Thursday, May 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Jeff Norman: Transcript Vindicates Burris Top
The media continues to exaggerate evidence of malfeasance on the part of Roland Burris. As if it would have been criminal for him to do what he didn't do anyway, Monica Davey and Ann Cullotta claim in The New York Times that "Mr. Burris had promised to send a personal check" to Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. Using almost identical language, Salon's Vincent Rossmeier reaches the same conclusion , as does The Huffington Post's own Carol Felsenthal . The reporters are reacting to the transcript of a secretly recorded telephone conversation between Burris and Robert Blagojevich, the former governor's brother. What none of the journalists mention is that the transcript also reveals Burris had been avoiding Blagojevich for some time, that Burris indicated he was in no position to cough up bucks because his consulting business was doing so badly he might have to close it, and that Blagojevich nonetheless kept asking him to make a financial contribution to his brother's campaign. Furthermore, Burris spent most of the conversation resisting Blagojevich's pleas for money before finally making a vague commitment to "do something" for the governor. Considering the entire context, it seems to me that Burris was trying to get the relentless Blagojevich off his back and end the call, more than he was conveying the desire and intent to make an unethical pay to play deal. Strangely, the Times article characterizes Burris as having been "almost in a crass negotiation with Mr. Blagojevich's brother." Likewise, Felsenthal insists the transcript shows Burris was lying when he said last February that he had "made it very clear to [Blagojevich] that [he] would not contribute, that it would be inappropriate and a major conflict, because [he] had expressed an interest in the Senate seat." In fact, the transcript is completely consistent with what Burris had previously claimed. Jeff Norman blogs at CitizenJeff.com . More on Rod Blagojevich
 
James Boyce: The Recovery Myth: Caveat America. Top
The pattern would be amusing if it wasn't so predictable, and ultimately, so disappointing to anyone who has been negatively impacted by the bursting of the real estate/asset bubble. Our eager eyes turn to the newest piece of news, about home sales, home prices, a business that has anything to do with homes, expecting the proverbial green shoots, but time and time again, we just are disappointed. Home prices plunge. Spring market wilts. Shabby Chic, gone. The reason for our disappointment is that instead of looking at the reality of the situation, we are in a state of continuing denial about what actually has happened and what might happen next. For the last 25 years, the American economy has been inflated, re-inflated and over-inflated with a series of bubbles, the tech bubble, the housing bubble and a larger more dangerous full-asset bubble and now, as the largest and last of these bubbles burst before our eyes, it is virtually impossible for everyone to fully understand how large, powerful and pervasive the housing driven asset bubble was. It is equally impossible for people to truly grasp that it was nothing more than a bubble and the prices for the houses, and the underlying economy and businesses that were relying on the housing market are gone and indeed will Let's look again at the long term housing bubble chart. See the small peaks and valleys in past decades? Those valleys are ones that you recovered from. What we have is an unrecoverable bubble, prices will never, ever, ever go back to those levels in real dollar terms. Ever. Like ever, ever. To make this point even clearer, let's look at another bubble. Almost 10 years ago, the NASDAQ hit 5,000. Right now it is at 1,747. Almost 10 years later, it is worth a fraction of what it was at its peak. Let's look at the biggest bubble of all time perhaps, the famous Tulip Bubble of four centuries ago. The prices of small patches of bulbs in current dollars was over $500,000. Insane? Sure. But at least with the tulip bubble and the tech bubble, the insanity was somewhat localized. Of course, when tulips lost 99.9% of the value, if you were local to that insanity, it hurt. But the housing/asset bubble has created over the past decade a bubble that has permeated our entire culture. The bubble from real estate fed bubbles in retail, in the service industry, in the jet ski industry, the travel industry, literally everything that people were going to spend that $100,000 they made in real estate, is now hurting, and will continue to hurt. There are no green shoots, because there is no recovery when a bubble pops. There is only gradual and slow, painful realization that it was a bubble. And now, it's gone.
 
ESPN Layoffs: 100 Jobs Cut, But Network Expects To Create Others Top
BRISTOL, Conn. — ESPN has notified about 100 Connecticut employees that they will be losing their jobs. The layoffs are part of a plan announced by ESPN Chief Executive George Bodenheimer in January, when he told employees the sports television giant would be reviewing its entire operation and also would leave about 200 vacant jobs unfilled. Company spokesman Josh Krulewitz says ESPN plans to replace the jobs that have been cut with others that "more effectively grow our company, and our head count number, ultimately, will remain consistent with current levels." ESPN, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Co., employs about 5,400 people worldwide, including about 3,400 at its Bristol, Conn. campus.
 
Alon Ben-Meir: Wake Up, Israel Top
I am departing from my usual analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict as I profoundly feel that these are neither ordinary times, nor ordinary circumstances. The challenges and opportunities that Israel faces today will undoubtedly lay the ground for its future coexistence both in the Middle East and as an ally to the West. With new US and Israeli leadership in office comes a renewed prospect to solve the old struggles, and to address once and for all the Palestinian question of statehood. Israel must wake up and heed the call of the international community, rise to the occasion and use the support it has now and its overwhelming power to make the necessary sacrifices for peace. Above all though, Israelis must look introspectively and ask themselves where they want to be in 10, 15 or 20 years from now. Do they want to live in peace with security and prosperity or do they wish to continue the struggle, which is becoming increasingly more threatening if not existential? I believe that Israel is approaching that fateful hour. Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington raised many hopes-but then quelled just as many expectations. It appears he was neither ready to deal with the hard choices presented to him by President Obama, nor was he prepared to offer credible alternatives to deal with the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At this point in the process, coming to Washington to discuss Arab-Israeli peace without acknowledging the two-state solution only hurt Netanyahu's standing with the new American administration. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have made it clear that there will be no peace without a Palestinian state, and there will be no Palestinian state with the continued expansion of the settlements. President Obama's demand that there will be a moratorium on settlement building and expansion is rooted in the simple logic that the settlements not only impede the viability of a Palestinian state, but they rob the Palestinians of any hope that they have a partner in peace who respects their claims to the land. The settlements, furthermore, tell twenty-two Arab states that Israel is not interested in their peace initiative. Continued expansion signals to the United States that Israel does not take seriously American strategic interest and friendship, and it tells the European Union to mind their own affairs. Most importantly, Israel's inability to control its settlers conveys to the majority of Israelis who are yearning for peace that they should expect nothing but more violence and bloodshed for decades to come. The Obama administration has stressed that a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the top of American national strategic interests, and that the US will provide the utmost security for Israel. Successive American administrations have committed themselves to Israel's national security and President Obama's commitment is as unshakable as any of his predecessors'. The difference today is that the President has inherited a region in turmoil with an alarming rise in Islamic extremism, terrorism and sectarian strife as well as a daunting Iranian nuclear threat capable of destabilizing the region in a fundamental way. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict only feeds into this frenzy, edging ever closer to the precipice. Caring about Israel's national security requires more than supporting Israel's policies and providing it with the military means to defend itself. Support for Israel will not come with a blank check and a blind eye. President Bush offered unmatched cooperation, but he failed miserably to deal effectively with Iran as it threatened Israel existentially time and again. Bush also neglected to pursue a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the majority of his two terms, and thereby undermined Israel's only prospect for peace and real security. Israel has every right to thwart any potential Iranian nuclear threat, but it must first exhaust every peaceful option with its closest and most trusted ally the United States. President Obama has come to the conclusion that isolating Iran is not making Israel or the US any better off. He offered a direct dialogue with Tehran and established the end of 2009 as the time to determine whether or not Iran is willing to commit to negotiations on its nuclear program, leaving all military options on the table. But he has also committed to finding a solution to the Palestinian problem that has eluded all of his predecessors. The President knows as well as any one that there is no issue that has helped Iran undermines Israel's national security concerns more than the Palestinian conflict. He appreciates Netanyahu's legitimate concerns about Iran, and thus reasons that dealing more effectively with Iran and weakening its resolve in the Mediterranean would in effect distance Iran's mischief from the Palestinian interests. Netanyahu must do better than dismantling a few illegal outposts, offering a lip service to a President who believes in Israel's destiny and is ready to commit time and treasure to insure it as a safe and thriving state. Netanyahu is correct when he suggests that Israel and the Arab states share a common Iranian nuclear threat, and it would seem logical to invite the Arab states to join hands in dealing with Tehran's bellicose policies. What Netanyahu fails to understand is that while the Arab states-led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt-are gravely concerned about the Iranian nuclear program, they will not cooperate with Israel as long as the occupation persists and Palestinian plight continues to haunt them. Leaving the Palestinians at this stage to their own devices after sixty-two years of debilitating struggle would challenge the legitimacy of the Arab states' government. The Arab countries do not wish to see Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, but the prospect of provoking en-masse anti-government sentiments throughout the Arab world is deemed considerably worse. From their perspective, continued Israeli occupation has not only displaced the Palestinians but provides a constant reminder of Arab humiliation, and nothing reinforces that more than the building and the expansion of settlements. More so, if they were to see a moratorium on settlements while negotiations began, they are very likely to offer major concessions, such as state visits to Israel or the opening of economic trade talks. The Arab states came full circle when their League passed the Arab Peace Initiative (first in March 2002 and again in March 2007) that offered Israel a comprehensive peace with all twenty two Arab countries in return for territories captured in 1967 and a fair settlement of the Palestinian problem. Regardless of the imperfections of this resolution (such how to deal with the refugees, which both sides know cannot be solved in their right to return to Israel proper) it represents nothing less than a historical transformation, especially when compared to the 1967 Arab League resolution which proclaimed no peace, no recognition and no negotiations. The Arab Peace Initiative should be a major triumph for Israel; after more than six decades of violent rejection the Arab nations are ready to embrace Israel as a member Middle Eastern state to live with its neighbors in peace and security. Israel must know by now the implication of making real peace with each and every Arab state, something that has eluded it for over sixty years. True, the Israelis have many reasons to be skeptical; decades of enmity and bloodshed have left an indelible mark etched in the memory of countless Israelis who suffered tragic losses. But now the Arab states, perhaps out of the desire for self-preservation, have come to accept the inevitable: Israel is here to stay and they must live with it in peace or continue a fruitless struggle that will only endanger the security of their own regimes. In one form or another Israel must face the reality of the Palestinian people and commit to finding an equitable solution that can endure long-term. Like several of his predecessors came to understand, Netanyahu must realize that this is not a matter of blame or right versus wrong. No solution will be based on such a judgment. The Palestinians have been dispossessed, just as the Israelis have been denied the right to exist and had to assert their right. No party involved in the Palestinian plight is blameless: the Arab states, Israel and the Palestinians have all contributed to the tragic unfolding of events. Now it is time to put an end to this saga that has dehumanized both the occupied and the occupier. Each Palestinian has an inherent right to his homeland, and no one can understand this better that the Israelis who equally feel that deep attachment to the land of their forefathers. Now that the parameters of two-states have been repeatedly established and accepted by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians--as well as endorsed by the International community and the Arab states--the Israeli government is duty bound to move expeditiously to implement a negotiated agreement. And if Netanyahu's current right-wing coalition is not fit for the task at hand, he still has the option of forming a government with Tzipi Livni's Kadima party on the premise of a two-state solution. Netanyahu can no longer use the Palestinian disunity or Hamas as an excuse for not negotiating a final status agreement. The Arab states through their Peace Initiative are committed to providing Israel with the security it seeks and can tame Hamas once the territories are evacuated. However legitimate Israel's national security concerns may be, the Israelis cannot live in fear with paralyzed leadership unable to act in the best interest of the country. The process of developing adequate security and confidence building measures will take few years to develop, and Israel will not be required to withdraw its forces from the West Bank before such measures are in place. But then again, Israel under no circumstance will relinquish its national security to any other agent and will remain militarily vigilant to deter any future enemy. That being said, the Israelis must face the inevitable and begin to build trust with their neighbors. But how they can engender trust by building more and more settlements, by impeding Palestinian movements with hundreds of road blocks, by incarcerating thousands of Palestinians, demolishing homes and above all by denying psychologically any future prospect of letting the Palestinians live as they see fit? Every day, every month or year that passes will only add to the alienation and disdain toward Israel which has become ingrained in the Palestinian psyche. The zealot settlers have wrested the political agenda, and now Israel's leadership has allowed itself to become woefully misguided by a group endangering the very premise of why Israel was created in the first place. Israel was meant to provide a home, a refuge for the Jewish people, not to rule other people against their will. Why have there been no demonstrations in the street by Israelis demanding an end to the occupation? How can Israelis revel in the plenty of today and forget the scarcity endured by multitude of Palestinians? Imagine peace with fifty seven Arab and Muslim states and the renaissance that could usher into the region. Imagine Israel and its neighbors engaged in business, cultural and academic exchanges, imagine the power of Israeli and Arab resources put together and the incredible prospect of reaching a new high never known before between both peoples. It is time for Israel to wake up; do not allow this historic chance for peace to slip away because of complacency or lack of courage. The US and international communities are offering an unprecedented opportunity that cannot afford to be squandered this time around. America has offered its utmost support and the Arab states are ready to assume their responsibility. If Israel is destined to bring light onto other nations, this is the moment. More on Israel
 
Solar Plane, Electric Cars And Oil: Green Winners And Losers (VIDEO) Top
More dispatches from Huffington Post Green editor Dave Burdick . In this week's video: The Sunseeker II solar plane video Conversation at HuffPost Green about Daimler and Tesla -- one guy said he thought Tesla would buy Daimler in 10 years The Shell case WATCH: As always, if you want to chat about the stories or suggest some for next week, catch me on Twitter More on Cars
 
THE 12 SEXIEST COMICS IN AMERICA (SLIDESHOW) Top
This week we asked you who the sexiest comics were on the scene, mostly because we have a thing for funny people. We chose 15 men and 15 women and after days of voting we found that our readers love the women of "SNL" and the men of the "Daily Show." Who knew? Of the top six women, four were cast members of "Saturday Night Live" at some point. Of the top six men, four are currently on the "Daily Show" and another (Colbert) started out there. In all fairness, there are some people that should've been on these lists in the first place but we ran out of room/forgot to include them: Mindy Kaling, Wanda Sykes, Janeane Garofalo, Jason Jones, Craig Ferguson, David Letterman, we are truly sorry and think you're all seriously sexy. Also, Sherri Shepherd and Zach Galifianakis, you are amazing, don't let your last place finishes tell you anything except that there are some jealous haters out there. Here are our top 12 reader picks... Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Late Night Shows
 
Romance Novel Sales Booming In Tough Economy Top
NEW YORK — With an out-of-work husband and two children to support, Christine Mead needs a cheap _ and uplifting _ break from life. So lately she's been escaping into sweet and heartening stories of love and passion, where heroines overcome insurmountable obstacles to find their happiness. "I am left with a satisfied feeling at the end of a good book, a feeling of hope that all can, and will, be OK," said Mead, who lives in the small town of Festus, Mo., and suffers from fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. Mead, 41, rarely goes anywhere because of the price of gas, and the family has been relying on a food pantry. Romance novels, she said, are "a distraction from not knowing what's going to happen next." Love may not conquer all in real life, but its power in relatively inexpensive books is quite a comfort in this economy. Publishers are seeing strong sales in the romance genre as other categories decline and consumers cut back on spending. Harlequin Enterprises Ltd., a global giant in women's fiction, reported fourth-quarter earnings up 32 percent over the same period a year earlier, with U.S. retail sales up 9 percent in 2008. For the week of May 10, romance book sales overall were up nearly 2.4 percent compared with the same week last year, according to Nielsen BookScan, which covers 75 percent of retail sales. Travel book sales were down 16 percent, detective/mystery and self-help were each down 17 percent and adult fiction overall, of which romance is a subgenre, was up 1 percent. Jennifer Enderlin, associate publisher for St. Martin's Press, said romance is doing so well, the publisher is releasing 32 titles this year (more could be added), compared to 26 last year. Books from notable authors, including Lora Leigh, Lisa Kleypas and Sherrilyn Kenyon, are experiencing healthy sales, she said. Enderlin and other publishers said they're not surprised by the genre's success. "If you really think about it, there is a little romance in virtually every book," said Laurie Parkin, vice president and publisher of Kensington Publishing Corp. Kensington has seen a 5 percent increase in sales for mass market paperback romances for its fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, she said. "But especially when business is bad or business is down, people want to escape a little bit," Parkin added. "I think romance offers that in a wonderful, wonderful way." When life is more stressful, people need that escape even more, said Nancy Molitor, a clinical psychologist in Wilmette, Ill. She said movie attendance and alcohol sales are also up. Romance novels are affordable and you can easily get them from the library or purchase them used. "It's a healthy and positive coping mechanism," said Judith Orloff, a medical doctor and author of "Emotional Freedom." She said the stories help people find an oasis of calm. Christine Dionne, 38, of Cloverdale, Ore., said romance was the soothing balm after one of her two sons died playing an asphyxiation game in 2004 at age 10. Now, she's reaching for more lighthearted fun romances as a distraction from financial and family troubles. Her husband, a truck driver, has had his hours cut and the farm where she works has taken a hit. She said the books make her feel like she's something bigger than her tiny town and the small house that she rarely leaves. With little money to go out (she doesn't drive), she shops at Goodwill. Ramen has become a staple in the house. "It's my connection to the world and I can visit other places and be somebody else _ for just a little while," said Dionne, whose surviving son is 12. Katherine Petersen, 43, of Menlo Park, Calif., said she feels more energized to resume her job search after she finishes a good romance. Petersen is blind and has been looking for work for about a year. Before, reading was a hobby. Now, it's her saving grace. She said it's something she can do in braille or by listening without the company of others and without spending a lot of money. "When I'm reading, I'm thinking about something else," said Petersen, whose background is in public relations. "I'm certainly not worrying about that job letter I just sent out or who I have to call or how I am going to pay the electric bill. It's kind of a freedom from that." But escapism is only part of the attraction, said best-selling author Janet Evanovich, who started out writing romance and then morphed into mystery. She likes romance because the characters are quirky, vibrant women who take charge, are tenacious and are able to overcome crises in their lives _ characters women can identify with. The books are a feel-good read, Enderlin said. The endings may be predictable, but there's solace in knowing that things are going to turn out like they should. For Diane Pershing, president of Romance Writers of America, the recession-proof romance is a no-brainer. Romance novels offer "rich, complex stories about good people overcoming obstacles to achieve intimacy and an eventual joining of their lives," she said. "Along the way, they have great sex," she said. "What's not to like?"
 
Mike Hegedus: Autopsy Shows Corporate America Dead. Cause: Timidity Top
It's a 'Lewis Black moment'. I'm sitting on a conference call in my running shorts. Sweating. I'm in the Southwest and the rest of the participants are somewhere in the Midwest and Northeast. When the moderator plugs us all in the usual introductions begin. Halfway through I'm thinking maybe they've rented a stadium and didn't tell me. Everyone has a 'team'. The 'team' from Company X introduces itself. Then the 'team' from Company 'Y'. And then they come to little ole me. I actually thought for a moment about making up some 'team' members, doing 'voices', just to fit in. A 'team'?!?!?! A 'team'?!?!? What the @$#%^&*&^% do you need a 'team' for? What are we talking about here? Peace in the Middle East? Nuclear Disarmament? No. Plungers. Yup, plungers. Oh,there's a clog alright and it's sending corporate America right down the toilet. We're stopped up with timidity. In the spirit of honesty, I have to admit that what I do for a living these days is sell. I sell the idea that everyone, every company, every organization, even some individuals, should have video at their disposal. It's simply the best way to brand, market and sell anything, particularly on the Internet. While I have been more successful than Jeff Zucker has been at running NBC, I'm really no salesman. My mistake of course is in thinking that simply by explaining a good idea to someone they'll 'get it' and want to buy in. Au contraire mon frere. First, we have to check with the 'team', come to concensus, then, maybe, just maybe, we'll make a decision. Or,maybe not. Check back in two weeks. What's more important than my individual frustration (yes there is something more important than that), is what this penchant for 'group think' has done. It has made corporate America timid, afraid to make a decision without 'coming together'. This timidity is in full blossom now thanks to the current ubber recession. The answer to nearly every question in the corridors of U.S. business these days is, 'We just don't have the funds right now. The economy you know.' There's no denying the economy is tough, and there's no denying it means that companies and individuals all have to make wise decisions when it comes to spending their money. But the key word here is 'decision'. So many executives have such a tight grip on their desks, and so many 'teams' spend their time looking around the room for support, that no one decides anything. I take that back, they do decide something: to do nothing. Every marketing and branding guru worth his or her salt will tell you that in the vacuum created by a down economy is where market share is to be gained. Where innovation is key to success. Where money is to be made. But you can't be timid. It's easy to make decisions when times are good. It's easy to pick up the check when you're flush. But the visionaries come to the fore not in good times, but in bad. Not when things are easy, but when times are tough. And they don't look to their 'team' for the answers. They lead it. Speaking of flush, anyone see my plunger? More on NBC
 
Daoud Kuttab: Why a Jewish Settlement Freeze Has Become the Defining Issue Top
The demand by the Obama administration for the Israelis to fully and completely freeze all settlement activities has become a point of contention between the US and Israel for a number of reasons. Jewish settlements built on lands occupied by Israel in 1967 is considered by the international community to be totally illegal and in clear violation of the fourth Geneva convention which is aimed at regulating prolonged occupations. The International Court of Justice at the Hague ruled in July 9, 2004 at the Hague as much when considering an appeal against Israel for building a wall inside Palestinian territories. Successive US administrations have also repeated rejected settlement activities but have wavered from calling it "illegal," to calling it an "obstacle to peace." The UN security council has also ruled against settlements in numerous occasions, directly or in the prelude, to various resolutions. While building facts on the ground after illegally (according to international law) confiscating Palestinian lands, the Israelis have often played games with the international community on this issue. Israelis as late as Thursday have tried to finesse the issue in various ways. From arguing that Jews have a right to build anywhere they choose (a right that they forcefully deny to Palestinians in parts of the West Bank as well as in Jerusalem and in all of pre-67 Israel) to the more recent claim that Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories have a right to 'natural growth.' Settlement activities including the so-called natural growth are clearly rejected in the road map agreement which Israel signed to and the Knesset approved. Even far right wing Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Leiberman said on his first day in office that he accepted the Road Map (while stressing his rejection to the two state solution as stated in the Annapolis Process). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking on Al Jazzera TV (that in itself is a change of Washington's bias to Al Arrabiya TV) stressed clearly and unamgiously the Obama administration's rejection to any settlement activities including and these are her words, natural growth. It is not hard to understand why everyone who supports a two state solution sees settlement activities in what will become the Palestinian state as knife in the heart of such a deal. The previous as well as the current US administrations considers the creation of a viable Palestinian state with contiguity in the "national interest" of the United States. It follows that any actions that directly block the chances of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state as actions that are against US national interests and not just Palestinian interests. Palestinians are naturally pleased that Washington is finally serious about at least this one crucial aspect of the conflict. Palestinians who aspire to being free of occupation might be willing to wait for the logical outcome of the negotiations. Slow or fast negotiations the one specific aspect that Palestinians worry about is what these "facts on the ground" can affect the final outcome of negotiations. Palestinians still remember in anger and anguish the private letter from President George W. Bush to former Israeli prime Minister Ariel Sharon in which Bush Jr. expresses understanding of the wishes of Israel to keep some of the large settlement blocks in any final resolution. It is exactly this fear of a small confiscation, followed by the creation of a military outpost, which is then miraculously transferred into a civilian outposts and finally becoming a full fledged settlement that US presidents want Palestinians to accept as a reality that worries Palestinians. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has been an active fighter against any attempts to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israeli in a violent way. As the PLO's number two man, he spoke against the 'militarization' of the 2000 second intifada. He continued his opposition to military resistance as president. But for a peaceful negotiated solution to work, the Palestinian leader can't carry out any face to face negotiations with the Israelis while they are daily carrying out activities on the ground to block the potential of a peace agreement that includes a viable independent state with land contiguity. Senior Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Qreia has even offered Israelis settlers living in the Palestinian territories to remain in their homes so long as they accept to live under Palestinian rule in a Palestinian state. In an interview with HaAretz he even offered that they can be dual citizens if they choose. Forty one years after Israeli troops occupied Palestinian lands (in contradiction to international law which called this occupation 'inadmissible') and after hundreds of illegal settlements built on this Palestinian land, it should be understood why the issue of settlements has become a defining issue for peace in the region. More on Barack Obama
 
Rick Horowitz: Supreme Cynics: Slamming Sotomayor Top
You're in luck! You're just in time for the daily strategy meeting of the Committee for Judges We Agree With: "OK, so where are we this morning? Phil?" "Well, we've got the adjectives rolled out: 'activist,' 'radical,' 'personal agenda' -- all the standard stuff." "I'm not sure 'agenda' is an adjective." "You know what I mean. Anyway, then we've got the specialty stuff -- you know, specifically for her. 'Bad temperament.' 'Bully on the bench.' 'Racist.' 'Reverse racist.'" "Good old Rush!" "Hey, don't knock it. It's not everyone who could get away with calling some Latino woman a racist." "Newt did it, too -- don't forget Newt." "Well, Rush was first. You gotta hand it to him, the guy's got -- " "'Cojones'?" "Good one! Let's see if we can use that somewhere." "OK, so we've got all the key words out there, and the controversial stuff from those speeches of hers. Making 'policy' in the courts. She thinks she's smarter than a white guy. All that stuff." "They're saying it's out of context." "Let 'em say it. If they have to explain it, we're still winning. And the 'affirmative-action pick'? I hear she's not all that smart." "Well, that's what Rove is saying -- that the Ivy League is overrated." "Well, he ought to know." "Hard to make the case when she was Phi Beta Kappa at Princeton." "So she's a sorority girl -- big deal! Charlie, you've got the quote sheet out to our radio guys?" "They're on it. That, and the talking points." "Great. Let me know if they need anything else." "Did she hang out with any radicals?" "How's that?" "Radicals. You know, like Obama with Bill Ayers." "That was Chicago -- she was in New York." "Like they don't have radicals in New York?" "Well, we do know there were druggies. Druggies right down the hallway, in the projects." "She didn't turn them in, did she?" "She was 11." "But she didn't turn them in, did she? What kind of a Supreme Court justice walks right past known drug activity day after day and does absolutely nothing?" "You really think we can sell that?" "You got anything better?" "No, but -- " "There's your answer. If you can't -- " "What if she's a Marxist?" "Jerry?" "I saw this story a couple of days ago. Some paper she wrote, or report, or something -- who-knows-how-many years ago. It was in a footnote -- she said she used some books with 'Marxist-Leninist analysis.'" "And you're just telling us this now?" "I didn't -- " "Find it. Find the quote. Find the paper. Find the books. This could be big!" "I saw it, too -- it was her senior thesis or something. She was writing about colonialism. That doesn't exactly make her a Marxist." "You mean like Castro wasn't a Marxist?" "Hey, maybe we can put her with Castro -- or at least her parents. You know, back on the island?" "That's Cuba. They're from Puerto Rico." "Whatever. Can we get pictures?" "Of what?" "Oh, and I hear she eats this really weird stuff. From pigs." "Barbecue?" "Different. Ears or something. Tongues." "Can we get pictures?" "Of pigs' ears?" "Can we get pictures?!" Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com . More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Mike Lux: A Successful Presidency Top
I have been thinking a lot about the difference between failed and successful Presidencies lately, mostly because I so desperately want President Obama to be on the successful side. First, some definitional terms. For me, a successful Presidency means the following: 1. That they are re-elected. I know some of my high-minded readers may think this is crass, but it certainly matters whether American voters think well enough if you to give you a second term, and it's hard to really get a lot that's lasting done in only four years. I can't think of a modern President that I would call a successful President who only served one term. 2. That they actually get something significant and lasting done in terms of policy agenda. 3. That their policies work reasonably well in terms of overall economic prosperity and foreign policy. 4. That they end their term in reasonably good standing with the American public. More on who do and do not fit this definition, and some caveats, in the extended entry. Looking at Presidents over the modern era, the last half-century, the Presidents who got re-elected (not including LBJ, who had served less than a year after JFK's assassination) were Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush. The first and last of those Presidencies ended in humiliation and failure in spite of the re-election, because of a combination of political and policy meltdowns, and because of corruption. For all of my dislike of Reagan's policies, and for all the damage they did to the country over the long run, I have to admit that his was a successful Presidency in that he achieved most of his big policy priorities and ended with the country still feeling pretty positive about him. Clinton, in spite of my disappointment the lack of big change he accomplished, can also be rated a success: the country was relatively prosperous and at peace throughout his tenure, and he had a 60% approval rating not only as he left office but for most of his last five years in office. The other failed Presidencies of the last 50 years include: -Johnson, who in spite of the greatest domestic achievements of the last 70+ years, destroyed himself and his party on the shoals of the Vietnam War, and chose not to run for re-election after Gene McCarthy's primary challenge almost beat him in New Hampshire. -Ford, whose economic policies were terrible, and who was almost beaten by Reagan in a primary fight. -Carter, the most conservative Democrat on economic policies since Grover Cleveland, failed at reviving the economy, and was badly damaged by Ted Kennedy's primary challenge. -George H.W. Bush also failed economically. He alienated the conservative movement by breaking his no new taxes pledge, and was badly winded by Buchanan's primary challenge. What happened in every one of these cases was that the President started with a lot of goodwill and support from the general public, but when they ran into trouble later in their term, the base turned on them, and once that happened, it was impossible to contain the damage. The reason for this is simple: your base is who fights for you and defends you when you are in political trouble, and if they aren't backing your play, you get cut to the bone- the damage goes deep. Trouble comes to every President, but you can survive it if you have troops on the ground who keep defending you and fighting your battles for you. The Clinton Presidency is instructive in this regard. In spite of the occasional issue disagreements and rhetorical New Democrat positioning, the Clinton White House worked the Democratic base groups very hard. As the (unofficial) liaison to progressives in the Clinton White House, I lived that strategy: we talked to our progressive friends constantly even when- especially when- we disagreed with them; we brought them to the White House for one meeting and event after another; and in the worse days of the Clinton Presidency, those first several months of 1995 when it seemed like Gingrich as going to roll us, we stood up to Gingrich, first on issues like the school lunch program and then on the biggest fight of all, the 1995 budget. Progressive groups rallied to our defense, and when the dust settled from the government shutdowns, we won the budget showdown, and with it, the 1996 election. Will Barack Obama be a successful President? I believe he will, but he is going to run into big trouble spots down the road- every President does, and in spite of Obama's political skills, he will too. The economy may have stabilized, but it's not going to start getting appreciably better for regular folks anytime soon. Those massively complex legislative battles coming down the line are going to make the stimulus battle look like child's play, and will have lots of ugly moments. I believe the President has to do three things to be a successful President: 1. Have some big wins on his legislative agenda. 2. Get the economy to start picking up for real people, not just the balance sheets of our stabilizing financial industry. 3. Keep the base excited and ready to both sell his agenda, and defend him when the trouble comes. None of this is easy, but President Obama has formidable political skills. I have confidence that he can succeed in spite of all the potential pitfalls at all three things if he focuses on getting them done. He has to deliver on the economy for regular working people; he has to fight through the special interest and right-wing opposition and get health care reform, bank regulation, climate change legislation, and immigration reform passed; and he has to keep his political base motivated to keep fighting on his behalf. A tall order, but if he succeeds, he will go down as the most successful President since FDR.
 
Sestak: Obama Can't Stop Me From Challenging Specter Top
In another sign of his determination to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Democratic primary, Joe Sestak just told me in an interview that not even a personal plea from President Obama himself could dissuade him from making the race. More on Arlen Specter
 
Daniel Cubias: That's All You Got? The Attacks on Sotomayor Come Across as Desperate Top
I'm not in the habit of giving advice to the Republican Party, which is just as well, because they're not in the habit of accepting it. But in the spirit of bipartisanship, I offer the following: Drop the lame attacks on Sonia Sotomayor, because they're not going to work. I say this as a member of the Hispanic demographic, which as you know, is one of the 13,000 groups that Republicans are supposedly trying to win back. I also say it as an American citizen with common sense, which is one of the groups the GOP lost a long time ago. Yes, we know that the Supreme Court nominee has one controversial ruling (the "reverse-discrimination" firefighter case) and that she mouthed off about Latinas making better decisions than white men. But Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh's claims that she's a closet bigot are simply not resonating. And unless pictures emerge of Sotomayor wearing a t-shirt saying, "I hate white people," that isn't going to change. To my Republican friends, I say back off while you can. The first reason you can't stop her is a factual one. Sotomayor is a well-qualified judge with years of experience. The anonymous allegations that she is dim simply don't add up (the woman was summa cum laude from Princeton... sounds like a moron to me). In addition, she offers a well-known compelling story (The Bronx, diabetes, "Perry Mason," and so on). Sotomayor had to earn her way into the Ivy League, where she excelled. She wasn't some rich kid who got in because of family connections and then barely squeaked by with mediocre grades (ahem... where was I?). This is a chance for Republicans to stop rebuking their own philosophy. You know the one I'm talking about: "Anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and not let their circumstances keep them back." Yet whenever someone actually does that - like President Clinton, President Obama, and Sotomayor - they wind up despised in conservative circles. Then the GOP goes with the son of a president or the son of an admiral to carry their standard. In truth, the last Republican I recall who actually came from dirt was Alberto Gonzalez, and we all (especially mortified Latinos) know how that one turned out. Republicans should be thrilled. Here is a woman who actually did what they claim everyone can do: Raise up to greatness from lower-class origins. Weirdly enough, they don't seem pleased see her. Mike Huckabee couldn't even be bothered to know her name . In any case, the second reason for Republicans to cool it is a purely political one. Do they really want to piss off the fastest-growing block of voters, who by the way, just rejected their presidential candidate by a factor of two to one? Is telling the first Latina ever nominated for the Supreme Court that she's not good enough truly the message they want to send to Hispanics like me? And I'm not even talking about the many women who would be furious, all of whom would rightly ask, "So Clarence Thomas is ok up there, but not another woman?" Speaking of Thomas, I find it interesting that Republicans talk a great game about picking only the best and ignoring racial considerations. Eighteen years ago, Thomas was considered by many to be a lightweight who only got in because Thurgood Marshall was leaving, and Republicans wanted credit for appointing an African American to replace him. They denied this, of course, and said Thomas would go on to greatness. Two decades later, we're still waiting for the guy to ask a question, author a memorable opinion, or be anything other than Antonin Scalia's sidekick. In any case, people like George Will come across as oblivious when they denounce "identity politics," as if John Roberts' upbringing as a straight white male has had no impact on his tendency to vote for the establishment. Still, if all these reasons aren't enough, let's look at the basic math. Democrats have 59 votes, and may even have a filibuster-proof 60 if the Minnesota mess ever gets figured out. Many of the Republican Senators are moderates who are not terrified of a left-center Latina. So what chance do the 20 to 30 hard-right conservatives have to stop her confirmation? The numbers just aren't there. But let's say that Republicans derail the Sotomayor nomination. Then what happens? Well, Obama just picks someone else they despise. And eventually, this person gets confirmed, giving us the same court we have today. If anything, such a court might be even more liberal than Sotomayor would have made it. Oh, and there's also a whole lot of angry Hispanic and female voters now. But go ahead, Republicans, don't listen to me. You never have before. More on GOP
 
William J. Astore: Selling Education, Manufacturing Technocrats, Torturing Souls Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com The Tyranny of Being Practical Hardly a week goes by without dire headlines about the failure of the American education system. Our students don't perform well in math and science. The high-school dropout rate is too high. Minority students are falling behind. Teachers are depicted as either overpaid drones protected by tenure or underpaid saints at the mercy of deskbound administrators and pushy parents. Unfortunately, all such headlines collectively fail to address a fundamental question: What is education for? At so many of today's so-called institutions of higher learning, students are offered a straightforward answer: For a better job, higher salary, more marketable skills, and more impressive credentials. All the more so in today's collapsing job market. Based on a decidedly non-bohemian life -- 20 years' service in the military and 10 years teaching at the college level -- I'm convinced that American education, even in the worst of times, even recognizing the desperate need of most college students to land jobs, is far too utilitarian, vocational, and narrow. It's simply not enough to prepare students for a job: We need to prepare them for life, while challenging them to think beyond the confines of their often parochial and provincial upbringings. (As a child of the working class from a provincial background, I speak from experience.) And here's one compelling lesson all of us, students and teachers alike, need to relearn constantly: If you view education in purely instrumental terms as a way to a higher-paying job -- if it's merely a mechanism for mass customization within a marketplace of ephemeral consumer goods -- you've effectively given a free pass to the prevailing machinery of power and those who run it. Three Myths of Higher Ed Three myths serve to restrict our education to the narrowly utilitarian and practical. The first, particularly pervasive among conservative-minded critics, is that our system of higher education is way too liberal, as well as thoroughly dominated by anti-free-market radicals and refugee Marxists from the 1960s who, like so many Ward Churchills, are indoctrinating our youth in how to hate America. Nonsense. Today's college students are being indoctrinated in the idea that they need to earn "degrees that work" (the official motto of the technically-oriented college where I teach). They're being taught to measure their self-worth by their post-college paycheck. They're being urged to be lifelong learners, not because learning is transformative or even enjoyable, but because to "keep current" is to "stay competitive in the global marketplace." (Never mind that keeping current is hardly a guarantee that your job won't be outsourced to the lowest bidder.) And here's a second, more pervasive myth from the world of technology: technical skills are the key to success as well as life itself, and those who find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide are doomed to lives of misery. From this it necessarily follows that computers are a panacea, that putting the right technology into the classroom and into the hands of students and faculty solves all problems. The keys to success, in other words, are interactive SMART boards, not smart teachers interacting with curious students. Instead, canned lessons are offered with PowerPoint efficiency, and students respond robotically, trying to copy everything on the slides, or clamoring for all presentations to be posted on the local server. One "bonus" from this approach is that colleges can more easily measure (or "assess," as they like to say) how many networked classrooms they have, how many on-line classes they teach, even how much money their professors bring in for their institutions. With these and similar metrics in hand, parents and students can be recruited or retained with authoritative-looking data: job placement rates, average starting salaries of graduates, even alumni satisfaction rates (usually best measured when the football team is winning). A third pervasive myth -- one that's found its way from the military and business worlds into higher education -- is: If it's not quantifiable, it's not important. With this mindset, the old-fashioned idea that education is about molding character, forming a moral and ethical identity, or even becoming a more self-aware person, heads down the drain. After all, how could you quantify such elusive traits as assessable goals, or showcase such non-measurements in the glossy marketing brochures, glowing press releases, and gushing DVDs that compete to entice prospective students and their anxiety-ridden parents to hand over ever larger sums of money to ensure a lucrative future? Three Realities of Higher Ed What do torture, a major recession, and two debilitating wars have to do with our educational system? My guess: plenty. These are the three most immediate realities of a system that fails to challenge, or even critique, authority in any meaningful way. They are bills that are now long overdue thanks, in part, to that system's technocratic bias and pedagogical shortfalls -- thanks, that is, to what we are taught to see and not see, regard and disregard, value and dismiss. Over the last two decades, higher education, like the housing market, enjoyed its own growth bubble, characterized by rising enrollments, fancier high-tech facilities, and ballooning endowments. Americans invested heavily in these derivative products as part of an educational surge that may prove at least as expensive and one-dimensional as our military surges in Iraq and Afghanistan. As usual, the humanities were allowed to wither. Don't know much about history? Go ahead and authorize waterboarding, even though the U.S. prosecuted it as a war crime after World War II. Don't know much about geography? Go ahead and send our troops into mountainous Afghanistan, that "graveyard of empires," and allow them to be swallowed up by the terrain as they fight a seemingly endless war. Perhaps I'm biased because I teach history, but here's a fact to consider: Unless a cadet at the Air Force Academy (where I once taught) decides to major in the subject, he or she is never required to take a U.S. history course. Cadets are, however, required to take a mind-boggling array of required courses in various engineering and scientific disciplines as well as calculus. Or civilians, chew on this: At the Pennsylvania College of Technology, where I currently teach, of the roughly 6,600 students currently enrolled, only 30 took a course this semester on U.S. history since the Civil War, and only three were programmatically required to do so. We don't have to worry about our college graduates forgetting the lessons of history -- not when they never learned them to begin with. Donning New Sunglasses One attitude pervading higher education today is: students are customers who need to be kept happy by service-oriented professors and administrators. That's a big reason why, at my college at least, the hottest topics debated by the Student Council are not government wars, torture, or bail-outs but a lack of parking and the quality of cafeteria food. It's a large claim to make, but as long as we continue to treat students as customers and education as a commodity, our hopes for truly substantive changes in our country's direction are likely to be dashed. As long as education is driven by technocratic imperatives and the tyranny of the practical, our students will fail to acknowledge that precious goal of Socrates: To know thyself -- and so your own limits and those of your country as well. To know how to get by or get ahead is one thing, but to know yourself is to struggle to recognize your own limitations as well as illusions. Such knowledge is disorienting, even dangerous -- kind of like those sunglasses donned by Roddy Piper in the slyly subversive "B" movie They Live (1988). In Piper's case, they revealed a black-and-white nightmare, a world in which a rapacious alien elite pulls the levers of power while sheep-like humans graze passively, shackled by slogans to conform, consume, watch, marry, and reproduce. Like those sunglasses, education should help us to see ourselves and our world in fresh, even disturbing, ways. If we were properly educated as a nation, the only torturing going on might be in our own hearts and minds -- a struggle against accepting the world as it's being packaged and sold to us by the pragmatists, the technocrats, and those who think education is nothing but a potential passport to material success. William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A TomDispatch regular, he also writes for History News Network and Nieman Watchdog. His essays have appeared in The Nation, Salon.com, Asia Times, Le Monde Diplomatique, and elsewhere. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
 
Esther J. Cepeda: U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor is a Superstar Judge Who Just Happens to be Hispanic Top
National news: a Puerto Rican daughter of the streets overcomes all obstacles including childhood death of her third-grade educated factory-worker father, a mother who had to work six days a week to buy her and her brother a set of encyclopedias that sat in the concrete block room of her Bronx housing project apartment, makes it big as a nominee on the U.S. Supreme Court. God Bless America! Oh and by the way, Sonia Sotomayor is a badass judge. Missed that part didn't ya? I certainly did -- during President Obama's press conference and in coverage immediately afterwards. It was all about the First Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court Judge, and about the Second Woman for the Supreme Court, and about triumph over adversity and childhood Nancy Drew adventure dreams dashed because of diabetes, and not about one woman's stunning talent and determination culminating in a seat in this country's highest court. Now don't get me wrong -- as many did when I wrote that the best nominee should be accomplished and wonderful despite gender or ethnicity -- I'm thrilled! And humbled and inspired by this woman's tremendous achievement and professional excellence, but gosh I wish that the morning's exciting news had focused more on that professional excellence and not just on her stunning personal story. Sure, President Obama started off his presser by noting his nominee was chosen because of: "First and foremost... a rigorous intellect - a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions. Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand." But then it was all about her triumph over adversity. Again, an incredibly awesome achievement - and darned heart-warming to see Sotomayor thank her mami publicly: "I am all I am because of her," Judge Sotomayor said, "and I am only half the woman she is," I got teary with pride - but where was the gushing about her professional achievements? Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the U.S. District Court by a Republican President, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton. Walking in the door she would bring more experience on the bench, and more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed. Judge Sotomayor is a distinguished graduate of Princeton and Yale, would be the only justice with experience as a trial judge, has presided over roughly 450 cases and brings with her a stamp of approval from none other than George H.W. Bush who appointed her to the District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992 - when she was still in her 30s! According to the White House backgrounder, "If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years." Oh how I wish that was the predominant headline! It goes without saying that some will harshly criticize her -- that just goes with the territory. They'll do so because she's perceived as liberal, or because she's a woman, or because she once made the following disturbing comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Oh there's more: allusions to a "Latino agenda," controversy regarding Fire Department promotion tests...it will all come out in the following weeks, it's open season; heck at the afternoon press conference a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if the White House was sure she'd paid her taxes. He replied, "I have not seen anything on that." Sotomayor is President Obama's pick, and if she should become the 111th U.S. Supreme Court Justice, let's not let Sotomayor be labeled the "best Hispanic Supreme Court judge" around but, rather, the best choice to represent the people of United States on the Supreme Court who just so happens to be Hispanic. Esther J. Cepeda is an opinion journalist who writes on www.600words.com More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Man Calls 911 Over Orange Juice At McDonald's Top
ALOHA, Ore. — An Oregon man spent Memorial Day in jail after calling 911 to complain that a McDonald's worker was rude and didn't give him an orange juice he ordered. Sheriff's Sgt. David Thompson said the man, 20, wouldn't listen when deputies told him the emergency number isn't to be used for straightening out fast-food orders. A McDonald's employee also called 911 during the incident, complaining that the man and the people with him were blocking the drive-thru lane and knocking on the restaurant windows. The man was accused of improper use of 911. The Oregonian newspaper reported that the man was bailed out of the Washington County Jail on Tuesday and could not be reached for comment. ___ Information from: The Oregonian, http://www.oregonlive.com More on Stupid Criminals
 
Susan Scafidi: Not-So-Blind Justice: On Style And The Supreme Court Top
Lady Justice may traditionally wear a blindfold, but she certainly doesn't want it to look as if she were wearing one while getting dressed in the morning. Assuming that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she will face many important decisions - including what to wear to work. And as is the case for another unexpected fashion icon recently relocated to the nation's capital, America will be watching. Of course, U.S. Supreme Court justices have it a bit easier than First Ladies when it comes to their sartorial selections. Although the first chief justice, John Jay, wore imposing red and black robes - a nod to early colonial and English judges, but minus the heavy wig - the Court's color palate faded to black by at least 1800. Since then, all-black robes have been de rigueur, and few justices have varied more than the pattern of their neckties peeking out at the top. John Jay One notable exception to the Justices' uniform dress code was former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. While attending a performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe , he so admired one character's costume that he returned to chambers and had four gold stripes added to each sleeve of his own robe. Nor was this an isolated instance of the Chief playing dress-up; he also kept an elaborate Native American feather headdress, a gift from his clerks, in his office. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, has engaged in no such dramatic displays. William H. Rehnquist The first woman appointed to the Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, experienced a somewhat different challenge from her judicial brethren. Black robes are simple unisex garments, but what about that little exposed triangle at the base of the neck? The gentlemen justices all wear standard shirts and ties, but women's choices are far more varied when it comes to professional attire. Justice O'Connor could have redesigned the neckline of her robes, elected to wear a scarf or necklace, or even added one of those sad floppy bows so ubiquitous around the time of her appointment in the early 1980s. Instead, she and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ultimately chose ruffled white lace jabots, reminiscent of those still worn by many male and female judges in England and France. Elegant, yes, but surely there are more modern choices than an accessory our more fashionable Founding Fathers would have worn. Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg While federal law leaves the justices free to design their own robes, Judge Sotomayor will almost certainly follow tradition and pack her current collection of black robes for the trip to Washington - and not whip up, say, a hot pink version for the occasion. A certain soberness and uniformity in judicial dress underscores the message that judges and justices do not speak for themselves as individuals; they represent the rule of law and speak for the court. As our newest Supreme Court nominee has noted, however, the presence of a "wise Latina woman" on the bench puts a different face on the law. In her new role, soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor will have thus the opportunity to craft a sartorial style that conveys not only gravitas but independence. Black may be her go-to color choice as both a judge and a lifelong New Yorker, but she also has a penchant for adding a flash of bright red, deep purple, or even acid green, as well as a fondness for bold earrings. Here's hoping that she has a moment to celebrate her historic professional achievement with a trip to her favorite jeweler - and not just to buy a pair of bipartisan pearl studs. One of Sonia Sotomayor's pairs of earrings More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Candy Spelling: Tori's Actions Killed Dad Aaron Spelling Top
Candy Spelling is blaming the death of her husband Aaron Spelling on the heartache he suffered from daughter Tori's alleged decision to cut off contact from the family.
 
Bush Still Screening Audience Questions Top
hroughout George W. Bush's presidency, his handlers always made a special effort to ensure his appearances with regular Americans were scripted in such a way that shined the best possible light on Bush and his polices.
 
John Eskow: The Suicidal Soldiers of Fort Campbell: In Memoriam, Post-Memorial Day Top
Now that the television rituals are over -- the theatrically somber voices of the network anchormen; the poetically-framed, stock-footage shots of Arlington Cemetary, and the cracked-bugle versions of "Taps;" maybe a cutesy interview with the Oldest Surviving Veteran of some forgotten battle -- the American media, having done its faux-patriotic duty, can forget Memorial Day and scurry back to its infantile obsession with the inside-baseball minutiae of Washington politics. And what of the freshly-dead soldiers, the soon-to-be-dead soldiers, and all those warriors for whom IED stands not for "improvised explosive devices" but "internal emotional death?" For them, that one Memorial Day is over, and the remaining days of the year -- those 364 consecutive Amnesia Days -- are just beginning. It's truly amazing how little attention has been paid to the epidemic of suicide at Fort Campbell, Kentucky -- home to the legendary 101st Airborne Division. Why isn't it a front-page story when an entire military base shuts down for three days in a worthy -- if sadly belated -- attempt to cope with "at least" eleven suicides? Why do the moronic ramblings of Liz Cheney draw so much more attention than the fact that our soldiers are now murdering themselves at a faster clip than our enemies do? Year after year, our military sets new records for self-destruction. In the Army alone, there were 115 in 2007, and 133 in 2008, We've already had 64 confirmed Army suicides this year, so we're sure to shatter the old mark. And of course these numbers only begin to hint at the problem: they don't include the slower, long-term suicides by alcohol and drugs, by madness and homelessness, or the quasi-zombie wrecks who sit on porches across America staring dully out into the middle distance. So the brass at Fort Campbell shuts the base down for three days, in "an effort to let the soldiers know that the command cares," according to spokesperson Kelly Tyler; "to make sure people know we want them to keep living." Ms. Tyler goes on -- with haunting and unintended irony -- to say: "It is such an unusual event to look them in the eye and say their life matters." Yes. It's a highly unusual event. And 's a horribly -- and grotesquely -- insufficient one. "Soldiers often refuse to admit they are having problems because of the culture of the military," she said. True enough. And this was the extra, hidden evil of Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" edict -- it reinforced the very culture of secrecy, denial and shame that was already at soul-crushing levels in the military. And not just around the issue of sexual preference: how many other passions, fears, and forbidden thoughts are soldiers forced to deny, minute to minute, year after year, in order to survive... until they snap? And when that final snap comes, they don't only destroy themselves: although it was a short-lived story in the American media, five military families are still mourning the soldiers killed by the decidedly un-friendly fire of Army Sergeant John Russell. In a cheap but potent irony, Sgt. Russell -- tellingly described by his father as "a real John Wayne type" -- was a communications specialist who opened fire on his brothers at a stress clinic. War is, inevitably hell, but there is nothing inevitable about this surge in military suicide. Even the vice chief-of-staff of the Army, Peter Chiarelli, has cited long deployments in Iraq -- and the sadistic Bush/Cheney "stop-loss" policy -- as a huge factor in this suicide spike. And Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has laid it on the table with typical candor: "It's tragic. I mean, It's deeply disturbing, but I don't think folks who have been in the [war] theater are surprised," He says: "One in four folks come back [from war] with some kind of stress-related mental health injury. But these folks are going back over and over again," he said. "Each time you're deployed, you're more likely to have a mental health disability." Sgt. Russell -- the John Wayne type -- had been in Iraq for four rotations, a total of 54 months, in a hell we created for absolutely no good reason -- a hell we are dismantling with amazing slowness -- a hell to which we continue to consign young people every day. U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Arizona, a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, says the military needs to reach out to military personnel who may be suffering from combat stress. "We simply cannot wait for our men and women serving in the military, or our nation's veterans transitioning back to civilian life, to come to us. We need to go to them," he said recently. Yes, by all means: we need to go to them. But it doesn't seem like a priority to America's government or media. After all, Memorial Day is over. More on Iraq
 
Danny Schechter: Will Financial Crisis Lead To Real Changes? Top
Is this an age of financial reform, or plunder without end? Will all the financial reforms lead to change or just prop up the status quo? New York, New York: It is almost axiomatic to argue that renewal comes out of chaos. And reform and change are born in crisis. The financial meltdown of 1907 led to the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank. The Crash of '29 ushered in the New Deal, the FDIC, the SEC, and The Glass-Steagall Act etc. Even the disaster at Enron permitted new statutes requiring more transparency like Sarbanes Oxley. And now this greatest of great recessions is leading to a new wave of financial regulation. The public is already said to believe recovery is just around the next corner. "So relax," we are told, "read your history books and recognize that disruptions of the established order lead inexorably to the measures to fix it, to stabilize it, to restore it, to renew confidence, to get the economic engines going again. So what if it takes money? Sure it will be expensive, but what's a few trillion between friends?" President Barack Obama has already warned us that not everything will work out but promised you can trust his team will do its best. Some progressives see this crisis as a time to push a reform agenda but few organizations have engaged these issues directly. So far, the winds of reform, however mild, are blowing, and some think, blowing up a storm. The Credit Card Bill has passed, never mind that it doesn't cap interest rates or go into effect for a year. A new financial fraud bill was passed mandating an investigation by Congress. Said Obama: "the commission was important so that we make sure a crisis like this never happens again." So far so good, or so it appears. Scratch deeper and you find questions and contradictions that make you wonder if any of this is really about change, or just restoring a flawed and failed system that has imploded, stoking public anger. When the music stops, who will still be standing and in control? Let's start with the Financial Crisis Commission which will emerge from a divided Congress more used to the arts of unprincipled compromise than the unfettered search for truth. As we know from the 911 Commission, bi-partisan panels don't necessarily find answers to tough questions. Isaiah Poole contends on OurFuture.org that public vigilance is the only guarantee of a process we can believe in. What's also clear is that we will have to watch the watchdog. The administration could hamstring this commission with constitutional privilege claims, and Republican appointees could cripple the commission to score political points and protect its Wall Street bankrollers. Finally, a media preoccupied with what it perceives to be sexier issues and weakened in its capacity to do its own investigative journalism could allow the commission's work to fall into obscurity, thus robbing it of its power to drive fundamental reforms. We will have to be ready to push the commission to confront the tough questions; to call out the obstructionists, regardless of who they are; and to amplify the commission's findings as we forge new and better rules for our economy. And what of the economic "stabilization" measures that have poured taxpayer money into the coffers if the very institutions that wrecked the economy in the first place? Andy Kroll argues on TomDispatch.com that these measures are a swindle, restoring Wall Street and propping up a broken financial system: The legislation's guidelines for crafting the rescue plan were clear: the TARP should protect home values and consumer savings, help citizens keep their homes, and create jobs. Above all, with the government poised to invest hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in various financial institutions, the legislation urged the bailout's architects to maximize returns to the American people. That $700 billion bailout has since grown into a more than $12 trillion commitment by the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve. About $1.1 trillion of that is taxpayer money -- the TARP money and an additional $400 billion rescue of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The TARP now includes 12 separate programs, and recipients range from megabanks like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase to automakers Chrysler and General Motors. Seven months in, the bailout's impact is unclear. The Treasury Department has used the recent "stress test" results it applied to 19 of the nation's largest banks to suggest that the worst might be over; yet the International Monetary Fund as well as economists like New York University professor and economist Nouriel Roubini and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman predict greater losses in U.S. markets, rising unemployment, and generally tougher economic times ahead. Media outlets, predictably, are not looking at all this too carefully, not probing who is getting what, not investigating a massive new theft that is compounding an old one. So far, Wall Street is still sitting pretty, still giving itself outsized salaries and bonuses, still enjoying its ill-got lucre. And, according to Sam Pizzigati , editor of Too Much, an online weekly on excess and inequality, they will come out of this just fine. The awesomely affluent of high finance, if current trends continue, seem almost certain to survive the mess they've created -- with their wealth and power largely intact. And Treasury and Congress don't appear to really mind. ...The nation's richest 1 percent have, since the 1970s, over doubled their share of the nation's income and wealth. Last fall, this gravy train -- for the rich -- derailed. America's biggest banks collapsed. The stock market tanked. The unthinkable, a real depression, suddenly became thinkable. When the trickle down stopped trickling, the government, and the Fed stepped in to rescue financial markets while millions lost jobs and homes. Will the inequities, imbalances, and structural inequality be addressed? Is this a reform or a new redistribution of wealth from the needy to the greedy? History is replete with examples of well-intentioned initiatives creating undesired consequences. What is the likely outcome? Business Journalist Gary Weiss who has written books on many Wall Street scandals has low expectations. "I'd say that we will willingly and cheerfully make the same mistakes again, because that is the way the system is setup," he told me. "The system is not designed to correct or to change in a fundamental way. Nothing that's happened, so far, none of the actions taken by the Obama administration regarding the financial crisis portends change." History also offers us telling voices, like this painful confession by an earlier reformer, and Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 in essence giving private interests control over our Central Bank. He later said with chilling candor, mark these words, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country...the growth of the nation therefore and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world...." Unfortunately, Woodrow Wilson's dissection became our destiny. Today members of Congress are struggling for full disclosure on how much the FED has spent in its bailouts and who got its billions. Woodrow's truth goes marching on, its lesson ignored at our peril. What went around then is still coming around now. Mediachannel.org News Dissector Danny Schechter is making a film based on his book PLUNDER: Investigating Our Economic Calamity (newsdissector.com/plunder.) Email comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org More on The Fed
 
Alberto Cutie, 'Father Oprah,' Leaves Catholic Church, Joins Epsicopal Church After Being Photographed Kissing His Girlfriend Top
MIAMI — A popular Miami priest and media personality known as "Father Oprah" has left the Catholic Church and joined the Episcopal Church after he was photographed cavorting on the beach with his girlfriend. The Rev. Alberto Cutie (KOO'-tee-ay) was removed from his Miami Beach church after photos of him kissing and embracing a woman appeared in the pages of a Spanish-language magazine earlier this month. He was received into Episcopal Church in a ceremony Thursday at Trinity Cathedral and may later announce he will marry his girlfriend, which is allowed in that denomination. He must complete other requirements before serving as an Episcopal priest. "I thank God for the many people in our community who have shown me their love and support," Cutie said in a statement Thursday. "Your prayers have truly sustained me at this time of transition in my life. With God's help, I hope to continue priestly ministry and service in my new spiritual home." Cutie has previously said he supports the Catholic Church's stand that priests should be celibate and does not want to become the "anti-celibacy priest." The Cuban-American priest was born in Puerto Rico and previously hosted shows on Telemundo. He is also a syndicated Spanish-language columnist and author of the book "Real Life, Real Love: 7 Paths to a Strong, Lasting Relationship." He headed the archdiocese's Radio Paz and Radio Peace broadcasts, heard throughout the Americas and in Spain, and earned the nickname "Father Oprah" for his relationship advice. Earlier this month, Cutie told CBS he has been romantically involved with the woman in the photos for about two years after being friends for much longer. "I believe that I've fallen in love and I believe that I've struggled with that, between my love for God, and my love for the Church and my love for service," Cutie said. After the scandal, more than 100 people gathered outside Cutie's former parish in Miami Beach, waving posters and chanting their forgiveness following the scandal.
 
Germany OKs Heroin Prescriptions Top
BERLIN — German lawmakers have voted to allow the prescription of synthetic heroin to long-term addicts who fail to respond to other treatments. The lower house of parliament approved the measure Thursday. It would apply only to people aged at least 23 who have been addicted for at least five years and undergone two previous, unsuccessful rehabilitation programs. A cross-party group of supporters says pilot programs in seven German cities found that controlled prescription of synthetic heroin, or diamorphine, at approved facilities helped addicts who failed to respond to treatment with methadone. Neighboring Switzerland has long had similar programs. They have been credited with reducing drug-related crime and improving addicts' health. More on Germany
 
Deepak Bhargava: Health Insurance You Can Trust Top
Americans Deserve a Public Health Insurance Option. Most Americans fear private health insurance companies won't be there for them when they get sick. As the debate heats up, it's really clear that a strong public health insurance plan must be a no-compromise element of any health care reform package. According to the Harris Poll only 7% of people judge private health insurance companies to be "honest and trustworthy." Trust in private health plans ranks above tobacco (2%) and oil companies (4%) but below hospitals (31%) and banks (21%). People have a lot of reason to be suspicious about whether private insurance will cover them when they fall ill. A report from the American Cancer Society and Kaiser Family Foundation showed that despite having private health insurance, cancer patients are running up large debts, filing for personal bankruptcy, and even delaying or forgoing treatment because they can't afford care. This is one of the reasons why a Lake Research poll found that a whopping 73% of voters want everyone to have a choice of a public health insurance plan while only 15% want everyone to have private insurance. An accessible public plan is critically needed for Americans who want an option they can be confident will be there when they need it. Consider the story of Kathleen: Kathleen, 46, is uninsured and has been denied coverage in the individual market because she has symptoms of leukemia. She lives in Florida, where the high-risk pool is not accepting new beneficiaries. She remains uninsured and has not had the necessary tests to confirm her diagnosis. "I have lost all faith in physicians and the health care system," Kathleen says. "No one is doing anything to help me." A group in Washington State has recently filed a law suit against high promising but non-delivering insurance companies. "It's a significant problem. People think they are covered and turns out they aren't," said Joshua Welter, of Washington Community Action Network, a grass-roots organization supporting issues such as health-care reform. One of the people who was a victim is Ruth : Ruth Bjorklund had an emergency hospitalization and later brain surgery. When she was hospitalized, Mrs. Bjorklund thought she had health insurance that met all the requirements under state law. But when the bills started coming in, she realized Nationwide was paying only a minimal amount of her expenses. Now she's more than $135,000 in debt. "I have a master's degree, and I got duped," said Bjorklund. "A lot of people were sold this plan. Hundreds of them. And it's wrong." A Harvard study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem. Consider the plight of David: David had to stop working as a truck driver after he was diagnosed with kidney cancer and has since been struggling to pay for COBRA during the two-year Medicare waiting period. His wife, Gloria, is his full-time caregiver and cannot work outside the home, and the couple has had to use much of their savings and borrow from friends and family to pay for their COBRA premiums. David cashed in his 401K at a 24 percent loss so that they will be able to continue to pay the COBRA premium until he is eligible for Medicare. Gloria tried to apply for Medicaid, but she learned that their income is too high. "There is not any help for people like us. We are not considered poor enough, but we don't have the money to pay it on our own," Gloria says. The case for a public option is simple. People need insurance they can trust. They need insurance they can afford and public insurance has a better track record than private insurance when it comes to reigning in costs while preserving access. Without a public plan we will continue to lack a benchmark which to force improvements in private plans. Americans want public and private insurance competing side by side so that they can choose the best option for themselves and their families. More on Health
 
CNBC's Julia Boorstin Interviews Arianna Top
I sat down with Arianna Huffington ahead of her keynote interview at the D: All things Digital Conference to talk advertising and the future of journalism. Like many other people here at the conference she tells me the big issue all the companies here, large and small, face, is monetizing content online. More on CNBC
 
Michael Martin: Are Speculators to Blame for Soaring Oil Prices? Top
Oil prices have leapt off their lows in the face of a recession, and as is human nature, we want to know why. After trading in the low $40s in mid February, Crude Oil is now trading up over $60 per barrel -- a 50% increase in a little more than 3 months and a 70% rise since January. Crude oil trading is not for the weak-hearted: a chart might look more like your Uncle Vinny's EKG after after a big meatball parm than anything you'd otherwise recognize as a commodity chart. In other words, the price is volatile -- it's all over the place. But in the face of a recession or depression, the world is wondering how this rise happened -- and how did it happen so quickly? To answer this question, last week KCRW's Warren Olney invited Kevin G. Hall to the Reporter's Notebook section of Olney's show To The Point . Hall is the National Economics Correspondent at McClatchy Newspapers and is a frequent guest on To The Point . When a question came up about higher crude oil and gasoline prices, Hall gave what most journalists give -- the line or two on how greedy speculators drive prices up on "us Americans." But there was a twist: the culprit now, according to Hall, is the passive commodity indexer. In order to include inflation-hedging commodities within one's asset allocation, investors have turned to investing in commodity indices, which are like the S&P 500 but for commodities. These indices buy commodities only, and, Hall concludes incorrectly, drive up the price. In his original article, Hall quotes Michael Masters -- an EQUITY hedge fund manager who does not trade commodities. Masters testified before Congress on the role of speculators in the commodity markets. Most of his testimony before has been refuted and he himself admitted that his "math was way off." In his testimony, Masters included pensions and endowments in the group he calls "speculators." Fair enough -- in the commodity space, you only have hedgers, who try to offset risk, and speculators, who are profit seekers. You could also say that these pensions are "hedging" against inflation. His implication that they should be banned, however, was, frankly, Un-American. Commodity indices can be very beneficial to investors of all sizes. These indices come with a built-in allocation of commodities. It's not just crude oil, but also Metals -- such as gold and silver, and Grains -- such as corn and soybeans -- a basket of commodities. Second, they are a "one-stop shopping experience." An investor can get a broad array of commodities in one investment, just like an investment in the S&P 500 index, for example. But what really irked Hall was the fact that the firms offering the index products, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley for example, have received TARP bailout money. The implication being that not only are the taxpayers underwriting "the impending bubble," they are going to pay more at the pump too, because "these unregulated banks" use all the crude oil trading vehicles for their own selfish means. As far as I know, caveat emptor is omnipresent. The "speculator," if that's what you call CalPERs et. al., has the right to "not participate," one of the most powerful tools in the speculator's toolbox. Speculators don't always win. Oil did crash from $140 to today's level of $60 -- a 60% drop which was even greater in January. Maybe the speculators drove down the prices by selling crude oil short, therefore benefiting consumers. Such trades occur when speculators feel that prices are too high -- they sell commodity futures at higher prices and buy them back cheaper, pocketing the difference as profit. It's true that the current environment in crude oil is very profitable for such dealers and oil storage facilities -- but that won't last forever. The Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were force-fed the government financial aid, even if they didn't need it, so as to disguise who the really sick "patients" were. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have been involved with commodity indices and Index Speculators well before TARP was legislated. Speculators can be to blame for price volatility in the short term -- and by that I mean intra-day. But not for days and weeks. Speculators do not cause trends in commodity prices. You don't always have or need a speculator involved in a commodity trade. One of the dirty little secrets in the dirty business of crude oil is that sometimes Oil Producers, entities that typically sell commodity futures to hedge, actually buy commodity futures contracts. In doing so, they join the speculators and are not hedging. They can exact their production costs out of the market. This might be an area for regulation. But regardless of the regulatory environment, oil prices are always based upon supply and demand. Passive index investors are part of the fundamental picture for crude oil. So the answer to "how did they get so high so fast?" is "The same way it collapsed from $140 per barrel" -- the forces of supply and demand. More on Goldman Sachs
 
ISAAC CAROTHERS INDICTMENT (READ IT) Top
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald announced the indictments of Ald. Isaac "Ike" Carothers (29th) and real estate developer Calvin Boender on bribery and corruption charges in connection with the re-zoning of a large West Side development project Thursday. Read the complete indictment: Carothers Indictment - Get more Business Documents Read the release from the U.S. Attorney's office: Carothers Press Release -
 
Brenda Lee, Reporter, Dragged Kicking And Screaming From Near Air Force One Top
The AP's Christina Hoag reports that Brenda Lee, a reporter for the Georgia Informer, was dragged kicking and screaming from the press area near Air Force One at Los Angeles International airport (LAX) Thursday morning. "Airport security officers carried the woman away by the feet and arms as she protested her removal," Hoag writes. KTLA reports that Lee is a self-proclaimed "Roman Catholic priestess." Lee claims she was attempting to deliver President Obama a letter urging him "to take a stand for traditional marriage." The AP reports from its interview with Lee : She said she asked a Secret Service agent to give the president her letter, but he refused and referred her to a White House staffer. Lee said she refused to give the staffer the letter. "I said, 'I'll take my chances if (the president) comes by here,'" said Lee, who identified herself as a Roman Catholic priestess who lives in Anaheim, Calif. "He became annoyed that I wouldn't give him the letter." Lee, who was wearing what she described as a cassock, said she protested when she was asked to leave. "I said, 'Why are you bothering me?' They escorted me outside the gate," she said. She said security officers allowed her to return when she promised she would not yell or wave, but then other officers arrived and told her to leave. "I said, 'I'm not leaving,'" she said. "They tried to drag me out." Two officers then picked her up and carried her out. An Associated Press photographer photographed the incident. "I was afraid you could see under my clothes," she said, her voice choking up. Lee, who said this was the second presidential event she has covered, was later released. PHOTOS (from AP): More on Photo Galleries
 
ProPublica: Has Consulting Firm For CIA Gone MIA? Top
by Sheri Fink , ProPublica Last week in Spokane, Wash., protesters rallied against torture outside the longtime offices of a consulting firm founded by two former military psychologists who reportedly helped develop abusive interrogation techniques for the CIA and the U.S. military. The psychologists, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, reportedly trained interrogators to use waterboarding on U.S.-held detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks. (See this story by Katherine Eban in Vanity Fair , this story by Mark Benjamin in Salon , and this story by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker . ABC News also recently profiled Mitchell and Jessen and has footage of the two declining to comment.) Little did the protesters know, but the consulting firm they had come to protest was no longer there. Last month, ProPublica reached Mitchell, Jessen and Associates at a phone number linked to the American Legion building where the company lists its official address. When we called the same number last Friday, it had been disconnected with no forwarding number. A woman who answered the phone at the Center for Personal Protection and Safety , which is located in the same building, told us that Mitchell, Jessen and Associates had moved out of the building in April and closed its office there. She gave no further information. Two employees of the Center, which describes itself as an educational institution focused on preventing workplace violence and improving travel safety, are listed by the Washington Secretary of State as "governing persons" in Mitchell, Jessen and Associates. We left a message for the two men, Roger Aldrich and Randall Spivey, at the Center on Wednesday. The management company for the building, SDS Realty, confirmed that Mitchell, Jessen and Associates had moved out in April and left no forwarding address. In late March, the real estate company was listing the 4,100-square-foot suite being vacated by the consulting firm as available for lease at $7,346 per month. An employee of the Washington secretary of state's corporations division told us that Mitchell, Jessen and Associates was still registered as a business in the state. The company's next annual report is due to the state in September. Mitchell, Jessen and Associates is also incorporated in good standing in Delaware, but does not have a current phone number listed there. Its only listed address is that of a business service provider, National Registered Agents, Inc. Also, a corporate database lists an Alexandria, Virginia address for Mitchell, Jessen and Associates. The phone number listed there doesn't work. But another corporation listed at the same address is Tate Incorporated, a business consulting firm. According to information on Tate's Web site, the firm's president is David Ayres, another " governing person " of Mitchell, Jessen and Associates. The phone number for Tate works, and we left a message for Mr. Ayres on Wednesday. Interestingly, Tate's Website lists two open positions for a "SERE Instructor." SERE refers to "Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape," a training program the U.S. military offers to help personnel prepare for enemy capture. Mitchell and Jessen were formerly SERE psychologists and reportedly helped "reverse-engineer" SERE techniques – such as slapping, stress positions, and waterboarding – for use on detainees held in U.S. custody. For more detail, see our previous story . Lisa Schwartz contributed research to this post. Sheri Fink is a reporter for ProPublica, America's largest investigative newsroom.
 
Patricia Stark: Confidence Shopping for a Bathing Suit Top
Polls show most gals dread the search for a new bathing suit as much as having to wear one in public. And that's not just the case with ladies who have extra weight on them. Every woman out there seems to agonize over one thing or another -- small breasts, big breasts, full legs, stick legs, belly's, short torsos, long torsos -- you name it. Now you might not be able to change the things that really bug you about yourself, but here are 15 things you can do to make the process of buying a swimsuit less painful, so you can move on to more important things like having fun and enjoying yourself. Watch video: 1. Several weeks before you go shopping or sunning, start dancing around your house in your bra and panties. That's right, you heard me. Get used to looking at yourself in as little clothing as possible. Vacuum, do laundry, sit at the table, look at your body when it's not covered up. This will either help you accept yourself for what you are or motivate you to make a change. If you can't do this in your underwear, do it in last year's bathing suit. 2. Put on your favorite bra and panties and stare in the mirror. What is it about the cut of the bra and panties that you like? If it's the coverage and support, bring them with you to the bathing suit store and ask the experts to find similarly structured bathing suit tops and bottoms. The same goes for trying to replace an old favorite swim suit -- bring it shopping with you. 3. You might not have the time or the desire to go on a crash diet, but you can prime yourself a few days before you shop. Even just 2 days of avoiding sugar, alcohol, carbs and salt can get rid of a lot of bloat, and you'll feel thinner on the day you shop for that new suit. 4. Self-Tanner is your friend. You know how great pantyhose can make your legs look? Well, putting on self-tanner is like covering your body with pantyhose. It makes you look thinner, gives you healthy-looking color, and hides spider veins, blotches and bruises. It's worth taking the time to practice and get good at applying. Or you can always go to the experts for a pro spray tan a day or two before your shopping day as well. 5. Shave and moisturize everywhere the night before or the morning of your shopping trip. Nothing makes you feel better than soft smooth skin, with no stubble or alligator dryness. 6. Wear a thong. If you are not a daily thong wearer, today is the day to wear one. It's much easier to try on bathing suits when you're not in your granny panties. You'll have a much better idea of how the suit will actually look. 7. Don't get hung up on numbers. Universal sizing is a myth! One company's size 8 is another company's size 10 and so on. Try on different sizes and pick the one that fits and feels comfortable. Cut off the label when you get home. 8. Find out about the store's return policy. Unfortunately, many stores have the most awful, florescent lighting in their dressing rooms. You're better off buying several suits, trying them on at home, and returning the ones you don't like. 9. Shop online or through mail order. Most of these stores have no problem with returns. You can order 10 suits, have your own private try-on party in your favorite mirror, then keep the one that works best and ship the rest back -- no questions asked. 10. Focus on balancing your proportions with color and coverage. If you're bigger on the bottom, draw the eye up with colors and patterns on top and keep your lower half dark and solid. Flip it if you're the opposite. 11. Seek out suits with tops and bottoms sold separately so you can mix sizes. A tankini works well on most figures and hides a lot of flaws. 12. Black is always slimming, but remember so is hunter green, purple, wine, and navy. You don't have to always do black. 13. Bring sandals and cover up with you and see how it all works together. 14. You get what you pay for! More expensive suits cost more because they are made with better materials, and constructed better. They will fit you more securely, and will simply look better on you. 15. Focus on your best parts, not what you don't like. Remember that most gals feel the same way you do. People are worrying about how they look, not how you look! Patricia Stark is the host of Craving Confidence , a weekly show about confidence, life, and business skills. To subscribe to the show or the monthly newsletter, visit www.cravingconfidence.com More on Fashion
 
Robert Teitelman: Regulatory reform leaks begin Top
Regulatory reform is moving, but in flux, and sources are in full leak mode, which The Wall Street Journal demonstrated Thursday. David Wessel in his Capital column in Thursday's paper pretty much echoes the conventional wisdom about the Federal Reserve as a central systemic or "stability" regulator. Despite the sense that various regulators are whispering this and that, most of this uber-Fed chatter is pretty old hat, though Wessel fails to touch on the single thorniest question: governance. Will an all-powerful Fed -- and a stability regulator without sweeping powers to set capital is useless -- retain its traditional autonomy, or will it take orders from Treasury, the White House and Congress? In short, in receiving these great powers, will the Fed lose one of the things that makes it unique? Meanwhile, right next to Wessel on the WSJ's A2 , Damian Paletta in a news story reports that "top Obama officials" are close to reporting to Congress that a single banking regulatory be formed by merging functions of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (Wessel seems to have written his column without knowing Paletta's reporting.) There is a logic here, as Paletta says: "Banks are overseen by a patchwork of state and federal regulators, and the Obama administration isn't expected to propose getting rid of the so-called dual banking system." But the plan would reduce the age-old tendency to shop for the lightest -- or most convenient -- regulator. This is a significant change, particularly for the Fed, which has long supervised the largest, most important commercial banks. The Fed really drove the process of bank M&A, diversification and consolidation over the last few decades. And the Fed has long argued the traditional central bank position that it had to hold sway over banks because they were conduits for monetary policy. Is that no longer relevant? The notion that the U.S. needed larger, more competitive and efficient banks really had a home at the Fed for many years, which may have contributed to its failure to pay serious attention to mortgage lending. This consolidation of supervisory function takes a powerful weapon from the Fed. If Wessel is right -- and there have long been many interests pushing the Fed as systemic regulator, although that inevitability felt like it was eroding recently -- the central bank may be handed new powers that will more than make up for what it loses. What's being constructed here is a shift from a Balkanized system based on a variety of criteria (geographic, function, structure, history) to a simpler, broader pyramidal scheme based on levels of supervisory powers. You can envision a system in which a set of institutions -- a consolidated banking regulator, some combo of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission -- handles disclosure, examination and enforcement. On top of all that, however, would loom a stability or systemic regulator, with the ability to set capital requirements, which is essentially the power to turn the temperature of the entire financial system up and down. The Fed would then have even greater sway over all finance, while giving up supervisory powers it really didn't seem to embrace anyway. Still, there are many questions raised by reading these two stories side by side. What will be the relationship between the systemic regulator and more prosaic supervisors and enforcers? How will information flow in this system? How transparent will it be? (The Fed has grown more transparent, but will it allow secret deliberations on individual banks to be disclosed?) Given this immense power, how could Congress and the White House allow some variation of the Federal Open Markets Committee to make decisions individually or systemically on capital? And what about the FDIC? The trade-off for the FDIC may well be that it gets greater capital and powers to seize failing banks, thus filling the role the Fed rushed into during the Bear Stearns Cos. implosion, and a role independent of the systemic regulator, in exchange for its loss of supervisory powers. But can the FDIC operate effectively without the intimate knowledge that comes from active supervision? There are a handful of fundamental questions about the viability of financial regulatory that require answers that remain unanswered. How do we avoid, or at least minimize, the possibility of regulatory "capture," particularly in a competitive global system? And what's the relation between the public, and the political world, and the uber-regulator that sits atop this bureaucratic heap? The two are deeply intertwined. The very fact that Wessel really doesn't bring up either one of them suggests that for his whispering sources, some issues are better left unsaid. - Robert Teitelman Robert Teitelman is the editor in chief of The Deal .
 
Geithner: China Should Decrease Exports Top
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner heads to Beijing this weekend to urge Chinese leaders to fundamentally alter the export-oriented economy that has created years of trans-Pacific trade tensions. More on Timothy Geithner
 
Fred Branfman: Replace Petraeus?: His "Af/Pak" Failures Far Outweigh His Iraq Successes Top
General Petraeus's aura of success resulting from reduced violence in Iraq has blinded normally sensible observers to his far greater failure in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His ill-conceived effort to deny Al Qaeda and the Taliban "safe havens" in Pakistan - through drone aircraft bombing and special forces' assassination and torture associated with General Stanley McChrystal, his new Afghan military commander - has backfired, driving the Taliban east into Pakistan where they have joined local allies to weaken the Pakistani government. It has also strengthened not weakened Al Qaeda and alienated growing numbers of Pakistanis. The Petraeus strategy has thus dramatically strengthened America's enemies and helped destabilize a nuclear-armed nation of 170 million whose importance dwarfs Iraq and Afghanistan combined. More alarmingly, he clearly intends to escalate his failed strategy, threatening unimaginable catastrophes in coming months and years. But although Petraeus should clearly be replaced and McChrystal's nomination blocked, President Obama is unlikely to do so absent significant public pressure for Petraeus's removal. Although Obama may well now regret his call as a candidate for attacking Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, given the debacle it has produced, Petraeus has enormous leverage over the President. The General is still extremely popular because of the perceived success of the Iraqi surge. The Obama Administration could be capsized by a combination of likely losses in the "Af/Pak" theater and a popular Petraeus resigning, blaming Obama for "not listening to his military commanders". Obama could even be defeated in 2012 by Petraeus himself on those grounds, should persistent Washington rumors about a nascent "Petraeus for President" campaign prove true. Obama's main hope of political survival should his Middle East policy fail, as appears likely, is to claim he was following the military's lead. This may also explain why he has reversed himself and adopted such Bush policies as military tribunals and preventive detention. It is clearly critical now for Congress, the media, opinion-makers and the public to undertake an objective analysis of the basic question: has the Petraeus strategy worked in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater? The General's past "Iraqi surge" strategy is irrelevant to this question. Past military victories do not guarantee future success, and indeed often make it less likely given the human tendency to repeat the past. Petraeus has been no more successful in "Af/Pak" than the French Generals who created the WWII Maginot Line, though they had succeeded in World War I. Petraeus is in charge. If he deserves the credit for the Iraqi surge, he now deserves much of the blame for the catastrophic failure of U.S. strategy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater. When General Petraeus became head of CENTCOM in October 2008, he became America's chief military strategist for the theater, as the N.Y. Times reported on October 31, 2008: "General Petraeus becomes responsible not only for overseeing military operations in Iraq ... and in Afghanistan, but also for a strategic crescent that includes Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia." Petraeus clearly sees himself as the central player in the region. When a N.Y. Post interviewer stated on May 19, "as the commander of the US Central Command, you're the big-picture `strategy guy,'" Petraeus did not demur, describing his "strong" team of Generals McChrystal, Rodriguez, and Eikenberry (the new U.S. Ambassador), and adding that "I'm privileged to have Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as my `diplomatic wingman.'" As overall theater commander Petraeus's most important mission has been to design a strategy to ensure that fighting in Afghanistan does not destabilize its nuclear-armed Pakistani neighbor. He has failed in this mission. David Kilcullen, Petraeus's own counter-insurgency advisor in Iraq has characterized U.S. policy as a fundamental "strategic error ... our insistence on personalizing this conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, devoting time and resources toward killing or capturing 'high-value' targets ... distracts us from larger problems." As Kilcullen had noted earlier, these "larger problems" include "the collapse of the Pakistani state,' a calamity that, given the country's size, strategic location and nuclear stockpile, would `dwarf' all other current crises." While Petraeus obv iously does not bear sole responsibility for all problems in the Af/Pak theater, and the collapse of the Pakistani state is not imminent, his many "strategic errors" have played a major role in weakening the U.S. and strengthening its enemies: -- Petraeus has driven the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined forces with local jihadi forces and gained increasing amounts of territory: o On February 16 the Times reported from Pakistan that "Analysts are now suggesting that the drone strikes may be pushing the Taliban, and even some Qaeda elements, out of the tribal belt and into Swat, making the valley more important to the Taliban." The Swat Valley is part of Pakistan proper, and the consolidation of Taliban forces there represented a major setback to U.S. and Pakistani interests. Pakistani government weakness there forced it to hand over effective control of the Valley including the imposition of Shariah law, to its enemies. On March 31, the Times reported that "American policy has arguably made the situation even worse, for the Predator-drone attacks along the border, though effective, drive the Taliban eastward, deeper into Pakistan. And the strategy has been only reinforcing hostility to the United States among ordinary Pakistanis." o With Swat as a base, Taliban forces then took over Buner District, as the T imes reported on April 22: "Pushing deeper into Pakistan, Taliban militants have established effective control of a strategically important district just 70 miles from the capital, Islamabad, officials and residents said Wednesday." o And, most ominously, the Taliban and local extremists have been making inroads into the Punjab, Pakistan's heartland, as the Times reported April 13: "Taliban insurgents are teaming up with local militant groups to make inroads in Punjab, the province that is home to more than half of Pakistanis, reinvigorating an alliance that Pakistani and American authorities say poses a serious risk to the stability of the country... As American drone attacks disrupt strongholds of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas, the insurgents are striking deeper into Pakistan -- both in retaliation and in search of new havens." Bruce Riedel, who led the Obama administration's recently completed strategy review of Pakistan and Afghanistan, said the Taliban now had `extensive links into the Punjab.'" -- The Petraeus strategy has strengthened radical Islamic groups within Pakistan - On April 20, the Washington Post reported that "a suspected U.S. missile strike killed three people at a Taliban compound in the South Waziristan tribal region; such attacks have become a powerful recruitment tool for extremist groups in Pakistan as anti-American sentiment builds." Extremist success has worked to "create an arc of radical religious energy between the turbulent, Taliban-plagued northwest region and the increasingly vulnerable federal capital, less than 100 miles to the east. They also appeared to pose a direct, unprecedented religious challenge to modern state authority in the Muslim nation of 176 million." Post columnist David Ignatius reported on an April meeting between Holbrooke and JCS chief Admiral Mullen with Waziristan tribal leaders: ` We are all Taliban', one young man said -- meaning that people in his region support the cause, if not the terrorist tactics. He explained that the insurgency is spreading in Pakistan, not because of proselytizing by leaders such as Baitullah Mehsud but because of popular anger. For every militant killed by a U.S. Predator drone, he says, 10 more will join the insurgent cause ... `You can't come see the people because they hate you,' he warned." Kilcullen has written that the drone war "has created a siege mentality among Pakistani civilians... (is) now exciting visceral opposition across a broad spectrum of Pakistani opinion in Punjab and Sindh, the nation's two most populous provinces ... " ( Times , May 17) -- The Petraeus strategy has also strengthened Al Qaeda - The Times reported on May 10: "As Taliban militants push deeper into Pakistan's settled areas, foreign operatives of Al Qaeda who had focused on plotting attacks against the West are seizing on the turmoil to sow chaos in Pakistan and strengthen the hand of the militant Islamist groups there, according to American and Pakistani intelligence officials ... the Taliban advances in Swat and Buner have already helped Al Qaeda in its recruiting efforts." Al-Qaeda's success in Pakistan - including attracting recruits and joining forces with local extremists - make it unclear whether Al-Qaeda would even return to Afghanistan should the Taliban regain power there. As the Times also reported on May 10, "a senior American intelligence official expressed concern that recent successes by the Taliban in extending territorial gains could foreshadow the creation of `mini-Afghanistans' around Pakistan that would allow militants even more freedom to plot attacks." Al-Qaeda would presumably be as welcome - and even safer - in such new "mini-Afghanistans" as it is presently in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier. -- Petraeus's strategy has made the "Af-Pak" theater "America's war", which Defense Secretary Gates has said would be a "terrible mistake" - When announcing Petraeus's appointment, Defense Secretary Gates stated that "we will be making a terrible mistake if this ends up being called America's war." ( Times , 10-31-08) But in Afghanistan, the Petraeus strategy has undermined and humiliated pro-U.S. Afghan President Karzai, whose pleas to stop killing Afghani civilians have been ignored. And it is obvious that the Pakistani army would not have launched its recent attacks in the Swat Valley had not America threatened to withhold economic and military aid. Kilcullen also noted that "the drone strategy is similar to French aerial bombardment in rural Algeria in the 1950s, and to the `air control' methods employed by the British in what are now the Pakistani tribal areas in the 1920s (and) encourages people in the tribal areas to see the drone attacks as a continuation of colonial-era policies. " ( Times , May 17, emphasis added) -- Petraeus's strategy is increasing support for a "Pashtunistan" threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan's survival - By attacking Pashtuns in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, Petraeus is increasing local support for a radical Islamic entity combining 13 million Afghani and 28 million Pakistani Pashtuns located on either side of the artificial Durand Line dividing Afghanistan and Pakistan, a development which would threaten both the Afghan and Pakistan governments. As Selig Harrison wrote in the Post on May 11: "it is equally plausible that the result could be what Pakistani ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani has called an `Islamic Pashtunistan.' On March 1, 2007, Haqqani's Pashtun predecessor as ambassador, the retired Maj. Gen. Mahmud Ali Durrani, said at a seminar at the Pakistan Embassy, `I hope the Taliban and Pashtun nationalism don't merge. If that happens, we've had it, and we're on the verge of that.'" -- Petraeus's strategy helped push the Pakistani military into a disastrous military operation that is strengthening its enemy over the long-term - As Kilcullen has noted "Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies must be defeated by indigenous forces -- not from the United States, and not even from Punjab, but from the parts of Pakistan in which they now hide. Drone strikes make this harder, not easier." ( Times , May 17) All observers agree that if Pakistan is to be stabilized much of the Pakistani military will need to shift its priorities from defending against India and learn to wage an effective counter-insurgency war within Pakistan. But rather than conducting a patient and effective strategy to do so, Petraeus's blunders and U.S. threats of withholding military and economic aid have helped force the clearly unprepared Pakistani military into premature fighting in the Swat Valley, creating 2 million refugees - "the world's most dramatic displacement crisis since the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the UN refugee agency warned." ( Guardian , May 18) Even if the Pakistani military succeeds in retaking Swat, it has alienated much of the local population, as the London Sunday Times reported on May 24: "many are angry with the army for using heavy-handed tactics." http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6350500.ece And it is unlikely to defeat the Taliban for the long run, as the Post reported on May 24: "highlighting the difficulty, some extremists are simply melting back into the civilian population so they can fight another day, as they have during previous clashes over the past 18 months in Swat." A "senior (Obama) administration official who is closely following the Pakistani military operations in Swat, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid offending the visiting Pakistani leaders," http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07prexy.html was even more blunt, telling the Times on May 6 that the Pakistan military is "fundamentally not organized, trained or equipped for what they've been asked to do ... They will displace the Taliban for a while. But there will also be a lot of displaced persons and a lot of collateral damage. And they won't be able to sustain those effects or extend the gains geographically." There is also growing concern that the military's mismanaged offensive will actually strengthen extremist forces, as the Post reported on May 25: "The government has been
 
New York Times Baffled By Teenagers Hugging Top
It happens to all of us, at one time or another. You're out there, just living your life. And then you suddenly catch a glimpse of the New York Times , and you remember: "My God! The Thursday Style section truly is a monument to vapidity!" To wit: children. They are hugging. A lot. And NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHY! It's the movie that M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening should have been! NAIL THIS STORY, TIMES! Girls embracing girls, girls embracing boys, boys embracing each other -- the hug has become the favorite social greeting when teenagers meet or part these days. Teachers joke about "one hour" and "six hour" hugs, saying that students hug one another all day as if they were separated for the entire summer. A measure of how rapidly the ritual is spreading is that some students complain of peer pressure to hug to fit in. And schools from Hillsdale, N.J., to Bend, Ore., wary in a litigious era about sexual harassment or improper touching -- or citing hallway clogging and late arrivals to class -- have banned hugging or imposed a three-second rule. Parents, who grew up in a generation more likely to use the handshake, the low-five or the high-five, are often baffled by the close physical contact. "It's a wordless custom, from what I've observed," wrote Beth J. Harpaz, the mother of two boys, 11 and 16, and a parenting columnist for The Associated Press, in a new book, "13 Is the New 18." "And there doesn't seem to be any other overt way in which they acknowledge knowing each other," she continued, describing the scene at her older son's school in Manhattan. "No hi, no smile, no wave, no high-five -- just the hug. Witnessing this interaction always makes me feel like I am a tourist in a country where I do not know the customs and cannot speak the language." I've long thought the idea that paying the New York Times for online content was absurd. Naturally, this changes everything. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]
 
Yvette Kantrow: Friedman and Andrews play the clueless defense Top
"I just wasn't paying attention." "It never even occurred to me to mention it." What do these two statements have in common? They were both uttered by New York Times journalists as they tried to explain away behavior for which they recently came under fire. The first was offered by uber-columnist Thomas Friedman in the public editor's ( Clark Hoyt's ) piece in Sunday's Times regarding Friedman's acceptance (and later return) of a $75,000 public speaking fee in a violation of the paper's policy. The second was included in reporter Edmund Andrews' explanation, e-mailed to PBS , of his decision to omit his wife's premarital bankruptcy from his (not quite) tell-all about his personal mortgage crisis. Friedman's and Andrews' remarks are not only oddly similar, but totally Times-like in their haughty cluelessness. Innocuous at first blush, they become much more irritating as you think more deeply about them. Is Friedman so wealthy and so accustomed to attracting big fees and so disconnected from the Times and its policies that accepting $75,000 -- more than most journalists make in a year -- for a single speech doesn't even cause him to blink? And did Andrews, despite writing what's been described as a financial memoir, really never even think about mentioning his wife's earlier financial woes, if only to reject the idea of including them? Let's deal with Friedman first. His admission of not "paying attention" becomes even more annoying when paired with this choice quote from him in The New Yorker's profile of Carlos Slim by Lawrence Wright, out this week: "He told me that since taking his current post, in 1995, he has never been asked by [Arthur] Sulzberger what he was planning to write, or how high his travel expenses would be. 'To be able to say what I want to say and go where I want to go -- other than a Sulzberger-owned newspaper, you tell me where that exists today.' " As Michael Roston writes on True/Slant, "Friedman is boasting that he can go wherever he want, write whatever occurs to him, and spend however much he wants to do those things without any attention to how his profligacy harms the paper's ability to survive." Noting the speaker-fee flap, Roston calls Friedman's boast "one of the worst-timed statements in the history of public relations." Or perhaps Friedman "just wasn't paying attention." Like Friedman, Andrews also took a turn this week under the public editor's gaze. But, as Felix Salmon writes on his blog, Andrews gets off pretty easily as the Times' public editor Clark Hoyt deals with the real issue at hand -- the omissions of his wife's bankruptcies -- via a tacked-on paragraph at the end of his piece, while spilling much more ink on a comparative nonissue: whether a reporter covering the housing crisis should write about his own, personal housing crisis. Andrews tells Hoyt that he decided to write his book because he "was desperate" for cash. That makes sense. As Friedman proves, Times journalists can rake in big bucks in the book business. But what doesn't make sense is that Andrews, a veteran Times reporter -- in Washington of all places -- didn't realize that once his "tell-all" hit the pages of the Times, it would become instant fodder for the fact-checking mill. That that didn't occur to him, or to anyone else at the Times, makes both Andrews and the paper appear as out of touch as Friedman. Or maybe they just weren't paying attention. - Yvette Kantrow Yvette Kantrow is the executive editor of The Deal . More on Thomas Friedman
 
Jane Levere: Smellorama Redux: New and Improved on Manhattan's Upper East Side Top
Although some of New York City's best-known aromas originate in the subway system in the summer, automotive exhaust, and even a fenugreek processing plant in -- of all places -- North Bergen, N.J. On May 31, the museum's Works & Process initiative will present the world premiere of Green Aria , which its creator, Stewart Matthew, has dubbed a ScentOpera. A musical program performed in the dark, it will feature entertainment provided by scents and a composition by Nico Muhly -- who has worked with Philip Glass and Benjamin Millepied, and written the score for The Reader and other films -- and by Valgeir Sigurdsson, an Icelandic composer and producer who worked for many years with countrywoman Bjork. The audience at the Guggenheim will sit in seats outfitted with what Matthew, a writer and one-time Chase investment banker, describes as a "scent microphone." This device will direct scents at each audience member; the music in turn will support the scents and help them "sound." Matthew's collaborator and official perfumer is Christophe Laudamiel, a former senior perfumer at International Flavors and Fragrances. Muhly said his music "describes the procession of scents through time. There is a constant back and forth between industrial and organic smells. Some smells are aggressive, strong and intense, while others are synthesized, a weird mix of things." Muhly compared writing the ScentOpera's music -- which was composed for acoustic and electronic instruments and will be heard at the Guggenheim on a recording -- to "writing a film score, with a narrative written by another person. In this case, I'm following his path, not composing my own piece of music." Following five sold-out performances of Green Aria at the Guggenheim May 31 and June 1, Matthew said there are "plans to take it to equally prestigious venues worldwide" Asked his personal favorite scent, Matthew said "anything designed by my partner, Christophe Laudamiel," while Muhly said he preferred the aroma of roast chicken.
 
Chavez Talkathon To Last 4 Days Top
CARACAS, Venezuela — There's nothing Hugo Chavez relishes more than addressing the nation for hours on end, and on Thursday the loquacious Venezuelan leader seized the airwaves like never before. Chavez began what he said will be a four-day "Hello President" radio and television show celebrating the 10th anniversary of the program that has been widely emulated by other Latin American leaders. "There's no program like this one," Chavez boasted as he launched the program while standing outdoors at an electrical plant in western Venezuela. Chavez said the show would run through Sunday, with some breaks of unspecified duration. That could threaten what Chavez says is his own personal record of taking for more than eight hours straight one Sunday in 2007. "Hello President" was first broadcast on radio on May 23, 1999, a month after Chavez took office. State television began airing the show the following year, and it has become a pillar of efforts to counter what the president calls one-sided reporting by private media. Other Latin American leaders _ from Mexico's Vicente Fox to Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva _ have since launched their own weekly broadcasts, but none has managed to duplicate the unpredictable Chavez's ability to pull an audience. Chavez has often burst into song, hugged visiting Hollywood celebrities and scolded careless camera operators while preaching his own brand of socialism. Watchers are likely to see Chavez chat by phone with Fidel Castro, invent colorful epithets for George W. Bush and unexpectedly announce the seizure of major industries before veering off into a lengthy ramble about steel output. He spoke for about 30 minutes on Thursday about the production of sardines in eastern Venezuela. Shows typically last four to six hours each Sunday. One show opened onboard a military helicopter in flight, recalled Andres Izarra, a former information minister who ran the program for two years. "Every 'Hello President' is an adventure," Izarra said. His close friend and mentor Fidel Castro _ himself a master of marathon speechmaking _ congratulated the Venezuelan president Thursday: "Never has a revolutionary idea made use of a medium of communication with such efficiency," the 82-year-old Cuban leader wrote in his country's official newspapers. Chavez grasped the power of the media as the leader of a failed coup attempt in 1992, when he surrendered in exchange for TV time to address the country. The rebellious army lieutenant colonel famously told viewers the uprising was over "for now," and instantly became a hero to Venezuelans who felt abandoned by entrenched political parties that had traded power for decades. "Chavez is a pioneer in the way he uses the media to advance his agenda," said Andres Canizalez, a communications professor at Andres Bello Catholic University. Chavez has gradually expanded state media _ especially television, where five state-run channels now broadcast on the airwaves, compared with just one when he took office. Two of Venezuela's four most-viewed television networks, meanwhile, have curbed criticism of the government since Chavez accused them of supporting a 2002 coup that briefly ousted him. A third moved to cable in 2007 after the president refused to renew its broadcast license. Critics complain Chavez seems omnipresent on the airwaves, but his allies defend the president's media savvy. "Defeating the media circus and disinformation are permanent tasks," said Izarra, now president of the Telesur, a Caracas-based regional news channel mostly financed by Venezuela that was launched as a Latin American alternative to private media outlets like CNN. More on Venezuela
 
Google Wave: Google Introduces New Communications Platform Top
SAN FRANCISCO — Google Inc. is hatching a new species of e-mail and instant messaging, but the Internet search leader first wants the hybrid service to evolve even more with the help of independent computer programmers. The free tool, called "Google Wave," runs in a Web browser and combines elements of e-mail, instant messaging, wikis and photo sharing in an effort to make online communication more dynamic. Google hopes Wave simplifies the way people collaborate on projects or exchange opinions about specific topics. Google offered the first glimpse of its latest offering Thursday during the Mountain View, Calif.-based company's annual conference for software developers who build programs on top of its services. The rest of the Web-surfing public won't be able to hop on Google Wave until later in the year. (Go to for a preview.) http://wave.google.com By the time Wave rolls out for everyone, Google hopes independent programmers will have found new ways to use the service. Among other things, Google is counting on outsiders to figure out how to weave Wave into the popular Internet communications service Twitter, social networks like Facebook and existing Web-based e-mail services, said Lars Rasmussen, a Google engineering manager. Rasmussen and his brother, Jens, helped build Google's online mapping service, which sprouted a variety of unforeseen uses after its 2005 debut because of the ingenuity of external programmers. Having learned their lesson from the mapping experience, the Rasmussens wanted to give developers ample time to tinker with their newest creation before unleashing it on the rest of the world. The Rasmussens broke away from Google's mapping service in 2006 to concentrate on building a service that would enable e-mail and instant messaging to embrace the Web's increasingly social nature. They contend e-mail hasn't changed that much since its invention during the 1960s. "We started out by saying to ourselves, `What might e-mail look like if it had been invented today?'" said Lars Rasmussen, who worked on Wave in Australia with his brother and just three other Google employees. Wave is designed to make it easier to converse over e-mail by providing tools to highlight particular parts of the written conversation. In instant messages, participants can see what everyone else is writing as they type, unless they choose a privacy control. Photos and other online applications known as "widgets" also can be transplanted into the service. The service could easily accommodate advertising like Google's 5-year-old e-mail service already does, but Lars Rasmussen said it's still too early to predict how the company might profit from Wave. More on Google
 
Myra MacPherson: Review: Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America and "Three Tales of I.F Stone and the KGB: Kalugin, Venona and the Notebooks" Top
Comments on Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America . By Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes and Alexander Vasiliev. Also Max Holland paper, "Three Tales of I.F Stone and the KGB: Kalugin, Venona and the Notebooks." The old saying that one cannot judge a book by its cover could be tweaked to observe that sometimes one cannot glean the truth by a book's title. This is especially so in the case of Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America regarding the thin documentation of journalist I.F. Stone as a stellar spy in the 1930's. One has to hand it to authors Harvey Klehr and John Haynes who know a bit about huckstering and sloganeering. Nothing would scare off prospective book buyers so much as a title about agents or agents of influence or sources. But SPIES! Now that has the proper cloak and dagger ring to it. Most people justly assume that "spy" means knowingly acting against the interests of one's country, obtaining vital secrets and passing them on to an enemy regime. No jury would convict Stone of being a spy and certainly not with the evidence that Klehr and Haynes provide. The authors go to great pains to provide their own elastic definition of spies: "...journalists rarely had direct access to technical secrets or classified documents, but the espionage enterprise encompasses more than the classic spy who actually steals a document." Thus a journalist spy could be an unwitting agent of influence or a witting one, a "trend spotter" who helps find other agents or a courier who passes non-classified information or even the most trivial gossip. In an interview with the New Haven Independent , Klehr even admits that "there was no indication with Stone that he's providing hot information. He's just another one of the sources they recruited." The third author of this book is Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB agent who was allowed to examine thousands of formerly secret files detailing Soviet espionage. He could only take notes on the information and he tediously toiled for two years to copy the material. From these notes Harvey and Klehr glean that beginning in 1936 and "over the next several years" Stone "worked closely with the KGB" "assisted Soviet intelligence on a number of tasks, ranging from doing some talent spotting, acting as a courier by relaying information to other agents, and providing private journalistic tidbits and data." After this build up, the evidence reveals much less -- not several years of cooperation, not working "closely with the KGB", but a total of two instances -- which implies that Stone had to be the laziest talent spotter in their stable. Historical Time Lines Before we discuss these notes, we should examine a major flaw when authors make "spy" claims with no attempt to describe actions in the context of the time. During the thirties, Stone was, as he said, a fellow traveler and "a strong popular fronter before there was a popular front." [ All Governments Lie , p. 118]. He deeply feared the spread of Fascism and was the youngest editorial writer in the country to warn the world about Hitler when many pundits were silent. He embraced the popular front so wholeheartedly that unity against Fascism meant suspending or ignoring hard truths about Russia. No biographer has attempted to sugar coat his myopia when it comes to Russia. But being misled and naïve does not make one a spy. In this context it makes a great deal of sense to assume that fiercely anti-Fascist Stone willingly participated as an agent in dealings with the Russians in the belief, however misguided, that American democracy could forge an alliance with a totalitarian regime. At no time did Stone think he was doing something harmful to his own country. Stone, like Winston Churchill, saw a necessary alliance; Churchill harshly criticized Neville Chamberlain for his failure to respond to a Soviet offer of a French-Soviet-British alliance against Germany before the disastrous 1939 Stalin-Hitler pact. "I beg his Majesty's Government to get some brutal truths into their heads," said Churchill. "....without Russia there can be no effective Eastern front." [ All Governments Lie , p. 175] During the '30s, Popular Front strange bedfellow alliances seemed everywhere. Republican politicians like Thomas E. Dewey, who would soon join the McCarthy attacks on leftists, happily posed for pictures with a CPUSA union organizer and friend of Earl Browder, the head of the CPUSA, because it was politically expedient. Both Spies and Holland's paper state incorrectly that New York Post publisher J. David Stern, an anti-communist liberal, fired Stone because of his leftist leanings. Stern in his oral history explains that the two fought over Stone's editorials regarding a refinancing plan for the New York transit system. After a heated exchange Stern worried about Stone's "juvenile attitude towards this problem. I sent a note to Izzy and the managing editor that hereafter he would work with the news department." Stone induced the Newspaper Guild to bring charges against the management for unfair practices. Stone lost in arbitration and resigned". [ All Governments Lie : p. 171-172]. Stone and the KGB during the Popular Front With this history in mind, let us look at what Spies shows. The first reference, April 13, 1936: Pancake [Stone] was Liberals' lead [described as Frank Palmer a leftist journalist and a KGB agent who suggested that his bosses look at Isidor Feinstein (Izzy's name at the time) as a good prospect.] The next month "relations with Pancake have entered the channel of normal operational work. " The authors define this as meaning he was a "fully active agent." When Fair magazine tried to Google this phrase -- normal operational work -- the only reference was to the Spies use. It is obviously not found in previous spy lexicon. That month, May, 1936 a KGB New York station memo to Moscow said that Pancake had reported that "Karl Von Wiegand works in Berlin as a correspondent for the Hearst agency " and "had been ordered to maintain friendly relations with Hitler, which was supposedly dictated by the fact that the German press was buying the agency's information. Hearst is in a deal with German industry to supply the latter with a large consignment of copper." The next sentence has a "who could blame him?" ring to it for anyone opposed to Hitler: "Wiegand does not agree with Hearst's policy." Certainly Stone was looking for a red hot story here and sought information for his own purposes. If Stone could prove the copper connection he would have blasted it across the pages of the New York Post . Stone was already working on major exposes that would show that American cartels were doing business with Nazi Germany. A second reference mentions Pancake's talent spotting: Pancake established contact with Dodd and said that Pancake "should tell Dodd that he has the means to connect him with an anti-Fascist organization in Berlin." Dodd was William Dodd Jr., son of the U.S. ambassador to Germany and a popular front activist. Pancake also passed on to the KGB Dodd's information "picked up from the American military attaché, about possible German military moves against the USSR." And a final memo from that era stated that Victor Perlo, a member of FDR's administration and a Russian agent, helped Stone with various materials for Stone's exposes. (See Footnote 1) So that is it. Everything on Stone in the Notebook files. Then the focus shifts to the oft reviewed Venona files and the attempt of agent Pravdin to sign Izzy on as an agent in 1944 -- when, by the way, Russia was a crucial ally. Klehr and Haynes state that even with the Vassiliev Notebook it is "still not completely clear if this attempt was successful or not." The rest of the Stone references in Spies rehashes the often discussed material found in Venona files, released in the mid nineties, and endless attempts to decipher the truth in Kalugin's many versions of his having had six lunches with Stone over a two year period in the sixties. This relationship was first revealed 17 years ago. It is gratifying to see that Haynes and Klehr now find two of the Venona references to Blin aka Pancake perfectly "benign." The other is the question of whether Stone had more than one meeting with Pravdin, the KGB agent cum press attaché during the World War II alliance. Walter Lippmann and the KGB A most interesting question is why Walter Lippmann, the establishment sage, continues to get a pass in all this discussion of spies, even though, as I noted in All Governments Lie: The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I.F. Stone , the Venona files show that Lippmann was far more revealing and talkative than Stone ever was with the same agent and press attaché. In the new material, Klehr and Haynes deal with Lippmann once again with veneration. A Vassiliev note obtained for Spies states that in June 1945 Moscow Center told the New York KGB station that "the cultivation of Truman's inner circle becomes exceptionally important....To fulfill this task, the following agent capabilities need to be put to the most effective use." The four journalists code named as agent were "Ide" "Grin" "Pancake" and "Bumblebee." Since "Bumblebee" was Lippmann, how do Haynes and Klehr handle this collective inclusion? "Walter Lippman was not [the authors' emphasis] a KGB agent. He knew Pravdin only as a Soviet journalist with whom he traded insights and information." In other words, was Lippmann more gullible and less intelligent than Stone who, they claim, always knew that Pravdin was KGB? Haynes and Klehr are left with having to say that "with Lippmann's inclusion to the list, this message is ambiguous in regard to Stone's relationship to the KGB at that time and does not have enough detail to warrant a firm conclusion." Max Holland in his paper "I.F. Stone: Encounters with Soviet Intelligence" is stuck with the same information. The journalists in the memo are lumped in with men in the government and military circles and all are referred to as "the above-mentioned probationers" who should be "directed" to get information on Truman's plans and thinking. . Holland writes "what is notable about this message is its reference to 'agents' and 'probationers', the latter term being KGB terminology for an active source or spy. Not taking care to distinguish Lippmann/Bumblebee [a non-agent in Holland's view] from the others listed in this message indicates either a range of meanings about how the term 'agent' was used or, more likely simple laziness on the part of the cable's author....Where this leaves Stone/Blin is unclear. Either Stone, like Lippmann was sloppily lumped in with the others, or else he had moved at least one degree beyond an overt contact." No explanation is given as to why Lippmann -- who figures more prominently than Stone in the Venona files, participating in conversations relaying far more information than Stone did about U.S. activities -- is not considered an agent. Like Klehr and Haynes, Holland states that the otherwise brilliant Lippmann was "unaware that he was actually talking with a skilled intelligence officer" as he chattered away. Whether he knew or not, everything he said about wartime maneuvers and so forth showed up in the KGB files. Holland concludes that there is no question Stone was a "fully recruited and witting agent" from 1936 to 1938 but "was not a 'spy' in that he did not engage in espionage" and had no access to classified material. Says Holland, " ...Stone apparently acted out of ideological conviction like the vast number of U.S. citizens who agreed to help the Soviet Union covertly..." Unlike Haynes and Klehr, Holland places Stone in the context of his time. "By almost any objective standard, the world situation did appear as dire in the spring of 1936 as Stone believed it was. [Stone was later singled out by historians for his prescient and unrelenting editorials regarding Hitler's subjugation of Jews at that time.].He perceived fascism to be a clear and present danger. That was matched by his fervent believe--which some would label a self-delusion--that the New Deal state and the world's only socialist state were separated by just a few degrees, and could coexist amiably. Using this logic, it was a virtuous act to cooperate with the Soviet intelligence. Stone would actually be serving the best interests of his fellow citizens and the country." As for the conflicting tales woven by former KGB agent Kalugin about his relationship with Stone from 1966 to 1968, Holland correctly notes that Kalugin "seemed incapable of telling the same story more than once." Still, this did not keep Holland from repeating the damaging and long refuted lie that Herbert Romerstein, former HUAC sleuth, developed after talking with Kalugin, that Moscow Gold subsidized Stone's weekly newspaper. No where is there any evidence that Stone took money for anything except a possible lunch or two.. Nor is there any evidence, as Holland points out, that Kalugin was able to plant stories with Stone. What Does it all Mean? So, finally, what does the new meager material add to our knowledge of I.F. Stone and his life's work? Not much. We knew he was just short of being a Communist in the thirties and that he worked and talked freely with anyone on the left during the Popular Front. He thought of himself as a fellow traveler, even, he once said, "something of an apologist" and he took far too long to completely acknowledge Stalin's evils. However he was often critical of the USSR and the CPUSA and earned their loathing when he worked as a tireless interventionist, fighting for aid to Britain during the Stalin-Hitler pact when Americans of all stripes opposed such action. (Only 12% in one poll favored aiding Britain.) He supported Tito when Stalin broke with him. He warned America to "not go the way of Russia" during its Witch Hunts. Korea Stone's most tendentious work, "The Hidden History of the Korean War" was not "dictated" by Communists but by Stone's beliefs. He will always be criticized for raising the theory that the South might have begun the war -- with leading Americans in complicit accord -- and Klehr, Haynes and Holland hammer this home. However, they concentrate on blistering critiques of the time and neglect just how correct Stone was in many aspects of the war, bolstered by lately revealed long secret documents. At least Holland correctly notes that one lie promulgated by the far right -- that Stone spread the Communist propaganda that the United States was using germ warfare -- is completely false, as I pointed out in my biography. In addition, a thorough reading of Hidden History reveals an often concise examination of other Korean war facets, written on deadline. Stone quotes such bastions of communism as the Wall Street Journal editorials to bolster some of his arguments. And thanks to the Woodrow Wilson Cold War History project we know a lot more about the machinations of the other side all these years later. It is clear, as Holland says, "there is no evidence to indicate that Stone's conspiratorial thoughts about the Korean war's origins sprang from anything other than his own mind." However, an examination of the Wilson Cold War files is necessary in order to see how Stone fares in the light of new solid information. It shows that Stone shared thoughts similar to the CIA at the time! And Stone's then inflammatory position that Stalin did not mastermind this war and, in fact, initially refrained from backing North Korea, is true. As historians sifted through half century old documents from Korea and Russia, Stone sounded amazingly prescient on this point back in 1951: "I believe that in Korea the big powers were the victims, among other things, of head-strong satellites itching for a showdown which Washington, Moscow and Peking had long
 
Arianna Tells Katharine Weymouth, AllThingsD Conference: Journalism Must Be Strengthened, Not Just Saved Top
Arianna: Good point! Wapo is doing great work, but what journalism has failed to do is to the right reporting in leadup to the war, and predicting economic crisis. American journalism has missed two biggest stories of our times. Even worse, the Wapo had a skeptical story about WMDs, but they buried that story. Point is: Very often journalism has been practicing Pontius Pilate style of journalism, and presenting two sides, when very often the truth is one on side or the other. Also a big shout out for I F Stone.
 
Diane Tucker: EXCLUSIVE: Russian Human Rights Activists Face Spike In Death Threats Top
By day, Russian teenager Artur Ryno painted devotional pictures of Christ and the saints at a Moscow icon painting school, where he carefully burnished thin sheets of gold leaf onto the kind of religious paintings that ages ago were thought to protect the devout from evil. But by night, he became evil incarnate, spending most evenings prowling Moscow's dormitory suburbs looking for immigrants to beat up. At first police didn't believe the 17-year-old art student when he confessed to killing 37 people in 2007. But Moscow investigators gradually confirmed Ryno's startling claims. According to the Russian daily newspaper Vremya Novostei , Ryno told authorities he hated immigrants who come to Moscow and "oppress Russians," and added that he suddenly realized "the city needed to be cleansed." As a parable of Russian life in the 21st century, Ryno's case is disturbing in scale, but hardly surprising. Since 2004, the far-right has murdered more than 350 people because of the color of their skin. These skinheads consider themselves hero-warriors -- part of a national liberation movement to rid Russia of immigrants. They revere Adolf Hitler , saying his only "mistake" was to attack Russia. Skinheads also align themselves with officially registered ultra-nationalist groups, such as the Movement Against Illegal Immigration and the Slavic Union . Russian "enemies list" on the Internet puts innocent lives in jeopardy More than 50 percent of the Russian people believe that "ethnic minorities should be limited or expelled from the country," Alexander Verkhovsky told Huffington Post . Verkhovsky is the director of SOVA, the leading independent monitor of racist and bias crimes in Russia. The soft-spoken activist publicly defends minorities. As a result, today there is a target on his back. We met in the Washington, D.C. office of Human Rights First , a non-profit organization that recently offered Verkhovsky and his candid deputy director Galina Kozhevnikova brief fellowships in the U.S. so they could temporarily leave the overheated political climate in Russia. Extreme nationalist groups have intensified their death threats against the two human rights activists. "It's hard for civil rights workers to live and work in Moscow these days," said Verkhovsky. "And in smaller cities, the situation is even worse. Our colleagues are receiving death threats from local Neo-Nazi groups who know where they live. Our friends have no protection at all. I'm very afraid for them." In 2008, Verkhovsky awoke one morning to find his name on the Enemies of the Russian People list, which was posted on the Internet along with a clear call to kill everyone on the list -- human rights activists, supreme court judges, prosecutors -- and Verkhovsky and Kozhevnikova. "Soon after the list was posted, some Neo-Nazis came to my flat and tried to get me to come out and talk to them, but I refused. The police cannot find them, so I am in a bad position because they continue to visit. Galina is receiving threatening emails. Our lives have changed," said Verkhovsky. Is the perceived danger real? The murders of prominent human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Baburova in January were possibly linked to their work drawing attention to the growing number of hate crimes in Russia. SOVA estimates that 87 people were killed and 378 injured in racist attacks during 2008. "Numbers are difficult to come by because there are no official statistics," Kozhevnikova told Huffington Post . "We collect statistics from various sources, and we try to be very conservative in the tally. The numbers could be several times higher." Skinheads now use many of the same tactics as terrorists Most of the young people who commit hate crimes in Russia are Neo-Nazis, and the number of serious attacks is growing. "The groups are more developed now, they're better equipped, and they operate in a climate of impunity because law enforcement agencies have not been paying attention to them until recently," said Kozhevnikova. The Internet is quickly replacing the cell phone as the propaganda medium of choice, because it is viewed as more secure. In one Russian city, Neo-Nazi groups who didn't know each other used closed web forums to coordinate attacks in different districts of the same city -- all on the same day. Many of the groups are using terrorist tactics. "They attack police stations, and they use explosives," Kozhevnikova explained "It is possible that Prime Minister Putin believes he can control these groups using words alone, but in reality that's not the case. The past two years prove the extremists are getting out of control." Despite a shrinking population, Russians prefer cultural homogeneity to growth through immigration During the 1990s, most Russian immigrants were "Russian" from a cultural point of view. They spoke Russian. They studied in the same Soviet schools. They had similar backgrounds. If the immigrants felt at all alien, it was simply because they had moved from a small city to a large city. "But today the situation is completely different," Verkhovsky told Huffington Post . "Few Russian immigrants speak Russian. They perceive themselves as foreigners, and they are perceived as foreigners. The government should make a serious effort to integrate the newcomers, but nothing like that has happened. Why? Because it is assumed that immigrants are here on a temporary basis. In Moscow, often they are referred to as guests." The multi-ethnic nature of Russian society has always been more of a concept than a practical reality. Until very recently, most people lived in cities where they belonged to the majority ethnic group, and they rarely traveled. But cities today are more diverse. Surprisingly, sociological surveys have shown that people have a difficult time describing any significant negative changes that immigrants have created in Russian lives. "When surveyors asked for a concrete change, people don't know what to say. It's more about prejudice," explained Kozhevnikova. "For example, a former labor union activist said that if we invite labor migrants from the Central Asia states, we must be prepared to be hit over the head with a brick. He isn't the only one who uses such metaphors. It's possible that this provokes acts of violence by regular people who hear this rhetoric on TV after they lost their job and are in despair." Obama visits Moscow in July, but will he bring up human rights? At the invitation of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, U.S. President Obama will attend a summit meeting July 6-8 to discuss reducing nuclear weapons, cooperating on non-proliferation, exploring ways to cooperate on missile defense, addressing mutual security challenges, and expanding the ties between American and Russian society and business. Human rights is not on the official agenda. Why not? The protection of human rights is the foundation of American foreign policy, and human rights abuses are a problem the U.S. shares with Russia. In 2007, there were 595 incidents of hate crimes against Hispanics in the U.S. and 1,265 incidents of attacks motivated by sexual orientation bias, according to the most recent FBI statistics . "It's time to bring the issue of racism and human rights to the high-level desks and deal with the problem together," Innokenty Grekov told Huffington Post . Innokenty works for the Fighting Discrimination Program at Human Rights First. "I'd like to see the United States and the Russian Federation sharing best practices, bringing Russian law enforcement officials to the U.S. to see how the system works here, and demonstrating how to prosecute these cases properly." In fact, anti-discrimination legislation "practically doesn't exist in Russia because the problem of discrimination is almost never discussed," explained Verkhovsky. In addition to racial discrimination, problems for religious minorities are growing. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom just added Russia to its watch list. Solving these problems will not be easy in a country where it is estimated that up to one in two government transactions involves a bribe, and where nationalism runs deep. But President Obama could certainly help the U.S. regain some of its moral authority in the eyes of the international community by insisting that the protection of human rights be added to the summit agenda. More on Russia
 
Bob Edgar: Campaign finance reform: A matter of national security Top
Between now and October, Congress will authorize and appropriate money for the 2010 defense budget, for which the Obama Administration has requested $534 billion. With the federal deficit skyrocketing, the economy ailing and questions raised about some major weapons programs, both the President and the Defense Secretary have signaled a willingness to reform, if not reduce, Pentagon spending. But if history is any guide, the Obama Administration will fail in its effort to eliminate wasteful programs and kill individual weapons systems the military no longer needs. One reason is because many of these defense programs directly benefit certain members of Congress, who see to it that Congress continues funding them year after year. Perhaps the most visible practitioner of earmarking spending for dubious defense programs is the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Rep. Murtha has received considerable press for adding so-called earmarks to defense spending bills that benefit large campaign contributors and send no-bid contracts back to his district in Pennsylvania, many of questionable value to the taxpayer. A review of campaign finance data by Common Cause , however, shows that the practice of inserting earmarks on behalf of campaign contributors is far more widespread. Just the members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense inserted more than $355 million in earmarks into the 2008 defense spending bill on behalf of their campaign contributors. Those contributors, according to campaign disclosure reports, donated a total of $1.3 million to the members who sponsored the earmarks. Fortunately for the earmark seekers, none of these approved contracts went through the normal vetting process, as some would have been difficult to justify publicly. Our bloated defense budget is another example of how campaign finance skews policy and spending priorities towards those who give the most and often have significant influence. In his farewell address in January 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." When questioned about his proposed 2010 budget for the Pentagon by skeptical members of the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary William Gates suggested lawmakers were too eager to defend their parochial interests and were ignoring the bigger picture, saying : "I know that some of you will take issue with individual decisions. I would, however, ask you to look beyond specific programs and instead look at the full range of what we are trying to do - at the totality of the decisions and how they will change the way we prepare for and fight wars in the future." There is no arguing the undue influence of military contractors in our current system. In the 2008 election cycle, defense contractors gave more than $23 million in contributions to Members of Congress and spent $277 million lobbying during that same time. Past administrations, Democratic and Republican, have tried and failed to get a handle on wasteful Pentagon spending. It is difficult to imagine contractors receiving such lenient treatment under different circumstances. The New York Times reported in an editorial on May 21 that, "96 major new weapons programs are running almost $300 billion over estimates and averaging 22 months behind delivery." If we can all agree that defense contractors are influencing our defense spending in order to continue funding for projects the military leadership does not want, then is it crazy to suggest that campaign finance reform is an issue of national security? I don't think so. The solution is changing the way we pay for federal political campaigns by creating a system of small donations and public dollars, a proposal known as the Fair Elections Now Act in Congress. For until we get defense contractors and other special interests out of the business of paying for the bulk of our political campaigns, we will not have policies or federal budgets in the best interest of the American public. More on John Murtha
 
Obama: Health Care Reform This Year -- Or Never Top
President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that if health care reform didn't take place this year, it won't be completed during his presidency. "We need health care reform legislation that works, that preserves what works about health care, that fixes the things that are broken. And I think the status quo is unacceptable " said the president, on a conference call with volunteers for his leftover campaign arm, Organizing for America. "And we have to get it done this year. If we don't get it done this year we are not going to get it done." Underscoring the high stakes of the debate, Obama called on his supporters to make the same organizational effort on behalf of health care that they did during the election. There were, he said, few more important issues facing his administration. "Now we are moving to one of our biggest priorities," he said, "something that all of us on the phone have been talking about since the earliest moments of this campaign... We know what is at stake; we know we need reforms... Americans now spend more on health care than on housing or food." The conference call, in which Obama participated while onboard Air Force One, is one of several moves on the part of Organizing for America to help set the table for the upcoming battle over health care reform. Organizing for America is also distributing a video message from the president and hosting a kick-off event for its health care reform campaign on June 6. "This is our big chance to prove that the movement that started during the campaign isn't over, we are just getting started," said Obama. "The election in November -- that didn't bring about change, that just gave us the opportunity for change. So now we are really going to have to re-mobilize. We had a chance to catch our breath after the election. We got a lot of things done in the first four months. But health care, that's a big push." Earlier in the call, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe also addressed the president's volunteers. Stressing the need for door-to-door engagement to help beat back the health care reform cynics and skeptics, saying that "failure it not an option here." "This is our chance so that 20, 25 years from now, people will look back and say that that moment in time, the president and his supporters met the moment," said Plouffe. "They did the right thing. They did the tough thing and we won't have any more people in this country without health care coverage, cost will be under control, which means our economy will strengthen." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Lanny Davis: Second Thoughts on Cheney Indictment: Pardon Him ... And Others Too Top
I began having second thoughts about last week's column urging the indictment of former Vice President Dick Cheney for approving the use of water-boarding and other forms of illegal torture shortly after it was published and posted last Monday morning -- days before the Obama- Cheney back-to-back speeches last Thursday. Just to repeat briefly why I wrote that Mr. Cheney should be indicted: It cannot seriously be disputed that water-boarding is "torture," as that word was defined by Congress in the 1994 federal criminal prohibition against torture: conduct "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Nor can anyone plausibly disagree that water-boarding intentionally inflicts "serious physical and mental pain." Water-boarding was prosecuted after World War II as torture and has been notorious ever since the Inquisition. Mr. Cheney admitted he knew about his administrating authorizing water-boarding in last Thursday's speech, pointing out it was used on "only" three terrorists. He then justified its use because it produced important intelligence information. The former vice president cannot claim that there is partisan division over the definition of "torture" under federal criminal law. In fact, as Mr. Cheney knew in December 2004, it was the Bush-Cheney Justice Department -- both the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and the Criminal Division -- that repudiated the now notorious "Bybee-Yoo" OLC memo of August 2002 and reaffirmed that the plain words of the definition of torture in the 1994 Act as quoted above were still the law of the land. We now know that there is at least circumstantial evidence that this redefinition of torture was influenced, if not ordered, by Mr. Cheney through his powerful chief of staff, David Addington. In Thursday's speech, Mr. Cheney made no reference to the 1994 Anti-Torture Act. Wonder why. Nor did he refer to the 2004 memorandum or its specific contradiction of his defense of water-boarding because it allegedly produced valuable intelligence information. "There is no exception under the statute permitting torture to be used for a 'good reason,'" it stated categorically. So I wrote my piece supporting the indictment of Mr. Cheney because I believed his public statements defending water-boarding constituted a challenge (I called it a "dare") to the criminal justice system, going to the heart of our country as a nation of law applicable to all in high office as well as average Americans. And I wrote last week that Mr. Cheney's public challenge needed to be answered with an indictment. But then came my doubts about this position, fed by some friendly and constructive critics. The one that bothered me the most was sent half-tongue-in-cheek in an email: "Someone seems to be sending something out under your name that suggests the government should selectively prosecute only those members of a prior administration who engage in forceful public criticism." I was selecting out Mr. Cheney for prosecution because of the content of his public speech? Me? A purist First Amendment, free-expression liberal? Ouch. The second comment came in an e-mail from a friend who asked me whether I really wanted to put the country through all the distraction and divisions and media circus that a criminal trial of a former vice president would mean. I thought to myself: Did I really want to do that? My uncomfortable answer was, "no." The third critique that most bothered me came in through e-mails from mostly from Republican friends, but from some Democrats as well. They asked: "What about Democrats who were briefed, albeit in classified briefings, about the water-boarding? Why are you letting them off so easily?" There was, of course, a significant distinction between the executive branch that had the power to order "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITS) and the leaders of the legislative branch from both parties who had been briefed about it under highly classified conditions. But still, that was not a completely satisfactory distinction to me. Why didn't these congressional leaders who had been briefed and knew that water-boarding had been used do what Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, did in February 2003 after she was first briefed -- send a classified letter to the CIA and express concerns about the legal basis for these techniques? So these were my three serious doubts about last week's column. What to do? I still think Mr. Cheney's public dare and defiant defense of what I believe to be criminal conduct on the grounds that it worked needed public accountability under our criminal justice system. But indicting him alone now seems the wrong and unfair answer. Then, to the rescue, came another friend -- with whom I shared my self- doubts about last week's column -- who gave me an idea that seemed to square the circle for me: President Obama should pardon not only Mr. Cheney, but everyone else in the prior administration who approved or knew about the illegal water-boarding and other EITs and did nothing to try to stop them. A pardon by Mr. Obama would be based on his judgment that those in the prior administration had violated the law by authorizing conduct such as water-boarding "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering," but that there were important public policy reasons not to prosecute them for their crimes. And at the same time Mr. Obama announces these pardons, he should also acknowledge that many members of Congress, including leading Democrats, shared some responsibility (though not criminal) for what went wrong when they knew and did nothing about America using torture, contrary to law and its core values. Such a pardon and acknowledgment would undoubtedly greatly anger the Democrats' liberal base. But it would also be consistent with Mr. Obama's oft-stated principles of looking forward, not backward, at this crucial time in American history. And, to me at least, it would be a profile in courage, as President Kennedy defined it a half-century ago -- as was, in my view, his speech to the nation Thursday striking the difficult but right balance between our commitment to civil liberties, transparency, and the rule of law vs. the need to protect America against terrorist threats. If and when he announces the pardon of Mr. Cheney and others, Mr. Obama could even use the same words President Ford did on Sept. 8, 1974, when he announced Richard Nixon's pardon: "My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I as president have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility but to use every means that I have to insure it." "I do believe the buck stops here, that I cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what is right." It's time to move on. But it is also time to hold people accountable to the rule of law, even if they genuinely believed for patriotic and good-faith reasons that illegal torture produced important intelligence. A pardon by Mr. Obama does both. Lanny J. Davis, a Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton, served as a member of President George W. Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America." This piece appeared in Mr. Davis' weekly column , " Purple Nation ," in the Washington Times and was published on Monday, May 25, 2009. More on GOP
 
Baby Otters Are Oustanding (VIDEO) (POLL) Top
Sometimes we come across videos (via CuteOverload ) that must be shared with the public immediately, without enough time to formulate a reasoned editorial comment. Please look at these tiny little otters. And listen to them. WATCH: Get HuffPost Green updates on Facebook and Twitter ! More on Cute Animal Videos
 
Jon And Kate Update: Jon Drinking Beer In NY, Kate And Kids In NC Top
On Top: Jon Gosselin knockin' back a beer with two ladies at Front Street bar and grill in Newburgh, New York on Memorial Day. On Bottom: Kate plus most of the eight getting off a ferry on Bald Head Island, North Carolina yesterday morning. More on Jon & Kate Plus 8
 
Weed Gardens: The Laziest Way To Green Up Your Surroundings Top
A weed garden does take some work but not an excessive amount. Weeds, for the most part, will kill the other plants that get into their territory. They are also well-adapted to surviving against the odds. If you space off your gardening chores for a few days, your weed garden still be there, lousy with weeds as you intended. More on Green Living
 
Byron Williams: California Supreme Court Justifies Second-Class Citizenship Top
As expected, the California Supreme Court upheld the slim majority that provided the margin for Proposition 8 to step outside of the boundaries of the constitution. In doing so, it has applied an asterisk next to the equal protection under the law clause at it relates to California's LGBT community. By upholding the proposition that limited marriage as something between a man and woman, while preserving the 18,000 marriages performed based on the court's decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful, there are troubling anomalies created. California became a state that went from debating equal protection under the law to one that now clearly operates with two different class distinctions. Not only are there gays who did not marry before Proposition 8 passed, but now they are a subset of the 18,000 same gender couples who had their marriages performed before the election. How can the equal protection clause in California's Constitution be reconciled with the by-product of the court's decision to uphold Prop. 8? The court's ruling hardly places a period on the issue, more like a comma or semicolon perhaps. Several justices who voted to overturn Prop. 22, legalizing same-gender marriage, seemed reluctant to overturn the will of the voters this time around, although Prop. 8 passed by a much smaller margin than Prop. 22, which also banned gay marriage in 2000. Can the will of the people operate outside the jurisdiction of the constitution? If equal protection under the law is to have any merit, how can there be two classes of citizens? Regardless of where one comes down on the issue, the trajectory in California is clearly headed toward full equality for gay marriage. While that, along with the affirmation of the 18,000 couples whose marriages are still valid ought to provide some measure of comfort, it is difficult to be hopeful when one's second-class citizenship has been justified by the court. The court was deferential to the will of the people by allowing marriage to only to be between a man and a woman. But I can't help but wonder for all of the resources spent, and time allocated, was the most significant distinction made by the court one of nomenclature? If the court is saying the will of the people can extend to depriving same-gender couples from the label of marriage, as long as the benefits are not deprived, we're still left with two classes of people. The court wrote: "It is only the designation of marriage -- albeit significant -- that has been removed by this initiative measure." Does the court believe it is possible for the state to hold two conflicting positions simultaneously? How can the state comply with having the definition of marriage for one class of people, deny it for another, and not have it challenge the equal protection clause? If it can comply with what seems inherently contradictory, then are we not talking about the use of a single word: marriage? Maybe the court ruling suggests that it's time for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. Though the history of marriage has had its own evolutionary process outside the church, based on issues ranging from class to procreation to race, it still possesses strong religious overtones for many. Why not find out if those religious institutions that supported Prop. 8 are truly committed to the so-called sanctity of marriage? Though I have my doubts that the debate is truly about marriage, let religious institutions have the word. What's wrong with "marriage" being a ceremony that is performed within religious institutions? All of the legal rights conferred to married couples from the state can be rolled into domestic partnership agreements, which can be recognized by all states. Everyone, regardless of their beliefs, must apply and receive a domestic partnership license that provides equal rights and privileges. This would allow the state to be consistent with its own constitution. Remove marriage from the debate and ensure that all are created equal and have been endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com More on Gay Marriage
 
Susan Boyle Involved In TWO Foul-Mouthed Outburst, Threatened To Quit (VIDEO) Top
On the heels of reports that YouTube star Susan Boyle had two foul-mouthed outbursts on the same day, "Britain's Got Talent Judge" Piers Morgan went on American television Thursday morning saying she threatened to quit the show because of the pressure, which she has been favored to win. The Daily Mail reports Boyle was angered watching Morgan compliment another performer on television: The Scottish singer is said to have began swearing angrily after Morgan told told 12-year-old Shaheen Jafargholi his had been 'the best singing performance we have heard in the semi-finals so far'. Watching the show the hotel's bar, Boyle is accused of sticking two fingers up at a television and shouting 'f*** off', before stomping off to her room. The BGT finalist was involved in an earlier foul-mouthed outburst outside the Wembley Plaza Hotel. Boyle's spokesman said she lost her temper after being 'wound up' by two strangers. Photographs of the singer show her involved in a heated discussion with police officers outside the hotel. Boyle's spokesperson spoke to the AP : The spokeswoman said the golden-voiced and fluffy-haired singer, who became an overnight sensation after appearing on the show, was left distressed after being taunted by two reporters at the Wembley Plaza Hotel on Wednesday. "Two journalists were harassing her and pushed her (Boyle) over the edge. She was left slightly distressed and the journalists were removed from the building by police," the spokeswoman said on condition of anonymity because she represents all of the contestants on the show. The spokeswoman gave no further details of how Boyle was harassed or what she said. On CBS Wednesday morning Morgan told "The Early Show" he was sympathetic to her new found fame. "From what I hear, she's been in tears the last two days. She even threatened to leave the show yesterday at one stage because of the sheer amount of pressure on her," Morgan told Maggie Rodriguez. "And you've got to -- you have to remember with Susan, she's a 48-year-old lady from a tiny village in Scotland who has never been exposed to anything like this kind of attention. And I think she's really feeling the heat." WATCH, OR SCROLL FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT: Watch CBS Videos Online TRANSCRIPT: MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ, CO-ANCHOR: One of Susan Boyle's most ardent supporters, one of the judges on "Britain's Got Talent," our good friend Piers Morgan. Good morning, Piers. PIERS MORGAN, JUDGE, "BRITAIN'S GOT TALENT": Good morning. RODRIGUEZ: Are you still supporting her this morning? Or do you think now that she's famous she should know better than to do this sort of thing? MORGAN: I'm actually feeling more supportive today than I was before because I feel really sorry for Susan. From what I hear, she's been in tears the last two days. She even threatened to leave the show yesterday at one stage because of the sheer amount of pressure on her. And you've got to -- you have to remember with Susan, she's a 48-year-old lady from a tiny village in Scotland who has never been exposed to anything like this kind of attention. And I think she's really feeling the heat. And you know, the hotel she's in is crawling in tourists, crawling in the media. I think she, you know, maybe she overreacted. I don't know what happened. She denies, apparently, some of the things that have been reported. But either way, I know she's feeling a lot of pressure, and I think that most people watching this show and hearing about this will feel natural sympathy towards her. And just hope it all calms down for the final because on Saturday she sings for the competition. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Celebrities have long known fame is a double-edged sword. They love to build you up and tear you down. And you as a former tabloid editor know how irresistible it is, too, for the tabloids to do this. MORGAN: Well, look, I mean, Susan is the hottest story in town. And certainly with my old newspaper hat on, I would be reporting on it in the way that they are, because every single thing that Susan has done in the last three or four weeks has been headline news in Britain, in America, in Russia or in China. She's a true global phenomenon. And with that comes a price. And she is beginning to realize that her life will never be the same. But, you know, I feel very, very sorry for her. At the same time, you know, I've tried to explain to her, look, you know, this is still a wonderful opportunity for you. And most people out there still have great affection for you and are really willing you to victory. So, try and keep calm, don't read the newspapers, don't watch television, keep yourself very cool and composed and just focus on the performance. RODRIGUEZ: Who is looking out for her interests? Because she is so vulnerable. MORGAN: She's got people around her. And certainly, there are production people from the show. Simon Cowell, obviously, no one knows better than him how to influence and control the media and try and keep things calm. I think in the end, though, that Susan is quite naturally feeling the pressure herself. It doesn't really matter what people say to her, she knows that on her semifinal performance, when she sang, she cracked at the start and nearly blew it. RODRIGUEZ: Right. MORGAN: And now she knows that she's got this amazing career ahead of her, if she can nail that song on Saturday. And it's going to be a fantastically exciting moment because this is it. This is the two minutes that will define Susan Boyle's life. RODRIGUEZ: And I have a feeling even more people will be watching because of this. They want to see if she can keep it together. Piers Morgan, thanks a lot. MORGAN: Well, it's extraordinarily exciting. I can't wait. More on Susan Boyle
 
Ron Kuby: Sotomayor Never Released Any of My Clients! Top
As the right wing nuts prepare their battle plan against Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court, one trenchant fact should be deployed in her defense: She has never, ever released any of my clients. That should mollify the right (and a good chunk of the center, as well). Oh, I have given her many chances. Last December, I gave her a chance to release a defendant who was convicted of murdering a government witness (car bomb) to prevent the witness from testifying against him in a cocaine prosecution. The government used the dead witness's testimony against my client. I argued that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment prohibited such use because my client could not confront the (dead) witness against him. I lost. Judge Sotomayor dug back into the history of English and early American Confrontation Clause jurisprudence (which is what judges are supposed to do), and wrote a lengthy and scholarly footnote which basically said, "Nice try, Kuby." Just the latest in a line of cases where she told me, "No." Still love ya, Judge.
 
Prince Harry Visit Starts Friday With Polo, World Trade Visit Top
NEW YORK — He's a 24-year-old Londoner whose grandmother offered to pay for his trip to New York. On Friday, Prince Harry will start his first official visit to America, with plans including a stop at the World Trade Center site, meetings with wounded veterans and a polo match. "Prince Harry is well known and respected in the United States for having deployed alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan," said Alan Collins, the British consul general in New York. Third in line to the British throne, the red-haired prince is a much-watched member of the royal family on both sides of the Atlantic. His "party-boy" image, romantic escapades and brushes with scandal regularly make newspaper headlines. Several years ago, Harry had to apologize for wearing a Nazi swastika armband to a friend's costume party. But the younger son of the late Princess Diana and Prince Charles is, no doubt, expected to be on his best behavior representing his country's crown during his two-day New York visit. His grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, is paying privately for Harry's travel and that of his staff, easing the young prince into his royal role. At midday Friday, Harry is to meet with relatives of four people who died in the Sept. 11 attacks. They will meet at the World Trade Center site, along with New York Gov. David Paterson and officials of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the agency that oversees development at ground zero. "It's a testament to our loved ones that royalty from another country is coming and expressing interest," said Monica Iken, who lost her husband, Michael, a 37-year-old bond broker. "When Harry goes to ground zero, he can see how much has progress has been made at this construction site," said Iken, who founded September's Mission, a nonprofit organization devoted to building a positive legacy in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Later Friday, the prince will formally name the British Garden in downtown Hanover Square to honor the 67 British victims of the terror attack. Harry also will visit the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Manhattan, where he will tour the prosthetics facilities and a post-traumatic stress disorder clinic. He will be joined by Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. A British soldier who lost both legs in an explosion in Afghanistan will accompany Harry on his American trip. Joe Townsend, 21, stepped on a Taliban anti-tank mine last year, about the same time the prince was commanding troops in nearby Helmand. The prince is training to be an Army helicopter pilot and was the first member of the royal family to serve on the front line since his uncle, Prince Andrew, fought in the Falklands in 1982. On Saturday, Harry is to participate in the only recreational event on his public schedule _ the Veuve Clicquot Manhattan Polo Classic on Governors Island in New York Harbor, where he'll face off against Argentinian polo player and heartthrob Nacho Figueras. The match will benefit American Friends of Sentebale, a U.S.-based charity that supports impoverished children in Lesotho, Africa, where the prince has worked and produced the documentary film "The Forgotten Kingdom." Earlier Saturday, Harry is to see the Harlem Children's Zone, a community organization that offers families social and educational services. The prince will be accompanied by Sentebale's co-founder, Prince Seeiso of Lesotho.
 
G20 Pittsburgh: US Hosting September Summit Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will host the next Group of 20 economic summit Sept. 24-25 in Pittsburgh. The White House announced the meeting Thursday. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama offered Pittsburgh as a venue at the conclusion of the group's last meeting in London in April. Many world leaders will already be in the United States in September for a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Why Pittsburgh? Gibbs says it's a city that has experienced its share of economic hard times but is turning that around. He says the president would like to highlight its recovery. More on United Nations
 
Cuckoo Bird, 51 Others In UK Face Danger Of Extinction Top
LONDON — Britain's cuckoo bird, known for its distinctive call, is in danger of extinction along with 51 other species, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said in a new report Thursday. It found that 21 percent of Britain's bird species face extinction unless steps are taken to protect them, spokesman Tim Webb said. He said the cuckoo and other birds that visit Britain in the summer have suffered population loss largely due to a decrease in food and water supply in sub-Saharan Africa, where many migrate from. The problem is difficulty in finding food, he said. "The Sahara desert is spreading and the birds are having a hard time flying out in good condition," Webb said. "There isn't just one single problem, there are a host." The society said the cuckoo population in Britain has declined 37 percent since 1994. The population declines were not limited to summer migratory birds like cuckoos. Native birds such as the herring gull also made the threatened list. Six species did see a recovery in the past seven years, however. The report said the woodlark has seen a "dramatic" increase in population, as had the stone-curlew. Webb said these birds saw healthy gains thanks to an increased effort to maintain woodlands that would allow their numbers to grow. Webb said the inclusion of such well-known birds as the cuckoo and herring gull on the list could serve as an eye-opener to people who are unaware of the decline in bird population. "Everyone thinks they are always there," he said of the birds. "They didn't think that such common birds would be struggling, and if nothing changes we will see them disappear." More on Animals
 
Abu Ghraib Rape Photos: Pentagon Denies Report Top
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Thursday denied a British newspaper report that photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse, whose release U.S. President Barack Obama wants to block, include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse. More on Sexual Violence
 
North Korea: Security Council Draft Resolution Leaked Top
Five days after North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test, a draft resolution emerged behind closed doors at the UN Security Council. The three-page draft, a copy of which Inner City Press has exclusively obtained and puts online here, has 14 operative paragraphs, one of which, Paragraph 8, is still subject to discussion. More on North Korea
 
Susan Braudy: DAVID HYDE PIERCE SLEPT HERE Top
I recently traded a sunny day in Central Park to witness David Hyde Pierce's tour de force performance in the Manhattan theater club revival "Accent On Youth" The only downside--this dazzling old gem whizzed by too fast in the dark theater. "Accent On Youth's the story of successful,sophisticated playwright in his fifties who "smells sixty" and who lives to write. Suddenly his life is unsettled when his twenty-something secretary declares she loves him madly. I was still marveling at the post-modern relevance of the play written by Samson Raphaelson in 1939 when suddenly David Hyde Pierce and the cast including superb comic actor Charles Kimbrough (stiff newscaster Jim Dial on tv's Murphy Brown) were taking final bows. There was no sensation of blood draining from my brain--that I too frequently get in dark theaters. Yes, I am one of those amoral people who during intermission sometimes slinks into the pack of rhythmically marching bodies on the sidewalk-- instead of trooping back inside and gallantly submitting to the final act. I am ridiculously proud of Hyde Pierce's superior, actorly gifts - in this play he mixes gravitas and antics to create his slightly stiff, dimensioned character -- after petulantly saying he hates audiences, he moons us, fully clothed (I assure you) in brown tweed. I have no real reason for my pride in his work, and yes you've every right to be embarrassed for me. Here goes: years ago the hugely talented man slept in my bed for a week. This was when he was a struggling actor--before he played Niles Crane, the persnickety younger brother with the unseen anorectic wife on Frasier, one of the two best tv comedy series ever. It gets worse. Back then I didn't really know Hyde Pierce--he was a friend of a friend, hired sight unseen to take care of my large dog while I was away on business. I remember being startled at my first glimpse of the young man's lush blond hair and his billowing blue oxford cloth shirt--how did a starving actor look so..well...rich, I wondered. But my appreciation of his work does transcend the bed connection. I love (as in fan love) any guy who makes me explode in laughter as David does playing Niles Crane. I totally lose it when "Niles" gets bullied into (I keep it on permanent Tivo) timidly singing along with Elvis Costello at the fictive Seattle coffee house. I am literally gasping for breath as he gets carried away, dancing and singing wildly-- more and more spastically. Back to the timeless "Accent On Youth." Author Raphaelson also wrote classics like Ernst Lubitch's "Shop Around the Corner" and Alfred Hitchcock's "Suspicion". Watching his play, I grinned at David Hyde Pierce's portrayal of the successful playwright who says of his younger romantic rival, "If he were in a play I'd have a theory [about his motives] but life never makes sense." As a writer, I love the wit and wisdom of the play--the infinite twists based on emotion: the playwright deftly motivates Hyde Pierce's character to test and lose his much younger girlfriend by coaching the young rival on wooing her. A few years back, I watched Spamalot from a seat close to the stage so I could see Hyde Pierce mugging. Before he's going to do something ridiculous, he clenches his teeth in an underbite. What a hoot! Afterward I waited to talk to him with the huge crowd outside the stage door. When I reminded David, he said, "Oh, you know I let your dog off the leash. Of course you told me not to. It took hours to find him." Then and there, under the white lights, I had a serious anxiety attack. Like Woody Allen says, "Sometimes it doesn't pay to get too close to genius." This article first appeared in West Side Spirit/Our Town
 
Shai Agassi, Post-Oil Visionary, Named Third Most Creative Businessperson Top
We emphasized those whose creativity addresses a larger issue -- from the future of our energy infrastructure to the evolution of philanthropy to next-generation media. More on Cars
 
Sotomayor's Nomination Coverage In A Minute (VIDEO) Top
Sonia Sotomayor are the words on every pundits' lips this week, and we are stranded here with the "Daily Show" on hiatus having no one to help us mock the media for their coverage. Luckily, we have compiled (roughly) 60 seconds that highlights the lowlights of the past few days. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on In A Minute
 
Norb Vonnegut: WMD: Weapons of Money Destruction Top
No-Money-Down Ponzi Now, there's a new way to lose money through real estate seminars: Ponzi schemes. We've seen the late-night infomercials. We've heard the fast-talking, hyper-kinetic sales pitches. Pitch # 1: "Buy real estate with no money down." Pitch # 2: "Make bazillions through foreclosure investing." Pitch # 3: "Are you a couch potato down to your last chip? The only thing separating you from a better life is sloth. That's right, you are a lazy, good-for-nothing slacker. But you can change with just the energy it takes to run your remote. Pull out your credit card. Pick up the phone. And call 1-800-GO-BROKE. Now! We'll include six steak knives if you act in the next forty-five minutes." Cut to beach front homes, flash cars, and private jets. For years get-rich-quick seminars have been Weapons of Money Destruction, or "WMD" as I like to call them. In the old days, losses were limited to the costs of books, CDs, or time. All too often, the real estate quicksters were long on claims and short on facts. They stretched the truth to sell whatever. Now, a $200 million Ponzi scheme unraveled in California. This one used real estate seminars to attract victims and their investment capital. Price of entry: $1 million. The fraudsters preyed on the same mix of hope and credulity that lured victims to Madoff and other scams. We know get-rich-quick schemes don't work. My favorite line about building wealth comes from a good friend and entrepreneur. He made a legitimate fortune over more than a decade of hard work and long hours. He said: "It took me fifteen years to get rich overnight." Norb Vonnegut writes for www.acrimoney.com . More on Bernard Madoff
 
The Goode Family: New Mike Judge Cartoon Prods Greens Top
With the natural world being rapidly undone by our thirst for convenience, it seems an odd time to mock hybrid cars and reusable shopping bags. Sanctimony and hypocrisy and narcissistic virtuousness, sure, because those are things that always deserve mocking, no matter what agenda they're attached to. ("We're gonna hang out at the mall and make fun of people who hang out at the mall" is a good line.) I have mocked a hippie or two in my time -- they made you, to get into punk clubs. But the Goodes are merely well-meaning and, in the three episodes I've seen, do no harm, except perhaps to their dog, who'd like something to eat besides "organic flaxseed dog food," which he supplements by devouring the local small wildlife.
 
Stuart Whatley: Why North Korea's Antics Are Good For Obama Top
The first was a dramatic hostage situation on the high seas that ended with a Rainbow Six-style sniping of three Somali pirates. Now comes the reliably pugnacious Kim Jong-Il, using his signature saber-rattling (though admittedly somewhat heightened rhetoric, even for his standards) to shift the international focus from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka back onto the Hermit Kingdom. However, following its initial hullabaloo, the current standoff may be a foreign policy windfall for the Obama administration by uniting typically disparate regional players. The developing situation appears increasingly like an Axis and Allies scenario, but with an Axis of one who has finally overstepped. As I wrote earlier this week: "Although many news sources are emphasizing North Korea's recent nuclear test as a "3:00 A.M." moment for President Obama, it is just as much the case for China as it grows into its nascent international role." And indeed, as the standoff continues, pressure on global players other than the US has increased even further, especially in Beijing and Moscow. This is because the US response is more or less preordained, leaving the ball in China and Russia's court. There is an established US protocol for responding to North Korean aggression that includes, but is not limited to, calling for stricter UN Security Council sanctions; freezing North Korean assets and blocking its access to foreign financial markets; and enlisting the cooperation of the problem state's closest allies. In the current situation, it is this final protocol that matters most. The London G-20 Summit in April this year was a diplomatic chumfest that at times reached the level of farce. However it was also a momentous occasion to introduce Obama to a star-struck international community. Before the end of day one, the new administration had already met and hashed out optimistic agreements with both Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev, marking a promising departure from strained relations in years past. Obama and Hu's first meeting ended with an agreement to create a US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue to address China's disproportionately small pull in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and to plan for the possibility of joint financial bailouts. Likewise, Obama and Medvedev's meeting ended with pledges to pursue joint initiatives later this year meant to improve ties, and, more specifically, to reduce nuclear stockpiles (an issue with direct propinquity to the North Korea problem). Both China and Russia have in the past been complacent towards North Korean aggression. Though Kim's missile launches and nuclear tests are surely a diplomatic annoyance, it is never enough for Beijing or Moscow to issue more than a verbal wrist-slap to their vestigial Soviet-era ally. But this time is different, and the advantage is all Obama's. Indeed, neither country actually wants a nuclear armed North Korea to join the geopolitical chess match. The global financial meltdown squeezing GDP growth worldwide, and both countries now following up on G-20 pledges for better ties, all bodes well for a concerted, harsh response that finally goes beyond just words. Indeed, the current crisis allows for unprecedented cooperation between global players that could lead to good faith dealings with other prickly issues, such as global security, the economy and climate change. With the mandate that a unified front will provide, harsh sanctions specifically targeting Kim's military will finally be feasible, as will a full-court press on North Korean vessels under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) with South Korea onboard after years of reticence. Most essential of all, however, is the possibility that China will finally close off trade and aid channels that have for years propped up the North's regime. Admittedly, such additional provocations could lead the DPRK to back up its shrill rhetoric with violence. But multiple experts, speaking to the Washington Post Wednesday , agree that a large-scale clash is extremely unlikely. All things considered, much good could come out of the current crisis. Sure, Obama didn't ask for any of this. But if the pieces continue to fall into place against the Hermit King, this week's mess could be next week's fortuitous moment. More on North Korea
 
Harut Sassounian: Turkish Prime Minister Admits Ethnic Cleansing Top
In a daring statement, Turkish Prime Minister Rejeb Erdogan admitted for the first time that the expulsion from Turkey of tens of thousands of ethnic Greeks in the last century was a "fascist" act, Reuters reported. Some commentators viewed Erdogan's remarks as a reference to the expulsion of 1.5 million ethnic Greeks from Turkey to Greece in 1923. The large-scale population exchange between the two countries also included the transfer of more than 500,000 ethnic Turks from Greece to Turkey. Other observers thought that Erdogan was referring to the pillaging of thousands of Greek shops and houses by Turkish mobs in Istanbul on Sept. 6-7, 1955, following the spread of false reports that Atatürk's house in Thessaloniki, Greece had been burned down. Beyond the expulsion of Greeks, Erdogan made an indirect reference to the tragic fate of other ethnic groups, such as Armenians, in Turkey. "For years, those of different identities have been kicked out of our country.... This was not done with common sense. This was done with a fascist approach," Erdogan said on May 23, during the annual congress of the Justice and Development Party, held in the western province of Düzce. "For many years," Erdogan continued, "various facts took place in this country to the detriment of ethnic minorities who lived here. They were ethnically cleansed because they had a different ethnic cultural identity. The time has arrived for us to question ourselves about why this happened and what we have learned from all of this. There has been no analysis of this right up until now. In reality, this behavior is the result of a fascist conception. We have also fallen into this grave error." The Turkish Prime Minister's candid remarks were harshly criticized by opposition parties. Onur Oymen, vice president of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) said that associating Turkey's history with terms like fascism based on hearsay was not right. He also said that no Turkish citizen had ever been expelled because of his or her ethnic background. Oktay Vural of the opposition MHP party added: "Erdogan's words are an insult to the Turkish nation." In sharp contrast, liberal Turkish commentators praised Erdogan for his conciliatory remarks: "For the first time you have a prime minister who wants to admit that mistakes were made in the treatment of religious minorities. This is historic," wrote journalist Sami Kohen in Milliyet . "But whether this rhetoric will be followed with deeds, remains to be seen." Hürriyet Daily News added: Erdogan's speech was historic; it was the first time that a high official accepted there have been unlawful and undemocratic practices against minorities in the past. This sentiment was echoed by Prof. Halil Berktay in Vatan newspaper: "That statement was the most courageous thing ever said by Erdogan." Baskin Oran, another academic well-known for his liberal views, told Star newspaper that he was "proud of a prime minister who denounces ethnic and religious cleansing." CNN-Turk News Director Ridvan Akar was more skeptical about Erdogan's true intentions. He wrote in Vatan : "Minority rights as well as those of religious foundations are a structural problem within the Turkish state. Of course, Erdogan has taken a step forward with this declaration. But the sincerity of his words will depend on facts to back them up, such as the restitution of rights to those who have been expelled, the return of confiscated properties, or compensation." The Prime Minister's statement is encouraging, if it is an indication that Turkey's leaders have finally decided to face the ugly chapters of their country's past. However, it would be wrong to draw overly optimistic conclusions from this single statement. Erdogan has made similar comments about the Kurds in Turkey, only to have their hopes dashed by taking unexpected repressive measures against them. The fact is that Erdogan is not the master of his political domain. The "fascists" he attacks are not buried in an Ottoman historical grave, but are alive and well in Turkish society and occupy the highest echelons of the military and judiciary. Yet, Erdogan is politically shrewd enough to realize that his condemnation of fascism would resonate at home and in the West, and win him accolades and support against his powerful domestic opponents. Erdogan's battle against the ghosts of the Turkish past is in fact a fight for his political survival against those in today's Turkey who view him and his Islamic party with deep suspicion, and are determined to counter his every move, ultimately seeking his downfall from power. More on Turkey
 
Iris Erlingsdottir: Special Prosecutor Of Iceland Bank Crash: "The Idea Most People Have Of Banking Has No Basis In Reality" Top
Ólafur Þór Hauksson may be the most important person in Iceland today. Toiling day after day with his growing team of investigators, Hauksson is responsible for investigating and prosecuting the events that led up to the spectacular collapse of Iceland's banking sector in 2008. The restoration of the financial world's confidence in Iceland's banking system may very well depend on the success of his work. Special Prosecutor Ólafur Þór Hauksson pictured here on a chilly spring day last week outside his office, which is located across the street from Höfði House, the site of the 1986 Reagan-Gorbachev summit. Photo credit: Ásdís Erlingsdóttir/Wish Photography Few would have singled Hauksson out for such a position one year ago. He was serving as the district commissioner in the rural Akranes district, far from the tumult and the shouting in Reykjavik, where the country was enjoying the highest standard of living on the planet. He had never worked in the private sector, never investigated a complex financial crime, never hobnobbed with Iceland's elite. This distance from the rich and famous was his main qualification. Once the national Ponzi scheme collapsed, everyone in the capital was tainted. In this tiny country of 310,000 souls, nearly everyone is related to everyone else. They all went to the same schools, ate at the same restaurants, frequented the same clubs. In fact, no one else even applied for the position. The top Icelandic attorneys were major participants in the wheelings and dealings that characterized Reykjavik. The country's major players, who until recently comported themselves as masters of the universe, can still make life miserable for any special prosecutor. The cry for blood from the defrauded Icelandic workers could easily turn against the prosecutor if the big fish get off the hook. In Ólafur Þór, however, Iceland has an Atticus Finch, an Eliot Ness--a patriot driven by his personal sense of morality and justice to clean up the mess that has nearly destroyed his country. What he lacks in experience, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir's administration has made up for by increasing his staff from five to sixteen professionals, by hiring internationally famous financial crime fighter Eva Joly as a consultant, and by passing special legislation to ensure his access to all of the banks' records. Now things are heating up. The Financial Supervisory Authority (FME) recently sent ten cases to Hauksson's office and expects to send at least 15 more cases before the end of the year, involving insider trading, market manipulation and high-risk lending. The fraud is in the hundreds billions ISK, which would go a long way to satisfying creditors' claims and relieving Iceland of the stigma it's been under since the banks collapsed. Q. The organizational challenges for your mission must be overwhelming. You have been given the task of creating a multinational staff to investigation the propriety of some extremely sophisticated transactions undertaken by people who knew (or at least suspected) that their whole deck of cards was about to collapse. Are you fully staffed and up to speed yet? What challenges have you faced so far, and what challenges do you anticipate during this summer? A. There were five of us when we started, now there are sixteen. As Eva Joly said, even if parts of the investigation stretch outside the country, we must start the investigation here in Iceland. We are not going to rush off to other countries and say that something terrible has happened here--not sure what--and demand information. It seems to me that people sometimes want to classify these offenses that possibly have taken place here differently than other violations. This is a criminal investigation and follows the same procedures as any other such investigation, even if it is connected to banks and businesses and a lot of specialized knowledge is involved. We will most certainly run into all kinds of obstacles, and the ones I foresee will probably involve other countries and how fast we are able to procure information from abroad. Q. If you could present Jóhanna with a wish list, what would be on it? A. We already got additional staff and more money... I guess I'd just like to be able to get what we need in order to do this job honorably. We realize that this work is done on the taxpayers' bill, and that this country doesn't have a whole lot of money right now, so our demands must be reasonable. On the other hand, we cannot be sitting here in cases up to our necks or have the investigation suffer because we don't have staff or resources to tend to it. I think this investigation is a priority matter for the government, but these matters do take a very long time. Q. Have the bank secrecy laws prevented you from accessing information you believe is important to your investigation? A. Yes, in the beginning they did. That's why the law was changed, and we now have clear access, no questions asked. The banks, the regulatory bodies, the banks' investigative committees are to hand over to us any data or papers we request and can no longer plead bank secrecy. It was absolutely impossible for the Special Prosecutor's office to reach its goals without having wide access to all data, all information in the matter. We were surprised that there was any doubt as to whether or not the information or data had to be given to us. The law flew through Parliament; it reflected the will of the nation and Parliament that these matters are to be brought to light. Q. Are you worried that some of the information you need has been destroyed? A. This really concerns the Financial Supervisory Authority (FME). The banks save all this information, all emails; they usually are a part of the various financial deals and their genesis. The FME is procuring this information. We are not far enough ahead to say whether there are holes in these communications or not. But even if there are, the fact is that financial transactions always leave electronic fingerprints. Q. Do you have questions regarding the partiality of the regulatory personnel from the FME? Are you aware of communications between FME personnel and the targets of your investigation? A. Let's say... We know that they (the FME) are a part of a certain process, and we always assume that they had a certain role during the time when everything was up and running. But on the other hand, today there is nothing in our relationship with them so far that would give us any reason to doubt their integrity. But perhaps not then? Well, we didn't exist then, so I cannot say. But we realize that they played a part in the course of events that took place prior to the collapse. Let's just say that we are aware, conscious of their position. Q. There have been rumors that FME staff received various "perks" and gifts from the banks. Do you think stricter rules will be set to govern the conduct of staff who work for these regulatory bodies? A. I think that, following such monumental events as happened here last fall, people will view the past much more critically, and when we take stock of events, ethical questions will arise so that something that perhaps was considered "normal" and within limits when things were up and running will now be regarded as improper. If something good comes out of this, it will be that these relationships will be characterized by more "puritanism," and that goes for business relationships in general. There's looking at what behavior is illegal and culpable, and what is unethical, even if no punishment or penalty is involved. The public discussion about these things really revolves around ethics and morality, about how people conducted themselves, how society reacted - or didn't react - and how everything danced to the drum of Mammon. Perhaps things weren't illegal, but when do you cross the line from a framework of standard marketing practices and into bribery? This fine line was somewhat muddled for a while, but I think following events like this, people will set a higher standard and be conscious of the fact that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." Q. There have been numerous reports in the media regarding large cash transfers from the banks to various tax-havens, such as Tortola, immediately before the banks collapsed and were taken over by the government. Have you uncovered any evidence of such transfers? A. I cannot discuss particular cases, but the Parliamentary Investigative Committee is looking into these matters, as are the Icelandic tax authorities. Q. There were transfers of assets to "holding companies" - were these fronts to move money? A. The purpose of these companies isn't clear yet. These businesses are fronts for certain transactions and that is only one part...It is a little dangerous to have tunnel vision when looking at these things. You have to ask why were these companies established and then narrow the investigation according to what you see. You don't go in assuming that they were started for a certain purpose; you never assume anything, never go in with a foregone conclusion. That is very dangerous. Q. There are also reports that bank personnel were purchasing shares of bank stock using loans from the bank in order to prop up their books. Have you been able to substantiate these reports? A. I refer to what has been discussed about this matter publically. This discussion started early on and in connection with the decision by KB bank to revoke personal liability of its staff members for loans they had taken to buy stock in the bank. Isn't that, per se, illegal? And wasn't the purpose of the loans to manipulate the bank's stock price? This was to have the capital position higher. And yes, it is not legal to manipulate the market. This really involves a few different matters, the market manipulation, the debt concession; this is combination of violations. So, regarding the debt concession by the bank? Like I said... we are very well aware of this staff case at KB bank. This is a pot of something more than just one possible violation, and you can't give a simple answer to this; this is not a black and white case. Q. If you reach the conclusion that fraudulent transfers of assets did happen, what resources do you have? A. This is a twofold matter, concerning the criminal matter on the one hand and then the banks' receivers on the other hand, which are working on converting the banks' assets into cash to pay creditors. You could say this is where asset tracing has come into play the most. We have lots of resources in this area, and I don't think we will lack experts in money tracing and forensic accountants. However, we have to have something specific to look into. You don't just send a forensic auditor to Tortola and tell him to investigate anything and everything. But the bank receivers are and should be the party looking into these matters. Q. The FME has also turned over to you evidence of possible violations in the management of pension funds. Is there any evidence that these violations were widespread, or were they limited to a single Landsbanki employee, as preliminary reports indicated? A. There are five pension funds... I can tell you that we are looking into these pension fund matters, but I cannot discuss the status of that investigation. The general answer is that when you investigate, you keep your eyes open for all violations. Q. What has surprised you the most in this job? A. How much time do you have?! Let's just say that the idea I had - that the general public had - of banking in this country was completely different from the reality. What we think banking is, this picture was incorrect, it had no basis in reality. This collapse last fall surprised most Icelanders. Even if there were a few warning voices, I think it absolutely caught the nation off guard. We just had a totally different view of this, and the more I look into things here, the more certain I am that things were completely different from what people thought they were. For example, the bank employees ... many people took their life savings and bought stock in the banks, and I'm not talking about this KB bank stock, I'm just talking about employees on the floor. The bank employees bought stock--believing it to be a 100% safe investment--and lost everything. These people were closer to the operation than the general public, but they didn't have an inkling about where this was headed. Q. How has this job affected you personally? This must be a tremendously demanding job, one that completely changes your life? A. Yes, it is. Look...I've worked in the public sector since I graduated in '89, about 20 years and more or less in connection with police work; I was chief of police for over a decade. Then this crisis happens, this post is advertised and no one applied. The question arose for me - as chief of police, one is supposed to prosecute people for crimes and seek justice and get punishment for crimes - and I had to ask myself, should I be concerned that someone drives drunk or sells drugs, but isn't it my concern that there is the possibility that huge economic crimes have been committed without my thinking that I'm supposed to do anything about that? I was encouraged by the Ministry of Justice to apply for the job and was offered to take a leave of absence from my old job, so that made things easier, but I saw that if I didn't at least apply or indicate that I was willing to do so, then I'd have a bad taste in my mouth prosecuting other smaller cases in the future. Q. Were you surprised, shocked, that nobody applied for the job? A. Yes, I was enormously surprised. I assumed there would be candidates for the job. This didn't really call out to me at first, I didn't feel that I had worked that closely to this particular crime category that I should respond to it, but when I realized that nobody was going to answer this, then it was obvious that something had to be done, there had to be some response. I realize that many in the media and others have questioned that someone like me, from the job I had, what business I have in this job. But I have tried to surround myself with the most experienced people from other offices to make up for what I lack in knowledge. Q. How long do you estimate this investigation will take? People are impatient, they complain that "nothing is happening," they want to see blood, when will something happen? A. This is a very dangerous drive in criminal investigations. You cannot be governed by a thirst for revenge, or you will make mistakes. This matter must be investigated absolutely according to the letter of the law with no changes in the way of form and procedures, because that will weaken the case and make it vulnerable when it comes before the courts. One of the things that judges will most certainly look for when they get this case is that it wasn't affected by pressure from the public. I understand very well that it is difficult for the general public to look at it this way, but this is the way it must be. On the other hand, I can assure people that we are doing this job with complete commitment and earnestness, and we work extremely hard. But the history of economic criminal prosecutions tells us that we cannot compromise in any way; we must proceed according to the law. Examples throughout our judicial history have shown that when you are overly zealous, mistakes are made. Q. Iceland has suffered enormous damage to its reputation. What can we do to convince other nations that we will proceed correctly, do the right things, to restore our reputation? A.
 
Sotomayor's Doctor Says Her Diabetes A Non-Issue Top
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's physician has penned a letter proclaiming Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee to be in "very good health" with few long-term concerns about her Type I diabetes. In a letter obtained by the Huffington Post, Dr. Andrew Jay Drexler, a clinical professor of medicine at UCLA, said that during his twenty-plus years serving as Sotomayor's doctor, the court of appeals judge "always had excellent control of her diabetes." "Her hemoglobin A1c levels, the best measure of diabetes control," he wrote, "have consistently been less than 6.5%, the optimal level as defined by all diabetes organizations." In addition, the nominee for the Supreme Court is unlikely to develop any of the late-in-life complications, which may arise with Type I diabetics, Drexler said "As of my last visit with Judge Sotomayor on March 20, 2009," Drexler wrote, "she had no evidence of any micro vascular complications of diabetes or even any early signs that they might develop. More sophisticated testing, which she has had done on a regular basis, confirms this opinion. Specifically, I would not expect Judge Sotomayor to develop any eye problems, kidney problems, or nerve problems. During her last cardiac stress test, she was able to exercise at the level of a much younger woman with a completely normal result. Given her blood pressure and cholesterol levels and excellent diabetes control she does not appear to be at risk for a heart attack or stroke." The concerns over Sotomayor's diabetes have played a small part of the dialogue surrounding her nomination. While legal observers and political strategists have given the issue a bit more weight, the medical community has cautioned against over-emphasis and even prejudice. While Type I diabetics tend to live, on average, seven to ten years less than those without the disease, a slew of medical advancements have begun to close that gap. Stem cell research, moreover, could pave the way for even greater breakthroughs. That said, senior officials in the Obama administration said they did look closely at Sotomayor's medical history and stressed that, after their review, they felt more than confident in her capacity to serve on the bench. The Drexler letter is, undoubtedly, the next step in putting the issue to rest. Here is a copy of the letter: Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Corporate Bribery: The Biggest Scandals Top
Lavish gifts, briefcases full of cash, TK. These days, international business has become rife with bribery. Large, multi-national corporations have been blatantly disregarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a forgotten Nixon-era law for years. But, in the last year, the Justice Department has begun going after companies suspected of bribing foreign officials. Over 120 companies are currently under investigation for violating the FCPCA, including some of the biggest names in the corporate world. For more, see the Wall Street Journal's story on corporate bribery, or view our slide show below:
 

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.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment