Thursday, May 7, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Blitzer Mines Oval Office Meeting On Education Crisis For Gossip Top
Today, President Barack Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, met with Reverend Al Sharpton, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. An odd assortment of people, all of whom have fundamental disagreements with one another. Yet all took time out of their day to help pursue one of the causes of Sharpton's National Action Network -- the closing of the racial achievement gap in education and the promotion of equal funding . All three men have come together to work on these matters, the thinking being that an unlikely coterie of supporters might draw attention to the issue . It is, indeed, a situation , precisely the sort of situation for which you might construct a Room for Situations, staffed by Wolf Blitzer. And yet when Sharpton found himself inside the Situation Room, it became clear that no one at CNN was interested in talking about education. Instead, the pressing matter became: "OMGZ! Obama and Gingrich were in the same room! DISH, PLS!" Granted, Sharpton tried, and for maybe a minute, Blitzer allowed him to mention the purpose of this alliance. But watch how quickly the discussion turns to gossip: REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK PRESIDENT: Well, I thought it was very good. You know, we're getting ready for a mass rally here in Washington May 16th, around the anniversary of "Brown v. The Board of Education." So I've been concerned and the National Action Network has, about the continued inequality in education -- 55 years later, still a race gap in how kids are educated. SO I invited Newt Gingrich to our National Action Network convention. He came... BLITZER: So he's going to speak at your rally? SHARPTON: He came last month April -- last month, in April. And he said that he would participate. He agreed we need equal funding. I don't agree with him on vouchers, but we all agree on equal funding. We all agree that every student should not be eliminated from the possibilities of being educated. We -- Vice President Biden came and spoke the next day. We asked for a meeting of the organization with the president. And the president said why don't we have unlikely people that don't agree -- I don't agree on vouchers, I'm not supporting Mayor Bloomberg for reelection or mayoral control. He said why don't we have unlikely people talk about it... BLITZER: All right... SHARPTON: ...so that people understand how serious this is. BLITZER: This is an issue where, at least on some parts of education, you and Bloomberg and Gingrich agree, is that right? SHARPTON: Equal funding, we agree; having teachers that are adequate, we agree; giving incentives to teachers, we agree; and we agree that there is a crisis in the country. BLITZER: All right. Take us into the White House. You're sitting there with the president, Mayor Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich. How -- was it awkward, given... SHARPTON: Well... BLITZER: ...given some of the politics of Newt Gingrich's criticisms of the president? SHARPTON: I think it was different. In fact, Mr. Gingrich sat on the couch next to me. The president's sitting here. Mayor Bloomberg and... BLITZER: In the Oval Office? OMG! Was it the real Oval Office? And you sat on couches? And President Obama didn't try to crush Gingrich's head, with hammers? Wow! AWK -ward! Sharpton, naively, tried to steer the conversation back toward substance, to no avail: SHARPTON: This is a serious problem. In some cities, 52 percent of black kids not having a high school diploma, in an economy where we don't have unskilled jobs available anymore. And we said the fact that unlikely people coming together may give the attention that it needs. BLITZER: Was there any tension there between the president and Newt Gingrich? Given some of the politics of Newt Gingrich's criticisms of the president? Seriously, did the President act all nervous? Did Newt Gingrich blush? Was there a sexual tension that you could cut with a knife? Who is going to the prom with who? BLITZER: So this was a...This was strictly a discussion on education... SHARPTON: All the way. BLITZER: You didn't get into other issues? SHARPTON: We never discussed any other issues other than education and a fact -- the fact that we're 55 years past "Brown" and we're going to have this rally next weekend. BLITZER: So what I hear, it was pretty cordial? SHARPTON: It was very respectful, very cordial. But it was candid. We didn't act like we all are each other's buddies. We didn't act like we're going to hang out tonight and have dinner. We were saying this is a crisis. In a crisis, people that don't agree come together. That's what crises do, if you have real leadership. You know, someone should maybe start some sort of evening news program, that reports on crises, maybe. [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 .] More on Barack Obama
 
Sen. Jeff Merkley: Words Designed to Kill Health Care Reform Top
Over and over again, I hear from Oregonians that we need real health care reform that provides every American with access to quality, affordable care. That is why Congress and President Obama are so focused on this issue. Of course there are folks in the insurance and hospital industries, from the medical profession, and both political parties who will have different ideas about how to achieve our goal. But I was shocked when I read a memo from Republican strategist Dr. Frank Luntz laying out plans to dismantle any effort to give all Americans access to quality health care. Dr. Luntz, the man who developed language designed to promote pre-emptive war in Iraq and distract from the severity of global warming, is at it again - this time with a messaging strategy designed to sink our historic opportunity for health care reform. Let's be clear: this is not a strategy to push certain ideas about health reform. It is a strategy intended solely to kill reform efforts altogether. In his own words, Dr. Luntz has stated, "You're not going to get what you want, but you can kill what they're trying to do." Not surprisingly, since the American public is strongly in favor of fixing the broken health care system, the Luntz strategy is predicated on deception. In his memo, Dr. Luntz lays out multiple ways that opponents of health care reform can trick and manipulate the American public. One strategy that stood out to me is to call efforts to reform our broken health care system a "bailout for the insurance industry." This is ridiculous. This statement is developed to serve the same interests who stopped at nothing to derail health care reform in the 90's, who blocked health care coverage for low-income children, and whose top Medicare priority for 15 years has been transferring money from seniors and taxpayers to the insurance industry. When support for a prescription drug benefit in Medicare became too powerful to ignore, President Bush and his allies created the convoluted system we now have. Rather than simply add a prescription drug benefit to the tried, true, and popular Medicare program as Democrats wanted, they devised a giveaway for insurance companies. For years Dr. Luntz's clients have virtually abdicated health care policy making to the insurance industry; the last thing it needs is a bailout. Today though, even the insurance industry is engaged in constructive negotiations about how to repair the health care system. Unfortunately for the vast majority of Americans who support reform, however, Dr. Luntz's new game plan to stop change is being embraced by leaders in the Republican Party. In a briefing where Dr. Luntz presented his strategy to Republican House members, Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, made it official by saying, "Frank is back." So expect a massive misinformation campaign coming to a health care debate near you. Opponents using Dr. Luntz's doublespeak will argue for a "balanced, common sense approach" to health care but what they really want is to keep the system the way it is. They'll say that a public plan will not be "patient centered," but their real goal is to block accessible health care for every American. They'll say reform will deny Americans "choice" even when every American will be allowed to keep their health insurance and their doctor. They'll claim that the "quality of care will go down," while callously ignoring the fact that millions of Americans have no health care at all and millions more are denied the medications and procedures they need. What we are seeing, yet again, is that while Dr. Luntz and his clients may have excellent polling data, they are utterly clueless about what the American people want. But, I have to give Dr. Luntz credit on one front: he points out that Republicans need to appear to be on the "right side of reform" or they lose the health care argument. The problem is that you can't fake support for reform. You're either for improving the quality and affordability of health care or you're against it. You're either for expanding coverage to every American or you're against it. At the end of the day, no matter what talking points they use, each member of Congress is going to have to vote for or against improving our broken health care system. With small businesses and families being buried by rising costs, with 47 million uninsured, millions more underinsured and American companies losing ground against their global competitors, it is evident to anyone that our health care system is broken. There are Republicans and Democrats, insurance executives and patient advocates, physicians and hospital representatives all working to meet one of America's most pressing challenges. We certainly do not all agree on what a reformed health system should look like or how to get there, but there are people on all sides who are negotiating in good faith. The country deserves that debate on the merits, not poll-tested attack lines intended to prolong the broken system we have today.
 
Elisa Zuritsky: IPhone and Me: My Long Term Relationship Top
I'm in an abusive relationship with my iPhone. I've been living with this secret shame for a long time, thinking it was okay, it was just my own private little problem. But it's come to my attention Apple's having a grand old time in this economy, thanks to brisk sales of iPhones. This has got to stop. My story began like so many others, with a giddy honeymoon period. I loved the portable email, ditched my old Filofax, and shot way too many photos, just because I could. I'd thought I'd found my soul mate. But then it started failing me. It started with dropped calls, which I rationalized were AT&T's fault. Then it started acting out whenever I checked my email, taking forever to load a simple message, or worse yet, delivering phantom emails from "No Sender," with nothing inside but the cryptic note, "This message has no content," often in bundles of five or six. Thanks, but I don't need the mind games. I've tried to work on the relationship. I've had several sessions with Apple's trained "Geniuses," who've been more than sympathetic and accommodating, earnestly running tests and reinstalling software, even discouraging me from acting on my natural, if twisted, impulse to buy a newer iPhone. "Don't do that," the last Genius said in a hushed, concerned tone. But don't you see? That only made me more love Apple more, for hiring people who have so much compassion. We've been involved now for over 20 years. Exclusively! That's right. I've never owned a PC, never owned a Blackberry, and I don't think it's fair to count a brief experimental period with a Palm Pilot. I was young. After every Genius appointment, things get a little better, but just as I'm lulled into a state of security, another glitch will pop up, each one more mystifying than the last. I hit a new low last week when I opened up my iPhone case to find a big, deep scratch across the screen. I have no idea how this happened, but whenever someone asks me, I feel like I'm lying to protect my abuser. Maybe I should make up a story. Why do I stay if I'm so unhappy? The same reason I robotically hit "yes" on a monthly basis when my trusty, months-old iMac asks if I want to install the latest software upgrade. I want to believe that things can get better. Nor can I physically resist the urge to replace my gorgeous, expensive computers every 18-months or so, despite all the upgrades and empty promises that the newest models run faster, have more memory, and crash less frequently. It's never true, but I fall for it every time. And so the cycle continues. I guess that deep down, I'm secretly hoping that Apple will change into the benevolent, reliable, hippy-ish co-op I fell in love with. That it'll stop, just STOP, forcing me to endlessly upgrade the software and replace the hardware, and just work well for a long time. Is it too much to ask? After all, I don't stand for this kind of treatment from my refrigerator, or my TV, or my car. I was having lunch with a friend yesterday who waited for the appropriate time to pull out her Blackberry and check her email. I responded in kind with my iPhone. There she was, chuckling over her latest crop, and efficiently thumbing away replies, while I stared at my cracked screen, watching the scroll wheel spin and spin, as if huffing and puffing to retrieve mine. I sat there, sighing with disgust, like the long-suffering wife I am. I could get a divorce, start fresh, if only I had the courage. I know in my bones that iPhone sales are up because millions of long-suffering wives are so disgusted with their "old" iPhones that they're replacing them with the newest model. And if that's not genius, then I don't know what is. More on Apple
 
Kangaroo On The Loose In Upstate New York Top
CANASTOTA, N.Y. — A wayward 'roo named Bandit is wandering around an upstate New York community. tate police said motorists reported seeing a kangaroo early Wednesday afternoon along the Thruway near Exit 34 in Canastota, 20 miles east of Syracuse. Troopers who searched the area saw the 3-foot-tall animal and contacted the owner, but the 'roo got away. Owner Jeff Taylor said Bandit is a 1-year-old wallaroo, a large species of kangaroo. He bought the animal last month for a wildlife education program he intends to start next year. Bandit has been on the loose for three weeks. Taylor said he believes someone broke into his barn and intentionally let the animal out. The state police Thruway detail said Bandit remained on the loose Thursday morning. More on Animals
 
Jamil Zaki: Empathy Fatigue and What the Press Can do About It Top
People are inherently generous. There's more than moral obligation at play when you donate money to the Red Cross after reading about victims of a disaster, or offer to help a friend move. Evidence from experimental psychology suggests overwhelmingly that we help each other not because of the insistence of social contracts such as laws; we want to help. Beginning just after their first birthdays, infants engage in prosocial behavior, coming to the aid of strangers even in the absence of direct rewards. They also prefer to see others behave prosocially. At three months, when they can barely lift their heads, babies already prefer puppets that help another puppet over a visually similar terrycloth bully. Adults similarly prefer fairness, and in experiments, willingly pay hard-earned money to punish others who have acted unfairly. This effect would most likely have been on display if, by pitching in a few dollars each, Americans could have collectively revoked the bonuses Wall Street executives awarded themselves in the wake of the current recession. An inborn tendency to share the feelings of others - to feel joy at their joy, match suffering to their suffering (first labeled "Empathy" by psychologist and art theorist Theodor Lipps) - probably forms the basis of our aversion to distress, and our willingness to help others. Empathy and altruism are evolutionarily old, as even non-human apes share emotions and respond to each others' distress: chimpanzees will forgo a chance to push a button and receive food if pressing that button also results in another chimpanzee being shocked. Apes in the wild are similarly prosocial, and will console the loser of a fight by putting their arm around his or her shoulders like friends buying each other a beer after a bad breakup. However, despite its naturalness, empathy is a malleable reflex, deployed more under certain conditions than others. While we are driven by a desire to help each other, we can also avoid other people's pain by ignoring it or distancing ourselves. For this reason, the way news is communicated is critically important: it can nudge people towards either caring about others or turning away. The invention of photography, videotape, and finally instantaneous global media has fundamentally changed the way we learn about the suffering of others. The accessibility of others' pain has grown in waves: from the first photographs of fighting and the wounded in the Civil War (pictures that had to be posed, due to the long exposures required by 19th century cameras) to cell-phone movies instantly uploaded by Hurricane Katrina victims. Initially, artists and journalists hoped that new media's vivid representations of suffering would incite a wholesale rejection of that suffering's causes. In Regarding the Pain of Others, Susan Sontag describes Ernst Friedrich's War Against War!, a 1924 photo essay depicting the horrors of World War I, which was created under the idea that people who witnessed images of such intense suffering could not possibly continue supporting war. Friedrich and others reasoned that viewers of these pictures would feel resonance with the pain being felt by these photographs' subjects, and be moved to do whatever they could to stop that pain - in this case, becoming pacifists. While Friedrich's hopes were obviously not met, the power of images to incite empathy and even influence policy also has contemporary cache. The "CNN effect" describes how, by airing images of suffering associated with crises such as conflicts in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, news outlets can create enormous pressure for governments to intervene, fueled by public outcry over the suffering of others. Media influence on public demands can be so great that former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali once complained, "CNN is the sixteenth member of the security council." The power of inciting empathy is not lost on politicians. President Obama's vivid descriptions of people's struggles - for example, in his campaign-season "infomercial" - and his appeal to viewers' empathy are tools through which he aims to increase public service in the United States to a level not seen since FDR's time. Governments can also restrict the display of suffering for political purposes: think of the Bush administration's refusal to show images of American soldiers' coffins, or the removal of the press from Gaza during the recent war there. Communicating the suffering of others does not always stir empathy, and can even be counter-productive, for example when an inundation of suffering depicted in stories and pictures leaves people feeling helpless or exhausted. The term "compassion fatigue" was first coined to describe hospice workers, who - after spending their professional lives exposed to fear and pain - can find themselves drained of instinctual concern for others. With today's mass media, anyone with a newspaper or internet connection is able to receive daily, multimedia updates about crises - manmade and natural - affecting people all over the world. The resulting habituation, paired with a feeling of numbness, can drain our empathy, motivating us to stop caring about victims of tragedies. Cynically throwing our hands up at the surreal death tolls of natural disasters or massacres and changing the channel can be self-protective, "costing less" psychologically than vicariously experiencing the suffering of strangers. It is the responsibility of scientists and journalists to work together in stopping such empathy fatigue, because empathy is the primary human quality that fuels our instinct to protect human rights around the world. While the main purpose of news outlets is to convey information objectively, that objectivity is in many ways unrealistic (think of Fox vs. MSNBC as they reported during the last election cycle). First, the actual information discussed in the news can vastly shift people's ideas of the issues that are most important. This is not a new insight: a set of studies conducted 20 years ago demonstrated that splicing in just 4 extra news pieces on a given topic, such as the US dependence on foreign oil, into a week's worth of news reports made viewers overwhelmingly count that issue among the 3 most pressing facing the country. Second, the way information is presented can cause the same story to affect people in different ways. For example, a recent study found that stories about tragedies framed in terms of human conflict or suffering attract readers' attention more than stories framed in terms the economic impact that those tragedies cause, resonating with Kurt Vonnegut's notion that "readers are human beings, mostly interested in human beings." If journalists accept that they are primary forces in influencing the public, instead of invisible purveyors of facts, then their next big job is to figure out how they want to wield their influence. My belief is that the news should be made with full consciousness of the ways that news - by definition - drives human thought and emotion, and has the potential to mobilize our instincts to empathize with each other. Research in psychology suggests at least two important ways that journalists can keep people emotionally engaged with the news. First, it is critical to present not only pictures and facts about hardships suffered around the world, but also to pair these with narratives about the people affected. Without the personal component, it becomes easier for media consumers to decide that they have nothing in common with sufferers "out there, where bad things happen." Several studies have shown, for example, that it is easy to "infra-humanize" members of other races or groups: we perceive their basic emotions, such as fear and anger, but we don't acknowledge their experience of uniquely human emotions, such as remorse, embarrassment, or indignation. This was most evident in accounts of groups first coming into contact with each other: there are numerous accounts of indigenous cultures and European explorers mutually believing that their group contained the only "humans." Infra-humanizing probably developed as an instinct to protect one's group, but now exists as an especially insidious form of prejudice. While people may not think of members of a foreign culture as inferior, it's just that lack of thinking about other groups - and their internal lives - that can act as a shut-off switch to our sense of empathy and desire to help others who are not like us. For example, a study conducted just two weeks after Hurricane Katrina gutted New Orleans showed that people who infra-humanized disaster victims of other racial backgrounds were less likely to want to volunteer in relief efforts. The less we perceive we have in common with others, the easier it is to simplify their emotional experiences, and the less motivated we are to help them when in need. The complex experiences of victims of disaster or war are too rarely the focus of media reports. Instead, in pictures and stories, we see distilled accounts of basic emotions such as fear or anguish. Such images may reinforce the notion that victims, unlike us, have very simple reactions to very horrible problems. Of course, famine and genocide seem like they should cause basic emotional reactions, but human experience - even under extreme situations - is more nuanced than an observer might guess. Presenting that complexity through personal narrative can help readers re-humanize sufferers from the other side of the world, see them as "like us," and motivate empathic and prosocial responding. Several studies have shown that something as simple as presenting someone's first and last names, or asking readers to wonder out loud about the mundane preferences of someone from another race ("would they prefer grocery shopping or laundry? What do you think their favorite color is?") can erase automatic associations of that race with negative stereotypes. Actively asking people to "put themselves in the shoes" of someone from another group can exert even more powerful effects: motivating prosocial behavior and (at least temporarily) erasing stigmas about that group. Because of this, news outlets wishing to combat empathy fatigue should start by following Vonnegut's insight, and presenting news as it affects individual human beings, human beings whose experience and emotional lives are as rich and complex as those of viewers themselves. Online news sources are an especially powerful example of how this type portrayal can work. Sites such as Alive In Baghdad, Mideast Youth, and the Common Language Project offer a unique opportunity for readers to experience 1st person narratives of people living through conflicts and in areas affected by crises. Such accounts can be especially effective in eliminating the sense of "otherness" that is easy to impose on victims half a world away. Secondly, it is important to make salient to media consumers that they need not read passively about suffering, but can act - at that moment - to help the people they read about. As Sontag put it, "compassion is an unstable emotion. It needs be translated into action, or it withers." People often offload responsibility for helping others, deciding that they cannot make a difference, or that someone else will. This point is made tragically by the story of Kitty Genovese, a Queens woman who was murdered in the parking lot of her apartment complex, within earshot of scores of witnesses who did nothing. Such diffusion of responsibility can be counteracted if - at the moment that a reader feels empathy for others - they are provided ways to act immediately, for example by making a donation or calling representatives and senators to demand intervention. Charities and political campaigns already do this, placing stories and emotional appeals directly next to their "donate" buttons. While news sources may believe that providing routes to action in their stories could violate objectivity, at least in the case of humanitarian tragedies, the opportunity to help - and to provide an outlet for consumers' empathic responses - should overpower that objection. A global media community has enormous potential specifically because it can eliminate the space between one person's pain and another's empathy. In this way, media can produce a "democracy of emotions," and transform our aversion to suffering into social pressure for our governments to act prosocially. Our desire to help each other is at the core of being human, but the ways we apply this instinct are flexible, and can be weakened by a sense of distance or helplessness. As such, it is critical for the press to keep psychology in mind, and do what they can to minimize the effects of empathy fatigue. More on Barack Obama
 
Katie Saddlemire: Countdown To Mother's Day: Tell Us Your Stories Top
What to get Mom for Mother's Day? How does one make it something other than a greeting card holiday, eliciting the standard flowers and bath salts? The meat of Mother's Day is in the stories - the ways our moms helped, influenced, and shaped us. My grandmother died this past December, and my mom was faced with telling her mother's story. I sat with mom and my sisters after it happened, and as we looked through old photographs she told me about the Texas girl who married an Irishman (from Michigan), and moved to California where she raised my mom. Gram was an ambitious lady who worked first as a waitress and then became a successful accountant. She was a staunch Democrat to the end, always listening to the news for the latest political developments. It was this kind of influence that made my mom - an educated woman who took me and my sisters around the world, and is an activist in her community. That's what gives Mother's Day it's substance, I think. Let's pay tribute to the women who raised us! Tell me an anecdote, an experience, a story about your mom and how she influenced you. There'll be a follow up post on Mother's Day with the best submissions. Loading...
 
Cheney: "Mistake" For GOP To "Moderate," Glad That Detainees Were Waterboarded Top
Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's use of waterboarding on Thursday, saying that, contrary to arguments made by Barack Obama, the techniques were a necessary last-resort measure to get information from detainees. "I don't believe that's true," Cheney said, when asked to respond to Obama's statement that interrogators may not have needed to resort to torture. "That assumes that we didn't try other ways, and in fact we did. We resorted, for example, to waterboarding, which is the source of much of the controversy, with only three individuals. In those cases, it was only after we'd gone through all the other steps of the process. The way the whole program was set up was very careful, to use other methods and only to resort to the enhanced techniques in those special circumstances." The remarks, delivered during an interview with Scott Hennen, a conservative North Dakota radio host, glossed over the 266 instances in which the United States reportedly used waterboarding on two terrorist suspects -- a figure that would suggest the technique was either not effective or not really used as a last-resort option. Earlier, Cheney argued that the policies which he and other Bush administration officials pursued were, in fact, successful, and that his request to declassify information from the National Archives would prove as much. "If anybody (who obviously has to have clearances) takes a look at the record, they'll find that we had significant success as a result of these policies," he said. "One way to nail that down is that there are two documents in particular that I personally have read and know about that are still classified in that National Archives. I'd ask that they be declassified. I made that request over a month ago on March 31st. What those documents show is the success, especially of the interrogation program in terms of what it produced by way of intelligence that let us track down members of al-Qaida and disrupt their plans and plots to strike the United States. It's all there in black and white. It is work that was done by the Central Intelligence Agency after several years of experience with these programs. It demonstrates conclusively the worth of those programs. As I say, I've asked the administration to declassify them and so far they have not." Attributing Obama's decision to end such policies to an attempt "to appeal to the far-left in their party," Cheney was not-surprisingly adamant that investigating these interrogation techniques was a bad idea. He also called on the White House to "do everything they can" to stop foreign governments from prosecuting the Bush hands who carried out these practices. On the domestic front, the former vice president said he was not surprised by the defection of Senator Arlen Specter. Nor was he worried about the future of the GOP. Calling politics cyclical, he concluded that the party did not need to go through a process of moderation. "I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate. This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas...what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles," he said. "You know, when you add all those things up the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy. I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most us aren't." In the process of making another newsworthy interview, Cheney did -- without apparent irony -- allude to the fact that the GOP would benefit from him exiting the stage. "I think periodically we have to go through one these sessions," he said. "It helps clear away some of the underbrush...some of the older folks who've been around a long time (like yours truly) need to move on, and make room for that young talent that's coming along. But I think it's basically healthy." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Dick Cheney
 
Max Bernstein: New Hampshire Gets It Right and Gets It Wrong Top
Last Wednesday the New Hampshire State Senate made a respectable show of political will and passed a resolution legalizing gay marriage 14-10. The freedom of same-sex couples in New Hampshire to marry is now in the hands of John Lynch, the historically wishy-washy Democratic Governor. If Lynch lets the bill pass, it will make New Hampshire the fifth state to legalize gay marriage. I ask in light of this, if New Hampshire's legislature can be ahead of 45 other states on social issues, how can they be dead last on energy? They are, and the very same Senators who showed the courage to stand up to bigotry and prejudice displayed an inchworm's spine as they let big coal interests run them over, back their big trucks full of coal up, and run them over again. Here's the story so far: New Hampshire, like many places, has a gargantuan fossil-fuel burning, greenhouse gas emitting coal plant. Like many coal plants, Merrimack Station in Bow emits ton upon ton of mercury and by law must undergo expensive upgrades to meet new regulations. In 2006, the New Hampshire legislature voted (unanimously) to authorize the installation a mercury "scrubber" which will reduce the plant's mercury emissions. It was a good idea at the time and everyone rightfully patted themselves on the backs for it. The cost was estimated at $250 million. Last summer, however, Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH), the utility, suddenly they needed $457 million to complete the project, and have staunchly refused to provide an accounting of the new costs -- the kind of accounting-free, oversight-devoid spending that would later enrage America when it found out about the excessive AIG bonuses that were paid for with taxpayer money. They vaguely chalked the increase up to an increase in transportation, steel and labor costs - remember the summer of 2008 when everyone had a job and gas costs four dollars? The price of scrap steel was nearly double what it is now too -- but those times are over, and if that's the reason for the cost increase, the cost that should be over too. Still, PSNH is insisting that it needs $457 million to complete the project. If that's not enough, studies that take actually take into account the implied costs of the scrubber -- near-future modifications to meet regulations on additional mercury reduction, water pollution and carbon emissions (which the scrubber will do nothing to reduce) estimate that the actual cost of keeping this plant up to code is somewhere between 1 and 3 billion dollars. New Hampshire State Senator Harold Janeway, a guy sensible enough to think "we said yes to $250 million, not $3 billion" introduced a bill that would require a study of the costs to determine if the project is still worthwhile. (If you agreed to take someone on a blind date, then found out dinner would cost $300, you might want to see a picture first, no?) All the bill asked for was a 90-day pause in construction while the new costs were being reviewed. Anyways, the State Senate just voted 22-1 against this cost review, leaving Janeway as the lone Yea and bearer of good sense. Here's their convergence of political impotence, retrograde policy and straight-up bad math. Merrimack Station employs 1200 people. The installation of the scrubber will add 300 temporary jobs to the plant. That's 1500 jobs, 1200 of them permanent -- or as permanent as a job can be at an institution that is likely to be illegal in six years. If we take the medium estimate of 2 billion dollars that would be required in improvements, that comes out to 1.3 million dollars per employee. I'm as big a champion for handsome compensation for jobs in this sector as anyone, but 1.3 million per employee could be spent on transitioning these workers to clean energy solutions with cash to spare for infrastructure and development. When we talk about green-collar jobs, we're talking about getting out of these situations that are bad for our planet and pocketbooks alike. Nonetheless, management claimed that even a 90-day pause would lead to immediate job losses - a scare tactic designed to get labor on board together and form this alliance that could best reason and logic in the legislature - and as planned, 13 of the 14 Senators progressive enough to vote to recognize same-sex marriage in New Hampshire voted to turn a blind eye to backward energy and fiscal policy. There are two lawsuits pending against PSNH on behalf of ratepayers, and the EPA just launched an investigation into PSNH mandating that they reveal many of the expenditures relating to the scrubber - but construction still continues on it. The time will come when all states recognize gay marriage, and the time will come when carbon-belching plants like Merrimack Station are left behind for solutions that lead to a healthy planet and healthy profits. New Hampshire should reverse course on the scrubber and lead the way on both. More on Gay Marriage
 
Jeff Biggers: Sierra Club Video Skewers Worst Coal Songs Ever Recorded in History Top
Don't ever accuse the Sierra Club of being bad sports. After the West Virginia Coal Association released a series of the worst cellphone ringtone coal songs ever recorded in history--I mean, as in gag-me-with-a-spoon worst coal songs ever recorded since Thomas Edison pioneered the first coal-fired plant and phonograph in the late 19th century--the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign went beyond the call of duty to provide real video images of the horrific reality of mountaintop removal in West Virginia for the coal songs. Given the vast treasury of amazing coal ballads and reels--including the brilliant 2-CD volume Music of Coal produced recently by Lonesome Records and Publishing BMI--the West Virginia Coal Association should be banned from our cellular airways for life. Here's the wonderful Sierra Club video: Coal was West Virginia:
 
Stephen Friedman, New York Fed Chair, Resigns Top
Stephen Friedman, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve's board of directors, resigned on Thursday amid questions about stock purchases in his former firm Goldman Sachs.
 
Tony Peraica Likely Target Of Shots Fired At Neighbors' Home: Police Top
Riverside police are investigating whether shots fired into a West Suburban home next door to Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica's family may have been intended for the outspoken politician. "My wife and children are very much upset, as are the neighbors," Peraica told the Huffington Post. "This is a quiet subdivision where this sort of thing does not usually occur." Seven gunshots were fired around 3 a.m. Wednesday, according to Riverside Police Chief Thomas Weitzel. No one was injured. Peraica said he woke up to the sound of the popping but did not know they were gunshots. "I woke up and looked outside my bedroom window, but it was dark and I didn't see anything, so I went back to sleep," Peraica said. It wasn't until Wednesday evening that Peraica learned the sounds were gunshots -- and that the police thought they might have been meant for him. For Peraica, an opinionated politician and practicing lawyer, the news didn't come as much of a shock. "It's part of the crooked and corrupt politics of Crook County," Peraica said, "where people who try to do the right things and govern according to their principles have to be subjected to this kind of intimidation." Peraica believes the incident fit a larger pattern of systematic intimidation that goes back to when he was running for Cook County State's Attorney and his law offices were burglarized four times. Weitzel said that the home's remote location and the fact that the neighbors were two schoolteachers with a 10-year-old daughter led them to believe the high-profile Peraica was the intended target. One of the address numbers on the neighbors' house was also missing, making it easier to mistake their home for Peraica's next door, Weitzel said. No shell casings were recovered at the scene, leading police to believe the shots were fired from inside a car. No other incidents were reported in the neighborhood that night. Weitzel said they have no suspects, but that a neighbor reported seeing a dark four-door sedan with a loud muffler drive off after the shots were fired. Cook County Sheriff's Police are performing a routine threat assessment, but have not yet adjusted security measures, according to a spokesman for Sheriff Tom Dart. Police have increased patrols around Peraica's home, though he said he does not feel at any more risk than usual and he has no intention of changing his routine. "This is Chicago, a town unfortunately with a long history of violence. But I'm not going to be dissuaded, and I'm not going to stop."
 
Nancy Northup: Obama Budget Ignores Healthcare Needs of Millions of Women Top
I am deeply disappointed with President Obama's failure to strike government funding restrictions on abortion, particularly the Hyde Amendment, from his proposed budget for 2010. The budget does, however, propose defunding abstinence-only sex education and creating programs aimed at reducing teen pregnancy. The Hyde Amendment bans federal funding for abortion in the Medicaid program except under extremely limited circumstances . The President's budget abandons the millions of women who rely on Medicaid and other federal programs for health services, including federal employees and their spouses and dependents, women served by Indian Health Service, women in the Peace Corps and in federal prisons. It appears to clear the way for the District of Columbia to use its public funds for abortion. At a time in our nation's history when Americans at every income level are losing their jobs and their health benefits, guaranteeing access to affordable, quality healthcare, including reproductive healthcare, is imperative. For millions of women, federal programs are their only means of getting healthcare. Abortion is the only medically necessary health service excluded from Medicaid coverage. Failure to provide that service--a service that only women need--is discrimination. President Obama made clear during the election that he opposes the Hyde Amendment. And for good reason--over a third of women who rely on Medicaid and are seeking an abortion have been prevented from exercising their constitutional right to an abortion. Hyde unjustly impedes women's access to timely, quality healthcare and disproportionately harms those women who already face significant barriers to obtaining services. Sound public health policy means protecting the wellbeing of all women. Congress should step up and eliminate all restrictions on abortion funding, which would demonstrate much needed U.S. leadership and commitment to the human rights principles at the heart of reproductive rights - dignity, equality, and the ability to make reproductive decisions freely, without coercion or discrimination. Congress should also strongly support comprehensive sex education in response to the President's call to eliminate the wasteful abstinence-only funding within the budget and fund education programs that have proven effective and research to further develop programs. The federal government has already spent more than $1.3 billion on abstinence-based programs. Another dollar spent on so-called education that values ignorance over knowledge--no matter the amount--would be wasteful and defy common sense. Young people have a fundamental right to receive scientifically accurate and objective information in order to protect their health, including avoiding pregnancy and guarding against STD's. Our government shouldn't deprive our teenagers of that right and we, as taxpayers, certainly shouldn't be paying for it. Numerous studies, including one authorized by the government, have found that abstinence-only programs do not work, either they fail to delay sexual activity among teens or possibly even discouraging them from using contraception. The Center for Reproductive Rights urges Congress to provide federal money to support responsible sex education in schools, including science-based, medically accurate, and age-appropriate public health information about both abstinence and contraception.
 
Georgianne Nienaber: Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans: Buying Advice or Spin? Top
There is a big difference between a government cover up and news spin. The former is a strategic plan to prevent a scandal from going public. Think about Watergate, which concerned hundreds of illegal actions on the part of the Nixon administration to cover up a burglary which involved government espionage. Public Relations spin, on the other hand, is what politicians, corporations, and the government do on a daily basis to convince you, the public, to see the world through their interpretive lens. Spin may be disingenuous, it may be manipulative, and it may shade the moral truth, but it is not illegal. Something happened in New Orleans yesterday that certainly involves spin. When Sandy Rosenthal of the citizen and watchdog group Levees.org discovered that the New Orleans U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hired consultant PR firm Outreach Process Partners (OPP) to fine tune its public image to the tune of $1 million and posted a link to their campaign, the OPP website morphed to a new version within four hours. They basically "spun" their own credentials to look, well, less manipulative of public opinion. Image: Sandy Rosenthal Here is a look at the information presented on the original web page at 3:30 pm CST: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Media Support Services As part of a three-year public relations support contract (October 2007 to September 2010), OPP is providing on-site media relations (both local and national media), public meeting support, a complete overhaul of the Corps' Web site, communications strategy development and video support services. The Corps of Engineers has endured intense scrutiny in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In the face of adversity, OPP has worked arduously alongside the exceptional team of government personnel to deliver the Corps' message of rebuilding the Southeast Louisiana system quickly, safely and to a higher standard. Media Support: OPP provides media support for print, broadcast and Internet media on local, national and international levels including outlets such as the Times-Picayune, WWL-TV CBS New Orleans, Associated Press, USA Today, The Weather Channel, The Today Show, French TV Channel 5, and Engineering News Record on issues such as Hurricane Gustav, "paper in the floodwalls" and other investigative responses, seepage, peer review and the state of the hurricane and storm damage risk reduction system. As part of this cause, OPP fosters strategic relationships with media outlets that result in more accurate and balanced stories. Disaster Assistance: OPP provides round-the-clock staffing to handle media queries for the New Orleans USACE - with staff evacuating to Division headquarters in Vicksburg, MS, with blackberries, laptops and Internet air cards in a disaster. Interviews: OPP has facilitated a myriad of interviews about the rebuilding of hurricane system levees and interim risk reduction structures. Our team members have facilitated in-depth interviews with producers and hosts of The History Channel and MTV. Results: OPP's media support has been a fundamental part of the transition from typically negative news coverage to more neutral and positive news coverage. This effort has also resulted in multiple awards including: The Corps of Engineers was selected for a 2009 Blue Pencil and Gold Screen Award for their work on the Bonnet Carre Spillway Opening OPP was selected for a New Orleans Chapter PRSA 2008 Award of Merit Here is the web page at 7:00 PM CST after the criticism from levees.org: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Media Support Services As part of a three-year public relations support contract (October 2007 to September 2010), OPP is providing on-site media relations (both local and national media), public meeting support, making the Corps' Web site more user-friendly, communications strategy development and video support services. The Corps of Engineers has endured intense scrutiny in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In the face of adversity, OPP has worked arduously alongside the exceptional team of government personnel to deliver the Corps' message of rebuilding the Southeast Louisiana system quickly, safely and to a higher standard. OPP's assistance is geared toward helping the Corps answer stakeholder and media queries that involve technical information in a format that is available and accessible to a non-technical audience. Results: OPP's media support has resulted in multiple awards including: The Corps of Engineers was selected for a 2009 Blue Pencil and Gold Screen Award for their work on the Bonnet Carre Spillway Opening OPP was selected for a New Orleans Chapter PRSA 2008 Award of Merit - Borrow Strategic Communications Anytime the media goes to bed with a firm that "fosters strategic relationships with media outlets that result in more accurate and balanced stories," you just have to wonder. Fair media does not require a "strategic relationship" with a PR firm to accurately cover a story. It takes legwork, some phone calls at the minimum, and sometimes days or weeks of research. Unfortunately for the taxpayers and the citizens of New Orleans, government agencies are forbidden by law to lobby the government, but there is no restriction on hiring public relations firms. This puts the onus squarely on the backs of media to really do their job and find the truth. Researchers at the Center For Public Integrity have compiled a database that demonstrates the amount of traffic going through the door to the Army Corps of Engineers, and the potential for abuse of power these lobbyists wield over the U.S. Government. According to the Center, between 1998 and 2004, 598 companies lobbied the USACE. In 2004 alone, the number was 234. The Center's electronic database includes the amount of money paid by lobbyists, specific issues, the agencies they lobbied, and who paid them to do so. The USACE list can be found here . Rosenthal asks the reasonable question: "Shouldn't the Corps focus on repairing levees instead of their reputation?" She also is concerned that OPP provides support for print, broadcast and Internet media including the Times-Picayune , WWL-TV CBS New Orleans , Associated Press , USA Today , The Weather Channel and The Today Show . These media outlets provide much if not all of the coverage of the USACE in New Orleans. The Times Picayune and WWL represent local print and broadcast capabilities that national media often rely upon, especially in the event of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. We took a look at this issue last year when disinformation played out in mainstream newspapers, radio networks, and internet sites as spin doctors acted as apologists for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) during the devastating Midwest floods. S&C Advertising was caught red handed on its own website with a testimonial from Kevin Quinn, Chief Public Affairs Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Omaha District. "How these [public relations] professionals can transform masters of techno-babble into credible spokespersons so quickly and smoothly is an amazing thing to behold," Quinn said in remarks which have since vanished from the link we supplied in last year's post. It is hard to believe that the USACE would make the same PR mistake twice, but the speed in which the OPP website was changed makes one wonder. Whatever happened to just telling the truth? If OPP made a PR blunder, just say so and don't begin a process of deleting content from webpages. This begins to look, smell and feel like a cover-up. We called the national office of OPP for a statement-- twice--and were directed to two numbers in New Orleans. The spokeswomen were not available or were not in to take any calls. We left messages. Ken Holder, Chief of Public Affairs for the NOLA USACE, was easy to reach--twice--and immediately returned our phone calls. Holder has been on the job for a little over two weeks. He told us he was going to check out how much of that $1 million is actually coming out of NOLA USACE coffers, and is in the process of "reviewing" any and all mentions of USACE on the OPP website. Holder knows this could morph into a public relations nightmare for the Corps. He did not say that, but he is good at his job and handled questions like he is paid to do. Obviously Holder inherited this problem and wants to fix it. "We use OPP get public input through public meetings. We have a message we want to get out to local residents and we need a way to compile their feedback," Holder said. What about the media ties? "Basically there has to be a way for a government agency to interact with media." Last year the USACE said it utilized PR firms to "turn babblers" into spokespersons. It might be easier and more cost effective to engage the citizens of New Orleans in honest, open and candid dialogue without media filter and spin provided by public relations firms. Holder is new. He's a PR guy, but he is also a member of the USACE. He's walking a fine line, but it could be the time to get to the bottom of the OPP matter and wipe the public relations' slate clean. New Orleans has been through too much, too often, and deserves some honest answers.
 
Law and Order: BFD (VIDEO) Top
I am such a sucker for a "Law & Order" parody it's ridiculous, and this one is particularly funny. HuffPost's very own Dave Hill made the video with friends David Rakoff and Miles Kahn for "This American Life: Live!" -- a real-time look at the famous radio show. It follows the men and women behind 3-1-1, the non-emergency services wing of the city system. It does a good job of making you feel very very sorry for the people who have to listen to the random, nonsensical complaints of New Yorkers all day, while invoking the hilarious tropes of the "Law & Order" franchise. The only thing they're missing is an over-bearing moral at the end that teaches you to be a better person. WATCH: Law And Order: BFD from This American Life on Vimeo . Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Funny Videos
 
Maria Shriver: Azheimer's: A Baby Boomer Epidemic Top
I am a child of Alzheimer's. For many years, my father, Sargent Shriver, would testify before Congress for increased funding for his beloved Peace Corps -- and for all the War On Poverty programs he started. My father was an idealistic, intelligent, optimistic public servant, sharp and witty, his mind a beautifully-tuned instrument that left people in awe and inspired. That was then...today he doesn't know my name or who I am. When my Dad was diagnosed in 2003, I felt confused, powerless and alone. There was little information -- and even less hope. My mother, my four brothers and I felt we were entering a world that was terrifying and incomprehensible. Like cancer, people didn't talk about Alzheimer's back then -- they whispered about it. It was a diagnosis shrouded in shame. We struggled with learning about medication and care-giving -- with issues of our father's diminishing independence. We tried to explain to him why he could no longer drive or do many of the things he loved most in this world, like giving speeches on public service. When the invitations came in, we would just send his regrets. When people look at Alzheimer's families from the outside, they see the dependent, childlike parent now cared for by their offspring -- and it seems that the roles are simply reversed. Not so. The truth is, no matter what our age, we feel like children. No matter who you are, what you've accomplished, what your financial situation is -- when you're dealing with a parent with Alzheimer's, you yourself feel helpless. The parent can't work, can't live alone, and is totally dependent, like a toddler. As the disease unfolds, you don't know what to expect. As a doctor once told me, "Once you've seen one case of Alzheimer's...you've seen one case of Alzheimer's." I wrote a book called, What's Happening to Grandpa? At the time, I said I wrote it to help my children understand what was happening. In truth, I wrote it to explain Alzheimer's to myself. But when I wanted to turn it into a television special -- to shine some light on this subject -- no one was interested. I was told Alzheimer's wasn't big enough -- it was just "an old person's disease." Then, almost out of nowhere, came what I call The Alzheimer's turning point. In March of 2007, a national newspaper reported that the number of people with Alzheimer's was ballooning -- rising by 10% in just the previous five years. It reported that fully 13% of Americans had Alzheimer's -- that meant one in eight people over the age of 65. And unless a cure were found, there would be more than 13 million people with Alzheimer's by 2050. The number has been revised even further upward since then. That was the wakeup call Baby Boomers needed. After all, we are the generation who believed our brain-span would match our life-span. But now we were confronted with an epidemic -- an epidemic that wasn't just happening to "them." An epidemic that would happen to "us," too. And that scared us to death. All of a sudden, it seemed to me that people really started paying attention, and Alzheimer's became front-page news. On Mother's Day, May 10th, HBO will air and I will executive produce the most comprehensive television event ever about Alzheimer's disease called The Alzheimer's Project -- focusing on the cutting-edge science, the issues of care-giving, how one lives with the disease, and the children and grandchildren of Alzheimer's. It is time for this attention. Because someone is diagnosed in this country with Alzheimer's every 70 seconds. And fully one third of Americans have a direct experience with this disease. The epidemic is growing. Seventy percent of people with Alzheimer's live at home, cared for by family and friends. There are nearly 10 million Americans providing 8.4 billion hours of unpaid care to people with Alzheimer's disease or other dementias - valued at $89 billion. And believe it or not, there are getting to be almost as many kids actually "babysitting" a grandparent with Alzheimer's at home as kids babysitting children. That's where we are. Of course, most of the unpaid care-giving is done by women -- but luckily, that's also changing. Increasingly, men are stepping up to the plate. Which brings me back to my brothers. I am in awe of what they do. My brothers take my Dad out to the Orioles games. They sit and joke with him, talk guy-talk to him. They take him to their kids' piano recitals and basketball games. Former Peace Corps volunteers will see him, know he has Alzheimer's, and still come up to him. They take his hand, and tell him stories. It doesn't matter that he doesn't know who they are -- or that he doesn't even remember the Peace Corps. What matters is that I know for sure he's comforted by the warmth of the human connection. I know that all in all, my family is one of the lucky ones. We're truly blessed we're able to keep our Dad at home. We're blessed to have the resources to pay patient and loving caregivers, who help us take care of our Dad and make him feel loved. I'm in awe of them, too. But millions of others aren't as lucky. Many are forced to quit jobs to stay home -- or go through the wrenching process of sending the parent away to a facility -- feeling judged and mortified and ashamed that they can't care for their loved one themselves. For so many, the financial, emotional, and spiritual cost is too much to bear. My hope is that as the veil is lifted, as information and funds are available, they'll see that they're not alone -- that there's nothing to be ashamed of, that there's hope out there, because we're finally making Alzheimer's a national issue. We have to put Alzheimer's on the front burner, or it will not only devour our memories -- it will cripple our families, devastate our health care system, and decimate the legacy of our generation. At the age of 93, my Dad still goes to Mass every day. And believe it or not, he still remembers the Hail Mary. But he doesn't remember me...Maria. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that that still makes me cry. But even so -- in the past 6 years, I have gone from hopelessness to hope. I have hope, because things are changing. I've seen inter-generational day care centers where toddlers and Alzheimer's patients spend the day together. They eat together, they dance together, and have story-time together. It's quite moving to behold. And we're building inter-generational playgrounds in California, so Sandwich Generation people like me -- who are taking care of kids and parents -- can go to one place with both of them. I've also gotten hope from my own children. I watch how they talk and laugh with my father. They don't get bogged down in the sadness. My kids and my nieces and nephews all accept my Dad for who he is today -- and that's been a lesson for me. I have hope because public hearings on The Hill -- high-profile work like the Alzheimer's Study Group report -- TV shows and books...are bringing Alzheimer's out of the back room and into the living room of our nation. And most of all, I have hope that Congress will do the right thing, the courageous thing -- and use new The Alzheimer's Study Group's report as a roadmap for the real legislation we need, to stem the tide of what promises to be a horrific epidemic -- the disease itself, and its impact on our families and our health care system. Many of us know of someone who is struggling with this disease in their family. We have seen the pain in the eyes of someone who has to watch powerlessly as it takes their loved one down and sometimes even tears at the fabric of the family itself. It will take courage to implement these bold recommendations. But I know that if we make that major commitment to brilliant scientists like the ones I have met in laboratories around the country -- they will produce the drugs to slow Alzheimer's down -- and perhaps even prevent it. So let's act now and do what we have to do -- to spare millions of Americans in the future the pain of watching someone they love die a mysterious death on the installment plan. If we do -- I am convinced -- we Baby Boomers will be the generation who tells our grandchildren that believe it or not, there once was a time when there was no cure for Alzheimer's.
 
Meghan McCain: Bristol Palin Shows The GOP Doesn't Understand Sex Top
In her Daily Beast column , Meghan McCain writes about Bristol Palin's campaign for abstinence and how it relates to a general lack of honesty within the Republican party when it comes to safe sex. Let me get something straight: Bristol Palin, as an eighteen-year-old adult, is free to make her own choices and decide how she wants her life to unfold. But for whatever reasons, the American public and media remain overly engrossed in our politicians' sex lives and, as in this case, those of their families. There's an especially unhealthy attitude among conservatives. Daughters of Republican politicians aren't expected to have sex, let alone enjoy it--as if there were some strange chastity belt automatically attached to us female offspring. God forbid anyone talk realistically about life experiences and natural, sexual instincts. Nope, the answer is always abstinence. [...] Here's what I've never understood about the party: its resistance to discussing better access to birth control. As a Republican, I am pro-life. But using birth control and having an abortion are not the same at all. Actually, the best way to prevent abortions is to educate people about birth control and make it widely and easily accessible. True: abstinence is the only way to fully prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Still, the problem with abstinence-only education is that it does not make teenagers and young adults more knowledgeable about all the issues they face if or when they have sex--physically and emotionally. Research backs McCain up -- abstinence-only education doesn't work . Palin herself backed off an earlier statement that abstinence is "unrealistic" on the "Today" show Wednesday. Her former boyfriend (and father of her child) maintains that it is. Meanwhile, President Obama eliminated abstinence-only funding from the budget .
 
CARE: Keep the Mothers in Mother's Day Top
By Deborah Gordis Asunta Mucha stood barefoot on the dirt floor inside her home with both hands clutching her stomach. In excruciating pain, she tried to fight back the scream that tore at her throat. Her husband heard her agonized cry and rushed in. Pregnant with twins, Asunta needed a cesarean section but her village in Peru was three hours from the nearest hospital. This is the point when many women in the developing world die. But not Asunta. In this case, an ambulance was available with skilled health workers to rush her to the hospital where a doctor and attendants waited for her. The next day Asunta quietly nursed her healthy baby girls. She survived because of the system in place to save the lives of expectant mothers. But about half of all women in poor countries don't have access to these kinds of services. Often, they have only their mother-in-law or husband for help. Maternal mortality is a global tragedy. From the time you had your morning coffee today until you lift that cup again tomorrow, some 1,500 expectant mothers will die, 99 percent of them in poor countries. Most of these deaths are preventable. Every time a preventable maternal death occurs, women everywhere take a step backward. The good news: we can bring down this intolerable number. Women share basically the same risks in pregnancy, but the difference in poor countries is access to quality health care. Most women in the U.S. get care early while women in poor countries get care too late or not at all. We wouldn't tolerate this kind of death rate for American mothers. We shouldn't tolerate it in the developing world either. No mother should be left to bleed to death when all she may need is a vial of medicine and a trained health worker to save her life. Ensuring safe motherhood requires a long-term approach. I saw it work in Peru. CARE, Columbia University and the local Ministry of Health focused on the region with the highest maternal mortality rate. In five years they created a network to provide skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, emergency care for life-threatening complications, immediate postpartum care for mother and newborn, and access to family planning services. That region now boasts one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the country. That's why Asunta and her daughters are alive today. In Peru, you can start to see glimmers of hope for improving the lives and status of women and children. But until women are highly valued in every culture, their health care needs will remain a low priority. Clearly, improved health care is necessary; but women also need to be empowered to influence health decisions for themselves and their families. Such a cultural shift takes time, dedication and advocacy. But everyone benefits. When women are valued, families are more likely to plan ahead for better birth spacing and for emergencies that occur in pregnancy. Together we can stimulate a movement to reduce maternal mortality -- helping societies view women as equal and invaluable, putting pressure on governments to improve maternal health, educating the media to write about these issues, and encouraging religious leaders to promote safe motherhood from their community platforms. With a firm commitment and action from world leaders, the crisis of maternal mortality can go the way of polio - phased out village by village until it's all but unheard of anywhere in the world. We all benefit when mothers survive and contribute to the well-being of their families and communities. Asunta's twin girls, now 4 years old, are happy, joyous little girls. And their world is enormously better because of the woman raising them - their mother. Deborah Gordis directs CARE's global Mothers Matter program. CARE fights poverty in 66 countries with a focus on empowering women and girls to bring about positive change.
 
Obama Eliminates Abstinence-Only Funding In Budget Top
President Obama's 2010 budget , released this afternoon, eliminates federal funding for a range of abstinence-only education programs. Here's a release from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy : President Obama released his FY 2010 budget today and called for at least $164 million in funding for a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative. This includes competitive grants for evidence-based programs, research and evaluation, and an authorization for $50 million in new mandatory teen pregnancy prevention grants to states, tribes, and territories. The budget eliminates funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education and the mandatory Title V Abstinence Education program. "Regarding teen pregnancy, President Obama's budget is just right," said Sarah Brown, CEO of the National Campaign, in a statement. "It emphasizes good science, encourages research and innovation, and increases the overall investment in teen pregnancy prevention." Brown also writes: We also appreciate that 25% of what the President proposes in his budget is devoted to carefully testing innovative approaches to preventing teen pregnancy. If we are to make continued progress in preventing teen pregnancy and childbearing, it is clear that we will need fresh new approaches that, for example, help underserved populations and that employ new technology to reach young people. This will continue to expand the roster of effective approaches that states, tribes, and communities can use to prevent too-early pregnancy and parenthood." Here's a bit more on the abstinence cuts from Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Col.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.): "Eliminating funding for ineffective abstinence-only programs is a win for science," said DeGette. "The Obama budget proposal invests in programs that are effective and based on sound science, rather than wasting millions of dollars on efforts that have been proven to be ineffective at best. This budget underscores the President's commitment to science, and I look forward to working with the White House and House leadership to ensure that Congress supports his efforts." "For too long we wasted money on programs that are proven to be ineffective. We are finally putting sound science ahead of politics," said Slaughter. "We have an obligation to our young women and men to empower them to make informed decisions about their own sexual health." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Barack Obama
 
AIPAC Agrees To Funding, Talking With Hamas Top
Coming off their national convention, AIPAC -- the main pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States -- has made a remarkable concession. More on Israel
 
Some Auto Manufacturers Bailed Themselves Out By Switching To Wind Top
CHICAGO — Pete Ostrander and the manufacturer he works for took a hard look at the auto industry four years ago, and neither liked what they saw. Automakers were pushing vendors like Merrill Technologies Group, where Ostrander works, to cut costs and, with the economic environment in Detroit worsening by the day, the company retooled itself as a supplier to what it believed was an industry with better prospects. Ostrander, standing in a display booth at one of the wind industry's biggest gatherings, was not alone. Merrill is among dozens of companies at the American Wind Energy Association conference in Chicago _ which ends Thursday _ that have their traded auto-related business for a niche in wind-power. "We have seen these indicators for years," Ostrander, an engineer, said of the auto industry. "They needed to clean up their own closets." With the economy's tailspin, General Motors, Chrysler and Ford have laid off tens of thousands of workers, and Chrysler last week filed for bankruptcy protection. The problems have rippled through a support network that includes thousands of auto parts makers and other suppliers. According to the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association, a trade group for auto industry suppliers, more than a third of such companies say in industry polling that they are in deep financial trouble. More than 40 of them entered bankruptcy last year. "If you walk that floor, what you will see is that many, many companies _ a lot of the small companies _ have come from the automotive supply chain," Don Furman, president of the wind industry organization's board, said at the conference. AWEA's meeting drew 21,000 people and roughly 1,200 exhibitors. Sales reps for several of those companies spent the week at a convention booth sponsored by the state of Michigan, ground zero in the auto industry meltdown. About 700 Michigan manufacturers now do wind-industry work. Most of them either have been _ or in some cases still are _ auto industry suppliers, said Frank Ferro, the international business development manager for the Michigan Economic Development Corporation. In neighboring Ohio, the state Department of Economic Development can count more than 500 companies it says are active in the wind industry supply chain or entering the business. Most of them are either hedging their bets on their auto industry work or leaving it behind, said Kimberly Gibson, energy adviser to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. "Ohio's been bleeding jobs for the last eight years," she said. "The wind industry gives (manufacturers) a chance to diversify." The shift to the wind industry was a natural for many, Ferro said. While parts for wind turbines can be much larger, the process of making them is much the same. That's not to say it's been an easy choice for suppliers. "How do you ever leave GM? How do you ever leave these customers that were this powerful?" asked Jeff Metts, president of Dowding Machining in Eaton Rapids, Mich. "I think a lot of suppliers struggle with that." Parent company Dowding Industries began cutting back on the metal stamping and other work it did for the auto industry in 2000 before moving into wind-related work two years ago, Metts said. Now, about 30 of Dowding Machining's 140 employees do wind-related work. Metts thinks that number will grow substantially. "I personally feel _ and some people might think I'm nuts _ I think we can employ about 5,000 people in Michigan in this wind industry business," he said, laying out long-term plans for multiple facilities dedicated to wind-turbine production. Wind-related work still accounts for less than 10 percent of Merrill Technologies' business, Ostrander said. "But I would expect that's going to ramp up very quickly to potentially something in the neighborhood of 20 percent," he said. Merrill, based in Saginaw, Mich., has about 400 employees and, even though it's no longer directly connected to the struggling auto industry, that's down from about 450, Ostrander said. The wind industry is not immune to recession and many manufacturers have announced layoffs in recent months. But Ostrander said that Merrill is doing relatively well compared to suppliers that still rely heavily on Detroit. "Some of them are not prepared for this whatsoever," Ostrander said. "It's scary." More on Energy
 
Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Leads To "Bestiality," "Child Molestation," "Pedophilia" Top
Yesterday, when Gov. John Baldacci (D) signed a marriage equality law, Maine became the fifth state to allow legal same-sex marriage. On the Christian Broadcasting Network today, Pat Robertson responded by claiming that the "ultimate conclusion" of legalizing same-sex marriage would be the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, child molestation and pedophilia. "You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent," said Robertson. More on Gay Marriage
 
Ken Levine: Mannyroid Top
It will sure be interesting hosting Dodger Talk on KABC tonight. Manny Ramirez has tested positive for performance enhancing drugs and has been suspended for fifty games. Uh, there goes Mannywood. Big sale on those dreadlocks at the concession stands. And of course there are the thousand Manny billboards that are splayed over the southland. This is a huge bombshell and a crushing blow to the Dodgers and their fans. Supposedly, he was suspended not for steroids but for some doctor prescribed amphetamine. I'd like to believe that's true. I'd like to believe he didn't cheat; he just showed incredibly poor judgment. And considering Manny's past history let's just say there has been precedent. Hey, will you people in Boston stop laughing so hard? It's breaking my concentration. There is another case of a player, J.C. Romero of the Philadelphia Phillies who was recently suspended fifty games for taking a supplement he purchased over the counter. He too thought it was safe. All he, or Manny, or any player who knows how to use the phone has to do is call the commissioner's office for verification on any specific drug, supplement, or Tic Tac. If a doctor prescribes it that's not enough. If you buy it at Whole Foods that's not enough. If you call the players union and get their permission that's not enough either. CHECK FIRST YOU IDIOTS!!!! And again, I'm taking Manny's statement at face value. Who knows if more bombshells are coming? At this point I wouldn't be shocked if word leaks that Mother Teresa was also a gun runner. Manny will return in early July and in all likelihood the Dodgers will prevail. This is a good team without him and I suspect the players will rise to the occasion. And it doesn't hurt that they're playing in a God awful division. But the betrayal to the fans is devastating. Yes, they may forgive him. They forgave Kobe. (Let's see how New York fans welcome back A-Roid.) But it'll never be the same. I feel sorry for all the kids who lost a hero today. I feel sorry for the McCourts who shelled out a lot of 2009-economy dollars in good faith to bring him to Los Angeles. In fact, I feel sorry for everybody... but Ramirez. On a personal note, I like Manny. He's a very engaging guy. A big kid. Fun to be around. I always thought he was a goofball, not taking them. And true, Manny's not the smartest ballplayer I've ever encountered but the person representing him -- who is smart -- is supposed to look out for him. That would be Scott Boras... the same Scott Boras who also represents Alex Rodriguez. Nice job, Scott. This is a sad day for the Dodgers and the game itself. As a lifelong fan, it breaks my heart. Is my love for baseball the only remaining pure thing about it? You can sign up for Ken's Twitter here . And read his blog here .
 
Anthony Papa: Governor David Paterson Does the Right Thing Top
On April 24, I attended an historic bill-signing ceremony that put another nail in the coffin to halt the 36-year reign of injustice promulgated by the Rockefeller Drug Laws of New York State. The ceremony took place in Corona, Queens, at the Elmcor Community Center. Governor David Paterson was joined by legislative and community leaders to pay tribute to long-time Rockefeller reform champion Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry, who was a drug treatment counselor at Elmcor before he entered the political arena. It was surreal watching Gov. Paterson sign the document that would put into place the meaningful reforms that activists like me had sought for many years. Paterson stood tall behind a podium and spoke: "This is a proud day for me and so many of my colleagues who have fought for so long to overhaul the drug laws and restore judicial discretion in narcotics cases," he said. "For years, thousands of New Yorkers have spoken out against the Rockefeller Drug Laws ." The bill enacted broad modifications to the long-failed Rockefeller Drug Laws, including restoring judicial discretion in most drug cases, expanding alternatives to incarceration, and investing millions in treatment. Activists like Gabriel Sayegh, project director with the Drug Policy Alliance , pointed out that "After nearly 36 years of ineffective mandatory minimums, mass incarceration, institutional racism and billions in wasted taxpayer dollars, these critical reforms are long overdue and essential for making a better New York. Gov. Paterson has helped to move our state in new direction on drug policy, one based on public health and safety, in fairness and justice. This shows what is possible when people come together and work for change." While advocates applaud the changes to the law, they also point out that reforms should have gone even further. For instance, some mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses still remain intact, and harsh penalties for low-level drug offenses remain on the books. To see this day arrive was without a doubt a total vindication for me because in 1985 I was given a 15 years to life sentence for a first-time non-violent drug offense. Nothing in the world could have prepared me for life in the gulag. I was sent to Sing Sing, a maximum-security prison in Ossining, NY. It was a living nightmare. Not only did I lose my family, I lost my life as I knew it. When I arrived at the prison I was surrounded with a sea of faces of men who had lost all faith in their lives. It was the lowest point in my life. Soon after, I was walking past a row of cells that sat on the top tier of the A Block housing unit. I inhaled the odor of paint and followed its trail to a cell. I looked in and saw the most magnificent paintings. They belonged to a prisoner named Indio. We became friends and he taught me how to paint. I began absorbing myself in my art . I was hooked. In 1988, I was sitting in my cell when I picked up a mirror and saw a reflection of a man who was going to be spending the most productive years of his life locked in a cage. I set up a canvas and captured the image. I named it "15 to Life." In 1994 this self-portrait was exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art. I received a lot of media attention and in 1997, after 12 years in prison, I received executive clemency from Gov. George Pataki. Upon my release I began having exhibits and used my art as instrument to speak out against inhumane drug laws. At the same time I made trips to Albany to speak with legislators. Most of them had a dual view of reforming the laws. Their public view was that the Rockefeller Drug Laws were working fine. Behind closed doors they agreed the laws needed to be reformed. But they were afraid of publicly speaking out against them because it would cause their political deaths. My idea then was to try and change the way politicians thought about New York's drug laws by changing their constituents' views. I took that concept and, in 1998, I co-founded Mothers of the New York Disappeared modeled after their Argentinean counterparts . This advocacy group was comprised mostly of family members of those imprisoned by the Rockefeller Drug Laws. We formed a street movement that generated tremendous press by utilizing the human element of the issue. It was a long row to hoe, but we managed to shift public opinion and exert public pressure on the politicians. In 2004-05 , the first reform changes were passed. These new changes in the laws did not come easy because of the NYS legislature's reluctance to change the long-standing political quagmire that was created in 1973 under the leadership of then Governor Nelson Rockefeller. At that time New York State passed the toughest drug laws in the nation. Their enactment had been considered the answer to solving the so-called drug epidemic. But the reality was far different. The harsh sentencing guidelines with their mandatory minimums did nothing more than fuel the prison industrial complex giving relief for economically depressed rural upstate communities by incarcerating low level non-violent drug offenders. This led to the building of thirty-eight prisons since 1982 at a cost of over a billion dollars annually to operate them in Republican senate districts. The Rockefeller Drug laws became embedded in the political climate of these upstate rural districts becoming a cash cow for them Joining these politicians were prosecutors who became staunch opponents of any Rockefeller reform legislation. They used the Rockefeller Drug Laws as a powerful prosecutorial tool whose use was claimed to shield society from the harms associated with drugs and addiction. But in reality the only solution these laws offered was based on a massive incarceration scheme that led to incarcerating hundreds of thousands of low-level, non-violent drug offenders to prison instead of treatment. Of these, over 90 percent were black and Latino. The Rockefeller Drug Laws had evolved to become a racist entity that was a complete failure in balancing the scales of justice with the needs of protecting our communities. Through perseverance and determination we did not give up the fight to achieve meaningful reform and this year we achieved it. Now, it's time to embrace the changes and set free those who have been imprisoned under harsh and unjust mandatory sentencing, allowing those who are eligible for judicial relief to be reunited with their families and start productive lives as citizens of New York.
 
Caption This Photo, Vote For Thursday's Best, See Wednesday's Winner! Top
Original Caption: Two babies compete in "Nakizumo," or "Crying Sumo." The Japanese contest consists of two babies being held by sumo wrestlers, who stare each other down until one of them cries. THURSDAY'S FAVORITES: WEDNESDAY'S WINNER: "Glenn Beck is crying again! Everybody drink!" By aussiegal77. More on Caption Contest
 
Aaron Keyak: Specter Marks the Death of Jewish Republicanism? Not Quite... Top
Jonathan Tobin, Executive Editor of Commentary magazine, penned a piece in The Jerusalem Post, "The Death of Jewish Republicanism?" Tobin uses a hyperbolic title to sell an attack on the Republican Party's latest defector, but in exploring the role of Jews in the Republican Party, what's most shocking is that Tobin seems to concede that Jews don't have a home in his tent. I, of course, disagree with some of Tobin's points, but the op-ed is still an interesting read. Tobin's promotion of Israel as a partisan wedge issue is misguided and wrong. Ironically, this op-ed was published during AIPAC's Policy Conference. Those of us who attended the Policy Conference know that this kind of partisan rhetoric is both not true and hurtful to the U.S.-Israel relationship. Here's Tobin's attack: "The ascendancy of social conservatives in the Republican Party has ensured that [the overwhelming support for the Democratic Party by the American Jewish community]...will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future, even if this puts the Jews in the position of rejecting their closest allies on the question of security for the State of Israel." However, more interesting than Tobin's repackaging of tired partisan rhetoric is his seemingly genuine concern that the Senate's last Jewish Republican's decision to run as a Democrat is not seen as the "death of Jewish Republicanism." Tobin puts forward the argument that "Specter's departure from the Republican Party has far more to do with his personal political dilemma than it does with the future of the GOP." The piece continues with predictable smears against Specter as egotistical and opportunistic, but Tobin does not argue that Specter was wrong to leave the Republican Party. Rather, he argues that Specter took too long to switch. Tobin writes, "The demise of liberal Republicanism happened decades ago, not this past winter. Nelson Rockefeller-style GOP liberals disappeared a generation earlier." Clearly, Tobin intended for his op-ed to be used as a GOP defense against Specter's switch, but his argument concedes that the future of Jewish Republicanism is bleak "for the foreseeable future." Jews remain incorrigibly liberal and more loyal to the Democrats than every sector of the population except for African-Americans. The ascendancy of social conservatives in the Republican Party has ensured that this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Tobin also seems to agree with NJDC's assessment that "the Republican tent is far smaller than it used to be." I imagine that when Tobin wrote an op-ed under the title, "The Death of Jewish Republicanism?," he was responding to the idea that Specter's switch was an indicator for the health of Jewish GOPs. Although, after reading his article it sounds like Tobin is making the argument that "the death of Jewish Republicanism" already happened. (That sounds a bit harsh. After all, the Jewish vote for Senator John McCain was 21%, and there is still one Jewish member of congress. That's not nothing .) The GOP has a long way to go before they will be seen as welcoming to the Jewish community. Conservatives, like Tobin, are right to take note of the paltry amount of support they get from American Jews, and I can see why Republicans would be upset. However, in their attempt to justify the very concept of Jewish Republicanism, I ask that they not denigrate themselves to partisan attacks in the name of Israel. Bi-partisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is the cornerstone of the pro-Israel community. Maybe, Republican leaders should turn inward and take a good look at the future of their party. The fact that there is so little room in the Republican Party for Jews is an indication of both how far out of the mainstream their ideology is and how small the GOP tent has become. More on Arlen Specter
 
Sam Sedaei: Time to Pass HR 1283 and Let Gays Serve in the Military Top
Representative Ellen Tauscher of California has introduced legislation HR 1283: Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 to replace Section 654 of U.S. code 10, which contains the current policy that bans gays from serving in the United States Armed Forces, also known as "don't ask, don't tell." The new legislation states, "The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces." In a predictable response, about 1,000 retired generals and admirals -- led by none other than retired Adm. Jerome Johnson, a key figure in the 1993 effort that led to the original discrimination against gays in the military -- wrote a letter to President Obama, opposing the new legislation. Mr. Johnson went further in his effort and co-wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on April 15 along with James Lindsay and E.G. Shuler Jr. and Joseph Went, titled " Gays and The Military: A Bad Fit " and appeared on NPR's Talk of The Nation on Monday to further argue his points. Throughout the op-ed, as well as during his appearance, he made a series of flawed arguments. Adm. Johnson's points, as well as those of others who support "don't ask, don't tell," can be roughly put under the umbrellas of three main arguments. The first argument is that as older legislation asserted, the military is a "specialized society" with a culture that is traditional, and so changing the rules on gays would "impose a burden" on the military, hurt recruitment and retention and discourage parents from encouraging their children to join the Armed Forces. On Monday, Adm. Johnson referred to surveys done by Military Times over four years, claiming that 58% of the military oppose allowing gays to serve openly and 14% would end their careers in the military in the event that the rules are changed. But this argument ignores the history of addressing discrimination in the military. When President Truman ordered the military to desegregate in 1948, the vast majority of the military -- not to mention the population in most of the countries from the South where a big portion of the members of the military come from -- had sharply racist tendencies against the blacks. When he sent his 10-point program to Congress on February 2, 1948, instructing "the Secretary of Defense to take steps to have the remaining instances of discrimination in the armed services eliminated as rapidly as possible," he endured a storm of criticism from Southern Democrats in the run-up to the national nominating convention. But even when support for discrimination spread so far beyond the military and political stakes were so high, his response was not to postpone doing what was right. Instead, he responded by saying "My forebears were Confederates....But my very stomach turned over when I had learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of Army trucks in Mississippi and beaten." President Truman ordered the military's desegregation because he understood that the traditional culture of the military and appeasement to any biases and racism that may have been associated with it was not a condition that he had to accept as the price of having a strong army. In 2009, President Obama faces a similar question on gays with only a few important differences that make it even more important for him to eliminate discrimination. First, the national tolerance of gays is already much higher than tolerance of blacks in the late 1940s, making it all the more pressing for the military's culture to change and become more aligned with national sentiments and standards on equality. Secondly, the economy is in a much worse condition than it was shortly after the war. This lowers the likelihood that the members of the military will be abandoning their careers because of any change of policy on gays. And for those who are so steadfast in their beliefs to abandon their careers, the number is likely to be so small to be comparable with the number of careers of gays in the military that are constantly ruined after they are outed. Even if admission of gays to the military will cause a small net decrease in recruitment, that change will be short-term as the military has previously showed that even when the majority of its members strongly support discrimination (1948), they would rather change and accept the new rules than quitting the army. The two other sets of arguments that Adm. Johnson and others make against allowing gays to serve is that service is not a constitutional right, but a privilege that is given to those who meet strict military standards and show the capacity to endure long periods of intensive trainings. But what Adm. Johnson misunderstands is that the question here is not whether service is a right, but rather whether every citizen in this country is given an equal opportunity to compete for the privilege to serve or some have systematically and discriminately banned from competition solely based on their inherent characteristics, rather than physical abilities. Proponents of gays' right to serve do not argue for loosened standards or less intensive trainings for gays. They simply argue that as citizens, they should be given an equal opportunity to compete on a leveled playing field. Providing them with such opportunity will only lead to more competition, and ultimately a more competitive and capable army. Finally, Adm. Johnson makes the point that even if gays are allowed to serve, they will continue to face discrimination by being shut out of leadership positions within the military, leading them to resent their conditions in the army and becoming potentially vulnerable to manipulation by the enemy and even becoming security risk for the army. But of course, even if the army proves incapable of prosecuting and preventing discrimination after the laws are changed, the admiral's argument cuts both ways. Because gays who are regularly outed and kicked out of the army due to their sexual orientation have both more reasons to resent the U.S. army and in a potentially more economic need that can be fulfilled by cooperation and exchange of intelligence with the enemy. It is hard to believe that this country continues to debate simple issues of discrimination in 2009. What the opponents of gays' serving in the military do not admit are all the advantages that will come from a more inclusive policy. Allowing gays will lead to thousands of more gays to consider a career in the military. In addition, it will make the U.S. army more representative of the beliefs of Americans on foreign soils. The reason for this lack of admission is that individuals like Adm. Johnson and other socially conservative members of the military have for years been warning against the elimination of discrimination against gays in the army not by expressing their views as personal and subjective, but as what they claim are objective assessments of the situations. But no matter what the motivations, their arguments remain unconvincing and unsupported by evidence. It is time President Obama supports the reversal of "don't ask, don't tell" and pushes the military to change as the rest of the country has changed. Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter More on Barack Obama
 
Toby Young Hit By Car, Knocked Off Bike In London Top
I got knocked off my bike on Tuesday night. Ambulance, hospital, general anaesthetic ... the whole nine yards. No nerve damage and brain seems to be functioning okay, but hopes of becoming a male supermodel have now been dashed.
 
Torture Images From Set Of Standard Operating Procedure Retell Story Of Abu Ghraib Top
Photographs by Nubar Alexanian Text by Katharine Thomas One of President Obama's first executive decisions in office was to prohibit the use of interrogation techniques previously sanctioned by the Justice Department under the Bush administration. Memos released on April 16, 2009 describe in detail "enhanced interrogation techniques" used on terrorism suspects. While many American's have heard the controversy surrounding the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, few have clear depictions of what these techniques look like. These photographs were created on the set of Standard Operating Procedure , a film by Errol Morris that tells the story of what happened at Abu Ghraib. These images are accurate reenactments of events that took place in the prison. They are intended to make visible the idea of torture and to provoke the observer to imagine what it is like to be tortured. In a memo to John Rizzo, Assistant Attorney General, Jay S. Bybee, wrote "...The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view inflict "severe pain or suffering...The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering." Some individuals who did not believe that waterboarding constituted torture changed their opinions after experiencing the procedure for themselves. Writer and political observer Christopher Hitchens was challenged to undergo waterboarding. After the experience Hitchen's is quoted as saying, "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, there is no such thing as torture." Waterboarding typically refers to a procedure in which a cloth is placed over an individual's nose and mouth and water is poured over the face for a period less than a minute. The technique simulates the experience of drowning. The gurney that the individual is strapped to may be put at an incline with the head below the lungs to prevent the water from going into the lungs and actually drowning the individual. In addition to coercive techniques such as waterboarding, the Office of Legal Council prescribed the use of conditioning techniques. These were a set of ongoing conditions intended to show detainees that they had "no control over basic human needs." This included forced nudity, dietary manipulation, and sleep deprivation. Un-muzzled dogs were used to intimidate detainees. In one case, a detainee suffered from multiple bite wounds. Dog handlers reportedly had a contest to see who could make the most prisoners urinate out of fear of the dogs. One of the infamous images documented by soldiers at Abu Ghraib shows a hooded man standing on a box. The detainee's hands were attached to wires. He was told that he if he stepped off the box he would be electrocuted. Cement bags were often used as hoods to cover detainee's faces, one of many techniques used to make them feel out of control. Detainees were routinely shackled in uncomfortable positions and left for hours. Stress positions and sleep deprivations were used to soften the detainees for interrogation. This image shows military personnel playing "grab ass" in the interrogation room with a hooded detainee. Sexual abuse and the licentious behavior of military personnel are documented in photographs taken by the soldiers themselves. This photograph was taken from a monitor attached to a film camera positioned underneath a fifty-gallon drum with a glass bottom. It shows the face of an individual whose head is being held under water. In describing water torture techniques used in the Philippine-American war, Lieutenant Grover Flint said, "his sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown." Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter.
 
Lea Lane: Elizabeth Edwards, Joan Rivers: The Resilience & Reality of Two Different Moms Top
For Mother's Day I was going to write about my toxic, jealous mother who treated me like a younger sister. Or about being a single mom. But I'll leave those for another time, maybe. Instead, my focus is on two mothers, vastly different but both controversial, and right now both highly visible. Elizabeth Edwards just appeared on Oprah , talking about her new book, Resilience. Much has been discussed about why she wrote it and why she is staying with her unfaithful husband, John. My guess would be that motherhood plays a large part in it. She has written and talked about her extreme closeness with her son Wade, who died in a car crash when he was 16. She has home-schooled her younger children to be with them more. And of all the awful things about John Edward's affair, she still seems in deepest denial about Rielle Hunter's baby. She says: "It doesn't look like my children, but I don't have any idea." But I think she knows. And I think that the idea that John Edward's mistress is the mother of this child who really does look like Edwards, makes Elizabeth take us all through this mess again. I mean, imagine knowing that Rielle and "it" are probably just waiting for her to leave, one way or another. That her children probably have a half-sister who will live on as a reminder of her husband's infidelity, and that the other woman -- whom she will not call by name -- just may become their stepmother. "It's not about this woman. It's about this family," Elizabeth said on Oprah . And when asked about her kids' response to the affair, " they pretty much know," and "maybe the cancer's a bigger thing in their lives than this woman's passing through." And, "they adore their father, they adore me," and "he's unbelievable with my children." This may be what drives Elizabeth Edwards to appear again in the media, and to stay with a man who so visibly and deeply betrayed her in a "new reality." The mom thing, the sacred bond she thought she alone shared with her husband. By remaining in the marriage, Elizabeth Edwards is a barrier. Her children will not meet Rielle or the other child while Elizabeth is alive. She is spared that pain, at least. She has retained a smidgeon of control. Another motherhood control issue, far less poignant but related in terms of Mothers Day: Joan Rivers is in the finals of the reality show Celebrity Apprentice this Sunday. Much is made that Joan stormed out of the Trump boardroom and threatened to quit when her frankly untalented, unfunny and sometimes obnoxious daughter was kicked off. For years Joan has propped up Melissa, her only child, in co-hosting assignments, and in constant references and endorsements. And this time Joan couldn't control things. I have a personal vision of Joan Rivers, many cosmetic surgeries ago, which focuses on her motherhood. In the late 1980s, a friend said he'd join me and my man of the moment on a double-date. I was excited, but when he walked in with Joan Rivers I wasn't so sure. She was recovering from her husband Edgar's recent suicide, and was host of her own show and much in the news. Does the word "demure" remind you of Joan Rivers? How about quiet, classy, thoughtful? She was just that, to my surprise. My son was attending the University of Pennsylvania then, and so was Melissa. And that was most of what we talked about for the time we spent together: our children. When I told my sons about Joan Rivers being so unexpectedly normal, they didn't believe me, so a month or so later I brought them to meet her backstage; she was starring in a play by Neil Simon, Broadway Bound. When she met my boys she peppered them with thoughtful questions Again, really different from her stage persona. When we left I asked my skeptical sons what they thought, and they said "She's not obnoxious. She's a mom." And so when I watch Joan Rivers (maybe) on her reality show finale this Mothers Day, I'll see past the brash, over nip-tucked comedienne. I'll remember the mother. Both she and the suffering Elizabeth Edwards remind us that no matter our station or fame or riches or glamour, wherever we may be in the circle of life, for many of us it is motherhood that remains a center, a constant, to hold onto and protect like a lioness in even the toughest times. More on John Edwards
 
Taliban's Popularity Linked To Perception It Will Lift Pakistanis From Poverty Top
by Emi Foulk The swelling power of the Taliban in Pakistan - or "Talibanistan," as The Nation so pithily put it - has caused much alarm amongst American politicians, journalists, and commentators; and in Pakistan, too, the educated classes condemn the Taliban's repressive and violent policies. In both countries, so-called champions of democracy are quick to cast blame. The majority cite the efficacy of ruthless intimidation - a sort of gunpoint diplomacy forcing women to stay indoors and DVD stores to shutter - unchecked by Pakistan's weak civilian government. The United States exacerbates the trend, some say, by pushing the Taliban further into Pakistan's heartland with their ill-conceived drone attacks in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, simultaneously rallying support for those who oppose the "evil Empire." Others point to the Pakistan military, still seeking to wield the Taliban as an asset against rival India, as progenitor and promoter of the country's militant jihadism. On at least one point, these proponents of Western liberalism agree: As Parag Khanna of the New America Foundation recently wrote on nytimes.com , "Only a democratic Pakistan can reduce the Taliban threat." Oddly, then, the question of what constitutes democracy in Pakistan has been almost entirely neglected. A New York Times article reporting the ways in which the Taliban "exploit class rifts" came close, but shied away from highlighting what is glaringly obvious to anyone who has spent time in Pakistan: if democracy in Pakistan implies the status quo, the Taliban is here to stay. Socio-economic disparities run rampant, and corruption, classism and an entrenched feudal system all but ensure that the poor - more than 30 percent of Pakistan's 170 million citizens, according to the World Bank - remain poor and marginalized. Nine percent of Pakistanis lack access to clean water, according to the UN, and 38 percent of Pakistani children are underweight. Bonded labor continues unhindered in the most densely populated provinces of Punjab and Sindh. Given the little that Pakistani governments, both civilian and military, have provided by way of land reform, education, health care and equitable justice over the past few decades, it's not entirely surprising that an alternative - any alternative - holds appeal for Pakistan's lower classes and peasantry. The Taliban in Swat have forced wealthy landowners out, and, in an ersatz land reform, passed the abandoned plots to the tenants who manned them. From popular media coverage, it would seem that Pakistan is caught in a Manichean battle for power between the government and the Taliban. It is this myopic thinking that is at the root of America's problems in Pakistan. If the Taliban is associated with increased socio-economic egalitarianism, however much laced with Islamic fundamentalism, it will continue to be popular amongst poorer Pakistanis. "It is impotence that the lower classes are fighting, an impotence that they are made to feel when faced with colonial power structures [which continue to be propped up by the Pakistani elite," explains Qalandar Memon, editor of the politics and arts journal Naked Punch Asia and a lecturer in political science at Forman Christian College in Lahore. "The only people that empower them - in an imaginary way - are the Taliban." In reality, of course, the situation is far more intricate. "Peasant movements from below are a viable alternative. It is this segment of society that must empower itself, and indeed has begun to do so," says Memon Peasants' movements unaffiliated with the Taliban are struggling for basic rights, such as a living wage and uncorrupted judicial treatment, which have thus far been denied to them. It is an uphill battle. In Punjab earlier this month, three farmers were killed and 27 wounded when they resisted illegal confiscation of their land by the military, the Asian Human Rights Commission recently reported. Last fall, I myself reported on the plight of Sindhi fishermen who had been beaten and jailed after they refused to pay a local landlord the exorbitant share of their catch that he illegally demanded. (Sindh's inland waterways are owned by the state, and fishermen are ostensibly allowed to ply their trade freely.) The fishermen I met were illiterate and had no electricity or clean water, yet with the help of a small, meagerly funded grassroots organization, the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, they were able to overcome the numerous hurdles placed by the landlord and his supporters and at last bring him to court. Such abuses of power by wealthy landlords are not rare; sadly, efforts to hold them accountable are. There seems to be no question that the United States will continue to sink billions of dollars into the region for the sake of "stability" and "democracy." But if the US wants to curb the Taliban's growing influence in Pakistan with long lasting effect, it must shift its attention to basic social reform. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted at this during her testimony in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, stating that, "The government of Pakistan ... must begin to deliver government services, otherwise they are going to lose out to those who show up and claim that they can solve people's problems and then they will impose this harsh form of oppression on women and others." She's right, but this will only be accomplished through extreme pressure on the Pakistani government (including the military) to exact comprehensive reorganization of land ownership and wealth distribution - to reform themselves, their priorities, and the current system, in short. Asking the elites who run the government to self-destruct is a tall order; but if Pakistan is to escape the stranglehold of the Taliban, it is that or funding grassroots movements who will fight for the same social reforms from the bottom up. American analysts have predicted Pakistan's collapse in as little as six months. Clearly the status quo will not hold. This is part of HuffPost World's Spotlight On Pakistan. We are looking to build our network of people living in Pakistan who can help us understand what is happening there. These people will send us reports -- either snippets of information or full-length stories -- about how the political crisis affects life in Pakistan. If you are interested, this is an opportunity to have a continued conversation with Americans about what's happening in your country. If you would like to participate, please sign up here . Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Pakistan
 
CBS Posts $55M 1Q Loss On Advertising Weakness Top
LOS ANGELES — CBS Corp., the media company controlled by billionaire Sumner Redstone, said Thursday it lost $55 million in the first quarter as advertising revenues fell sharply. The results missed Wall Street expectations, but the company gave an upbeat outlook for the rest of the year. "We are seeing early signs of improvement in the advertising marketplace both locally and nationally," Chief Executive Leslie Moonves told analysts on a conference call. "It is premature to call it a full recovery, but the trends are encouraging." The New York-based company said its net loss amounted to 8 cents per share, down from a profit of $244 million, or 36 cents per share, a year ago. Revenue dropped 13 percent to $3.16 billion. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected, on average, earnings of 7 cents per share on revenue of $3.26 billion. Shares fell 21 cents, or 2.6 percent, to $7.85 in after-hours trading after the earnings were released. Earlier, shares closed up 1 percent at $8.06. Operating income fell or losses got worse at all CBS divisions in the quarter. Television operating income fell 54 percent to $185 million as revenue fell 12 percent to $2.23 billion, and advertising revenue was down 15 percent. Radio profits fell 62 percent to $44 million. Its outdoor advertising business lost $38 million, reversing a $44 million profit from a year ago. Its interactive online business losses widened to $12 million from $3 million despite the acquisition of CNet Networks Inc. in June of last year. The publishing division, including Simon & Schuster, posted an operating loss of $2 million, compared to a $15 million profit a year ago. More on CBS
 
Psychologists Under Fire For Role In Torture Top
By William Fisher NEW YORK, May 7 (IPS) - A leading human rights organisation is charging that an American Psychological Association (APA) task force formed to advise the U.S. military on prisoner interrogations was "stacked with Defence Department and [George W.] Bush Administration officials" and "rushed to conclusions that violated the Geneva Convention." Newly released internal APA documents indicate that the organisation's 2005 ethics task force on national security interrogations developed its policy to conform to Pentagon guidelines governing psychologist participation in interrogations, said Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). PHR is calling for an independent, outside investigation of the APA and a probe by the Defence Department's Inspector General into whether any federal employees exerted influence over the APA's Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). The director of PHR's Campaign Against Torture, Nathaniel Raymond, told IPS, "The APA's ethics task force on national security interrogations produced a report that was rushed, secret, and being driven to already-reached conclusions - conclusions that violated the Geneva Convention." "The APA made ethics subservient to law by following guidelines set out by the Pentagon. Members of the task force had long-standing ties to the Pentagon, and the task force was stacked with Defence Department and Bush administration officials. There were clear conflicts of interest," he said. "The APA needs to explain how that happened. And the Pentagon's Inspector General needs to look into how this was allowed to happen," Raymond added. The charges of APA conflicts of interest came after a series of task force emails were posted online by Salon.com and ProPublica, a not-for-profit investigative journalism organisation. PHR said the emails indicate that the APA's ethics task force developed its ethics policy to conform to Pentagon guidelines. "These serious allegations require an independent investigation to determine whether APA leadership engaged in unethical conduct," said Steven Reisner, Ph.D., PHR Advisor for Psychological Ethics. "The American public deserves to know if there were inappropriate contacts or conflicts of interest between APA officials and the Pentagon," he said. The task force found it to be "consistent with the APA Ethics Code" for psychologists to consult with interrogators in the interests of national security. While noting that psychologists do not participate in torture and have a responsibility to report it, and should be committed to the APA ethics code whenever they "encounter conflicts between ethics and law," the task force decided that "if the conflict cannot be resolved ... psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law." PHR has been a longstanding and outspoken critic of the APA's PENS policy governing psychologist involvement in interrogations, calling for a "bright line" prohibition against health professional participation in interrogations. Though the APA membership passed a 2008 referendum banning psychologists from facilities that violate U.S. and international human rights law, PHR believes that the PENS policy must be immediately revoked. Riesner said it was time to "put a psychologist's ethical obligations to human rights principles ahead of following orders." The recently released Senate Armed Services Committee report detailing detainee abuse by the Department of Defence confirms that psychologists rationalised, designed, supervised, and implemented the Bush administration's torture programme. "The Senate Armed Services Committee report confirms that psychologists were central to the Bush administration's use of torture," said PHR's Raymond. "In the context of these revelations, the American public needs to know why a supposedly independent ethics policy was written by some of the very personnel allegedly implicated in detainee abuse," he said. Stephen Soldz, a board member and spokesman for another advocacy group, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, said, "These emails show that several of the military psychologists formulating APA ethics policy were giving themselves get-out-of-jail-free cards." He charged that their report concluded that it was ethical to follow military policy while the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos allowing torture were still in effect." The memoranda prepared by OLC lawyers provided the rationale for the Bush administration's assertion that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were legal. PHR has repeatedly called for an end to the use of the SERE tactics by U.S. personnel, the dismantling of the Behavioural Science Consultation Teams (BSCT) teams, and a full Congressional investigation of the use of psychological torture by the U.S. Government. SERE, the military's "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape" programme, was developed to train U.S. soldiers to cope with torture if captured by the enemy. Its developers warned officials as early as 2002 that "reverse-engineering" SERE techniques for use on detainees could be ineffective and dangerous, a recent Senate Armed Services Committee report revealed. The report also noted that the same psychologists who helped develop the SERE programme were complicit in the very interrogation policies and practices they warned against. Dr. Jeffrey Kaye, a San-Francisco-based psychologist who has written extensively on the role played by medical professionals in prisoner treatment, told IPS, "APA's ties to the Pentagon are long-standing, going back at least to the Cold War." He said, "Any inquiry should make the historical connection between the work of CIA and SERE psychologists and the role of coercive interrogation used in psychologically 'breaking down' a human being." He said that there is a long history of collaboration between psychologists and the military, which includes several former APA presidents. These men were the "institutional godfathers" for a later generation of psychologists who continue to be deeply involved in interrogation techniques, he said. In an article accompanying ProPublica's publication of the APA task force's extensive email exchanges, Sheri Fink of ProPublica posed the question, "Is it possible for psychologists to uphold the ethical tenets of their profession while working within a system of interrogation that violates those tenets? Does it matter if they raised objections to the system of interrogation but cooperated with it anyway?" The Senate report said that in 2002, a psychiatrist and a psychologist who worked at the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prepared a list of harsh interrogation techniques that ended up influencing interrogation policy not only at Guantánamo, but also in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the same memo, they warned that these methods were likely to result in inaccurate tips and could harm detainees. Those warnings disappeared as the memo moved up the chain of command. The board of the APA, the largest membership organisation for psychologists, who are employed in great numbers by the Department of Defence, quickly adopted the task force's report as the organisation's official policy. But last year, members of the APA successfully petitioned for a vote on whether to ban psychologists from working in detention settings where international law or the U.S. Constitution are violated. The membership passed the proposal. Some psychologists have filed complaints with the APA and state licensing boards against colleagues who were allegedly involved in abusive interrogations. Read more from Inter Press Service. Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Guantánamo Bay
 
Bruce Nilles: Good and Bad News About Coal (Plus Video) Top
Just like the blog title states, this week we saw both sides of the fight for clean energy. I'll start with the bad news - which comes straight from Kansas. (And stay with me til the bottom of the post, when I'll share something both laughable and shocking) This week new Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson offered a deal to Sunflower Electric Kansas, the company that had been lobbying for their coal-fired power plants for well over a year now - and which former Kansas Gov. and now Health and Human Services Director Kathleen Sebelius had repeatedly blocked. Gov. Parkinson is allowing Sunflower to build one of these coal plants - saying concessions were made for both sides. According to our Kansas chapter, with this settlement Governor Parkinson offered to Sunflower Electric, Kansas has given up its place as a national leader on clean energy. Stephanie Cole, our chapter leader in Kansas, said that under former Gov. Sebelius, Kansas was well-positioned to make contributions to slow global warming. This agreement is a significant set back. The concessions made to the coal industry will greatly outweigh any so-called benefits for the state. For instance, the carbon "offsets" cited in the agreement are generally questionable, unenforceable, and won't result in a reduction in global warming pollution . The new coal plant actually increases Kansas' contributions to global warming (PDF). While the country is moving away from polluting fossil fuels, Kansas has opened the door for outdated, dirty technology other states are rejecting. The agreement appears to invite Sunflower Electric to build another coal plant in two years. This is not a compromise, but a giveaway to the coal industry Kansans have stood up against. As such, the fight will continue in the sunflower state. But I will at least end this post with the good clean energy news. On May 1, LS Power suspended plans for its planned Midland, Michigan, coal-fired power plant . According to our Michigan chapter, LS Power had resisted complying with the environmental regulations needed to get a coal plant approved in Michigan, in particular meeting standards for mercury emissions.  This unwillingness to meet public health and environmental standards was blamed, but one major factor in the demise of this proposal was the decision by its partner Dynegy to drop this project and others in January 2009 after a successful campaign by Sierra Club to point out the financial foolishness of investing in coal plants.  Congratulations to the citizens of Michigan and to our chapter there, which works so hard to bring clean energy to the state. And now for your laugh/shock of the day: The West Virginia Coal Association just published on its website some cell phone ringtones touting the greatness of coal. Yes, you read that correctly: coal-positive ringtones that you can download for your cell phone. We here at the Sierra Club thought those ringtones worked better with video, because we wanted to show there is nothing great about coal.
 
GOP's Anti-Guantanamo Scare Campaign Parodied (VIDEO) Top
As noted earlier, the GOP has put forward an excellent new measure, the Keep Terrorists Out Of America Act -- also known as the Fluffy Bunnies Forever For All Good Children Act -- a move that has brought our legislative branch perilously close to the day when legislation is presented in LOLCat form, or with interpretive dances. Hopefully, at some point, the bill will be larded with the amendments it deserves, like the Push Jaywalkers Into The Ocean Amendment and the Shaming Bedwetters Resolution, but, until then, we have this chilling video from Hilzoy , who reminds us that at this very minute, dangerous criminals are locked in prisons, and that those prisons ARE RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA. Prepare for terror! [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!
 
Richard Seireeni: Transforming The African Brand Through Sustainability Top
I'm flying back from Nairobi. I had the privilege of making a presentation to a group of African sustainable business leaders. There was a passion in this small, but engaged meeting, a passion that makes one think of a positive future, rather than obsessing about AIDS, poverty, war and corruption, which are the overwhelming images we in the West associate with Africa. Bono and Bob Geldof , despite their inspiring good works, tend to perpetuate this impression that Africa is a basket case, an opinion that Melissa Davis expresses in her article, " Is Africa Misbranded? " and that economist William Easterly opines in the Los Angeles Times, " What Bono Doesn't Say About Africa ". The people who attended this meeting hosted by The Environmental Press were thinking about a different basket, a breadbasket of opportunity that can sustainably and efficiently lift the lives of ordinary Africans. There was no disagreement among attendees that Africa needs, even requires a sustainable future. The extraction industries have run wild here with no regulation that cannot be bought or bent to their will. The issue of Blood Diamonds was brought to the world's attention, but oil, mineral and timber extraction continues to fuel tribal conflicts that lead to the unraveling of communities and environmental destruction on a massive scale. The raw materials used to make your cell phone? They are fueling a ten-year war in East Africa . The piracy off the coast of Somalia? Its root cause is exploitation of Indian Ocean fisheries and toxic dumping . Clearly, the current system of resource extraction must shift to a more ecological and sustainable one. Africa also needs better infrastructure, affordable sources of power and confident trading partners. Africa needs sustainable economic growth, but there is much disagreement on how sustainability should be achieved. There are powerful forces at work in Africa driven by resource-hungry nations like China, the US and those of the EU. This is further encouraged by the World Bank that defines progress by the number of dams, highways and bridges it funds. Modern high-output agriculture with its dependence on water, fertilizer and GMO seed stock is also defined as progress, but never mind the downstream pollution and shrinking lakes. Improved sanitation and vaccines have contributed to increased health, but also increased population; and, all of this puts a heavy burden on Africa's ability to grow in a sound and sustainable way. Progress also means profit. Large-scale progress produces vast amounts of cash that flows through the hands of multinationals and government officials with little trickle down to the average African. So, it's no surprise that one view of sustainability is driven by these forces. In these circles, sustainable solutions are discussed on a grand scale, like harnessing the vast wind and geothermal resources of East Africa or tapping the enormous water reserves in Congo . Large-scale carbon trading schemes are also part of the mix. These plans, some of which are needed, are huge and require huge, mostly foreign investment. The problem is that foreign investors and foreign aid programs often promise more than they deliver, leaving these projects chronically short of funds. When corners are cut, the environment suffers. But there is another view. It is an opinion that the most progress can be made by direct assistance to the poorest and most populous Africans through micro-financing and clever inventions. It's simple things like the high-efficiency Berkeley Darfur Stove that reduces long journeys into the bush to collect firewood that in turn reduces deforestation, or the Q Drum that makes it easier to transport water in rural areas, or Professor Wangari Maathai's program to pay women and rural farmers to plant and maintain watershed trees. One of these amazingly simple ideas enables sons and daughters who move to the city to transfer money to their parents who remain in rural communities. This is a homegrown Kenyan idea that is enormously successful and provides money to Africa's poorest citizens. The idea is called M-PESA , a Safaricom system that uses mobile phones to transfer money instantly via SMS. No bank account is required. In Africa, they never had the luxury of a wired telephone system, so mobile wireless leaped ahead. Even poor country villages have wireless service and many rural people have cell-phones. A Kenyan cooked up the idea of M-PESA, and it makes a lot of things possible - including a sustainable future for Africans. Poor people in rural areas can buy high-efficiency stoves with M-PESA or receive deposits for chickens and vegetables sold to city markets. They can also receive money from children who leave the village to find employment in the city. Funds deposited to phones can be turned into cash at village shops. Building on this and similar platforms is the ingenious idea of a San Diego businessman, David Palella, to provide direct payment to rural people who offset their carbon production with high-efficiency stoves. "The cell-phone-based Carbon Micro Credit system employs SMS (simple message service) and unique identifiers to allow millions of families in the Developing World to claim on a bi-weekly or monthly basis the carbon offsets they produce by using more efficient cooking methods such as a modern charcoal stove or solar cooker, instead of an inefficient open-pit fire burning biomass. As a result, each family is able to monetize directly its own contribution to mitigating global warming, while also reducing nationwide rates of deforestation and desertification." The concept is promoted by David's non-profit, Carbon Manna . In addition to Carbon Manna, there are a number of other organizations working toward a model of African sustainability including the Partnership For African Environmental Sustainability , Conserve Africa , Fair Trade In Tourism South Africa , All Africa , and the Kenya Organic Agricultural Network . The Green Living Project is currently documenting sustainable projects throughout Africa. For those who have read my book , you will see the beginning of an African gort cloud in this list. So, how can David Palella's idea and that of thousands of other business leaders transform the world's view of Africa? The key is sustainability. Sustainability is a brand driver that has the power to change the conversation from 'basket case' to 'land of opportunity'. Just as sustainability has been used to change the nation brand of New Zealand and the city brands of Curitiba, Brazil and Portland, Oregon, sustainability can completely change our impressions of Africa. An African brand driven by sustainability can reassure investors and produce lucrative markets for organic food, eco-friendly textiles and properly managed natural resources. An African brand driven by sustainability can establish new rules for participation in African growth, one that extends its rewards to those at the bottom of the economic pyramid. A commitment to sustainability can demonstrate that all Africans - the stakeholders in the African brand - have a vision for a future that provides economic growth and environmental protection. Many nation-branding experts have been pondering how to change the West's negative impression of the African brand. I think the solution is sustainability. More on Kenya
 
Steve Clemons: Obama Needs to End Silence on Biggest Civil Rights Move of Our Time Top
Barack Obama has appointed a hyperactive director of faith-based initiatives, Josh DuBois , and sees little problem continuing the blurring of church and state that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton initiated in their terms. I remain very uncomfortable with evangelicals and other preachers -- many of whom have narrow and bigoted views of America's 21st century civil rights challenges. That said, I realize that faith-based initiatives are here and part of the scene. I get it. But there needs to be equal time for some of the victims of this cozy relationship between the oval office and anti-gay religious adherents. Same sex marriages are now a real part of the scene too -- something allowed in the enormous state of California for a short time until the day that Barack Obama himself was elected nationally and won the California vote. Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and Iowa are the five leading states that endorse and provide for same sex marriages. New York, Washington DC, and Hawaii recognize these marriages. And New Hampshire is likely to be the sixth state to provide for same sex marriages. Eventually, California will be back in the same sex marriage column. This is happening as the weeks unfold -- and President Barack Obama has said NOTHING. Yesterday, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs had an exchange with ABC's Jake Tapper : "No, I think the president's position on same-sex marriage is -- has been talked about and discussed," Gibbs curtly replied. "He opposes same-sex marriage?" Tapper asked. "He supports civil unions," Gibbs said, not really answering the question. Obama is basically ducking the issue for the time being -- voting the proverbial "present" without indicating support or opposition as he basks in Oval Office power -- present, there, watching -- but doing nothing. For him, it's a states rights issue -- not a civil rights issue at the federal level. I can't quite believe that our first African-American President is sitting this one out -- but I do get the politics of it, to a point. What I don't get is his withdrawal from other key gay community issues. What is directly in Obama's purview -- as not only a federal issue but one directly linked to the office he holds -- is the "don't ask, don't tell" order regarding discrimination against gays in the US military. Obama promised during his campaign to end this hypocrisy that leads to the expulsion of a full brigade a year from the armed services. Those thrown out are qualified men and women who are replaced in part by those needing criminal file "moral waivers ." In fact, Aaron Belkin points out that Obama is about to preside as Commander-in-Chief over his national security bureacracy's first firing of a gay Arab linguist . Obama's position of total silence on this fast and historic expansion of gay marriage rights could be offset if he finally asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a new impact study of what gays in the military (and they are in the military if anyone cared to look -- in very, very large numbers) would do to "morale." General Colin Powell has said that it is time to review this issue -- and is keeping his powder dry until such a review by the Joint Chiefs is done. Former Senator Sam Nunn -- who fired two of his own personal national security policy staff in the 1990s for being gay -- has also said that "times have changed" and that it is time to review the policy . And yet... what did President Obama do? As John Aravosis recently shared, Obama's transparent presidency significantly weakend the Don't Ask/Don't Tell commitment and policy position from the White House website. This is unacceptable. I don't like but do understand the internal debate inside the White House on the issue of "civil union" vs. "marriages". Obama's view is now behind the times as many states leap frog forward into the 21st century in a way that Obama is not doing. But there is no excuse at all -- none -- for allowing the bigotry and harassment of gays and lesbians in the armed forces to stand. Gays populate the armed services now. Obama's silence is disturbing and wrong. While he may not be able for political reasons to move on marriages, to do nothing on the military front -- which is in his portfolio -- deserves serious criticism. -- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note More on Barack Obama
 
The Progress Report: Tax Havens And The Business Lobby Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Pat Garofalo To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . This week, President Obama announced "a major offensive against businesses and wealthy individuals who avoid U.S. taxes by parking cash overseas." The administration plans to prevent corporations from claiming tax deductions on overseas investments until they pay U.S. taxes on their profits. It also aims to reverse a Clinton-era rule known as "check the box," which allows companies to easily shift income into tax havens. "Even as most American citizens and businesses meet [their tax] responsibilities, there are others who are shirking theirs," Obama said. "And many are aided and abetted by a broken tax system, written by well-connected lobbyists on behalf of well-heeled interests and individuals." Indeed, the business lobby immediately cried foul over the proposed changes, claiming that they will harm corporations' competitiveness and "eliminate American jobs." "It is the wrong idea, at the wrong time for the wrong reasons," said John Castellani, the Business Roundtable president. "This is going to be the largest fight that the U.S. multinational community has this year and probably into next," added Kenneth Kies, a tax lobbyist who represents firms like Caterpillar, General Electric, and Microsoft. THE NEED FOR TAX REFORM: America's current tax system is clearly in need of reform. The corporate taxes collected by the U.S., as a percentage of GDP, falls well below the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average -- despite the fact that the U.S. has a higher statutory tax rate than most countries. Due to the myriad loopholes, shelters, and deductions that are available for corporations to take advantage of, one explanation of this is the corporate practice of deferring tax payment by stowing profits in low-tax countries like the Cayman Islands. By keeping this money offshore, corporations are able to significantly lower their effective tax rate -- in some cases by more than 20 points. General Electric, for instance, paid just 5.5 percent in taxes in 2008. In 2004, "U.S. multinationals paid an effective U.S. tax rate of just 2.3 percent on $700 billion in foreign profits." And according to U.S. PIRG, a $100 billion annual tax burden is shifted onto U.S.-based companies and taxpayers due to tax avoidance. Obama's proposed changes are reasonable measures that will bring the tax code closer to responsibly and fairly calculating income to be taxed. THE BUSINESS LOBBY GEARS UP: Even before Obama formally announced his plan to reform the tax code, the business lobby was gearing up to fight the proposals. "This is bigger than 'card check,' bigger than cap-and-trade, and people don't realize it," said Kies. Groups including the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Foreign Trade Council, "helped form a lobbying coalition called Protect America's Competitive Edge that is devoted specifically" to defeating the President's tax proposals, and their major claim is that businesses will move jobs overseas if the changes are enacted. Catherine Schultz, senior vice president for tax policy at the National Foreign Trade Council, said that she "has spoken with companies that are already weighing major changes in their business structures that could take operations abroad." However, the premise of Obama's plan is to encourage investments in the United States, instead of keeping it more cost-effective for companies to use tax havens. As Barrett Sheridan at Wealth of Nations wrote, "of the $103.1 billion raised by cutting down on tax arbitrage, $74.5 billion will go to making a permanent tax credit for companies that invest in R&D in the U.S. That hardly sounds like a plan that will damage U.S. growth prospects." THE CRAM-DOWN EXAMPLE: Last week, business lobbyists and special interests showcased their influence by scuttling an important housing bill. Support for a cram-down provision -- which would have allowed bankruptcy judges to readjust mortgage payments for troubled homeowners -- evaporated in the face of furious lobbying by the banking and mortgage industries. The cram-down measure failed to pass the Senate by a vote of 45-51, even though it could have "prevented 20% of foreclosures at no cost to the taxpayers." Various banks and credit unions were involved in negotiations for weeks prior to the bill coming to a vote, yet different parties felt pressure to walk away from the table at one point or another. One business lobbyist bragged about the mess, saying that "chaos is good." As FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher found, "finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) interests paid over $42 million to lobbyists who worked to defeat mortgage write-down in bankruptcy (cramdown) in the first quarter of 2009, as well as other anti-consumer legislation such as capping credit card interest rates." The campaign to defeat cram-down led Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) to say that "the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." More on Timothy Geithner
 
Dr. Josh Dines and Dr. Rock Positano: It's about to be golf season Top
People talk about tennis elbow all the time. It has become part of the vernacular with people who have never touched a racket using the term to describe lateral sided elbow pain. Less talked about, but no less debilitating to those affected by it is "golfer's elbow" or medial epicondylitis. Medial epicondylitis refers to inflammation or, less commonly to tearing, of the tendons that attach to the medial epicondyle of the humerus (or arm bone). These tendons are attached to the muscles responsible for flexing your wrist (bring it down) and pronating your forearm (rotating your forearm palm down). This inflammation commonly occurs in golfers, but it can affect anyone who performs the motions described above repetitively. Clearly, it can occur while playing golf but even everyday activities such as shaking hands can incite the pain. The majority of cases are due to chronic overuse, but acute epicondylitis can occur. Any sport that requires repetitive and strenuous forearm and wrist movements such as golf, tennis or throwing a baseball, increases the risk of one developing the condition. People with golfer's elbow will complain of pain along the medial aspect of their elbow (the side of your elbow closest to your body when your palm is facing up). Pain can sometimes radiate down the forearm. Any activities that require repetitive or resisted wrist flexion or forearm pronation may be painful. Typically the symptoms will subside with avoidance of the inciting activity. If they persist, you should probably see your local orthopedist to make sure something else isn't causing the pain. Typically, they will prescribe anti-inflammatory medications, ice, and stretching/strengthening exercises. Most cases will respond to the above treatments within about 4 to 6 weeks. It is extremely important, however, to avoid returning to your sport before the symptoms have resolved, as this can be a set up for further injury. More chronic cases and cases that are recalcitrant to the above-mentioned treatment modalities may benefit from an injection of cortisone into the area. Cortisone is a steroid that helps reduce inflammation. Though it may help the symptoms, it shouldn't be done as a first-line treatment; as it can actually weaken muscle and tendon tissue. More recently, platelet rich plasma, which involves isolating of the growth factors from one's own blood and injecting into the site of maximal tenderness, has been used with anecdotal success. Rarely, patients will require surgery for the condition. Surgery involves removing the inflamed area of tendon and, if a tear is present, repairing it. Clearly, the best treatment is prevention. Before starting your golf, tennis or baseball season, make sure you start a gradual stretching and strengthening program. And, early in the season, you may feel some aches and pains. Listen to your body. You don't want to make a relatively minor condition into something more severe by playing through pain. With golf season starting, you may start to hear more of your friends complaining of this...
 
Cheryl Saban: Taking Financial Responsibility Personally Top
What can women do to be more responsible for our financial situations? What should we teach our children so that they'll be prepared for the next economic downturn? Though some reports show that women may actually pass men in the job force during this recession, more than 1 million women who head up their households were unemployed as of March, with a dearth of job options available to them. So, under the circumstances, when so much of the population is struggling to get a financial foot-hold, how can we keep a positive attitude, and more importantly, how can we model that behavior to our kids? One possible answer is to become better educated about what it takes to be financially secure. The following steps are are important lessons our kids should be learning as part of their long-term preparation for adulthood. Actually, a refresher course in the basics would be good for us all. The essentials are: spend less, save and (cautiously) invest more, and follow a plan. 1. Start by being scrupulously honest with yourself about your situation, and then take positive steps to better understand and cope with it. 2. Manage and track your spending. If you can, retain a financial advisor and seek financial counseling. 3. Start a savings account, and save as much as you can. 4. Reduce credit card spending -- be aware of your debt. 5. Continue to learn -- you are protecting yourself when you maintain a marketable skill. 6. Maintain health insurance. 7. Take responsibility for your own future. Open a retirement account and add to it monthly. Try to sustain a positive attitude, and be kind to yourself. Even in a fluctuating job market, consider yourself capable, and acknowledge your potential. Recognizing the significance of our contributions and the validity of our participation, is an important factor in the development of our self-concept. This personal recognition and validation helps build our self-esteem and augments our positive sense of self-worth. It also helps build the confidence we'll need to get over the financial hump. More on Personal Finance
 
Mel Gibson's Girlfriend Pregnant? (PHOTOS) Top
Potential drama! The National Enquirer is reporting that Mel Gibson's girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva is about three months pregnant. They claim that Gibson sat his kids down and told them, and his eldest sons are already trying to protect their trust funds. Gibson first stepped out with Oksana on April 29th for the "Wolverine" premiere days after his wife filed for divorce. No word if the pregnancy report is true, but below are some photos from every angle of Oksana at the premiere. She is 39 and already has a 9-year-old son with former James Bond actor Timothy Dalton. PHOTOS: More on Photo Galleries
 
Lance Simmens: Empathy is a Virtue, Not a Vice Top
I have been struggling hard in the post-partisan world to figure out just exactly what the opposition's rationale or foundation is on any number of issues: stimulus, budget, taxes, torture, and now the Supreme Court nomination. As best as I can tell the overriding nugget of justification seems to be "just say no." I sincerely doubt that this position warrants serious consideration in a world that is trying mightily to confront the deeply dysfunctional mess left by Obama's predecessors. Intellectual honesty and intellect itself took a beating for the first eight years of the new century. Intricately woven into the mantra of change, I believe, was a yearning by the public for decisions based upon evidence and fact, thought and deliberation, maturity and vision. Thus, it is with great consternation that I continually witness the conservative right, which has emerged as the primary opposition to the Obama administration, flail at the slightest mention of any suggestions that seemingly reflect the verdict rendered by the people last November. The latest surreal moment occurred last night on Hardball. There was Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, generally acknowledged as one of the more thoughtful members of the conservative community and a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, scolding the President for considering empathy to be an appropriate or acceptable prerequisite for a candidate on the Supreme Court. Empathy! Empathy! What am I missing here? What is the outrage? I decided to check my Webster's dictionary to see what on earth I should know about this "code word" that could evoke such an irrational response from such a rational person. According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, empathy is "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner". Ummm, how awful, could you imagine what havoc an individual might wreak upon society if he/she possessed such dangerous abilities? To interpret laws based upon the actual effects such laws might actually have upon real individuals with real problems? Outrageous! This is the best they can do? Attack the idea that someone might actually have the ability to understand and feel for those who may be in a different position than themselves? The good Senator kept referring to empathy as a "code word," assuming in the general hysteria that has permeated the conservative community's intelligentsia, like Limbaugh, Coutler, Hannity, that what the President really means is that he might actually choose someone who under the guise of empathy would seek to undermine our morals, our values, our way of life, our society as we know it. The bad people will win. This is the reality of the conservative opposition today. They attack for the sake of attacking and then justify the attacks upon secret meanings of words and a general assumption that the real agenda here is to bring down the system, a system they have profited quite handsomely from, and has successfully winnowed out the winners and losers, the good from the bad. Why fix what ain't broken? Well, since I have my dictionary out, I would like to try out a word on them: paranoia. Webster describes it as "a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations." The vacuousness of their arguments and the dearth of any feasible or constructive alternatives other than to "just say no" reinforces the notion that today's conservatives simply cannot be taken seriously. Meanwhile, the people demand that thoughtfulness dictate solutions to crises that affect them and their neighbors in ways not imaginable to those who deride empathy as a vice, not a virtue. What is equally disturbing about the apologists for the Bush Administration that are now being trotted out to protect their homespun legacy is that they seem to actually want our country to fail so as to justify their insatiable lust for validation or redemption. Some might be tempted to label them sore losers, or even traitors. I prefer to think of them as unpatriotic. There is a meanness and vindictiveness there that is not in keeping with the current popularity of a president who enjoys widespread support for a proactive agenda seen as an honest attempt to make things better. Obama will not be sidelined or distracted from the efforts at hand and is almost dismissive of their ankle-biting tendencies. Luckily, at this point they are little more than an annoyance; we need to keep it that way. More on Barack Obama
 
Burglar Breaks Into NJ Home, Steals Life Savers And Shaves Top
WOODBRIDGE, N.J. — Whiskers were one clue that the burglar wasn't in it just for the money. A told police he came home to find someone had broken into his house and taken $500 from a bedroom dresser. But that wasn't all. The man's razor had been used and whiskers were left all over the sink. Some Life Savers were also missing. The man told police the burglar had left behind black socks on the floor next to his bed. There has been no arrest. ___ Information from: Home News Tribune, http://www.mycentraljersey.com More on Stupid Criminals
 
Paul Helmke: Obama Administration Fails to Remove Gun Lobby Language from Budget Top
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is profoundly disappointed that President Obama has failed to follow through with his promises for ' openness ' by reaffirming much of the so-called Tiahrt Amendments . This means a continuation of the reckless Bush-era policies that endanger public safety and make it easier for criminals to obtain illegal firearms. President Obama's proposal undermines the landmark Brady Law by continuing the dangerous Bush administration policy requiring the destruction of most Brady background check records in just 24 hours. The government has found that this policy has allowed guns to remain in the hands of hundreds of criminals whose gun purchases were mistakenly approved. How can the president reconcile this policy with his recent statement calling for stronger enforcement of our gun laws? President Obama continues to bar the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from requiring that gun dealers keep track of their firearms by conducting annual inventories -- a standard practice for law-abiding businesses. A Brady Center analysis last year found that more than 30,000 guns were "missing" from licensed gun dealers. Gun dealers who have large numbers of guns "disappear" from their inventory often supply criminals. The D.C.-area snipers killed 10 people using an assault rifle they obtained from a gun shop that "lost" at least 238 guns, including the snipers' assault rifle , over a three year period. In addition, President Obama has made the Tiahrt Amendments' unprecedented ban on public disclosure of crime gun trace information even worse than before, now even prohibiting law enforcement from communicating it to the public it serves. Prior to 2003, non-confidential trace data was available to researchers, public officials, the media and the public, and enabled all of us to better understand the sources of illegal guns, patterns of gun trafficking, the role of gun dealers in supplying the illegal market and other key facts informing public policy. With gun violence continuing to lead to high levels of death and injury in so many places in our country, policy makers need more, not less, information on the sources of these crime guns. We are saddened to see this "gun exception" to the president's stated commitment to "an unprecedented level of openness in Government." The Tiahrt Amendments have always been about pleasing a special interest lobby at the expense of public safety. Congress should delete the proposed language and do what the Obama-Biden ticket called for last year when their campaign said they ' would repeal the Tiahrt amendment .' Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post . More on Barack Obama
 
Katie Couric: The Poppy Fields Of Afghanistan Top
Today I rode in a black hawk helicopter over the poppy fields in southern Afghanistan with Brigadier General John Nicholson, Secretary Robert Gates and a few other folks. I thought of that famous poem from World War I, John McCrae's "In Flanders Fields." It's one of my mom's favorites. "In Flanders fields the poppies grow/Between the crosses, row on row," he writes. I expected the poppies to be bright red flowers like the artificial ones people wear as a remembrance on Memorial Day, but there weren't any like that. On the flight I was wearing a headset, so I could hear the Brigadier General briefing Sec. Gates on the opium situation. The poppy crop is being harvested right now and made into opium which will later be refined into heroin. In fact, two thirds of the world's heroin supply comes from southern Afghanistan. Opium production accounts for 60 percent of this country's economy and it fuels the engine for the insurgency, with the Taliban making $70 to $100 million dollars a year. So, how do you cut off this powerful source of drugs and money? Ambassador Richard Holbrooke has said destroying the poppy fields would only strengthen the Taliban. As Sec. Gates told me today, you have to find a crop to replace the poppies or every farmer becomes a Taliban recruit. The U.S. military is bullish about helping with an agricultural transformation....encouraging farmers to plant pomegranates or vineyards, arranging microfinance and giving economic incentives. Officials say Afghanistan is an agrarian culture, relying on farming for centuries and NOT poppies. Agricultural teams will be coming from the states to offer advice and water experts may help direct farmers about what can thrive in this often drought stricken land. Whether they will be inspired to start anew is up for grabs, but there is little doubt that the Taliban in their role of narcotics traffickers will fight ferociously to keep the drugs and money flowing. Something called "the killing season" begins after the poppy crop is harvested and some farmers pick up their guns and become fighters again. As the U.S. pursues a more aggressive strategy towards the opium drug trade and dispatches soldiers to the fields of southern Afghanistan, it may be a very bloody summer. Photos: This post originally appeared at CBSNews.com. More on Afghanistan
 
Poverty Fueling Muslim Anti-West Tendencies: Study Top
LONDON — Joblessness and poverty are a more potent source of tension between Muslims and wider European and U.S. society than religious differences, one of the first major studies of Muslim integration since the Sept. 11 terror attacks claimed on Thursday. Attacks by Islamic extremists on the United States and European capitals such as Madrid and London have sparked debate on whether a failure of Muslims to integrate into Western society has fueled extremism. But a study of around 30,000 people in 27 countries by the Gallup polling company claims non-Muslims _ including the public and lawmakers _ have misunderstood the attitudes of most Muslims in the West, stifling attempts to promote understanding. These Muslims are more patriotic, more tolerant and more likely to reject violence than the rest of Western society believes they are, the study claims. It suggests most European Muslims, for example, are as happy as other Europeans to live alongside people of other faiths and ethnic backgrounds, and share broadly similar views with their neighbors. The findings appear to contradict the impression created by angry protests across Europe following the 2005 publication in Denmark of 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and recent rallies in which small groups of British Muslims have disrupted homecoming parades for soldiers returning from Iraq. But Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the London and New York-based Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and a faith adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama, said the survey shows most Muslims welcome closer ties to the rest of society. The study focused chiefly on European Muslims, and the mistaken perceptions about their attitudes in wider European society. "Many of the assumptions about Muslims and integration couldn't be more wide of the mark," she said. "European Muslims want to be part of the wider community and contribute to society." The study did not produce detailed data on attitudes of American Muslims on this subject. But Mogahed said that in the United States Muslims enjoy relatively good relations with the rest of society, and suffer less from economic inequality. Despite their desire to belong, only a small number of Muslims questioned in Britain, for example _ 10 percent _ consider themselves integrated into British society. That compares to 46 percent of Muslims in France and 35 percent in Germany. The global economic crisis could exacerbate such issues, with competition for jobs and resources adding stress to race relations, the study claimed. Researchers found 38 percent of British Muslims said they had a job, much lower than the figure for the British general public _ 62 percent _ and lower than Muslims in Germany or France, where 53 percent and 45 percent respectively said they were employed. No figures were compiled for the United States. "Economic integration may become more precarious in light of the current financial crisis affecting Europe," Mogahed said. Muslims questioned by Gallup were pessimistic about their prospects. It found 71 percent of Britain's Muslims considered themselves to be struggling to get by, as did 56 percent of Muslims questioned in the United States. Research for the study was conducted in mid-2008, before the full impact of the current financial crisis hit. "It's not about faith, it's not about ethnicity. The key thing that divides people is poverty and depravation," said Mohammed Shafiq, of the British Muslim organization the Ramadhan Foundation. British government research into radicalization also has highlighted joblessness and low pay as among factors that can push people toward extremism. Those with poor prospects can look to violent extremism to improve their sense of achievement and status, according to the research by security officials. Another key finding of the study was that Muslims don't prioritize their faith over patriotism, Mogahed said. Attempts to create a greater sense of national identity among Muslims have been a key concern for European lawmakers, particularly in Britain _ where British-born Muslims have been behind several attempted terror attacks since 2001. Four suicide bombers who killed 52 commuters and themselves in an attack on London's subway and bus network on July 7, 2005 were Muslims born or raised in Britain _ three with family ties to Pakistan. The study found that 77 percent of British Muslims feel a strong sense of British identity, compared to 50 percent of the country's non-Muslims. In France, around half of Muslims and non-Muslims say they feel a strong sense of patriotism. Muslims account for around 3 percent, or 2 million people out of Britain's 60 million population. In France, Muslims represent almost 8 percent _ or 5 million people of the population of 65 million. In Germany they make up 4 percent _ or 3.3 million Muslims out of 82 million inhabitants. Estimates of the U.S. Muslim population vary dramatically from 2 million to 6 million _ and beyond. Gallup conducted multiple surveys in 27 countries in 2008. Polls of the general public typically questioned around 1,000 people, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The company said the polls of Muslims involved samples of 500 people, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. Researchers interviewed Muslims and non-Muslims in Norway, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Canada, Israel, the U.S., Italy, India, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Ethiopia, Mali, Chad, Malaysia, Tanzania, Niger, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Djibouti and Bangladesh. ___ Associated Press Writer Patrick McGroarty, in Berlin, Germany, contributed to this report (This version CORRECTS SUBS to correct number of people questioned from 10,000 to 30,000; UPDATES with details; context.) More on Religion
 
Specter Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds Of PA Dems Not Committed Top
Just released poll numbers, commissioned by Daily Kos but conducted by the non-partisan Research 2000, don't show the type of stable backing that Sen. Arlen Specter was likely hoping for in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Thirty-seven percent of Democrats interviewed in the state said they would definitely support the former Republican. While only 16 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else, the more telling figure is found when you add in the people not yet willing to fully commit. Sixty-three percent of Pennsylvania Democrats are either open to supporting another candidate, committed to voting for someone else, or considering the possibility. In short: there is room for a primary challenge. Whether the right challenger will materialize is another question. Head to head, Specter does well against his prospective opponents. Specter (D) 56 Joe Sestak (D) 11 Undecided 33 Specter (D) 60 Joe Torsella (D) 5 Undecided 35 But those Democrats suffer not from poor standing among Pennsylvania Democrats but a lack of state-wide name identification. Fifty-six percent of those polled had no opinion of Sestak, 85 percent had no opinion of Torsella. And yet, in a hypothetical general election matchup all three would defeat the Republican who seems poised to get the nomination. Specter (D) 55 Pat Toomey (R) 31 Sestak (D) 37 Toomey (R) 32 Torsella (D) 35 Toomey (R) 33 The headline of the Research 2000 poll was supposed to be that former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge would have faced a steep uphill climb in the Republican primary had he entered the race. But those figures -- Ridge at 33 percent, Toomey at 41 percent -- are now moot, with Ridge saying he won't run. Ridge himself, in an interview with radio host Michael Smerconish, said polls weren't part of his decision. "The polls people were sending were very flattering, very optimistic," he said. "But you and I both know that's today's snapshot. And it's a competitive environment out there and what voters think today may not be what they think tomorrow depending on the kind of campaign you run. So while the polls were very appealing, I must tell you if I'd have listened to the polls way back when, I probably would have never run for Congress or governor for sure. So polls have never driven a particular decision." Ridge seemed content with his choice, and said of Specter's party switch, "He made that personal decision. I suspect I'm more comfortable with mine now than he may be with his." More on Arlen Specter
 

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)