Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Melissa Biggs Bradley: Why Anya Hindmarch and I Are High on the High Line Top
"I wanted to get involved with the High Line, because I thoroughly approve of a 'park in the sky,' especially one that regenerates an existing structure," says British fashion designer Anya Hindmarch about the inspiration behind her High Line tote, designed to raise money and awareness for the elevated park that's scheduled to open in New York City this June. The brilliant swath of urban renewal that her chic canvas creation celebrates--and supports--is one of the city's few bright spots in this time of grim headlines. I was lucky to get a preview when a small group of Indagare members recently toured the High Line. The elevated railway in the Meatpacking district that is being transformed into the city's newest public park will open its first phase (from Gansevoort to 20th Street) next month. We donned construction hats and signed liability waivers before ascending to the former tracks, which have been preserved in some spots and replaced by lush landscaping in others. As Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker so eloquently put it, "The High Line does not offer a God's-eye-view of the city, exactly, but something rarer, the view of a lesser angel: of a Cupid in a renaissance painting." It's a walking "park in the sky", and while we wended our way alongside the Standard hotel and through an adjacent building and over 14th Street, we were struck by the shifting views: into apartments, over busy streets, across to the Hudson River. "That's where Diane von Furstenburg does yoga," someone pointed to a skylight. The High Line runs 30 feet above the street but not in a straight direction, so you catch glimpses of new sight lines. (At some points, advertising billboards are distractingly dominant.) Among the less obvious treasures we spied: a woman's prison, a seminary and a special view to Lady Liberty. One broad stretch faces the area that has been dubbed the Starchitect District, where Jean Nouvel's tower meets Frank Gehry's IAC masterpiece. Some of the new buildings were applauded and others derided by our opinionated group. However, there was universal agreement on the High Line, from the vision to the execution (the chaise longues facing the Hudson river are on wheels like those of the trains that ran along here): we were all fans, who left feeling that New York has a new reason to celebrate--and finally, some good news. And if you buy one of Hindmarch's totes, which show a historic image of a freight train on the 75-year old steel structure, you'll be supporting Friends of the High Line, the community group working to maintain the park. Read more about the High Line and see photos of the soon-to-be-opened park Read where to find Anya Hindmarch's High Line tote
 
Robert L. Borosage: Betting on Failure: The Right's Story Top
Congressional Republicans are marginally more popular and significantly less contagious than the swine flu. Even conservatives are keeping their distance. House leader John Boehner's perpetual tan has become a presidential punch line. Senate leader Mitch Dr. No McConnell is known only for obstruction. Ideologues like Rush rush to fill the leadership vacuum, seeking to purge the party of any lingering moderates. It's gotten so bad that neo-con Bill Kristol suggests that leading presidential candidates for 2012 might well be the oft disgraced Newt Gingrich and..gulp.. Darth Cheney himself. Cheney and Gingrich are worth paying attention to - not as presidential contenders but as very sophisticated conservative political combatants. Both are brass knuckled politicians, steeped in the Lee Atwater school of anything goes wedge politics. And both are laying down clear markers for the debate to come. Cheney's torture campaign managed to spook querulous Democrats about Guantanamo and force Obama into the lists to respond to him. Cheney's speeches were less analysis than rant, but they told a clear story: America is at war. Evil enemies lurk in dark corners. After 911, the Bush administration took the steps necessary - some of them harsh, some unspeakable, but all necessary - to keep us safe. Now Obama is dismantling vital elements in that protection, emboldening our enemies, confusing our friends, and weakening our defenses. In Cheney's words , "The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism... But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed...There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance." Cheney is betting on failure. He has set Obama up to take the rap if there is another terrorist strike in America, or if things go badly in Iraq or Afghanistan. He's essentially advising Republicans to forget the moderating steps of the Bush second term, and to draw a bright line in assailing any retreat, any compromise, any turn to legal or constitutional niceties. Gingrich pursues the same strategy on the economy, only he's willing to throw Bush under the bus. In his speech before the Conservative Political Action Convention, he lacerated Obama for ushering in the "European socialist" takeover of America's economy. At same time, he tied Obama to Bush in what he calls "a Bush-Obama big spending program that was bipartisan in its nature. Last year the Bush Obama plan had a 180 billion stimulus package in the spring which failed. It came back with a 345 billion housing package in the summer which failed. It then had a 700 billion Wall Street bailout in October which failed. It had a 4 trillion dollar Federal Reserve guaranty which failed. The Bush-Obama plan was continued. We didn't get real change. ..We got big spending under Bush, now we have big spending under Obama, and so we have two new failures." Gingrich recycles the old standards of the Reagan conservative mantra to describe the choice facing the country: "They have shared openly and honestly with us their vision of higher taxes, bigger government, more bureaucracy, greater corruption, more political power by people unworthy of doing it, and a policy which will kill jobs, cripple the economy, trap children in schools that are disasters and weaken America's future. They have every right to have that vision and we have every right to go to the polls and defeat it. We should have as a goal 435 campaigns in this country of people dedicated to representative government, to lower taxes, to less power in Washington and to taking back from the bureaucracy the power it can't possibly use over the American economy." In Gingrich's speeches, there is very little on how we got into the mess we are in. Rather the focus is on the failure to get the economy going and the choice going forward. Again, Gringrich is betting on failure. If, as is likely, unemployment keeps rising over the next year, foreclosures continue, any recovery is halting at best, Gingrich's argument is designed to blame Obama rather than the mess that conservatives left him. Democrats must engage on this level of analysis. That is why the mantra of not "litigating the past" is foolish. Democrats have to tell clearly the story of how we got into the hole we are in -- both abroad and at home. Obama is the best at this. His response to Cheney was compelling, but circumscribed: Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens -- fell silent. ...I categorically reject the assertion that these [waterboarding and other tortures] are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts -- they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all. On the economy, Obama has evoked the language of biblical parable in contrasting the economy built on sand with that build on rock. The economy built on sand, begun under Reagan, with top end tax cuts, deregulation, the cult of the CEO, the myth that markets would police themselves that led to a frenzy of speculation, greed, corruption and the placing of bigger and bigger bets with more and more borrowed money until that economy collapsed on its own excess. "We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity - a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad. " It's easy to scoff at Gingrich and mock Cheney. Voters weren't buying the conservative mantra when McCain and Joe the Plumber trotted it out in the campaign. But don't misunderestimate the right. There is no question that conservatives will learn the narratives put out by Cheney and Gingrich. The conservative movement excels at teaching their choir the lines of the hymnal. Over time, they will work hard to make Obama own the economic mess they left behind, and decry signs of weakness abroad. It is vital that the real story be told - and not just by the president, but by neighbors to neighbors, citizen to citizen. The story on how conservative policies and follies led us into the hole we are in - and now are obstructing the efforts to get us out.
 
Julie Menin: Don't Resign Nancy Top
Republicans are keeping up their attacks on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Governor Huckabee forming a troika in calling for Pelosi's resignation because of her statements regarding enhanced interrogation methods and the CIA. These calls for her resignation truly stretch the bounds of credulity. Let's look at the facts. According to the CIA charts that were recently released, the CIA conducted 40 Congressional briefings that discussed enhanced interrogation methods. The records indicate that Speaker Pelosi was present at only one of those briefings. The CIA notes make no mention of whether water boarding was discussed. That one briefing took place on September 4, 2002 and according to Pelosi, the CIA told her that they would use enhanced interrogation techniques but that the Department of Justice had concluded that all the techniques were legal. Pelosi also stated that if further methods were to be used, the CIA indicated it would come back to brief Congress about this. She maintains that at no time did the CIA tell her that they were utilizing water boarding. In 2003, one of Pelosi's aides attended a CIA briefing with Pelosi's successor on the House Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Jane Harman. At that meeting, waterboarding was apparently discussed. After the meeting, Harman wrote to the CIA expressing concern about the techniques being utilized and Speaker Pelosi said she told an aide to let Harman know that she concurred with the letter. Now for former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who himself was the subject of 83 ethics allegations when he was Speaker and paid $300,000 for the cost of the investigation into one of those charges, to call for Pelosi's resignation is ironic at best. The very conduct in question--the illegal use of waterboarding--was promulgated by the Bush Administration, not Pelosi. The illegal activity should be the subject at the heart of the issue, not criticisms as to why Pelosi didn't intuit from what appears to be a vague briefing, to whistleblow about the use of the techniques. Moreover, Gingrich claims that Pelosi should resign because she said the CIA lied to her and somehow that makes the country less safe. Questioning the veracity of CIA briefings and documents is actually very commonplace and has been done by the very same critics who are now attacking Pelosi. In fact, House Intelligence committee member, Republican Peter Hoekstra, said last year, on the subject of a different issue involving the CIA, "This issue goes to the heart of the American people's ability to trust the CIA. Americans deserve to know that agencies given the power to operate on their behalf aren't abusing that power or their trust." And Speaker Gingrich himself has targeted the CIA when in 2007 he described a National Intelligence Estimate document on Iran as "fundamentally misleading" and "a deliberate attempt to undermine the policies of President Bush by members of his own government." Since when shouldn't Congress question the veracity of actions and statements made by an agency. Indeed, the very purpose of the Church committee, which in the 1970's was set up to investigate illegal activities by US intelligence agencies in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate, was to have more Congressional oversight over our intelligence agencies. Ultimately, the partisan attacks leveled by Gingrich et al are just that-partisan attacks that provide a harbinger of what is to come in 2012 when Gingrich and Hucakbee run for President as top contenders. Let's hope the country can focus in the interim on what's important-keeping America safe and adhering to the principles upon which this country was founded. More on Harsh Interrogations
 
Thomas de Zengotita: Rope-A-Dope: Pelosi Falls Through The Trap Door On The Stage of Public Attention -- And Up Pops Sotomayor Top
How smart is this move? How dumb are the true believers on the Republican Right? We shall see. After months of trying to gain traction on something, anything, against the Obama administration, they finally had something going. The closing of Guantanamo problem and, even more effective, the possibility that Pelosi knew a little more, and a little sooner, about water boarding than we would like to believe. That has been hurting, don't kid yourself. Cheney's approval ratings are up from about 21% to about 37%. Panicky Democrats, with local polls near 80% against, have been trotting out NIMBY arguments opposed to stashing a couple of dozen terrorists in Supermax prisons anywhere near their constituents. But now? How perfect is Sonia Sotomayor? She may be a red flag inches from a crazy bull's eyes. Not just because of the couple of things they have on her--the tape where she says stuff about judges making policy and the slightly hairy New Haven firefighter decision. No, not just that. Good old Sonia has a look and style that crypto-racist/sexist elitists hate with a visceral immediacy they may not be able to control. If that happens, they will find themselves attacking an Hispanic woman--probably the dumbest political thing they could do in this political environment. Why would they do that? At the deep pre-policy level, where venom is brewed, this is why: no effort by Sonia to look stereotypically "attractive." No gesture in clothing or hair style or manner to signal anything approaching the submission to expectations that is the identifying calling card of women hired by Fox and paraded in right wing political and religious venues. Think Sarah Palin, just for one example. No. Good old Sonia doesn't do half-conscious cultural submission. She just stands up there in all her slightly dumpy glory and says what she thinks. God bless her, the perfect lightning rod. And maybe a good judge as well. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Lakers Coach Jackson Fined For Slamming Referees Top
NEW YORK — The NBA has fined Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson $25,000 for his public criticisms of the referees following Game 4 of the Western Conference finals. The Lakers organization was also fined $25,000 Tuesday, the day after the team's 120-101 loss in Denver that evened the series. Jackson was angry with the free throw discrepancy _ Denver's 49 attempts were 14 more than the Lakers _ and accused the Nuggets' Dahntay Jones of a dirty play for tripping Kobe Bryant. Jackson was also upset by a flurry of fouls called against Luke Walton. Game 5 is Wednesday in Los Angeles.
 
Art Brodsky: Sony Prexy's HuffPost Plea Is a Floppola Top
It wouldn't have been surprising if there was a semi-panicked conversation in the corporate suites of Sony. Michael Lynton, the head of Sony studios, had just been quoted as saying "I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet." Some marketing gal or PR guy in the Sony eco-sphere probably realized, hey, our audience lives on the Web. How would it look for our top exec to go around trashing the Net? So, they decided to put out a make-up call here on the pages (well, screens, actually) of Huffington Post in which Lynton would backtrack and say he really does get technology, because, look, he's publishing online. It's just that we need "guidelines" to help the poor, stricken entertainment industry from those who want everything to be free or who will steal material if not given it. What nonsense. No one condones stealing. Having huge factories cranking out copies of DVDs. That's stealing. Distributing unauthorized copies of a movie online to thousands of your best friends. That's stealing, and Hollywood has made certain the penalties for this activity are severe. On the other hand, there are circumstances in which what the movie industry considers stealing and what ordinary people might consider stealing are two different things. A rational person might say that if he or she bought a DVD, then that person has a right to make a back-up copy. This is a debate that's been going on for 20 years or more. But the movie business has a different view of the situation. They are in court suing Real Networks over the RealDVD software that allows users to copy a DVD to their computers. The lawyers for the movie industry argued that making even one copy for back-up purposes was illegal. Putting innovative companies and products out of existence in the name of protecting themselves is nothing new for Hollywood. Companies that allowed users to access music they had purchased, or that made software for personal use, or that loaded DVDs customers wanted onto an iPod the customer had purchased - all shut down by Hollywood. Hollywood sets copyright policy for the country, through its lobbyists patrolling Capitol Hill, through industry lawyers working in the government and through friendly lawmakers. That's how the concept of copyright, once naively thought by the founders to be for a "limited" time, now extends for decades beyond the original intent. It's why the penalties for raising a cellphone at an inopportune moment in a movie theatre rival what a street criminal might get. All of these came at Hollywood's behest when the industry cries, "wolf." Or, in this case, "Wolverine." Lynton's plea for "guidelines" for the Internet starts with the fatal flaw. It was a theft of a print of the movie from the film lab that started the movie to its course around the world. Who posted it first? Nobody knows. Like the analogy to gossip in the movie/play, "Doubt," it's like slashing a pillow on the roof and watching the feathers fly all over. But we do know where the fault lies - with the security in the lab that let the wolverine out of the bag. The theft was devastating for Fox. The film, roundly panned by critics, has so far made a paltry $310 million, on a budget of $150 million. Oh, the agony (not forgetting the ecstasy). That result is more the norm than the exception. For the first two months of this year, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, January and February set box office records . January receipts were $1 billion; February, $769 million. This trend has been going on for a while, as outside observers ask how can Hollywood continue to have record years, yet still complain that piracy is robbing them of incentives to "creativity," as Lynton does. (Hint: Cooking the "piracy" numbers helps.) For the past couple of years, Hollywood has set its sights on the Internet, to try to control and shape it to fit Hollywood's needs. That's why it was more than a bit hypocritical for Lynton to say he couldn't agree with those who want the Internet to be "unfettered and unregulated." Of course not. Lynton and his colleagues want an Internet over which they have control. Lynton didn't mention which "guidelines" he would like. But based on past industry actions, here are a couple he wouldn't mind. First, the industry wants people thrown off of the Net based on accusations of copyright infringement. That's right, no one actually has to be found guilty by a court; a mere accusation is enough. It's that kind of thinking that tanked the European Parliament's approval of a new, generally reform-minded, telecom package. The EP actually voted for an amendment, defying the French, which required a judicial order before taking away Internet access. Second, the industry wants to look at every bit of information everyone sends to check for copyrighted material. Even now, the industry is waging a campaign in Washington to allow for Internet monitoring of networks built with stimulus grants. They failed to get that condition onto the legislation establishing the stimulus program. But the one thing to remember is that Lynton's colleagues never, ever, give up. Even if such a requirement is enacted, legal use of copyrighted material online will be caught up with the illegal. There is legal use of copyrighted material without permission, like streaming your TV from one place to another over a Slingbox, or for fair use, like a movie review. If Lynton really wants some useful guidelines, then he and the industry could get behind the concept that those who carry Internet traffic can't play favorites based on the data's source, type or destination. That's called Net Neutrality, but the Hollywood hates that. Some of the biggest names in Hollywood are cooperating with a start-up, Zillion TV, to establish a preferred service for their product - which could well violate FCC Internet Policy rules and violate non-discrimination principles. Hollywood might want to speak out against the anti-competitive bandwidth caps some Internet Service Providers want to impose. They won't. Rather than establishing "guardrails," Lynton and Hollywood would have run the Internet off the rails. And that result is far worse than anything that would befall his industry.
 
Dan Solin: SEC overhaul -- Dump Mary Schapiro Top
The Obama administration is missing the forest for the trees as it focuses on regulatory overhaul of the SEC. While giving the Federal Reserve the power to supervise large financial firms is a step in the right direction, the real problem is Mary Schapiro, the newly appointed Chairman of the SEC. Ms. Schapiro has spent her career protecting brokerage firms from investors, and thwarting efforts to reform a thoroughly corrupt securities industry. Ms. Schapiro joined the NASD in 1996 as President of NASD Regulation. She was named its Chairman and CEO in 2006, and remained in that position until her appointment to her present position. In 2007, she led the effort to consolidate the NASD and the NYSE into FINRA. FINRA, like its predecessors, purports to "self regulate" brokerage firms. During her tenure as the NASD, Ms. Schapiro was a strong advocate of the industry's mandatory arbitration system which routinely re-victimizes investors by denying them redress for broker misconduct. "Self-regulation" overseen by Ms. Schapiro resulted in the greatest abuses by brokerage firms in history, bringing the world's economies to the brink of total collapse. Ms. Schapiro's shaky start at the SEC confirms the view that she will do nothing to reign in the insatiable greed of brokers, who continue to plunder the savings of hapless investors. The irony is that it would be so simple to demonstrate a real commitment to investor rights. Here are some suggestions: 1. Abolish the mandatory arbitration system and give investors back their constitutional rights; 2. Abolish "self regulation" by FINRA, which is a sham. The brokerage industry should be regulated by a governmental authority with the power to do so effectively. The SEC would be the likely agency to do so, with the right leadership; 3. Require brokerage statements to: (a) Disclose the risk of every portfolio, as measured by standard deviation; (b) Compare the returns of every portfolio to a portfolio indexed to benchmarks of comparable risk; and (c) Disclose the "cost equity" of the portfolio, which is the amount the investor must make to break even, after payment of commissions, fees and margin interest. There is nothing complex or controversial about these proposals. If Ms. Schapiro genuinely had the best interest of investors on her agenda, she could easily implement them. But that is precisely the problem. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein.
 
Report: North Korea Apparently Restarts Nuclear Plant Top
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea has restarted its weapons-grade nuclear power plant and fired its sixth short-range missile, news reports said Wednesday, in a growing standoff with world powers following its latest nuclear test. The missile launches over the past two days came as leaders around the world condemned North Korea for Monday's underground nuclear test and the U.N. Security Council debated possible new sanctions against the communist nation. Retaliatory options were limited, however, and no one was talking publicly about military action. South Korea's mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported that U.S. spy satellites have detected steam coming from a reprocessing facility at North Korea's main Yongbyon nuclear plant, indicating the North has restarted the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods to harvest weapons-grade plutonium. Its report quoted unnamed officials. South Korea's Defense Ministry and the National Intelligence Service _ the country's main spy agency _ said they cannot confirm the report. The North had said it would begin reprocessing in protest over international criticism of its April 5 rocket launch. North Korea also test-fired three short-range missiles Tuesday, including one late at night, from the east coast city of Hamhung, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency. South Korea's spy chief confirmed two other missiles were launched Monday, but reports put the number at three Monday for a total of six. More could be planned. North Korea has warned ships to stay away from waters off its west coast through Wednesday, suggesting more test flights. Details of Monday's nuclear test may take days to confirm, but Russian defense officials said the blast was roughly as strong as the bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II and was stronger than North Korea's first test in 2006. In New York, U.N. diplomats said key nations were discussing a Security Council resolution that could include new sanctions against North Korea. Ambassadors from the five permanent veto-wielding council members _ the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France _ as well as Japan and South Korea were expected to meet soon, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting is private. The Security Council met in emergency session Monday and condemned the nuclear test. Council members said they would follow up with a new legally binding resolution. France's deputy U.N. ambassador Jean-Pierre Lacroix said his government wants a resolution to "include new sanctions ... because this behavior must have a cost and a price to pay." It was too early to say what those sanctions might be and whether China and Russia, both close allies of North Korea, will go along. In an unusual step, China strongly reproached its close ally. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu reiterated that Beijing "resolutely opposed" the nuclear test. It urged Pyongyang to return to negotiations under which it had agreed to dismantle its atomic program. North Korea is "trying to test whether they can intimidate the international community" with its nuclear and missile activity, said Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "But we are united, North Korea is isolated, and pressure on North Korea will increase," Rice said. Diplomats acknowledged, however, that there were limits to the international response and that past sanctions have had only spotty results. North Korea blamed the escalating tensions in the region on Washington, saying the U.S. was building up its forces, and defended its nuclear test as a matter of self-preservation. An editorial in the North's Rodong Sinmun newspaper called the United States "warmongers" and said Washington's recent announcement about sending fighter planes to Japan "lay bare the sinister and dangerous scenario of the U.S. to put the Asia-Pacific region under its military control." At the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, An Myong Han, a diplomat from the North Korean mission, said his country "could not but take additional self-defense measures, including nuclear tests and the test launch of long-range missiles, in order to safeguard our national interest." More on North Korea
 
Sotomayor Has Pragmatic Record In Business Cases: AP Top
WASHINGTON — Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's choice for the Supreme Court, has compiled a balanced record on business issues that is hard to pin down, legal experts said. As with David Souter, the justice she would replace if approved by the Senate, Sotomayor's stances as an appeals court judge are unpredictable and sometimes defy expectations of both supporters and critics, they said. "She has not been consistently ... on one side of the spectrum or the other," said Evan Tager, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, who has reviewed her decisions as a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Still, some conservative critics argue that her stances in high-profile affirmative action and securities litigation cases show she'll bend the law to favor employees and consumers over business. Other analysts note, though, that Sotomayor has supported limiting damages in lawsuits against companies and will dismiss discrimination claims if she finds they aren't supported by the law. Tager said some of the positions she's taken in damage awards cases, in particular, should hearten the business community. Sotomayor dissented in a 2000 case when the appeals court ruled that the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island occurred within U.S. territorial waters. That ruling allowed victims' families to sue TWA, Boeing Co. and a parts manufacturer for damages that would have been barred if the crash had happened in international seas. Sotomayor argued for a different interpretation of the law that would have limited the damages. Her view, Tager said, was that "it's unfortunate for these victims, but the law's the law." Business groups have pushed for years to get the Supreme Court to enact strict limits on the financial awards plaintiffs can win in lawsuits. They argue that the emotional nature of many such cases can produce huge punitive damages that are inconsistent from case to case. Sotomayor also supported reducing the damages awarded in a case involving rail company CSX Corp., Tager said. Her record suggests she thinks that "damages should be kept under control," he said. Meanwhile, Carl Hittinger, a lawyer with DLA Piper based in Philadelphia, said Sotomayor has a surprisingly pro-business record in the area of antitrust. In nearly every case in which she was one of three judges considering a dispute, the court sided against the plaintiff bringing an antitrust complaint, he said. Her approach "reminds me a lot" of Justice Samuel Alito, he said. Alito, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006, is considered one of the more pro-business members of the court. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did not take a position Tuesday on Sotomayor's nomination, saying it looks forward to "closely examining" her credentials. But some analysts have targeted her support _ as part of a three-judge panel _ for a decision by New Haven, Conn. officials to dismiss the results of a promotional exam for firefighters. In its decision, the panel found that too few minorities had scored high enough. Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that ruling suggests Sotomayor will usually side against business in discrimination cases. "This one case speaks volumes about her mindset," he said. In addition, Jim Copland, a legal analyst at the Manhattan Institute, criticized her opinion in 2005 that allowed a securities fraud lawsuit against Merrill Lynch to proceed. Copland said the case should have been barred by legislation Congress passed in 1998 intended to curb such claims. The law places restrictions on suits that allege fraud involving the "purchase or sale" of securities. But the 2nd Circuit ruled that the plaintiff in the case was a "holder" of securities, rather than a buyer or seller. As a result, the court decided, the complaint could proceed. Her opinion "created a hole in that statute you could drive a Mack truck through," Copland said. She was overruled in a subsequent 8-0 Supreme Court decision. But Patricia Millett, the co-chair of the Supreme Court practice at Akin, Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, pointed out that two Republican appointees on the court agreed with Sotomayor. Millett, like other experts, noted that many business cases don't produce the same neat ideological divides that hot-button issues such as abortion or free speech do. As a result, it can be hard to predict how any justice will rule. In the 2007-2008 term, for example, Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito supported a racial discrimination case against Cracker Barrel restaurants. It was one of several employment-law rulings that went against business interests in that term. Many analysts expect Sotomayor will be similarly unpredictable. "There's nothing in her record that suggests she's ... hostile to business," said Tom Goldstein, a veteran Supreme Court watcher who has argued before the justices 21 times. "She'll fit comfortably in (Souter's) seat." More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Alice Munro Wins Man Booker International Prize Top
According to the official announcement, Alice Munro has won the International Man Booker Prize. "I am totally amazed and delighted," she said in a press release.
 
Bella DePaulo: More about Sonia Sotomayor, From Someone Who Knew Her at Yale Top
One of my collaborators in the study of people who are single and the place of friendship in their lives and all of our lives is a law professor, Rachel Moran . So as soon as I heard that Sonia Sotomayor was Obama's Supreme Court nominee, I immediately sent Rachel an e-mail asking what she thought. At that moment, I had no idea that she knew Sotomayor. What I got back was an intriguing first-person account. I then asked Rachel - a 1981 Yale Law School graduate, UC Berkeley chaired professor, and now a founding faculty member of the UC Irvine School of Law - if she would do a brief Q & A to share her impressions with others. Bella DePaulo : How did you get to know Sonia Sotomayor? Rachel Moran : Sonia was a year ahead of me at Yale. I got to know her through an organization called LANA (Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans). Believe it or not, at the time, there were so few members of these groups in the student body that we could not form separate organizations! Bella DePaulo : What are your impressions of her? In the flurry of initial reports in the media, is there anything you know about her that has not yet gotten much attention? Rachel Moran : She has a keen intellect, an articulate voice, and a sense of humor (though this is not usually mentioned in the press coverage). I think she will be a formidable presence on the Court, who will be a lively, engaging, and challenging colleague for the other Justices. Bella DePaulo : I recently wrote a post about David Souter on my Living Single blog at Psychology Today, and this morning, reader Monica Pignotti posted this to the comments section : "I just watched Sonia Sotomayor's speech for her Supreme Court nomination and it was wonderful! She is a currently single woman and mention was made of all her friends and family who were surrounding her and gave her so much support, and no negative mentions by anyone at all in the commentaries I heard about her civil status. It is obvious she is a happy, fulfilled and much-loved single woman. It was great to see that this was acknowledged in the way she was introduced. Looks like there really is some progress being made here." What do you think? Rachel Moran : I agree. More and more Americans are spending a substantial part of their adult lives as single people . The stigma of singlehood seems to have disappeared when it comes to qualifying for high office, both for men like David Souter and women like Sonia Sotomayor. A person's marital status is considered irrelevant to the ability to do the job. [ Bella 's aside: Still, some high-profile singles, such as Janet Napolitano , do get the Singles Treatment.] But it's still nice to have friends, including some in high places! Bella DePaulo : Anything else you would like to add? Rachel Moran : This moment is truly historic. I am sure that when we met as members of LANA all those years ago at Yale, none of us imagined that one of us someday would become the first person of Latino origin nominated to the Supreme Court. This is truly a mark of how far the legal profession has come in recognizing excellence in people with a range of backgrounds and experiences. This is definitely an occasion for celebration! Bella DePaulo : Thanks so much, Rachel, for taking some time to share your observations. To readers who would like to know more about Rachel Moran , she is the author (with Devon Wayne Carbado) of Race Law Stories , a book about some of the most consequential legal decisions about race, and the stories behind them. She has also advocated for the return of citizen-lawyers . More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Russia Breaks "Wall" Into US Nuclear Market Top
Russia signed a landmark deal to supply nuclear fuel directly to U.S. companies on Tuesday, setting itself up to control 20 percent of the U.S. uranium market and extending its global reach in the nuclear sector. More on Russia
 
National Sales Tax Considered By Congress Top
With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax. More on Taxes
 
Hanna Ingber Win: Obama, Burmese Monks Call For Release Of Aung San Suu Kyi Top
President Obama Tuesday called for the immediate and unconditional release of Burma's Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, who stands trial on charges of violating her house arrest by allowing an American intruder to stay in her home. "Aung San Suu Kyi's continued detention, isolation, and show trial based on spurious charges cast serious doubt on the Burmese regime's willingness to be a responsible member of the international community," according to a statement released by the White House. "By her actions, Aung San Suu Kyi has represented profound patriotism, sacrifice, and the vision of a democratic and prosperous Burma. It is time for the Burmese government to drop all charges against Aung San Suu Kyi and unconditionally release her and her fellow political prisoners." On a recent trip to New York City, three Burmese monks who helped lead the 2007 protests known as the Saffron Revolution also called for the immediate release of Suu Kyi. "For Burma to gain democracy without Aung San Suu Kyi is impossible," U Pyinya Zawta told the Huffington Post through a translator. The monks, who fled Burma (also known as Myanmar) after a government crackdown on protesters and were resettled in upstate New York as refugees, said there have been no significant protests inside Burma against the trial, but that is only because people are fearful of being arrested. Burmese have shown their solidarity with Suu Kyi by gathering outside Insein Prison, where her trial is now taking place. "People feel very strongly about the government trying to imprison Aung San Suu Kyi. They are holding back [from protesting] because of the government repression against them," U Pyinya Zawta said. The monks said the junta, which has ruled Burma with an iron fist for decades, arrested Suu Kyi because it wanted to "eliminate" her as a political force by cutting her off from her supporters and the global community. Suu Kyi, whose National League for Democracy party won national elections in 1990 but was never allowed to take power, is considered a hero in the country and the leader of the democracy movement. "They are in a hurry to set up a government without Aung San Suu Kyi and entirely exclude her from the political process," U Pyinya Zawta said. Suu Kyi, if convicted, faces five years in prison. She would therefore be locked up when the country holds an election in 2010. Despite the international attention given to Burma because of the 2007 protests, the monks said the situation in the country has only gotten worse. The recent arrest of Suu Kyi is further evidence of greater repression. "People are very angry with the government," U Pyinya Zawta said. "There is a great deal of repression and harassment." The government restricts any type of organized activity, he said, giving as an example the harassment of a funeral organization that helps poor families. More severe repression is also seen in the length of prison sentences given to political prisoners. In the past, political activists would receive sentences of 10-15 years. Many of the ones who participated in the September 2007 protests were sentenced to 65 years in prison. The monks said they want Obama to join forces with the United Nations and international community to pressure the Burmese junta to free Suu Kyi. That, they said, is the first step towards helping Burma. Obama cannot do it alone, they said. Despite the government's brutal crackdown in 2007, the imprisonment of hundreds of monks and activists, the arrest of Suu Kyi and the heightened repression in the country, the monks said their movement remains strong. It's just underground. The religious leaders said they continue to communicate with a network of monks and lay people who are still inside Burma and who are planning for the next chance to protest and bring change to their country. "Those people [inside Burma] will do whatever they can, using any kind of opening or opportunity," U Gawsita said. "That is what they will sit and wait for." In many ways, the situation now is not so different from the situation before the September protests. Those marches, though they appeared to the outside world like spontaneous bursts of chaotic energy, were planned and organized for a long time in advance. The government then made a terrible "mistake" of beating up a group of monks in Rakhine State in western Burma, and the movement suddenly had an opportunity to put its planning into practice, the monks said. Those inside are waiting for another such opportunity, they said. And those outside, like these monks, try to help the movement from afar. Using satellite phones and an Internet connection, they keep in touch with the ones on the inside and help them organize. "Unless we carry on the movement then there is no future for Burma, so we take risks and carry on the movement," U Pyinya Zawta said. For more information about these monks, please contact their organization, All Burma Monks' Alliance, via U Pyinya Zawta at thitsarko5@gmail.com. Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Burma
 
Paint It White: Chu Calls For White Roofs, Roads To Fight Global Warming Top
US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London. The Nobel laureate in physics called for a "new revolution" in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions. More on Climate Change
 
North Korea Test-Fires New Missile, Yonhap Says Top
North Korea has fired off another missile, the latest in a series since its nuclear test two days ago, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said Wednesday. More on North Korea
 
Bill Kristol Supreme Court Prediction Fails (VIDEO) Top
Via Think Progress , another example of Bill Kristol making a prediction, and getting it wrong. On Fox News Sunday Kristol, a regular panelist, predicted that President Obama would nominate Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. As we found out today, Obama in fact chose Judge Sonia Sotomayor . Kristol said Sunday: I think he has made up his mind, and I think it's going to be Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan, for this reason. Obama gave that interview Friday which we saw the snippet from. In that interview, he uses the term practical seven times -- I want someone with a practical sense of how the world works, I want someone with practical experience. Watch Kristol's remarks below, and check out Think Progress for more examples of Kristol's failed visions of the future. More on Bill Kristol
 

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)