Thursday, May 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Liesl Gerntholtz: Should Women Fear a Zuma Presidency? Maybe Not Top
Jacob Zuma was inaugurated as the new president of South Africa on 9 May, with his party, the African National Congress, having achieved a resounding victory in the recent elections. In what has been described as the most competitive election yet to take place in a post-apartheid South Africa, the ANC and Mr Zuma clearly retain the support and trust of the vast majority of voters, men and women. I'm no fan of Mr Zuma's, having been part of a coalition of women's rights organisations that brought an unsuccessful legal application to intervene in his rape trial in 2007. Although Mr Zuma was acquitted of rape, I, along with many other gender activists, firmly believe that the case did a great disservice to rape survivors in South Africa, reinforcing stereotypes of women and undermining ongoing efforts to improve access to justice and services for women who have been sexually assaulted. Mr Zuma's comments about women during and after the trial, including about how women should dress, clearly indicate that he holds very problematic views about the roles of women and men in society. And his contention that showering after having unprotected sex with a woman he knew to have HIV helped to protect him from infection, damaged efforts to prevent HIV infection in a country with the highest numbers of people living with HIV in the world. That said, I don't share the pessimistic view expressed by feminists and women's rights activists inside and out of South Africa about what this man might do to the cause of women's rights. Fears are that he might set back the struggle for women's equality by years. Gender equality is both a basic value and a substantive right in the highly lauded South African Constitution. Women are shielded from unfair discrimination, including on the basis of age and pregnancy, and their rights to reproductive automony and freedom from violence are protected. A range of progressive laws and policies have been enacted since 1994 that promote women's rights in the workplace and access to reproductive health care, including safe and legal abortions, and that respond to the high levels of sexual and domestic violence. In a marked departure from other African countries, South Africa protects the rights of lesbians in both the Constitution and national legislation. The Constitutional Court, the apex court in South Africa, has consistently asserted and affirmed the central importance of women's equality in a democratic South Africa. South Africa has a long tradition of women's political leadership. Women were at the forefront of the struggle against apartheid and racial inequality. The country has had two female deputy presidents, and under the last government, 40 percent of ministerial posts were held by women, including posts not traditionally held by women. South Africa also has a vibrant and energetic civil society that provides services, undertakes pioneering research and advocates for equality of women. Despite these advances, South African women still have a long way to go before achieving full equality. The levels of violence against women remain unimaginably and unacceptably high, and with some 15,000 rapes reported every year, rape is an ever-present fear for many women. Despite gay rights being protected, there have been a number of brutal rapes recently of lesbian women. Women continue to bear the brunt of the HIV epidemic, with too many women unable to negotiate safer sex and protect themselves from infection and unwanted pregnancies. The majority of the poor are women living in shacks and unsafe and unsanitary conditions. There is still a long walk to freedom and democracy for the women of South Africa. I am, however, optimistic about progress, with the help of -- or even in spite of -- a Zuma presidency. His appointment of a large number of women ministers, including in the so-called non-traditional ministries of defence, home affairs, foreign affairs and agriculture, bodes well and suggests that Mr Zuma will continue to strive for gender equality within the leadership of his government. Even if he were to try to reverse the gains that we have made, I suspect it will take more than Mr Zuma to dismantle the structures, repeal the legislation and amend the Constitution. I doubt that even he would be able to silence the voices of women who will continue to demand equality and a country where they can live lives free from violence. More on Women's Rights
 
Andrea Chalupa: Seth Green shares his secrets of financial success as 'Unbroke' premieres Top
You know that scene in Wayne's World where Wayne and Garth are really excited to meet Alice Cooper backstage, and all the shock-rocker wants to do is talk about Native American history? Wayne, undeterred, yells out: "Does this guy know how to party or what!" Talking to Seth Green reminded me of that scene -- and also reminded me of being up all night at a slumber party, when the conversation turns deep and dark. But Green parties on a budget. Perhaps that's surprising, considering the normal Hollywood slacker image. Unlike many of his Hollywood cohorts, Green has made sure to stay on top of his books, and now he's got a show to prove it: ABC's UN-BROKE: What You Need to Know About Money (airing Friday, May 29, at 9 p.m. E.S.T.). Green compares UN-BROKE to the Schoolhouse Rock shorts from the 1970s: funny and informative. "We're in a culture that emphasizes a lot of importance on financial wealth," he says. "So I'm concerned for all of America's youth who grew up watching [MTV's] My Super Sweet 16 and Cribs. They have such different goals and aspirations. You can't fault kids for their influences. Kids only learn what you tell them." Green and the rest of his cast are here to help. "The whole goal of the show is to offer kids financial education, without something stale or boring, but super-informative about the basics," he says. In Unbroke, he goes off on the importance of a healthy mortgage. Samuel L. Jackson plays the bestselling author of Broke as Hell and Not Going to Take it Anymore. Will Smith takes on a boardroom of corporate-finance executives (which should be cathartic for all of us). Among other stars demystifying personal finance: Cedric the Entertainer, Christian Slater, Rosario Dawson, and -- in the program's showstopper -- the Jonas Brothers, who teach the secrets of stock-trading to an audience of screaming girls. Perhaps best known as Dr. Evil's mellow son, Scotty, from the Austin Powers franchise, Green recently spent five weeks crisscrossing the continents because he was so burnt out from working -- Tanzania, Dubai, Thailand, Palau, Micronesia. "I got to see what the world would look like if there were no people," he says. "This planet has rejuvenated itself over and over again. Its species are just witnesses. [Earth] is going to reclaim itself once it tires of us. And all that will be left are the bones." On a lighter note, he got to see where Lucy, the earliest hominid, was found in Tanzania -- also the site of Battlestar Galactica's finale. "I called Ron Moore," Battlestar's creator, Green says. "I told him, 'I was just there!'" Green is the co-creator of trippy animation series Robot Chicken on the Cartoon Network's after-hours program Adult Swim. He and his production team churn out 20 episodes a year, working nearly nonstop for 11 months at a time. ( The Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode II DVD comes out July 21.) Green's new series for Adult Swim, Titan Maximum , a stop-motion adventure comedy series about intergalactic fighting forces, comes out in September. Green is also the voice of Chris, Peter Griffin's weirdo son on Family Guy. And, since he must not be big on sleeping, he also stars in upcoming multiplex movies, Old Dogs , with John Travolta and Robin Williams, coming out November 25th, and Simon Wells's Mars Needs Moms , due out in 2011. Green calls Mars the greatest acting challenge of his life. The film used hundreds of cameras in its motion-capture technique. "You could have done The Incredibles and used real actors," Green says. "In two years, you're going to see this." Growing up as a child actor, Green's parents taught him from an early age how to pay his bills and live within his means. "I don't spend a ton of money," he says. "I work very very hard. I save very well. I have assets in specific things, in property, and I live a very simple life. I'm happy with that." Green's advice for success is equally simple: "Work hard, acquire many skills, and don't take anything personally." It's been an eye-opening process, he says, to go from being an actor and becoming a producer as well. He was shocked to realize he was a boss when, at the Robot Chicken holiday party, everyone was treating him a little differently. "Nobody really gives you anything," he says. "It's really up to the individual to propel themselves forward with drive and commitment to a singular purpose." Continued on Walletpop.com... More on Thailand
 
Zandile Blay: Fashion Road Test: Multitasking Mobile Phones Top
Be it a Chanel 2.5 quilted purse, a YSL Tribute tote or a Balenciaga Motorcycle carry-all , a bag can be the most important - and telling - accessory for any fashionista. Yet, for those who have as much style as they do substance, it's what's inside that counts. And generally, that includes lip gloss, business card, a wallet and a sleek phone which is small enough for your pocket but versatile enough to replace your laptop. Luckily, tracking down phones with uber-multitasking capabilities is light work. But time again there is a select list of devices which fashionistas - at least those perpetually busy ones whose daily agenda is as full as their inbox - prefer. They remain the Apple I-Phone, T-Mobile Sidekick, Blackberry and to a much lesser extent, the Google phone. Though each phone has a distinctly different look, feel and even target audience - there is one trait which unites them all: they over perform and over deliver and under cost - if you sign up with a plan. The alpha phone out of the bunch is easily the I-Phone, with a slick design and even slicker marketing that's guaranteed that almost everyone has experienced it directly or indirectly. As a result, I scaled this week's Fashion Road Test back to the remaining three phones, specifically the brand new Sidekick LX, Blackberry Storm and G-1 Google phones. For a one week period, I incorporated each phone into my daily routine. Conducting conference calls, updating my personal blog , uploading photos onto Facebook, adding to my contact list and of course, texting - a lot. So which phone came out tops? Not surprisingly, they all did. The Sidekick LX , the latest phone from the ultra popular Sidekick family, was pure fun - and was expressly designed to be. Of course it provides excellent ways to store and update your contacts, manage your calendar and check your email - but that's not really the point. This latest tricked out version is all about social networking and makes texting, tweeting, and Myspace-ing an absolute breeze. To further appeal to your style and personality it is available in several color ways and prints, including a dainty Orchid design as well as a gritty graphic one designed by legendary skateboarder, Tony Hawk. As a veteran Blackberry user, I almost knew what I was getting before I took the Storm on my week long run: a sophisticated, solid device which not only helps me look the part but live the part of the busy fashion professional. The Blackberry Storm , one of the newest versions of the phone was totally unexpected in what it had to offer: a combination touch screen and key board capability, in built GPS tracking, a video recorder and one of the best phones on a camera you'll ever come across. Despite these new bells and whistles what kept me besotted to this phone was - can you guess it? - Blackberry Messenger, a feature which every 'Berry user gets instantly addicted to. It allows you to chat, communicate and keep track of a select list of folks who also use the Blackberry device. Yet that addictive application wasn't enough to keep me from declaring an underdog as my personal favorite: The G-1 Phone by Google. At first, it was to me - as it may still be to you - confusing. The idea of Google and phone in the same sentence just doesn't seem logical, and yet in reality no combination - save sample and sale - ever made as much sense! From the search engine, to the email account, to the calendar and most recently - the document application - Google has slowly infiltrated and dominated my professional life. (And should I meet the braniacs behind their growth, it is sure to dominate my personal life as well - but I digress.) As a devoted Google-nista, I expected the phone to provide very strong browsing capability at best. Yet, what it delivers is so much more: applications which instantly and seamlessly sync your emails, contacts, and calendar to the phone. As soon as I typed in my Google username and password, I was done. All the essential info I needed was right at my finger tips. It's not as sleek as the Blackberry Storm or as playful as the Sidekick LX, but the G-1 inhabits a happy medium, which revved my engine and ended my search.
 
James Warren: Shhhh. Newspaper Publishers Are Quietly Holding a Very, Very Important Conclave Today. Will You Soon Be Paying for Online Content? Top
Here's a story the newspaper industry's upper echelon apparently kept from its anxious newsrooms: A discreet Thursday meeting in Chicago about their future. "Models to Monetize Content" is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois; slabs of concrete, exhibition halls and mostly chain restaurants, whose prime reason for being is O'Hare International Airport. It's perfect for quickie, in-and-out conclaves. There's no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all. A longtime industry chum, consultant Barbara Cohen, "will facilitate the meeting." One hopes it displays the same sense of purpose as, say, troubled world leaders did at Yalta in 1945 or, in a rather less respectable sector of the economy, beleaguered mob bosses did at a legendary Apalachin, New York, confab in 1957. Cross one's fingers on their behalf, even if there's worry that some don't really possess the nerve and vision to exit a mess for which they hold significant responsibility. There was a dinner Wednesday and, according to the agenda, Thursday begins with a quick declaration of goals at 8 a.m., then an 8:10 a.m. session labeled, "Fair Syndication Consortium/Attributor." It's described as a "presentation on technology/service to track content on the Web and to extract payments from third-parties and ad networks that have appropriated newspaper content." Presumably, Google, Yahoo! and any one of thousands of websites could, and should, get mentioned with scant reverence. Perhaps the age of content theft is coming to an end. That first session is followed by "Journalism Online: Presentation on proposed service to charge for access to newspaper content and to license that content that (sic) online aggregators" (the assistance of at least one of the many copy editors sent packing by the attendees might have been sought). That presentation would seem quite important, with many conflicting ideas floating about whether charging will work and how to even try. The stark reality is that the industry will have to soon start demanding payment for at least some of its online handiwork. There are various ways to go about it, and one size won't fit all. During their days of print advertising plenty, the people in this room, or their predecessors, made the catastrophic, myopic decision to not charge. They gave away their expensive efforts for free. They by and large misjudged the significance of the internet. It's now safe to wager that most attendees, who were scheduled to include Michael Golden of the New York Times, Gary Pruitt of McClatchy and Tom Curley of the Associated Press, will be dragged into charging for at least some online content. Cross one's fingers that a dirty little industry secret, namely the qualitative decline of many papers (the New York Times a notable exception) amid rampant cost-cutting, doesn't now give even long-loyal consumers legitimate pause about paying up. Ultimately, many in attendance will start charging for some online content because they don't know what else to do. They will listen to a session titled, "Aggregating User Data: Collecting enhanced online newspaper user data across newspaper properties and mining that data to aggressively sell target content to specific audience segments across the network (e.g. golf enthusiasts)." Hey, perhaps an industry largely inept at creative marketing will corral Tiger Woods, or other cultural icons, as spokesmen. They could do worse. There will be a "discussion about content models" and, then, lunch. The afternoon brings a session on the disastrous decline in classified advertising and, finally, talk of "Next steps" before most folks scoot to O'Hare and home. I suspect some at this de facto summit were, at best, passable managers while times were flush but never really cut out to think on their feet. There are a few leading executives who come from the considerably easier realms of television and radio, where they made lots of money and then got promoted to oversee the far more complicated organisms of newspapers at their multi-media corporations. Executive recruiters likely do not swarm the industry for talent; certainly not in the same way they've gone after leaders at companies such as General Electric, Wells Fargo Bank or Microsoft over the years. Indeed, the June issue of Fast Company, a very sharp tech and business publication, features a cover story on "The 100 Most Creative People in Business." Perhaps I missed it but I don't think I saw a single newspaper executive mentioned. Why not? Now, more than ever, is a time for creativity and nerve, not just hunkering down and crossing fingers that safe harbor will appear on the horizon. It's a wonderful and important product, vital to American communities. Unlike a lot of jobs, you can look yourself in the mirror and know you're doing some good. Many newsrooms remain filled with a sense of mission even amid the looming dread. At the behest of new corporate superiors (yes, some from radio), I helped oversee the painful layoffs of about 100 in the Chicago Tribune newsroom last year, before being dispatched by someone the Marlon Brando character in "Apocalypse Now" might characterize as "an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect the bill." Fine. It was now their company. I just wish that what would have ensued might have been a strategy beyond a rather pedestrian one, rife with talk of "relevance" and "utility," with a multitude of lists, consumer reporting and de facto aping of local television; all the while needlessly undermining the loyalty of tried-and-true older readers while chasing after youth. It's less what the late philosopher Hannah Arendt tagged the banality of evil than it is the evil of banality. If one believes that newspapers are critical to democracy, one must wish the best to those attending the Thursday meeting. It's sort of like the auto industry: those guys in Detroit screwed things up something fierce but I do hope those companies succeed. In this case, I hope the newspaper honchos, and minions back home, devise new "models to monetize content" and marry them to sophisticated, high-quality editorial visions. It's hard to believe but, who knows, maybe history will one day recall an important meeting in godawful Rosemont. As my my "Star Wars"-obsessed five-year-old son might say, may the Force be with you. This story originally appeared on TheAtlantic.com . More on Newspapers
 
Bernard Rowan: Roh's Second New Day Top
The death of Roh Moo-hyun in an apparent suicide fills me with many thoughts. I was a visiting professor in Seoul during the period of his rise to the presidency. I remember the wave of enthusiasm surrounding his candidacy in autumn 2002, much of it from younger voters. He was the first Korean presidential candidate to emphasize the Internet as a means of rallying supporters. On election night, friends and I gathered to watch the returns. It was nearing the end of my sabbatical, so I was feeling very strongly about my time in Korea. I remember thinking that a new era was dawning. I still recall the next morning seeing one young man hurrying through the subway near City Hall Station early on, wearing the red bandannas that were popular at the time. Roh's suicide seems to have been related to his vision as a leader and to the conclusion that he had failed. He said he could not save face and that he had been a leader for the sake of openness and honesty. Roh felt the allegations against his family members and him left no option. I think he committed suicide to save his family. I find this profoundly saddening. I wrote a column at the end of Roh's first year in office. In it I stated the following, which I will quote at length: . . . it would appear that the problems of money and politics are endemic, and while not limited to Korean politics, they are recurring and persistent issues, even for politicians who wish to remain above the fray like Roh. As former officials are investigated and charged, even the president's supporters have come under suspicion. Not only large conglomerates or chaebol but also medium- and small-sized companies are playing the high stakes game of donations for influence. Here Roh generally has been on target, though much of his response thus far has been rhetorical in nature. His original and continuing refusal to accept such dealings resonates with the public. Yes, his own men are under suspicion, but he has clearly indicated that these actions occurred without his approval or warrant and has also staked his own credibility on the outcome of any inquiries. What else should be done? I went on to suggest that national campaign finance reform be strengthened, including more requirements for public disclosure, limiting various forms of soft money donations, and increasing public funding of presidential elections. It would appear that the problem of money in Korean politics has not disappeared. It is pathetic to view the images of Roh's wife, Ms. Kwon, and the family. There is such dynamism in Korean society, including among those mature women known as ajumma, or housewives. (I remember after the election reading that Roh's wife preferred the designation 'Ajumma Kwon,' which indicated a preference for having an egalitarian reputation.) The term used to designate the wife of a scholar-bureaucrat. Many of today's ajumma are skillful investors in their own right, just like women in other advanced countries. But to see the undoing of such a civil rights activist, leader for peaceful unification and idealist about bribes from a political supporter to family members is bitter dregs indeed. The last decades have seen an explosion of real estate investments by women in Korea. I recall the resignation of former Ehwa President and Prime Minister designate Chang Sang sometime earlier over this type of problem. The death of Roh Moo-hyun is a call for Koreans on all sides of the political spectrum to invigorate their search for ways to limit the influence of money on political candidates and their families. Neither wives, children, nor political leaders themselves are immune. Despite the tribunals, removals from office, trials and convictions, the problem of money in Korean politics remains strong. Roh's death should serve a purpose, and it is one the nation needs to act on badly. In many cultures, suicide to save face or in an action of extreme unction is seen as a form of heroism. In others, action out of shame requires a response by those who have prompted the shame to remove its effect. The death of a president should prompt sober reflection on this issue, new legislation, and another new day in Korea. Roh's death is a call to nothing less. More on Asia
 
Conn Hallinan: Shadow Wars Top
Sudan: The two F-16s caught the trucks deep in the northern desert. Within minutes, the column of vehicles was a string of shattered wrecks burning fiercely in the January sun. Surveillance drones spotted a few vehicles that had survived the storm of bombs and cannon shells, and the fighter-bombers returned to finish the job. Syria: Four Blackhawk helicopters skimmed across the Iraqi border, landing at a small farmhouse near the town of al-Sukkariyeh. Black-clad soldiers poured from the choppers, laying down a withering hail of automatic weapons fire. When the shooting stopped, eight Syrians lay dead on the ground. Four others, cuffed and blindfolded, were dragged to the helicopters, which vanished back into Iraq. Pakistan: a group of villagers were sipping tea in a courtyard when the world exploded. The Hellfire missiles seemed to come out of nowhere, scattering pieces of their victims across the village and demolishing several houses. Between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, 60 such attacks took place . They killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda members along with 687 civilians. In each of the above incidents, no country took responsibility or claimed credit. There were no sharp exchanges of diplomatic notes before the attacks, just sudden death and mayhem. War without Declaration The F-16s were Israeli, their target an alleged shipment of arms headed for the Gaza Strip. The Blackhawk soldiers were likely from Task Force 88 , an ultra-secret U.S. Special Forces group. The Pakistanis were victims of a Predator drone directed from an airbase in southern Nevada. Each attack was an act of war and drew angry responses from the country whose sovereignty was violated. But since no one admitted carrying them out, the diplomatic protests had no place to go . The "privatization" of war, with its use of armed mercenaries, has come under heavy scrutiny, especially since a 2007 incident in Baghdad in which guards from Blackwater USA (now Xe) went on a shooting spree, killing 17 Iraqis and wounding scores of others. But the "covertization" of war has remained largely in the shadows. The attackers in the Sudan, Syria, and Pakistan were not private contractors, but U.S. and Israeli soldiers. Assassination Teams In his book The War Within , The Washington Post's Bob Woodward disclosed that the U.S. military has developed "secret operational capabilities" to "locate, target, and kill key individuals in extremist groups." In a recent interview during a Great Conversations event at the University of Minnesota, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a U.S. military "executive assassination ring," part of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Hersh says that "Congress has no oversight" over the program. According to a 2004 classified document , the United States has the right to attack "terrorists" in some 15 to 20 nations, including Pakistan, Syria, and Iran. The Israeli military has long used "targeted assassinations" to eliminate Tel Aviv's enemies. U.S. and NATO "assassination teams" have emerged in Iraq and Afghanistan, where, according to the UN, they have killed scores of people. Philip Alston of the UN Human Rights Council charges that secret "international intelligence services" allied with local militias are killing Afghan civilians and then hiding behind an "impenetrable" wall of bureaucracy. When Alston protested the killing of two brothers in Kandahar, "not only was I unable to get any international military commander to provide their version of what took place, but I was unable to get any military commander to even admit that their soldiers were involved," he told the Financial Times . In Iraq, such special operations forces have carried out a number of killings, including a raid that killed the son and a nephew of the governor of Salahuddin Province north of Baghdad. The Special Operations Forces (SOF) stormed the house at 3AM and shot the governor's 17-year-old son dead in his bed. When a cousin tried to enter the room, he was also gunned down . Such "night raids" by SOFs have drawn widespread protests in Afghanistan. According to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, night raids involve "abusive behavior and violent breaking and entry," and only serve to turn Afghans against the occupation. Iraqi Prime Minster Nuri Kamal al-Maliki charged that a March 26 raid in Kut that killed two men violated the new security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq. The Predator strikes have deeply angered most Pakistanis. Owais Ahmed Ghani, governor of the Northwest Frontier Province, calls the drone strikes "counterproductive," a sentiment that David Kilcullen, the top advisor to the U.S. military in Afghanistan, agreed with in recent congressional testimony. The U.S. government doesn't officially take credit for the attacks. Budgets and Strategy If Congress agrees to the Defense Department budget proposed by Pentagon chief Robert Gates, attacks by SOF and armed robots will likely increase. While most the media focused on the parts of the budget that step back from the big ticket weapons systems of the Cold War, the proposal actually resurrects a key Cold War priority of the 1960s. "The similarities between Gates' proposals and the strategy adopted by the Kennedy administration are too great to ignore," notes Nation defense correspondent Michael Klare. These similarities include "a shift in focus toward unconventional conflict in the Third World." Gates' budget would increase the number of SOFs by 2,800, build more drones like the Predator and its bigger, more lethal cousin, the Reaper, and enhance the rapid movement of troops and equipment. All of this is part of General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency doctrine. The concept is hardly new. The units are different than they were 50 years ago — Navy SEALS and Delta Force have replaced Green Berets — but the philosophy is the same. And while the public face of counterinsurgency is winning "hearts and minds" by building schools and digging wells, its core is 3 am raids and Hellfire missiles. The "decapitations" of insurgent leaders in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is little different — albeit at a lower level — than Operation Phoenix, which killed upwards of 40,000 "insurgent" leaders in South Vietnam during the war in Southeast Asia.  Hidden Wars In the past, war was an extension of a nation's politics "too important," as World War I French Premier Georges Clemenceau commented, "to be left to the generals. But increasingly, the control of war is slipping away from the civilians in whose name and interests it is supposedly waged. While the "privatization" of war has frustrated the process of congressional oversight, its "covertization" has hidden war behind a wall of silence or denial. Congress has been very passive in relation to its own authority with regard to warmaking, says Princeton international law scholar Richard Falk. "Congress hasn't been willing to insist that the government adhere to international law and the U.S. Constitution." The SFOs may be hidden, but there are eight dead people in Syria, four of them reportedly children. There are at least 39 dead in northern Sudan, and more dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of civilian dead in Pakistan runs into the hundreds. The new defense budget goes a long ways toward retooling the U.S. military to become a quick reaction/intervention force with an emphasis on counterinsurgency and covert war. The question is: Where will the shadow warriors strike next? More on Afghanistan
 
US Fails To Win Hearts And Minds In Afghanistan Top
Jean MacKenzie I GlobalPost KABUL, Afghanistan -- "You've all heard of strategic communications," said the high-ranking U.S. official, holding an off-the-record briefing for journalists in Kabul last month. "It used to be called 'psyops,' and before that, 'propaganda.' Well, the United States is about to unroll a major stratcom initiative. We cannot let men on motorcycles and flatbed trucks win the information war." Welcome to the Battle for Afghan Hearts and Minds, where -- using the language of strategic communications, or "stratcom" -- combat becomes "kinetics," an accidental shooting becomes an "escalation of force" and assassination squads are known as "counterinsurgency operations." In this world, the message is king, and reality is fungible. Clearly discernible in every briefing, interview or conversation with a military official, is the stated policy of the U.S. administration. The message, the official at the Kabul briefing said, was "complex yet simple: The United States is here to help you. We are not occupiers. And the Taliban are not great leaders of the faithful." Unfortunately, that message fell flat in early May in Farah province, when U.S. forces dropped a pair of 2,000-pound bombs on two residential compounds, killing at least 97 people, most of them women and children. It is the largest civilian loss of life since the war began in 2001. The high death toll was due to the size of the bombs, and the fact that residents of the area had placed their families in the homes of tribal elders to shelter them from a firefight between the Taliban and government forces. When the Afghan police and army were in over their heads, they called for help from the U.S. forces, which provided tactical air support and, later, a B-1 bomber. Convinced that insurgents were hiding in the compounds, the air crew dropped their payload. The exact casualty figure is still in doubt, since many of the bodies were so mutilated by the blast that they could not be identified; partial remains were buried in a large common grave. But the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), after conducting extensive investigation, said that 65 children, 21 women and 11 men died in the air strikes. The incident prompted Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to warn that the new U.S. strategy was in real danger unless measures were taken. "We cannot succeed in Afghanistan ... by killing Afghans," he told scholars at the Brookings Institution, in remarks widely quoted in the media. "We can't keep going through incidents like this and expect the strategy to work." That advice has yet to filter down to the operational level in Afghanistan, where clumsy efforts at "messaging" have sought to obscure the scale of the tragedy. Judging by the response to the Farah bombing, "stratcom" is having a bit of trouble getting off the ground. The U.S. military tried desperately to spin the story, initially denying that any significant civilian casualties had resulted from the air strikes. Carefully placed leaks in the media suggested that the Taliban themselves had killed dozens of innocent people with grenades to make it appear that they had been killed by U.S. bombs.That "message" failed to gain traction, and was quietly abandoned. When doctors and public health officials began to speculate on the reasons for the horrendous burns suffered by the Farah victims, the U.S. military circulated reports that the Taliban had been known to use white phosphorous. That, too, was not substantiated. The U.S. conducted an investigation, eventually conceding that 20 or 30 civilians may have died. The Afghan government rushed to announce that 140 civilians had perished, with President Hamed Karzai eager to use this latest outrage to bolster his own anti-American credentials. The Taliban, meanwhile, had a relatively easy time of it, scoring a public relations coup as everyone from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the new U.S. ambassador to Kabul, retired Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, apologized for the killings and pledged to do better. While the insurgents came in for their share of opprobrium for putting civilians at risk, the U.S. military absorbed most of the anger. Human rights groups criticized the "disproportionate" level of force used. An Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission report issued on May 26 quoted chairwoman Dr. Sima Samar, condemning "the use of excessive airpower by the pro-government forces, that consequently causes a high number of civilian casualties." But Col. Greg Julian, spokesman for the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is still trying to shift the blame. "We still do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties, while Taliban extremists deliberately planned this event to create a civilian casualty crisis," he said. He also tried to shift blame for the white phosphorous claim to the Taliban: "White phosphorous was not used by either side -- but the Taliban tried to throw that out there to stir up more public outcry." The Taliban, for their part, continue to beat the anti-American drum. "The Taliban never use civilians as shields," said Qari Yusuf Ahmadi, spokesman for the Taliban, speaking by telephone. "We are here to defend the people, to defend their rights and their honor, to defend Islam. It is the foreigners who kill people." The Taliban spokesman could not refrain from what might be considered gloating. "Everything is playing into our hands," he said. "All Afghans now hate the foreigners. They are occupiers, who do not value people's lives and honor." As propaganda goes, neither side quite has it mastered, at least according to the Afghans who are the ostensible target of the "stratcom" wars. "What can we do?" said Abdul Manaan, a resident of Farah. "We cannot stand up to either side. They both have guns, they both use us as shields. What have we done that we should be the ones getting killed?" Abaceen Nasimi and Fetrat Zerak contributed to this report. Read more from GlobalPost.com. More on War Wire
 
Geri Spieler: Sara Jane Moore---then and now Top
Sara Jane Moore was interviewed on the Today Show this morning. I want to thank Matt Lauer for not giving away all the official, unofficial and exotic details of my book. As the author of, "Taking Aim At the President," I reveal the unpleasant, hidden, unpopular, unseemly, talented, warm, generous and quizzical side to this West Virginia woman who ended up on that sidewalk 40 feet away from the sweat-beaded forehead of the President of the United States. Lauer may have been surprised to find out that our U.S. Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the San Francisco Police Department had her in custody the day before she shot at Ford which was Sunday, Sept. 21. They all knew she had a gun and all knew she had threatened President Ford. Lauer also never questioned the repeated inconsistencies during the show about how far that bullet came to hitting Ford's head? One reporter said several feet and another said it just missed. Which is it? According to my book and the official record---she missed his head by a mere six inches, and for that we are thankful. Had Sara Jane shot at Ford with her own gun, a .44 Charter Arms Revolver, she would have hit him between the eyes. Her gun had been confiscated the day before by the SFPD. She bought a .38 revolver she had never used before. As she drove from the gun dealer, she loaded it in her lap while racing down Highway 580 towards San Francisco. What she didn't know is that the sight was off. The FBI, Secret Service, Judge Samuel Conti and the SFPD will all tell you the same thing: If she had been using her own gun, history and lives would be different. President Ford told me, in 2003, he believed Sara Jane escaped all the different protective agencies because they didn't talk to each other. He compared the slip to the lack of communication during the 9-11 disaster and his fear was that lack of communication will continue as agencies are reluctant to give up power. Someone as complicated as Sara Jane Moore deserves serious inquiry---as she did not then, and would not now; raise any alarms on any street corner in the U.S. today.
 
Stephen Zunes: Defending Israeli War Crimes Top
In response to a series of reports by human rights organizations and international legal scholars documenting serious large-scale violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli armed forces in its recent war on the Gaza Strip, 10 U.S. state attorneys general sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defending the Israeli action. It is virtually unprecedented for state attorneys general — whose mandates focus on enforcement of state law — to weigh in on questions regarding the laws of war, particularly in a conflict on the far side of the world. More significantly, their statement runs directly counter to a broad consensus of international legal opinion that recognizes that Israel, as well as Hamas, engaged in war crimes. The wording of the letter closely parallels arguments by Bush administration officials in support for Israel's devastating offensive during their final days in office. Having been signed nearly 11 weeks after the end of the fighting and made public only late last month, it may have been part of an effort to undermine tentative efforts by the Obama administration to take a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A statement by state attorneys general putting forth a legal rationale for the large-scale killings of civilians is particularly distressing as concerns about civilian casualties from U.S. air and missile strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan has grown. The attorneys general signing on to the letter included Republicans Rob McKenna of Washington, Mike Cox of Michigan, John Suthers of Colorado, Bill McCollum of Florida, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, and Mark Shurtleff of Utah. Signatories also included such prominent Democrats as Richard Cordray of Ohio, Patrick Lynch of Rhode Island, Jack Conway of Kentucky, and Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana. Facile Legal Reasoning The legal rationale put forward in the March 30 letter is extraordinarily facile. For example, they claim that the war waged on the civilian infrastructure of the Gaza Strip was taken in furtherance of Israel's "right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter." In reality, however, while Article 51 does allow countries the right to resist an armed attack, it doesn't grant any nation the right to engage in such a disproportionate response. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak admitted that the Israeli invasion had been planned for months, back when a six-month cease fire was still in effect. Even when Hamas resumed firing rockets into Israel in December, following a deadly Israeli raid into Gaza the previous month, there were few casualties. Indeed, not a single Israeli had been killed by Hamas rocket attacks for more than half a year prior to Israel launching its war on December 27. During the subsequent three weeks of fighting, Palestinians killed 10 Israelis, three of whom were civilians, while Israeli forces killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, the vast majority of whom were civilians.  Incredibly, these attorneys general insist that these mass killings by Israeli forces were "justified and, in our view, met the international legal standards." The attorneys general also ignored the fact that Article 33 of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits nations going to war unless they "first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."  However, Israel — with strong bipartisan U.S. support — had refused to even meet with Hamas to negotiate a long-term ceasefire, which Hamas had offered prior to the breakdown of the six-month lull in return for a lift in the Israeli siege of the enclave. The letter correctly accuses Hamas, which had lobbed rockets into civilian-populated areas in southwestern Israel, of violating Article 48 of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1948, which states: "Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." However, the attorneys general refused to acknowledge that Israel had also violated that same provision on a far grander scale. While virtually every human rights organization, intergovernmental organization, and international legal authority that researched this recent conflict recognizes both Hamas and Israel were guilty of war crimes, these attorneys general still insist that Hamas alone was to blame and that Israel's actions were perfectly legal. Ignoring the Facts Human Rights Watch (HRW) — which has been highly critical of Hamas attacks on civilian areas of Israel as well as repression by the Islamist group of Palestinian opponents within the Gaza Strip — reported during the fighting that in using heavy shelling against heavily-populated civilian areas, "Israel is committing indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war." In a comprehensive report published in March, HRW noted that "Israel's repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes." Similarly, while Amnesty International also "found evidence of war crimes and other serious violations of international law by all parties to the conflict" and attacks by both sides against civilian areas in which no fighters were present, the attorneys general insisted that the Palestinian side alone was guilty of such illegal actions. An independent United Nations inquiry documented six major Israeli attacks against UN buildings, including schools in which children were killed, noting that actions by Israeli forces "involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness with regard to United Nations premises and to the safety of United Nations staff and other civilians within those premises, with consequent deaths, injuries and extensive physical damage and loss of property." The report concluded that "no military activity was carried out from within the United Nations premises in any of the incidents." Without presenting any evidence to the contrary, the attorneys general categorically rejected such findings, insisting that Israel was engaged only in "a limited and directed action against the source of Hamas's military acts." The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) focused on other war crimes, noting how the "Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded," citing instances in which Israeli forces prevented Red Cross or other medics safe access to assist seriously wounded civilians. The Israeli chapter of Physicians for Human Rights reported with "certainty" that Israel violated international humanitarian law by attacking medics, damaging medical buildings, engaging in indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and delaying medical treatment for the injured. The ICRC declared Israel's "delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable." In addition, Israel rejected pleas by international humanitarian agencies by closing border crossings days at a time, denying access to food, medical supplies, fuel, and water sanitation equipment. Despite this, the attorneys general instead praised Israel for "allowing the entrance of humanitarian aid into Gaza." A report by a delegation of prominent U.S. attorneys which visited Gaza Strip soon after the fighting reported that "that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians during the Gaza offensive." The Israeli press has reported testimony of Israeli soldiers who killed Palestinian civilians under highly permissive rules of engagement that allowed soldiers to kill any Palestinian in certain areas regardless of whether they were armed, and were ordered to intentionally destroy civilian property. An investigation by the British newspaper The Guardian revealed a series of Israeli missile attacks against clearly distinguishable civilian targets. United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Richard Falk, noting Israel's "unlawful uses of force on a large scale" against Gazan society as a whole, referred to the operation as a "flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, as set forth in the Geneva Conventions." Falk, an American Jew and emeritus professor at Princeton University who is arguably the country's preeminent international legal scholar, also noted the illegality of Hamas rocket attacks into Israel, but stressed that Israeli airstrikes "were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world." Ignoring such evidence, the attorneys general insisted that Israel was directing its artillery, bombings and missile attacks only towards "the source of Hamas's military attacks" and the Israeli government should therefore not be held responsible for any military action which harmed Palestinian civilians because they did so "unintentionally." Defending Mass Killings of Civilians These attorneys general try to absolve Israel of any responsibility of the hundreds of civilian deaths by accusing Hamas of "using these civilians as human shields." They provide no evidence for this charge, however, save for a quote from the notoriously right-wing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal . Independent human rights groups have accused Hamas of less-severe violations of international humanitarian law, such as not taking all necessary steps it should to prevent civilian casualties when it positioned fighters and armaments too close to concentrations of civilians. However, this isn't the same thing as deliberately using civilians as shields. Furthermore, the nature of urban warfare, particularly in a territory as densely populated as the Gaza Strip, makes the proximity of retreating fighters and their equipment to civilians unavoidable in many cases. Even if Hamas were using human shields in the legal definition of the term, it still does not absolve Israel from its obligation to avoid civilian casualties. Amnesty International has noted that the Geneva Conventions make it clear that even if one side is shielding itself behind civilians, such a violation "shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians." To argue otherwise, as do these attorneys general, is a dangerous legal position for the chief law enforcement official of a state to take, such as ordering their state police to kill innocent people in a hostage situation. By this logic, if a botched bank robbery led the would-be robbers to hold bank employees and customers at gunpoint, these attorneys general could then order state patrolmen to kill the gunmen and hostages alike, defending their action on the grounds that the bad guys were using "human shields." Denying Political Reality It's not just this flawed legal reasoning that underscores how this initiative by these attorneys general was based not upon a legitimate interpretation of law but for narrow ideological purposes. They reveal their political prejudices in their insistence in the letter to Clinton in claiming that "Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005" but that the Palestinians failed to establish "a flourishing independent state." In reality, despite the removal of illegal Israeli settlements and the withdrawal of occupation forces from that crowded urban enclave, Israel has maintained sole control over Gaza Strip's airspace and territorial waters, thereby prohibiting movement of people and goods by land and sea, as well as largely controlling the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt. Effectively preventing any exports or imports, except for occasional humanitarian aid, the economy has collapsed and, even prior to the war, the territory was experiencing a serious humanitarian crisis. Since Israel's "withdrawal," the Israeli government has also controlled the Gaza Strip's electricity, water and telecommunications and has periodically engaged in air strikes and armed incursions into the enclave, murdering and kidnapping suspected militants. No people could reasonably be expected to establish "a flourishing independent state" under such circumstances. Furthermore, in maintaining their siege on the enclave, Israel legally remains the occupying power. The attorneys general go on to accuse Hamas of taking advantage of Israel's "withdrawal" to "cause a civil war with the Palestinian Authority, leading to a coup d'etat in 2007." However, while Hamas is indeed guilty of innumerable political intrigues and inexcusable violence towards its Palestinian opponents, this is a gross misrepresentation of recent history. Rather than making war against the Palestinian Authority, Hamas was part of the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, they controlled the legislative branch of government as well as the post of prime minister and most other ministries as a result of winning the plurality of the vote in parliamentary elections in January 2006. The following year, Saudi officials negotiated a power-sharing agreement between Hamas and Fatah, which still controlled the presidency. U.S. officials, however, unsuccessfully encouraged President Mahmoud Abbas to renounce the agreement, dismiss the entire government and abolish parliament. The Bush administration then began secretly arming Fatah groups to enable them to fight Hamas and pushing Fatah to stage a coup . This is what led Hamas to launch a countercoup by overrunning Fatah offices and taking full control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Alvaro de Soto, former UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, stated in his confidential final report leaked to the press a few weeks before the Hamas takeover that "the Americans clearly encouraged a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas" and "worked to isolate and damage Hamas and build up Fatah with recognition and weaponry." De Soto also recalled how in the midst of Egyptian efforts to arrange a cease-fire following a flare-up in factional fighting earlier that
 
Zambrano Suspended For 6 Games After Flipout Top
CHICAGO — Chicago Cubs pitcher Carlos Zambrano was suspended for six games by Major League Baseball on Thursday for his tirade this week during a game against the Pittsburgh Pirates. Zambrano's agent, Barry Praver, said the penalty, which included a fine, will not be appealed. The suspension began Thursday night and barring rainouts Zambrano will be eligible to pitch next Thursday at Atlanta. The Cubs ace threw a baseball into left field and slammed his glove against the dugout fence after he was ejected Wednesday with Chicago leading 2-1 in the seventh inning of a 5-2 victory Pittsburgh. With Nyjer Morgan at third, Zambrano's wild pitch just got away from catcher Geovany Soto. Zambrano covered the plate for Soto's throw, Morgan slid and umpire Mark Carlson ruled him safe. Zambrano jumped up, argued and was ejected after he appeared to nudge Carlson. Zambrano then pointed in Carlson's face and gave him the ejection sign. He then fired a ball into left, tossed his glove and took a bat to a dugout drink dispenser before heading to the clubhouse. Bob Watson, baseball's vice president in charged is discipline, cited Zambrano for "inappropriate and violent actions on the field and in the dugout." More on Sports
 
Tasha Gordon-Solmon: The Bachelor: Riverdale Edition Top
So we all know by now, Archie is proposing to Veronica . He has chosen the glamorous snob over All American Betty. (Or Molly over Melissa, if you will.) But I have some serious questions to ask, before Riverdale's favorite single red-head takes the plunge. 1. Is Archie really ready to put his heart on the line? 2. Is he sure he isn't going to change his mind and go back to Betty? (And if he does, will Veronica get her own show? I mean comic book? And is that what she really wanted all along?) 3. Finally, why are Betty and Veronica still fighting over Archie? Have the past 50 years of Archie's indecision taught them nothing? (Like, say, maybe he isn't ready to make a commitment?) Besides, haven't these women noticed how long Jughead's fingers are? Just saying...
 
Dave Johnson: California Election Results -- What The Public Wants Top
Did the results of the special election on the budget propositions really show that the public is against taxes and government, as the Republicans claim?  Recent polling looked at the reasons the propositions failed.  Polls are a useful way to understand what people really thing because they take a scientific sample, actually asking the voters what they think, instead of just repeating something that Republicans just say.  Let's see what the voters give as their reasons for opposing the propositions.  From the polling: 74% of voters polled thought the election was just a gimmick, not an actual fix for California's budget problems. 70% of the voters polled said the legislature is a captive of special interests (possibly because people are learning that the "budget deal" that they came up with in the middle of this emergency included a huge tax cut for large, multi-state corporations.) In a budget battle dominated by Republican demands for spending cuts instead of asking the rich and corporations to pay their fair share only 19% of voters polled said that Californians are being asked to share the pain equally.  And to drive that point home, only 29% of voters polled said that the budget should be balanced only with spending cuts .  According to the polling "even among 'No' voters, less than half (46%) say the government should rely entirely on spending cuts with no tax increases." In summary, voters resented that the legislature is held captive by the 2/3 rule, and want them to address that instead of coming up with short-term gimmicks to get through another year while making things even worse later. Additionally, and completely contrary to anti-tax and anti-government claims, the polling showed "broad support for new revenue streams."  According to the polling report, the public supports: Increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages (75% support) Increasing taxes on tobacco (74% support) Imposing an oil extraction tax on oil companies just like every other oil producing state (73% support) Closing the loophole that allows corporations to avoid reassessment of the value of new property they purchase (63% support) Increasing the top bracket of the state income tax from nine point three percent to 10 percent for families with taxable income over $272,000 a year and to eleven percent for families with taxable incomes over $544,000 a year (63% support) Prohibiting corporations from using tax credits to offset more than fifty percent of the taxes they owe (59% support) The corporate right has to spin last week's special election as an anti-tax vote.  What else can they do?  But, as usual, their spin goes completely the other way from the facts. Let's put them to the test.   The corporate right claims that this election showed that the public is solidly against government and taxes.  If they really believe that, how about reinstating majority rule in California, instead of requiring a 2/3 vote to pass budgets and taxes?   Since they claim that the public is solidly against taxes, will they also support a straight up-or-down vote on taxes?  Of course not.  The public is not with them and they know it. This is just a ruse to continue destroying our great state and our democratic process . Click through to Speak Out California . More on Taxes
 
Marcia G. Yerman: Carville and Rove Duke It Out at Radio City Music Hall Top
On May 26th, Radio City Music Hall played host to James Carville and Karl Rove for the final night of their Speaker Series . Even before Charlie Rose - who tried to moderate - said, "Welcome to the world heavy weight match," all I could think of was the hype that had surrounded the "Thrilla in Manilla." Instead of getting Ali and Frazier, the crowd braced itself for a confrontation between Carville - "The Ragin' Cajun," and Rove - "The Boy Genius." There was drama and theatrics galore. Billed as "live and uncensored," in addition to the debate, demonstrators and hecklers were in the theater. Three men unfurled a banner that read "Indict Rove - Mr. Thief. Prosecute the War Criminals." Another said, "Obama is a terrorist." A woman ran onto the stage with handcuffs, accosting Rove, to make a "citizen's arrest." Jean Stevens, National Media Coordinator for Code Pink , confirmed that the woman (tackled by security guards) was a member of the organization. Diversionary catcalls in the balcony seats made much of this activity possible. At the beginning of the evening, Rose appealed to the audience to "accept and listen to thoughts and ideas" they might disagree with. He had little more success with his two guests, who frequently spoke over each other, making parts of their conversation inaudible. It was clear that Carville supporters outnumbered their Rove counterparts. However, a woman seated behind me, a Rove partisan, supplied a running counter-commentary to Carville's insights. The two men's intellectual and presentation styles were reflected in the visual cues of their dress and body language. Rove appeared in a suit and tie. Carville sported slacks with a checked shirt and blue tie. The two large monitors amplified the over-sized gestures of Carville, from the cleaning of his glasses while Rove spoke, to his emphatic head shaking in reaction and disbelief to Rove's observations. Rose put the ball into play with a query on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Rove was not impressed with the choice, and made an aside about "the vetting problems of Barack Obama." Carville spoke about Sotomayor's experience and degrees from Princeton and Yale. Rove retorted, "You don't have to be particularly smart to graduate from an Ivy League school." The subtext of that observation ricocheted back onto him, as a big laugh emanated from the crowd. "Restoration of confidence in the country," emphasized Carville. He posited that Obama's biggest accomplishment to date was, "The country is more optimistic and we feel better about ourselves." He added, "Let's give it a chance. We're doing pretty good so far. It's been four months." Rove acknowledged that the United States had come a long way from the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's granting, "Obama is an historic figure." He then segued into the thought, "There are people that didn't want George Bush to succeed." A voice from the middle rows yelled out, "That's a lie!" The Republican Party, its future, and the personas of Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney were analyzed. Carville got guffaws by saying, "I don't want Rush Limbaugh to shut up." Rove responded by moving the dialogue to Nancy Pelosi territory. "Pelosi did a drive-by with the CIA...That's not the way a leader acts." On Guantanamo, Rove remarked, "I would be amazed if Obama can figure out how to move forward from a closing of Gitmo." Carville doubled back with his oft-repeated disaster theme. "Barack Obama inherited a disaster," he said. "The Republicans have an excuse for everything, and an answer for nothing." Carville pointed to 2005 as a particularly low point, with the push for the privatization of Social Security, the Terri Schiavo case, and the Katrina debacle. It was the issue of Katrina that created the biggest fireworks of the night. Much of the discourse was lost as Carville and Rove talked over each other in a cacophonous duet. Carville responded to Rove's assertions with, "I fall off the back of my chair." Rove rejoined, "I love the histrionics here." The match continued with a series of one-liner volleys. Rove : "Bill Clinton had a brilliant political mind, but was undisciplined. He will be a footnote in history." Carville : "George Bush will not be a foot note in history. Noooo. I had to defend eight bad minutes. Karl had had to defend eight bad years. Karl, I feel for you, man." Rove : "The world is safer by having Saddam Hussein gone. Bush will be seen as a person who fought terrorism. Obama is adopting Bush's foreign policy." Carville : "There was massive incompetence in Iraq. Take responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault. Take responsibility. It's bad for children to see this!" The show ended with Rove and Carville shaking hands. The woman behind me was talking almost as fast as Carville saying, "Rove is right. Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco created their own disaster by not taking a category five hurricane barreling toward them seriously...Nancy Pelosi is a liar. In the glow of 9/11, she took the information and accepted it...Bush was right to be tough on terrorism. He saved us from a couple of hits." Nobody who went in with a defined set of ideas came out with a fresh point of view. For most, that was not the objective. Rather, it was about the sparring and the jabbing, and who landed the most punches. A political Thrilla in Manilla. Technorati Profile More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Nate Silver: How Republicans Could Sacrifice Hispanic Vote And Win White House Top
Since the Republicans, to say the least, do not seem particularly inclined to curry favor with Hispanic voters by playing nice on Sonia Sotomayor, it's worth engaging in the following thought experiment: Can the Republicans win back the White House in 2012 or 2016 while losing further ground among Latinos? And if so, what is their most plausible path to victory? I think the answer to the first question is 'yes' -- although it depends, of course, on exactly how much more ground they lose, as well as how much ground they could hope to gain among white voters.
 
Jeff Norman: Advice to Gays: Know Thy Enemy Top
Although this week's decision by the California Supreme Court is understandably disappointing to proponents of same sex marriage, it should not be interpreted as any sort of disrespect to gays and their rights. Indeed, this is the very same court which last year ruled that gays do enjoy the right to marry under the California Constitution. The just-decided case was about only whether the election results of Proposition 8 legally amended the California Constitution, and if so, where that leaves same sex couples who are already married. The plaintiffs presented the court with a very legalistic argument which hung on the premise that Proposition 8 called for a revision of the Constitution (which, by ballot initiative, is impermissible under state law) rather than an amendment (which is legal). The court ruled that pursuant to Proposition 8, the Constitution was amended in a lawful manner by California voters. I am not equipped to evaluate the reasoning upon which today's decision is based, but I know this: Proponents of gay marriage need to get focused and figure out who their enemies are and are not. It appears that the public - or at least a huge portion of it - is the primary foe. Furthermore, it is not the role of courts to tell people how to vote. That is the job of gay rights advocates who are probably wasting their time and alienating potential allies by directing their rage at jurists who have acknowledged their constitutional right to marry. The basic argument that everyone deserves to be treated equally is ultimately an unbeatable position. Gays and those who support them should stick to that message and do so on a national level instead of relying on the minutiae of state law to advance the cause. The U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy should be repudiated often and loudly, because it represents the only federal authorization to deny an oppressed minority equal status on the basis of oppressors feeling uncomfortable when the minority exercises its First Amendment rights. When protesters take to the streets tonight and in the coming days, they will do themselves and their cause a disservice if all they do is denounce the California Supreme Court justices as a bunch of ignorant homophobes. Three simple words of advice: Know thy enemy. Jeff Norman blogs at CitizenJeff.com .
 
Is Robert Gibbs The Funniest Press Secretary Ever? Top
Whenever there's laughter in the James S. Brady Briefing Room -- by either the briefer or the briefed -- the official White House stenographer indicates as much by inserting "(Laughter.)" into the transcript. And in Robert Gibbs' first four months as President Barack Obama's press secretary, there have been more than 600 instances of "(Laughter.)"
 
Bing: Microsoft's New Search Engine Takes On Google Top
CARLSBAD, Calif.--Microsoft Corp. Thursday unveiled a major overhaul to its Internet search engine, as it enters a new chapter in its rivalry with Google Inc. Microsoft is rebranding its search engine, currently called Live Search, as "Bing" as part of a range of steps to make its search technology more appealing to consumers. More on Sergey Brin
 
Bill Maher: New Rule: Return To Lender Top
New Rule: Tim Geithner must shut up and take the money Check out Real Time with Bill Maher live Fridays at 10PM ET/PT - Only On HBO. More on Bill Maher
 
5 Recession-Savvy Dating Tips Top
First dates at Le Cirque and second dates in St. Barth's are out (for me, and maybe you, they were never in, but you get the point). Everyone's feeling pressure on their wallets, and so for a lot of folks, that means pressure on the dating budget. What are the dating experts advocating in the downturn? Mainly: Be cheap and be wary. Be very wary. More on The Recession
 
Brooklyn To Get A Putt-Putt Course With Repurposed Obstacles Top
The course, which opens for the season June 6, occupies a lot at 12 Wyckoff Avenue that was a former dumping ground for everything from broken toilets to car parts. It will be built almost entirely from repurposed materials. One hole, for instance, will include obstacles like scrap-car doors to simulate the hazards of city cycling. Another will use recycled soda bottles to create a water feature with a pier-like structure. A third will have a mock bodega where golfers will have to navigate around boxes and milk crates.
 
RNC Asserts Copyright To Remove Embarassing "Pussy Galore" Pelosi Video Top
The Republican National Committee yesterday removed a controversial video comparing Nancy Pelosi to Bond girl Pussy Galore from its YouTube account. Today, the RNC asserted its copyright to the video to remove any trace of it from YouTube, asking the service to take a copy of the video down from the account of a Politico reader who had reposted it. More on Nancy Pelosi
 
Jon And Kate Update: Jon Drinking Beer In NY, Kate And Kids In NC Top
On Top: Jon Gosselin knockin' back a beer with two ladies at Front Street bar and grill in Newburgh, New York on Memorial Day. On Bottom: Kate plus most of the eight getting off a ferry on Bald Head Island, North Carolina yesterday morning. More on Jon & Kate Plus 8
 
Martin Indyk: Clinton Felt Misled By Former Israeli President Ehud Barak Top
Check out this blockbuster interview with former ambassador (twice) to Israel, Martin Indyk. It appears in Yediot Achronoth today in Hebrew and is very different from standard interviews with former and possibly future diplomats. More on Israel
 
Dr. Alex Benzer: What Is Spirituality: 5 (Not So) Easy Steps to Happiness Top
I live in Los Angeles, which may well be ground zero for spiritual movements in the United States. Many such groups got their start here, and the diversity of faiths and movements is impressive - from old to new, from sincere to shady, from truly elevating to downright toxic. People engage in all manner of practice here -- singing, chanting, doing yoga, donning exotic clothes, and sometimes even going so far as changing their names or, even more drastic, getting tattoos. For the new seeker, the variety can be bewildering; to the skeptic, proof of frivolity. They can't all possibly matter, and they can't all be right at the same time now, can they? Faced with all these choices, spirituality can be a daunting concept. What does it really mean to be spiritual? A hundred people will respond a hundred different ways, so I won't pretend to have the universal answer. What I can tell you is what spirituality means to me. It comes down to five simple principles: 1) Be the best possible version of you. From the day you're born, your days on this planet are numbered. At this rate, I'm guessing I've got 22,000 more to go. The good news is that during this time, there's nothing holding you back from striving for excellence in every endeavor you undertake. So give your best in your work and your friendships and infuse it all with love. So you have this extraordinary opportunity to develop your talents in all kinds of spheres. Got a knack for cooking? Pick up a cookbook and start experimenting on your friends at dinner parties. Have an ear for music? Noodle on a guitar and learn some chords. Good at languages? Listen to some audio courses and say "get me a beer" in 24 tongues. Some of these skills will be more fun and others will be more useful. Arguably, the most rewarding skills will be those that end up enriching the lives of those around you as well as your own. Which brings us to the second point. 2) Treat others exceptionally well. The essence of spirituality is realizing that at the very bottom, all humans are much more similar than different. Therefore spirituality is not about trappings, conventions, rituals or adherence to doctrine. It's simply about how well you treat others. So if you think that those with a different creed or costume are not deserving of your compassion, then you're not really spiritual, regardless of how much prayer or meditation you put in. But if you're an atheist who's a source of elevation and enrichment to all those around you - hate to break it to you, but you're spiritual. Spirituality manifests in action, so let go of dogma and ritual. Instead, resolve to treat people exceptionally well. That is the essence of compassion. 3) Practice enlightened self-interest. I've observed that when you act at all times with your long-term self-interest in mind, you usually ends up taking the most compassionate course of action. I call this the 'long-now' mindset; in fact, there's a whole group of forward thinkers in San Francisco dedicated to this way of thinking, the Long Now Foundation . Let me illustrate with an example. Let's say you want to buy a car. You may think, "Well, I like big cars, so I'm gonna get me one of these bigass SUVs." That's super short-term thinking. Then you think, "Hmm, gas prices are only going to rise, so maybe I should get a smaller car." That's longer term. Then: "Y'know, if I'm going to have kids some day and don't want their school to be under water, maybe I should do my part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I'll get a hybrid." By thinking about your self-interest a generation or two down the road, you end up doing the 'compassionate' thing. Taoist thought is suspicious about taking actions because they're good or noble - it's all about practicality. That's what I like about long-now thinking: it's less about being nice than it is about being smart. 4) Think independently of circumstance Newsflash: today, you are not just Homo sapiens , or thinking man. You are Homo sapiens sapiens , thinking thinking man (and woman). What the anthropologists who named the human race had in mind originally I can't speculate. But to me, it means that you, the crown jewel of all creation, able to peer into the depths of the universe that birthed you and fathom its origins, are capable of thought. And not just thought, but thought about thought. You can be thinking one moment, "Aw man, that bastard just cut me off - I hate him!" And the next second you can think, "Well, that's silly - he's probably just late for work," and proceed to chuckle about the incident and continue along your merry way. What you did there was a skill unique to humans called metacognition , or thinking about thinking. In addition to your ability to have thoughts about thoughts, it's also your general ability to redirect thought independently of circumstance. If in delicate moments you've ever chosen to focus on baseball scores or George Clooney instead of the task at hand, congratulations - you have performed metacognition. Ladies and gentlemen - this is kind of a big deal. One could say that strengthening your metacognition muscle is the essence of all Eastern spiritual practice. To be the calm in the storm, to transmute hate into love, to choose the best action instead of reacting to circumstance unconsciously - these are all metacognitive skills and the goal of meditative practice. As an added bonus, metacognitive skills may also be the foundation of lifelong success, as elaborated in this brilliant article by Jonah Lehrer in this week's New Yorker . Young children who are able to suppress their urges for immediate gratification by redirecting their attention end up being much more successful as adults. 5) Practice gratitude. If you're reading this now, chances are you have a roof over your head, clean clothes on your body, and a decent internet connection - i.e., a lot to be grateful for. So appreciate everything that you may have taken for granted - friends, family, food, shelter, health, fuzzy slippers. Gratitude is its own reward - the more you practice it, the better you'll feel. Make it a practice every morning to set aside a few minutes to jot down five things you're grateful for. After just a week, you'll be surprised by the list and learn a lot about what really matters to you. So if you're running around developing yourself while doing things you enjoy, making people feel great around you while keeping yourself in good stead over the long term, and controlling your thoughts so they create your happiness and success while being grateful about it all, you're not just being spiritual - you're winning at life. And you don't need any trappings for that - just you will do. More on Spirituality
 
Rihanna Will Testify Top
LOS ANGELES — Rihanna is among the witnesses whom prosecutors plan to call during a hearing in Chris Brown's assault case, an attorney said Thursday. Donald Etra, Rihanna's lawyer, told reporters that prosecutors have told him the Barbados-born singer will receive a subpoena to testify at a preliminary hearing June 22. The hearing will focus on whether there is enough evidence to continue the case against Brown. Etra said Rihanna will comply with the order. It would mark her first appearance in court since felony assault and criminal threats charges were filed against Brown in March. If she is called to testify, the 21-year-old singer would be subject to cross-examination by Brown's attorney, Mark Geragos. Other potential witnesses have not been named, but will likely include police investigators. Brown was arrested in February on suspicion of hitting and choking Rihanna in a rented car hours before the couple were scheduled to appear at the Grammys. Etra wouldn't address their relationship now, but said Rihanna, whose real name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty, was following the case closely. A judge on Thursday rejected a motion by Geragos to receive police and investigative records related to the case and the apparent leak of a photo of a beaten and bruised Rihanna. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patricia Schnegg told Geragos the motion was premature and he could file it again after the preliminary hearing. Brown wasn't in court Thursday, but he's required to attend the preliminary hearing. The 20-year-old R&B singer faces possible sentences that range from probation to nearly five years in prison if convicted. Geragos argued that he should have access to the records to properly cross-examine police witnesses during the preliminary hearing. He also said intense public interest in the case should require the records' release. Schnegg said Brown's fame wasn't an issue she was going to consider. She also called Geragos' motion "a fishing expedition." She also said the records, which Geragos wants to use to search for police bias or misconduct, don't have anything to do with Brown's arrest. She said officers responded to a 911 call and the "Run It!" singer was arrested well before the photo of Rihanna's battered face was posted by celebrity gossip Web site TMZ. More on Chris Brown & Rihanna
 
Derrick Rose SAT Scandal: Potential NCAA Violations Could Hit Memphis, Tarnish Rose Top
Memphis athletic director R.C. Johnson Thursday defended the Tigers men's basketball program of any wrongdoings, but wouldn't confirm that Derrick Rose is the player at the center of alleged major NCAA violations. "We wouldn't play anybody if we hadn't checked it out pretty thoroughly," Johnson told The Associated Press. In a letter to the school, obtained by The Commercial Appeal of Memphis, the NCAA says the athlete in question played for the Tigers in the 2007-08 season and the 2008 NCAA tournament. The only person who played just that season was Rose. The NCAA says an unknown person took the SAT for the player, who then used that test to get into Memphis. The NCAA Clearinghouse vets players' test scores and academic standing. Johnson would not identify the player involved for privacy reasons. However, he said the player is cooperating with Memphis' thorough investigation into allegations. "Nobody has thrown up any road blocks. We're trying to get it resolved and do it the right way," Johnson said. The NCAA has asked Memphis to provide copies of the SAT and a Sept. 2, 2008, report by a forensic document examiner who studied the handwriting in the SAT. Rose was the No. 1 pick in the 2008 NBA draft by Chicago and this season's rookie of the year. His agent, B.J. Armstrong, did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press. Memphis was notified Jan. 16 of the potentially major violations in the men's basketball program and will appear June 6 in Indianapolis before the NCAA Committee on Infractions for a hearing. Johnson declined to provide any details on what Memphis has found in its investigation prior to the hearing. "We've been working on this for some time and continue to get our final presentation finalized and make sure we dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts," Johnson said. New Memphis coach Josh Pastner told the AP that he wasn't aware of the allegations when offered the job in April to replace John Calipari. "It's nothing that will affect the current team, which I believe," said Pastner, who first joined the staff as an assistant in June 2008. "I can't comment anymore than that." The biggest penalty Memphis is facing would be forfeiting the 38 wins and the Final Four trip with no scholarship reductions expected. Kentucky president Lee Todd reiterated in a statement Thursday that his university was aware of the inquiry while interviewing Calipari and added that this was issue between Memphis and the NCAA. "We are confident that Coach Calipari was not involved in any way," Todd said. "He was very open with us about what he was aware of at that particular time, and since this is an issue between the University of Memphis and the NCAA and not a UK issue, we will not be commenting further on anything related to this situation." The alleged violations occurred under Calipari, who left March 31 to take over at Kentucky. Calipari was told by the NCAA in a letter that he was not at risk of being charged with any violations in the case, according to a statement by Kentucky. Calipari said in the statement that he would fully cooperate with the NCAA's hearing and had no further comment. ___ AP Sports Writer Andrew Seligman in Chicago contributed to this report. More on Sri Lanka
 
Murdoch's Newspaper Predictions: Printed Newspaper May Go Away, One Chicago Newspaper Will Die (VIDEO) Top
News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch made an appearance on his corporation's business station, Fox Business Network, Thursday to speak to Brian Sullivan about the future of newspapers. Murdoch, a steadfast believer in newspapers, acknowledged that people may consume newspaper products on electronic devices in the future but assured that online content will be paid for eventually. "Newspapers may look very different. Instead of an analog product printed on paper, you may get it on a panel which will be mobile, which will receive the whole newspaper over the air, and be updated every hour or two. All of these things are possible. "You're going to have to pay for your favorite newspaper on the Web," he added. Free content online "is going to stop. Newspapers will be selling subscriptions on the Web. The whole thing [premium content] will be there. The Web as it is today will be vastly improved, they'll be much in them and you'll pay for them." Murdoch added that News Corp would "never take money from the government" because it would represent the end of freedom of the press. "I don't believe even the New York Times would," he said. "I don't think the government would even do it. They'd realize this would be the end of it." Murdoch closed the interview with a prediction that one of the Chicago newspapers will die. "One will go away," he said. "It's very hard to see how the Sun-Times can keep going. I thought it was hard when I owned it ten years ago." Watch: More on Newspapers
 
Pakistan Swat Valley Operation Destroys Homes, Draws Local Ire Top
SULTANWAS, Pakistan — When Pakistan's army drove the Taliban back from this small northwestern village, it also destroyed much of everything else here. F-16 fighter jets, military helicopters, tanks and artillery reduced houses, mosques and shops to rubble, strewn with children's shoes, shattered TV sets and perfume bottles. Commanders say the force was necessary in an operation they claim killed 80 militants. But returning residents do not believe this: Although a burned-out army tank at the entrance to Sultanwas indicates the Taliban fought back, villagers say most fighters fled into the mountains. Beyond any doubt is their fury at authorities for wrecking their homes _ the sort of backlash the army doesn't want as it tries to win the support of the people for its month-old offensive against the Taliban in Pakistan's northwest frontier region near the border with Afghanistan. Beyond any doubt is their fury at authorities for wrecking their homes _ just what the army does not want as it tries to win the support of the people for its month-old offensive against the Taliban in Pakistan's northwest frontier region near the border with Afghanistan. "The Taliban never hurt the poor people, but the government has destroyed everything," Sher Wali Khan told the first reporting team to reach the village of about 1,000 homes. "They are treating us like the enemy," he said as he collected shredded copies of a Quran from the ruins of a mosque. The anger in this village is an echo of recent years, when previous army offensives against the Taliban in the northwestern frontier area caused widespread civilian casualties and damage to homes. The military's heavy-handed approach here shows it may still be more equipped to fight conventional war with India than guerrilla warfare in the shadows of mountain villages and towns, where militants use civilians as cover. The Associated Press traveled to Sultanwas on Wednesday after the Pakistani army briefly lifted a curfew in the Buner district to allow residents to return. But the fight for the region is clearly not over. Just beyond the village, a makeshift army checkpoint shows where its control ends. Beyond that, the army and villagers say the Taliban are in charge, patrolling streets on foot and in pickup trucks. The United States wants a resounding victory against insurgents who are threatening not only the stability of this nuclear-armed country, but also the success of the American-led mission in neighboring Afghanistan. The army launched its operation in April to take back the northwest after the militants lost popular support across the region partly because of their defiance of a peace deal with the government. The Taliban have also carried out atrocities in the northwest and claimed responsibility for attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians elsewhere in Pakistan. But residents of Sultanwas say the militants in their village threatened no one. Khan, a 17-year-old who is quick with a smile and hopes to attend medical school, said about five militants occasionally came to a mosque. There, he said, they preached an ultraconservative brand of Islam and called for overthrowing the government because it was not implementing Islamic law. He said he did not agree with either position. Khan fled with his family and most other residents when the army warned them last week to get out because the offensive was about to reach them. The Taliban entered Buner last month from the Swat Valley, an advance that triggered the military's offensive. There was very little damage to buildings in the road leading to Sultanwas, which military officials said used to be one of the Taliban's major strongholds in the district. The army says it is making every effort to avoid damaging buildings in the offensive. Reporters on a military-escorted trip to part of the Swat Valley last week saw no significant destruction. But the army used helicopters, F-16 jets, tanks and artillery in the battle for Sultanwas. While the military says this tactic reduces army casualties by "softening up" areas before troops move in, critics question its effectiveness against a small and, for the most part, lightly armed insurgent force moving in and out of towns. Khan and others insisted the militants were not living in their homes either before or after the attack. There were no bodies, blood or obviously buried corpses in the rubble, which spans an area the size of two football fields, roughly a third of the village. A reporter could find no sign any rebels had dug in there or used the area as a base. Residents said the same. "When the operation started, the Taliban all ran away from the area," said Rosi Khan, citing an account from the only three villagers who he said stayed behind. He could not say where those villagers are now. Spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said fleeing villagers had told military officials that militants were using Khan's house and others nearby. He said 80 insurgents were killed in the operation, and that other militants apparently removed their bodies. But two officers involved in the Buner operations said most of the roughly 400 fighters believed to be there escaped to the mountains _ terrain they know far better than do army troops trucked in from elsewhere in Pakistan. The two officers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give information to reporters. It is a pattern the military says the outgunned and outnumbered militants are following elsewhere in the region, including in the main Swat Valley city of Mingora. A defense attache for a Western embassy said the Swat operation appeared to be better organized and more coordinated than earlier ones in the northwest. But he questioned whether the 15,000 troops deployed against roughly 4,000 militants were enough to secure the region. Besides Swat, Pakistan needs to keep troops elsewhere in the border region where al-Qaida and other militants are strong. But most of its roughly 700,000-member army is stationed on or close to the border with India, the country's traditional rival. To claim victory, the government will have to ensure the militants do not return to the Swat Valley and Buner, and that the 2.4 million people who fled the fighting stay on the government's side when they come home. The army is appealing for refugees to return to Sultanwas, but as elsewhere in Buner, few were heeding the call. A week after the battle for this village ended, there was still no police, electricity or civilian administration. "The political leadership is not here, there is no police," said a senior army officer, who asked not be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media. "How can you expect them to return?" An AP photographer saw several people looting food and drinks from a damaged store in Sultanwas. They stopped only when other villagers reprimanded them. At a checkpoint in Sultanwas, young men riding in buses from Taliban-controlled Pir Baba were ordered to lift their shirts and be searched, but there was little sign they were making serious checks of all those leaving the area. In Pir Baba, Taliban fighters armed with rocket launchers and assault rifles are patrolling the streets, said Mohammed Yusuf, a 50-year-old farmer who was leaving but intended to return after buying vegetables at the nearest open market, several miles away. "They are on the streets in the morning and evening," Yusuf said. "They are friendly. Some of them I know from my area." More on Pakistan
 
Ken Salazar Tours Everglades In Airboat To Learn About Invasive Species (PHOTO) Top
EVERGLADES, FL - MAY 28: United States Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), United States Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Florida Governor Charlie Crist (L-R) tour the Florida Everglades on an airboat on May 28, 2009 in the Everglades, Florida. Thomas Strickland, United States Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks is also on the airboat (far left rear). Salazar visited the Everglades to get a first hand look at the park and get a briefing on invasive species. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
 
Amy Nebens and Jara Negrin: Should a Six Year Old Date? Top
If parents think they can figure out the sexual stages their kids will go through with a simple reading of Freud , they are wrong. Freud was as controversial as he could have been for his time. Never before had people been told that children could be sexual beings with sexual thoughts. Sexual awareness previous to Freud had not been a possibility, especially not in the youngest crib-dwelling children. Raising my children I see daily just how right Freud was--sing it again Sigmund, these kids are aware! But not every kid falls into each phase so cut and dry. I live with a six-year-old girl who is very curious and slightly coquettish when it comes to the opposite sex and a nine year old boy who gives way more attention to hockey and baseball than to thoughts about young ladies from his class who call him after school. Taking Freud's word literally, my nine-year-old son is right on track. Having not reached puberty yet and over the age of six, he fits very neatly into the latency period. This stage is when thoughts, for the time being, are less about sex and when more energy can be put towards scholarly pursuits--or in his case, sweaty hockey pursuits. OK, nothing to worry about on his front, for the time being at least. My six-year-old flirt, at her ripe old age, should technically be in the latency period with her older brother if you want to "place" her in a textbook. Her interests should be focused on the girls in her life. This pay-attention-to-the-same-sex only stage, would exclude the "cute boyfriend" in her class she regularly brags about. My husband doesn't think there is anything cute about her announcement to all that she is a taken woman nor the pelvic gyration dance she does whenever she gets the chance. I, on the other hand, see nothing wrong with the terminology "boyfriend" and think it's sweet. I even encourage her with smiles and laughter when she exclaims "I freakin' out" when she spots her beau unexpectedly on the ball field. When after her dance recital, a friend of ours comments how well she danced and continues on to say she may have a career on a pole one day, I take the just-shy-of-crude comment as somewhat of a compliment and credit her for letting her personality shine, my husband cringes. So I take the semi-scientific Google approach to see whose parental stance is correct and find that, short of Googling with search words that may result in a federal inquiry (never a good idea to put "young children" and "sexuality" in a search box together), there isn't much info on the web as to what age is appropriate and customary for both males and females to show an interest in the opposite sex. Not giving in, I take my search for answers to a telephone conversation with Richard Belson, a New York psychotherapist and adjunct professor at NYU Medical Center's Department of Psychiatry . According to him, our tiny dancer "is either on her way to the latency period or she may, like many, never go through latency and that is considered to be a completely normal progression as well." I had not remembered from Psych 101 that these stages/periods were not set in stone--but then again I recall little from that entire course. He goes on to say that "the trick is not to make a big deal and to let her express herself, it's those people who are not suppressed by their parents that end up being more creative. They are the musicians, movie writers, artists of the world." This answer he offers up is not only music to my ears, but probably the reason there is music in my house from her singing in the shower to her little fingers playing the piano. I can now assert that my approval of her antics will not result in her possibly needing a spot next to David Duchovny at sexual rehab (phew!) and most probably will allow her to follow her creative imaginings. Surely I'm aware I will never change an instinctive protective feeling that a father feels for his daughter and my husband may believe his reaction has nothing to do with his need to shelter her, but a simple societal standard he feels she is breaking. Yet, after my check-in with a psychological authority, I am armed with some ammunition for my hubby the next time our young daughter declares "I'm marrying my boyfriend." And I have some sense of relief that I am not cheering on something I would later regret if she became a teen with an accentuated interest in boys--plus I can still get a kick and a laugh out of her dress code of spaghetti straps dangling off her shoulders with tight short shorts and her frequent references to "verginas."
 
Gillette: Genital Shaving Video Top
In its latest ad campaign, Gillette's reaching out to a new market: aspiring body shavers. AdAge passes along Gillette's "How To Shave Your Groin" YouTube spot. The title pretty much says it all. (We'll spare you the details -- like the need to use "short, light strokes," for example). Check out the full video below:
 
Yo Teach! Judd Apatow Makes Fake Sitcom To Promote New Film (VIDEO) Top
Judd Apatow launched a fake sitcom on NBC.com this week to help promote his upcoming film "Funny People." The show "Yo Teach!" stars Jason Schwartzman playing his "Funny People" character: Mark Taylor Jackson. (Apparently this is one of many side projects the characters are working on. ) Mark Taylor is the lead of a terrible NBC sitcom that seems to be a mix of "Saved By The Bell," "Head of the Class," and "That's So Raven." He wants to help his down and out class learn and grow despite pressure from above. So far two videos have been posted of the sitcom on NBC.com . The first is the show's EPK (electronic press kit) that gives viewers a behind the scenes look. The next is a scene from an episode entitled "McShakespeare." (Universal offers the complete first season on its site. Unfortunately, the DVDs are all sold out.) WATCH: More on Funny Videos
 
Jordan Stock Fraud Preys On Illiterate, Elderly (VIDEO) Top
The Jordanian city of Jerash, described as the 'Mumbai of the Middle East' for its historic structures and annual music festival, has been especially hard hit by the global economic crisis. LinkTV reports that this is due to fraudulent stock brokers taking advantage of illiterate and elderly residents. It states that many families have been duped to the point where they lose everything they own, and then end up in debt. Check out the LinkTV report. WATCH: Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Middle East
 
Paul Starobin: California: The Big Picture Top
The world is now at a hinge moment in history, I argue in my new book, After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age . A once-dominant America has reached the end of its political, economic and cultural ascendancy; and five narratives, or scenarios, are in play for what will come next: A time of chaos, a multipolar order of nation-states, a global Chinese imperium, an age of global city-states, or a universal civilization leading to global governance. All of these narratives can be glimpsed in California, ahead of the country, as usual, in becoming an After America landscape. The American Century was in many respects the California Century. No place did more to define the American Dream; no place did more to contribute to the global perception of America as tomorrowland, the place where the future happens first. These days, California is still the pacesetter, but in a different way: as the trailblazer of America's migration to the After America world. It is no longer the engine that it once was for spreading the seeds of a distinctive American civilization around the planet. Instead, it has become the most After America part of the country. California is not so much remaking the world as the world is remaking California. Ever plastic, ever promiscuous, California is pregnant with all the After America possibilities. Its critics tend to make much of its potential for a dark chaos, as imagined in iconic movies like Blade Runner. But California also has a potential for a happy chaos. It is the most modern, the most playfully libertarian (think San Francisco), and the most technologically sophisticated patch of ground in America-- an experimental model of an anti- Big Brother, personal choice-oriented, Kantian-enlightenment society. Alternatively, the notion of "nation- state" California suggests a role in a multipolar global order. Then, too,California could come to be defi ned by its ties to the emerging Chinese titan across the Pacific, by its global cities, or by the threads binding it to the universal civilization in the making. In one form or another, the emblem of the American Century stands to become the defining symbol of After America America.... After America California is the third great phase of California's history, starting from the time of American settlement. The f rst phase might be called Frontier California. This was the California of the gold rush of the mid- nineteenth century; it was all about the exploitation of nature's trea sures in the pursuit of profit-- and it was unapologetically racialist in the rights and privileges awarded to the settlers above all others... The second, post conquest phase of California's history might be called American Century California. Th is was a tamer, if by no means tamed, California, defining the essence of a new American aesthetic in fashion, dining, and other forms of popular culture. American Century California represents an American apotheosis-- a remarkable distillation of American values, American dreams, and the American way of life.... That California is now more or less dead. After America California, the third phase of California's history, can be seen first of all in the attenuation of the melting pot and the shift to a multicultural society not so much typically American as typical of what can be found in the rest of the world... After America California is also post-imperial-- it has lost its will to impose a dominant culture on the outside world. Consider the evolution of California's politicians over the centuries. California's original conqueror, John Charles Frémont, also served as one of its first U.S. senators. In the twentieth century, the state nurtured a pair of the American Century's most prominent anticommunist warriors, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But these days, California is best known for exporting to the nation's capital some of America's most liberal antiwar figures, like Democratic senator Barbara Boxer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Boxer occupies the onetime Nixon seat; in 2004, she was reelected to her third term by a margin of 20 percentage points... California's twenty-first-century economy, weaned away from dependence on military spending, in some ways resembles the postimperial Eu ro pe an economy of the present age. And as is the case with modern Europe, the loss of the imperial reflex is not necessarily a loss of dynamism. This can be seen in the example of Silicon Valley. After the Second World War, the Pentagon supplied a crucial stimulus to the region's development-- Defense Department purchases accounted for some 40 percent of Silicon Valley's output of semiconductors, its signature product. But by the 1980s, the Pentagon's share was down to only 8 percent. The Valley's legendary venture-capital firms still finance local start- ups, but they also scour the globe for promising opportunities in Asia and elsewhere. The economist Steve Levy has been following the Valley for years as director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, based in Palo Alto. Th e time when the Valley was oriented to the imperatives of the U.S. economy is long gone, he told me: "We serve global markets." In that sense, today's Silicon Valley can be thought of not as an American institution but as a global one. The Valley has become an expression of California's After America-ness. ... Might it now be possible to glimpse the future of California somewhere else? In the American Century, this question had no standing. California was not only the future of America; it was also a future, if not the future, for the world. But an After America California, by definition, will be a less distinctive society--more in the grip of trends starting somewhere else. So it pays to search the globe for harbingers. In this regard, the most intriguing reference point is Australia-- another Pacific coastal, affluent, market- based, immigrant- rich society (including a large Chinese immigrant population) with cultural roots in Anglo civilization. The comparison is of course not a perfect one. Australia is an island continent with a predominantly resource- based economy and has been able to keep a tighter control over immigration flows. Still, Australia is notably ahead of California in one of the most important trends at work in After America California: the embrace of the multicultural society. If only for this reason, Californians may well want to look to Australia for what might lie ahead for them. Reprinted from: AFTER AMERICA: Narratives for the Next Global Age, by Paul Starobin, with permission of Viking, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
 
Obama Makes Light Of Prop 8 Protesters At Fundraiser Top
Well, another day, another California fundraiser, another occasion for President Barack Obama to say some idiot nonsense about his constituents. The only difference is that instead of Mayhill Fowler , it's the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny chronicling the remarks for posterity : A gaggle of sign-waving protesters milled around outside The Beverly Hilton, the sprawling hotel on Wilshire Boulevard. They must have caught the president's eye when he arrived at the hotel from an earlier stop in Las Vegas because he relayed one of their messages to the crowd. "One of them said, "Obama keep your promise,' " the president said. "I thought that's fair. I don't know which promise he was talking about." The people in the audience - who paid $30,400 per couple to attend - laughed as they ate a dinner of roasted tenderloin, grilled organic chicken and sun choke rosemary mashed potatoes. I'll let Andrew Sullivan answer the President's question ! [S]ince he asked, how about an end to the HIV ban, an end to the military ban and a federal recognition of full civil equality for gay married couples? Three clear promises. Any of those ring a bell? Meanwhile, The Advocate reported today that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, pressed on the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," twice "reverted to his standard talking points on the subject." And, by the way, one of those protestors at the fundraiser? Lt. Dan Choi, who was once allowed to participate in the defense of this country : [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Barack Obama
 
Levi Johnston In GQ: Hot Or Not? (POLL, PHOTO) Top
Levi Johnston posed in camouflage a with shotgun on his shoulder for GQ , for the same profile in which he says Todd Palin offered daughter Bristol a car if she'd dump him. Check out the shot of the guy nicknamed "Sex on Skates" below and vote.
 
Nathan Gardels: Is John Bolton Right About North Korea? Top
Is John Bolton right about North Korea? Read my interview with him for the Global Viewpoint Network and decide for yourself: John Bolton: Time to Test North Korea John Bolton, a leading neo-conservative official during the Bush administration, is a former U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. His latest book is "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad." He spoke on Wednesday, May 28, with Global Viewpoint Network editor Nathan Gardels. Nathan Gardels: Five days before the North Korean nuclear test, you wrote a prescient article in The Wall Street Journal saying that such a test was imminent. What did you see as North Korea's motive in testing at this time? John Bolton: The North Koreans had a nuclear test in October 2006 that was widely regarded as not entirely successful. So they had to redesign their warhead and test the new one to make sure they corrected whatever the problems had been. What they needed was the opportunity to conduct the second test in a way that wouldn't be too politically costly. They waited out the election to see if Obama would come to power and then assess how he might perform. Their conclusion, apparently, was that they could undertake a new test in the wake of his election with minimal risk that there would be any consequences. So far, their assessment seems to be correct. Certainly, there was a very ineffective response from the Obama administration to their recent Taepodong missile test. Now, what is the administration saying so far after this test? They continue to say they want North Korea to return to the six-party talks (South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, North Korea and the U.S.)! Sorry to say, that is just not something that weighs very heavily on the North Koreans. We still may have some action in the Security Council at the U.N. It is too early to say how that might turn out. But we are speaking already several days after the test and there have only been words, no action. The Security Council is not exactly acting like a fire brigade. Gardels: So, the six-party talks are a dead end? Bolton: Yes. I don't think the North Koreans have any intention of negotiating away their nuclear weapons capability. If there was any doubt about that, this nuclear test surely puts that to rest. Where is the evidence? All they do is keep processing, testing and firing missiles while everyone else talks. Gardels: The Chinese and the Russians both hastily and harshly condemned the nuclear test. Does that make any difference? Bolton: Well, they condemned the first test in 2006. They condemned the rocket launches in July 2006 as well as the more recent ones. And they even agreed in the Security Council then to some pretty tough military sanctions -- in U.N. Resolution 1718 -- but when all was said and done the Bush administration allowed those sanctions to fall into disuse as they changed course and pressed for a new round of negotiations with North Korea, and the Chinese didn't enforce them. If this past experience is any indication, the actions of the Security Council now don't look promising. We'll see if this time is any different. Gardels: What would be an effective response to North Korea this time around? Bolton: The fact that South Korea has declared now it will join the Proliferation Security Initiative -- which would allow for searches of suspect North Korean ships at sea -- is a significant step forward. We ought to do whatever we can under PSI to interdict exports or imports related to weapons of mass-destruction development. We should limit North Korea's access to international financial markets. The Bush administration went down that path and it was effective, before it changed course and gave way. We need to go back to that. We should put North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. We never should have taken them off. We should expel North Korea from the United Nations, since they have no intention of abiding by its rules and resolutions. Finally, pressure must be brought on China, which has unique leverage over North Korea since it supplies more than 80 percent of its energy as well as significant amounts of food. If they are serious that they don't want a North Asia with nuclear weapons --where Japan and possibly South Korea and Taiwan seek their own deterrents -- then they should do something about North Korea now. Gardels: If China is serious, why are they hesitant to put real pressure on North Korea? Bolton: I take them at their word that they don't want a nuclear North Korea. They agree with the U.S. on that. Where they disagree with the U.S. is they are afraid to do anything that would bring down the Kim Jong-il regime. In my view, China should rethink this. It is not in their interest to keep this regime in power if it is going to pursue nuclear weapons. The current North Korean regime sees nuclear weapons as their trump card, the symbol and guarantor of their power within the country. They are not going to give that up voluntarily. That is the dilemma of China's position. Gardels: The North Koreans have said that interdicting any of their ships under the PSI, especially by South Korea, would be an act of war, and they would respond in kind by attacking the South. Does that scenario of military confrontation worry you? Bolton: We should not be intimidated by their rhetoric. I was the lead U.S. negotiator on PSI in 2003. We very much wanted South Korea to join right then, but the government of South Korea at the time was intimidated by North Korea. When you give in to that kind of threat, you enable the very belligerent behavior we see today. South Korea now has taken a very wise and courageous decision in joining PSI in the wake of this nuclear test. The world should support them in this. Gardels: In other words, North Korea has been testing the world for years. Now, perhaps, it is time for the world to test North Korea's intimidating rhetoric by pushing back? Bolton: Yes. If we really want to stop North Korea from obtaining and spreading nuclear weapons, we are rapidly running out of time to do it. Now is the time to stop them. We should not accept that our options are limited. If people don't like the suggestions I've made, what are their alternatives? Gardels: Japan is directly in the line of fire of any nuclear-armed missiles North Korea might develop. This test has made some Japanese leaders so anxious they are calling for a pre-emptive capability to strike North Korea first. What do you think of that? Bolton: Japan will have to do what it has to do. This anxiety reflects a concern about whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella over Japan is as strong as it used to be. I found it extraordinary that Secretary of State Clinton felt she had to publicly assure Japan of the U.S. commitment to their security as this crisis has unfolded. Obviously, the Japanese are worried, and that message is getting through. Gardels: What impact will this North Korean nuclear test -- and the reaction to it -- have on other would-be proliferators, such as Iran? Bolton: The Iranians are watching this very carefully. If the U.S. and the U.N. respond ineffectively, the Iranians will draw the conclusion that if North Korea can get away with it, then they can, too. The stakes are very high. Gardels: Unfortunately, you can now say "I told you so" about the fruitlessness of negotiations and North Korea's belligerent intentions. Bolton: It was not all that hard to predict what they might do. It just goes to show that this new Obama administration has been absent without leave on North Korea policy. (C) 2009 GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK; (TM) TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
 
College Students Get Trashed -- Er, Get Energy From Trash Top
The project just completed is known as EcoLine and uses purified methane gas from a nearby landfill. Nothing particularly new in that, but the big deal is that UNH's five million square foot campus will get 85% of its electricity and heat from the project. This means that UNH has become the first university in the nation to use landfill gas as its primary energy source. More on Energy
 

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)