inability to say anything without his teleprompter (more genius stuff here Bill) You could do a half hour on the show just playing this stuff. Talk of preventive detention without a trial for really tough terrorist types Takeover of the Banks and Auto Industry, soon to come TV networks Spending that will bankrupt the country within 5 years. Hell he admitted this himself the other day. What a tool. I can't believe you come right out and call him brilliant! Your supposed to be a funny joke writer. That is what the article was about in the beginniing, that all of you can't even bring yourself you make fun of this guy cuz your left wing stupidity won't allow it. My God, grasp the obvious man! Your response just proves exactly what newsbusters was saying. Maybe as time goes on Bill you will keep putting the pieces together and if you work on your self honesty you will come to terms with the fact that you were OBAMABOOZLED! If it makes you feel any better so were millions of others. Bill, one more thing, your brilliance got his ass kicked in a little battle of speechifying by the great DICK CHENEY. God was that beautiful. Even an America hater like yourself will admit the ONE got his ass handed to him, ahahahahaha Yea, Brilliant! Campaigns over Bill, now it is time for some Obama jokes. I know the funny man in you is screaming to come out. Your having trouble suppressing it aren't you Bill? The mother in law living in the whitehouse. The auntie running from INS, the brother child molester, the other brother living in a dirt floor hut, come on Bill it is all there for the picking. Talk about your low hanging fruit. The Mickey Mouse ears, the grape ape amazon wife that looks like she kicks his ass on a daily basis. The black and white dog, the gifts to other heads of state. An ipod with his own speeches on it. The ego jokes alone could keep you in a job for years. The teleprompter, the saying things before you consider any of the consequences, the NY flyover, the bowing to the Saudi King. Oh yea and the bowing to Nancy Pelosi and cowardly letting the Congress write his ridiculous budget. The funny way he plays b-ball. He never met a shot he didn't like. He was the guy who always thought he had game but sucked and as soon as everyone figured it out no one ever passed him the ball again! How about Gibbs Bill? Talk about gold. The working for Acorn. God I almost forgot the Rev. Wright and his $500 jammies he likes to preach in! It most be so painful for you Bill. Just stop it Bill. Let it come out, it will be so cathartic for you and Dave. Your ratings will go up and you two turds can hide your embarrassment for being obamaboozled behind the laughs! Love ya Billy, ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Scheft To: Scott Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Brilliant Scott, you didn't listen, or you weren't paying attention. Or you don't care. McCain, trailing in the polls and with no ideas of his own, resorted to banging the Bill Ayres drum, saying Obama palled around with terrorists with no proof, and yet he was friends with and took campaign money from Liddy, a man who not only served time in prison from the Watergate break-in, but publicly advocated bombing the Brookings Institute and recommended on his radio show "shooting ATF agents in the head." There is no doubt McCain was a war hero, but he was the antithesis of a hero the way he ran his campaign. He was a puppet at the hands of the most reactionary and exclusive wing of his party, to the point where he reversed stance on torture. And that makes him a spineless hypocrite. I am proud because at that moment, he was exposed as a hypocrite. Bill Ayres was never convicted of a crime. G. Gordon Liddy was at the center of the one of the country's darkest moments. If you are upset about the fate of the auto industry, I don't blame you. It is sad. But Obama is not the one who refused to build energy efficient cars in the 80s and 90s and fell behind the rest of the world. And Obama is not the one who was in the pocket of the oil industry, both here and abroad. And my excuse for voting for Obama? Other than he's exceedingly bright and committed to making the country better rather than his friends richer, I have no excuse. If you want to have an intelligent dialogue, fine. Otherwise, save your posts for elsewhere. --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Scott wrote: From: Scott Subject: Brilliant To: "Bill Scheft" Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 1:02 AM If a dig on a national hero is your proudest moment on the show then what a pathetic waste of time your career has been! Letterman has not a good show since the early 80's and now I understand it a little better. Well you should be proud mr scheft you and the rest of main stream tv put this incompetent loser in the white house. Now your so embarrassed and ashamed all you can do is keep attacking the right! Hahahahaha the joke is on you. You did not get what you thought you were getting did ya! Your network is soon to follow the fate of the banks and the auto industry and then they will tell you what to write. hahaha won't be any different then the pathetic dribble you doll out every night! Obama voter is a SUCKA! You were bamboozled you pathetic loser. You and all the other dummys. At least black people voted for him because he's half black. What's your excuse? With the stories coming out everyday about the white houses strong arm threats to the auto shareholders it looks like you put into power the very thing you thought you were voting against! A writer such as yourself must revel in the bitter irony of it all. Oh the sweet smell of ignorance that is the left. A collective freak out of embarrassment, what a story huh? Should give you an idea for your next book.....Maybe something with Barney Frank as the protagonist. Proud you claim, hahahhaaha, so sad. Scott Thompson
 
William Easterly: Sachs Ironies: Why Critics are Better for Foreign Aid than Apologists Top
Official foreign aid agencies delivering aid to Africa are used to operating with nobody holding them accountable for aid dollars actually reaching poor people. Now that establishment is running scared with the emergence of independent African voices critical of aid, such as that of Dambisa Moyo. Jeffrey Sachs, the world's leading apologist and fund-raiser for the aid establishment, has responded here with a ferocious personal attack on Moyo and myself, " Aid Ironies ." Allow me to defend myself (I'll let the formidable Moyo handle herself). It's not so much my pathetic need to correct slanders, as if anybody cared. Sachs' desperation shows when he peddles what I will show he knew were falsehoods. Besides, the sight of two middle-aged white men mud-wrestling on African aid may entertain the audience. Sachs accuses me of such a hard heart as to deny "$10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malaria bed net." Sachs offers: "Here are some of the most effective kinds of aid efforts: support for peasant farmers to help them grow more food, childhood vaccines... roads, .. safe drinking water...." Sachs likes a lot more another writer whom he quoted in his book Common Wealth : "Put the focus back where it belongs: get the poorest people in the world such obvious goods as the vaccines,... the improved seeds, the fertilizer, the roads, the boreholes, the water pipes...." Wait, that was me! Sachs was earlier quoting from my book, The White Man's Burden , which far from wanting to deny an African child bed nets, denounces the tragedy of aid impunity, in which "The West spent $2.3 trillion and still had not managed to get four-dollar bed nets to poor families." Sachs complained that "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." Sachs again prefers another writer whom he quoted in Common Wealth : "Foreign aid likely contributed to some notable successes on a global scale, such as dramatic improvement in health and education indicators in poor countries." You guessed it -- that was me again, illustrating how aid COULD work if only aid agencies were accountable for their actions. Sachs denounces my callousness when I myself benefited from a government scholarship for grad school: "Easterly mentioned his receipt of NSF support in the same book in which he denounces aid," and now I am "trying to pull up the ladder for those still left behind." Either this is an intentional falsehood or Sachs inexplicably failed to read the next paragraph in the book: "Could you give many more scholarships to poor students? ...Could you give the poor "aid vouchers" that they could spend on aid agency services of their choice?" Sachs suffers from the same acute shortage of truthiness as did the Bush/Cheney administration, all of whom have contributed to the current climate of fear and intimidation in foreign aid. Any aid critic is immediately denounced as a heartless baby-killer, which protects the establishment from the accountability so badly needed to see aid reach the poor. My colleagues and I at Aid Watch have documented in recent months such examples of aid impunity as: --USAID was caught red-handed by its own Inspector General mismanaging one multi-million project in Afghanistan so badly that millions disappeared without a trace, and among the few tangible outputs was a bridge, reported as "completed," that was so life-threatening that nobody could use it. --The World Bank's own evaluation unit criticized them for having only 2 percent of its communicable diseases projects focus on TB, despite the huge mortality from this disease and the availability of effective treatments. For good measure, the World Bank also cut nutritional projects in half, despite the huge benefits from cheap and effective nutritional supplements for children so malnourished that they will suffer permanent brain damage. --the World Health Organization faked malaria statistics to make false claims of victories against malaria in the New York Times. The WHO later withdrew and then contradicted the numbers, but never issued a public retraction. How to know when and where to fight malaria if the numbers are faked? None of these organizations suffered any consequences for their misbehavior. Only poor people suffer the consequences, and they are powerless. As an alternative to the impunity of the establishment that Sachs defends, the emergence of a new wave of independent aid critics in Africa is most welcome. This new wave includes many more besides the remarkable Dambisa Moyo -- such as the Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda and two extraordinary colleagues of mine at NYU: the Ghanaian economist Yaw Nyarko and the Beninese political scientist Leonard Wantchekon. Instead of Sachs' attempt to shout down critics with slanders and falsehoods, let's have a climate of open debate in which we learn from past mistakes, the guilty suffer, the good are rewarded, and we can hope that aid does start to reach the poor. More on Africa
 
Pinaki Bhattacharya: Why India Cannot Be Run as a Corporation Top
Indian media's search for a new knight in shining armor has found a recruit in Rahul Gandhi. The fourth generation scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is the latest toast of the town in New Delhi. The credit for the Congress Party's modest, but impressive performance in the Hindi-speaking heartland of the country is accruing to him. This is the region where earlier the Congress Party's presence had reached non-existent proportions. Naturally, the media's focus is now on the personal team he leads -- his own private 'think tank.' And the number of young people with MBAs in that team -- all from American universities -- is causing speculation that the country would soon be in the thrall of these managers, who would get a chance to run it. A vastly urban middle class might not be too opposed to the concept of the country being run along the lines of a large corporation. Especially since their popular consciousness is suffused with the belief that the private sector is infinitely more efficiently managed than the public sector. It remains to be seen how much the collapse of the Fannie Mays, Freddie Macs, Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros has dented this core belief on which modern capitalism rests. Indian politico-economic elite has experimented earlier with these notions. Rajiv Gandhi, Rahul's father, was the first who brought the whiff of corporate culture into politics in the 1980s when he had joined as his mother's -- Indira Gandhi, India's third prime minister -- understudy. But the whopping Parliamentary majority of three-fourths of the total seats that Rajiv Gandhi won after his mother's assassination was whittled down to less than a third over a mere five year term in office. The next big corporate icon who was hailed as the 'chief executive officer' of a state of India, Andhra Pradesh, was a politician called Chandrababu Naidu. The World Bank found great virtues in his modernizing impulse in a state like AP, whose capital city, Hyderabad, he made the 'Cyberabad' of India. He too earned the ire of the voters in a short time to the extent that he is still in the political wilderness, losing the five-yearly state election, for the second time in a row this month. In retrospect thus, it can be said that running a country as a large corporation is fraught with dangers. The point is to understand why. Nations by their very nature are heterogeneous. Even the most homogeneous nations like China -- with a 90 per cent Hun racial stock; with one dominant language, Mandarin; and ruled by a single party -- have a heterogeneity of public views that can accommodate more than 250 news publications. En route to Chongqing in Central China, a fellow traveler on a boat over the Yangtze River had explained that any Chinese can shout at a street corner 'Hu Jintao is a bastard' and go scot free, provided the person does not attract a following. Jack Welch would not be able to handle that level of heterogeneity. If an employee of the GE were to do the same as a Chinese peasant, he would soon be stamped out at as 'militant trade unionist.' Commercial enterprises by their terms of reference, look for homogeneity. They look for homogeneity, within and without. Within, enterprise talks of propagating a corporate culture that creates certain predictability. Without, they seek a consumer group that has similar spending behavior and same likes and dislikes. It helps the production lines to plan in advance. But a country like India that thrives on its diversity does not take to homogenizing, unitarist messages easily. The sad plight of the religious rightist BJP is a case in point. Second, India's levels of inequality militate against a corporate agenda that says 'one size fits all.' Also, the increasingly federated political power in democratic India works against one single corporate entity laying down the line for the entire country. The disparate voices that constitute the vast mosaic of Indian polity provide necessary dynamism to a situation that can often seem impossible to an outsider. Finally, though politics is an art of the possible, the discourse is dependent on the idiom. The ruling idiom of Indian politics is economic growth, abolition of poverty, and supplanting scarcity with plenty. A corporation, on the other hand, cannot function in an atmosphere of deficiency. Its value chain demands that there are plentiful resources for it to function efficiently. Plus, the non-representational nature of corporate leadership finds itself at sea when powerful fringe movements threaten to dominate mainstream thought. Twenty percent of India's territory is under the control of the Maoists, who have the dispossessed tribals as their loyal followers. A violent solution to the problem could cut both ways. Not only would it take away India's sheen as a global brand for pluralism, it could also sow the seeds of a future conflict that would be even less amenable to the state capacities of India. The other solution dwells on addressing the root causes of the problem in terms of empowerment and resource transfer. This resolution of the problem would come in the longer term. Till then India has to stay solvent. Rahul Gandhi would have to go beyond the prepared text and delve into it as a politician with a mass following would do. More on India
 
Jim Luce: Ethiopian-American Lawyer on Conflicts Along the Nile Top
The Nile River between Luxor and Aswan, Egypt. A scorpion once tried to cross the river Nile. He approached several animals, asking if he could ride on their backs. None of them dared trust him, and they all refused. Finally, an old sheep agreed because the scorpion said that if he strung the sheep during the crossing, they would both die. In the middle of the river, the scorpion struck, and as they both sank beneath the waves, the sheep cried, "Why?!" The scorpion said, "I could not do anything else. I am a scorpion!" Fasil Amdetsion is an attorney from Ethiopia who speaks in riddles. With an undergraduate degree from Yale in both history and international studies, and a law degree from Harvard, he is a thinker. Working with prestigious New York law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, he is also a do-er. One of the things Fasil has done recently is analyzed the legal, geopolitical, and historical dimensions of the longstanding dispute over the Nile. He has followed the course of this river from an early age, growing up in the Nile River basin. The White Nile begins at Lake Victoria and the Blue Nile begins at Lake Tana. The Blue and White Nile then merge in Sudan and flows to the Mediterranean. Fasil's task is to get people outside the region to see trouble on the horizon. He believes there is significant chance of a "water war" along the Nile basin. The largest question is how volatile it will be -- and whether it is preventable. Both necessary and finite, water plays a vital role in food and energy production, modern transportation, waste disposal, industrial development, and of course health. Water gave rise to civilization 7,000 years ago -- and sustains it still. Fasil Amdetsion, Esq. studied at Harvard and Yale Because of its limited supply, Fasil understands water's crucial importance to governments and their people. When water is unevenly distributed, or when it is in needed more than ever as nations develop, conflicts are sure to arise. With water's myriad uses and limited nature, coupled with the fact that it is the quintessential "trans-boundary" resource, it is difficult for nations to agree upon its distribution and use. It is unsurprising, Fasil notes, that the English word "rival" is derived from the Latin word rivalis, a term denoting persons who live on opposite banks of a river used for irrigation. Fasil thinks the Nile basin will be the most likely site of a future "water war" because the Nile embodies "all the challenges that transnational management of fresh water could possibly present." The Nile would seem to be a water war waiting to happen. The Nile is long -- over 4,000 miles long. Two countries sharing anything often equates war. The Nile is shared by ten countries, and flows through some of the most water-deprived parts of the world. The region's population is growing at 3% a year and is projected to reach 859 million in 2025 (up from 245 million in 1990) is likely to make water even more scarce along the river basin. One problem is that Sudan and Egypt -- two comparatively non-contributories -- monopolize the use of the Nile. They claim it all -- and rely on colonial-era treaties to do so. In recent years, nations up-river have become more assertive of their rights. Tanzania, Uganda, and Ethiopia are among the countries that have begun to construct projects on the Nile. Despite the occasional conciliatory gesture, however, relations between the Nile's upriver nations have been dominated by suspicion and, at times, raw belligerence. In a sense, Fasil argues, Nile riparian states are behaving like the proverbial scorpion. Although these countries have much to gain from cooperation, they have rigidly pursued divergent paths in a manner that may ultimately be self-destructive if environmental and population pressures continue to mount -- which they will. Fasil criticizes current legal frameworks and political arrangements governing the Nile's use. He is also critical of a status quo which does not allow several countries to make use of the Nile for their own development. Egypt receives the entirety of the Nile's bounties from others but is allocated 75% of the Nile's waters, while Ethiopia, from which 85% of the Nile flows, makes almost no use of the river. Because of the enormity of interests these two states have at stake, they have been most vocal in asserting claims and counterclaims that represent competing upper and lower riparian visions for the Nile's future utilization Specifically, Fasil attempts to overcome the quandary the up-river states find themselves in. He hopes to influence a more comprehensive approach by grappling with environmental challenges, economic issues, populist and nationalist imaginations that influence politics, security interests, and legal arguments. Fasil's thoughts on this subject are available in a law journal article published by the University of Texas School of Law, Texas International Law Journal , Fall 2009, "Scrutinizing the Scorpion Problematique: Arguments in Favor of the Continued Relevance of International Law and a Multidisciplinary Approach to Resolving the Nile Dispute." More on Egypt
 
Jim Selman: Obama and Cheney: Dueling in Different Universes Top
I listened to both President Obama and Ex-Vice President Cheney deliver their remarks on National Security. The President's speech gave me goosebumps and Mr. Cheney's gave me pause to consider the other view. It seems to me there were three basic issues and points of disagreement. The first has to do with what philosophy/approach is appropriate to maintain 'National Security'. The second is whether 'enhanced interrogation' is torture and was it or should it ever be justified. The third is whether 'American Values' are a source of power and strength or are they potentially a source of real or perceived weakness. I believe these two men were both eloquent and sincere in their positions. They were both 'taking a stand' for what they believe in and, in this case, those beliefs are radically different. Whichever view one embraces, there is a lot at stake in terms of who we consider ourselves to be, who we are for others and, of course, our day-to-day security. This is an example where two people and their constituents are on opposite sides of an issue. In many regards, this could be viewed as another grand example of conflict and divisiveness -- as polarized as Northern and Southern Ireland, Islam and Judaism, 'Rightists' and 'Leftists', Uppers and Downers. The issue is that when people become polarized, there is no common ground from which to build a common future -- no amount of information and analysis can dictate a decision. Both cases are compelling. And if you accept their underlying assumptions, you will come to more or less the same conclusions. The problem with absolute divides is that people are seeing and relating to different worlds. CNN characterized the two perspectives presented by President Obama and Vice President Cheney in these speeches as being from 'different universes'. One of the things I've come to appreciate is that when conflict exists at the level of core beliefs or 'paradigms', the question is no longer which one is right or wrong. The question is which worldview can include the other. In the case of this week's debate, President Obama said that ends do not justify the means if the means go against the core principles and values that define who we are. Vice President Cheney's position suggested that unless we do whatever we need to do to prevail in the face of an enemy committed to our absolute destruction, we may not have a nation to defend (in other words, the ends do justify the means). Leaving short-term political games aside, how can we make this choice? In my view, the point goes to Obama for the simple reason that if we remain true to who we are, then even in defeat we have the capacity to create a vision of freedom and prosperity and rebuild what has been destroyed. If we lose the core of who we are in the interest of survival, we will at best be hollow mannequins of who we used to be. As our father's taught us in WWII, there are some things worth dying for.
 
Nancy L. Cohen: Left is the New Center Top
Last week, the nonpartisan Pew Center released its 2009 survey on American political values . Its headline could have read "Left Wins Culture War," As the Right ramps up for a Supreme Court showdown over abortion and gay marriage , this report couldn't be more timely. It's a clarion call for Democrats to come out of the closet. Like a host of other polls of recent months, the Pew survey shows the GOP near an all-time low. Only 22% of Americans identify as Republicans. Since partisan identification surveys began in 1929, only in the post-Watergate years have fewer Americans identified as Republicans. Only 40% view the Republican party favorably, while a majority of Americans hold an unfavorable opinion of the GOP. But the bad news for the GOP isn't automatically good news for the Democratic party. Democrats have an 11 point advantage in party identification, but at 33%, that's down 6 points from the election day high. The problem is that many of the refugees from the GOP prefer to call themselves independents. (A plurality of independents--46%--lean Democratic, giving the Democrats a 17 point advantage in party indentification when leaners are taken into account.) According to Pew's top-line analysis of its survey, Centrism has emerged as a dominant factor in public opinion as the Obama era begins. . . . . Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, while the growing political middle is steadfastly mixed in its beliefs about government, the free market and other values that underlie views on contemporary issues and policies. The proportion of independents now equals its highest level in 70 years. Owing to defections from the Republican Party, independents are more conservative on several key issues than in the past. While they like and approve of Barack Obama, as a group independents are more skittish than they were two years ago about expanding the social safety net and are reluctant backers of greater government involvement in the private sector. Yet at the same time, they continue to more closely parallel the views of Democrats rather than Republicans on the most divisive core beliefs on social values, religion and national security ." [emphasis added] What are the views of the political middle on these "divisive core beliefs"? By Pew's index of social conservatism, 46% are conservative, down from 67% in 1987, the year Pew started this survey. Two-thirds of those surveyed support gay civil rights, 53% support civil unions for gays and lesbians, and while a majority of the total population still oppose gay marriage, opposition has declined by 11 points since 1996. Only 19% of those surveyed favor a return to traditional roles for women; perhaps unremarkable until one considers that 30% of Americans believed in traditionalism in 1987. Only 16% agree with the religious right that abortion should be illegal in all cases. 63% favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Other recent polls show even stronger public support for socially liberal positions. A recent New York Times /CBS poll found that 57% of those under age 40 support gay marriage and 22% do not identify with any religion. CNN/ Opinion Research Corporation recently found support for Roe v. Wade at an all-time high of 68%. (The one outlier, Gallup's poll on abortion, has been most effectively challenged here .) In sum, Pew's survey suggests that Americans have fled the GOP because of its extreme positions on social issues, not because of its economic royalism. Put another way, although 60% of independents prefer the GOP position on issues of the economy and government , they can't stomach the party's reactionary social, cultural, and religious views. So, why did Pew report this as a confirmation of Americans' centrism? Simply because the majority of those surveyed fell between the extreme right and the progressive left. Like many interpreters, Pew confuses a term about relative position--the center--with a philosophical disposition toward Centrism, or moderate politics. The center is crowded, indeed, but Centrism is an empty political category. Its substance changes. And, at this moment, Left is the new Center. When we take into account the very mixed views Americans hold about progressive economic policies, the conclusion becomes obvious that Americans are turning away from the GOP and toward the Democratic party because, not in spite of, the Democrats' social liberalism. Yet Centrist Democratic politicians continue to invoke the putative Center to derail policies tarred as "Left." (See, for example, Sen. Ben Nelson, who is holding up Dawn Johnsen's nomination and threatens to filibuster Obama's Supreme Court nominee.) This kind of obstructionism gets validation from self-defined Centrist pundits and activists, who for the past three decades have counseled Democrats to moderate their views on social and cultural issues. It gets enabled by self-defined progressive pundits and activists, who for the past two decades have counseled Democrats to soft-pedal their liberal views on social and cultural issues, so as not to alienate socially conservative economic populists. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it looks as if the Left's much derided cultural liberalism is the key to cementing the Democrats' majority status for the coming years. Here's hoping our Democratic leaders read the fine print of the public opinion polls before this summer's Culture War blockbuster, the SCOTUS hearings, premieres. More on GOP
 
Tom Morris: A Twitter Tribute to Service On This Memorial Day Top
I've blogged before on my amazing experience of the social media site, Twitter. Occasionally, someone in my circle of Twitter friends will ask me to reflect briefly on a concept or topic of interest, and I'll do so in a series of tweets, or postings of 140 characters or less. Those who follow my tweets will then often retweet the thoughts, or copy and send them on to their followers, who may in turn forward them on out farther into the Twittersphere, and around the world. Many people also comment as I tweet. Some ask questions. Others make their own statements sparked by mine. This morning, I was invited to help the people in my Twitter stream appreciate and honor the spirit of this Memorial Day by commenting briefly on the concept of service. Because of the reactions to those efforts just hours ago, I'd like to share here the series of short tweets that resulted. I offer here only my own, with a couple of extra additions in the spirit of the originals. If you want to go to Twitter, you can find many of the additional remarks from others that these first musings sparked. My hope is that some of them will incite your own thoughts about the importance of what we remember on this occasion each year. Service. Today, we honor a great form of service to the nation. It may help us to reflect a bit on what service is. The English word, 'service' comes to us ultimately from the Latin 'servus' - the word for slave. It's ironic that the greatest form of human activity is named after the worst form of the human condition. But life is shot through with paradox and irony. We often see the best somehow reflect and redeem the worst. Service is concern and action for others. Service puts others first. And, ironically, it's in acts of service that we most often feel our best and become our best. Service lifts us up as we lift others up. We never freely serve only someone else. True service to another always improves our own souls. Service without love is a thin reflection of true service that comes from the heart. But any form of service can begin to mold our souls and expand us, if we allow it. Business at its best is a form of service. Family life at its best is a form of service. Governmental work, at any level, should be a form of service. Leadership in any context ought to be understood as service. Patriotism, in the end, is about service: To our families, colleagues, neighbors, nation, and through our nation, to the world. Take a moment today to remember the service of others, and especially the forms that have involved the ultimate worldly sacrifice. Whenever you see good service, say something good and give thanks. Whenever you give good service, feel grateful for the chance. One of our greatest freedoms is precisely our freedom to serve. True service always inspires. Service brings people together. An act of genuine service taps into a need we each have to meet a need that others have. It can fulfill us uniquely. In the end, our lives will be evaluated not on how much money, power, fame, or status we attained, but on how well we have served. More on Twitter
 
Tim Ferriss: The Barefoot Alternative: Vibram Five Fingers Shoes Top
Tim Ferriss on Vibram Shoes from Kevin Rose on Vimeo . "The human foot is a work of art and a masterpiece of engineering." --Leonardo Da Vinci "OK, dude, what's up with the goofy shoes?" It was the second day of Pavel's RKC kettlebell course , and I'd seen more than a few people wearing what appeared to be gecko feet. The sheer goofiness compelled me to ask Rudy Tapalla , a CrossFit instructor from Chicago, why on earth he would put these ridiculous gloves on his toes. He seemed to have good mojo -- he was shorter than me but had a vertical jump to match Michael Jordan -- so I figured he might have good reasons. He did, though I didn't realize it at the time. I remained a skeptic but tested them a month later. Now, I have three pairs and find it hard to wear other shoes. Vibram Five Fingers shoes ("VFFs" to the die-hard fans) are worth a closer look. After two weeks of wearing them, the lower-back pain I'd had for more than 10 years disappeared and hasn't returned since I started experimentation about 8 weeks ago. Sound ridiculously implausible? It doesn't once we look at how feet and posture adapt... Nasty Pictures and Maladapted Feet Each human foot has 26 bones, 33 joints, and more than 100 muscles and tendons . It's a surprisingly malleable structure. From the cached version of the most excellent Nature's Magic Bullet , referred to me by Joseph Mascaro : Most people, including doctors, have never seen a natural foot, unaltered by footwear. The following images of habitually bare feet are taken from a study performed almost 100 years ago, published 1905 in the American Journal of Orthopedic Surgery, which examined the feet of native barefoot populations in the Philippines and Central Africa. A line can be drawn that runs through the heel, ball, and big toe of a habitually bare foot. The little toes spread naturally and fan out to provide a wide, stable base for walking or standing. How do our feet compare? The following more common image, also taken from the 1905 study, demonstrates feet that are shaped like the owner's shoes. No such line can be drawn, and the little toes crowd to a point -- a comparatively unstable, narrow base for walking or standing. The Simple Biomechanics of Bad Posture Postural compensation is unavoidable while wearing shoes that elevate the heels. It's necessary to maintain balance. Chronic use of heels can result -- and usually does -- in some degree of kyphosis-lordosis and related pains in the lower back and mid-upper back. Reversing Degeneration -- Embracing the Barefoot Alternative Vibram Five Finger models: KSO (blue), Classic (brown), Sprint (gray) Laboratory studies show that the plantar arch alone returns at least 17 percent of the energy of impact. Running shoes have largely replaced our arches, but they are neither as effective nor as durable. Barefoot runners can clearly do as well as shoed runners, but it takes time to develop the strength in the foot to use our natural arch fully. (Source: The Barefoot Route ) Ethiopian Abebe Bikila ran a world-record 2:15:17 marathon at the 1960 Olympics in Rome. Barefoot. The unadorned human foot is built for running. In fact, some researchers have proposed that bipedalism is an evolved trait related to "persistence hunting" , which is common among predators like wolves. Don't think a human can run an antelope to death? Think again . So how do we reclaim our rightful arch strength, our stability, and undo the damage of years of unnatural posture? Not to mention rediscover the joy of feeling the terrain under our feet? Going barefoot is one option, and one that I enjoy, but there are limits. In the concrete jungle, glass and other dangers make going Bushman a roll of the dice at best. Tetanus or a trip to the ER? I'll pass. The Vibram Five Fingers shoes, to differing degrees, allow you to both walk without a heel (as would wrestling shoes , the Nike Free , Vivo Barefoot shoes, or thin flip-flops) and condition toe-spread, especially the big toe, for lateral stability. I first tested the KSO ("keep stuff out") model, which fits most like an aqua sock and has more padding than other models I tested. I then tested the Classic model, the least complicated of all, and the Sprint model, which is almost a hybrid of the KSO and Classic. I wear a size 9.5 men's shoe in the US and tested EU 42 for the KSO and Classic, and an EU 43 for the Sprint. The results, in brief: My favorite model is, by far, the Classic . It's easiest to get on, even with my worthless nub of a little toe, and it most closely mimics the true barefoot feel. The only downside is that, to get a snug fit and not have the heel come off the foot, you must slide the top slip-tie until it is quite tight. This will feel unusual for the first 24 hours or so. I have used the Classic to go trail running in SF and it is euphoric. I love the KSO, but it is more of a process to get on, and far more conspicuous. At first, it's fun to get a lot of attention with the shoes (gentlemen, you will not believe the "peacocking" effect of these puppies), but giving each person you meet a 5-minute explanation gets old fast. The Classic blends in more than the KSO or any model with straps. Black will help all models fade into the ground, but I prefer colors. The Sprint model was so uncomfortable at first that I shelved them , never intending to test them again. It was the only model, and not due to size differences, that oddly pulled my little toe out, causing minor pain but great discomfort after even 10 minutes. I sent an e-mail to their US CEO, who responded back with a suggestion to "seat the heel", particularly with the Sprint model. This means: Slide your foot back to nestle your heel into the heel pocket. It's important to get your heel deeply seated. Secure the instep strap BEFORE latching the heel straps. This will ensure the foot is positioned properly. I have since been able to wear the Sprint model for 1-2 days at a time, no more than 1 hour of walking at a stretch, but the velcro strap can still bite into the skin without the KSO-like mesh below it. I find it the least comfortable of the three models. But what about flat feet? I had clinically-diagnosed arch problems as a child -- flat feet supreme -- and was prescribed not only custom orthopedic insoles but also exercises for the feet themselves, rolling up towels with the toes, etc.. For those who like random anecdotes, my mom e-mailed me this addition after I published this post: You didn't mention that you leapt at the orthopedist examining your feet, like Spidey to a wall. Sounds like me. I was a little hellion. But we digress... Needless to say, the exercises fell by the wayside, and I took to increasing levels of support through the shoes themselves. VFFs have been nothing short of spectacular for me, despite my history of flat feet. Barefoot runners are often asked "but what do you use for arch support?", to which they respond: "your arches". I've found that my arches, and foot as a whole, feels better with less support rather than more. Cautions and Cons Do not overdo it at first. Chances are that the ligaments and musculature of your feet is underdeveloped. Use them for no more than 1/2 to 1 mile in the first 24 hours, then take a day off. I suggest alternating VFFs with "normal" shoes or flat-soled shoes like Chuck Taylors for the first week. I now use VFFs for no more than three days in a row, as I've had some bruising on the heel with more, and such bruising is slow to heal and massively inconvenient. Asphalt is somewhat forgiving, concrete much less so (The Embarcadero in SF, for example), and marble or stone is brutal (casino floors in Las Vegas, etc.). Beware the sizing. There are complaints online of the VFF website sizing suggestions being inaccurate for some people. Get sized at a retail location that carries VFFs if possible. If you can't, check the VFF return policy on their site or order through Amazon to ensure swaps are simple. Be prepared to wash them. VFFs are machine washable and should be air dried. There are five-toed socks like the Injinji brand , but I have found all of them to be incredibly painful between the toes, no matter which model of shoe is worn. I now only wear VFFs barefoot. One nice side-effect of the toe separation? No more athlete's foot or foot skin issues. In Closing To embrace barefoot living or the barefoot alternative, you will have to change how you walk and run, avoiding the heel strike we've all used since putting thick Nike padding under our soles. No need to obsess, though, as your gait will adapt naturally -- reverting to a natural state, as it were -- as you avoid the discomfort of doing otherwise. The fastest runners have a style quite similar to that of a person running without shoes. They absorb shock by landing lightly on their forefeet rather than on their heels, and their landing leg is beneath the torso, with the leg slightly bent to absorb impact. According to exercise physiologist and Olympic marathoner Pete Pfitzinger, the key to starting out is to go slowly. He advises walking barefoot for a few weeks to toughen up the skin on the bottom of the foot as well as the muscles in the ankles and feet. Once you are ready to run, start with a mere five minutes, increasing slowly and running barefoot every couple of days. From there, build to up to 20 minutes over a month. After a few weeks of this, the feet and ankles will be stronger, thus reducing the risk of injury. Possible places to train include sandy beaches and golf courses. The barefoot running technique has been described as falling forward. It has also been described as gently kissing the ground with the balls of your feet. (Source: The Barefoot Route ) For those interested in developing the most efficient and low-impact running gait, I suggest starting with the Chi Running DVD (skip the book, which gets into too much pseudo-Asian chi mumbo jumbo) and moving to the Pose Method of Running book if interested in more specific details. Experiment with rediscovering your feet and proper biomechanics. If a few weeks can eradicate 10+ years of lower-back pain for me, it might just do something for you. At the very least, you get to wear some goofy shoes that encourage you to wiggle your toes. Other things you might not have seen: Tim Ferriss on TED.com: Smash Fear, Learn Anything Loic Le Meur Blog: Tim Ferriss Explains How To Start A Business Tim Ferriss on Crunchbase - what have I invested in
 
Ashley Rindsberg: Torture as Literature Top
A little while ago the attorney general of the United States accused the nation he serves of being a nation of cowards on questions of race. Mr. Holder was nearly right: America has not yet become, but is becoming, a nation of Donkins -- the "deserving creature that knows all about his rights, but knows nothing of courage, of endurance, and of the unexpressed faith, of the unspoken loyalty that knits together" a group, or, in Donkin's specific case, the crew of the ship Narcissus in Joseph Conrad's novella, The Nigger Of The Narcissus . Donkin, a scrawny, embittered, but not unintelligent deckhand in Conrad´s sailing story, is the type of person who knows what he deserves but has never known and never wanted to know why he deserves. He is an expression of part of the modern personality -- a man who lives only by rights guaranteed, not by rights fought for or rights earned. He is as close to a child as a man can be and even resorts to tantrum, which comes in the form of riot. Traveling recently in Nicaragua, I came across a man on a dirt road. This man spoke softly and when he did it was with a British accent. He had piercing blue eyes and gave a strong impression of all-knowing serenity. We began to talk. The conversation drifted towards politics and war, and quickly the man's serenity didn't so much evaporate as boil into rage. He became nearly violent talking about former US involvement in Central America and he spat near my feet and slammed his foot on the ground to signify America's crushing of, in his view, a latent Guatemalan democracy of the 1970s and 1980s. He challenged me to explain what makes America so great and why it should be considered different from any other country, even North Korea or China. I responded that it was rule of law and the ability of citizens to elect their government, and the recourse they have to alter law or replace government if they so choose. He quickly rejected this and said that the same law which provides freedom permits America to bomb and murder the innocents of other countries. And then in an angry (and a little ridiculous) effigy, he tore up an imaginary piece of paper that to him symbolized the falsity of American law and the governance and values which support it. Despite the British accent the man was, by rights, an American. After twenty years in the US, he holds an American passport, has voted in many American elections, participated in numerous American peace protests, and fiercely asserted to me that he is just as American as me or any other citizen of the US. It later dawned on me that this man is the Donkin of our day. He is individuated and atomized, isolated from the society he harshly criticizes, eager to criticize it harshly, yet happy to make use of the many political amenities it provides. He has not asked himself how he arrived at the rights he enjoys, nor how those rights are maintained. For him, all the structures which work toward and maintain the foundation of American political life -- liberty -- are structures of corruption, cruelty, deviousness, and greed. This much he admitted to me freely. Like Donkin, this man revealed that beneath the calm exterior he was in truth "concentrated and angry, gloating fiercely over a called-up image of infinite torment -- like men gloat over the accursed images of cruelty and revenge, of greed, and of power." And like this man, so much of today´s media, which expresses the political attitudes of chunks of Americans, is now similarly concentrated on these images of cruelty, revenge, power and, most of all, torment. In many cases, the images are real ones -- the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the greed of war profiteers, the corruption of Washington back-scratching. The problem today, however, is the obsessive focus on these anomalies and the generalization of these exceptions to characterize the behavior of America as a nation. The torture issue is the latest and most acute one. It has sent political leaders like Nancy Pelosi into disgraceful tailspins of accusation against American security agencies. It has evoked the desire of rights groups like Amnesty International for a photographic schadenfreude, an obscene exhibition of abuse. And it has evinced populist calls for the trial, imprisonment and, in some cases, even torture of former American leaders. Clearly, the Donkins of America have never had a louder voice. The strength of their chorus now gives them the appearance of plurality. This is fine when things are going well and the sailing is smooth. But when the next national storm confronts America, the automatic impulse to imprecate the nation combined with the widespread sense of ultimate entitlement will make it impossible for the country to act with sufficient strength to confront its troubles. The pendulum has clearly begun to swing the other way: the unity, faith, and support for the nation that America experienced after September 11th is giving way to distrust and fragmentation. Many of these same voices of discontent complained that the Bush administration cultivated a culture of fear -- a paranoia regarding America's purported enemies. But today, it seems we are slowly being driven towards a culture that fears not America´s enemies but America itself. If this is not the beginning of Donkinism on a national scale, I do not know what is. More on Nancy Pelosi
 
Marlene H. Phillips: School Lunches Around the World Top
Have you eaten a school lunch anywhere in the United States? Stood in line with little kids in the cafeteria and tried to find something remotely digestible to put on your tray? Did you squirm at the warmed over pizza, the lifeless salad, the ever present sweets and treats? Join me for a unique little travel tour. Instead of museums and parks we're going to visit schools around the world to see what they feed their children. This peek at how other countries eat comes courtesy of an interesting column called Country Watch on the website School Food Policy Kudos to this website; they've taken up the task of educating American parents about what their kids are eating in our schools, including comparing that to what kids eat around the world. Let's start in Japan: "Japanese schoolchildren eat lunch in the classroom, and students take turns serving the meal and cleaning up afterward. Their teacher eats the same food with them -- typically rice, soup, fish and milk -- and pays close attention to manners. Lunch in Japanese schools is part of the curriculum just like math or science. The midday meal is meant to improve student health, but also to 'foster correct eating habits and good human relations' according to the Ministry of Education. Schools send home a monthly menu that outlines the nutritional value of each meal, lists the ingredients and discusses the benefits of the foods served, many of which are locally grown and produced." Wow. Using lunchtime to teach students about good nutrition by feeding them food that's good for them? What a concept. But that could just be a Japanese thing. Let's see what do they do in France: "Here's what students in one Paris school district ate for lunch last Tuesday: cucumbers with garlic and fine herbs; Basque chicken thigh with herbs, red and green bell peppers and olive oil; couscous; organic yogurt and an apple. For snack, they had organic bread, butter, hot chocolate and fruit. Like the Japanese, the French take school lunch seriously. The mid-day meal is supposed to teach students good manners, good taste and the elements of good nutrition. Recommendations from the French government assert that eating habits are shaped from a young age and that schools should ensure children make good food choices despite media influence and personal tendencies." Basque chicken with herbs? Organic bread? No wonder there are so many fabulous cooks in France; when they grow up eating wonderful, healthy food in their school cafeteria, those children become adults who want to eat well. Imagine that. I can't wait to see what they serve their kids in Italy. Like most travelers, I love eating my way across that country, where the meals are as memorable as the scenery. Sure enough, they don't disappoint: "Like France, Italy views lunch as an integral part of a student's education. School meals are supposed to teach children about local traditions and instill a taste for the regional food. To that end, Italian law allows schools to consider more than just price when making contracts with meal providers. Schools can take into account location, culture and how foods fit into the curriculum. All this makes for lunches that are about as different as it gets from American school meals. On a recent Friday, students in the northern city of Piacenza ate zucchini risotto and mozzarella, tomato and basil salad. Tomorrow they're getting pesto lasagna, a selection of cheeses and a platter of garden vegetables. Meat only shows up on menus only once or twice a week, and it's usually not the main course." Zucchini risotto and mozzarella. Tomato and basil salad. Fresh cheeses and garden vegetables. Oh my. As an American, I find this embarrassing. Their kids get organic fruits and vegetables and learn about good nutrition. Our kids get squishy fries, rubbery pizza and mystery burgers. One thing to note: these wonderful lunches do cost money. According to Deborah Lehman, author of the Country Watch column, that meal in Rome costs a little over $5.50 to produce; children pay according to what their family can afford to a maximum of $2.80 and the government pays the rest. Here in the U.S., the government pays $.24 for an average full-price school lunch, and each free meal cost taxpayers $2.57. For those who would argue that we pay too much already, consider this typical lunch at a typical elementary school Ms. Lehman visited in California: fried chicken and potatoes with sides of barbeque sauce and ketchup for the main dish. Goldfish crackers and an apple for a snack. In Italy their tax dollars are paying for organic fruits, vegetables and fresh cheese. Our tax dollars are paying for a whole lot of grease, salt and additives. I'd say we're getting ripped off. Actually we're getting ripped off twice: once by paying to feed our American kids a junk food diet, then again when those same kids develop health problems that could have been prevented with better understanding of the nutritional value of food. Would you pay more to help kids, our kids, American kids, down a lifelong path of better health? As the old saying goes, you're gonna pay now or you're gonna pay later. And having worked in health care I can say without doubt, that bill is going to be much, much higher if you opt to pay later. This is the United States. We can do better.
 
"Jon & Kate" Sister Urges Viewers NOT To Watch Top
Kate Gosselin's sister-in-law Julie is urging viewers not to watch TLC's Jon & Kate Plus 8 premiere tonight. Over the weekend, she blogged : "Since TLC is airing the old episodes, I thought I shed some light on how the show works. We've discussed this before, but it's buried somewhere in the archived posts. "When the show first started, Kate made a wishlist of things that she wanted, and that became the theme of each episode--the carpet, twin's room, bunk beds, cow, hairplugs, teeth whitening, trips, etc. EVERYTHING that you see them do or buy is completely paid for out of the budget for the show or traded for free advertising.
 
Jodie Evans: Hiding Behind The Skirts Of Women Top
For eight years, many Americans have justified the war in Afghanistan as a moral battle to protect Afghan women. But Afghan women tell another story: more U.S. war will bear them more suffering. Three decades of foreign occupation -- with little sign of ending -- have led to the complete collapse of more than a century of progress in Afghanistan for women's rights, which reached their peak in the 1970s. Occupation destroyed Afghan public services and created incredible poverty, a perfect void of power ready to be filled by the Taliban (encouraged by the U.S. to counter Soviet influence). Many Afghan women say the collapse poses a greater threat to women's lives: 87 percent are illiterate, 1,600 out of every 100,000 mothers die while giving birth or of related complications, and 1 and 3 women experience psychological, emotional or physical abuse. Since the 2001 invasion, despite rhetoric of saving Afghan women, U.S. policies put in place did not do so. Meanwhile, this week, Congress is debating a $84.2 billion war funding bill that designates only 10 percent of the funds for development assistance -- the rest goes to military efforts. If the United States really cared about the women and children of Afghanistan, it would fund real needs -- health care, education, food security -- and minimize spending on weapons systems and combat troops. Gen. Petraeus himself outlined a counter-insurgency doctrine of 80 percent non-military and 20 percent military, and told the Associated Press earlier this year that "you don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency." But in the "save the women" argument, many say more troops will protect Afghan women from the Taliban. Not so -- increased troop presence will raise the risk as it further incites the Taliban and al-Qaeda and inspires more of their propaganda; as they strengthen, they further destabilize the country, spark many more to live in constant fear or to join the insurgency. Troops cannot defeat an ideology: a RAND Corporation study last year found that only seven percent of terrorist organizations gave up their violent activities as a result of military defeat. In addition, more troops has led to more civilian deaths through raids, drone attacks and general violence. A 2009 United Nations report found more than 2,100 civilians were killed in Afghanistan last year, a 40 percent rise from 2007; about 700 were killed by international forces. Hundreds of Afghans, in student, women's and human rights' groups, have protested these conditions and called for their end (these protests were largely unreported, however). Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned that "we cannot succeed ... in Afghanistan by killing Afghan civilians." The United States must quit hiding behind the skirts of Afghan women and come forward in support of real and sustained peace. Drone attacks, midnight home raids, and increased U.S. military presence only serves to alienate Afghans and fuel support for the Taliban's armed resistance. Afghan women are calling on the Obama administration and Congress for a surge in doctors, teachers, and economic development for food security, job training and infrastructure. If only they would listen. Jodie Evans is the co-founder of the grassroots women's peace and justice group CODEPINK . CODEPINK is launching a new multimedia campaign, "Women Under War Speak Out," a series of video, audio and written interviews with leading international women activists and policymakers to highlight the affects of war on women, and the promote the voices of women from countries under occupations. More on Afghanistan
 
Iran Arrests 104 "Devil Worshippers": Report Top
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian security forces have arrested 104 "devil worshippers" and seized drugs and alcohol during a party in a southern city, a semi-official news agency reported Monday.
 
Norm Stamper: "That's What Real Policemen Do; They Stand Up for Each Other" Top
Thus spake, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer , a city cop who joined other police officers and DEA agents in a packed federal courtroom last week. All those badges flashed in support of Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Lee Lucas who is facing an 18-count indictment. The 19-year veteran stands accused of perjury, making false statements in internal reports, obstruction of justice, and civil rights violations. (The day after the federal agent was fired veteran Richland County Sheriff's Deputy Charles Metcalf copped in U.S. District Court to a civil rights violation stemming from his work with Lucas.) The alleged facts (Lucas has pleaded not guilty) are all too familiar: a narcotics agent recruits an informant but fails to monitor the man's activities or verify his statements. When the narc learns of his snitch's make-believe cases, he conceals evidence, makes false statements to his superiors, lies on the stand, and sends guiltless people to prison. Can you say "Tulia, Texas"? Of all the shameful deeds alleged, let's focus on one pivotal in this and so many other police scandals, namely lying. Not the "Why, yes those cargo pants are flattering" kind of lie but the kind that results in innocent people living life behind bars. Early in my career I worked for a police chief who was fond of saying, "The thing I love about cops? They know the difference between right and wrong. They tell the truth." I worked with such police officers; those who mixed competence with their honesty were justly treasured by their communities. But I also fired or had a hand in firing many cops whose loyalty was to something other than truth. At bottom, there are two explanations for cops who lie. The first is that the institution hires liars. We could waste a lot of time on this one. Or we could, as I'm happy to do, concede the point: Despite advances in the hiring process--smarter psychological testing, more rigorous background investigations--a certain percentage of characterologically untruthful candidates do winnow their way through the screening protocols. This happens most often when law enforcement agencies are on a hiring binge. In a push to get cops out on the street, they sacrifice quality for speed, compromise standards, and hire people who should never don a police uniform. The lesson here is constant diligence, and a willingness to let a position to go vacant rather than fill it with a prevaricator (or worse). But the second and far more useful explanation is systemic. Cops lie for reasons embedded in the history, structure, and culture of the institution itself. A critical part of that system is the laws police officers are called upon to enforce, none more relevant to this discussion than the nation's drug statutes. Since the 1930s but with ever-growing vigor from 1971 to this moment, America's police officers have been conditioned to believe that anyone who's ever taken illicit drugs, contemplated same, or trafficked in them is The Enemy. The constitution aside, why would cops fret over legal niceties or democratic rules of engagement when working behind enemy lines? The very nature of an undercover narcotics assignment dictates duplicity. But too many drug cops wind up lying to their bosses. They fudge or manufacture facts in their official reports. They perjure themselves on the stand. (Too many, for that matter, wind up planting, stealing, using, and/or selling drugs.) The facile response is to scold/fire/prosecute these wayward individuals and (rarely) their too-trusting--or complicit--bosses, and let it go at that. Nothing wrong with holding people accountable, nothing right about not doing so. It's a must. But it begs the tougher question. When will we learn that drug prohibition is a huge part of the problem of police corruption? There is a long list of justifications for ending not merely the rhetoric but the reality of America's holy war on its drug consumers. But one of those reasons is that it would eliminate the all-too-common cheating, stealing, and lying that goes on in the name of drug enforcement. Ending drug prohibition will not halt the spectacle of cops lining up to defend the indefensible. But it will make for a healthier, safer society, and it will reduce the temptation for a law enforcer to lie his or her way to drug warrior fame.
 
Esther J. Cepeda: Latinos Demand Supreme Court Nominee - Almost To Their Own Detriment Top
Oh God, I can't wait until Obama picks already, I'm tired of the endless speculation and even more tired of the whole "Hispanics are lobbying for a Latino justice" story line. Can we give that a rest? Do Hispanics really feel that insecure about their political clout that they want a Latino judge so badly they can taste it? Really, it's not that big a deal. My pal John and I were talking about it last Wednesday when he proclaimed, "Are you kidding me? It's going to be a white person, that'll be on the front page of your New York Times , 'Old, White Man Appointed', if Obama's smart. He needs to pick an extremely liberal white man if he wants that person to be accepted, otherwise that Judge will spend the rest of their tenure being the person who was picked because they were black, Hispanic, or a woman." I'd certainly hate that. Really, it wouldn't do Latinos any favor for either California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno or U.S. Appeals Court judge Sonia Sotomayor to get the nod if there is the appearance that they got it because of their ethnicity, rather than their scholarship and level-headedness. So, Latino groups, stop making it look that way. The usual Hispanic empowerment groups have been banging the "First Hispanic Supreme Court Justice" drum for weeks, but I see little upside in some of the quasi-damning statements I've heard on the subject. Never mind the emails I get and the comments I see on Twitter and Facebook, here's a quote from current Hispanic National Bar Association president Ramona Romero regarding the "First Hispanic Supreme Court Judge" barrier not being yet broken: "It was a lack of will, a lack of commitment. It was not because of the absence of qualified candidates." This time, she says, "there is an enormous sense of urgency" behind making sure the opportunity is not lost during a Barack Obama presidency. On Nov. 14, 2008, Romero wrote a letter to Obama urging him to "make history yet again" by nominating a Hispanic justice, thereby erasing the "unfortunate message" conveyed by a Supreme Court with no Hispanic members. "The presence of a Latino or Latina at the conference table could add a needed 'special voice' to the Supreme Court's deliberations and decisions -- a voice that can speak about the law as it affects U.S. Hispanics with the authority that only firsthand knowledge can provide." A "special voice"? Eeewww! What does that even mean? Those are exactly the types of statements that make white people, frankly, scared that a Latino on the Supreme Court will bring a Hispanic agenda to bear on cases, rather than rule from a solid scholarship and ideology. I'm not saying that is true in anyway but... I'm telling you "special voice" sounds creepy, even to me. Obama, however, has struck the right tone for me. "You have to not only be the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you," Obama said today in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television, according to the CNN story. "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living." He wants empathy and the ability to see life from the position of the powerless. Thankfully, Obama has, at least publicly, said he's interested in the best nominee regardless of what adjectives can be placed before their name. "[I don't] feel weighted down by having to choose ... based on demographics," Obama said Saturday. Well, thank goodness for that. According to a recent CNN story, "Hispanic groups quietly press for supreme court pick," leading Hispanic groups have been careful not to create the perception they're demanding a Latino be nominated, nor that they are seeking direct political payback for their election support. Yeah... well, that's not how I'm seeing it. From mass chain emails, to Latino authored op-eds in Southwest newspapers, to morning Spanish-language shock jocks, some people are not simply rooting for a Hispanic nominee, but rather, ready to blow their stack if they don't get one. For a voting bloc anxious to make real progress on immigration law reform, this is not the best battle to choose. Not this round anyway. To these people I say: take a deep breath, trust the guy you take so much credit for getting elected in the first place, and may the best man or woman Supreme Court Justice candidate win. Esther J. Cepeda is an opinion journalist who writes about Hispanic/Latinos issues and much, much more on www.600words.com More on Supreme Court
 
Ahmed Rehab: Islam Not to Blame for Bronx Terror Plot Top
Say what you will about the recently exposed Bronx Terror Plot , but please, do not insult our intelligence (and your own) by weaving fantasy scenarios of how Islam is somehow to blame for criminalizing the terror suspects who were already career criminals long before their conversions -- and who displayed only a rudimentary understanding of Islam thereafter. At first glance, media headlines gave the impression of a contiguous homegrown "Islamic" terrorist threat, a local outgrowth of the ominous global " Jihadi " network, secretly thriving in our midst but foiled by the FBI at the last minute. It had Islam written all over it, once again implicating American Muslims and spiking fears and suspicion that ours is a problem community, part of a foreign civilization ever at odds with the West, that wants to destroy the United States from within. Many reports put the blame on Prison Islamic conversions despite the fact that most inmates who properly convert to Islam -- including African-Americans -- change for the better and emerge to lead crime-free lives. The usual excitable figures like NY Rep Peter King jumped on the case, warning that it "demonstrates the real threat from homegrown terrorists." Career Islamophobes like the people at the shadowy organization, the Clarion Fund (producers of the controversial hate films, Obsession , and The Third Jihad ) were quick to pounce as well, declaring that the Bronx case was part of a " sophisticated " homegrown Jihad (their word, not mine). But as more facts have begun to emerge, it turns out that the suspects, one of whom is a crack addict and the other with a history of mental illness, once again , are troubled oddballs operating well outside the mainstream of the American Muslim community and its institutions, with no ties and no support from Mosques, Imams, community leaders, members at large, or even real terrorist threats like Al-Qaeda. Once again , however, it turns out that the radicalization "tipping factor", if you will, was none other than a paid government agent-provocateur . The Facts: 1. The suspects are petty career criminals with lengthy criminal records (one of them was arrested 27 times ); most of their crimes were committed before they converted to Islam in jail. They had a history of violence, drugs, and other criminal activity and are said to be troubled men by family, friends, and neighbors. 2. The suspects appear to be gullible and naive -- hardly the breed of ruthless masterminds that the global terrorist networks like Al Qaeda tend to recruit and deploy. The New York Post called them "a bunch of terror dummies" while the AP describes them as "down-and-out ex-convicts living on the margins in a faded industrial city." Relatives describe them as "struggling" men. The uncle of one of the men, Onta Williams, describes his nephew as "weak and easy to manipulate." The sister of another one of the men, James Cromitie, called him "the stupidest man on the planet." The lawyer of a third man, Laguerre Payen, described his client as "intellectually challenged" stating that he had "a very low borderline IQ." Indeed, Payen, who was on medication for schizophrenia, was deemed too insane to be deported after a previous assault conviction. 3. The suspects appear to have a weak -- even perverse -- understanding of Islam. Salahuddin Muhammad, the Imam of the mosque that one of the men visited, publicly challenged him on his incorrect understanding of Islam stating that the man had "a fundamental lack of knowledge of Islam." The Imam stressed that the man struck him as strange but not violent and that none of the men were regular attendees. Neighbors said that the men routinely barbecued and boozed it up even though devout Muslims shun alcohol and pork. The FBI admits that the men acted alone with no support or knowledge from the mosque or the local Muslim community. 4. American Muslim groups, led by CAIR , strongly condemned the plot against area Synagogues and an Air Force base. Many Muslim activists -- including myself on the Alan Colmes radio show -- came out clearly delineating Islam's condemnation of terrorism and reaffirming Islam's respect for the sanctity of human life. Radicalized by a Government Agent? But members of the local Mosque, Masjid al-Ikhlas, said the FBI informant, identified by sources as Shahed Hussain, 52, had long been trying to recruit worshippers there for jihad. "Everyone knew to stay away from him. We even tried to tell James [Cromitie, one of the suspects] to stay away from him, but he didn't listen," said Abdul Wali, 29, mosque attendee, reports the New York Post . "It's easy to influence someone with the dollar," said Imam Muhammed, a longtime member of the mosque. "Especially these guys coming out of prison." Media reports reveal that the informant is a man who has had his own troubles with the law and had been coaxed into working as an informant in order to avoid deportation. He would drive up in his expensive car to the Mosque and offer community members free dinners, cash, or jobs to try to lure them into his fictional Pakistani terrorist connections. Mosque members seemed to suspect that he was a possible agent-provocateur and were creeped out by his aberrant ways and views. But why was he not reported? Imam Muhammad said he wondered whether he should have done anything differently once he had suspicions about the informant who went by "Maqsood." "How do you go to the government about the government?" he asked . The Big Question A lot has been said about the Bronx terror case since it broke in the media. But an important question that has yet to be publicly debated by all those genuinely concerned about the national security of this nation is this: how should street criminals and psychologically challenged oddballs who are identified by the government as being susceptible to terror fantasies -- but have no connection to global terrorist networks -- be handled by our government? Should they be tipped over the edge by government agent-provocateurs so as to be caught red-handed, or should they be subjected to a correctional procedure? If it is the latter, whose responsibility would it be to correct those identified as potential threats? Should it be the community's responsibility, government's, society's? It would admittedly not be the role of law enforcement to do so, but is there merit for the creation of a new initiative -- perhaps involving local communities -- to intercept and counter radicalization before it becomes actionable? The Times Online (UK) reports in an article headlined, "FBI 'lured dimwits' into terror plot," that: The other question that US security experts were debating was how much had been achieved by assigning more than 100 agents to a year-long investigation of three petty criminals and a mentally ill Haitian immigrant, none of whom had any connection with any known terrorist group. "They were all unsophisticated dimwits," said [defense attorney, Terrance] Kindlon. In the final analysis, I cannot absolve the Bronx four from personal responsibility, despite the legitimate concerns out there regarding possible entrapment. At the end of the day, at least one of them harbored virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American views, and their actions show demonstrable willingness to engage in bias-motivated violent acts. But this debate is not so much about the Bronx four, their fates are for the courts to decide. It is, in the end, about understanding the nature of the real terrorist threat against us and raising responsible objections against self-deluding initiatives that seem to seek terror-case quotas by entrapping "intellectually challenged " outcasts and then deceptively marketing their isolated cases as evidence of an imminent and contiguous global threat with homegrown components. More on Terrorism
 
Dan Dorfman: Doubting Dows Top
It was the most hotly debated question at the unusually subdued money-saving Memorial Day weekend cocktail parties in the Hamptons where burgers, hot dogs and chicken frequently replaced the traditional steak and lobster, I was told. The question: Is the stock market's breathtaking 30% surge of the past two months on rapidly accelerating trading volume a sign that the worst of the economic skid is just about over and that the second half will produce the beginnings of a much peppier economy? The over-riding view seemed to be yes -- and this sunny scenario, so goes the bullish argument, will push stock prices even higher. Sounds good, but a couple of highly regarded investment newsletters -- the Dow Theory Forecast of Hammond, Ind., and the Dow Theory Letters of La Jolla, Ca. -- think otherwise. Both newsletters closely track the various Dow averages and insist that when the Dow Industrials and the Dow Transports each struck new lows on March 9, that joint negative showing clearly confirmed that the primary trend of the market had turned down. On that day, the Dow wrapped up the trading session at a closing low of 6,547. Obviously, a lot of investors think the letters are all wet, as evident by a gung-ho buying spree, which sent the Dow rocketing above 8,500, a rise that both letters belittled as nothing more than a not-so-unusual 11-week rally in what they see as an ongoing bear market. If indeed they're right, there's a clear risk the Dow could reverse course, if it already hasn't, and break below its March 9 low. Such a dive -- equivalent to about a 20% drop from current levels -- certainly wouldn't shock former Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg, who recently said he thought the Dow could retreat to its March low as consumer spending wanes. "Everyone is trying to play catch-up after last year's horror story (a 40% market decline), but they're playing with fire," says analyst Charles Carlson of the Dow Theory Forecasts. "There's a lot of danger out there; we're still dealing with a pretty soft economy, which means plenty of earnings shortfalls, and therefore it behooves investors to protect themselves by having at least 30% of their portfolios in cash." Carlson views the financial stocks, a number of which have risen 400% to 500% from their recent lows, as especially vulnerable. In light of its concerns, the latest issue of DTF features a special report on what it calls "the bad and ugly" -- a dozen stocks it monitors and which it feels should be shunned despite their sharp declines. In a number of cases, the letter's ugliest stocks reflect such characteristics as weak fundamentals, shabby growth, eroding earnings and genuinely poor operating momentum. The dirty dozen are General Motors, Fifth Third Bancorp., Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, American International Group, Alcoa, Motorola, Citigroup, Vornado Realty, Ford Motor, Dow Chemical, Boston Scientific and Southwest Airlines. At the same time, Carlson cited five stocks that he thought were attractive based on strong financials, solid earnings and good operating momentum. They are Dolby Laboratories, IBM, Direct TV, Precision Castparts and Johnson & Johnson. Richard Russell, editor of the Dow Theory Letters , contends investors are being brainwashed by the idea that the worst has been seen and past. After assessing the economic scene, Russell is convinced the economy is not fated to turn upwards towards the end of 2009. Nor, he believes, will it turn up in 2010. The surprise of this bear market, he says, will be its length and its depth and the amount of damage it will do. Right now, he argues, we're in the second stage of a bear market that will be followed by the final down leg. As for the recent rally, Russell says that with the averages backing off their May highs, it's clear the market is having second thoughts about the recent rebound. With bonds and the dollar going down and gold going up, observes Russell, "it all fits together: more trouble ahead for the financial markets." As our Dow bear sees it, we're entering the "world of unintended consequences," a deadly battle between deflation and over-creation of fiat money, meaning future inflation or even hyper inflation. As such, he reiterates his enthusiasm for gold, which he says should also be a beneficiary of increasing doubts about the viability of the dollar. In fact, he recently added a gold exchange-traded fund to his portfolio, which trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol GDX. Normally, Russell says he would only add gold investments on a correction, but the precious metal seems to be on a roll. Gold currently trades at around $967.50 an ounce, but given the current financial turmoil, he maintains that "a gold price under $1,000 is cheap." To email Dan Dorfman, click here . More on The Recession
 

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)