Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Swine Flu Case At Cook County Jail Top
Cook County Jail officials confirmed the first case of swine flu among inmates Thursday. A 35-year-old Chicago man tested positive for the H1N1 flu virus on Wednesday after exhibiting symptoms of the flu three days earlier, according to a release from Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart's office. The man entered the jail on a drug possession charge Saturday and first showed signs of the flu the next day. He was immediately moved into quarantine at Cermak Hospital. Division 5, the medium-security tier where the inmate had been housed, will be quarantined until Thursday. No one else on Division 5 had experience flu-like symptoms, according to the release. The infected detainee will return to his unit on Sunday. The jail limited visitation because of flu concerns Saturday , allowing only immediate family members and attorneys to see detainees. That policy will remain in effect until further notice. No other cases of swine flu have been reported within the jail. On Wednesday, the Illinois Department of Public Health confirmed at least 225 cases of swine flu in the state. More on Swine Flu
 
June 8 Deadline Set For Banks' Capital Plan Top
WASHINGTON — The nation's biggest banks that are found to need more capital after government stress tests will have one month to come up with a plan to raise the additional resources, federal regulators said Wednesday. The government said that after the results of the stress tests are released Thursday, the banks found to need more capital will have until June 8 to get a plan approved by their regulators. The government also set conditions for how the nation's 19 largest banks will be allowed to exit from the $700 billion bailout program. To qualify, a bank will have to demonstrate that it can borrow money without the support of an emergency program established by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in October at the height of the financial crisis. The deadline and exit conditions were included in a joint statement released by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair and Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan. The 19 banks were subjected to stress tests to determine whether they have enough capital to withstand an even more severe economic downturn. The joint statement said that bank executives will need to provide a "detailed description of the specific actions" they will take to boost their capital to the levels that the stress tests determined are needed. Those plans can include efforts by the banks to raise more capital in the private sector, restructure the capital they currently control or sell of bank assets to raise capital. While the selected banks develop plans to raise capital, they also will be required to review their existing management, including the board of directors, to "assure that the leadership of the firm has sufficient expertise and ability to manage the risks presented" by the current economic environment, the statement said. That environment includes the worst financial crisis in seven decades and a recession that is now the longest in the post World War II period. Treasury and the bank regulators gave the banks that will need to raise more capital until Nov. 9 to accomplish that task. The government has said in the past that no bank will be allowed to fail, and the statement said "the U.S. government reaffirms its commitment to stand firmly behind the banking system during this period of financial strain." Officials also have said that if banks are unable to raise capital to meet the stress test requirements, they will be able to obtain support from the $700 billion bailout fund. The requirements for returning the bailout money and exiting that program will have to be met by all 19 banks that were tested. But the government is not imposing the same rule about companies needing to prove that they can borrow money without the emergency FDIC guarantees on any of the other more than 500 banks that have obtained close to $200 billion from the rescue program since it was created by Congress in October.
 
John Demjanjuk, Alleged Nazi Guard, Asks Supreme Court To Stop Deportation Top
CLEVELAND — John Demjanjuk, branded by the U.S. government a Nazi death camp guard, on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to stop his deportation to Germany, where an arrest warrant accuses him of 29,000 counts of accessory to murder during World War II. A federal appeals court in Ohio has cleared the way for deporting him. The 89-year-old retired autoworker, his family and his lawyer say he's in poor health and too frail to be sent overseas. The Supreme Court didn't say when or if it would rule. The appeal goes first to Justice John Paul Stevens, who can decide the request on his own or refer it to the full court. The arrest warrant in Germany accuses Demjanjuk of being a guard at the Sobibor camp in Nazi-occupied Poland in 1943. Demjanjuk, a native Ukrainian, maintains he was a prisoner of war, not a camp guard. Evidence the U.S. government has used against him includes a Nazi document, an identification card placing him at a training camp and then at various death or forced-labor camps, including Sobibor. A German court on Wednesday rejected an attempt to block his deportation, saying the issue would have to be decided by American courts. The U.S. Department of Justice would "respond in court as appropriate," spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said Wednesday. Demjanjuk remains in his home in the Cleveland suburb Seven Hills. On April 14, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers entered his home, placed him in a wheelchair and carried him outside to a waiting van. He was taken to a holding area at immigration enforcement offices in Cleveland and was there a few hours until the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati granted an emergency stay. The court considered his case before ending that stay and refusing to issue another Friday. Demjanjuk sought the Supreme Court's help last year, without success. In 2005, the nation's chief U.S. immigration judge ruled Demjanjuk could be deported to Germany, Poland or Ukraine. Demjanjuk's lawyer appealed that ruling, arguing another immigration judge should have been assigned to the case. On May 19, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear that appeal. Demjanjuk's son in Ohio, John Demjanjuk Jr., said Wednesday in an e-mail to The Associated Press that the United States and Germany are facing a human rights issue now. He said both nations should consider that his father is old and in poor health and that he previously was extradited to Israel for a war crimes trial. Israel's Supreme Court decided in 1993 to allow him to go back to Ohio based on evidence someone else was the notorious Nazi guard Ivan the Terrible at Treblinka. The U.S. ended its Ivan the Terrible case but made other Nazi guard charges. "If my father is deported to Germany and found unfit for trial for medical reasons or is acquitted again as he was in Israel," Demjanjuk Jr. said, "he will remain a resident of Germany and Germany will be responsible for his care, not the U.S. Germany will have violated his human rights as he would be unable to return to his family if he survives the ordeal." Attorney Ulrich Busch, representing Demjanjuk in Germany, has been attempting to stop the deportation, arguing that Demjanjuk is medically unfit for travel and trial and that if Germany wants him it should formally extradite him. A Berlin court on Wednesday ruled on an emergency suit filed last week against the German Justice Ministry. The judges rejected the argument that Germany could block the deportation, saying that the decision lies with American authorities, court spokesman Stephan Groscurth said. The U.S. Department of Justice, in opposing the Demjanjuk appeal in Ohio, submitted as evidence surveillance video showing Demjanjuk emerging from a building and walking unassisted to the passenger side door of a car in a parking lot. That video is in contrast with the moaning Demjanjuk seen as he was carried from his home. In the U.S., Demjanjuk's lawyer, John Broadley, said he hopes the Supreme Court will allow at least 90 days so he can argue that the federal appeals court in Ohio erred last week when it denied Demjanjuk a stay of deportation. But the Department of Justice has said Demjanjuk has used court filings as a delay tactic. ___ Associated Press writer David Rising in Berlin contributed to this report. More on Supreme Court
 
Phil Bronstein: Kerry: Newspapers Are "Endangered." Journalism, However, Is Adapting... Top
John Kerry wants to save newspapers. Or something like that. Anyway he's holding DC hearings on the subject today, presumably goosed by the fact that his hometown Boston Globe has been teetering on the brink of oblivion . Getting as testifiers Arianna Huffington , never dull, and David Simon, former reporter and scathing critic of the modern newspaper business as writer and creator of "The Wire," makes the thing a good show, full of pep, fury, and righteousness. But Kerry is the guy whose senior adviser to his 2004 presidential campaign asked a bunch of donors here in SF back then: Did Mr. Kerry make a tactical PR mistake vacationing in Sun Valley instead of Disneyland? That was the wrong question. The right one was: why doesn't anybody in the US care where John Kerry goes on vacation? The Senator was also the one, during a Chronicle editorial board meeting in that same period, who claimed he was responsible for deposing Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. I stopped him at that point and told him I'd been in Manila throughout that drama and there were a lot of other people -- including members of Congress -- who played a big role in that change. Instead of conceding, in the face of an eyewitness, that maybe he'd overstated his case, Mr. Kerry just kept on insisting that, no, he was the one. Weird. Then he got his windsurfing hide stripped at the polls by George W. Today the Senator said the Seattle Post-Intelligencer had gone bankrupt . Wrong. I'm guessing a panel Thursday night at Fort Mason Center on " What Comes After Newspapers? " might be a little less about atmospherics. Well, it'll at least be more fun for me because I'm on it, along with Michael Kinsley and former Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll. NPR's David Folkenflik moderates. What's likely to come up, aside from big picture stuff, is all the experimentation that's going on now with information gathering, even just (or especially) here in San Francisco. This video provides a couple of examples. While it's a piece about homelessness , specifically what might be a growing trend of people living in their cars South of Market, what's most interesting to me is the media start-up circuitry that got it done. The video shooter, Cassidy Friedman , is working through something called SanFranciscoIAM , part of a growing operation that's creating -- and even paying for, in some cases -- video journalism via their website assignment desk. You can pitch a story to them or try to snag one that's already on their boards. Skill and the popularity of your video both matter and determine how well you do. SanFranciscoIAM also hosts the video itself, so YouTube or one of the other bigs isn't your only option. Then, in our video, we interview Thea Chroman, a reporter for KALW radio who did her own homeless broadcast story through another SF media start-up Spot.Us . Founder David Cohn has set up a deal where you can pitch a story and his web audience makes bids to finance the piece (the amount you can bid is limited to avoid special interest plants). When the bids match the cost of the story, Spot.Us, or a media partner like the Oakland Tribune or KALW, then finds reporters to do it. Editing is either done by a media partner or by freelance editors Spot.Us has on their roster. Who knows where either Petri dish test will go. But the mainstream media needs to pay attention to them, and have partnerships, before hearings in Washington turn into wakes. More on Newspapers
 
Geithner Charlie Rose Interview: There Were Intense Negotiations With Banks Over Stress Test Results Top
Scroll down for video excerpt and full transcript In an interview on Wednesday night with Charlie Rose , Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner struck a optimistic tone, saying that none of the 19 banks that experienced government stress tests are insolvent but was cautious about upcoming regulatory reform of the financial system, saying that it could take up to three years. He added that the stress test results, which will be released on Thursday, "will be, on balance, reassuring." Geithner also acknowledged that the banks were tough negotiators when it came to the results of the stress tests: Charlie Rose: We hear these kinds of stories coming out already from some of the banks, saying that there was intense negotiation because what the world was going to see was their balance sheet. Tim Geithner: That's right. Charlie Rose: Give us a sense of that. Tim Geithner: Well, again, this is a -- this is a normal thing. You know, banks normally in some -- need to raise capital. Supervisors tell banks they need to raise capital. That's a normal part of the business. What we did here in this context was to take a more conservative look and look ahead to what may happen in the future and in the case we face a deeper recession as a way to lift more definitively this cloud of uncertainty over the financial system, and that disclosures will be enormously important. But this is a normal part of the way crises get resolved, and again, there will be some institutions that don't need additional capital. They'll be able to begin to repay the government. That's very helpful, enormously helpful to confidence. That will give us more resources to devote to small banks and make sure there's credit markets opening up. And some banks are going to have to raise additional capital, and they'll have a bunch of different ways that they can do that. Geithner, who didn't name the banks which would need additional capital, emphasized that most of those banks will be able to raise capital through private sources rather than government financing. And he stated that the government would be reluctant to take larger stakes in banks, such as by converting preferred capital: "we'll be reluctant to do that... we'll get out as quickly as possible." Geithner also issued a not-so-subtle warning to Wall Street executives by indicating that the government could force management changes at banks in which it has made a significant investment: If we face those situations, we'll have to make judgments about whether the quality of leadership of those boards is strong enough so that, again, our interests are met best. Our interests are not just as a shareholder, as an investor. Geithner also explained that regulatory reforms could take up to three years and that the government will get back at least $25 billion over the next six to 12 months from banks that received TARP funds. Watch an excerpt of the interview: Read the full transcript: Charlie Rose: I want to talk about the stress tests, which will be relieved, the purpose of them and what you hope to accomplish, and what we learn from them, but let's begin with the overall economy. The chairmen of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, was at a Congressional committee yesterday, suggesting that he sees the beginning of recovery in 2009. How do you see it? Tim Geithner: I think things feel better. I think your -- people sense a bit more stability. You can see it in behavior. People are spending a bit more. Investors -- companies are starting to borrow again so they can start to make investments again. It does feel better, but I think we emphasize that there is a lot of pain across this country, still. Enormous uncertainty, people going through what is probably the most challenging period, still, in a generation. It took us a long time to get into this, and it's going to take us a lot to get out of this still. So these were important signs of some stability. They're the necessary steps for recovery to begin, but, you know, this is going to take a while. Charlie Rose: And what is happening, you think? I mean confidence is one thing. Tim Geithner: Confidence is better. It's been sort of sustained day-by-day, week-by-week improvement in consumer and business confidence now for several weeks. Part of it was really because, you know, confidence just fell off a cliff in the second half of last year. Particularly the period after September/October, just fell off the cliff. And people just stopped. They stopped spending. They stopped investing. You saw trade fall off a cliff. There was just enormously damaging shock to confidence everywhere. People were just scared and uncertain. And that went very, very far. Went very far, and it just -- it stopped, and it's come back a little bit and that itself helps, just that sense of the end of the fall helps a little bit. Charlie Rose: And you're beginning, though, to see the recovery in 2009. We're now in May 2009. Tim Geithner: The pace of decline is slowing, here and around the world. And there are some places where we're seeing things starting to improve, but the main thing is a sense of stability, yet. Now for the first time, really I would say in several quarters, you're starting to see people start to raise their forecasts a little bit for the later this year and '10. And again, as the chairman suggested yesterday, and I'll just refer to his forecast, the Fed's forecast, is the Fed's forecast is that you'll start to see growth slightly positive second half of this year, and growth will strengthen into next year. Charlie Rose: There's a consensus in the administration of agreement with Chairman Bernanke? Tim Geithner: Well, as I said, use this forecast -- it's a good independent, credible forecast, and it's not very different from the consensus of private forecasts, now. So I would say there's broader consensus now that that's a reasonable expectation for the economy, but, you know, a lot of risk ahead, still. Really important that the governments here and around the world will keep at this. We have a lot to do to get Americans back to work, kind of reinforce this improvement in confidence, get credit markets flowing again. We're going to keep doing that, again, because we want to make sure we're building the strongest foundation for recovery possible. Charlie Rose: What indicia are you looking at? Tim Geithner: Confidence is a good measure, but you really want to look at how people are behaving. How much are they spending, how much are they saving, where are they investing, are they borrowing again? And again, all those indicators suggest a broader-based improvement in tone. Charlie Rose: There is a question of jobs and unemployment. Tim Geithner: There's still enormous pain, uncertainty, sense of challenge across the economy as a whole, and unemployment is going to keep rising for awhile, even as growth starts to recover. The way recoveries work is unemployment will rise for a while. Charlie Rose: It goes beyond eight. Tim Geithner: Right -- well, it'll go where it's going to go, but the important thing is that people have to prepare for the likelihood that unemployment will still rise as the economy recovers. What will start to happen is that the pace of job loss will start to slow significantly, and that's a really important thing. As people start to see that, and that should happen too, over the next several quarters -- people will start to see that improvement, fewer people will be losing their jobs, people will be less concerned about losing their jobs, that will help confidence too; that will help reinforce the basis for recovery. Charlie Rose: Do you think we'll need another stimulus? Tim Geithner: Not at this stage, but that's something we've got to keep an eye on, carefully. Again, I think that a big mistake governments make in coming out of these things is they tend to put the brakes on too early, draw back too quickly, prematurely try to exit, undo all these exceptional things you do to address a crisis, and we want to be very confident, we want to be very sure, both here and around the world, that there is, you know, strong, sustained support for recovery, and that recovery is firmly established before you start to dial that back. Now, we have to be prepared to do what's necessary to get through this, and so we'll keep watching closely, working with countries around the world so that, you know, if we see signs of risk emerging again, things get frazzled again, we have to be prepared to take -- to do what's necessary. Charlie Rose: Yeah. What about within the business -- business community in terms of spending, in terms of inventory, in terms of expansion? Tim Geithner: I think it varies tremendously across the country. You know, you have huge divergence in unemployment rates across the country. Parts of the country have enormously high unemployment rates and they're still getting dramatically worse; parts of the country have much greater, sort of, stability and confidence, so it varies a lot. I would say, in general, businesses still feel that credit is tight, they're still worried they're going to not be able to borrow enough to meet payroll and expand businesses, and that concern about the credit markets, financial system, being still as a headwind, acting as a headwind on growth, is still significant out there, even though we've seen signs of improvement. Charlie Rose: That brings us to the financial sector. What is the purpose of the stress test, and what do you hope to gain from them? Tim Geithner: Excellent question. This financial system, at the beginning of this year, was operating under a deep cloud of uncertainty, great loss of confidence. People were very worried about whether the scale of losses that might come in a deeper recession would be sustainable for this system. And banks were unable to raise equity, could not borrow without guarantees from the government, and they were being defensive; they were pulling back on lending, and that was sucking oxygen out of recovery, deepening the recession. And that's -- fundamentally underpinning that was the sense of concern, lack of confidence, again, about how strong banks were. So what we did with the Fed is, for the first time ever, we brought the nation's financial supervisors together, and in an unprecedented step, asked them to do a careful look under the hood, to take a careful look at how much -- how strong these institutions were in the event things got worse. And what these results will do is they will bring in a level of transparency to bank balance sheets that will allow investors to judge, make it easier for them to raise capital, improve confidence that this system is going to be strong enough to get through this, and that will be enormously helpful. It will be an important next step forward. Again, because of the virtues of bringing disclosure and transparency, it will help lift this fog of uncertainty over the financial system, and I think the results will be, on balance, reassuring. Charlie Rose: Two things: one, transparency was necessary so that people would have confidence in the numbers that you release. Tim Geithner: That's right, they get to judge. They'll get to see them. They'll make their own judgments. But you're going to hear criticism from both sides in this, Charlie. A lot of people will say these were unfairly tough. Charlie Rose: And the other side, they were not tough enough. Tim Geithner: And there will be other people to say that, you know, that losses could be worse. And they may be right. But this was designed -- again, designed by the Fed -- to get the balance right and to strike the right balance. And it is a very exacting set of standards. Again, because what we want to do is to make sure that people have confidence that our financial system is going to be able to get through this and going to be able to lend. And to be able to lend, they need to be able to raise equity and have a stronger cushion against future loss. Charlie Rose: We hear these kinds of stories coming out already from some of the banks, saying that there was intense negotiation because what the world was going to see was their balance sheet. Tim Geithner: That's right. Charlie Rose: Give us a sense of that. Tim Geithner: Well, again, this is a -- this is a normal thing. You know, banks normally in some -- need to raise capital. Supervisors tell banks they need to raise capital. That's a normal part of the business. What we did here in this context was to take a more conservative look and look ahead to what may happen in the future and in the case we face a deeper recession as a way to lift more definitively this cloud of uncertainty over the financial system, and that disclosures will be enormously important. But this is a normal part of the way crises get resolved, and again, there will be some institutions that don't need additional capital. They'll be able to begin to repay the government. That's very helpful, enormously helpful to confidence. That will give us more resources to devote to small banks and make sure there's credit markets opening up. And some banks are going to have to raise additional capital, and they'll have a bunch of different ways that they can do that. Charlie Rose: The argument would be how much capital that they should have to raise. Tim Geithner: That's right. Charlie Rose: Because they've got to raise it within a six month period, and they've got to have a plan within a one month period. Tim Geithner: They have to work out a plan, get that plan agreed to by their supervisors, and they have to go execute that plan. And they're going to have a period of time to do that. And the government will stand behind that process, so that we want the world to know that we will make sure there is enough capital there in the system. And so, we'll provide a backstop to these institutions as they go out and raise private capital. But, you know, banks don't get to decide how much capital they need. That's the judgment supervisors have to make. In any system, any credible financial system, the supervisors get to make that judgment. And they have to make that judgment with extraordinary care, with integrity, but that's their judgment to make. And you know, banks will fight these. They will disagree. They'll want the numbers to be lower, but the supervisors get to decide. Charlie Rose: Because they'll want to raise less capital, be demanded they raise less capital. Tim Geithner: They might want to dilute their current shareholders less because they might believe that they're going to be able to earn their way out of this. And so that's why they might resist us, but that's a natural part of the process. Charlie Rose: There are 19 banks at issue. Some of the results will say you do not have enough capital, and you have within six months to raise more capital. How do you expect these banks to get their balance sheets to meet these standards? Tim Geithner: Well, let me step back for one second. In general, there is quite a lot of capital in the U.S. financial system, and all these banks operate today with substantial capital as measured by their regulators. What this is designed to do is to
 
Paul Kangas Leaving PBS' "Nightly Business Report" After 30 Years Top
Paul Kangas, the co-anchor of "Nightly Business Report" on PBS, will step down at the end of the year, ending a 30-year tenure on the nation's most-watched business newscast.
 
Fox News Bright Spot In News Corp Quarterly Earnings Top
LOS ANGELES — Media conglomerate News Corp. reported third-quarter earnings in line with lowered Wall Street forecasts on Wednesday, leading Rupert Murdoch to say "the worst is over" for his company's movie, TV and newspaper businesses. "There are emerging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous decline are done and that revenues are beginning to look healthier," Murdoch, News Corp.'s chief executive, said on a conference call. News Corp.'s net profit grew 1 percent $2.72 billion, or $1.04 per share, in the quarter through March. Most of that was due to one-time gains offsetting big drops at its Fox broadcast television and newspaper businesses, which include The Wall Street Journal. Adjusted earnings per share were 61 cents, but 46 cents of that was due to a one-time non-cash tax benefit. Excluding all the one-time items, News Corp. had first-quarter earnings of 15 cents a share, matching the average forecast of analysts polled by polled by Thomson Reuters. Analysts typically exclude one-time items from their estimates. Revenue fell 16 percent to $7.37 billion, below analysts' expectations for $7.72 billion. The New York-based company also maintained its outlook for the current fiscal year, which ends in June, saying operating profits will be down 30 percent from the $5.13 billion it posted in fiscal 2008. Murdoch's relatively upbeat tone surprised several analysts. Analyst Alan Gould of Natixis Bleichroeder Inc. said he was expecting the full-year operating profit forecast to factor in a larger 34 percent drop. "We're pleasantly pleased to hear the outlook has not gotten any worse," Gould said. "What we're trying to determine is: Have things gotten better or have they just stopped going down? And it sounds like they've gotten a little bit better." News Corp.'s shares rose 15 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $10.80 in after-hours trade after the earnings were released. Earlier Wednesday, shares rose 63 cents, or 6.3 percent, to close at $10.65. News Corp. said the partial sale of its stake in digital technology company NDS Group Ltd. resulted in a $1.2 billion profit gain, and tax benefits added another $1.2 billion. The same quarter a year earlier had an offsetting $1.7 billion gain from trading News' stake in DirecTV for Liberty Media Corp.'s stake in News plus cash. Adjusted operating income in the quarter through March fell 47 percent to $755 million. The company also said it booked restructuring charges of about $55 million at its newspaper and book publishing divisions. Operating profits at News' television segment, which includes its Fox broadcast network, plunged 99 percent to $4 million from $419 million a year ago amid a declining advertising market. Local TV ads fell 30 percent. Profits at its newspaper division fell 97 percent to $7 million from $216 million a year earlier. In a surprise success, operating profits from the filmed entertainment segment rose 8 percent to $282 million from $261 million, helped by rerun sales of TV productions such as "How I Met Your Mother" and "Boston Legal" and Fox Searchlight's distribution of "Slumdog Millionaire." Murdoch declared the movie business was "anti-cyclical" and noted movie theater revenues are up more than 15 percent so far this year in the U.S. and Canada. Profits at its cable segment grew 30 percent to $429 million from $330 million, driven by strong performance at the Fox News Channel. Profits at the direct broadcast satellite division housing Sky Italia fell 35 percent to $63 million; magazine profits grew 4 percent to $97 million; while the book publishing unit HarperCollins posted a $38 million loss, compared to a $29 million profit a year ago. The "other" segment, which houses the NDS investment and social networking site MySpace, posted a loss of $89 million, up from a $7 million loss a year ago. Fox Interactive Media, which contains MySpace, posted revenue of $187 million, down 11 percent from a year ago, as MySpace advertising revenue fell 16 percent and costs rose due to the continued rollout of the MySpace Music service. Murdoch said he expected "major cost savings" at MySpace. He noted the hiring of former AOL CEO Jonathan Miller as News Corp.'s chief digital officer last month, and said he expected Miller to make changes that would foster growth, but declined to give specifics. He also said he remained hopeful that consumers would start to pay for the company's journalism products online, where advertising revenue is smaller than for physical newspapers. The Wall Street Journal is one of the few papers to successfully charge for access to its Web site. Murdoch noted that visitors to the Journal's Web site nearly doubled in April to 26.5 million from a year ago, and that 360,000 people downloaded its iPhone app in three weeks. "As you can imagine, we will soon be making them pay for the privilege of accessing the world's best business news source," he said. "That it is possible to charge for content on the Web is obvious from the Journal's experience." More on Fox News
 
Chris Weigant: Is The Media Misinterpreting Obama's "Empathy" Dog Whistle? Top
President Barack Obama made an announcement last week just after Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his impending retirement. In it, the president spoke of the qualities he is looking for in his first nominee to the highest bench in the land. He used the word "empathy" which, strangely enough, Republicans pounced on. They lost no time in denouncing "empathy" as a "code word" meaning Obama was about to appoint Michael Moore to the court. Or something. Their logic, at times, gets a wee bit confusing, I have to admit. But seriously, conservatives are gearing up for a confirmation battle (which they will lose), and this was the first pre-emptive strike in that battle. But in my own opinion, if Obama was speaking in "code" (which is debatable in the first place), I think everyone missed his point. Because by speaking of "empathy," I think Obama was doing nothing more than signaling he's about to put a woman on the Supreme Court. Of course, all of this is wide open to interpretation. Was Obama speaking "in code" at all? If he was, the new correct political term for it is a "dog whistle." When you blow a dog whistle, it is such a high frequency that only dogs can hear it. When you use a political "dog whistle," you are using code language (that you hope the media isn't savvy to) in order to speak to people "on your wavelength," without anyone else being the wiser. The classic example of such coded political language is "states' rights," which Southerners would loudly champion during the Civil Rights era, because it sounded so much better defending the Tenth Amendment than actually supporting segregation. And I mean no disrespect by using "dog whistle" when the group being spoken to in code is women, let me state that right up front. It's no more a slur than calling conservative Democrats "Blue Dogs." Or using the phrase "lipstick on a pig." It's not about the dog, it's about the whistle. But let's start by looking at what Obama actually said about the upcoming Supreme Court choice. He made these remarks after praising the outgoing Souter. Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time. If you read that and are thinking, "gosh, that sounds like pretty reasonable criteria to pick a justice, I don't think anyone would have a problem with those goals," well, you would be wrong, according to Republicans. Because, they will happily inform you, Obama just announced he wants to destroy our country and every single thing it stands for, preferably before the end of the week. Or so it seems to some of them, at least. Leading off this attack on Obama's "empathy" is Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, from a media appearance last Sunday : [Obama's criteria for selecting a justice is] a matter of great concern. If he's saying that he wants to pick people who will take sides -- he's also said that a judge has to be a person of empathy. What does that mean? Usually that's a code word for an activist judge. But he also said that he's going to select judges on the basis of their personal politics, their personal feelings, their personal preferences. Now, you know, those are all code words for an activist judge, who is going to, you know, be partisan on the bench. . . . Well, I share the view that he should not appoint radicals to the court and I share the view that he should appoint somebody who basically will obey the law... and not put their own policy preferences into law. And that's what bothers me about some of the comments that the president has made. He's bright enough to know that those comments basically indicate that politics, preferences, personal preferences and feelings might take the place of being impartial and deciding cases based upon the law, not upon politics. And conservatives are just getting warmed up. The Washington Times , that bastion of conservative opinionating, took this anti-empathy position and ran with it (parental warning: this article may frighten small children). "[Obama] will become the first president in American history to make lawlessness an explicit standard for Supreme Court justices," is one of the milder things it has to say. But, once again, Obama is merely consistently saying something that he's said before. Here is Obama on the campaign trail , speaking to Planned Parenthood in July of 2007: I also think it's important to understand that there is nothing wrong in voting against [judicial] nominees who don't appear to share a broader vision of what the constitution is about. I think the Constitution can be interpreted in so many ways. And one way is a cramped and narrow way in which the Constitution and the courts essentially become the rubber stamps of the powerful in society. And then there's another vision of the court that says that the courts are the refuge of the powerless, because oftentimes they may lose in the democratic back-and-forth. They may be locked out and prevented from fully participating in the democratic process. That's one of the reasons that I opposed Alito as well as Justice Roberts. When Roberts came up, and everybody was saying, "You know, he's very smart and he seems like a very decent man, and he loves his wife and [laughter] you know, he's good to his dogs. He's so well qualified." I said, "Look, that's absolutely true, and in most Supreme Court dec -- in the overwhelming number of Supreme Court decisions, that's enough. Good intellect. You read the statute. You look at the case law, and most of the time the law is pretty clear -- 95% of the time." Justice Ginsburg, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia -- they're all going to agree on the outcome. But it's those 5% of the cases that really count. And in those 5% of the cases what you got to look at it is: What is in the justice's heart? What's their broader vision of what America should be? You know, Justice Roberts said he saw himself just as an umpire. But the issues that come before the court are not sport. They're life and death. And we need somebody who's got the heart to recogni-- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young, teenaged mom; the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges. I think it's telling that he made these remarks to a group concerned with women's rights. Because if there's any sort of coded language by what Obama is saying, looking at the audience being spoken to is a good way to figure out for whom the code is intended. Pat Leahy appears to disagree, although (to be absolutely fair here) with dog whistles and coded language, part of the game itself is always denying the hidden message. Here is Leahy, speaking on the same Sunday show as Hatch: I've known President Obama long enough. He doesn't need to use code words. He speaks very plainly and very directly. I think that's why he won such a resounding victory in November. I talked with President Obama shortly before he did that press conference, and I think I have a pretty good sense out of the meeting with him when I returned to Washington from Vermont -- I have a pretty good sense of what he has in mind for a justice. Now, speculating on Supreme Court choices is a traditional inside-the-Beltway game. But in this instance, I truly think the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. By standing foursquare against "empathy," they are once again taking a very unpopular stance with Americans in general, and they don't even seem to realize it. If you conducted a poll (after weeding out those who didn't know what the word meant), I would bet that: "Is 'empathy' a good thing or a bad thing in a Supreme Court Justice?" would probably get a pretty high positive response rate. It's just not that scary a word to most people. But a key distinction is that most people would probably agree that empathy is seen as more of a feminine trait than masculine. We associate empathy with motherhood, and women in general. It may be a sexist thing to say, but that is how most people see it, I would bet. And that may be the dog whistle in Obama's statement that nobody heard correctly. Empathy means a woman nominee, in other words. I could be wrong about this, but if I am right it means that the media completely missed this point. Of course, others have suggested that the rest of his remarks were also a hint of who Obama's going to appoint. The speculation focuses on whether Obama is going to appoint a non-jurist -- or even a non-lawyer -- to the high court. Jennifer Granholm's name usually pops up at this point (Granholm is the very popular Democratic governor of Michigan). All that talk of "life experience" may be an indication that Obama's not just going to elevate a jurist from the appellate level this time. Or that he's going to appoint a minority, perhaps a Latina. Or perhaps a lesbian (boy, that would give the Republicans something to fight against, wouldn't it?). But the rest of Obama's remarks aren't getting as much attention as the word "empathy." Whoever the appointment turns out to be, it's not going to deter the Republicans from the grand fight they are relishing. Supreme Court nominations are grist for the very profitable mill of political fundraising -- for both parties, incidentally. The specter of "activist judges" (which is equally defined by both sides as: "judges who don't rule the way we would like to see them rule") is one of the best fundraising tools in politics. The political junkies really really care about this stuff (as they should, the Supreme Court is a very powerful entity), and they are more than willing to open their wallets and purses to fund such fights. The Republican base loves these battles, as does the Democratic base. This time around, however, it's likely to be a tempest in a teapot. Even if Republicans attempt "the nuclear option" of filibustering a Supreme Court nominee, it will likely fail in the end. President Obama is very likely going to get his pick seated, and without too much trouble. And for all the sturm und drang , it's not going to change the court's composition much, as Souter was a pretty liberal guy himself. The real battle will be when a conservative justice retires. And realistic Republicans know this. They know they're going to lose this round. They are interested in softening up the ground in this first skirmish with Obama over the Supreme Court, in anticipation of further battles yet to come. But I truly think the only "hidden message" or "code words" or "dog whistle" in Obama's "empathy" remark was merely that he's leaning heavily towards appointing a woman. But Republicans have already staked out their ground in the fight -- they are strongly against "empathy." Which is going to delight their ever-shrinking base, but it's just going to make independent and moderate voters scratch their heads in perplexity. Republicans will wind up looking like obstructionists in the whole fight. And the more fight they put up and the more noise they make, the worse they're going to come out of the fight. It's like staking out an anti-motherhood position -- not a very wise political choice. Because, in the end, most people would probably agree with everything Obama said in his statement. Empathy just doesn't have the power to terrify average folks. And picking a Supreme Court Justice that considers how average Americans live is probably pretty OK with average Americans, too (imagine that!). Republicans launched this attack on the word "empathy" because they know that Obama's statement -- taken in its entirety -- sounds pretty downright rational to most people. They are attempting to "correct" this rational interpretation of Obama's words before it sinks into the American zeitgeist . Senator Leahy, later on in his Sunday morning appearance, summed up how much Americans trust Obama at this point to appoint the right people (and also incidentally reminds everyone how sometimes these selections don't turn out as intended): The fact of the matter is, we will have an up-or-down vote on whoever it's going to be, and I would hope that the president would go with his instincts. Look what he's done with his Cabinet. He's had pretty darned good Cabinet choices, and I think he's going to make a very good choice here. You will hear a lot on the far right or the far left who will say who he should or shouldn't go with. Remember, a lot of the left-wing groups picketed, actually picketed the Senate building that I'm in against me, because I was going to vote for David Souter. They said it would be terrible, the end of the world if we confirmed David Souter. Now those same groups think David Souter was a great justice. The fact of the matter is that the president will make a good choice just as he has with his Cabinet. Most Americans would probably empathize with that sentiment. Much to the Republicans' dismay.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Barack Obama
 
William Bradley: Obama's Troubled AfPak Summit Top
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lauded brand-new military moves undertaken by the Pakistani government. The optics seem more telling than the rhetoric. President Barack Obama is hosting his first summit of his wartime allies, the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the so-called "AfPak" summit, dealing with what Obama calls the biggest geopolitical threat to America's security. But there's no state dinner in their honor. No address to Congress, which must fund Obama's plans (and may attach conditions). And the principal social event, a dinner for the presidents hosted by Vice President Joe Biden at the Naval Observatory, has its own ironic backstory. Biden famously walked out of a dinner last year with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. After their meetings today, Obama struck a note of optimism. "I'm pleased that these two men -- elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- fully appreciate the seriousness of the threat that we face, and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it. And I'm pleased that we have advanced unprecedented cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan on a bilateral basis -- and among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States -- which will benefit all of our people." Vice President-elect Joe Biden delivered a critical message when he visited Afghanistan on January 10th. But the words and pictures were not in synch. Even the body language at today's Obama statement was telling in regard to the troubled nature of the AfPak summit. Obama, who can be quite warm when he wants to be, was notably cool both to Karzai and to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. Karzai was George W. Bush's man in Kabul, a buddy of sorts, the recipient of regular phone calls from the American president and participant in weekly video conferences with the White House. There will reportedly be none of that with Obama, who had apparently only spoken to Karzai a few times since his own inauguration prior to this week's Washington summit. Indeed, it was Biden who delivered the message that things would be different back on January 10th, when the then vice president-elect visited Kabul and talked with the Afghan president he walked out on last year as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Afghan President Hamid Karzai laid out his vision for Afghanistan's future at the Brookings Institution on Tuesday. But Obama is stuck with Karzai, who will almost certainly win August's Afghan election. Zardari has none of the Bush buddy/Biden bete noire baggage with Obama that Karzai carries. But the warmth meter doesn't register much higher there. His administration isn't the target of corruption charges from American officials that Karzai's has been, but this widower of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto hasn't found the way to counter a very alarming jihadist insurgency while balancing the needs of secular reformists and a powerful national security apparatus that is still geared more to a potential war with India rather than the threat within (in part because it's shot through with jihadists itself). Zardari's administration has cut deals with homegrown Taliban that amount to unsuccessful appeasement. At the insistence of the Obama Administration, it's embarked on a brand-new offensive, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lauded today. But who knows how long that will last, or even if it's an effective move. With increasing signs of restiveness in Congress -- though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is against tying the administration's hands -- Obama is offering more money for civilian projects in both countries, and new US training in Kuwait for Pakistani counter-insurgency operations. But how well that will go is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, the talk will continue. On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and CIA Director Leon Panetta all hold meetings with opposite numbers from the Aghan and Pakistani government. And everyone comes back together again in August for another trilateral summit. That will be after the Afghan elections, which Karzai and his former warlord running mates are expected to win. In fact, these trilateral US/Afghanistan/Pakistan summits may take place every quarter. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan are a major problem for the new strategy. Perhaps there will be better optics the next time around. But that may happen only if things are going better. What's the likelihood of that? Well, Defense Secretary Bob Gates did an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN a few days ago. What he said should give pause. So far, there have been no breakthroughs with more moderate Afghan Taliban -- a lynchpin of the new Obama strategy announced on March 27th -- and Gates has "real reservations about significant further commitments of American military, beyond what the president has already approved." Gates went on to compare the situation to the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, noting that the Soviets sent 120,000 troops into the mountainous country, pursued scorched earth tactics, and still lost. Of course, the Afghan resistance received massive help from the US, which sought successfully to create a Soviet Vietnam. And it's not so much a matter of winning, or losing, a war in the conventional sense. The mission is to disrupt and disable Al Qaeda from using the region as a safe haven from which to prepare and launch 9/11-type attacks. The Obama Administration may be closer to achieving that than it may suppose. So long as Pakistan doesn't descend into basket case status. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com. More on Barack Obama
 
Shannyn Moore: Palin Popularity Plunging in Polls Top
Sarah Palin is no longer the most popular governor in the country. That title now belongs to Connecticut Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell. Rell has a 70% approval rating (4.10.09). Connecticut has seven times the population of Alaska. Sarah Palin is no longer the most popular politician in Alaska. Senator Lisa Murkowski is. She is polling at a combined approval of 76.3%. Lisa Murkowski avoids drama. Alaskans, while not always agreeing with her, agree she is, unlike Sarah Palin, at work. In March 2008, Sarah Palin's combined positives were 85%. Her combined negatives were 12%. In July of 2008, according to the same polls, if you walked into a bar with 100 people, 12 people didn't approve of the job Sarah Palin was doing. Good luck getting a drink. Last September, Sarah went on tour...and stayed on tour-like an old Aqua Net 80's band that ought to stick to playing local bars and count their iTune downloads. Sarah Palin consistently ignored the needs of Alaskans. As a result of her job abandonment, her approval rating suffered. The new Hays Research polls show the governor at 54% combined approval and 41.6% combined disapproval. 30% of her former fans now boo her. Love can be fickle. Alaskans are starting to get it. Palin's job approval numbers have dropped consistently since she came back from the Straight Talk Express tour. Neglect doesn't play well here. Since these poll numbers were released, Sarah Palin has dug her naughty monkey heels in; she is selfishly refusing $28.6 million in State Energy Program stimulus funds. Alaska has the highest energy costs in the country. Newsflash: it gets cold here! The money would be used to winterize homes, which in turn, would reduce energy consumption and costs, while...ding ding ding...providing local jobs and STIMULATING a sluggish economy!!! Palin said she doesn't want to be part of "growing the national debt." If she were truly concerned, she would accept the stimulus package in its entirety and then write the federal government a check. The $28.6 million she is rejecting will go to another state-probably California. In a bipartisan plea to the governor, Senators Bill Wielechowski-D, Anchorage, and Lesil McGuire-R, Anchorage, asked Governor Palin to accept the money to help with urgent and important state needs. Our state budget is almost a billion dollars in short fall, and the $28.6 million would help with long range costs. The state budget prioritizes energy assistance to the tune of $100 million annually. What a concept. The stimulus money would fund more energy auditors, contractors, and tradesmen in the short term. Families struggling to pay high heating costs would benefit in the long term. Those families will spend it-thus the stimulus. Last year, the governor, in a sweeping "love me long time" gesture, spent $740 million in an "energy assistance rebate." It came in the form of a one time payment of $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the Alaska. You should have seen the line at Best Buy that day. The checks evaporated like Palin's approval ratings. The governor is, once again, pandering to her disappearing base and prioritizing her dream of a 2012 presidential run ahead of the real needs of Alaskans. Not accepting this money makes her a "conservative?" Her position contradicts the truth. Her own state agency, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, stated they already have requirements on buildings to insure they meet national energy standards. The federal requirements apply to towns larger than 2,500 people. Granted, most of the state's population lives in larger towns, but the majority has energy codes already in place. So, in fact, Palin could use the funds for projects already under the federal codes. It's crap. Sarah's excuse is crap. Her actions are as erratic as her reasoning. Rush "Boss" Limbaugh thinks Sarah is fabulous. Boss thinks she's the new face of the party-the party that "won't attract liberals...thank God." Well, Rush lives in Florida. Rush hasn't spent up to $11 a gallon for heating fuel. Rush hasn't spent three months in sub-zero temperatures. Rush hasn't lived where the sun doesn't rise for a month. Rush should shut it. He reminds of a guy full of fishing stories who probably can't bait his own hook. Sarah can feel pretty good about her endorsement from the real leader of the GOP. Sarah Palin is sacrificing Alaska for Boss Limbaugh's affection. If the governor doesn't step up and help the state with some financial energy relief by May 12 th , her next polls will drop even lower. Alaskan's don't consider heat a luxury. More on Sarah Palin
 
Bill Maher: New Rule: Holy Crap Top
New Rule: The image of the Virgin Mary must start appearing on healthier foods... Check out Real Time with Bill Maher live Fridays at 10PM ET/PT - Only On HBO. More on Bill Maher
 
Jaclyn Simon: Ellen's Baffling Hypocrisy Top
For the November elections, Ellen and Portia DeRossi hosted a gala to endorse prop 2, (for which they will soon be honored by the Humane Society). In an Access Hollywood video clip covering the event, Ellen gives a speech on the horrors of factory farming, telling her celebrity-laden audience, "I am just appalled that we are kept ignorant...If we were actually aware of the process, we would be heartbroken and we would stand up and do something about it and this is what we are doing now in out tiny, tiny way...." She goes on to confess, "It took me a long time to open my eyes and see what was really happening...you hear it all the time 'I don't want to know about it.' It's like well 'You have to know about it because it is not fair, because you are contributing to it. If you want to look at it and educate yourself and then decide to still do it, then ok. I don't think anybody wants to hurt animals. I don't think anybody goes out of their way to torture animals." This statement is laden with irony in light of her recent campaign as the new face of Cover Girl, the cosmetics line owned by Procter and Gamble, one of the largest companies to continue animal testing. Ellen's hypocrisy is baffling. I can only speculate on the reasons for her contradictory behavior that A. she is in it for the money, B. she is ignorant of the damage she is doing by promoting this ecologically and ethically ambiguous brand, or C. she believes the gains the LBGT community will gain through her exposure outweighs the exploitative business practices and lax ethics of the company she has chosen to promote. While I have a sneaking suspicion the answer is all of the above, lets, for now, give Ellen the benefit of the doubt in regards to her intelligence and her monetary values. Let's contribute her endorsement to progressive political goals. It is true, that when I saw Ellen reciting the "easy breezy Covergirl" mantra on TV the other day, I was moved by the empowering aspects of this campaign, and in the possible alteration of mainstream's definition of beauty, currently dominated by heterosexual, mostly white, thin, young women. These social gains, however, are irreparably mitigated by the oppressive practices of Cover Girl. The false dichotomy between animal rights and civil rights reminds me of this past November when I marched to protest prop 8. Among rainbow flags, wedding dresses, and signs declaring "8 is Hate", I noticed a few people carrying signs depicting chickens with slashes through them, declaring "rights for people, not animals." The logic was that animals gained rights instead of more deserving gay men and women. This sentiment that there were not enough rights to go around was echoed in some protestor's resentment that the same people who voted for Barak Obama voted yes on prop 8. People seem to feel like a win by one oppressed group means a loss for another. There are differences between human rights and animal rights, but they are related- it is the same mechanism at work. We are all fighting the same beast, and progressive goals aren't a zero-sum game. In any case, even if some activist's compassion only extends as far as other human beings, and the suffering of animals is of no interest, Ellen says it is of interest to her, and neither she, nor anyone else who claims to can use or endorse Cover girl with a clear conscience. At the gala, Ellen confessed that it took her "a long time to open [her] eyes and see what was happening." I hope that Ellen will open her eyes a little wider and see that the company she promotes does intentionally hurt and torture animals because of greed, and that this senseless destruction and abuse is a step back for us all. For a list of cosmetic companies that do not test on animals go to: http://search.caringconsumer.com
 
Linda Hirshman: A Hole in the Hole Top
Wondering what happened to Douthat Watch (the Times published the second installment of Ross Douthat's efforts in the distinctly provisional online forum)? You have to have very good eyes to see nothing. The column, an embarrassingly vapid description of how the Republican Party needs a "center" but not one that involves any existing Republican centrists, is almost infinite regress. Douthat says nothing interesting about how nothing will solve the Republicans' problem of nothing to offer. I feel like I'm watching the old Seinfeld Show. So instead of an analysis of nothing, I offer the following question for us to discuss: What in the world did the New York Times think it was doing? Is this the frog that keeps jumping long after its brain function has stopped?
 
Lori Berenson Gives Birth To Boy In Peru Top
LIMA, Peru — An American woman serving a 20-year sentence in Peru for collaborating with leftist guerrillas gave birth Wednesday to a baby boy, her father said. New York native Lori Berenson's son was delivered by cesarean section in a civilian hospital in Lima. The boy's father is a former member of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement whom Berenson met in jail and married in 2003. "I'm just ecstatic. This child will likely be my only grandchild, and I'm going to spoil him if I can," her father, Mark Berenson, a former college professor, told The Associated Press. Lori Berenson, a 39-year-old former Massachusetts Institute of Technology student, was arrested in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison by a military court the following year. A civilian court retried her in 2000, convicting her of the lesser crime of terrorist collaboration and reducing her sentence. She denies any wrongdoing and maintains she is a political prisoner. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the legal arm of the Organization of American States, upheld the civilian court's ruling in 2004, closing Berenson's last avenue to formally appeal her sentence. Berenson is eligible for parole in November 2010. Peruvian law permits Berenson to raise the child in prison until age three. Named Salvador Anespori Apari Berenson, the infant will have dual U.S. and Peruvian citizenship. According to her sentence, Lori will be expelled from Peru upon release. The father, Anibal Apari, was released from prison in 2003 and is now a lawyer in Lima. The baby was delivered by cesarean because the pregnancy exacerbated Berenson's back problems. Doctors say she has degenerative arthritis of the spine and will require surgery. The Cuban-inspired Tupac Amaru guerrillas _ best known for their four-month takeover of the Japanese ambassador's residence in 1996 in Lima _ and the larger Shining Path rebel group plunged Peru into chaos in the 1980s and early 1990s. But unlike the bloodier, Maoist-inspired Shining Path, which was known for wholesale massacres, the Tupac Amaru cultivated a Robin Hood image, distributing food from hijacked trucks in poor neighborhoods.
 
Human Rights Watch: Israel and Hamas: Cooperate with Investigation Top
(New York) - United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should call on Israel and the Hamas authorities to cooperate with the investigation led by Justice Richard Goldstone into serious laws of war violations by both sides during recent fighting in Gaza, Human Rights Watch said today. A UN Board of Inquiry, in its report to the secretary-general, said its own probe into attacks on UN installations in Gaza should be supplemented by a more comprehensive international investigation, but Ban has said he would not press for a broader inquiry. The UN Board of Inquiry mandate was limited to incidents involving attacks on UN installations and personnel during Israel's major military operation in Gaza from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009. The Board of Inquiry found the IDF responsible for casualties and damages in seven of the nine incidents it investigated; in one incident it determined that the most serious damage was caused by a Palestinian rocket most likely fired by Hamas, and in another incident it said it was unable to reach a conclusion as to which party was responsible. The separate Independent Fact-Finding Mission headed by Goldstone was established by the UN Human Rights Council. Goldstone has said that the inquiry will investigate alleged violations of the laws of war by both sides during the Gaza fighting. "The Board of Inquiry has produced an excellent report with solid recommendations. As a next step, the secretary-general should endorse the UN fact-finding mission already established under Richard Goldstone to look into broader issues," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. "The failure of both Israel and Hamas to investigate themselves, along with the Board's conclusions and Human Rights Watch's findings inside Gaza, all show the need for such an impartial and comprehensive investigation." The UN Board of Inquiry said that several incidents it investigated, including deaths and injuries occurring near the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's (UNRWA) Jabalia and Beit Lahiya schools, and the UNRWA headquarters and nearby Gaza Training Center, "required further examination in relation to the rules and principles of international humanitarian law." The report referred to the deaths of many other civilians during the Gaza fighting, and recommended "an impartial inquiry mandated, and adequately resourced, to investigate allegations of violations of international humanitarian law" by both Israel and Palestinian armed groups. Ban, in making public a summary of the Board's report, said that despite this recommendation "which relate[s] to matters that largely did not fall within the Board's Terms of Reference, I do not plan any further inquiry." Ban did not mention the Goldstone fact-finding mission established by the UN Human Rights Council. Justice Goldstone is a former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Israel barred media from Gaza during the major military operations from December 27 to January 18, and has continued to deny entry to Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups. In a statement issued before Ban's press conference, the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry dismissed the UN Board of Inquiry's report, saying that it was "tendentious, patently biased, and ignore[d] the facts presented" in favor of "the claims of Hamas, a murderous terror organization." On April 22, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) released the results of its internal investigations into its behavior during the recent fighting, concluding that it "operated in accordance with international law" throughout the fighting and that "a very small number" of "unavoidable" incidents occurred due to "intelligence or operational errors." That finding contradicted Human Rights Watch's research into the fighting in Gaza, which concluded that both Israeli and Palestinian forces were responsible for serious violations of the laws of war. For example, the IDF used heavy artillery and white phosphorus munitions in densely populated areas and apparently targeted people trying to convey their civilian status, Human Rights Watch said in a 71-page report. In particular, Human Rights Watch conducted field research into some of the same attacks covered by the Board of Inquiry, such as Israel's use of white phosphorus against the UNRWA's headquarters and a UN school in Beit Lahiya, disproving IDF assertions that "no phosphorus munitions were used on built-up areas." "The IDF's investigation was an effort to whitewash Israeli violations of the laws of war," Whitson said. "It is regrettable that Secretary-General Ban did not speak out clearly today about the need for an impartial international investigation that can provide a measure of redress for civilians killed unlawfully." Palestinian fighters also committed serious violations of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said. Immediately prior to the Israeli military operations that began on December 27, throughout the fighting, and in the period since, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups fired hundreds of rockets into Israeli civilian areas, in flagrant violation of prohibitions against deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians. "The report of the Board of Inquiry makes a strong case for an independent investigation into laws of war violations more broadly, not just those involving UN installations," said Whitson. "The secretary-general should immediately signal his full support for the fact-finding mission headed by Justice Goldstone." More on Hamas
 
Lane Hudson: White House Speechless on Marriage Progress Top
When the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny the freedom to marry based on sexual orientation, the White House issued the following statement: The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law. It was quickly noted that the statement lacked the word 'equal' or any variation of it. Under quick and heavy criticism from the gay community, the White House either issued a correction, completing the phrase, ' equal protection under the law'. I sarcastically joked that what was missing in the statement was an entire sentence: President Obama, a brilliant constitutional law professor, supports the separate but equal policy that is increasingly being ruled unconstitutional by State courts. The statement was messaged to death and probably signed off by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs or one of his deputies. I can't help but think that the gay staffers in the White House wouldn't have cautioned that such a response would not be well-received. When the Vermont legislature dramatically overrode the veto of Republican Governor Jim Douglas, the White House had nothing to say. Today, when Maine's Governor John Baldacci became the first Governor in the history of the American nation to sign a bill granting civil marriage rights to gays, the White House didn't issue a statement (but they did issue a Presidential Proclamation for World Trade Week). ABC News' Jake Tapper must have noticed. He asked Robert Gibbs about Maine in today's press briefing (via The Advocate ): Jake Tapper: Does the President or the White House have a reaction to the Governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill? Robert Gibbs: No, I think the President's position on same-sex marriages has been talked about and discussed. Tapper: He opposes same-sex marriage. Gibbs: He supports civil unions. Tapper: Does that mean that he's going to say or do anything against what the citizens of Maine-- Gibbs: Not that I'm aware of. I think the President believes this is an issue that's best addressed by the states. That's all of the acknowledgment that the gay community gets. Nothing more. We're in the midst of mind-blowing progress towards being treated equally by the law and the White House can't muster one bit of emotion or congratulatory tone. To say it's disappointing wouldn't come close. Here's the thing: Robert Gibbs, who I have known since 1998, is a good person and I'm sure he is happy for the advances towards equality for the gay community. But, there is a mentality that anything 'gay' is controversial and toxic. The political 'ruling class' has always propagated that notion and it remains to this day. It permeates campaigns and government alike. That's why we get half-ass measly statements, if anything. Here's the problem: Everybody knows the Democrats are for equality for the gays. The Republicans have spent a gazillion dollars telling everybody that for the past 18 years or so. So when a Democrat back tracks and falls all over himself to answer a 'gay' question, it shows fear. It shows dishonesty. And nobody's buying it. The Solution: The White House and other Democrats should shed their feigned distaste for equal rights for gays. Now is the time. We are in the midst of a revolution. Public opinion is changing faster than ever. Even Republicans are considering embracing some of these issues because they are beginning to realize that their homophobic ranting is driving the under 30 vote away in droves. Embrace history and be a part of advancing the next big expansion of equal rights to a minority in America. We've never looked back on that with shame. Indeed, they are the are some of the proudest moments in our history.
 
Huff TV: Arianna Testifies About The Future Of Journalism Before Senate Subcommittee On Communications Top
Arianna testified about the future of journalism and newspapers before the Senate Commerce Communications subcommittee on Wednesday. John Kerry, the subcommittee's chairman, has worried that newspapers are an "endangered species." Testifying alongside Arianna were Steve Coll, former managing editor of The Washington Post; James Moroney, publisher and chief executive of The Dallas Morning News; Marissa Mayer, vice president, search products & user experience for Google; David Simon, the creator of the "Wire"; Alberto Ibarguen, president and CEO of the Knight Foundation. WATCH Arianna's opening remarks WATCH John Kerry asks Arianna about the Huffington Post More on Newspapers
 
Zalmay Khalilzad: Obama's Moment in South Asia Top
WASHINGTON -- Afghanistan and Pakistan are at the very top of President Obama's list of foreign and security priorities. This week, the president hosted the leaders of both countries for trilateral and bilateral discussions. The U.S. military has embraced this new emphasis, as indicated by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen's recent statement that the war in Afghanistan is now more important than the struggle in Iraq. The increased emphasis on Afghanistan and Pakistan is laudable, because what happens in these two countries is critical in determining the future of extremism and terror -- a defining security challenge of our time. The outcome will depend on whether the United States and its partners can successfully tackle three key issues. First, extremist and terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan must be eliminated. Pakistan has been ambivalent about preventing extremists from using its territory, in large part because Pakistan's security agency, Inter-services Intelligence (ISI), found the extremists to be useful tools in dealing with Afghanistan and India and in attracting the interest and attention of the United States. Now, however, the extremists are threatening Pakistan itself, which hopefully will cause the new Pakistani government to end its ambivalence and actively confront the extremists. The civilian part of the government, led by Asif Ali Zardari, is on board. However, the two other power centers in Pakistan -- the military and the ISI -- are not doing all that they can, and gaining their sustained support will not be easy. Key players in both institutions do not have the necessary confidence in the U.S. and still see India as more of a threat than the extremists. They also believe they must hedge against U.S. disengagement from the region and increased U.S.-Indian cooperation -- and they see continued utility in using extremists to foment unrest in neighboring countries. These ideas and concepts have deep roots in the military and ISI. Second, the coalition's military and economic strategy needs to be adjusted. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has reviewed the military posture. It has judged that there was a gap between ends and means, and plans to close that gap by increasing U.S. forces in Afghanistan dramatically while also committing to significantly build up the size of the Afghan armed forces. This is a necessary move, but taken by itself it will not suffice. One of the key pillars of improved security in Iraq was the dramatic increase in the size of Iraqi forces, which now number one million. Afghanistan has around the same population as Iraq, living on a larger territory -- yet its army and police forces combined currently number less than 150,000. Resources have to be found to train and sustain a much larger Afghan force. A number of other military problems remain. To name two: More efforts have to be made to avoid civilian casualties and NATO's model of provincial deployments led by single countries, and therefore following varying rules of engagement, has caused significant confusion. The coalition needs a unified approach to dealing with insurgents. International civilian efforts have not been well coordinated, either. The U.N. Security Council has designated the U.N. special representative as the civilian coordinator for these efforts, but donors have proven unwilling to surrender control to this coordinator. Third, the Afghan government and the Obama administration must form an effective partnership. Success will be difficult if the Afghan government cannot play its role. The current situation is not encouraging. Also, there is a crisis of confidence between President Karzai and the Obama administration. The new administration has encouraged several potential candidates to run against him in elections later this year. This has had the unfortunate effect of pushing Karzai into the arms of those who are hostile to the West, while also fragmenting the opposition -- since every member of the opposition, having been encouraged by Washington to run, assumes that he as an individual has the support of the United States. An effective strategy for the political track is still missing. A weak Afghan government, led by a resentful Karzai whose ties to the United States are strained, is a very bad, but at the moment the most likely, outcome. This can only redound to the benefit of the Taliban, even though they are otherwise unpopular among Afghans. The success of the administration's diplomacy will have to be measured by whether it produces a credible and agreed-upon roadmap for eliminating extremist sanctuaries in Pakistan, including ending the use of Quetta by Afghan Taliban leaders. President Obama's immediate challenge is how to put U.S.-Afghan relations on a more productive path as the Afghans prepare for the presidential elections. Finally, Obama must send a message to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, acknowledging their hopes and dreams and assuring them that the U.S. will not abandon them to extremists, military dictators and warlords. Zalmay Khalilzad is the former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN, presently a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. (C) 2009 GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK More on Barack Obama
 
Family Research Council Slams New GOP Initiative Top
The National Council for a New America, the much-publicized GOP rebranding initiative, is already facing skepticism from the party's old allies. The Family Research Council, a powerful Christian conservative group, sent out a scathing press release hitting the Council's avoidance of cultural issues. The effort only underscores the Republicans' present identity crisis, as the GOP leadership kicked off the campaign devoid of the values that once caused voters to identify with the party. The group's priorities, which were unveiled at a pizza parlor press conference, include the economy, health care, education, energy, and national security. Notice anything conspicuously absent? Former Gov. Jeb Bush explained the values void by saying it was time for the GOP to give up its "nostalgia" for Reagan-era ideas and look forward to new "relevant" ideas. (Yes, because that worked so well for Republicans in 2006 and 2008!) Bush ignored the fact that abandoning the array of principles that Reagan espoused is exactly what got the GOP into this mess. No one is suggesting that we try living in the past, but President Reagan's principles are the ones that guided our nation from its very inception. Turning away from those fundamental truths would be a death knell for the GOP as little would be left to distinguish the Republicans from the Democrats. Too many Republicans leaders are running scared on the claims of the Left and the media that social conservatism is a dead-end for the GOP. If that were the case, why are pro-family leaders like Mike Huckabee creating such excitement in the conservative base? The Republican establishment doesn't draw a crowd. Governor Sarah Palin does. Also, take a look at the recent Pew Research poll, which showed overall support for abortion in America has dropped eight percentage points in the last year and support for it among moderate and liberal Republicans has dropped a whopping 24%. Based on that, how can the GOP suggest that life is a losing issue? If there were a road sign for the GOP on this new journey, it would read: Welcome to the wilderness. You're going to be there for awhile. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Colorado Ethics Commission's Secret Meetings May Break Law Top
The Colorado Independent on Tuesday asked the state's top ethics panel to turn over recordings of more than a dozen secret meetings held this year -- including closed sessions where a member of the panel reported deliberating on an ethics complaint filed against former Secretary of State Mike Coffman, who won election to Congress last fall -- charging the panel with violating the state's Open Meetings Law.
 
Charles Karel Bouley: Joe the Plumber is Queer Top
Joe the Plumber is queer by his own definition. In the evangelical magazine Christianity Today he stated that "People don't understand the dictionary, it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual, it's not like a slur, like calling a White guy a honky or anything..." He went on to say that he had friends that were "actually gay" (which sent me laughing for hours, I mean, how gay do you have to be to be 'actually' gay, are there special display cases for those who are 'actually' gay?) but that they knew he wouldn't let them near his children. His opinion flies in the face of American values and any truly Godly ideology and is in a small but vocal minority. He's strange and unusual. He's queer. The thinking is obtuse. It echoes what Evangelicals have been trying to codify for years, and what the Republican Party has become through it's use of these wedge issues. Evangelical Republicans or even good "Christian" Republican conservatives that claim to have the soul of the party are proving they are to American Christians and Republicans what the Wahhabi form of Islam is to the rest of the world. Right Wing Radicals like Joe and Rush and the rest have been waging the equivalent of a social jihad on any American not like them, that doesn't think like them, a patriarchal movement that is meant to keep women oppressed and second class citizens with no control over their own bodies and medical decisions and designed to keep any American that does not conform to their rigid and radical ideology away from the equality promised all by the Constitution. Instead of roadside bombs they use surgical incursions in to policy carrying the force of millions of U.S. dollars raised to discriminate against other Americans, breaching the divide of Church and state and destroying national morale by dividing a nation's families making them choose between ideology or blood ties. They practice the politics of thinly veiled theocracy, perverting a Christian ideology, mixing it with a capitalist bend, a white somewhat fascist view that has all but destroyed our nation. The Republican Party is currently the party of War Criminals, like its former leader George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, co-conspirators Condaleeza Rice, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales...on and on. This cabal of criminals bankrupted a nation, literally, through blatant disregard for the average American while protecting and rewarding the wealthy and ruined our standing in the world through unjust and illegal occupations. Republican senators and Congressional leaders for six years sat by and were duplicitous in these acts (as were many Democrats). This is a party of racists, war criminals, homophobes, xenophobes, and if you don't like that classification, too bad. The facts back me up. It's time for this party and people like Rush, Joe the Plumber, all of their mouthpieces to go, to fade away like the Whigs, to be seen as radicals and given no real political or social footing. And why we never classify these attacks on Americans as such; or these people's statements as such plays to everyone's fear of calling a religious person crazy if they're speaking from a religious stand point. We have no problem calling a Muslim crazy in such case. I have no problem calling Christians crazy in this case. Joe the Plumber is the David Duke of every man. Gay and Lesbian youth commit more suicides than any other young Americans and these young Americans now get to hear how they are "strange or unusual" from this self-pontificating ignorant blind ideologue. His statements put Americans in danger, in danger of ending their own lives, and are not a credible side to an argument but the ramblings of a man that believes an omnipotent being on some throne thinks any one of its creations are defective, strange, unusual (by the way, I love being strange and unusual, just fyi). His sole basis for his un-American radical right wing statements are his religious convictions, which our founders felt were best kept in church and not in policy and certainly not be used to discriminate against other Americans. Any radical offshoot of any ideology must be shunned and if their actions and rhetoric elevates, they should be treated accordingly so their extremism does not become detrimental to the common good. Denying Americans the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because this or that god doesn't approve of their actions is just as radical. It's social assassination and it's been condoned for far too long. American values must stop being tied to a Christian ideology and must simply emerge as American. It is un-American to classify other Americans as strange and unusual based solely on your religious ideology. It is un-American to deny Americans equal rights under the law in all contracts, including marriage, based on God's specific plan for man and woman as the prolific Plumber put it. It is un-American to wage religious attacks, physically or socially, against other Americans that don't live or believe as you would like them to or subscribe to your ideology. The time for tolerance of this party and these people is over. Conservative Republicans of "faith" that subscribe to the Joe, the Rush, the right of their party's ideals are a danger to America like any other group that wants to rule in order to codify their religious beliefs. As ex-convict Marion Barry screamed how "We may have a Civil War" after the DC council voted to accept marriage equality and then a Mormon member of Congress Jason Chaffetz from Utah pledges to block DC's move towards equality (Congress has to approve the District of Columbia's decisions), two outrcries based solely in religion, one screaming of CIVIL WAR over equality and civil rights they should be denounced and removed from the public view as any Zealot would be. They are extremists screaming of civil war or Congressional leaders about to breach the sacred separation of church and state. They are, in fact, out to divide our people, to separate, they are seditionists, if you use the same dictionary to which that plumber refers. They want "incitement to rebel, subversion, troublemaking, provocation; rebellion, insurrection, mutiny, insurgence, civil disorder..." seditionists for their radical cause of inequality, division and hatred amongst the American people based solely in religious or capitalistic (capitalism being its own religion) ideals. We silence people all the time in this country if what they are saying is so obtuse, so beyond the pale, that it violates the basic morality of our nation. The U.K. doesn't let people in their country if their beliefs are so radical and incongruous with those of the nation that they would be disruptive, like Michael Savage or Fred Phelps. America, either you are a theocracy that embraces religious zealots and radicals who perform social jihad using weapons of highly funded faith or you are a land where everyone that contributes, doesn't hurt anyone and has a desire to help and support those in their community for the betterment of the nation are allowed to share equally in the benefits regardless of some religious viewpoint. Time to evolve past Joe the Plumber, past Rush Limbaugh, past the politics and ideology that verge on those that launched the Spanish Inquistion and shun those that would tear down our country through radical ideologies caught in the 14th century. Or the experiment fails and we split in to the Divided states of America an dissolve a union that exists in name only, certainly not a union that ties the hearts of each American together. More on Religion
 

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)