Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Arnold Bogis: Planning for Nuclear Terrorism as Well as the Flu Top
Every day brings news about the spread of swine flu in the U.S. and instability in Pakistan. It is too early to tell how either story will end, but we are prepared to deal with the potential consequences of only one of these situations. Confronted with a potential pandemic flu outbreak, President Obama thanked the Bush Administration for "creating the infrastructure so that we can respond." Extensive planning began several years ago, and these efforts encompassed all levels of government as well as the private sector. As the Taliban's influence spreads, concern about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and materials grows. Terrorist acquisition of a nuclear bomb, or the materials required to construct one, would fulfill President Obama's warning that "one terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction." Significant, if insufficient, action has been made toward preventing nuclear terrorism while little has been accomplished in terms of preparedness for an attack. Similar to pandemic flu planning, such efforts need to occur outside of Washington, DC and include private businesses and citizens. The "Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation," developed by the White House Homeland Security Council, stressed that it is "incumbent upon all levels of government" to prepare "through focused nuclear attack response planning." According to that same guidance, "local and state community preparedness to respond to a nuclear detonation could result in life-saving on the order of tens of thousands of lives." Unfortunately many communities have not gotten the point. Two assumptions prevail at the local level: that any nuclear explosion will completely destroy a major city and that the military is the only organization capable of responding. These ideas are fueled by Cold War-era memories in which the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union meant thousands of bombs would fall on U.S. cities. However, scenarios involving a nuclear terrorist attack, though horrible, are not equivalent. The federal government will eventually take charge of response efforts and military aid will be required. Yet as overwhelming as it will be for local and state resources, it is all that will be available in the first hours following the explosion. So what should local officials do? First, accept the threat and understand the military cannot arrive immediately to help. Although probability of such an attack is low compared to conventional explosives, natural disasters, or even bioterrorism, the possibility is real and the consequences catastrophic. Local officials should not delude themselves into thinking that existing plans for responding to dirty bombs can be simply expanded to deal with nuclear terrorism. There is no comparison between the two -- as Harvard professor and nuclear terrorism expert Graham Allison describes it, "a dirty bomb is to a nuclear bomb as a lighting bug is to lighting." When this lighting strikes, it may be several days before the federal government can respond in force. Although the Defense Department has recently tasked thousands of U.S.-based troops to support local authorities in case of such a catastrophic event, local officials should assume this federal help might not arrive for up to 48 hours after an explosion. Second, realize this is not a problem for only large "high risk" cities, but one that requires a regional response. People will self-evacuate, fallout will be blown long distances, and the only resources available will be found in neighboring communities. Third, actually make plans. This has to take place across local jurisdictions and among disciplines that often compete for scarce resources as well as include business and other private entities that often are not brought to the table. As recommended by the recent WMD Commission, a serious program of engagement with the public will be required to not only encourage disaster preparedness but also provide guidelines to track their local officials' progress. Such planning is not necessarily specific to nuclear terrorism. Regional preparedness and response can be leveraged for a range of catastrophic events, including hurricanes, earthquakes, and pandemics. Plus, preparing for the "big one" will help communities deal with the small disasters they face every year. More on Nuclear Weapons
 
James Moeller: The Omnipresent President Top
He's everywhere, or at least it seems that way. It's hard to imagine a President who has dominated the airwaves, editorial pages and digital landscape more than Barack Obama in his first 105 days (even in our celebrity-obsessed culture, it's unprecedented). He's on the cover of New York Times Magazine (again), he bounds into the White House Briefing Room to confirm the resignation of the Justice Souter, he announces the bankruptcy of Chrysler and he personally welcomes Senator Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party. And that was just the end of last week. He indeed appears to be everywhere, doing everything. While there's been criticism and concern about him taking on too much, there is no denying that he is dominating the stage like no one before him. And yet by traditional measures, he's been no more visible than his two most recent predecessors. According to the New York Times, in their first 100 days Bill Clinton held 13 news conferences while Obama held 12. In his first 100 days, George W. Bush held 197 public events, while Obama held 187. And despite what has felt like a saturation of the airwaves, Obama gave two nationally televised broadcasts -- exactly the same number as Bush and one fewer than Clinton. All of this begs the question: why does it seem as if Obama is everywhere all the time, if he's really not? Is it a fawning media that critics claim fell in love with him during the campaign and now can't help themselves as they focus on every action big and small - from Bo to Bailouts - in creating a truly larger than life President? Maybe. A Washington press corps fatigued by eight years of obfuscation passed off as "message discipline" during the Bush years is undoubtedly enjoying a new approach and better access. And there is always a bit of a media honeymoon with a new president, although it is truncated these days (see President Clinton and gays in the military on Day 9). Perhaps it's the fact that there are crises on so many different fronts - the economy, the auto companies, Afghanistan, swine flu - that the President is addressing (seemingly personally). These are big issues that demand public attention. While both Clinton and Bush took over in the midst of mild recessions, neither had the magnitude of immediate challenges Obama faces. There is of course the historic nature of his presidency as the first African-American president, which coupled with his youth, energy and oratorical skills make a compelling story. Chances are it's a combination of all of the above that have worked together to create the omnipresent President. Whatever the cause, he clearly relishes it and uses his ability to dominate the stage to his great advantage. He makes his opposition seem small and petty by comparison (although given the state of his opposition, perhaps that's not such an accomplishment). They shrink as he takes dramatic action and tackles big issues while they focus on grainy details. As he elevates these issues to major topics of coverage he draws support and puts his opponents on the defensive from the outset. There are risks, of course, to being omnipresent. There is the threat of over saturation that may lead the media, Congress and voters to tune him out simply because we've heard and seen him so often There is also the very real risk that he comes to own all of these issues in the public's eye and when one or more of them worsens, he will bear the brunt of criticism and, worse, disappointment. While these outcomes could hobble his still young presidency, they are risks he's obviously willing to take given the potential payoff.
 
Obama's Supreme Court Pick: Has More Than 6 On List Top
WASHINGTON — A source tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama is considering California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and more than five other people as nominees for the Supreme Court. An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood _ people who have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates. The official said there were other people under consideration. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because no names have been publicly revealed by the White House. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) _ President Barack Obama plans to announce his Supreme Court choice soon but isn't saying who is being seriously considered, senators who met with him said Wednesday. "I don't envy him the decision, but I think he's going to make it soon," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told The Associated Press after a private White House session. "I think when he goes out west today and tomorrow, he's going to have a lot of stuff on the airplane with him." Obama was leaving later in the day to give a commencement speech at Arizona State University, while the debate simmers about the nomination of a successor to retiring Justice David Souter. Asked if the president ran any names of candidates by the senators, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said: "No. No names." Obama's bipartisan consultation came as he zeroed in on a nominee. Souter is part of the court's liberal wing, and his replacement by the new Democratic president is not expected to change the high court's ideological balance. Obama is widely expected to appoint a woman to replace Souter, and he is under pressure from some Latino officials to name the nation's first Hispanic justice. Obama met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on Judiciary; Leahy; and McConnell. Vice President Joe Biden, a former Judiciary Committee chairman and veteran of confirmation hearings, also attended. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama and senators reached agreement that the confirmation process "would be civil." Sessions said that Obama didn't give a timeframe for his decision but indicated he wanted to get it done soon. "My impression was he doesn't want to let it take too long," Sessions told reporters on the White House driveway. The White House has said Obama will not announce a decision this week. It appears increasingly likely, though, that he will do so before month's end. One official said none of the senators present at the closed-door White House meeting mentioned the names of any potential nominees. "The president said we may disagree on how to vote on a nominee, but we can agree on the process, or the tone of it," Sessions said. "I think that's true." Obama wants his nominee confirmed before the Senate goes on recess for the summer in early August. But the senators would not commit to that. Reid said the chamber would not be wedded to "arbitrary deadlines" and cautioned about the Judiciary Committee's busy schedule. "We'll work out a decent schedule," said Leahy, who promised a fair chance for Republicans and Democrats to ask questions during confirmation hearings. "Let's get the nominee first." An emerging point of debate is Obama's insistence that his nominee be someone who is willing to show "empathy" in making rulings. Some Republicans have balked at the notion, including Sessions, who wrote an op-ed in the Wednesday editions of The Washington Post prodding Obama not to pick someone who would rule based on personal feelings. Asked whether that matter came up, McConnell said: "We did have a discussion about the importance of following the law, and not acting like a legislator on the bench." Should Obama make his pick shortly, that would leave June and July for his nominee to get through the vetting process, with voting presumably taking place in the Senate by August. It is possible, however, that the confirmation process would carry on into September. Leahy said he saw no problem in having a nominee confirmed by the start of the new court session in October. ___ Associated Press writers David Espo and Chuck Babington contributed to this story. More on Barack Obama
 
Nan Aron: Justice Delayed Top
You may have heard that Republicans in the U.S. Senate are blocking the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, and you may be wondering, "So what?" This actually matters. A lot. The person who heads that office tells the executive branch of government which actions it is considering are legal and constitutional and which infringe on such basic rights as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and privacy. This is the job that Jay Bybee held during the Bush administration when he wrote his infamous memo providing legal cover for illegal torture and wiretapping without warrants. President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen to restore integrity to the office. She served there for five years under President Clinton, including as acting director. She's a distinguished law professor at Indiana University who specializes in the question of protecting against abuses of executive power. She spearheaded an effort by legal experts who served in the Clinton administration to develop guidelines to ensure that the Office of Legal Counsel fulfills its proper role in the future. In other words, she's exactly what you would look for in a qualified nominee. That's why she is supported by Doug Kmiec, who was deputy director of that office under Bush Sr.; Walter Dellinger, who ran the office under Clinton; and Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff. So why are Senate Republicans using a threatened filibuster to block a vote on the nomination they know they would lose? Number one -- partisan politics. At this point, if President Obama said he favors the sun coming up in the morning, most Republican senators would object, saying it comes up too far to the left. Number two -- the Republican's extreme ideological agenda. They are attacking Johnsen because she spoke out against the misuse of the Justice Department to justify illegal torture by the Bush administration. Apparently, anyone against illegal acts by the President is unfit to serve. They are also attacking her for supporting the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. That decision is supported by a large majority of Americans because for more than 35 years it has protected our right to privacy and kept the government out of our personal lives. If favoring Roe v. Wade disqualifies someone from serving our nation, there will need to be an awful lot of resignations from office, including President Obama himself, a majority of the Senate and House of Representatives, and a majority of the Supreme Court. Then, there's a third reason for the filibuster threat against Dawn Johnsen. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to you, but it seems that some Republican senators have an allergic reaction to women in positions of responsibility. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) ridiculed Johnsen, saying she does not have the "seriousness" for the job. Can you imagine Republican senators saying that about a man who formerly held the job to which he was being appointed and whose academic specialty as a law professor was the very subject he would be dealing with in that position? The partisan obstructionists in the Senate are hoping that the public won't bother to contact their senators about a nomination many Americans know little about. I hope they're wrong. More on Barack Obama
 
Urbanization Leading To The Rise Of Slums (AUDIO)(SLIDESHOW) Top
The year 2007 was a turning point for the world, marking the first time when the majority of the global population lived in cities rather than in the country. The world's population is expected to surpass 9 billion by 2050, and increasing urbanization will push the urban-rural divide even further. Do the world's cities have the jobs, infrastructure and space to support this kind of growth? The answer might be found in the explosion of world slums over the past decade. The United Nations predicts that 2 billion people worldwide will live in slums by 2030. In his 2006 book "Planet of Slums," urban historian Mike Davis paints a dark picture of the future to come, writing: The cities of the future, rather than being made out of glass and steel as envisioned by earlier generations of urbanists, are instead largely constructed out of crude brick, straw, recycled plastic, cement blocks, and scrap wood. Instead of cities of light soaring toward heaven, much of the twenty-first-century urban world squts in squalor, surrounded by pollution, excrement and decay. Worldfocus.org's weekly radio show explored urbanization and the rise of slums, examining how such deplorable conditions might be addressed, even as the global economic crisis looms. Worldfocus anchor Martin Savidge hosted a panel of guests. Erhard Berner is an associate professor of developmental sociology at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. He has done extensive research on urban poverty and community responses in the Philippines and elsewhere and served as a consultant to UN-Habitat, NGOs, and government institutions. Robert Neuwirth spent two years living in shantytowns across the developing world to write "Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World." He is now at work on a book chronicling the global reach of the informal economy. Mary Wiltenburg is an independent reporter, now following a year in the life of a refugee family in the U.S. and Tanzania in a series called Little Bill Clinton, a real-time multimedia project with The Christian Science Monitor and the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Below, view a slideshow of life in five major world slums. See more from Worldfocus Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on United Nations
 
Cenk Uygur: Obama Makes Terrible Mistake by Not Releasing Pictures Top
This is an unbelievable moment. Dick Cheney's PR offensive over the last month actually worked. Barack Obama just crumbled and will follow Cheney's command to not release the new set of detainee abuse pictures. By the way, if you hadn't figured it out by now, that's why you saw every Cheney in the world on television arguing that torture works and that releasing more information would gravely harm the troops. They weren't worried about what was already released; they were worried about what was going to get released. They were trying to pre-empt the most damaging thing of all - the pictures that show the torture. Just talk about torture doesn't really do it for the American people. But when they see pictures, they get it. That's why Bush had to apologize profusely and throw a few low-level soldiers under the bus when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out. You think there would have been anywhere near that level of controversy or accountability (such that it was) without the pictures? How many Americans have heard of Bagram Air Base and how we tortured people to death there? A scant few. How many would have heard of it if there were pictures of detainees shackled from the ceiling in a Palestinian hanging or bleeding to death? Pictures are worth a billion words. You know why? Television! If something isn't on television, it didn't happen. And television producers are obsessed with visuals (makes some sense since it's a visual medium, but their obsession winds up dumbing down the news if there aren't any pictures or video to go along with an important story). Television has a multiplier effect. The New York Times story on how we beat a man named Dilawar to death at Bagram just sits there and whoever reads it, reads it. And then, it's done. On television stories spread and multiply and get spread to other channels and other mediums. Television doesn't just report the news; it decides what the news is. So, that is what this whole fight has been about - the pictures. And now Obama adopted Cheney's position that it endangers national security to release the pictures and he will be saddled for the rest of time with the obligation to fight Cheney's battle for him. And anytime any reasonable person makes a case that as a free and open democracy we should know what our government did, the right-wing will counter with, "Even Obama thinks it endangers national security!" The reason why this is such a maddening argument is that it is so f'in obvious that the real problem isn't releasing the pictures; it's what we did in the pictures. The argument that Obama so stupidly accepted just now shifts the blame from the people who committed the abuse to the people who want to uncover it and put an end to it. If you released the pictures and show how the "enhanced interrogation" memos directly led to these abuses , there would be no more torture debate. Everyone could see with their own eyes the horrific results of torture. Now instead, Obama has not just protected the torturers, but empowered them. They now get to claim they tried to protect America and that anyone who tries to show their misdeeds endangers America. The news reports will tell you that Obama listened to his generals on this. Yes, who put Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno in their current positions? Oh yes, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Very fair and balanced advice you would get from them. This isn't about protecting the troops; it's about protecting their own behinds. They might have been in the chain of command that allowed this abuse to happen. Expecting unbiased advice from them is ridiculous. Now, it looks to the rest of the world that we are trying to hide something, that we have not turned over a new leaf, that it is the same old lies and duplicity - and that Obama is on it. This was colossally stupid. And to add insult to injury, we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that Dick Cheney still runs DC no matter how unpopular and despicable he is. He still has the Democrats eating out of his hand. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. There should be an overwhelming Democratic and media revolt over this decision. The Democrats cannot be like the Republicans and bow their heads at all of the president's decisions. They should fight him tooth and nail on this. Don't hold your breath. Other than Feingold and a few others, they will all immediately lay down. But I come back to a question that keeps popping back up - are there any real journalists in this country? Has everyone become so obsessed with access and so cowed by possible governmental reaction that they don't actually do their job anymore? They seem so damn frightened by what the big, bad government might say about them. If there's a real journalist in this country, they will get their hands on those pictures and release them to the world. We did what is in those pictures. The longer we cover it up, the more culpable we all become. Not showing the pictures doesn't make the reality of what happened go away. It only aids and abets the torturers who did the crimes and stained this country's name. They should all be thrown into the sunlight. This is what the press is supposed to do. Now, are so-called journalists going to act or are they going to just sit there and take it again? We're going to find out if we have attack dogs in the press that uncover the truth as it actually is or if we just have a bunch of lap dogs that can't wait for their master to give them the crumbs off his table. This is a litmus test. Is this an free and open country, or isn't it? Watch The Young Turks Here More on Barack Obama
 
Casey Gane-McCalla: The General vs. The Bigot: Cheney's Choice of Leader Top
While Dick Cheney's endorsement of Rush Limbaugh might carry the weight of any other supervillain's endorsemen t, it is still significant. When Dick Cheney, still one of the most recognizable faces of the Republican Party, chose Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell, he chose racism over service to your country, divisiveness over diplomacy, and anger over prudence. Since the Republicans value military service, family values and patriotism so much, it is strange that Cheney would pick Limbaugh. Here's a comparison of the two. Education Powell Grew up poor in the South Bronx yet managed to graduate from City College. Received M.B.A. from George Washington University, after his second tour in Vietnam in 1971. Limbaugh Grew up rich and flunked out of college after two semesters. Military Service Powell 41 years of service from private to general. Limbaugh Draft dodger. Family Values Powell Married for 46 years, with one child. Limbaugh Thrice divorced, no children. Racism Powell None to speak of. Limbaugh Top 10 Racist Quotes. Sexism Powell None to Speak of. Limbaugh He said: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society," and also, "We're not sexists, we're chauvinists -- we're male chauvinist pigs, and we're happy to be because we think that's what men were destined to be. We think that's what women want." Patriotism Powell 50 years of serving his country under both political parties. Limbaugh Blind loyalty to his country when his party is in power. Wants his country to fail when it isn't. Legal Problems Powell None to speak of. Limbaugh Was accused of laundering money to illegally buy prescription pills. Prosecutors agreed to drop the charge if Limbaugh paid $30,000 to defray the cost of the investigation and completed an 18-month therapy regimen with his physician. Approval Rating Powell 80% Limbaugh 26% Cheney says that Powell was a Democrat because of his endorsement of Barack Obama . He clearly didn't listen to a word Powell said when he endorsed Obama. Powell wasn't abandoning Republican values or principles but was decrying the racism and divisiveness the party was promoting. By choosing a racist, sexist, hate spewing entertainer over a respected, fair ex-general, Cheney is illustrating the new ugly face of the Republican party. A party with no ideas, a party that caters to racists and bigots and a party that wants America to fail. More on Barack Obama
 
Sotomayor's Medical History Sparks Wider Debate Top
With President Obama's Supreme Court choice expected within weeks, the vetting process for prospective candidates has grown more intense. Judicial rulings, legal papers, public statements and financial records all are being pored over with eagle eyes. So too is a far more sensitive matter: medical records. The health of a Supreme Court candidate is, naturally, a touchy subject, falling in a gray area that includes deeply private information. In recent administrations, however, it has become a focal point of the vetting deliberations, with lifespan moving up alongside jurisprudence as a criteria for a nominee. As President Obama approaches his first Supreme Court appointment, the question of how much scrutiny he should give to a candidate's health could rise to the surface once more. A frontrunner for the post, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is a Type One diabetic. It is one of the more compelling aspects to an already compelling biography. And while hardly a debilitating disease -- indeed, recent medical advancements have made it quite manageable to live with -- there remain enough late-in-life health implications to have sparked debate in legal, political and medical circles. Just how relevant are medical issues to Sotomayor's or any other potential Supreme Court nomination? "It is obligatory [to look at this]" said Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN and author of "The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court." "The issue of duration of service for a Supreme Court nominee is critical to any president, and thus health and medical issues are very much at the forefront of their considerations... It would be irresponsible for any president not to make the health of the nominee a major subject of concern, because presidents want decades of service from their nominees." Added another political operative who has worked on judicial nominations in the past: "I don't even think it is very sensitive. I think it is just obvious.... It is part of who we are. And so I think you find that there is almost in this day and age, there is almost no area of inquiry that is out of bounds." Not everyone believes that medical conditions of prospective candidates should be considered so critically in the vetting process. George Dargo, a professor of law at New England Law in Boston, noted retiring Justice David Souter himself should serve as evidence for Obama that gaming out how a Supreme Court pick will fare is an imprecise art. "I believe that this should not be a factor," he said. "There is one constant in Supreme Court history, and that is the inconstancy of the appointees... President Obama may want to appoint someone who will be there for at least a generation, but he might be disappointed." Moreover, few, if any, in the medical profession view Sotomayor's diabetes as a major disqualifier. Far from it, many experts argue that there is a stigma attached to Type One diabetes that doesn't exist with other conditions. A history of coronary disease, high blood pressure, Crohn's Disease or Lupus can present far more difficult medical quandaries. The vast majority of the roughly 24 million people who suffer from diabetes live long and fruitful lives, with a list of political luminaries that includes former New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, Mikhail Gorbachev and Menachem Begin. "The advancements for management of type one diabetes have been just amazing over the last two decades because of the advent of insulin pumps and the ability of people to measure their glucose levels at home," said Dr. Paul Robertson, President of Medicine & Science at the American Diabetes Association. "We're talking a whole different ball game now in terms of how well patients can do; what their longevity is like and how well they can function. Many of the pro athletes as you may already know have type one diabetes and they function perfectly well." That said, the complications faced by Type One diabetics can be immense. According to Joana Casas of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, patients suffer high rates of kidney disease, heart disease, stroke and nerve damage. "The average life expectancy for people with Type One is lowered by an average of ten years," she added. And with there being no time or term limit to a position on the Court, some legal observers wonder whether this could end up complicating the likelihood of her appointment. "I myself am a Type 2 diabetic for over three decades," said Howard Ball, author of "The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans" and a political science professor at the University of Vermont. "It calls for vigilance daily... I am sure that the judge [Sotomayor] has developed such a regimen over the years... This certainly make Obama's decision a very political one because, as you know, the president wants to select someone who will be on the court for decades doing the right thing in cases and controversies. I would suspect that she will not become a viable possibility for that reason, although I may be wrong." Sotomayor has been open about her diabetes in the past, noting that when she was diagnosed at he age of eight, it foiled her hopes of becoming an investigative detective like her heroine, Nancy Drew. Her office, however, did not return requests from comment. Sources close to the Obama White House say they are, as expected, taking each candidate's medical history into consideration. But officials refused to comment for this article. Health concerns have factored into previous Supreme Court nominations, often in complicated and rather secretive ways. The most obvious example of medical issues affecting an appointment, Toobin argued, was Richard Arnold, an Arkansas federal appeals court judge who President Bill Clinton desperately wanted to appoint to the bench before medical tests showed a reemergence of cancerous tumors in his body. A weeping Clinton decided against the appointment and ultimately settled on Justice Stephen Breyer. Roughly ten years later, Arnold died due to complications with his treatment. There are other historical anecdotes, though far less gripping. David Atkinson, author of "Leaving the Bench," hypothesizes that Justice Charles Whittaker likely had some medical problems before President Eisenhower appointed him to the Court. He ended up suffering a nervous breakdown on the bench in 1962 and was granted his retirement soon thereafter. Horace Lurton, William Taft's 65-year-old nominee, promised to "hit the ground running," Atkinson noted. But "he lasted only a very short time before he became very ill and died." Mainly, however, health concerns arise during the end, not the beginning, of a Justice's tenure. The esteemed Thurgood Marshall, for one, was suffering from a bad heart, deafness and glaucoma by the time he retired at age 82. Justice William Brennan, as well, admitted that he ended his career not quite as mentally astute as when he started. Currently, the Court has one member who suffers from epilepsy -- Chief Justice John Roberts -- and another recovering from surgery for cancer -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. With this backdrop in mind, Atkinson argues that Justices and nominees should be more forthcoming with medical information. "I've been making this case for a long time," he said. "Presidents, since Eisenhower, have been very good at this. The Justices have not been so good." With Contributing Reporting By Susan Crile Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Barack Obama
 
Nancy Lublin: Confession: I Love Perez Top
I have a confession... I think Perez Hilton rocks! My admiration goes beyond just his juicy celebrity gossip, though I'm a little obsessed with his snarky comments and paparazzi pictures. Beyond the daily celebrity rants and low-brow humor, is a great philanthropist, recognizing the hard work of not-for-profits all over the world. His gossip blog draws on average 10 million page views a day. That's a lot of eyes reading what one person writes and every week Perez highlights a charity under the title "A Worthwhile Cause" directing a tsunami of traffic to that not-for-profit's site. The numbers don't lie, this past February Break the Cycle, a not-for-profit advocating against domestic and dating violence, was one of those featured "Worthwhile Costs." Overnight they saw a 200% growth in their website traffic. Visual Aid, a San Francisco based not-for-profit helping artists whose careers are challenged because of a life-threatening illness, saw their web traffic increase 500%! His blogging about not-for-profits goes beyond simply directing traffic to websites. The Kramden Institute, based in NC, not only saw an increase in their traffic, they received donations from people in California. Something they never experienced prior to the Perez Hilton spotlight. Does he foster media stereotypes about women? Does his posting photos of Suri and other kids mean paparazzi are encouraged to stalk those kids? Is he crass? You bet. But at least he uses that traffic to shed light on some good stuff too. Rock on, Perez. I love you, man. Written with James C. Elbaor
 
Jonathan Daniel Harris: Why Gay Marriage Won't Lead to Turtle Marriage Top
Bill O'Reilly just loves doing segments on gay marriage . It gives him the perfect opportunity to bring up one of his favorite topics of recent years: turtle f***ing. Yes, on a recent episode of The O'Reilly Factor, our peevish commentator argued to Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson and surprising voice-of-reason Margaret Hoover that allowing gay people to marry would open the door to threesome marriages and animal marriage. The full clip can be seen on Media Matters . Watch it. It's about three minutes, typically more than the standard amount of Fox News I can stomach, but sometimes you just have to force yourself. Okay, now you've heard him talk about how gay marriage will lead to the rampant acceptance of goat, turtle and dolphin marriage. This argument is so nonsensical it's going to take me four whole paragraphs to rant about it! I'll start with a really simple one, complete with real-world applications. You can't make something illegal that should be legal just because of what it might lead to. Alcohol leads to drunk driving which kills over 10,000 people in the U.S. every year. Alcohol is legal. Guns lead to over 1,000 accidental deaths every year and guns are legal. Even if gay marriage led to anything else -- and there's frightfully little evidence that it would -- that would not be grounds to make it illegal. But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore that issue. Let's say the Supreme Court overrules all of these silly propositions that outlaw gay marriage. Will a group of three (a triad, as they say on the Factor) get all those same rights? Well, if all three members of the group want to be legally bound and have all the privileges of a married couple, I gotta say I don't have much of a problem with it. What do I care? Of course, there are far fewer people who want to engage in polygamous relations than want to be in a gay marriage. Gay people equal between five and ten percent of the population. I don't think even the most drunkenly accumulated census in the country would have that high a number of people who claimed to be polygamous (and no, LiLo doesn't count). So, I think we can agree that it's unlikely to become a widespread cultural phenomenon. However, if all members of the party are consensual, go ahead! Have a ball! Even more nonsensical is the concept of animal marriage. I know Bill's just trying to make a point, but doesn't he see how equating two gay men who love each other to a guy f***ing a porpoise could be a little bit offensive? Once again, my same points apply. There are far, far fewer people who want to jump in bed with a squirrel than are in love with a member of the same sex. This kind of awful reasoning really gets my goat. Ha! Of course, let's say there were 30 million carniphiles in this country. Once again, if you could actually get the consent of the fish, ewe, tadpole or wildebeast to such a relationship, I gotta tell you, I don't have that much of a problem with it. I'd find it a little strange, sure, but as long as Mr. and Mrs. Salamander are minding their own business, I'll mind mine. O'Reilly knows, however, that this is simply ridiculous. We all know, perhaps, dozens of gay people. How many of us have ever encountered someone not named Ms. Piggy who's attracted to a frog? Trumpeting these arguments on a national news network is embarrassing, and I only hope YouTube still exists in 30 years so younger generations can laugh in disbelief at the people still clinging on to the desperate, bigoted side of this issue. More on Marriage
 
Paula Froelich: Blind Item Madness! Guess Who Inspired My New Book Characters and Win an Invitation to My Party! Top
Lets play the Guessing Game. All writers base their characters on someone. After all, in order for writing to feel true, you have to have lived part of it. And so, as it is with many New York based novels, my new one, Mercury In Retrograde does indeed have characters that are inspired by actual people. Famous people. New Yorkers. And so I have devised the game — with the winner getting a signed copy of the book and an invite to one of my two book parties (Uptown: May 26, Downtown: May 28). It's all in good fun, and let me warn you — they are not as obvious as they may seem. I have not included any of my current colleagues (as I'd like to keep my job, thank you very much), nor are they all based solely on one person. In fact, most are an amalgam. The characters may not be based on people in the field in which they are described. So, have fun and guess away by leaving comments below or tweeting me at @PFro ! I'll be picking the winners on Monday. 1. Ashley Winskdale , the beauty editor at Y: accused by the editor Jack of not being "the pedophile's dream you used to be," wears her hair in a straight dark bob, only five foot one, and insists on dressing in wool jumpers with white shirts that had rounded collars and puffed sleeves. 2. Martman , the news editor at the Telegraph, who is short in two ways: He's edited both in height and "down there" — but makes up for it with his temper. A man more "susceptible to flattery than any actual display of knowledge" ends up giving away a coveted job to a family member rather than the person who deserves it. 3. Trace Howard , the news anchor for NY Access — New York's other local cable network — is a "preternaturally tan 62 year old" with thinning hair on his head and a full mustache. He likes to walk into a room and announce, "I am a powerful and attractive man!" before getting his bald spot covered with tanning cream. He has wandering eyes, hands and knees and loathes his co-anchors. Wears Drakkar Noir. 4. Laura Lopez , a nakedly ambitious blonde 30 something entertainment reporter from a Wasp background (she changed her name as "by 2011, Hispanics will be the largest demographic in the US and they will want to watch one of their own!") lists her idols as Geraldo Rivera, Natalie Morales and Charo. Likes to describe individual celebs as "down to earth," "a real gentleman" and "so funny - not depressing at all!" (with regards to a manic-depressive comedian who was in rehab for a bad meth problem and tried to commit suicide several years earlier). 5. Kandace Karllsen , a "real, expressive" newswoman "with heart" who talks with her hands because it "drives the point home" and is fixated on "proper a-NUN-see-ay-SHUN!" She likes to call gossip columnists and give them items about herself. In fake voices, of course. In order to make herself seem "bookschooled" Kandace also uses long smart-sounding "words" like "Irreducibly", "irregardlessly," etc. 6. Kitty Foil , a teen starlet who accuses one of the main characters of "box-blocking" her with a film director at the Met gala. A 17 year old actress who'd been raised in the Disney farm leagues, Kitty brags about losing her virginity to Mick on a tour bus, keeps running to the bathroom to "powder her nose," gets very drunk and ends up doing improbable yogic positions in rollerblades before wreaking havoc on the gala (yes, this really happened with someone, just not at the Met Gala). 7. Jann Elder , an attractive yet self-absorbed writer/director (I know, I know - it's a stereotype - but there's a reason for stereo types, because they're just so often true!), who insists that his film starring Meryl Streep was the best work the Oscar winning actress has done as "in all those (other roles - Sophie's Choice, Kramer v. Kramer) all she did was cry, cry, cry and yell. Typical female roles, which can be played by any woman. Isn't that what women do anyway?" 8. "The head of a news network" who, during his entire time with a prostitute "all he did was re-enact a Geico commercial." 9. The Hollywood manager who "only used washcloths to wipe his ass"... and liked to try on dresses. This one is actually a Hollywood manager. 10. Marge , the mercurial station manager at NY Access — who is hopped up on 10 pots of coffee a day and a constant supply of "the Blues," The Pinks" and "The Greens" — a colorful assortment of prescription pills she likes to put in a clear vase because it matches her décor. Marge is known for a nasty temper — set off by anything from her plastic surgeon reminding her that her face lift will take longer to heal as she is not as young as she claims — or an underling calling her the aged term of respect, "ma'am" — but is a deeply loyal person. Want more hints? Tough, cause that's all you're getting. Hope to see you soon!
 
David Saltzman: 430,000 Lives Touched, Six Stories to Tell Top
Unless you're just waking up from a Rip Van Winkle-like snooze, you don't need me to tell you that times are tough. We've all been hurt. But poor New Yorkers have really been hurt. Unemployment has doubled here in the past 12 months. A full 40 percent of African-American men don't have jobs. Demand for emergency food has skyrocketed by 30 percent; last year more than 1.3 million New Yorkers went to a soup kitchen or a food pantry. Robin Hood exists to help them and all our neighbors -- about 430,000 people a year -- who need assistance. Robin Hood searches out and supports more than 200 of the most effective poverty-fighting organizations in New York City. They make sure that children like Cheyanne have hot, nutritious meals; that families like Frank's have warm, safe homes; that babies like Giovanni have life-saving medical care. At www.robinhoodresponds.org you'll meet them and others who need our help more this year than last year, more today than yesterday. Robin Hood Shelters from Robin Hood on Vimeo . I'm a New Yorker born and bred, and I love this city. But the stark contrast between rich and poor here is something I've never gotten used to. And I hope I never will. Within the space of a few blocks, you can see couples eating in the finest restaurants in the world and homeless men and women with all their belongings in a shopping cart. While street homelessness is the most visible sign of poverty, the hidden facts can break your heart even more: the fact that 9,300 homeless families sleep in shelters every night, the fact that 55 percent of babies born in New York City are born into poverty. Once you find out that 1.9 million of our neighbors live below the poverty line (about $26,000 a year for a family of four), you never look at the city the same way again. Make no mistake, these are the true victims of the crisis. Economists observe that those at the bottom of the economic ladder suffer the longest in a recession. I have the privilege of working with an incredibly talented bunch of people, the leaders of some of the strongest nonprofits in the city. They don't fit the do-gooder profile you might expect. Some are lawyers, some are teachers, some are nuns. Some grew up in the neighborhoods they serve; others wound up in New York through happenstance. Despite running schools and programs that are chronically underfunded, they radiate zeal for their missions. If the theme of 2009 is doing more with less, then our grantees wrote the book. Whether you work for a corporation, a government agency or another nonprofit, their entrepreneurial spirit is an inspiration. And while I fear we've only begun to witness the full force of this downturn, I am also strongly encouraged by what can be accomplished against the odds, as well as the groundswell of support shown by New Yorkers from all walks of life. More on The Recession
 
"Democrat Socialist Party" Resolution Will Pass RNC: Member Top
A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the "Democrat Socialist Party." More on GOP
 
Dan Dorfman: Wall Street's Mad Dash for Trash Top
Hey, you don't need a 160 IQ to know that this is the wrong kind of market to mess with marginal stocks. Yet, there's been a sizable flight to the cheapies, notably those low-priced single-digit names that used to trade in the high double-digits -- the theory being a peppier economy will bail out all the losers. Charles Biderman, one of Wall Street's leading liquidity trackers, characterizes the frenzied buying as "a mad dash for trash." That's his assessment of the "insanity" that took place during the recent robust market rally -- a surge of 37.4% in the S&P 500 from its March 9 low -- in which investors with little or no regard for value or fundamentals recklessly bid up the stock prices of many cheap, but marginal companies to what he contends are astronomical and unsustainable levels. In particular, he points to such recent gainers -- all of which he regards as vulnerable to stiff market declines -- as Fifth Third Bancorp (up 511%), Huntington Bancshares (up 381%), Krispy Kreme Doughnuts (up 251%), Martha Stewart Living (up 125%), and P.F. Chang's China Bistro (up 79%). He observes that even financial firms undertaking massive capital increase and shareholder dilution have been ballooning. Here, for example, he takes pot shots at the buyers who helped fuel sizable gains last week in such names as Bank of America (62%), Simon Property Group (14%) and Wells Fargo (44%). In some ways, says Biderman, it feels like the early 2000 dot.com bubble all over again. As a result of the buying momentum, he points out that the S&P 500 now yields less than a puny 2.4% and trades at a lofty 26.3 times earnings. Does anyone, he asks, really think a secular bull market is starting at these absurd valuations? Biderman, a pronounced bear, is the CEO of TrimTabs Research of Santa Rosa, Ca., a 19-year old liquidity-tracking firm which monitors the flow of funds in and out of equities. The firm is partially owned by Goldman Sachs and its clients include about 25% of the country's largest hedge funds. Biderman, a one-time Barron's reporter, credits much of the recent rally to sizable and almost desperate institutional buying, notably by many hedge funds which had a horrible 2008 and are using whatever buying power they have to try to redeem themselves. In turn, he says, this frantic buying has resulted in what he calls "the mad dash for trash" that has gunned the shares of lower quality companies. Arguing that such ridiculous buying can't possibly last, Biderman notes that when institutions run out of dry powder, "corporate share selling is going to swamp this market and stock prices are going to drop like a stone." What about the vigor of the recent rally? Biderman observes that some of the chief benefits that helped produce it -- the Obama tax cut, higher tax refunds this year, versus last year, mortgage refinancings and lower oil prices -- will be more than overpowered by the economic negatives, chief among them being declining personal incomes, soaring unemployment and plummeting consumer credit. These negatives, he says, strongly suggest the economic downturn is nowhere near its bottom despite some recent glimmers of hope, such as two consecutive months of rising existing home sales and April's government-reported lower than expected jobless numbers. Also weighing on the market, liquidity trends suck, Biderman says. Noteworthy in this respect, he points out, the smartest players in the stock market -- public companies and the insiders who run them -- have been selling hard into the rally. Since the start of April, corporate selling (new offerings and net insider sales) has totaled $33.3 billion, which is 56% higher than the announced corporate buying. Another market depressant, according to our grizzly, is the expectation of a lot of new equity supply, with new offerings pegged this month at more than $50 billion. Yet another worry is the $37 billion decline in retail-oriented money-market funds over the past five weeks -- meaning less money available for the purchase of stocks. As Biderman sees it, the market bottom, contrary to renewed market enthusiasm stemming from the recent rally, still remains a long way off. As such, he is advising clients to be aggressive sellers on any rally since he expects the market to drop below its March 9 low before year-end. If that were to occur, the S&P 500 would plunge roughly 30% from current levels. In its model portfolio, TrimTabs is short (a bet on falling stock prices) such market sectors as financials, consumer discretionary, industrials and energy. Putting his money where his mouth is, Biderman recently sold short in his own account an exchange-traded fund (symbol SKF), a bet financial stocks will fall. Taking note of the prospects of massive losses in such areas as consumer credit, mortgages and junk bonds used to finance mergers and acquisitions in 2006 and 2007, Biderman sees plenty of additional turmoil ahead for investors dumb enough to own financial shares. It all conjures up memories of legendary trader Jess Livermore, who called the 1929 bottom and then re-entered the bear market way too soon, which led him to kill himself in 1940. "The Livermore incident showed the danger of buying false dawns," Biderman says. "and that's what the suckers are now doing again. "They're buying another false dawn."
 
Asymmetrical Shine: Michelle Obama At Poetry Jam (PHOTOS) Top
Michelle Obama had her long-awaited poetry jam at the White House Tuesday night. Read about the event here . Dressed for spring, the First Lady wore an asymmetrical patterned top, large earrings and cropped wide-legged white pants with her trademark kitten heels to the events, as seen below. PHOTOS: More on Photo Galleries
 
Michael Giltz: Cannes 2009: "Emmanuelle" in 3-D! Top
As if having Pixar's first 3-D film Up open the festival wasn't enough, now comes news that the erotic classic Emmanuelle is being updated...in every way imaginable, including 3-D. French producer Alain Siritzky "exposes" Emmanuelle to a wider audience and plans to make it very young adult friendly, an odd description for a softcore series usually consumed by middle-aged men. Until you read the press release: The New Emmanuelle wil be shot in 3-D. (The mind boggles.) It will be "green" because the plot includes an eco-friendly airship, "a first of its kind 700 foot long state-of-art blimp that promotes a green lifestyle. The creation of a renowned designer, the awe-inspiring airship travels the world from New York to Rio to Ha Long Bay in Vietnam and finally to Paris, France." The renowned designer is left unnamed, perhaps out of shame. Finally, they even evoke American Idol by promising to find the new Emmanuelle via a world-spanning reality show. The winner gets a $1 million contract and a four year deal to play Emmanuelle. No actual TV show is confirmed, of course, but it's a fun idea. Wouldn't it be great to see Simon Cowell judge that one? This is not just naughty bits gussied up for a new audience, insists Siritzky, "There is a need for a responsible and honest film that addresses many relevant topics that young adults as well as mature adults are faced with of late," said Siritsky in the press release. "It may surprise some that Emmanuelle is the modern messenger of such important issue but it truly is fitting as though much has changed from when the original was released, the foundation of Emmanuelle has not...which is that Emmanuelle is more than a character or a novel or film. Emmanuelle is a way of life that celebrates women. It is beautiful, stylish, feminine, thought-provoking and powerful, as all women are created. This message is one that is important now more than ever to instill in women everywhere and of all ages." Yes, and if a little nudity helps get the message across, all the better.
 
Cash-Strapped CTA Deferring Bus And Train Maintenance To Save Money Top
The CTA will defer a huge chunk of preventive maintenance work on buses and trains and make other painful cuts to erase a projected $155 million shortfall in public funding this year.
 
Sahil Kapur: Elite Deception and the Rise of Inequality Top
For years we've heard conservatives label their liberal rivals "elitist." And who can blame them, considering how politically effective it has been. The electorate wants a president who is down to earth and in touch with their everyday lives -- someone who will fight for their interests. With this in mind, let's take a moment to examine who the real elitists are. Merriam-Webster defines elite as "the socially superior part of society" and "a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence." An elitist politician, then, is one who caters to this stratum of society. Since the Reagan era, Republicans have been the party of the elites, by the elites and for the elites. Their core philosophy of giving tax cuts to the wealthy and deregulating business activity has fleeced the middle class out of a fair shake. In addition, they've led the charge to bust unions, derail consumer protections, oppose universal health care and fight minimum wage increases. Unsurprisingly, the beneficiaries have been the economic elites. In 1980, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 42 to 1 ; by 2005 it rose to 450 to 1 . In 1980, the richest 1 percent earned 8 percent of the nation's income; since 2005 they've made over 20 percent . By 2007, the top 0.1 (yes, zero point one) percent of Americans owned as much wealth as the bottom 150 million. For decades, there has been a redistribution of wealth from the working class to the ruling elite. Surely we can all agree that wealth is created, but workers (not merely executives) are vital in creating it. While earnings for the rich have exploded, middle class incomes have been declining for decades, despite longer working hours. Granted, there's nothing wrong with reaping the fruits of one's labor -- it's the American way. But the wealthy elite have a habit of using their swagger to take advantage of regular folks. Government should keep this power in check, not encourage it. Even Adam Smith, the father of free-market capitalism, declared in The Wealth of Nations that "the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." The psychological term projection describes a "defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people." If you think about it, this thoroughly explains why Republicans have cohesively worked to assign the "elitist" label to their Democratic nemeses. In 2008, John McCain, who married into a $100 million fortune and couldn't remember how many houses he owned, leveled the "elitist" charge against Barack Obama -- the African-American who was raised by a single mother on food stamps. Equally incredible was watching George W. Bush, who received tickets to Yale and Harvard on a silver plate before inheriting a country, cast the same label upon John Kerry in 2004. The GOP's other challenge, beyond having weak policies, is that modern Democratic leaders are more intellectually accomplished than their Republican counterparts (think Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Gore and Clinton vs McCain, Bush 43, Palin, Quayle and Reagan). To conceal this, strategists have morphed intelligence into snobbery. So why, then, do Republicans get elected, if their agenda only aligns with the few? Two big reasons: First, they're typically far more organized and better at selling their product, flawed as it may be. Second, they've cleverly shifted their campaign focus toward trifling wedge issues like abortion and flag-burning amendments in an effort to distract working Americans from their waning livelihoods. By deflecting their elitism onto their rivals, the party of plutocrats has for decades held the trust of millions of Americans while simultaneously swindling them. It's a strategy tactfully designed to obscure inferior policies. Democrats, whose ideals recognize the needs of the working class, have unfortunately let them get away with it. Social conditioning is a powerful thing. It takes adroit mental gymnastics to believe that Democrats are elitists while Republicans are commoners. Thomas Jefferson famously declared that "if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." For the good of the country, liberals must step up and educate people on who the real elitists are. More on GOP
 
Polish Priest Advocates Happy Sex Life In New Book Top
WARSAW, Poland — The Rev. Ksawery Knotz has a message for all married Catholic couples out there: there's nothing wrong with a steamy sex life. In fact, it's a good thing. In his new book "Sex as you don't know it: For married couples who love God," the Polish friar provides a theological and practical guide for Catholics that has little in common with the strait-laced attitudes often associated with the Roman Catholic Church. "Some people, when they hear about the holiness of married sex, immediately imagine that such sex has to be deprived of joy, frivolous play, fantasy and attractive positions," Knotz writes. "(They think) it has to be sad like a traditional church hymn." But Knotz, a Franciscan friar from a monastery outside Krakow in southern Poland, wants to change all that. His book aims to sweep away the taboos and assure Catholic couples that good sex is part of a good marriage. "The most important message is that sexuality does not deviate at all from religiousness and the Catholic faith, and that we can connect spirituality and a search for God with a happy sex life," Knotz told The Associated Press by telephone. Much of the book stems from questions that Knotz encountered while counseling married couples. "I talk with a lot of married couples and I listen to them, so these problems just kind of sit in my mind," he said. "I would like for them to be happier with their sex life, and for them to understand the Church's teachings so there won't be unnecessary tension or a sense of guilt." Clergymen, including Knotz's countryman Pope John Paul II and his successor Pope Benedict XVI, have written about the ethics of love, marriage and sexuality before, and laymen have penned steamy sex guides for married Catholic couples. But few if any priests have taken Knotz's explicit approach to sex _ including everything from the theological to the practical, from oral sex to contraception and the number of children a Catholic couple should have. "Every act _ a type of caress, a sexual position _ with the goal of arousal is permitted and pleases God," Knotz writes. "During sexual intercourse, married couples can show their love in every way, can offer one another the most sought after caresses. They can employ manual and oral stimulation." The book falls squarely within the commonly held view of the Church's teaching on sex: Knotz discourages the use of condoms or birth control pills, and says they "lead a married couple outside of Catholic culture and into a completely different lifestyle." But some Poles have been surprised by the overriding message of the book: sex is an important way for a man and wife to express their love and grow closer to God. "Married couples celebrate their sacrament, their life with Christ also during sex," Knotz writes. "Calling sex a celebration of the marriage sacrament raises its dignity in an exceptional way. Such a statement shocks people who learned to look at sexuality in a bad way. It is difficult for them to understand that God is also interested in their happy sex life and in this way gives them his gift." The book received the necessary approval from Poland's church authorities that it is theologically in line with Catholic teachings. There also has been no sign of a backlash in the heavily Catholic and conservative homeland of the late Pope John Paul II. Still, Knotz acknowledges that a priest writing a book about sex "is in and of itself a bit of a sensation." The book hit stores across Poland last month. The Sw. Pawel publishing house has ordered a reprint after readers quickly snapped up the first 5,000 copies. The publisher said it is in talks about possible English, Italian and Slovakian translations of the Polish-language book. More on Sex
 
David Danzig: FBI Interrogator: Waterboarding Does Not Work Top
According to Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator, waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" procedures caused a key Al Qaeda operative to clam up, not provide actionable intelligence as former Vice President Dick Cheney and others have claimed. Soufan provided gripping Senate testimony today. He related in detail how he was able to get Abu Zubaydah, a suspect who was believed to play a lead role in Al Qaeda, to talk. In my first interrogation of the terrorist Abu Zubaydah, who had strong links to al Qaeda's leaders and who knew the details of the 9/11 plot before it happened, I asked him his name. He replied with his alias. I then asked him, "how about if I call you Hani?" That was the name his mother nicknamed him as a child. He looked at me in shock, said "ok," and we started talking. Soufan was well suited to interrogate Abu Zubaydah. He had been involved in hundreds of other interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects. He told the committee about his experience successfully "breaking" an Al Qaeda operative known as Abu Jandal and others. Soufan told the subcommittee that after Abu Zubaydah was cooperating, a CIA team led by a contractor began to use increasingly abusive interrogation techniques - over Soufan's objections - and Abu Zubaydah stopped talking. Soufan is one of many interrogators whose experience proves that using physical force to "break" detainees is not an effective way to obtain information. I recently spent three days with Eric Maddox, the interrogator responsible for developing the intelligence that led to Saddam Hussein and Matthew Alexander, the interrogator who led a team that developed the intelligence that led US forces to Al Zarqawi (the former head of Al Qaeda in Iraq). Both Maddox and Alexander do not believe that waterboarding is an effective interrogation technique. As Maddox explained, "I'm not all about human rights. I am about doing what needs to be done to get a guy to talk." To capture Saddam, Maddox "broke" nine key detainees - some within a matter of minutes - by earning their trust and understanding what motivated them. "You have to understand the psychology," Maddox, who has conducted more than 2000 interrogations, explained. "When you waterboard someone he fears for his life, but there are more powerful motivators." Maddox said that in his experience manipulating a detainee's love of family and or pride will yield better results. He tells a story in Mission: Blacklist #1 , his book that details his experience chasing Saddam, about convincing Saddam's key lieutenant to provide details about the hole where Saddam is hiding. The story is gripping. What it boils down to is that Maddox understood that the lieutenant valued his family more than his relationship with Saddam. Maddox gave him an opportunity to protect his family by giving up Saddam. "This was the most important moment in this guy's life," Maddox said. "He had to trust me to follow through. He is not going to do that if I have just waterboarded him." Alexander agreed. His view is that capturing Khalid Sheik Muhammed was a golden opportunity to crack open Al Qaeda and target its senior leadership. "In interrogation you always want to work up," said Alexander, who uses a pseudonym for security reasons. "You want to get the 'head of the snake.'" "They were not able to do that because they employed a technique that is all about getting the bare minimum out of a detainee." Like Maddox and Alexander, Soufan began to approach Zubaydah by talking to him, not beating him up. He told the Senate subcommittee that the technique he used was called "the Informed Interrogation Approach." Using this approach, Soufan relied on his brain to get Zubaydah to talk. He treated Zubaydah with respect. As his testimony makes clear, Soufan acted this way because he was convinced that it was the most likely way to get the suspect to talk. Acting in a non-threatening way isn't how the detainee is trained to expect a U.S. interrogator to act. This adds to the detainee's confusion and makes him more likely to cooperate. Soufan said that Zubaydah provided key information about Al Qaeda's structure and planned operations until a team of CIA interrogators arrived and began to apply force. During his capture Abu Zubaydah had been injured. After seeing the extent of his injuries, the CIA medical team supporting us decided they were not equipped to treat him and we had to take him to a hospital or he would die. At the hospital, we continued our questioning as much as possible, while taking into account his medical condition and the need to know all information he might have on existing threats. We were once again very successful and elicited information regarding the role of KSM as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and lots of other information that remains classified. (It is important to remember that before this we had no idea of KSM's role in 9/11 or his importance in the al Qaeda leadership structure.) A few days after we started questioning Abu Zubaydah, the CTC interrogation team finally arrived from DC with a contractor who was instructing them on how they should conduct the interrogations, and we were removed. Immediately, on the instructions of the contractor, harsh techniques were introduced, starting with nudity. (The harsher techniques mentioned in the memos were not introduced or even discussed at this point.) The new techniques did not produce results as Abu Zubaydah shut down and stopped talking. At that time nudity and low-level sleep deprivation (between 24 and 48 hours) was being used. After a few days of getting no information, and after repeated inquiries from DC asking why all of sudden no information was being transmitted (when before there had been a steady stream), we again were given control of the interrogation. We then returned to using the Informed Interrogation Approach. Within a few hours, Abu Zubaydah again started talking and gave us important actionable intelligence. This included the details of Jose Padilla, the so-called "dirty bomber." To remind you of how important this information was viewed at the time, the then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft, held a press conference from Moscow to discuss the news. Other important actionable intelligence was also gained that remains classified. After a few days, the contractor attempted to once again try his untested theory and he started to re-implementing the harsh techniques. He moved this time further along the force continuum, introducing loud noise and then temperature manipulation. There is a historical precedent for the work that Soufan, Maddox and Alexander have done. Indeed, one of the greatest interrogators of all time is generally thought to be Hans Scharff, a Nazi (if you can believe it) interrogator who had tremendous success interrogating US airmen who were captured during WWII. Scharff was so friendly and so well-versed in American culture and military strategy that many airmen said afterwards that they did not even realize that they were being interrogated. They felt as if they were telling an old friend information that he already knew. Orin Deforrest, a CIA agent, used a similar approach in Vietnam and developed what many regard as the best intelligence operation conducted during that war. And COL Stu Herrington used this sort of "rapport-building" approach in his interrogations in Panama that caused Noriega's henchmen to spill key secrets. Herrington says that if he were to run into one of the detainees he interrogated at the time - or at any time during his 30-year career - "they would probably buy me a drink." The list goes on and on. By contrast there is no scientific evidence that suggests that waterboarding is an effective method to interrogate people, according to COL Steve Kleinman, an Air Force intelligence officer who helped produce a comprehensive study of interrogation and torture for the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2006. To the contrary Kleinman said, the limited scientific evidence suggests that waterboarding is counter-productive. "It makes people more resolute and more determined that the cause they are fighting for is correct," Kleinman told me recently. "It does not make them want to talk." Soufan's testimony is another chapter in the seemingly forgotten history of interrogation. We have a good sense of what works and what does not in the interrogation booth. The question going forward is: are policymakers and the American public willing to learn from our mistakes and listen to the real pros who have done interrogation successfully or are we simply too scared by the threat of Al Qaeda to operate in a manner that is logical and consistent with our self-interest? David Danzig is the Deputy Program Director at Human Rights First . Eric Maddox's book, Operation: Blacklist #1 , details his efforts in chasing Saddam Hussein Matthew Alexander's book, How to Break a Terrorist , describes the interrogations that led to Al Zarqawi
 
Anna Wainwright: Carrie Prejean, Let's Talk About Milk Top
Let's all wish Carrie Prejean a happy birthday. Miss California USA turns 22 today, and thanks to a garbled pageant answer on national television and the support of the National Organization for Marriage, she's poised to become the new Anita Bryant before she hits 23. God help us all. Last week I watched the movie Milk for the first time. It was a little overdue, I know, especially because I rooted for Sean Penn throughout the Oscar season never having seen his performance. I just didn't want Mickey Rourke to win for some reason. I was happy to discover that I definitely rooted for the right guy. Sean Penn IS Harvey Milk, in all his honest, unabashed and unapologetic glory. The actor's face has become fused in my mind with the real Harvey Milk's, seared in my memory long ago by the 1980s documentary The Times of Harvey Milk. But what really made me sit up straight watching the film last week was not Sean Penn's performance, but the incredible footage interspersed throughout the film of that hellraiser Anita Bryant. I wonder if Carrie Prejean has heard of Anita Bryant. Maybe I'm wrong in assuming that the current Miss California USA has not seen the film about the first openly gay elected official in the United States, and that she does not know much about the history of the gay rights struggle in her home state and country over the course of the last century. She may not recognize the similarities between herself and Ms. Bryant, the Evangelical Christian, Oklahoma-born singer and Florida orange juice spokeswoman, who is most famous for her tireless 1977 fight to save children from the threat of being taught by homosexual teachers. Anita became a symbol. Utterly confident in her own moral rectitude and superiority, she circled the country, campaigning on a platform of Christian virtue and warning the masses that because homosexuals could not have children, they would "recruit your own." Carrie Prejean was born ten years after Anita broke onto the scene, and nine years after the assassination of Harvey Milk. She was raised in an evangelical household in California, and her parents divorced when she was only a year old. During the Miss USA pageant, as everyone knows by now, she answered Perez Hilton's question on gay marriage by saying, "Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman." I give her points for two things: first, despite coining the interesting term "opposite marriage," she is far more eloquent than Miss Teen USA South Carolina 2007 of "Such as..." fame. Second, unlike Anita Bryant, she doesn't seem particularly threatened by homosexuals. She just doesn't really think they deserve the same rights her parents took for granted when they got married. No beauty queen has attracted so much attention since Vanessa Williams posed nude. (Of course it turns out Carrie has also posed nude, but Donald Trump says it's OK.) Perez Hilton called her response "the worst answer in pageant history." The vampiric National Organization for Marriage has jumped on her story, using her as a symbol of the intolerance of the gay marriage movement. Her sparkling smile is plastered across their website, and she appears in an ad only slightly less silly than "The Gathering Storm." NOM President Maggie Gallagher has praised her, saying she is a blameless victim of "character assassination" and holding her aloft as a soldier in the fight against fear and intolerance. Like Anita Bryant, however, Carrie Prejean is completely intolerant of differing opinions herself. Unlike the tough-skinned Bryant, she seems genuinely hurt and offended by the criticism leveled at her. At a tearful press conference with Mr. Trump yesterday to address her nude photos (picture Anita Bryant infamously being hit with a banana cream pie), Prejean thanked those who had stood by her during her difficult month of infamy and instafame, citing the First Amendment in all sorts of confused contexts. On Monday she played to her base on Christian radio, saying that when Hilton asked the question, "I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying: 'Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for Me and you need to share with all these people...you need to witness to them.'" It's been an eventful month for the 22-year-old. But as NOM's Gallagher says in her defense, "you don't have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage." Amen. But if she decides to remain in the public eye over the coming months (and I think we all know the answer to that) Ms. Prejean would do well to educate herself on the history of her home state. She might even want to take a brief look at Milk and think about how her legacy will hold up over the long haul. It is not the hero of that movie she resembles. No offense intended. More on Miss California
 
Gibbs Let Off Hook By White House Press Corps Cell Phones (VIDEO) Top
Wednesday was a major news day at the White House. The president had reversed course on his initial decision to allow the release of photos showing harsh detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay. The daily briefing -- perhaps the best venue for tough questioning -- was pushed back nearly an hour, likely to accommodate the development of new talking points. But then, as the questions began, the inquisitive mood was abruptly broken. In the span of roughly ten minutes, the cell phones of three members of the White House press corps went off four times. Under normal circumstances, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would either have kept talking or simply joked through the bizarre musical interruption. This time, he actually took the cell phone of one offending member of the fourth estate and chucked it into the back room. On another occasion he asked Bill Plante of CBS to hand over the cell phone only to watch as Plante had a conversation. "Gibbs wants to take my phone," he said, "but I don't think it is a good idea." The press secretary responded: "I assume it's your banker with a suit like that." Later in the briefing yet another phone rang, with Gibbs once again force to plead with the journalist to put his or her phone on vibrate. One would think that, in the context of an hour-long briefing, the rest of the White House press corps would be downright furious that precious time was being wasted on silly antics. Whether intentional or not, it granted Gibbs the opportunity to lighten the mood or kill some time. And yet, judging by the reaction of those in the room, the cell phone interruptions were not only not a big deal. They were downright hilarious. There were howls of laughter in the room. Not everyone, to be sure, was feeling jolly about the chain of events. "I was frustrated," emailed The Daily Beast's Anna Marie Cox, who was sitting in the briefing room (I was watching on TV). "It was a side show that could not have worked out better for Gibbs, in terms of timing, or reminding us that he's the one who controls our access to information." After the briefing, other reporters were grumbling about what happened as well, according to another source in the room. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Chicago Passes Ban On BPA Baby Bottles, Sippy Cups Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- The Chicago City Council has voted to ban the sale of baby bottles and sippy cups containing the chemical BPA. Spokesmen for the ordinance's sponsors, Aldermen Edward Burke and Manny Flores, said Wednesday the ban will go into effect early next year. BPA is short for bisphenol A (BIS'-fen-ahl AY'). It's used to harden plastics and to line food containers. Experts disagree on whether it poses health risks to humans. Congress and several states are considering legislation to ban BPA's use in items used by young children. Last week, Minnesota became the first state to ban BPA from plastic baby bottles and sippy cups. But the American Chemistry Council says the ban is unwarranted and not based on science. -ASSOCIATED PRESS More on Health
 
Anna Wintour Addresses Rumors About Leaving Vogue, Fur And Michelle Obama Top
In a rare public appearance, Anna Wintour spoke to Jonathan Tisch at the 92nd Street Y last night. Topics included how Vogue stays relevant in the recession and how to look good without spending a lot of money. Fur might not have come up had the members of PETA in the audience not interrupted. "This woman skins animals alive!" they shouted. As they tossed a banner over the balcony and called Wintour a shame, the editor's expression was a mix of polite restraint and Is there no security in this place? Drowning out the sounds of the chant "Fur Shame! Fur Shame!", an audience member yelled, "I love you, Anna!" to booming applause. Wintour looked her hecklers in the eyes and said, "Fur is still a part of fashion, so Vogue will continue to report on it." When 92Y staff removed the animal rights radicals from the room, Wintour joked, "As I was saying, fashion means different things to different people." Read on for some highlights from the discussion, including why Michelle Obama matters and who will land on next month's cover. More on Fashion
 
Eric Deggans: if Adam Lambert loses American Idol, it may be because the show wants him to win so badly Top
If Adam Lambert doesn't win American Idol, it won't be because he's too theatrical. Or because it seems likely that he's gay -- though I'll talk more about that in a moment. I'm convinced a Lambert loss may come simply because the show wants him to win so badly, disgusted fans may react by kicking him off . Tuesday's show was one of the worst examples of Lambert cheerleading I've seen, with every judge predicting he would survive tonight's elimination episode to compete in the finale, and at least one judge already pronouncing him the show's winner. Lambert's such a favorite, he's already scored a cover on Entertainment Weekly and made headlines two weeks ago when he landed in the show's bottom two. Good as he is, Lambert's performances last night were hardly a lock. Danny Gokey's gospelized You Are So Beautiful and Kris Allen's acoustic take on Kanye West's Heartless were both electrifying, raising the promise of an amazing finale battle next week, no matter who lands among the final two. Smelling the creation of a new star, the show has leaned Lambert's way for awhile, getting rare permissions for him to sing songs by Led Zeppelin and U2 (of course, judge Simon Cowell couldn't resist telling how singer Bono personally called so Lambert could sing One), and allowing him grand production gestures such as his walk down the white staircase during Rat Pack week. Lambert may also lose just because the teen girls who fill so much of Idol's voting ranks go for the puppy dog good looks of dark horse Allen, whose offhand manner and coolly compelling performances are a silent rebuke for judges drawn to more flamboyant contestants. Through much of Tuesday's show, I wound up wishing viewers could vote off the judges, who were left to kibitz with each other in increasingly distracting ways as the competitors piled up quality performances needing little criticism. I think it's in the final weeks that the four-judge format feels flattest -- by this point in the competition, judges mostly offer flattery, so one more person on the panel adds nothing but more airtime-eating platitudes. Even the Dial Idol Web site, which claims a 97 percent success rate in predicting ejection this season, says the contest is too close to call. But with ratings sliding this season, its easy to see why Idol needs a singular performer like Lambert to rebuild its cred as a star factory. So we'll see tonight if all the praise and support pays off for Lambert, or fuels a backlash that cuts his Idol dreams short. More on American Idol
 
Asiel Norton: Even in a Recession, We Need Provocative Independent Cinema Top
When the economy was amidst its great crash last fall there was a certain panic in the film world. In Hollywood, production slowed, and some whispered about the end; particularly in terms of independent cinema, there were articles written in major film magazines that the sky was falling, and independent cinema was dead. As a young first-time filmmaker, now entering the film festival circuit, I would like to express a note of optimism about the future of provocative independent cinema. While I fully understand that at the moment the independent film world is in a state somewhat akin to chaos, with most studios having closed there independent branches and distribution for films that lack A-list stars, aliens, comic book characters, or fart and penis jokes becoming more and more of a distant reality, I do think that out there, somewhere, there is an audience for interesting, challenging, and artistic films. I would further like to add that contrary to popular belief, economic and other hardships usually cultivate the appetite for movies and other arts instead of diminishing it. It's when times are tough that most people have a growing desire to turn to art to both make believe for a few hours, or (often) to find a sense of meaning in their time and of their lives. There's no doubt that when times are hardest is when people turn to art for both reprieve and answers. This is most obviously seen in religion and mythology. Whether or not one is a believer, it's fairly apparent that people find courage, strength, and release through the epic mythic poems, and the vast artwork they inspire, and therefore it is no surprise that the poorest populations are by far the most religious. Art and myth are inseparable, as art is the means by which myth is created and communicated. Now in terms of our own time and place, film is the modern world's most powerful art form. Cinema is the tool by which today's most famous modern artists (directors, actors, composers, etc.) choose to tell new myths. And in times of economic or other hardships, cinema has always flourished. As proof of this, I would point to film history. Since the advent of cinema, there have been three major national crises, and in each of them cinema has not only survived but flourished. First during the Great Depression, then during World War II, cinema not only survived and became ever increasingly popular (in fact it was at this time that movies had there highest ticket sales), but also made some of its greatest advancements in terms of its artistry. These were the years of Hollywood's great golden age -- films like Gone with the Wind and Casablanca were not only packed, but also great works of cinema. Another falsehood is the thought that audiences only want escapist fare during hard times, as in both of these difficult periods the crime films and dramas thrived, actors like Jimmy Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Paul Muni became stars with hard hitting socially impactful roles, and filmmakers like Orson Welles, John Ford, and Alfred Hitchcock took the art of filmmaking to new heights. Then, during the next national crisis, The Vietnam War and its following recession many would argue, myself included, that American Cinema hit its peak in terms of filmmaking artistry. Filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick, Robert Altman, John Cassavettes, Martin Scorcese, Francis Coppola, Terrence Malick, Steven Spielberg and Bob Rafelson all flourished making uniquely powerful pieces of American cinema. In our own time and place I would argue that not only will cinema continue to blossom but thoughtful, artistic, integral films will continue to find their audience. I also propose that it is the film artist's duty to respond to his own time and place. I think part of the reason that independent cinema is having such a hard time right now in connecting to an audience, in that for the last few years it has rarely responded to the times. The deterioration of cinema's artistic value is not only caused by the fact that independent buyers and sales reps scurry from difficult sales but also because filmmakers themselves fail to respond to the world we live in and capture the attention of their audiences. For my first film (whether or not I was entirely successful) I have not only tried to tell a cinematic story in a original, new way, but I have also chosen to tell a story of a family battling through incredible hardship with the great depression as a backdrop. Weather my film will get audiences lining around the block is highly uncertain, but I think it is important for the artist to respond to the word, to be inspired by it. I would add that I think the fear that many producers or distributors feel at putting out serious, provocative, or even idiosyncratic films is false. While we would like to look at our own generation as something completely unique against history, I would point out that every generation has probably felt the same. I think inside of people from all periods of time including our own there is innate need for interesting and intriguing art. I don't think people of the past held some special depth that we lack. And while there is certainly a very popular place for men in capes, or dressed as animals, or part men/part animal hero mutants with very large guns, there is also a place, perhaps smaller, for something a little more challenging. Maybe a new Internet-dependent model has yet to be found, but people of all history, facing incredible hardships past and present, have always been interested in serious art, one just has to find the right way to get it to them.
 
Michael Giltz: Cannes 2009 Day One: "Up" Review Top
Cannes kicked off with a gentle, sweet even sublime film: Pixar's Up . As I've written before, Pixar is on a streak of critical and commercial successes (10 and counting) that is simply unparalleled in Hollywood history. No star, no director, no studio has ever accomplished what Pixar has wrought with its first ten movies. They range from pretty good to good to great to classic. And every single one has been a major commercial success. Just listing them is impressive: Toy Story A Bug's Life Toy Story 2 Monsters Inc. Finding Nemo The Incredibles Cars Ratatouille (now THAT should have opened Cannes!) WALL-E and now Up . It has some fine action scenes and witty banter involving dogs equipped with hi-tech collars that let us hear their thoughts. ("Squirrel!" is a big favorite.) But the lasting impression of this gem is gentle and sweet. No wonder the filmmakers genuflected at the altar of Hiyao Miyazaki, the great Japanese animation genius. His sensibility suffuses everything they do. The story is simple enough: Carl, a grumpy old man (Ed Asner) tries to get away from it all by tying a ton of helium balloons to his home and floating off to South America. But there's a stowaway: a genial 8 year old kid desperate to earn his final merit badge by "assisting the elderly." Adventures ensue. Director Pete Docter (whose long face and jug ears make him look pleasingly cartoonish himself) mentioned the Pixar concept of "Simplexity" at the film's press conference. That's the idea that something -- a character, a storyline, an image -- should be easy to grasp at first but have enough depth and texture that you keep discovering new things every time you return to it. But even on first viewing you'll be caught up short by the serene opening. They break your heart in the first ten minutes...twice. In those ten minutes, we see Carl as a shy, almost mute little boy happily overwhelmed by Elie (voiced by Elie Docter). Her love for famed explorer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) is even greater than his own. In a brilliant, nearly silent sequence, we see them grow up, get married, share their dreams, suffer the pain of their inability to have children, grow old together and then sadly say goodbye when Ellie dies. It's a master class in storytelling and the movie proper hasn't even begun. But of course it has, because in a great film nothing is extraneous. Those first few minutes set up the driving desire to see the wilds of South America, cannily explain why explorer Muntz might still be there decades later trying to clear his name, prepare us for an oddball bird nicknamed Kevin that is boisterously antic and sweet (they don't make movies to sell toys but boy could Disney sell a ton of "Kevins"), and a dark, dangerous finale. I haven't even mentioned yet the fact that the film is in 3-D, something that should please Pixar to no end. This is a landmark year for 3-D: Up and Coraline will be remembered for being the movies that turned 3-D from a gimmick into simply another tool, like sound and color. Their use of 3-D is so deft, so organic to the story that it seems perfectly natural. That's something 3-D has never seemed before. I'm not convinced that 3-D will become standard for live action films. Mostly, it seems like an excuse by studios to raise ticket prices. But in animation, 3-D will probably become the standard. People will still make 2-D animation and they'll still do hand-drawn animation as well, just like people sometimes make movies in black and white. But 3-D is already becoming so common that no one thinks it notable or special or strange. If the movie's good, it uses 3-D well. If it's bad, 3-D won't help it. With Up , the 3-D is so essential to the emotional effect of the film, I'd hate to watch it in 2-D, at least for the first time, You'd certainly enjoy it. But you wouldn't know what you were missing. And Up in 3-D should not be missed.
 
Solar-Powered Bullet Train On Arizona Horizon Top
Travelers going from Tucson to Phoenix may soon be blazing across the desert in speeding solar bullet trains propelled by the sun's rays. Hot on the heels of President Obama's plan for High Speed Rail in the US comes the news that Arizona-based Solar Bullet LLC is proposing a new 220mph bullet train that will be entirely powered by the sun and will make the trip in 30 minutes flat. More on Moving America
 
Patt Cottingham: Goodbye/Hello 7 Human Rights Gone Wrong Top
On March15, 2006 the United Nations created Human Rights Council. Its mission is to strengthen, promote, and protect human rights around the globe. And yet, in reading the Vaclav Havel's piece A Table for Tyrants in the New York Times it appears that the council is failing to hold fast to the principles for which it was originally created. How is it that just three years after its creation the council is teetering on a "business as usual" course. As Havel writes in his piece, "The council was supposed to be different. For the first time, countries agreed to take human rights records into account when voting for the council's members, and those member-states that failed to, in the words of the founding resolution, "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights" would find themselves up for review and their seats endangered. For victims of human rights abuses and advocates for human rights worldwide, the reforms offered the hope of a credible and effective body." This lack of courage and conviction will jeopardize the council's credibility and extinguish, for many, the firewall that human rights activists need to stand up to abuses. Human rights activists like Jestina Mukoko of Zimbabwe, Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar, Arash and Kamiar Alaei, brothers and doctors from Iran, Dr. Kamal Labwan of Syria, Suzanne Scholte for North Korea, Ulises Cintra Suarez of Cuba, Valyantsin Stefanovich of Belarus, Tolib Yoqubov of Uzbekistan, Dania Avallone of Eritrea, and Georgette Gagnon, Kamal al Jizouli, and Ajras al-Huriya of Sudan are the short list of the many who stand up, document, speak out and go to jail to put light on human rights abuses around the world. Their courage, and the people that face inhumane treatment at the hands of abusive regimes, dictators, governments, and terror states is statistically very real. There were a total of 2,390 executions worldwide in 2008, of which 1,718 or 72% took place in China. The figures show a marked increase from 2007, when the total stood at 1,252, according to research carried out by Amnesty International. There were also at least 8,864 death sentences handed down in 52 different countries. To those activists in front lines of human rights, this lack of will of the council to challenge the rights of abusive regimes and governments to hold seats, is deeply disturbing and wrong. There can be no justification for such a failure of the Human Rights Council to live up to its original principles. Human rights activists around the world need to have the backing of a body that has a backbone that will not bend for the sake of expediency. As Suzanne Scholte, a renowned American human rights activist and the winner of the Seoul Peace Prize said, ``By recognizing my work through this award, you also honor the people of North Korea and Western Sahara for they have inspired me in all my efforts and given me the strength and endurance to continue this work despite many trials, setbacks and difficulties. My efforts, however, are nothing compared to the enormous challenges and suffering these people face in their daily lives.'' Aung San Suu Kyi, a pro-democracy activist leader of the National League of Democracy in Burma said in her Freedom From Fear , " It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it." Additionally, Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch said,"The government's pre-print censorship, harassment, and arrests of journalists, editors, and human rights activists are stifling free speech as Sudan faces crucial elections." On May 12, 2009 the United States won its first seat on the Human Rights Council by a wide margin. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said, ''We received 90 percent of the valid votes cast. And we're gratified by the strong showing of encouragement for the United States to again play a meaningful leadership role in multilateral organizations including the United Nations on the very vitally important set of issues relating to human rights and democracy.'' However, countries accused of serious human rights violations, like: Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia were also seated. While welcoming the U.S. election, and its decision ''to re-engage with the world'' by joining the council, Steve Crawshaw of New York-based Human Rights Watch said, "The lack of competitiveness sends a regrettable signal that could diminish efforts to keep out rights-abusing countries." Quoting again from Vaclav Havel's piece " Now, it seems, principle has given way to expediency. Governments have resumed trading votes for membership in various other United Nations bodies, putting political considerations ahead of human rights. The absence of competition suggests that states that care about human rights simply don't care enough." Goodbye to seating inhumane governments and regimes at the human rights table. Hello to removing inhumane governments and regimes at the human rights table. Goodbye to global human rights bodies that bend to political pressure. Hello to global human rights bodies that stand up to political pressure. Goodbye to governments turning away from human rights issues for the sake of expediency. Hello to governments staring straight at human rights issues for the sake of humanity.
 
Pakistani President Zardari: Nukes Are Safe Top
LONDON — Pakistan's president on Wednesday brushed aside warnings that country's nuclear arsenal was in jeopardy because of mounting instability caused by a surge in Taliban activity. Asif Ali Zardari reiterated that Pakistan's secret nuclear sites were secure, but declined to specify what safeguards are in place. "You can ask anybody who is responsible in any government and they will tell you they are not concerned. They are quite satisfied with the situation in Pakistan," Zardari said at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Pakistan mounted an offensive last week against Taliban militants in the northern Swat Valley near the Afghan border. Nearly 1 million people have been displaced in the fighting since supporters of the ousted regime in Afghanistan tried to push further into Pakistan _ and closer to the country's capital of Islamabad. Pakistani troops secured footholds Wednesday in the valley, killing 11 militants and discovering five headless corpses near the region's main town, the army said. Elsewhere in the turbulent northwest, police said dozens of assailants stormed a transport depot handling supplies for NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan. Rising violence, including a string of attacks on NATO and U.S. supplies, have fed concern that more of Pakistan's border region is slipping from government control and into the hands of the Taliban and al-Qaida. Britain promised an immediate 12 million pounds ($18 million) in humanitarian aid to displaced Pakistanis. "Let there be no mistake, Pakistan is already taking action against terrorism," Brown said. "President Zardari's troops are risking their lives fighting extremists." Britain has a stake in Pakistan's stability. Most of Britain's 2 million Muslims have Pakistani roots, and nearly three-quarters of all terror plots have links to al-Qaida supporters in Pakistan, Brown said recently. Eleven Pakistanis were arrested last month during a counterterrorism operation in northwest England, and several now face deportation. Zardari won control of Pakistan's largest political party after the death of his wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was killed just months after returning to Pakistan in late 2007 after years in exile. More on Pakistan
 
Jon & Kate May Split: She Admits Struggling, He Suspects Affair Top
Jon and Kate Gosselin of "Jon & Kate Plus 8" are on the covers of People AND Us Weekly this week as their marriage comes under fire. The pair and their eight kids are the stars of the TLC reality show chronicling their Pennsylvania home life. People has an exclusive interview with Kate Gosselin who admitted her marriage is struggling. "I don't know that we're in the same place anymore, that we want the same thing," she says quietly. "I've been struggling with the question of 'Who is this person?' for a while. I remember where I was the first time I heard her name. It's one of those things where you can try to make it go away, but there's blaring, red flashing lights." The name to which Kate refers belongs to 23-year-old Deanna Hummel, whose brother later claimed she'd been having a months-long affair with Jon. The affair was reported on LAST week's Us Weekly's cover as well as the issue a week before that. Also on Tuesday Kate denied reports that she was having an affair with her bodyguard, and it appears to have been a preemptive strike against Us Weekly, which again has her on the cover this week. From their cover story : Kate Gosselin grew so close to her bodyguard, Steve Neild, it caught the attention of her husband, Jon -- and has become the talk of many locals in their Berks County, Pennsylvania, community. Since May 2008, Kate has made 50 public appearances, criss-crossing the country, often with Neild by her side, as Jon stayed home with the kids. Even when at home -- whether at Starbucks or at restaurants -- Neild has been a constant companion to Gosselin, who is estranged from her family and viewed in town as not having friends. "He threatened to hire a private investigator," a family source informed by Jon Gosselin tells Us.
 
MISS CALIFORNIA FALLOUT: Shanna Moakler Resigns Top
Shanna Moakler just resigned as pageant director for the Miss California USA pageant -- following yesterday's excuse-filled press conference during which Donald Trump let Carrie Prejean keep her crown. More on Miss California
 
Kent Holtorf: Long Term Weight Loss - More Than Will Power? Top
Obesity has become a major health epidemic and has dramatically increased over the last decades. Studies show that approximately one-third of the U.S. population is classified as obese and over two-thirds are significantly overweight. While the cause is multifactorial, studies are clear that almost all overweight individuals have metabolic and endocrinological dysfunction that is causing or contributing to their inability to lose weight. It is not simply a problem that individuals are taking in more calories than they are consuming or lack of exercise or willpower, but rather it is a complex vicious-cycle of endocrinological and metabolic dysfunction. Contemporary medicine has failed to address these dysfunctions in overweight individuals and doctors and patients continue to believe that all cases are a matter of willpower and lifestyle. Thus, it is no surprise that obesity is reaching epidemic proportions. Research is demonstrating that dysregulation of two key hormones may be a cause or major contributor of weight gain or inability to lose weight in the majority of overweight people. The first is leptin and the second is reverse T3. The exciting part is that doctors can now test for the presence of these physiologic barriers to weight loss and prescribe appropriate treatments with potentially dramatic results. Leptin The hormone leptin has been found to be a major regulator of body weight and metabolism. The body secretes leptin as weight is gained to signal the brain (specifically the hypo¬thalamus) that there are adequate energy (fat) stores. The hypothalamus should then stimulate metabolic processes that result in weight loss, including a reduction in hunger, an increased satiety with eating, an increase in resting metabolism and an increase in lipolysis (fat breakdown). New research has found that this leptin signaling is dysfunctional in the majority of people who have difficultly losing weight or are unable to lose weight. The problem is not in the production of leptin, but rather, studies show that the ma¬jority of overweight individuals who are having difficulty losing weight have a leptin resistance, where the leptin is unable to produce its normal effects to stimulate weight loss. This leptin resistance is sensed as starvation, so multiple mechanisms are activated to increase fat stores, rather than burn excess fat stores. Leptin resistance also stimulates the formation of reverse T3, which blocks the effects of thyroid hormone on metabolism (discussed below). Testing: A leptin level can be ordered by your physician. If greater than 10, it demonstrates there is a degree of leptin resistance contributing to an inability to lose weight. The higher the number the more significant the leptin resistance. Treatment: There are currently two medications are shown to be able to treat leptin resistance and can result in significant weight loss. One is Symlin and the other is Byetta. These are currently approved for the treatment of diabetes but can be prescribed "off-label" for the treatment of leptin resistance. They are showing significant promise in the non-diabetic population with the ability to produce dramatic weight loss in a large percentage of overweight patients. The amount of weight loss varies according to the study design, but a significant percent of patients are experiencing weight loss, despite little or no change in diet. The leptin resistance is not permanent and is shown to improve with weight loss so diet and exercise can be beneficial. The "catch-22" is, however, that it is difficult to lose weight with leptin resistance. High carbohydrate diets and in particular high-fructose corn syrup is shown to significantly increase leptin resistance and is a likely mechanism that high fructose corn syrup is associated with obesity, especially in children. Avoidance of high fructose corn syrup and carbohydrates would be recommended for those with high leptin levels. Reverse T3 It is well known that thyroid hormones regulate metabolism and that low thyroid hormone production (hypothyroidism) causes low metabolism, but it has only recently been understood that thyroid production can be fine but there can a problem of activation of the hormones inside the cells that can be a major cause of low metabolism. The thyroid gland secretes an inactive thyroid hormone called thyroxine, also known as T4. This is regulated by thyroid stimulation hormone (TSH) produced by the brain (specifically the pituitary). Normally, the inactive T4 is converted inside the cell to the active thyroid hormone called triiodothyronine (also known as T3). Most doctors will check TSH and T4 levels to see if thyroid levels are normal. The studies are showing that it is not the production of thyroid that is the problem, but rather it is problem inside the cell that the inactive T4 is not converted to T3 but rather to a mirror image of T3 called reverse T3. The reverse T3 has the opposite effect of T3, blocking the effects of T3 and lowering rather than increasing metabolism. It is an evolutionary fall-back that was useful in times of famine or in hibernating animals to lower metabolism. Studies are showing that stress and dieting (especially yo-yo dieting) can set this hormone into action as well as chronic illness such as diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. The production of reverse T3 is found to be a major method by which the body 'tries" to regain any lost weight with dieting. As soon as the body senses a reduction in calories, the production of reverse T3 is stimulated to lower metabolism. With chronic dieting or stress, the body often stays in this "starvation mode" with elevated levels of reverse T3 and decreased levels of T3, which is a major reason for the regaining of lost weight with dieting as well being the mechanism behind stress induced weight gain (it is not due to increased cortisol). Testing: There has been a long held belief by endocrinologists and other physicians that adequate thyroid levels can be determined by testing the TSH and T4 levels. Studies are showing that such standard testing will miss 80% of thyroid dysfunction so most endocrinologists and other doctors will tell their patients that their thyroid is fine based on this usual testing. The doctors must run a free T3/reverse T3 ratio. Generally, a healthy person will have a ratio greater than 2 so a person with a ratio less than 2 should also be considered a candidate for thyroid supplementation. Many endocrinologist and physicians are not yet aware of the significance or ability to run this ratio so it may take some searching. Treatment: The standard treatment of hypothyroidism involves the supplementation with T4, including Synthroid and Levoxyl. These are not effective to remedy such a situation because the problem is not the amount of T4 but rather the excess conversion of T4 to reverse T3, blocking effects of the active T3. One must bypass the abnormality by supplementing with physiologic doses of T3, not T4 (preferably timed released T3). It is not appropriate to give thyroid hormone for weight loss, but rather to correct an abnormality diagnosed by appropriate blood tests. In summary, emerging evidence demonstrates that a significant number of overweight patients have a metabolic problem rather than a problem of willpower or lifestyle. Identification and correction of these metabolic abnormalities, including leptin resistance and cellular thyroid dysfunction, can result in dramatic long term successful weight loss. More on Wellness
 
Arlene Holt Baker: Is the Insurance Industry Getting Behind Comparative Effectiveness Research? Top
This week many watched as the president joined with the largest associations of insurers and doctors to acknowledge the excessive costs of health care and the burdens it places on working families. While many who advocate for patients, consumers and workers' rights are skeptical of the industry's real commitment, we can all acknowledge that the mere announcement is a major breakthrough. Part of the industry's recent commitment is to encourage treatment and care that is based on sound evidence and proven effectiveness. Groups like AARP and Consumers Union have long supported these efforts to improve care for patients through comparative effectiveness research. Fully 30 percent of the $2.4 trillion we spend per year on health care does not even benefit patients. Previously, many in the health care industry have denied the inefficiencies and overblown costs in our health care system. Driven by a 'profit over patients' model these groups have worked hard to maintain the status quo and fight reforms designed to cut back on waste and fraud. Part of this turnaround is due to the fact that these groups see the writing on the wall. They know that Americans want reform and they want it now. And they know that those who stand in the way or act as obstructionists will not have a seat at the table when reform happens. President Obama has been a powerful voice in advocating for the best and most efficient care and treatments. Recently he spoke out for the first time about a deeply emotional health care decision that he was forced to make when his grandmother who was diagnosed with terminal cancer fell and broke her hip, and needed surgery. Obama thoughtfully advocated for a national conversation to help give guidance to other families faced with these difficult decisions. What President Obama and many doctors, scientists and stakeholders have called for is for doctors and patients to have more access to the latest and best research to help them make informed decisions about what treatments make sense. Who wouldn't want a doctor armed with more information about which drugs are most effective and which treatments work the best? This allows doctors and patients to choose the best course of action and not waste time or money on unnecessary tests and less effective treatments or drugs. Our current health care system is plagued by inefficiencies, slow delivery of services, exorbitant and often unnecessary costs. This dangerous model not only fails to provide the best possible care for patients but it also causes economic hardship to the most vulnerable in our society - the sick and elderly. Currently, drug and device companies don't have to prove that new devices and new drugs work better than current products or treatments. This lends itself to a confusing array of information for patients and doctors who often don't know the benefits of one drug or device from the next. In addition, doctors don't have an efficient amount of comparative research on which to base their health care decisions. A report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) states that "some experts believe that less than half of all medical care is based on or supported by adequate evidence about its effectiveness." Across the country, patients and doctors are implementing new and innovative treatments, common sense best practices and streamlined health care delivery. But these efforts shouldn't be piecemeal. The likelihood of patients benefiting from these should not be as random as the lottery. The same CBO study shows that the use of certain treatments, as well as how often patients visit a physician, varies widely from one area of the country to another. For instance, whether a patient has heart bypass surgery, a hip or knee replacement or back surgery often has little to do with rates of heart attacks or injury to knees, hips and backs. Comparative research would help bridge this gap between affordability and efficiency while putting the patient first. Everyone who is sick should have access to the best treatments and most efficient care regardless of income or where they live in the country. We hope that the industry acts on its pledge and gets behind the need for comparative effectiveness research. This may mean making some hard decisions that don't benefit their bottom line in the short term. It may mean doing away with inefficient practices that don't help patients but are a big money maker for insurance companies. Patients deserve to have doctors who are well informed about the best treatments so they can make the best decisions possible. Improved access to research can have benefits across the board. Patients will have better and more informed care and taxpayers will be less burdened by costly inefficiencies. It may not pad the pockets of the drug and insurance industry but it will make a difference in the lives of people.
 
Jon Chattman: Interview with Singer and Songwriter Meiko: "They're Not Gonna Lick Themselves" Top
Her songs appear fairly regularly on "Grey's Anatomy," but don't hold that against her. Whereas that medical drama is often hard on the eyes -- what with the over-the-top sappy storylines and bottomless bits of melodrama (stay dead Denny), Meiko's tunes are easy on the ears - honest, melodic gems that prove once again that we're living a golden age of guitar-playing female singer/songwriters. The Los Angeles, CA-based and Roberta, GA-born musician has been gaining buzz and a whole lot of fans (Perez Hilton among them) ever since she broke out of the acclaimed Cali-talent pool AKA Hotel Cafe and released her self-titled album on her own over a year-and-a-half ago. That album was subsequently remixed and rereleased after she signed a deal with MySpace Records - speaking of which, that social network has helped make her a star but we'll get to that later. In the midst of her first headlining tour, I caught up with the budding star, whose "Boys With Girlfriends" continues to be on heavy rotation on the radio, MTV, and a regular download on iTunes. What's the difference been thus far between headlining a show and warming up for other artists? I can finally bring my own band with me. Usually, when I'm the opener or support act, I play by myself (or I con the headliner's musicians to play with me). Also, since I'm headlining, I get to go on later, so I'm able to enjoy more of the town that I'm in. Is there any pressure top billing? Not really. Of course I want to sell out every venue, but I know that sometimes not everyone in, say, Fairfield, Connecticut wants to come see you play on a Sunday night. MySpace has been huge for you - as Facebook and Twitter continues to grow, do you think MySpace will ultimately become a strict social network site for music only? It seems like it, right? I know many music venue bookers who check out artists' MySpace pages to get a quick idea of who they are, what they sound like, and how many fans they have. MySpace is an easy,familiar site to use in that regard. Now ..."poking people" and doing surveys is its own entity. Do you feel like you're cheating on MySpace by having a Facebook page? [Laughs] Absolutely not. Tom doesn't mind. I use Facebook for family and staying in touch with old-school friends. I use MySpace strictly for fans - to let people know what's going on in my life (more musically than "super-personal"). It worked for Cher and arguably RuPaul... What made you decide to solely go with your first name as a performer? It all has to do with my daydreaming as an eight year old. I never thought of it any differently ... Meiko. [It] just made sense to me then, and it still does! Perez Hilton of all people is a huge fan of yours... describe what it's been like to have the gossip queen on your side.... I attribute a lot of the awesome things that have happened for me and my career to Perez believing in me. He is a good guy with a great heart, and I feel really lucky to have him in my life. It's amazing to see how much of an effect he has on popular culture, and I'm honored that he's a fan and wants to help. How big has Hotel Cafe been for you? You went from waiting tables there to performing.. The Hotel Cafe is what inspired me from the beginning. From quitting waiting tables (I was a waitress and bartender there) to making a record to touring for a living. The Hotel Cafe owners, Max and Marko, have been there for me from the start. Even when I only brought three people to a show. They still loved me, and helped me build my audience by putting me on bills with great artists like Patty Griffin and Butch Walker. What's the best advice you ever received? My grandma always said, "When all you have is a nickel to your name, go get your shoes shined." I get pedicures instead. It's basically the same thing. Speaking of which, what was your childhood like - were you always musically inclined? I was a crazy kid - always running around terrorizing the neighborhood. I started getting into music when I was a very awkward middle schooler. I turned very introspective and started writing lots of poetry, and I eventually learned how to play guitar. As a singer/songwriter, is it difficult to sort of not get lost in the crowd? People always love to toss labels out at people. For example, Meiko is the next Ingrid Michaelson. Ingrid Michaelson is the next Regina Spektor. I could go on. Not really. There will always be people who say, "Oh my God - you sound just like Jewel", because I'm a girl and I play guitar. That doesn't bother me at all. I know there's a difference, and I know that people who actually 'get it' know it too. Lastly, if people came with taglines, what would yours be? "Meiko - They're Not Gonna Lick Themselves!" More on Facebook
 
Hillary Clinton Speaks To NYU Grads At Yankee Stadium Top
NEW YORK — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged college graduates on Wednesday to resist the temptation to disengage from world affairs, saying to do so would "cede the field to those whose ideologies are absolutely anathema to people of conscience and faith all over the world." Delivering New York University's commencement address, Clinton acknowledged the turbulent national and global environment that graduates face, but said their education, energy and facility with new technology would help them navigate and improve the world. She cited the perils of climate change, disease and global nuclear proliferation and warned the audience to take those challenges seriously. "At the root of my conviction is a strong sense of reality _ we don't have a choice," Clinton said. "We can sit on the sidelines, we can wring our hands, we can retreat into cynicism, and we know what the result will be." The NYU ceremonies were held under sunny skies on the infield of the new Yankee Stadium. Clinton, who served eight years as senator from New York before Obama nominated her as secretary of state, was loudly cheered as she marched in procession through the stadium. "Many of you, I know, used social networking platforms to make Barack Obama the president of the United States," Clinton said to loud cheers. She urged graduates to use those tools to help eradicate poverty and organize against repressive political ideologies around the globe. "Does it get better than this?" Clinton said. "A graduation ceremony for one of the great universities in the world, in the home of the New York Yankees." More on Hillary Clinton
 
Brian Whetten: How to Create Meaningful Ethical Reform in Business Top
In the wake of the financial crisis, there's been a lot of talk about ethical reform. With the disgrace of so many of the "best and the brightest," there's a lot of soul searching going on in government , industry and business schools . Most of this discussion is focused on regulation and rules -- it seeks to answer the question, " What is good behavior and how can we mandate it? " As Arianna recently pointed out , deep regulatory reform of Wall Street is critically important. Just as our democracy is based on laws designed to mitigate the corruption that automatically accompanies power, healthy capitalism requires strong regulations in order to control Wall Street's automatic tendency towards systemic corruption. This is not to say that capitalism is bad, or that all bankers are corrupt. It's saying that every great strength comes with an equal challenge. As we looked at in a recent post , capitalism's greatest strength and challenge is its addiction to economic expansion. This addiction can create tremendous prosperity and it automatically creates deep patterns of denial, greed and self-deception. Revised regulation is needed to guard against these challenges. But regulation is only part of the solution. It can create grudging conformance, but by itself it can't create true cooperation, let alone authentic leadership. Which brings up a question. Why would people freely choose to live an ethical life? Not out of a fear of punishment. I went to traffic court last week, and I was amazed at the level of fear, guilt and anger that came up for me. Even though the judge was wise and compassionate, I felt like a five year old being shamed for my mistakes. The experience left me with some new patterns of fear, but also with a sense of rebellion. This shows the core challenge of regulation, in that a choice made out of fear isn't a free choice. It breeds surface compliance and hidden rebellion. It creates preachers who rail against sex while having affairs. As Joan Borysenko puts it, " Punishment is an effective way to change behavior, but usually not in the desired direction. " When motivation comes from a place of I should or I must , it's sourced from fear and guilt. This can keep us from doing something awful, but it can't inspire us to authentic ethics or authentic leadership, which come from a place of I choose . Similarly, authentic ethics can't come just out of a desire for approval. Do you remember the petty cliquishness of high school? That's what happens when a group of good but insecure people seek to define their self worth according to others' opinions. A life based on approval-seeking quickly degenerates into an empty race for money and status. While our desire for approval can be a force for good -- the shaming of investment banking's excesses is creating a major drive for change -- the whims of the crowd are fickle and can reward vice just as easily as virtue. The primary, enduring reason to freely choose an ethical life is that a meaningful life is an ethical life . People regularly ask " what is the meaning of life? " Here it is. The meaning of life comes from growth , giving and connection : three of the primary forms of mature love. Mature love is the foundation of all ethics (i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and a life lived in integrity is also a life filled with meaning. However -- and this is key -- ethical behaviors do not necessarily create a meaningful life. Regulation by itself breeds public compliance and private rebellion. Similarly, when we do the right thing because we know we "should" and we're afraid of how bad we'll feel if we don't, we automatically feed our inner conflicts (such as between the "angel" on one shoulder and the "devil" on the other.) This is why putting yourself on a forced diet rarely works (" I have to eat less " creates automatic rebellion). Authentic ethics requires authentic leadership. Leadership motivated not just by fear and greed, but by a desire to live a life filled with both money and meaning. This requires cultivating not just mental intelligence, but emotional and spiritual intelligence as well. Yet our schools do almost nothing to train emotional intelligence, let alone spiritual intelligence or authentic leadership. I was recently at a party with some business school professors. I asked them what changes were going on in their industry in response to the financial crisis. "Almost nothing," they replied. Not because professors don't want to, but because less than 5% of business school faculty have ever held a leadership position in industry. This is a problem, because there is no such thing as a theoretical class in authentic leadership . Authentic leadership isn't about theory, it's about character. It requires integrating all of who we are. It requires learning how to integrate success and fulfillment, sales and service, money and meaning. It requires learning how to embrace the conflicts and challenges inherent in capitalism, and to use these road blocks not just as things to be avoided or controlled, but as the very stepping stones out of which authentic leadership is built. This doesn't mean that our schools need to become more religious. It means they need to become more meaningful, by teaching students the practical skills needed to live lives filled with growth, giving and connection. Over the past decades, business schools have sought to become ever more scientific. But by increasingly basing their existence solely on the cult of reason, they've been feeding the emotional and leadership issues at the heart of this crisis, rather than healing them. This may be part of the reason why 90% of unresolved issues in businesses are emotional in nature, not just logical. As Steve Chandler says, " business is a logical process done by emotional beings. " If we wish to create meaningful ethical reform in business, it requires teaching students practical, concrete, psychological tools for how to work with their inner conflicts and emotional patterns. It requires teaching them how to embrace the challenges that automatically come up as we seek to build businesses that create both money and meaning. It requires renouncing the fundamentalist dogmas of the cult of reason and of the single bottom line. And it requires evaluating our schools not just on whether they produce smart and successful students, but also on whether they produce wise and fulfilled ones.
 
Somali Insurgents Vow To Topple Government Top
MOGADISHU, Somalia — Pro-government militias and Islamic insurgents battled in Somalia's capital Wednesday for a fourth day, as an insurgent leader vowed his forces would not relent until the government is overthrown. Since the weekend, both sides have pounded the northern part of the capital, Mogadishu, with mortars and gunfire in the worst violence in recent weeks. The Elman Human Rights Organization said 113 civilians were killed between Saturday and Monday. On Tuesday there was a lull in the fighting. The organization also said 27,200 people had fled their homes as between Saturday and Tuesday. The renewed violence in the Horn of Africa nation pits pro-government fighters against those allied to al-Shabab, an insurgent group seeking to overthrow the Western-backed government and establish an Islamic state. Mohamed Haji, a businessmen, said he saw two bodies Wednesday near the Suq Bad market, one of the areas where fighting is taking place. Haji said he saw six wounded people. Fadumo Ali of Medina Hospital said six people wounded in the battles in northern Mogadishu had been brought in for treatment. Al-Shabab's chairman, Mukhtar Abu Zubeyr, told local radio stations in an interview Wednesday the insurgents would not stop the fighting. "It will continue until we topple the so-called government," he said. The U.S. State Department considers al-Shabab a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaida. A regular meeting in the Ethiopian capital of U.N., African Union and regional diplomats to review the situation in Somalia called Wednesday for an investigation to identify foreign nations, organization or individuals involved in destabilizing Somalia. The U.N.'s envoy to Somalia and Somalia's national security minister said Tuesday that foreigners are fighting alongside the Somali insurgents. Omar Jamal, director of the nonprofit Somali Justice Advocacy Center in Minnesota, said he would be surprised if the government was still standing in a few days, "without getting support of the international community." "Mogadishu is on the verge of collapse to these maniacs. If that happens, God have mercy on us," Jamal told The Associated Press. Somali government spokesman Abdulkadir Walayo declined to comment. Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991, when warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre before turning on one another. Somalia's transitional government was formed in 2004, but has failed to assert control over the country. The insurgents have been trying to topple the government since late 2006, and the lawlessness has allowed piracy to flourish off Somalia's coast. The U.S. worries that Somalia could be a terrorist breeding ground, particularly since Osama bin Laden declared his support for al-Shabab. The U.S. accuses al-Shabab of harboring the al-Qaida-linked terrorists who blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Al-Shabab controls much of southern Somalia. Ahmed's government directly controls only a few blocks of Mogadishu and one border town. But the president has allies among the militias that control much of central Somalia and pockets of the south. ___ Associated Press writers Anita Powell in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Elizabeth A. Kennedy in Nairobi, Kenya, contributed to this report. More on Somalia
 
Keli Goff: How the Crucifixion of Miss California Hurts the Marriage Equality Movement Top
I'm going to channel a character from one of my favorite shows for a moment. As the Golden Girls ' Sophia Petrillo might say, "Picture it..." Only instead of asking you all to picture Sicily, sometime, I'm going to ask you to "Picture it...Las Vegas, 1960." The Miss USA pageant is being held and beloved entertainer Sammy Davis, Jr. is one of the judges. When it is his turn to ask the finalists a question, he looks at the blond-haired, blue-eyed beauties and says, "Interracial unions are currently illegal in 31 states. Do you think those states are wrong in saying that you and I cannot marry?" The question -- and the beauty's fumbling answer causes outrage, embarrassment, and an uproar. But here's my question to you. Had this fictional incident actually happened, do you think it would have made anyone in the nation who was opposed to Davis's union with white Swedish actress May Britt anymore accepting? Do you think the exchange would have made those sitting at home who believed at the time that people like my parents were second class citizens, believe so any less? Most of all, do you think it would have made those people who are ultimately responsible for bringing about social change in this country -- good people who are often uneducated and undecided on an issue, before their consciences finally move them in the right direction -- move into the decided category? The answer of course is a resounding no. This of course brings me to the ongoing flap regarding Miss California USA Carrie Prejean. If Perez Hilton's goal was to shame Carrie Prejean, with his question at the Miss USA pageant, mission accomplished. But if his goal, and the goal of those who have piled on her since then is to ultimately win greater support for marriage equality, that mission is failing. As someone who grew up in a church in which I was taught to believe that being gay was somehow wrong, before growing into an adult who was proud to be included in my close gay friend's wedding, I have been blown away by how misguided, and ineffective -- no matter how well-intentioned -- some of the prominent supporters of the marriage equality movement have been. Watching the three-ring circus that has been the fallout from Hilton's grilling of Prejean, I have been amazed at how gleeful a number of liberal writers, bloggers, outlets and activists seem at their "gotcha!" moment. It is the same joy that many often have when a conservative gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar -- and the cookie jar happens to be a woman he is not married to, or a man he is not married to, (or a minor he is not married to.) There is just one catch that makes this situation different, actually a few of them. Number one Miss California wasn't running for office. Heck, she wasn't even running for Miss America. The fact that there is no talent portion in the Miss USA pageant and no academic scholarship (save for some acting classes) tells you all you need to know about the role their intellect is meant to play in the pageant (and probably their long-term careers). Who knows? Ms. Prejean may see affirmative action in higher education (which I support) as unfair, along with un-opposite marriage, but I never would have asked her if she does because frankly, who cares what she thinks about affirmative action, opposite marriage or anything else except maybe eating disorders? But the main difference between Carrie Prejean and some scandal-plagued politician is the scandal that liberals have tried to create out of her answer is not a scandal in the eyes of the half of Americans who agree with what she said, (as inarticulate as it may have been), including the president. The reaction to her remarks -- even on this very site -- remind me of a pivotal moment in the McCain campaign. It was the moment when John McCain, with the support of his three closest male advisors, all talked among themselves and decided that the most strategic way to get the female vote in play was to draft Sarah Palin for the ticket. Instead of reaching out and engaging a bunch of women (besides Cindy McCain), through polling or otherwise, these men took it upon themselves to decide that they knew the best way to reach an audience that they weren't a part of but really needed. They failed miserably. This is precisely what the marriage equality movement is in danger of becoming -- a movement in which those who know they are right on the issue become so paralyzed by emotion and frustration that they end up talking in an ideological echo chamber with those who already agree with them, and end up talking AT, or worse attacking, those who just aren't there yet -- but may very well get there someday. But you won't get them there any faster by calling them "bitch." This echo chamber first became apparent to me several months ago, when I met someone who worked with Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the landmark Loving v. Virginia case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws paving the way for interracial marriages. When Loving, was first contacted not too long before her death last year, and was asked if she would lend her support to the marriage equality movement, she eventually agreed, spurred in large part by one of the people who reached out to her, a fellow black woman, who like Loving was a practicing Christian who had also struggled at first to reconcile her faith and her ultimate belief in rights for all. But what struck me most about the story is that Loving had, allegedly, never been contacted prior to that moment even for a conversation, by anyone else in the equality movement -- EVER, a fact that boggles my mind to this day. Because just as we saw with the Civil Rights Movement, laws can only change so much. Real societal change happens on a personal and cultural level. When people get to know one another, like one another and love one another, it becomes harder to discriminate against each other. But for this to truly happen, you have to meet people where they are, not simply expect them to be where you are already, and ridicule them if they are not. As of yesterday, New York state is THISclose to becoming the next in the land to legalize gay marriage. Do you know what ultimately moved one of the Republican Assemblywomen who had previously been opposed, to reconsider? It was not the shaming of Carrie Prejean. It was a lesbian couple that lives on her street. As Melissa Etheridge wrote so eloquently on this very site about the Rick Warren inauguration fallout, "They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en masse and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world. Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us." She is right. www.keligoff.com More on Miss California
 
Electronic Trading For Derivatives To Increase Transparency: Geithner Top
May 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury will tell banks to increase transparency in the over-the-counter derivatives market by making prices available on centralized computer platforms, according to people familiar with the plan. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner may announce the decision as soon as today, said the people, who declined to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. Geithner laid out a framework in March for increasing regulation of financial markets as the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression caused more than $1.4 trillion in writedowns by banks and financial companies worldwide.
 
Maddisen K. Krown: Ask Maddisen: How to Experience Fuller Love & Deeper Sexual Intimacy Top
Dear Maddisen: I don't have any interest in sex with my significant other. How can we get the fire back? Regards, LF Dear LF, First, congrats on longing for love! Yes, that's right, you're on track! It means you're highly interested in fuller love and greatly desiring to experience it. Your longing will lead you into the loving . And if you were my private client, I might even have you spend a few minutes enjoying that longing, because longing itself can be healthy if you don't dwell in it and make it your goal, and instead use it as fuel to propel yourself into the fuller loving and intimacy you desire. Also realize that your longing for fuller love has led you here to the answer, so give yourself a hug. And if you need to say a few self forgiveness phrases (which you learned about in my earlier column), do that now. What about the loss of interest in sex with your significant other? Since you're asking how you can both get the fire back, I'm going to assume that this opportunity for growth is mutual. As I see it, there are two reasons for this. Either 1) the chemistry of attraction is simply not present between you two, or 2) your fires of attraction have been temporarily dampened. If you sense that there is no sexual attraction, you might explore it more deeply by enlisting assistance from a life coach or counselor who is skilled in this area, or there simply may be no sexual chemistry. Although this answer can be quite sobering and frightening initially, it is a possibility. Know that ultimately, this honest discovery can lead to healthy change for you both. However, if you sense that there is still sexual attraction between you, but something has dampened it, then the following information should help. Based on personal experience and on the experiences of clients and friends, I've noticed that the decrease in sexual attraction and sexual activity between significant others may be caused gradually and unconsciously over time by a sort of neutralizing or melding of the male and female energies. I say male and female energies because this can happen in any love partnership regardless of gender and heterosexual or homosexual preference. You might say, familiarity breeds content ! Somehow, your male and female polarities have been neutralized, and you've become couch buddies. Not good. Save that for your knitting club. Or you've become indifferent. Not good either. Save that for your in-laws! If you sense that the sexual attraction is still present underneath the hustle and bustle of your daily lives, try this: beef up your sexual polarities to juice up your relationship. In other words, follow nature's lead and experience the bliss of oneness by behaving as complementary opposites! We're equal, we're one spiritually, but we're not the same, and if we want to get the attraction back into our relationships, we must acknowledge, revel in, and animate our natural masculine and feminine differences. What might that look like? Simply put, the female must move more fully and dominantly into her female energy, and the male must move more fully and dominantly into his male energy. The masculine pole represents energy that is more purpose-driven, focused, self-disciplined, and goal-oriented. The male creates a safe container or form within which the female can freely move and express. The feminine pole represents energy that is more open, flowing, intuitive, radiant, and spontaneous. The female represents pure expression of birth, life, inspiration, and motion. For the male partner, this may mean behaving in a more assertive way without being overly aggressive or controlling. For the female partner, this may mean behaving in a more loving and unrestricted way without being overly submissive. If it looks like something you and your partner want to experience, take some time to talk about, envision, and feel into how you might each animate your innate masculine and feminine qualities. Remember, this is not a game of weak and strong or right and wrong; this is about moving more fully into the sexual poles into which we are born, in a way that honors and celebrates our differences. It's a win-win and potentially electrifying game of love! I also want to mention, just as with yin and yang, where the complementary opposites form a greater whole and each contains a little bit of the other, the same is true for females and males - we each possess both masculine and feminine qualities. This suggests that we all can and do move between the feminine and masculine energies and associated behaviors, which brings up a whole new supplement to this conversation, so for now - YOU decide who's who and when ! If you're struggling to wrap your noodle around all of this, you're not alone. Take a deep breath, and know that this is a rich topic. This is an introduction to what may become a new practice for some of you, so be patient, loving, and respectful of one another as you gain mastery in this exciting experience of intimacy, mutual joy and satisfaction. For more ideas about sexual polarities and intimacy, I recommend reading David Deida's books, specifically "The Way of the Superior Man". Don't let the title fool you - it's meant for women just as much as it is for men, and an easy yet provocative read. His website is: www.deida.info . David is a renowned teacher in the ways of intimacy. Other ways for exploring and expressing the sexual polarities might include Pole Dancing classes for women, or the ManKind Project for men, etc. And so, my dear LF and all of my readers, may your healthy longing for love propel you into the rich experience of the fuller loving you so naturally desire. Your Coach, Maddisen You may submit your questions for ASK MADDISEN at askmaddisen@krown.us More on Sex
 
Crist Senate Bid Outrages Conservatives; NRSC Boycott Urged Top
Another fierce ideological rift has opened up within the Republican Party. Conservatives are up in arms over Charlie Crist's Senate run and the support Crist has received from the national Republican establishment. Crist, the governor of Florida who announced his Senate candidacy on Tuesday, is seen as a moderate on many issues, and his recent backing of Obama's stimulus plan has drawn the ire of many GOP activists. Conservatives in the blogosphere are particularly incensed. Erik Erickson at the prominent blog RedState is calling for a boycott of the National Republican Senatorial Committee over its endorsement of Crist: I can kind of understand them getting behind Specter. Both he and Chaffee were incumbents. But getting behind Crist in the Florida primary is wholly unacceptable for all the reasons and explanations Dan gave. ... If the NRSC thinks this is smart, we must not waste our time or energy with them. Join me in pledging no money, no help, no aid, and no support for the NRSC's efforts in the 2010 election cycle. Matt Lewis at Politics Daily sums up some other conservative reaction: National Review's Jim Geraghty hit the nail on the head when he asked, "... how many Republicans have ever said, "Thank goodness the NRSC intervened in that primary"? And fellow NRO blogger David Freddoso wrote: "As demonstrated here and by their completely unnecessary (and not necessarily correct) dissing of Pat Toomey's chances in Pennsylvania, the Senate establishment wants to pre-determine as many outcomes as possible." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on GOP
 
Philip Slater: Time For The Military PR Folks To Come Up With A New Spin Top
Every time the military slaughters a bunch of children in some distant land the PR staff robotically cranks out the same old chestnut: "it-is-not-our-fault-the-enemy-is-using-human-shields." First, in order to grab the moral high ground here you would have to actually be deterred by this nefarious stratagem, which no one ever is. Second, this argument presumes that any dissident leader we want to assassinate should not live in his own home with his own family in his own village but should somehow, by ESP, intuit that a drone was on its way, hastily find a translator, email the operators in Las Vegas that he was going to run out into an empty field, carrying a big sign saying "kill me" in English, and give them his new coordinates. Our wars aren't fought against armies any more. No army would ever attack us. They are fought against civilians, in foreign countries where armed killers don't wear uniforms--where you can't tell enemy from neutral. Furthermore, Afghanistan is a country riddled with feuds--ethnic, tribal, family, and personal. The 'reliable information' on which the military acts is anything but. In 2003 the Bush administration had the brilliant idea of dropping millions of leaflets on the (largely illiterate) population promising $5000 rewards for identifying bad guys. This was the equivalent of a quarter of a million dollars to an American. Who could resist the temptation to finger a neighbor you've been feuding with for generations over a piece of land? You're immediately rich, rid of your neighbor, and you've got all his land. And has anyone ever considered the possibility that the reason we've bombed so many wedding parties is that our information might have come from someone who felt he should have been the groom? We should also abandon any attempt to take the moral high ground when the killing is being done--not on the ground, not even from a plane (which is cowardly enough), but by some guy sitting safely in a room outside Las Vegas playing video games with the lives of people he's never seen and whose deaths he will never have to confront. This is the ultimate in cowardly attacks, right up there with Al Qaeda using retarded girls as suicide bombers, or the Taliban gassing schoolgirls. Unfortunately, it's what modern war and modern machismo have come down to. So I would suggest--in view of Obama's new effort to have more transparency in government--that a little more honesty from the PR folks might be appropriate. Something like this: "Look, folks, we're the military. Our job is to kill folks. If you're going to get picky about who, send someone else." (In his inauguration speech, Obama talked of a whole new way of doing things. To understand the cultural paradigm shift that engendered this change--the shift that both the neocons and the Taliban have resisted so fiercely, see my website for information on THE CHRYSALIS EFFECT: THE METAMORPHOSIS OF GLOBAL CULTURE).
 
Tom Alderman: Those Pesky Ballot Propositions - Is This Anyway To Run a Country? Top
"Tyranny of the majority!" James Madison yelped about a government run by direct democracy, ballot initiatives, referendums, propositions - mob rule! And he's the guy who actually wrote the Constitution. "Yes, they're often misused, but California will never give them up and they can be effective," says Bob Hertzberg, astute politician and former Speaker of the California Assembly, and he's the one who had to shape public policy into law. Whether you find them offensive or necessary, ballot initiatives and referendums tend to spread like kudzu across the electoral landscape when city and state governing bodies can't, or wont, get the job done they're being paid to do. While referendums are those measures put on the ballot by the legislatures when they're stuck in gridlock, initiatives are those propositions that originate from we folk, the people, through petition - usually signed or ignored outside supermarkets. Initiatives have been big in California since populist governor Hiram Johnson started the process as a counter the powerful Southern Pacific Railroad oligarchy that dominated state government in 1911. Back then, it was like a scene from Frankenstein when torch bearing, angry town-folk storm the bastions to destroy the beast. Political vigilantism works in a fictional black and white world. Deciding whether to 'increase the "rainy day" budget stabilization fund' in a state with the seventh largest economy in the world like California, requires a little more, uh, attention. And there's the pickle. We are being asked to make far reaching decisions we are not qualified to make at all - to understand the complexities, context and consequences these initiatives require, then decide whether they should be the law of the land, or not. Ever tried reading one of these puppies? '.....helps balance state budget by amending the Mental Health Act Services Act, Proposition 63 of 2004.' You remember Prop 63, don't you? '...transfer funds, for two years, to pay for mental health services....fiscal impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years' Hey, saving money, terrific, but wait, '...corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act program,' Uh, you mean, you're actually taking away money for mental health services? Even the people who are supposed to understand them, don't. "I'm shocked and appalled how many legislators actually understand what they're voting on," says a bemused Dan Mitchell, Professor Emeritus, of Management and Public Policy at UCLA. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up shop? "No," says Mitchell. "These issues are too important to be decided this way," and yet, we Americans have pragmatism embedded in our DNA. When the existing system isn't delivering, we look for another way. Former Speaker Hertzberg points to California's 1978, now legendary, Prop 13 as an example of what can be achieved when citizens storm the voting booth to slay the monster, in this case, Draconian property taxes. Unfortunately, "Prop 13 was the last true ground-up initiative," laments Mitchell. "It's not really a bunch of citizens working together any more, not the town meeting writ large we tend to think it is," he continues. What he means is: to qualify to get on the ballot, we town-folk need to round up at least a million signatures, which means we have to hire firms who charge $1 to $2 per signature. Ouch. Then we have to spend many millions more to run our media campaigns. Double ouch. Hertzberg acknowledges abuses of the system and believes many legislators see the ballot measure as an 'instrument to manipulate the electorate.' Which brings to mind incumbent California governor Pete Wilson's 1994 successful re-election landslide against Kathleen Brown when Wilson's campaign created anti-immigration and racially charged Affirmative Action quota propositions that turned out a lot of scared and angry voters. So, why are we still being asked to do the job we pay our elected representatives to do? UCLA's Mitchell does see a benefit to the initiative system. If we keep systematically replacing experienced law makers with inexperienced ones, he sees propositions as a counterweight to these term limits. Ironic concept, isn't it? We, unqualified people, asked to make important decisions because we don't trust our unqualified representatives to do it. Most bewildering. So, again, why do we keep doing this? Because it works. Because we do not live in a symmetrical either-or-world. Because it's not a question of who's right or wrong - Madison or Hertzberg. Because 'win' or 'lose' is good framing for story telling but a very limiting assumption for governing leaving no room for what is possible, or, what can be done. The choice can sometimes be either-AND. Paraphrasing F. Scott Fitzgerald, the test of a first rate system is the ability to hold two opposite ideas in mind at the same time and not allow just one definition of a situation to constrict the range of other options to consider. Flawed as propositions are, we'll just have to muddle through, carry our torches, storm the voting booths and 'increase "rainy day" budget stabilization fund - or not.
 
Peter Clothier: Still the Mind Top
Those who have taken any interest in Buddhist teachings will already know that there are many different approaches to the dharma. For those who also enjoy the listening experience there is a pleasure in store in the form of a new release from Sounds True , a double CD offering by Bodhipaksa called Still the Mind . Okay, let's first get a little bit of exotica out of the way. Bodhipaksa hails originally from Scotland, and brings with him, even after a number of years in the U.S., the delightful hint of a remaining Scottish accent. Combined with a wonderfully gentle, mellow intonation, his voice itself is enough to charm the ears off his listener. Its calming effects seem in themselves almost enough to "still the mind." So that's a nice bonus. But that's certainly not the meat of the matter, because Bodhipaksa also has an impressive understanding of the dharma, which he shares with the ease of one who is comfortably familiar with his material. There's no straining, here, for definitions or for explanations, just an easy flow of thought which invites close attention without demanding mental gymnastics. The first of the two CD's, Session 1, takes us from "Starting Where We Are," through an introduction to those "Five Hindrances" that so often come along to stand in the meditator's way, to a discussion of "Mindfulness" and a invitation into "Calm Abiding," where the mind finds stillness. Along the way, Bodhipaksa guides his listener through short, two-minute sessions of breath-counting meditation in preparation for the second disk, Session 2, which is essentially two half-hour guided meditations. His approach is to move from numbering each breath after the outbreath to numbering each breath after the inbreath, to letting go of the numbering altogether -- abiding in stillness -- while quietly observing the different qualities of each as we proceed. I have no doubt that "Still the Mind" would be a wonderful introduction to meditation for the beginner. But I'd also like to stress that even for a moderately experienced (though still very much amateur!) meditator like myself -- and for anyone who shares with the vast majority of we humans an insatiably busy mind -- Bodhipaksa is a confident guide who provides fresh insights into the process of calming it down for long enough to watch it working, and teach it healthier habits. The meditation experience can take numerous forms: it can be a constant battle, and difficult, hard work: it is often demanding, sometimes intensely boring; and even painful -- or all these things together. Bodhipaksa's special gift (one of them, let's say) is to show us how the experience can also be a deeply pleasurable one.
 
Jamie Frevele: "Bones" Season Finale Goes Batsh*t Crazy Top
First off, at the beginning of the season, I gave Hart Hanson, the creator of Fox's "Bones" some homework , and he failed miserably. But honestly, there is no way to judge a current season based on things you want resolved from past seasons, so Mr. Hanson gets a pass. Besides, the show definitely delivered on some counts, so I can't complain. Especially since the show as I knew it is completely different than it was when I first wrote about it a year ago. It's not a bad thing; it's a sign of an evolving show. But let's be frank - "Bones" started out as a character-driven procedural that used subtle comedy and quirky characters to lighten the dark nature of the cases. Now? Emily Deschanel's Dr. Brennan is hardly ever in the lab, choosing field work with David Boreanaz's Agent Booth. They're also abducting corpses from funeral homes and going undercover at the circus. And they've turned into goofballs. Meanwhile, Sweets (John Francis Daley), the shrink, is also going undercover, as well as the rotating interns, none of whom are fit to replace Zack, apparently. Hodgins (TJ Thyne) is bouncing turkeys off his ex-fiancee's head and waking up in the desert with her face tattooed on his arm. Brennan is suddenly wanting to learn psychology and have a baby. And Booth is hallucinating. He's seeing Stewie from "The Family Guy." What show is this? It's a fun show, but what the hell show is this? It's totally cool for a show to change things up, change relationships, bring in new characters and move on from old ones. But I wonder if the "Bones" that we saw this season is the show the creators had always intended to make or if it's the other show they can't presently make due to the economy. Then again, this could be the most awesome display of creative anarchy I've ever seen on TV. They're not just going to write off a favorite character in an insane way. They're going to go completely insane and turn the whole show upside down. Basically, "Bones" thought it might be a great idea to go to Vegas on a whim, but ended up getting astronomically tanked, losing all its money, winning it all back, spending half of it on magic shows, demolishing the MGM Grand and shooting an Elvis impersonator in the ass, and then ultimately decided it liked that random guy they accidentally married. (I also like to think that the fact that the show still has cases is like calling home to tell Mom that "the lights are so pretty at night! Anyway, gotta go...") Now, unlike last season, I am not reading spoilers. It got me way too upset. So upset that I couldn't even cry for a month. This season, I abstained. As a result, I have no idea what's going on in the finale. Last we saw Booth, he was seeing Stewie right before masturbating and was later wheeled into surgery. Now he and Brennan are, what, undercover again? Running a nightclub? Called "The Lab"? And Zack is back, with the old school hair and duds? And Sweets is in a band? (Will he finally sing "Lime in the Coconut" like he's been promising since last season?) Oh, and that other big deal about Booth and Brennan having sex with each other. The talking points being repeated in the press about The Sex is that it will not disturb the central theme or chemistry of the show. (I hope they're not referring to that "Will they or won't they?" thing, because, well...) What's my point? My point is this: I really, really, really can't wait to watch this. And if you've never watched "Bones" before, you have got to tune in for this. It's gonna be crazy . And by the way, two things that have been conspicuously left hanging: Zack confessing to Sweets that he wasn't a killer and Hodgins waking up in the desert. With Angela's face on his whole entire upper arm. Ummmm...yeah. Anything? At all? Or is this like the hooker in Vegas who said "By the way - don't tell my pimp I really work for the CIA. Byeeeee!" The season finale of "Bones" airs at 8:00 PM on Fox on Thursday, May 14th. ****************** Worth noting: Wendy Young, who runs the blog Obsessed With Bones gave birth to a baby squint last week! Congratulations, Wendy and welcome Noah!
 
Michelle Obama On How Community Service Changed Her Life: "There Is Nothing More Fulfilling" Top
WASHINGTON — For Michelle Obama, corporate law turned out not to be the career she wanted to look back on at the end of her life. "I had to ask myself whether, if I died tomorrow, would I want this to be my legacy, working in a corporate firm, working for big companies," the first lady told employees of the federal agency tasked with managing public service programs. "And when I asked myself the question, the resounding answer was, absolutely not." Mrs. Obama spoke Tuesday to about 250 employees of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the latest stop on her listening tour of the federal bureaucracy. The deaths of her father and a close friend made her realize that she needed a change in direction, she said, and led her to quit her job at a law firm and choose a career in public service. She helped to establish Chicago's chapter of Public Allies, an AmeriCorps community service program that trained young people for jobs in the nonprofit world. Although the first lady worked at Public Allies until 1996, her most recent position was as executive vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a job with a six-figure salary. "National and community service is near and dear to my heart," the first lady said. "There is nothing more fulfilling," she said. "It's an opportunity to put your faith into action in a way that regular jobs don't allow." Mrs. Obama urged Americans to get involved with community service, individually or as a family, saying that it's a great way to demonstrate one's values and to give back to the community. "For many Americans it may seem impossible to squeeze even more time out of the day and do more," she said. "But I still strongly encourage people to think about volunteering." The first lady praised the $5.7 billion national service bill her husband, President Barack Obama, signed last month. It triples the size of the AmeriCorps service program over the next eight years and expands ways for students to earn money for college by helping those in their neighborhoods. "It's just beautiful to see this country and people of all walks of life, regardless of party, recognizing that this is a really good thing," she said. "This is where patriotism begins." Mrs. Obama noted that the national service bill will allow kids from varying economic backgrounds to get involved. "When I was coming up, volunteering and doing an internship seemed to be a luxury that working-class kids couldn't afford," she said. "It is so important that young people, regardless of their race or their age or their financial ability, that they have a chance to serve." More on The Giving Life
 
Ten Ways to Get What You Want at No Charge (SLIDESHOW) Top
The recession is probably taking a bite out of your spending, but it doesn't have to devour your fun. With a little thought and shoe leather, you can take advantage of many freebies and cut-rate promotions. Start by setting up a secondary email account to avoid cluttering your personal address with stupid stuff. Never give out your phone number. Should anyone ask, your name is "Napoleon" or "Josephine." Rule of thumb: Don't be bashful and prepare to be shameless in the pursuit of giveaways. Here's how: More on The Recession
 
Carl Pope: A Bump in the Road -- or a Detour? Top
It's scary how difficult it is proving for this Congress to embrace a new energy future. In the Senate, Energy Chair Jeff Bingaman is talking about passing a renewable-energy standard that would barely nudge the status quo -- only 12 percent renewables by 2019, and up only to 15 percent for the next two decades.  And even so, Indiana senator Evan Bayh is refusing to commit to support the proposal. In the House, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is having an extraordinarily difficult time getting a strong renewable standard out of his committee -- even as he is being forced to water down the initially ambitious goals he set for his climate bill. At this point, no one on Capitol Hill is moving legislation that would achieve President Obama's goal of doubling renewable-energy generation. No one is moving legislation that meets the president's goals of 100 percent auction of carbon permits, either. Indeed, Waxman is considering giving more than half of the permits away to the industries that are major carbon polluters -- not because he wants to, but because otherwise he can't move a bill at all. What's going on here? Part of the problem is business as usual. Part is that while Congress understands health care is a national issue, it still sees energy a regional issue, one on which each member is entitled to be as parochial as he or she desires. But part of it is a failure on the part of advocates, the media, and the political leadership to understand that America's energy problems are rooted in a market that is fundamentally broken and that cannot be fixed by a single silver bullet such as cap and trade or a carbon tax. Here's why: In the energy sector, the consumers who pay the bill for more expensive gasoline (or electricity or coal or natural gas) don't always get to decide how much they need. Someone else makes the decisions -- someone who doesn't pay the bills.  A plumber who needs to drive a pickup truck 100,000 miles a year for work can't stop working just because gasoline gets more expensive -- he needs a more-efficient truck. Detroit doesn't make one. A renter who has an old, inefficient furnace can't make the landlord replace it with a modern one -- the tenant has no choice but to pay the bill if the price of home-heating oil soars through the roof. A business that uses a lot of electricity can't force its local utility to buy cheaper (and cleaner) wind or natural-gas kilowatt hours if the utility makes more money by over-billing for electrons from an old, dirty, and more-expensive coal plant that it owns. Trying to transition to a clean-energy economy by putting a price on carbon is a little like trying to improve the diet of students at a boarding school by giving them nutrition classes -- it's a necessary step, but not a sufficient one if the school keeps serving them junk food. Too many of America's utilities are determined to keep serving Americans dirty electricity from coal. The auto industry is determined to feed us a diet of inefficient, gasoline-powered vehicles. They've figured out that the Obama administration and the Congressional leadership badly want to pass a cap and trade bill to send a strong signal before the Copenhagen climate conference in December. And they are determined to highjack this urgent moment. Their strategy is clear: Block any real reform of energy markets. Block any real commitment to reduce our dependence on oil and coal. Drag their feet to see if they can kill energy legislation altogether. If that fails, then they'll force the Administration to accept a symbolic "cap and trade" bill that they know they can unravel later. And there's a real danger that, with the pressure of December's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen bearing down, the Administration and the Congressional leadership might be tempted to accept nutrition classes instead of changing the energy diet offered to the American people by coal, oil, autos, and utilities. What's the solution? We need to tell our leaders that we won't let coal and oil steal our clean energy future.  We want Congress to enact not the shadow but the substance of the president's energy platform -- doubling renewable energy, cutting carbon pollution by 80 percent by 2050, and making sure that those who emit carbon pollution pay the bill.
 
Remorseful Aldermen To City: Put All Privatization Deal Info Online Top
Three aldermen are calling on Mayor Richard Daley's administration to provide more information about the privatization of city assets such as the parking meter system.
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)