Friday, May 8, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Blog Alert
Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Joseph A. Violante: Mothers Day: Our Women Veterans Deserve More

 

 Top
As Mothers Day approaches, many families are making plans to honor their mothers for the role they play at home. However, we also should recognize and honor the role many mothers have played and continue to play in our armed forces, serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. 

 

 There are more than 1.8 million women veterans who have at one point had to leave their families to serve and protect our country. The least we could do is to guarantee that when they return home our country fulfills its commitments to meet their health care needs, which can only be accomplished by transforming the historically male-dominated Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) into an institution that provides top-notch care to all veterans, regardless of gender. The population of women seeking treatment from VA is expected to double in the next two to four years and, quite simply, the VA is not prepared to meet the increased demand it expects. This lack of preparedness starts with a dearth of medical personnel trained specifically to treatment women and women health care providers, often preferred by women patients. 

 

 In addition to care for combat and service-related injuries, specialized care is needed for many women veterans of childbearing age who require care associated with pregnancy and post-deployment mental health issues. Women veterans also require screenings for cervical and breast cancers, bone health, and other similar gender-specific health conditions. 

 

 Women veterans are fortunate to have several dedicated champions in Congress who are trying, yet again, to pass legislation that would improve the VAs delivery of health care services for women. 

 

 Senator Patty Murray (D - Wash.) and Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D - S. D.) recently reintroduced bills, with bi-partisan support, which would identify barriers for women seeking care from the VA and address perceptions that the VA is unwelcoming to women. Specifically, the bills would assess the fragmented nature of health services for women at VA facilities - where many women are forced to visit several clinics in order to get their mental health, primary care and gender-specific health needs met. Sen. Murray's bill would also include a pilot program to help newly-separated veterans readjust to family life and connect with other similarly-positioned women veterans following deployment. 

 

 The need for this legislation is clear. As my colleague Joy Ilem, Assistant National Legislative Director, testified on March 3, 2009 before the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health, this comprehensive legislation will "improve and expand VA services for women veterans [and] is fully consistent with a series of recommendations that have been made in recent years by VA researchers, experts in women's health, VA's Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, the Independent Budget, and DAV."

 

 Bill introductions, hearings and town hall meetings are great, but with growing utilization of VA services by women veterans, immediate action is needed. Women veterans earned the right to receive treatment at VA health care facilities through their service and sacrifice. 

 

 As children across America honor the contributions their mothers make to their families; the time is now for Congress to honor the sacrifices women veterans have made by passing this legislation to reform the way VA cares for women veterans.
 Joe Violante is the Legislative Director of the Disabled American Veterans.
 
Deborah King: Elizabeth Edwards on Oprah: What Was The Point? Top
What Elizabeth Edwards calls resilience, some of us would call denial. No matter how much she refuses to speak (or write) the name of the "other woman" or says that finding out whether or not her husband is the father of the baby would not impact her life, there was no hiding what her body language was saying. First of all, there was the way she was dressed. Yikes, who picked that outfit! I think that if Oprah were coming to my house to interview me, I'd be as careful with my wardrobe as with my words. Unless, of course, she was really trying to convey "poor me." At the start, Elizabeth mentions she can't wear her wedding ring having jammed that finger; how Freudian. She held up fairly well during the interview, although the self-doubt she expressed as the wronged woman--did I dress all wrong at home, what do I mean to my husband, the classic "what's wrong with me"-- was echoed in the way she held herself hunched inward. The issues of trust they are working on as a couple are equaled by the shaken trust in herself: she had failed to keep her husband faithful--the one thing that meant the most to her. (While tempted, I won't digress here and talk about how she "took on" her mother's issue of spousal infidelity) It was at the end of the interview when she and Oprah went down the hall lined with family photos to find John that Elizabeth became clearly ill-at-ease. She stood nervously with her arms folded across her chest, trying to hide whatever might be revealed in the light of Oprah's cameras. Arms crossed over the chest signify feelings of vulnerability, but in this particular instance, it's signaling her fear for John's safety. She was terrified that Oprah would pin him to the wall with a question he wouldn't want to answer. And John looked like he had been gutted--out in front of the public not to kiss babies and garner votes as the good guy, but for everyone to wonder if the "other woman's" baby is his and what kind of sleazeball is he cheating on his sick wife. Their body language as a couple told its own story. It was obvious that Elizabeth is his protector (emotionally, not financially), not the other way around. He is the man-child she tries to protect from his own stupidity. But Oprah was pretty kind to him. And when it was clear that she had asked her last question, Elizabeth suddenly melted in relief. Her entire body language changed from being held tightly in fear to one of unabashed release. He looked pretty thankful it was over as well! The irony, of course, is that Elizabeth's book and the massive media blitz are designed not as much to inspire others through times of hardship (Elizabeth's stated purpose) but to punish John for his transgressions, to put him in his place so it never happens again. And we watch this car wreck of a marriage dragged before the public because we can't turn away.
 
Japan Confirms First Swine Flu Cases Top
TOKYO — Public broadcaster NHK says Japan has confirmed three people with swine flu, the country's first cases. NHK reported Saturday that the patients were passengers who arrived in Tokyo's Narita International Airport on a flight from Detroit the previous day. The report quoted the health ministry. The three have been identified as two high school students and a teacher who had visited Canada on a school trip. They were quarantined after showing flu symptoms and tested positive in a primary test on board the plane, NHK said. They are recovering at a hospital near the airport. More on Japan
 
Stormy Daniels Discusses Possible Senate Run On MSNBC (VIDEO) Top
Adult film star Stormy Daniels talked with MSNBC's Contessa Brewer on Friday about her possible run to replace Louisiana Senator David Vitter in 2010. Daniels was recruited to run through an effort called Draft Stormy , which she says she initially discounted as a political stunt by a "group of rogue fans." After realizing the group wasn't a joke , she decided to give the idea some real thought. "The response was so overwhelmingly positive," she said. "I was getting flooded with email and messages from people wanting to talk to me. People, people saying they really needed me to do this, that they would do whatever it takes to help get David Vitter out of office, and I thought, you know this is obviously a great opportunity for me to get my voice out about the things I really care about." Daniels told Brewer that her top concerns would be helping the economy of Louisiana and continuing her work to get rid of child pornography online. Daniels said she realized that not everyone would take her run for office seriously, but that she could have a positive influence on the race regardless. "You know the less seriously opponents take me, the easier it is for me to sneak up on them," Daniels said. "And maybe it will inspire someone else who is extremely qualified and who is the best person for the state to do the job. Maybe it will encourage that person to step up and run too." Daniels said she just finished her listening tour and plans to spend the weekend thinking about whether or not she wants to run. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Cute/Ridiculous Animal Thing Of The Day: Little Hamster Can't Stay Awake! (VIDEO) Top
Okay, I know, I kind of buried the lead on this one, but I don't think "Little Hamster Has Giant Balls" was an appropriate headline for the Huffington Post. Anyway, this giant-balled hamster can't stay awake. It's cute if you can stop staring at his balls. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on cute animal videos
 
Shira Tarrant: Hip to Strip? Or Is it Time for Men to Stop Watching? Top
Alternet recently published a piece on sex and relationships titled " Should You Try Stripping? " The "you" in question is specifically female and author Lily Blau's suggestion that parading in the buff empowers women has rightfully ruffled the feminist blogosphere. These days, says Blau, "sex appeal has attained a status that no other quality shares. So the thought of making money from stripping, especially in these tough economic times, "is increasingly appealing." What sexy girl wouldn't want reassurance that she's hot enough for cash, Blau seems to say. But the real question is not a supply-side issue. It's about the demand. Yes, women go to strip clubs. We drink beer and eat wings at Hooters. We hire prancing men in Speedos for our bachelorette parties and Cardio Striptease is women's domain at the gym. But the primary market demand for stripping, lap dancing, and other forms of fleshertainment come from men. So why are so many men paying women to take off their clothes? This question is sure to elicit a Seth Rogen -esque snicker along the lines of, "Umm ... Cuz they're naked and we saw boobies." The allegedly more thoughtful among us will argue that men are visual creatures, hardwired to become aroused at the mere site of female flesh. Besides the fact that this doesn't explain women's arousal, or why some men aren't turned on by watching women work a pole, this pseudo-scientific reasoning is just a lame excuse for "boys will be boys." As I explain in my new book, Men and Feminism , this lets men off the hook for their decisions to purchase or rent women's bodies. In so many circles it's hip to strip. I count my friends among them. But as author and blogger Amanda Marcotte writes, we've got a "hipster culture that plays at men and women being equals, but still makes women tap dance and submit like performing monkeys begging for cookies." Let me add: makes women tap dance naked. Others suggest that in a capitalist society women are free to choose stripping (or teasing or sucking or fucking) for cash. A simple case of contractual agreement, they might say. Yes, we all make choices. But some choices are more freely made than others. And that still doesn't answer the question why men choose to buy women's bodies and whether it's time for them to stop. The thing is, this isn't just about stripping. Take away the pole, and we're still left with a host of problems and a crisis in masculinity: A culture that rewards men for being hyperaggressive and punishes those who can't or won't. We have pop culture films like I Love You, Man , which shows men bumbling through authentic interpersonal relationships. There's the Judd Apatow movie model that portrays guys as perpetual kidults who might not ever really grow up. Or Dito Montiel's new flick Fighting that suggests the way hard-bodied men stand tough is by kicking ass. Yet with tons of mixed messages and no good roadmap, it's still crucial for guys to achieve successful masculinity. Failure is not an option because the stakes are really high. In her April 2009 New York Times article, " Dude, You've Got Problems ," journalist and author, Judith Warner, describes the recent suicides of two young men after being bullied at school, taunted, and called "gay." The fast route for guys to "prove" they're not gay is to show that they're tough, that they're not weak, that they don't back down -- whether on the playground, the bedroom, or the boardroom. Warner states, "Being called a 'fag,' you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay. It's really about showing any perceived weakness or femininity... It's what being called a 'girl' used to be, a generation or two ago." Though the paradigm is shifting slightly, gender expectations for young boys and men are more heightened than ever. As author Lindsay Beyerstein comments, "strip clubs are just a symptom of much larger inequities. If they were all eliminated tomorrow, the net effect on women's liberation would be approximately nil. It's not like men would suddenly respect women more." And it's not like men would instantly have masculinity figured out. The real issue, then, is not whether men keep watching naked women parade around in Lucite heels. The real point is that it's time for men to expand their repertoire, pay attention, and start watching something new. Like their kids growing up . Or our s hifting attitudes about gender, work, and home life . Men can head over to YouTube and check Def Jam poet Rafael Casal spit some righteous words about women, men, and relationships. More men can get involved with projects like A Call to Men's National Speak Out , a conference about ending male violence against women. I'm not willing to tell men -- or anyone else -- to stop watching women strip. I'm not the G-string patrol. I refuse to bed-down with the conservative right. And censorship can only lead to trouble. I'm not going to debate whether women doing sex work is good, bad, sexy, or ugly. But I am going to insist that we keep asking hardcore questions about men's market demand for female flesh. We need more -- not fewer -- conversations about gender, sexuality, safety, pleasure, earning power, and choice. Because whatever we're watching, it's time we also time to start watching something new. Our culture needs it.
 
Art Levine: Specter Faces Price of Betrayal: Angry Dems, Workers, Primary Challenge Top
Sen. Arlen Specter's political deathbed conversion to the Democratic Party isn't turning out so well after all. He now finds himself isolated from his new Democratic colleagues , branded as a turncoat who won't support key parts of Obama's agenda, a betrayer of his longtime union supporters over the Employee Free Choice Act -- and he's been stripped of his seniority on committees. Real Clear Politics sums it up: The White House's "full support." The backing of Senate leadership. The promise to retain his rank. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter appeared to gain a new political world for leaving the party that brought him to national politics. One week later, that world is gone. Specter now stands alone. Stripped of his rank by Democrats. Scorned by Republicans. Specter's flash of strength has turned to weakness. That weakness was thrown into stark relief Wednesday night, as Rep. Joe Sestak said in an interview that he was "very seriously" considering challenging Specter in the Democratic primary. There was a renewed energy to Sestak, repeating the phrase "very seriously" as he drove from Washington DC to Pittsburgh. It was only last week that Sestak appeared blindsided. "You know," Sestak told MSNBC's Chris Matthews Friday with a pang of resignation, "I was thinking of getting in. And I haven't made my final decision." For many Democratic voters, Specter's flip-flop on the Employee Free Choice Act he once co-sponsored appears to be fueling outrage from union members and their progressive allies. These include not just civil rights organizations, environmentalists and others but netroot activists who met today at AFL-CIO headquarters, vowing to supplement the unions' own grass-roots and online organizing with added efforts from their ranks. As the AFL-CIO Now blog reported: Chris Hayes, Washington Bureau chief of the Nation , said it is clear that, despite pronouncements from corporate shills and pundits, the Employee Free Choice Act is very much alive and well. He said he was fascinated by the fact that even after Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter expressed doubt about the bill in March, the campaign from the Chamber of Commerce and its corporate allies kicked into even higher gear, with continued ad spending and talk in the media about compromises on the bill. [Stewart ]Acuff, special assistant to the AFL-CIO President, agreed, saying the massive spending by corporations fighting the bill cannot change the reality that we're very near victory in the biggest fight for workers' rights in generations. And in a scathing rebuke of Specter, Tula Connell of the AFL-CIO wrote at Firedoglake : Specter, who voted for cloture for the Employee Free Choice Act when it was introduced in the Senate in 2007, changed his mind a couple months ago (no, not going there--too easy) and announced he wouldn't vote for cloture this time around. And by gum, even becoming a Democrat--that is, one who ostensibly supports working families--doesn't make a difference for the man on whom all eyes turn. "I said when I made the switch, I'm still against that bill," Specter said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Democrats are all for it; Republicans are all against it, and I'm the critical vote." So, here's what we say. In an interview with ABC, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka put it this way: "If a candidate isn't good for workers, we won't be there. If they are good for workers, we will be there regardless of their party. I mean, we supported Arlen Specter--and he was a Republican--because he was good for what was happening. He was good for our members at that time." See, you can't be a Dem in name only. You have to actually vote like one. Perhaps a Dem like Blue America-backed Rep. Joe Sestak (Pa.), who's thinking of throwing his hat into the Pennsylvania Senate primary and who--get this--is a House co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. It would be hard to go head to head with Sestak, a three-star Navy admiral with a doctorate in political economy and government from Harvard. But then, it's up to Pennsylvania voters to decide. "Those decisions will be made by people in the state, and our members in the state know who will stand with them. And if Arlen Specter--he stood with them in the past--if he continues to stand with them, they'll support him. If he doesn't, they won't support him".... Specter was all over the place this past week--backing Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman over Democrat Al Franken--then not--voting against President Obama's budget and opposing a public option in health care reform legislation. So looking to Arlen Specter for guidance on the future of the Employee Free Choice Act, which seems to be the favorite tea-leave reading practice of Washington pundits , may not be as sure a guide as the growing grass-roots campaign to influence wavering Senators. Despite downbeat assessments from some pundits, the legislation is still very much alive. As Stewart Acuff observed today: You play the game all the way through. This is a dynamic process, and we're at the 3-yard line--you can't just walk off the field now. We started this six years ago, and I thought it was going to be a 20-year fight. We've accomplished so much in the face of such attacks, and all the money they've been able to spend has not been able to break it. The campaign is vibrant and active, and all the forces of corporate America can't stop it--and they've tried everything in their playbook. More on Arlen Specter
 
US Soldiers Kill Iraqi Boy, 12, After Thrown Grenade Top
American soldiers shot and killed two people in the northern city of Mosul, including a 12-year-old boy the military said had thrown a hand grenade at a passing patrol. More on Iraq
 
David Feherty, CBS Golf Analyst Unleashes Insane Nancy Pelosi Death Fantasy Top
Sweet sassy molassey! A column in the recent issue of D Magazine is freaking everybody out today , and with good reason! It contains the line: From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death. Here's the amazing part! The column was written by David Feherty, who is best known as CBS' golf analyst. Yes. You read that correctly. CBS' GOLF ANALYST. Talk about a good walk spoiled! OK, so: context! The line comes in a larger article about President George W. Bush and wife Laura moving to the Dallas suburb of Preston Hollow, and if I could sum up the theme of Feherty's piece in a sentence, it would be: "I, David Feherty, have an intense loathing of everyone who lives in this community and very soon, President Bush shall know of my pain and despair." And now, a mea culpa! This article by Feherty is part of a larger collection of ruminations on Bush 43's return to Texas that have been available online for a long time , and which I mentioned back in the beginning of April . Somehow, and I don't remember how, Feherty's contribution to this effort escaped my attention. I sort of feel bad about this now, I can tell you! Anyway, among the great works of Feherty that I haven't read is a book called An Idiot For All Seasons , so maybe he was encouraged to go for broke, throw every last stitch of intense, crazyfaced emotion he had in him at the page, and managed to strike gold with his insane Nancy Pelosi death fantasy. Here's a Brief and Lamentable Collection of Wackery that didn't quite rise to that level: ...I mean, what a nightmare of a time that was to be president of the United States! His two terms must have felt like the rest of the world had inserted the Washington Monument into him and it was his job to heave it out.... ...I hate my neighbors because of their very proximity, or at least I hate the ones that want to talk to me who aren't doctors or gun dealers or who don't have their own airplanes.... ...If I have to visit someone, he had better either be in jail or the hospital, and to be honest I'd prefer jail. I do golf commentary on CBS and sometimes star in television commercials wherein I jump on a trampoline while wearing a skirt.... ...No, when I make it home, I slam the door behind me and peek out the letterbox to see if I've been spotted by any of the bastards who live nearby.... ...Even with their Secret Service entourage, the Bushes are going to be besieged by herds of North Dallas McMansion-dwellers, more brown-nosed and full of BS than any longhorn. Nouveaux riche and face-lifted old-monied fossils alike will descend upon them like ants to the honeypot every time they set foot outside their door.... Feherty also offers us a brief glimpse into his political views: I believe in the death penalty, especially for pro-lifers, child molesters, those opposed to gay marriage, and for stupid dancing in the end zone. I believe in the abolition of estate taxes and the Pickens Plan. I'd lower the legal drinking age and raise the driving age to 18 nationwide, make Kinky Friedman governor of Texas, and make all schools, public and private, start earlier with one hour of physical exercise. So there you have it. Now you know what Crash Davis' "I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days" monologue would have sounded like if it had been spoken by a thoroughly insane golf analyst, and not Kevin Costner. [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 .]
 
Sharon L. Camp: President Obama's 2010 Budget: A Decidedly Mixed Bag Top
On May 7, President Obama sent Congress his proposed 2010 budget recommendations. For programs and policies relating to sexual and reproductive health at home and abroad, the proposed budget contains some good news, some bad news and some news that is only okay. The most welcome development is the abolition of "abstinence-only-until-marriage" programs. The most disappointing is the failure of leadership the president displayed by sanctioning the continuation of federal bans on subsidized abortion services for U.S. women who depend on the federal government for their health care or health insurance. In reviewing the budget, it is important to remember it is just a starting point: Congress gets a crack at whether to accept, reject or modify the president's recommendations. Abstinence-Only Out; Evidence In. In a clear victory for evidence-based policies, the proposed budget ends funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that ignore or actively denigrate the effectiveness of contraceptives and safer-sex behaviors. Instead, the president recommends shifting these funds, plus an additional $15 million--a total of $178 million--to support a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative that includes a grants-to-states program and a separate community-based grant program. Seventy-five percent of the community-based funds would support "comprehensive, evidence-based programs," which have been proven to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use or reduce teenage pregnancy, and 25% of funds would support demonstration and research grants to test new models and approaches. Abstinence-only programs could continue to receive funding under the latter category so long as they have promise, but they would have to compete with other initiatives. Access to Abortion: Absence of Leadership. The president had the option to assert his prochoice credentials and propose in his budget that the many abortion funding restrictions that exist throughout a range of federal health programs be deleted. The most infamous of these, the Hyde Amendment, prohibits Medicaid from paying for abortions for poor women. The president chose politics over principle on this set of issues. His budget proposal leaves almost all the abortion funding restrictions intact. The one restriction his budget does recommend changing, as a matter of home rule, is the one that bans the District of Columbia from using its own local revenues to pay for abortions for its indigent residents--the way states may do. The administration is sending an ominous signal about the priority that access to abortion services will have in the context of health care reform. Domestic Family Planning: Modest Improvements. Given all the hoopla surrounding the president's initiative to reduce the need for abortion, his budget request is somewhat underwhelming when it comes to the quintessential middle ground--preventing unintended pregnancy. The Title X family planning program would receive a 3%, or $10 million, increase, which would bring funding to $317.5 million from the current $307.5 million. When it comes to Medicaid, the president proposes congressional action to remove barriers for states seeking to expand eligibility for family planning. This is a welcome development and a down payment on the president's promise from earlier this year to find a way (other than with the stimulus package) to win this important policy change. The president's proposed version in the budget is somewhat less robust than the version that has been pending in Congress--one that gives states the option of covering family planning for the same group of women eligible for pregnancy-related care. The administration's proposal would cap the ability of states to extend coverage to women at 200% of poverty. Services to New Mothers: Promising. The president proposes the creation of a new "home visitation" program for low-income parents and pregnant women to the tune of $8.6 billion over the next 10 years. It would be an entitlement program for states, which would have to apply for the money and put up their own matching funds. Although some funds would go toward testing promising newer models, the program would, like the teen pregnancy initiative, primarily fund models with a strong research evidence base. The most prominent of those models, the Denver-based Nurse-Family Partnership, is currently serving more than 16,000 women in 28 states and has been shown over more than 30 years to have numerous long-term benefits for children and families, including reductions in preterm births and improved birth-spacing. Global Health Initiative: Moving Toward a More Integrated Approach. The president presented his recommendations for global health funding in the context of his new Global Health Initiative. "We cannot simply confront individual preventable illnesses in isolation. The world is interconnected, and that demands an integrated approach," he said. The idea is to consider the synergies among global health programs in order to seek a more comprehensive and integrated approach to fighting disease, improving health and strengthening health systems. The initiative will focus on preventing millions of new HIV infections, reducing maternal and newborn deaths, averting millions of unintended pregnancies and eliminating some neglected tropical diseases. Over the next six years (FY 2009-2014), the administration plans to spend $63 billion under the Global Health Initiative, with $51 billion allocated to global HIV/AIDS and malaria efforts and $12 billion to other global health priorities, including maternal and child health, family planning and neglected tropical diseases. For FY 2010, the president is requesting $5.3 billion for the global HIV/AIDS programs, a slight increase over the current amount. Overall funding for maternal and child health programs would rise from $494 million to $524 million. (Maternal health efforts are not broken out separately.) Funding for international family planning and reproductive health programs would increase to $543 million--$48 million more than current levels. Additionally, the president is recommending a $50 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the same amount as this year. The budget does propose deleting all the limitations on the U.S. contribution to UNFPA, including one that prevents any U.S. funds from being used in UNFPA's China program and another that deducts from the annual U.S. contribution the amount that UNFPA spends in China that same year. If approved by Congress, the overall amount proposed for international family planning and reproductive health programs--$593 million--would represent the highest level ever from the U.S. government. More on Obama's Budget
 
Marjorie Cohn: Stanford Anti-War Alumni, Students Call for Condi War Crimes Probe Top
During the Vietnam War, Stanford students succeeded in banning secret military research from campus. Last weekend, 150 activist alumni and present Stanford students targeted Condoleezza Rice for authorizing torture and misleading Americans into the illegal Iraq War. Veterans of the Stanford anti-Vietnam War movement had gathered for a 40th anniversary reunion during the weekend. The gathering featured panels on foreign policy, the economy, political and social movements, science and technology, media, energy and the environment, and strategies for aging activists. On Sunday, surrounded by alumni and students, Lenny Siegel and I nailed a petition to the University President's office door. The petition, circulated by Stanford Say No to War, reads: "We the undersigned students, faculty, staff, alumni, and other concerned members of the Stanford community, believe that high officials of the U.S. Government, including our former Provost, current Political Science Professor, and Hoover Institution Senior Fellow, Condoleezza Rice, should be held accountable for any serious violations of the Law (included ratified treaties, statutes, and/or the U.S. Constitution) through investigation and, if the facts warrant, prosecution, by appropriate legal authorities." I stated, "By nailing this petition to the door of the President's office, we are telling Stanford that the university should not have war criminals on its faculty. There is prima facie evidence that Rice approved torture and misled the country into the Iraq War. Stanford has an obligation to investigate those charges." After the petition nailing, I cited the law and evidence of Condoleezza Rice's responsibility for war crimes -- including torture -- and for selling the illegal Iraq War: As National Security Advisor, Rice authorized waterboarding in July 2002, according to a newly released report of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Less than two months later, she hyped the impending U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Her ominous warning was part of the Bush administration's campaign to sell the Iraq war, in spite of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's assurances that Saddam Hussein did not possess nuclear weapons. A week before the nailing of the petition, Rice made some Nixonian admissions in response to questions from Stanford students during a campus dinner designed to burnish Rice's image on campus. In October 1968, Stanford anti-war activists had nailed a document to the door of the trustees' office which demanded that Stanford "halt all military and economic projects concerned with Southeast Asia." Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and co-author of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent. Read her articles at www.marjoriecohn.com . More on War Crimes
 
David O. Stewart: The Torture of Impeachment Top
Next week, a panel of Deep Thinkers in Washington will consider whether Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should be impeached and removed from office . His potentially impeachable offense? Writing one of the Justice Department memoranda in 2002 that approved interrogation techniques that include waterboarding and other forms that only can be described as torture. Now, there are some threshold problems with the Bybee impeachment scenario. First, the torture memoranda were written a year before Bybee actually became a judge, at a time when he was in charge of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The Senate has conducted more than a dozen impeachment trials. All have involved conduct undertaken while in federal office. Moreover, the key description of an impeachment offense in the Constitution -- "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- has always seemed to reflect some notion of abuse of the office from which the defendant may soon be ejected. Still, this consideration is more awkward than disabling for those who dream of impeaching Judge Bybee. If a federal judge turned out to have been a serial killer before taking the bench, Congress would swiftly impeach and remove him. The question for Bybee will still come down to whether his 2002 conduct is "bad enough" to warrant impeachment. The opaque, antique language of the Constitution (high crimes and misdemeanors) makes that question a very subjective one. Second, Bybee, by most accounts, is a pleasant person who seems (to friends) to be somewhat remorseful about the torture memorandum that he signed. Truth be told, the impeachment squad would probably prefer to take out after John Yoo, the principal draftsman of the memorandum and Bybee's deputy in 2002. Yoo still defends that memorandum without apology, insisting that the president's war power trumps any delicate sensibilities based on the requirements of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners. But Yoo is a professor at Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California at Berkeley, beyond the reach of any would-be impeachers, so it's Bybee who ends up on the hot seat. Three factors are likely to play a significant role in any determination of Bybee's future. First, some are troubled by evidence that the Justice Department memorandum was an after-the-fact repair job, undertaken to approve interrogation techniques that were already under way. To the extent that Bybee and Yoo knew that key fact, yet wrote a memorandum that did not disclose it, their integrity as advisers to the president will be called into question. Also, there is the simple horror of the practices approved. A 2005 Justice Department memo reveals that one terrorism suspect was waterboarded 83 times and another 183 times . Considering that waterboarding simulates suffocation by drowning, the uninitiated wonders why a dozen or so applications of the technique might not be sufficient. More relevant to an impeachment inquiry, could not Bybee foresee the potential for abuse of the practices they were approving? When giving advice, every lawyer has to think through the potential consequences of conduct she is saying is legal. When handing down a decision, every judge must think through how her ruling might be applied in the future. What, exactly, did Bybee expect? And how could he not foresee abuses? Ultimately, though, the most telling question may simply be whether Bybee and Yoo genuinely and reasonably believed in the advice they were giving. Simply put, lawyers and judges will be wrong, sometimes terribly so, especially in times of national crisis. In Korematsu v. United States , 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the Supreme Court approved the forced detention of Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II. The six-member majority included highly-respected judges venerated by liberals then and since -- William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Harlan Stone, and Wiley Rutledge. Yet Korematsu has been widely reviled since Republican President Gerald Ford pronounced it wrong in 1976. When the Supreme Court decides whether to hear a case or not, one of the common reasons not to review a decision is because it was "merely wrong" -- that is, wrong without being important. For Bybee, some version of the merely-wrong standard should apply. Without a demonstration that his torture memorandum deceptively concealed existing practices, or knowing envisioned greater abuses than he meant to approve, Congress should move on.
 
Alexia Tsotsis: Why Buy the Milk When You're Following the Cow on Twitter? Top
When death of your industry becomes default small talk in the conference lobby and every media related conversation devolves into something along the lines of, "How do we save the Los Angeles Times ?" you know things are not boding well. Perhaps this is why media buyers (the typically underpaid twentysomethings who work at "creative agencies") have become the rockstars of the new media industry, employing a hallowed position at conferences formerly reserved for those with access to an iPhone charger. Nowhere is this more clear than at this week's Digital Hollywood being held at Lowes in Santa Monica, because as Jason Krebs, co-founder of Shortail Media and formerly of the New York Times , put it, "Today you've got a disaster area in the media business." How did we get here? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the free platforms of distribution provided by the social Web cut out the middle man; Krebs explains,"Because it's free, Twitter has made the flow of advertising dollars going to the Internet so much more difficult." Ad agencies now see social media (Twitter, Facebook and MySpace) as platforms to build their own content, using the viral nature of these mediums to engage the consumer directly, and putting a serious hurt on the buying of page views and online carriage. If you are a publisher (i.e. you have content that's monetized by advertising, from television to newspapers to porn) this dis-intermediation means you're in for a rough future unless you come up with a more creative solution to the problem than a banner ad or click campaign. Read more here. More on Twitter
 
Tallulah Morehead: Survivor Tocantins: The Loved One Top
What are the three things I hate the most? Voldetool, math, and sobriety. And what were featured on last night's horror-filled episode of Survivor Tocantins ? You got it: math and The Chosen Boob. Nor was anyone drunk besides myself. It was too much for me. Instead of dictating this column to Little Dougie to type out for you, I staggered off to bed, or passed out on my living room floor; one of the two anyway, leaving Little Dougie with his fingers poised over my keyboard. A few minutes ago I woke up screaming. Little Dougie was still there, although his fingers had moved. The episode began with the remaining contestants arriving back at Forza Camp, fresh from evicting Sierra, with Coach at his worst; smug, triumphant, and still convinced that he was running this game now clearly being run by Stephen and JT. "I'm glad the drama's gone," said JT, putting at least three syllables into the word glad . First off, if there's no more drama, why should we bother watching at all? The sex appeal was gone weeks ago. Secondly, he's wrong; Dork Vader is still there. Even though the person he wanted out was out, Voldetool was, to use his vivid term, pissed. Taj and Erinn had not voted for Sierra, and therefore were "cowards"! (What were they supposedly afraid of? Sierra, who couldn't bench press a strand of uncooked spaghetti, and hadn't a friend left in the tribe? Actually, by defying the resident psychopath, The Drag Queen Slayer, and making rogue votes, they had shown more guts than the others.) But Lord Saurgrapes, who looks positively terrifying in "night vision," which brings out his psychosis, was livid at not being utterly obeyed. Last week, when no one but Debbie had voted how he'd dictated, he'd been licking everyone's butts, and thanking them for blindsiding his primary ally, Tyson. (Even Voldetool couldn't help being glad to lose The Nude Mormon.) Oh, there's a coward in camp all right, and his name is Voldetool. How can anyone sleep with this horror loose in camp? Freddy Krugar is a more comforting companion. "This is a time for The Warrior Alliance," said Voldetool, sounding a bit like Bud Collier announcing "This looks like a job for Superman!" on the old radio version of Superman, 70 years ago, "There's a reason why we have a name." Yes, so you'll know which imaginary alliance you're referring to. There's only one genuine alliance in this game, Team Mancrush: Stephen & JT, with Taj as mascot. (If Taj were a full-fledged member of Team Mancrush, I'd have to call it something else, and she would have voted for Sierra.) But Dork Vader was in full bloom; the farce was with him, and he ranted for our - ah - benefit. "People that don't play this game even half as honestly as me," said the man whose every utterance is a lie or a self-delusion, "even half as bold as me, like we saw tonight, pisses me off." His "reasoning" is worse than his grammar. "Taj and Erinn. You know what? We're gonna run them through with a sword the next two votes. And I'm thinking Taj has to go next." Since he has no access to swords in Tocantins, I'm assuming he meant it metaphorically, and he is clearly oblivious to the fact that Taj won't be going anywhere anytime soon. "You've got to let it go. It's going to drive you nuts." said Debbie to him, unmindful of the fact that he already is tremendously nuts. He's Brazil nuts. Or maybe she meant it would drive him back to Nuts, from Raving Insanity, where he normally resides. Norman Bates would call Lord Saurgrapes "a tad unbalanced." Debbie, his only true allay left, sees which way the Titanic is sinking, and decides to jump ship. Abandon Ex-Coach, all ye who camp here. As the others are trying to get to sleep, Voldetool is sitting about muttering: "Cowards, cowards, cowards, all around me." Only a genuinely brave person would attempt to sleep near Dork Vader without an armed guard. For us he said, "I don't care about the million dollars..." Good, because if the final two were Lord Saurgrapes and a lump of mud, that lump of mud would go home the richest lump of mud on earth, "I care about my integrity and honesty, and changing this game from start to finish. I've said that from day one, and that would never change." unlike his tenses, which change from dependant clause to dependant clause. What does he think he's babbling about? He has lied to people's faces, not just in his ridiculous Baron Munchausen tales of adventures among Amazonian pygmies, but in flat-out lying about who said what to whom last episode, and he knows we know it. His honesty is a fiction; his integrity is mythical. The game is the same old game it's been for 18 seasons now, and all he's said from day one is how he can control people using only his eyes. Oh, and his "I don't care about the million dollars" is a lie. In short, Voldetool is now dangerously insane, and the producers should remove him from the game and arrange for his immediate involuntary commitment. Debbie now sees the danger of being allied with Coach, who does nothing at camp but hold court. Really, he does nothing but sit and rave. He lets everyone else hunt, fish, gather, make fire, cook. He sits on his camp-throne and mutters about cowards and his own awesomeness. To the other people who are actually working while forced to listen to his bilious babbling, he seems a pompous fool. Actually, to anyone on earth, he seems a pompous fool, because he is a pompous fool, Gasbag Emeritus. Debbie begins actively and energetically shoving Voldetool under a bus, which is a terrible thing to do to a bus. There could be kids on that bus, or me. (Well, maybe not me, as I have never been on a bus in my life, but don't throw him under a limo.) "I love him." says JT. Really , JT? But of course, Debbie is telling the other tribe members far more about Debbie than she is about Dork Vader. Is she trying a ploy on Voldetool's behalf, seeing if they're disloyals who would betray him, or is she just a treacherous ally who will stab her only friend in the back when it suits her? Either way, she's painting a target on her own forehead. "I don't want Coach [sic] thinking for me." said Debbie wisely. Lord Saurgrapes can't even think for himself. "As far as I'm concerned, I'm on a tribe with you two, and I'm in an alliance with you two..." this is news to them, who wisely say nothing, "And I give you my honest to God, pinky swear word on that, God strike me dead." The producers hilariously cut in a lightening strike sound effect on "God strike me dead." Well, by the Unalterable Laws of the Playground, a.k.a. The Recess Commandments, she hath invoked the "Pinky Swear," so she must be telling the truth. The only flaw in this is that neither Stephen nor JT is 8 years old. Reward Challenge: The Survivor Auction. They do this every season. The players are each given $500 in Monopoly money to bid on items, some shown, some mysteries. They can't share money or food. Bidding is only in $20 increments. Item 1: A big bowl of French Fries. Taj bids $40. Debbie, the school principal , bids $50. Jeff reminds her that they can only bid in $20 increments. She revises her bid -- to $70!!! Debbie can't do simple math! Get your kids out of her school immediately! Debbie wins the fries, for $140, twice her insane bid of $70. Let's see; not only can she not do simple arithmetic, but she sets her pupils the nutrition example of paying $140 for a bowl of healthy, trans-fat saturated French Fries. Item 2: Chicken Parmigiana with garlic bread. I must admit; this looked so good, I wanted to bid on it myself, but then I remembered that my kitchen here has food, and bought at more reasonable rates than $140 for a single serving of fries. Voldetool almost soiled his pants at the sight, and paid $340 for it. JT had driven the price up with a large rogue bid, but then, he was probably personally acquainted with the chicken. Dork Vader saw some sort of significance that Jeff "hesitated" to close bidding. I think Jeff may become Lord Saurgrapes next target. Now that would be one hell of a blindside. "The 12th person voted out of Survivor Tocantins , and the next member of our jury, is -- Me! " Item 4: a mystery platter. These are risky. It could always turn out to be a plateful of dung. JT spends $160 for what turns out to be nachos with sides of salsa and guacamole. Item 5: another mystery platter: Stephen gets it for a mere $100. Stephen has not learned the most basic rule of Survivor Auctions: Never bid on the second blind item. Since the first one was okay, that means this one will be the booby prize. Sure enough, Jeff speaks those dreaded words: "This is a local delicacy." Local Delicacy is a code term for vile, inedible, gastric horror . Actually, as Survivor revolting foodstuffs go, Stephen got off lightly. It's a skewer full of chicken hearts. I was expecting rat colons. "Are they any good?" asked Taj, who didn't get that full, in fact overflowing, figure from ever saying "No thanks; none for me." Stephen, probably used to eating unleavened bread and bitter herbs (I know Herb, and boy, is he bitter!), pretends they're yummy, although I suspect he left a generous portion for Elijah. (By the way Elijah, if you don't show up pretty soon, we're starting without you.) Last Item: A phone (Jeff gave the full model name and manufacturer, but since I'm not being paid by Samsung to product place, let's just say it was a phone.) with messages from "loved ones" back home. The no-pooling-money rule was relaxed for this item alone. Everyone instantly gave all their money to Taj, in a sweet-but-incomprehensible gesture. (Actually, JT just automatically did it, which shamed the others into forking over their cash to the richest person on the team.) Why would Taj, who in the real world could buy and sell all of the other contestants combined, need to hear from her sports star husband and brood of spawn more than anyone else in the tribe? Doesn't Debbie miss her kids? Doesn't JT miss his cows? Doesn't Dork Vader miss his mirror? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Folks who genuinely love their families don't go on Survivor . They stay with their families. People go on this show for three reasons: to win a million dollars, to lose weight, and to get a month far away from their families. Taj is a mystery. She already has several million dollars, she's somehow not losing any weight, and she appears to actually miss her family. What are you doing in Brazil, you weird woman, other than depriving some woman who has no money, weight she'd like to drop, and an obnoxious brood she's desperate to escape for a few weeks, of the chance to do so? Selfish! (Incidentally, although having a couple thousand dollars to bid, Taj only puts up $20. Eddie, that's precisely, to the penny, how much she loves you. And that's how you get rich. You hang onto your cash.) Anyway, Taj sobbed so loud all through her hubby's message that she didn't even hear his punchline: "See you back at the camp." Once Jeff has pointed out to her that he'd just said he's back at camp, after breaking Jeff's arm just above the elbow, instead of running back to camp, Taj runs over and hugs Erinn. Why? If Eddie George was waiting back at camp for me, I wouldn't be wasting time making a lesbian move on that bundle of sticks. Jeff offers her a choice: have her hubby back at camp (and I do mean have him!), or go to Exile Dune, and everyone else's loved ones can be back at camp. What a fiendish choice - except - she gets to take Eddie with her to Exile! Jeff refers to this several times as a "sacrifice." How is that a sacrifice? If she had to go to Exile alone, and not set eyes on Eddie at all, that would be a sacrifice. Here the choice is, take your incredibly hot husband back to camp surrounded by a crowd of resentful tribemates and no privacy, or take him off to Exile Dune, which is as private as you can get when followed by a camera crew, and also make everyone on the tribe grateful? The only person stupid enough to have chosen Eddie at camp was voted off last week. Sure enough, Taj chooses Exile with hubby. Everyone goes nuts. We see Voldetool hugging Stephen, an oasis of nausea in the orgy of saccharin blubbering. (I don't do heartwarming.) Playboy Dune: Cue the porn movie music. Taj's husband, Eddie George, is HOT! Smoking hot! Gay porn movie hot! My drunken fantasies hot! Why wasn't he a contestant? I'd have ignored even Brendan for this stud. And he must be super-well-hung, as he would need to be to go the distance he must traverse. He could do better. In fact, he could do me! In my experience, there's no faster way into a man's pants than insulting and belittling his wife online for cheap laughs for two months. (I know he's famous among the sort of people who follow sports. I know I could have Googled him and seen what he looks like before now, but why? I assumed he would look like someone who would marry Taj, not like someone who could turn down Beyonce.) Part of the time at Exile Dune, Eddie wears what they call a "Wife Beater," but he never takes the hint, and smacks her around, saying "This is for you, Tallulah!" He appears to be wearing the tanktop because no sleeves could ever contain his massive shoulders, let alone his gigantic biceps. It's almost too bad she doesn't take Eddie to camp. I'd have liked to see her introduce him to Lord Saurgrapes, saying "Eddie, this is the egomaniac who called me a coward and is trying to get me voted out. Why don't you take him over there, out of camera range, and have a 'chat' with him?" We'd soon see if there was a real coward in camp or not. Taj sensibly says, "I just wanted to take him to the side and have a conjugal visit." Well what was stopping you? The camera crew? That would be vastly more entertaining to watch than the show, even with her in it. And besides, sadly, CBS wouldn't have aired it anyway, so go for it. All the interview crew would have gotten from me under those circumstances would have been a hollered "I'm busy!" which would have been hard to understand, since I can't articulate too well when my mouth is full. "You've lost so much weight." says Eddie. She has? What did she weigh before? 300? Eddie also told us: "She looks great..." Oh good! He has extremely poor eyesight. That increases my chances. "She's dirty now. She smells filthy. You know? But there's something about the wild, you know, that makes you sexy, you know. It's kind of a turn-on, you know?" Eddie darling, I will go unshowered for a month (wouldn't be the first time), roll in mud, quadruple my weight, and smell like - well - like I usually do, if it will turn you on. Once you try extreme old age, you'll never turn the page. How hot is Eddie? So hot that I still wanted him even after he said "You know?" four times in 15 seconds. (Eddie, you know, constantly, you know, saying 'you know' over and over, you know. It makes you sound like, you know, an inarticulate, you know, 14-year old, you know?) Back at Forza camp (to Taj it's now: two's company, Forza crowd.), the others are now meeting their "loved ones." Wow! Coach has a "loved one," I mean other than himself. Who will it be? The only thing we can be certain of is, it won't be a woman. Stephen is visited by his brother, who cinches the argument for being an only child. "You look great," Stephen lies. "Don't eat me," Stephen's brother replies, revealing way too much about what went on in their shared bedroom growing up. Debbie has a husband who looks like he was probably mildly attractive a decade back, which is more than I can say of Debbie. A good long look at JT's little sister, well, a long look anyway, reveals why he's on the show. He's trying to win a dowry for her, and it better the whole million, after taxes, if she's ever going
 
Paul Klein: OK is the New Awesome Top
The ArtChicago and NEXT fairs revealed some changing trends in the art world. Yes, there were fewer high-caliber galleries and correspondingly less high-priced, high-quality, kick ass art on view, but that makes sense. There is presently less risk-taking seen across the board, and as fragile as the art scene tends to be many dealers are smart enough to figure out how to stay in the game. Though Franklin Parrasch elegantly stated that "OK is the new awesome," there were many dealers who were giddy with their positive results. One, who has probably been at ArtChicago for over a dozen years, said this was her best art fair ever -- that people weren't even asking for discounts. And of course there were others who were crying in their soup. Though I'm trying to figure out and reconcile the divergent information I received and observations I made, here's what I think: People like art. People have been scrimping and have pent up desire. The art speculators who bought because of the upside potential and funny-money games are bruised and gone. The genuine art lovers who were pushed from the scene a decade ago are either back or out of lurking mode. They care about quality, content and a personal relationship to the art. They bought. Those who did well brought art that was popular with a broad spectrum -- mostly easier art to comprehend, art that felt familiar, or art that felt special. I know of a major collector and a major art consultant who were in town for personal reasons who didn't deign to attend. They demonstrated their "superiority" by making the appropriate supercilious comments. This art fair wasn't for them. It was for the lookers, and the collectors, from the expanded Midwest, from Minneapolis to Houston and Kansas City to Pittsburgh. There was plenty of money to go around, but it didn't go everywhere. Foreign galleries' booths looked under-visited. Many of the newer (lesser?) galleries to the fair, those who don't have long-term relationships with their expanded art fair audience, were challenged. Those who present what some call 'dorm art' didn't sell much, if at all, though many liked their energy for whatever that's worth. For those of us who care about substance and quality over hyperbole and b.s. this was a rather satisfying presentation. This is not to say the Mart did a particularly good job. Some galleries did and a sufficient portion of the audience responded. The Mart had the foresight to add respected curators to well-conceived panels. But in the bigger picture the Mart continued to consciously opt for monetizing mediocrity and marginalizing creativity. The Mart could have done something major for artists and Chicago. Instead they kissed the butts of the dealers who have now deserted them and what remains is a Senate prospect who climbed the Tower of Babel to announce his candidacy. It is easy and satisfying to be unequivocal in my respect and admiration for the Hyde Park Art Center . That's because we share an agenda: showcasing what is good about art in Chicago and trying to get more artists more attention right here at home. I travel a lot and I'm always looking at and for art wherever I go. I believe there is a unique phenomenon that occurs in Chicago -- the preponderance and proliferation of apartment galleries and artist-run spaces. This happens for a few reasons. More artists graduate from the several art schools here than can be absorbed by the system. Chicago galleries are doing an insufficient job of responding to the needs of the community. The art world is evolving, becoming broader, more democratic, more internet savvy, and the existing and arcane support structure remains old school. Given the existing deficiencies here, it is important that alternative galleries have risen to fill the void. Often barely legal, they don't focus on sales, or bigger-is-better, or even on perpetuating themselves. They focus on the quality of their relationships with artists and on presenting art that fits their vision. They are performing a wonderful, invariably fun, service to a too-small audience. To honor their existence, to inform us and to acknowledge the growth of Chicago's art community the Hyde Park Art Center is opening Artists Run Chicago . This is a fabulous, original, well-conceived presentation that shines a light on a significant sampling of artist-run spaces that have come and gone over the years. I can remember many that are not included, but there are a lot of inclusions that I wasn't familiar with during the time they were here. This is a show jam-packed with content where those who ran the spaces were invited to present a sampling of the art they showed. It's a satisfying trip down memory lane, as well as an eye-opener. Wonderful. I want to see artists take responsibility for their careers and not just the next work of art they're about to create. Too many artists resemble lap dogs thinking that once they have a gallery relationship their travails will be over. Hell, it is imperative that once in a relationship with a gallery artists persist in taking responsibility for how they are treated by the gallery and what the gallery does for them. Artists would be very foolish to assume that a gallery's interest equals their own. I'm particularly impressed when I see a young artist completely blow off the gallery system. Such is the case with Jason Brammer who, as far as I can tell, has never had a gallery experience, yet makes solid art, sells most of it and has an opening at the Star Lounge Coffee Bar Saturday evening. Galleries certainly aren't the only way to go, especially in a compromised economy when so many other opportunities exist. It's always good to see an artist succeeding on his or her own terms. Almost exclusively these ArtLetters are previews, but there's such a fine exhibition at the Smart Museum that I've got to include it. Titled Your Pal, Cliff: Selections from the H.C. Westermann Study Collection , the show includes a lot of material that Westermann was reluctant to reveal during his lifetime, feeling that it compromised the integrity of his art. But for many his art was enigmatic and the threads that tied it together were often quite difficult to see. When his wife died (years after him) she left his artifacts to the Smart Museum and enabled it to be seen, realizing that it more fully revealed the genius that Westermann was. There are many preparatory drawings and lots of fascinating letters full of sketches that make this is a glorious, slow exhibition that warrants a lot of reading and contemplation. This show is a unique joy! That's it for now. I'm out of opinions. Paul Klein
 
Paul Krassner: A Response to "Why Did Jon Stewart Apologize?" Top
In a recent blog on HuffPost, Dennis Perrin criticized Jon Stewart for apologizing the day after he agreed with a guest that President Harry Truman was a war criminal. He wrote that "Stewart did what well-regarded mainstream entertainers do when expressing an unpopular opinion. He groveled for forgiveness....When an American 'satirist' apologizes for stating the truth, you can really appreciate 'free expression' in a corporate-owned culture." Since Perrin stated that, "before The Daily Show, Stewart was not known in a Paul Krassner/Barry Crimmins/Whitney Brown way," I feel especially compelled to disagree with his premise. As a performer, I was a bundle of paradoxes. I was a hermit, yet I would go out to do shows and talk to a hundred people at once. I was a social critic, yet my spiritual path was trying not to judge others. Irreverence was my only sacred cow, yet I tried not to let victims become the target of my humor. So, there was one particular routine that I stopped using in 1970, when abortion was still illegal and I ran an underground referral service. It called for a "rape-in" of legislators' wives in order to impregnate them so that they would then convince their husbands to decriminalize abortion. But feminist friends objected. I resisted at first, because it was such a well-intentioned joke. But I reconsidered. Even in a joke, why should women be assaulted because men make the laws? Legislators' wives were the victims in that joke, but the legislators themselves should have been the target. For me to cease doing that bit of comedy wasn't self-censorship, it was conscious evolution. I publicly apologized, in print and on the air. Of course, if you think I was merely kowtowing to political correctness, I hereby grovel for your forgiveness. Perrin admitted that his take on The Daily Show was "a tad personal," because they had once rejected material he submitted because it was "too dark." Actually, I had a similar experience with Dennis Miller. He had called to invite me to submit material--several jokes and a rant--when he hosted his own TV series. This was when he mistook spouting obscure references with being hip, but before he became such a political reactionary. He never let me know his decision. After a few weeks, I wrote and asked him, but he didn't have the courtesy to respond. I learned from a staff writer that Miller considered my material "too radical." However, I did read it on the radio one Sunday morning when Harry Shearer invited me to substitute for him on Le Show. I also feel compelled to disagree with Jon Stewart. I think that Harry Truman was indeed a war criminal. Actually, I believe that in most wars, both sides harbor top-level war criminals, but that the victor determines who they are. As Lenny Bruce said in 1962 at the Gate of Horn in Chicago, "If we would have lost the war, they would have strung Truman up by the balls...." Lenny was arrested for obscenity that night. One of the items in the police report complained: "When talking about the war he stated, 'If we would have lost the war, they would have strung Truman up by the balls.'" More on Jon Stewart
 
SaraKay Smullens: Resilience: Elizabeth Claims John Eternally Hers Top
I am hearing the same questions daily from friends and clients: "What was Elizabeth Edwards thinking when she penned her latest book, Resilience , where she discussed her husband's infidelity and her reaction when she first learned about it: scream, cry, throw up. How could she leave such a legacy to her children? What was she thinking?" But Elizabeth Edward's motivation in writing was to escape the pain of thinking. She did not want to think about a child said to closely resemble her husband, born to another woman, with whom he clearly had a relationship, one that has led to a federal investigation into monies given to her. Instead, Mrs. Edwards wrote to cope, to justify, to protect, to keep her hard earned family together. And also to deny. Resilience is being marketed as a book to help those facing life's "burdens" and "adversities" and will no doubt sell very well. It advises those facing turmoil to not cling to lost dreams, to live in the present, to create a "new reality." Mrs. Edwards encourages viewing the entire frame of a life, not just a bitter betrayal. Though angry at her husband, she believes that together they are at work on their new reality. It is important to look closely at Elizabeth Edward's actual reality, not merely her new one. An appealing and articulate woman, who merited her own "Elizabeth Edwards for President" campaign buttons during her husband's Presidential candidacy, Mrs. Edwards does not have the luxury of looking too hard or thinking too much. Her burden is not merely infidelity. She has terminal cancer and three children who need a father and an intact family. To cope, endure and protect, Elizabeth Edwards skirts around her charming husband's character issues, minimizing his grave ethical limitations and how easily he lies, distorts and manipulates. John Edwards told his wife about a one time involvement with another woman two days after declaring his run for Presidency. He would not heed her counsel to drop out of the race to protect their family. Soon after they learned that her cancer had returned. Soon after that she learned that her husband's involvement with another woman was far more involved than a one night stand. She chooses, however, to see this as not part of her life. To her, Edwards is a good man who has done a bad thing, a man who despite an "awful error in judgment," did not leave the race for president because he wanted to "hold on to our lives." Clearly to achieve this perspective and maintain it, Elizabeth Edwards needed an outlet for her rage. Her verbal flames are directed toward women with idle time who hang out in fancy hotels trying to take and destroy another woman's hard built life rather than work to make their own. According to Mrs. Edwards, Rielle Hunter (whose name is not mentioned in her book) semi-stalked her husband, calling him "hot." According to her, she and women like her are the true culprits. Though Elizabeth Edwards claims that John does not know why Hunter attracted him, he is, of course, also responsible for their relationship. Though Rielle Hunter does not seem to be a sweetheart, what is really going on here? Marital humiliation is nothing new in the political world and in far less public ones. Yet, how could and why does a man who consistently professes love, adoration and devotion to his wife, even to the extent of a 30 year marital vow renewal in 2007, perhaps as an affair continued, make such seemingly baffling statements and choices. Every marriage is unique, but one marital pattern that John Edwards lived consistently almost always spells big trouble. When a man marries, needing a woman to be at his side constantly, glued hip to hip, for him to pursue and attain his ambition, he will usually hurt her in myriad ways, public and private. For he resents this dependency, and yet believes he cannot live without it. In these marriages, both one night stands and affairs are common. This enmeshment is far different than an interdependence where there is devotion and availability, but each member can work and achieve without being continuously hip to hip. Further, passion in such unions, if it was ever there, burns out quickly. And physical intimacy can become forced and incomplete. Such men frequently have a secret life, as well as periods of private emotional isolation, and their partners often compensate by finding comfort elsewhere, often in eating patterns that become unmanageable. It is common for women who love too much to have seen their mothers suffer in poor marriages, as was the case with Elizabeth Edwards, who asked for only one marital gift, fidelity. They see adult men as dangerous, and they are attracted to what feels like the safety of being needed by a man who primarily wants nurturing and protection and therefore will never abandon them. Women attracted to these unions are ever making excuses for their husbands, and in order not to lose them, work harder and harder to be indispensable, thus, without ever meaning to or realizing it, tightening reigns that are already choking. I have seen introspection lead to self awareness and growth in such marriages, but frequently one partner leaves, seeing that trust is forever eroded. In reality, Elizabeth Edwards does not have one iota of freedom to even think seriously about the second option. She loves her children too much; she is too vulnerable. And so she has written Resilience , which as its core does what she has ever done: protects her husband as well as makes excuses for him, and at the same time claim him eternally hers. Perhaps a healthier Elizabeth Edwards would have in time said to her rival: "You want the bastard. Take him. He's all yours." Instead, her Resilience is a determination to resurrect her shamed husband, as well as curse and blame her unnamed contender til the end of time. More on Marriage
 
Handwritten Notes Show Fed Oversight Bill Neutered On Senate Floor Top
Legislation to give Congress greater oversight of the Federal Reserve was severely watered down on the Senate floor Wednesday in private negotiations between two powerful Republican senators. Thanks to an overlooked document posted on the website of Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, voters can virtually watch the water being dumped into the brew that Grassley had hoped to force the Fed to drink. (See the document at the bottom of this story.) On page five of Grassley's amendment, he intends to give the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office power to audit "any action taken by the Board under...the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act" -- which would be almost everything that it has done on an emergency basis to address the financial crisis, encompassing its massive expansion of opaque buying and lending. Handwritten into the margins, however, is the amendment that watered it down: "with respect to a single and specific partnership or corporation." With that qualification, the Senate severely limited the scope of the oversight. On the Senate floor, Grassley named the top Republican on the banking committee, Richard Shelby of Alabama, as the man pouring the water. "Although I would have preferred to include all of the Fed's emergency actions under 13(3), in consultation with Senator Shelby I agreed to limit my amendment to actions aimed at specific companies," said Grassley. "This modified version of the amendment does not give GAO authority to look at all of that additional taxpayer risk. It is much narrower than the one I originally filed, but it is a reasonable step in the right direction, and it does not threaten monetary policy independence." The original version of the amendment also scratches out congressional authority to oversee Fed actions as they relate to the TARP bailout or "similar authority that the Board exercises under urgent and exigent circumstances." The Senate walked right up to the edge, thought about auditing the Fed, and with the stroke of a pen, backed off. (Or maybe it was a pencil.) The action the Senate took, however, is not meaningless. Grassley entered into the congressional record a list of Fed actions that do fall within the limits of the language in his amendment (which could still be eliminated in conference committee negotiations): 1. Actions related to Bear Stearns and its acquisition by JP Morgan Chase, including: a. Loan To Facilitate the Acquisition of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. by JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Maiden Lane I) b. Bridge Loan to The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. Through JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 2. Bank of America -- Authorization to Provide Residual Financing to Bank of America Corporation Relating to a Designated Asset Pool (taken in conjunction with FDIC and Treasury) 3. Citigroup -- Authorization to Provide Residual Financing to Citigroup, Inc., for a Designated Asset Pool (taken in conjunction with FDIC and Treasury) 4. Various actions to stabilize American International Group (AIG), including a revolving line of credit provided by the Federal Reserve as well as several credit facilities (listed below). AIG has also received equity from Treasury, through the TARP, which would also be captured in amendment #1020. a. Secured Credit Facility Authorized for American International Group, Inc., on September 16, 2008 b. Restructuring of the Government's Financial Support to American International Group, Inc., on November 10, 2008 (Maiden Lane II and Maiden Lane III) c. Restructuring of the Government's Financial Support to American International Group, Inc., on March 2, 2009 5. TALF -- finally, amendment #1020 would expand GAO's authority to oversee the TARP, including the joint Federal Reserve-Treasury Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) *Neither* Amendment #1021 nor #1020 would include short-term liquidity facilities: 1. Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility 2. (AMLF) 3. Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) 4. Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF) 5. Primary Dealer Credit Facility and Other Credit for Broker-Dealers (PDCF) 6. Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) Fed Amendment - HuffPost readers: Notice anything else in the amendment? E-mail ryan@huffingtonpost.com Ryan Grim is the author of the forthcoming book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on The Fed
 
Michelle Obama And Staff Go For Burgers Top
At the end of a week that saw the president and vice president pay a visit to local cult fave Ray's Hell Burger in Virginia, first lady Michelle Obama dropped by Spike Mendelsohn's burger place Good Stuff Eatery on Pennsylvania Avenue over lunch, the White House confirmed. More on Michelle Obama
 
Jeff Danziger: Miss California Top
 
Google Takes Out TV Commercials For First Time Ever Top
Google will advertise its Chrome browser on TV, starting this weekend. The ads come from a Web video series the company did called "Chrome Shorts." They are very Google-y. More on Advertising
 
Tamra Davis: Tamra Davis Cooking Show: Breakfast Burrito Top
One Sunday morning our friends Christy Turlington and Ed Burns came over for breakfast. I wanted to cook a delicious meal for the adults but also wanted the kids to eat with us and have a nice family brunch all together. I have this concept that I call "Combo Meals." The idea is that I start with the kids meal and then add a few more ingredients and it becomes the adult meal. This way I'm not making two entirely separate dishes. I'm just simply adding on to what I'm already making. I have a bunch of these "Combo Meals" in my cookbook, Make Me Something Good To Eat and I have a few shows that demonstrate it on my website (Pesto Shrek, Kauai Family Dinner). This show is called "Breakfast Burrito" and I go even one step further and add an art project into my meal planning. I am really against this whole concept of "kids food" where we have pre-packaged food that is marketed for kids. It has moved us so far away from the simple concept of a home cooked meal. I find if you can make something easy (for us busy moms that don't want to spend all day in the kitchen) that tastes delicious (because we love food!) it makes everyone happy and healthy. Recipes Scrambled Eggs 1-2 eggs per person (I use 1 egg for my kids) butter or olive oil salt and pepper Mix eggs together in a bowl or if you are making a bunch of eggs, use a blender. Add 1 tablespoon of water per egg. Add a pinch of salt and pepper and mix well. Heat 1 tablespoon of olive oil or butter in a frying pan. Add the eggs and keep stirring them in the pan as they cook. Season with additional salt and pepper to taste. My kids like their eggs with catsup. I like mine with salsa. Breakfast Burrito (for 4) 8 eggs 1/2 an onion chopped 1 bell pepper chopped 1 tomato chopped 2 tablespoons olive oil or butter 4 ounces of goat cheese (or shredded cheddar cheese) 4 tortillas a handful of salad greens 1 avocado sliced hot sauce (pico pico is good) pumpkin seeds fresh salsa (store bought or make my Mango Salsa) salt, pepper and red pepper flakes Mix the eggs together in a bowl or if you like them fluffy, use a blender. Add 1/8 a cup of water, a large pinch of salt and pepper. Saute onions and a bit of red pepper flakes in a frying pan with 2 tablespoons of olive oil or butter. When the onions have softened add the bell pepper and fry till slightly golden. Add the egg mixture and then the tomatoes. Keep stirring the eggs in the pan till they are cooked. Set aside. Heat a tortilla on an opened flame for about 10 seconds on each side to soften. Place a smear (2 ounces) of goat cheese on the bottom 1/3 of the tortilla. (you can use some shredded cheddar cheese instead of goat cheese if you like). Add the sliced avocado and then 1/4 of the scrambled eggs. Add a handful of greens. You can use salad greens, pea shoots, arugula...Sprinkle with a bit of hot sauce to taste. Wrap it up and top with pumpkin seeds. Serve with a fresh salsa. Mango Salsa 1 can of mango slices or 1 chopped fresh mango* ½ a sliced onion 1-2 chili peppers 1 clove of garlic ¼ cup of cilantro 1 tablespoon of olive oil 2 teaspoons powdered vegetable stock Sauté your onion in a frying pan with a little bit of oil. Put the onion in a blender with the mango slices from the can or fresh mango. Add the peppers, garlic, cilantro, olive oil, and stock. Blend. Add a little water if you need to thin the salsa. Add salt or add more chilies to taste. *this can also be made with pineapple and it's an amazing Pineapple Salsa. Roasted Potatoes (for 4-6) 3 cups of 1/2 inch chopped potatoes (yukon gold, russet, sweet potatoes, red potatoes, blue potatoes...anything you have) 2 cloves of garlic chopped 1 tablespoon of rosemary olive oil salt and pepper Preheat oven to 375. In a bowl combine chopped potatoes with 3 - 4 tablespoons of olive oil. Stir to combine. Add a 1/2 teaspoon of salt and the rosemary. Stir in the garlic. Lay the potatoes in a large lightly oiled baking dish as flat as possible. Place in the oven for about 30 - 45 minutes or until the potatoes are soft and slightly golden. I usually stir the dish after about 15 minutes to make sure the potatoes are not sticking to the bottom of the dish and that they cook evenly. Season with more salt and pepper if you like. I also served my apple cake for this brunch and it was amazing! The apple cake show is on my website www.TamraDavisCookingShow.com .
 
Keely Field: Why Gavin is Good for California Top
Setting a new standard for announcing a political race, Gavin Newsom posted, "It's official- running for Gov of CA. Wanted you to be the first to know. Need your help," on his official Twitter profile, on April 21st. As if that isn't unconventional enough, how about a politician who has actually delivered, and not just "talked the talk." He has been "walking the walk" for years now, and in case you haven't been paying attention to the massive improvements he brought to San Francisco since he was elected mayor in 2003, here's a nice rundown for you: Newsom served on The San Francisco Board of Supervisors from 1998 until 2003, passing laws to criminalize public displays of homelessness. He won a runoff race for mayor in December 2003 against Matt Gonzalez, becoming the city's youngest mayor since John White Geary (over a century ago). As Mayor, Newsom has focused on development projects in Hunters Point and Treasure Island. He signed the Health Choices Plan in 2007 to provide San Francisco residents with universal healthcare, which was long overdue. In 2004, Newsom gained national attention when he directed the San Francisco city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. By fiat he "legalized" gay marriage in the city, spurring the likes of Rosie O'Donnell to appear for previously-forbidden nuptualizations. Newsom's unexpected move brought national attention to the issues of gay marriage and gay rights, solidifying political support for Newsom in San Francisco and in the gay community, and causing several other states to change their laws concerning marriage and gay rights. Newsom offered an impressive rundown of San Francisco environmental accomplishments and projects since he took office: -Third-party review to independently analyze CO2 emissions -Lowered city emissions 6 percent below 1990 levels -Reducing tailpipe emissions on the city vehicle fleet -LEED certification for the new Academy of Sciences last Thursday -Put together the first mapping system for solar installations: on a web page, you locate your roof, drill down to the square footage available for solar, and print out rebate applications on the same page -Aggressive recycling initiatives, including banning plastic bags, banning styrofoam and trying to ban bottled water -Started real discussions with Shai Agassi and Better Place, and got 10 counties to agree on standardized electric car-charging stations -Partnered with Cisco on reducing emissions coming from computers and telecommunication equipment & created cheap prototype bus that gives emissions data -Implemented a plan to charge more for parking during peak times -First commercial wave power project off the end of Ocean Beach -Right below the Golden Gate Bridge he is looking to implement an underwater wind farm -- allowing very dense, consistent energy "We're very close to getting a small pilot there. We may have overpromised but hope not to underdeliver," Newsom said. In his own words, Newsom released this statement at the World Economic Forum in 2008: "San Francisco has long been an international gateway. Its new international economic development initiative, ChinaSF, builds a systematic platform to ensure progress towards mutual economic and environmental sustainability with its largest international partner, China. Consider two major global trends: 1) continued urbanization of the world's population and 2) continued exponential growth in the world's energy consumption. Given these trends, cities play a critical role in ensuring the sustainable prosperity and well-being of our planet's population. Fortunately, as concentrations of innovation, intellectual and cultural exchange, and as gateways into their respective nations, cities have remarkable resources to leverage towards addressing global challenges. San Francisco has responded to this need for innovative leadership with ChinaSF." As I watched hundreds of youth voters at Newsom's first LA fundraiser last week, I realized just how magnetic he is in person. People are drawn to him like a magnet and my favorite quote of the night was, "I would never say one thing in private, that I wouldn't say in public, and I always do as I say I will." He also went on to say, "Politicians just can't give great speeches anymore and think that is enough to get elected, they must have an actual plan, and implement that plan to action, that is what we learned in this last presidential election and it has rang very true to me." A major platform in his campaign was approaching the homeless population in San Francisco, and he developed the successful program, "Care not Cash." Newsom explains the program in his own words: "I initiated Care Not Cash in an effort to address one of San Francisco's most vexing challenges and one of my highest priorities - the challenge of homelessness," said Mayor Newsom, in April of 2008. "Our combined efforts under the Care Not Cash, Housing First and Homeward Bound programs have already moved over 7,000 homeless individuals off of the streets, producing a remarkable 38.9% decline in the homeless street population." The Care Not Cash Program is achieving its goals, and is doing so at a reasonable cost to the City. A 2008 audit report focused on the stated goals of the program: serving the people it was intended to serve, allowing the City to shift money from cash grants to mental health and substance abuse services for those it houses, and adding 1,321 affordable units to the City's housing portfolio for homeless San Franciscans. Specifically, the audit found that Care Not Cash has allowed the City to shift over $1 million from cash grants to mental health and substance abuse services for those housed by the program. In addition, the average caseload of clients receiving cash grants decreased from 2,553 in 2003 to 545 currently - a 79% decline. The report also found that the benefits received by clients housed by Care Not Cash are much more valuable that the previous cash grants. In particular, the audit concluded that Care Not Cash clients who are housed in the program's single residence occupancy (SRO) buildings also have access to supportive services such as case management, behavioral health services, and substance abuse treatment, all of which were unavailable before Care Not Cash. Combining a room with these supportive services, each client received non-cash benefits with an average value of $934/month as opposed to the $342 or $422 monthly checks clients used to receive. His first year in office, we saw him appoint the city's first female fire and police chiefs. He has also taken an innovative approach to public management at City Hall, refocusing service delivery through the use of performance data systems and using improvements in livability to generate extra tourism in the popular West Coast destination. Newsom's profile over the past year has seen him emerge as one of most famous city mayors in the American system and therefore a national politician in his own right, which goes against expectation given his predecessor's own presence. Mayor Newsom has done an amazing job, especially considering he gets critics who claim to care about the homeless but have done nothing to fix the problem. Getting the hard-core homeless off the street not only improves the quality of life for everyone, but it also reduces the costs of other services like ER care, policing, DPW (cleaning the streets) and numerous other public costs. That in turn frees up more public funds for everything from parks to "Care Not Cash." Also, Mayor Newsom has done an incredible job of focusing on the quality of life in the poorest neighborhoods -- in and around some of the worst public housing projects, he's had his administration clean up and fix street lights, dumpsters, and park areas. If he can do all this with one city, imagine what he can do with our state!
 
Adam Hanft: OMG! A Lottery Ticket for Mother's Day? Obama's America Has No Place for Government-Sponsored Negative Incentives. Top
Am I the only one who is repulsed by the New York State Lottery selling a $5 Mother's Day ticket? It's not so much the fact that it's a sloppily inept marketing idea, unless your objective is to end up in a Jay Leno monologue: "And did you see that New York State is pushing a $5 lottery ticket as a Mother's Day Gift ? Seriously. I mean, is there a better way to show what a loser she brought up? And what do you write on the card that goes with it? 'Dear Mom, Thanks for everything you've done for me. If you win, buy yourself a six-pack. If you lose, tough crap." The deeper problem is that it's a reminder that state lotteries are an ethically bankrupt practice. It's no secret that these lotteries disproportionately prey upon the most vulnerable segments of society. And that's long been the argument against them: That society should have better, less lose/win ways of funding education than reaching into the pockets of the vulnerable. After all, it's not exactly Goldman Sachs bankers who are waiting in line to buy the Mega-Millions scratch-off. (They prefer to gamble with your money.) There was always something that stunk about this, but it's particularly noisome now. Because the very concept of generating revenue through lotteries flies smack in the face of the unfolding philosophical approach that is coming to define the Obama administration's approach to social policy. Specifically, Obama and his people believe in the use of positive incentives to change behavior and encourage people to act in their best interests, recognizing that we are not rational actors. They're studying the fascinating discipline of behavioral economics, which recognizes that we are not rational actors - the homo economicus who is at the center of traditional economic theory. Because our brains were wired to succeed in more primitive times than those in which we live, behavioral economics peers into the illogical ways we approach decisions, and the damage that grows out of them. The Obama-ites are looking to researchers like Dan Ariely, author of the wisely provocative " Predictably Irrational " to see how government can better understand human behavior - and then create incentives to encourage us to overcome our brain-kit resistance and act in our best interests. There's a fascinating story on this in a recent issue of the "New Republic." Titled " Nudge-ocracy " - as a nod to the Richard Thaler/Cass Sunstein book " Nudge " - it gives examples, from getting toxic assets off the books of our financial institutions, to health care, where gently nudging people in the right direction, versus heavy-handed state intervention, are at the heart of the Obama-ites' approach. Lotteries rely on the opposite motivational tack. They succeed only by getting people to act against their best interests. Sadly, encouraging bad behavior isn't hard to do. And state lotteries spend a lot of money, and hire some really smart marketing people, to make sure they succeed at it - by appealing to our most self-destructive, primitive emotions. Lottery advertising uses cues that ignite fantasy thinking, super-charging our reward centers and dopamine pathways with biochemically addictive responses that millions literally find impossible to resist - because evolution has made us totally vulnerable to them. What's more, the emerging discipline of neuromarketing allows these grand manipulators to look directly inside our wetware and see which messages light up which regions of the brain. It proves that advertising goes deep into our neurons. We also know from genetic work that there are people who are pre-disposed to gambling, risk-taking and other self-injuring behaviors. Making it all the more unethical to tempt them. Interestingly, the New York State Lottery isn't shy about acknowledging that they are in the illusion-creation business. Their website states: "The New York Lottery's sole mission is to earn revenue for education. Fundamentally, the Lottery is run as an entertainment business." I know that state governments are choking on debt and cutting back on services, so this isn't the best of times to make the argument that the lottery must go. Then again, perhaps this is the perfect time. We have a president who is taking a fresh look at conventional wisdom, and believes in the salutary powers of Washington. In super-hero speak, shouldn't our government be using its powers for good, and not for evil? And if we are so desperate for education funds, I propose an incentive-based standard for gambling that Ariely would love. If your credit card debt is less than 10% of your income, you can participate in the dazzling, seductive world of federally-sponsored online gambling - run by, of course a Gambling Czar - with everything from $5 scratch-offs to high-stakes poker. If you earn $30,000 and owe five grand to Visa, you'll be inspired to reduce your credit card debt if you want to play. Moving from a lose/win to a win/win is just the kind of nudge we need.
 
Nancy L. Cohen: Palin v. McCain, Round Two Top
Who will win the battle for the soul of the GOP? There's little need to follow the unfolding drama, because the verdict is already in. Look to the daughters. Meghan McCain has been excommunicated from the party by Father Rush , and Mother Bristol Palin is back on the campaign trail for abstinence. The past two weeks have brought much news about the GOP's civil war. Eric Cantor, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and assorted headmen and headwomen from the GOP establishment have kicked off a listening tour and censored all talk of gays, abortion, creationism, immigrants, and the traditional family. The Right threatens , howls, and schemes . The nearly extinct moderates are jumping ship, retreating from battle , or speaking out against extremism. Those outside the circular firing squad observe with a mixture of detached analysis , glee and concern. Even Frank Rich warns of the dangers of one-party Democratic rule if the GOP implodes. After the fiasco of the Bush administration, it's perhaps reasonable to be vigilant about preserving the two-party system. But Rich and others similarly worried should rest easy, because all is not as it seems. Reports of the death of the GOP has been much exaggerated. It's useful to remember that the death of the GOP was pronounced in 1992. And again in 1998. And again in 2006. What we are witnessing now is not an epic struggle over the identity and survival of a great American institution. This is rather the GOP's biennial renegotiation over who will acquire the right to stage-manage the next election campaign. Cantor and company's phony rebranding is lifted from the playbook of the 1990s: don't scare the voters, keep the crazies out of sight, and keep our promises to each other to ourselves. The National Council for a New America drops the GOP label and stays silent on social issues. The Right protests. Cantor recants--or as he insists, clarifies. Whether the conflicts are real or performances for our distraction is beside the point. Either way, they derive from the core dilemma of today's Republican party. To put it baldly, the GOP is the pro-big business party, but there aren't millions of voters clamoring for more corporate welfare. As David Axelrod once said, politics is a function of math. The "base" of the GOP, the mass constituency who supply the votes to put Republicans in office, vote their morals, period. The antigovernment, anti-tax, economic conservatives are, at best, indifferent to the causes of the zealots. They know that the Christian Right is profoundly out of sync with mainstream American public opinion. They know that they are becoming a rump party, regionally, ideologically, and ethnically isolated from the maincurrents of American life. Yet they know that the GOP cannot win elections without the Christian Right. They struck this deal long ago, and now they're stuck with it. What does this mean for the future of the Grand Old Pary? Will the GOP mount a fiercely ideological campaign in 2012, like it did when Bush senior ran for reelection in 1992? Will it moderate its message during the campaign, as Bush junior did , only to reveal its true identity once elected? It's too early to tell which faction of the Right will be running the shop for the next few years. Will the GOP continue as the zombie of American politics, returning to life after each purported death, more monstrous in each incarnation? Or will it follow the pattern of Republicans during the New Deal and northern Democrats during the Civil War--obstruct and shrink, yet survive for a postwar renewal? It's too early to tell, though my guess is the latter, if only because the financial and institutional obstacles to creating a new second party are nearly insuperable. What is certain is that the GOP is no place for young moderates, or for that matter, any moderate not already in possession of a secure Senate seat. Meghan McCain, who is blessed with courage and perhaps burdened with a family legacy to uphold, has committed to waging the good fight. There is no reason her like-minded peers would join her in her noble, but quixotic, quest. More on Arlen Specter
 
Margot Pritzker: Volunteering While Unemployed: Fill the Resume Gap Top
For thousands of Chicagoans being laid off from what once were steady jobs, it's the first time they've had to update their resume or remember decades-old interviewing tips they learned from their college career counselor. Job clubs have become popular, but when you suddenly find yourself at home, unemployed, spending your day searching Monster.com , how do you keep your skills sharp and leverage all networking opportunities? Volunteer. But do it using your professional skills. It's easy to think of volunteering as a way to fill the hours in a day or to give back to a cause you care about, especially if you can no longer write a donation check. But for the highly-skilled professionals finding themselves laid off and in search of work, volunteering your professional skills is a great way to add substance to your resume, as well as network. Not only does volunteering in this way provide non-profits with much-needed expertise, it also allows an unemployed professional to maintain skills, add an interesting -- and relevant -- resume line, network with a wider variety of people and get out of the house and into the professional world again. People often talk about having a "foot in the door." While the non-profit itself may not be able to offer a job, just being around other professionals will allow you to hear about opportunities first -- from a non-profits' clients, partners, colleagues' friends, etc. You may even be able to get some tips to freshen your resume or cover letter from your new "colleagues." The first step is to find a volunteer position that truly utilizes the special set of skills a professional can bring to the table. Often, non-profits don't know where their volunteers are coming from or what kinds of skills they may have. Even if they are aware, non-profits don't always know how to ask for specialized help. And volunteers don't always think to offer it. There are many online services that help link volunteers and nonprofits, including WomenOnCall.org , which specifically matches professional women volunteers with non-profits. Explore what's best for you, but most importantly get out there and see what's in it for you -- at the same time making a difference.
 
KFC Cancels Free Chicken Deal After Oprah Promo Top
The Oprah Winfrey-fueled free chicken give-away that caused pandemonium this week at Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants has been canceled due to what the fast-food chain called an "overwhelming response."
 
Klaxons To Record In Solar Studio For Lily Allen-Backed Organization Top
Klaxons are recording their second album in a solar-powered studio. They band made the announcement when revealing their backing for the We Support Solar campaign. More on Energy
 
Bart Motes: Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Top
Hillary Clinton won't be Barack Obama's choice to replace Justice Souter. Obama will choose someone else, if only because Clinton is proving to be an exceptionally adept Secretary of State. But in several years, when the next retirement comes, Clinton and Obama may be confident enough to pass State off to a Clinton protégé, making Hillary available to tackle an equally imposing task: bringing our rights jurisprudence into the 21st century. Addressing the concerns of underrepresented people on the Supreme Court is usually framed in demographic terms. This is a safe, predictable avenue for these legitimate needs to take expression. Barack Obama has attempted to shift this focus by referring to the need for a Justice with "empathy." Empathy speaks to Christian concepts of tolerance and compassion. This emphasis also indicates that Obama will choose a Justice who will be a faithful representative of the needs of the vulnerable in America by conviction, not necessarily by superficial qualities. No wonder that the right was quick to recognize this as a threat to their core advantages and successfully demeaned the concept with the assistance of an all too pliant set of talking heads. If we were to choose a Justice based those in need of judicial representation on the Court, we would have to choose an underemployed Hispanic gay woman. Ideally she would be a single mother and an immigrant. She would have spent some of her life homeless and some of her life on public assistance. Clearly no such person would be chosen for the Court, even if they existed as neatly as that. That is why, although the Court undoubtedly needs more women and Hispanic representation, , or even a "two-fer" like the imminently qualified, Jeffrey Rosen's shameful piece to the contrary , Sonia Sotomayor, the calls for a woman or a Hispanic Justice leave me cold. Instead of chasing the demographic tiger, in addition to a strong legal background, Supreme Court Justices should be chosen on the basis of their understanding of and empathy for disadvantaged and underrepresented groups. I can think of only person in America who has experience with and empathy for all of the groups I mention above. That person is Hillary Clinton. In 1953, President Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Warren was a rival to Eisenhower's nomination, though not his principal rival. Warren, the Governor of California at the time, had stood as a "favorite son" candidate in the Republican primary of 1952. Favorite sons were a now archaic tool of politicians who were enormously popular in their own state but without the nationwide presence to mount a successful challenge for the nomination. They would take their delegates to the convention in the hope of either brokering a deal in exchange for a coveted position or emerging as a compromise candidate in the event of a deadlocked convention. So it was with Warren, who traded California's delegates for the Supreme Court. Eisenhower, who shared the prejudices of his day, but by all indications of a non-virulent variety, would come to be appalled by Warren's aggressive advocacy of the powerless in American society. No one save perhaps Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson did as much to advance the cause of the meek as Earl Warren did. Warren expanded protections for criminal defendants and most famously cajoled and persuaded a Court composed of several reticent Southerners to begin the work of dismantling America's segregated society. All this even though, like Clinton, Warren had never served as a judge. Warren had an advantage in combating the racism of his era. His chauffeur was a black man of exceptional intelligence and dignity. Warren, to his credit, took to engaging the man in conversation and sought to truly understand his condition. By learning in some small piece the daily horrors of being a black person in 1950s America, Warren grew in his conviction that the whole edifice of the corrupt system of segregation had to be dismantled brick by painful brick. Though some like to dwell on that horror while others ignore it entirely, I believe it is only true to the remarkableness of America if we acknowledge both the horror of that age and the unique American triumph in overcoming it. Our karmic reward as Americans for our shared struggle came in the election of Barack Obama, a man whose skin color is truly the least exceptional thing about him. Like Warren's experience with his chauffeur, Clinton's journeys across America have left her with a profound and reciprocated appreciation for three crucial groups who continue to suffer in modern America: gays, women, and Hispanics. These three groups of people found their struggle personified in Hillary's campaign, they fought passionately for her, and they trust her implicitly. Nominating Hillary Clinton to the Court would reward each of these groups not merely symbolically, but in providing a force on the Court powerfully and canny enough to craft the civil rights jurisprudence capable of finally bringing American justice into the 21st century. Immigration reform, reproductive rights, violence against women, workers rights, and the right to love without discrimination would all find a fertile champion in Hillary Clinton. In addition to her campaign experiences, Hillary Clinton's earliest work was on behalf of women in heartbreaking circumstances. For those reasons and so many more, I hope that Barack Obama's next choice for the Supreme Court will be Hillary Clinton. Written in fond remembrance of one of the most amazing women I ever knew, Isabella Harty-Hughes , beloved mentor, proud mother to three amazing daughters, proud teacher to many and proud advocate of Hillary Clinton. More on Barack Obama
 
Obamas Visit Sidwell Friends For Malia's Parent-Teacher Conference Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, are attending a parent-teacher conference at their older daughter's school. The Obamas left the White House on Friday afternoon for the 20-minute ride to the Washington campus of the Sidwell Friends School. That is where their older daughter, 10-year-old Malia, is a fifth-grader. More on Barack Obama
 
Todd Palin To Fill In For Sarah At DC Dinner Top
Todd Palin, the husband of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, will fill in for the former Republican vice presidential candidate this weekend at a series of high profile events, a Palin spokesperson confirms to CNN. More on Sarah Palin
 
Sam Chandan: The Stress Tests and Commercial Real Estate Top
As part of its ongoing program to restore confidence in the financial system and safeguard banks' ability to lend to creditworthy borrowers, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve made public the results of the bank stress tests (formally, the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program) after the market's close yesterday. Engineered to uncover the potential losses at each nation's nineteen largest bank holding companies under baseline and "more adverse" economic scenarios, the tests have established new capital requirements for each institution. The genesis of the banks' challenges has been the losses in their respective residential mortgage portfolios. But the spillovers of the housing crisis into the real economy have inevitably undermined the performance of banks' consumer lending, commercial and industrial lending, and commercial mortgage lines of business. Under the stress tests' more adverse scenario, losses on commercial mortgage portfolios -- which in the Fed's definition include land and development loans for houses -- amount to $53.0 billion in 2009 and 2010. The implied loss rate of 8.5% is well below the 22.5% loss rate estimate for credit card loans but higher than the 6.1% loss rate estimate for commercial and industrial loans. For the 18 bank holding companies with commercial real estate exposures the loss rate estimates range from 2.1% for MetLife to 45.2% for Morgan Stanley. A string of high-profile commercial mortgage defaults over the last few months has pushed commercial real estate into an uncomfortable spotlight. Investors' general assessment that commercial mortgage distress will increase sharply over the coming quarters is consistent with two clear trends: on one hand, deteriorating property fundamentals are impinging on the highly-levered borrower's capacity to meet its recurring principal and interest obligations. At the same time, the paucity of credit is coinciding with a rising volume of maturities. Real Estate Economics estimates that, excluding land and development loans, $246 billion in commercial mortgages will mature in 2009. An even larger number will mature in 2010. As a result of the imbalance in the supply and demand for credit, default rates are expected to double from their current levels by the end of this year. By our measure, they have already doubled from the levels that prevailed at this time a year ago. Bank credit officers' own assessments of the commercial mortgage outlook are sobering. The results of last week's Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officer Survey show that over 90% of domestic banks except commercial mortgage quality to deteriorate. One in four domestic banks and over half of the foreign banks with offices in the United States expect that deterioration to be substantial. Within commercial mortgage pools themselves, the seeds of deterioration were sown in the collapse of underwriting quality -- in the domain of commercial mortgage-backed securities, in particular -- which characterized the market in the preamble to the current crisis. As for policy makers' assessments, the stress tests' commercial real estate loss estimate is less than 9% of the bank holding companies' total estimated losses in the economy's downside scenario. We view this to be implausibly optimistic. The combination of property price declines, the imbalance in the demand and supply of credit in support of pending maturities, and the deterioration in collateral properties' capacity to meet current principal and interest obligations all suggest that the downside case for bank holding companies' commercial real estate holdings is more severe than for the broader economy. An adverse scenario with aggregate losses in excess of 20% is not inconceivable. In support of their tests, the agencies required that each bank holding company submit information on the characteristics of its portfolio, including property types, location, loan-to-value ratio, debt service coverage, and maturity schedules. Separating construction, multifamily, and non-farm non-residential loans and employing internal and vendor models, the examiners estimated loss severities relating to the refinancing risks for loans maturing in 2009 and 2010, as well as the term risks for loans with later maturity dates. As for the question of how assumptions for economic growth, house prices, and unemployment have supported an assessment of commercial mortgage default rates, we know little more. Aside from questions about the appropriateness of the baseline and adverse economic scenarios -- for example, the adverse unemployment rate scenario seems to underestimate the severity of the contraction in the labour market -- investors should consider the results of the commercial real estate tests with skepticism. Few if any models of commercial real estate mortgage performance have been proven robust in anticipating mortgage defaults and loss severity. The pervasiveness of poor underwriting and the credit rating agencies' green-lighting of CMBS deals in 2006 and 2007 is evidence of this. Absent a more complete disclosure of modeling approaches and data quality, it is impossible to determine if the tests employed by the agencies (i) capture the risks of individual commercial mortgages with any degree of accuracy or (ii) are unbiased in their assessments of banks' whole commercial mortgage portfolios. Whether the stress tests accurately capture the outcome of the "what if" scenario is of critical importance. Rather than being able to accept or dismiss the report, the absence of transparency around the inner workings of the tests themselves renders the exercise of limited relevance. Neither investors nor the public should accept policy makers' and regulators' assertions that the tests of commercial real estate have been undertaken carefully. The onus rests with policy makers to validate the tests' conclusions. In the most extreme case, the deterioration in the performance of banks' commercial mortgage pools may threaten the stability of specific institutions and, by extension, the stability of the financial system. If not at the largest banks that will benefit from government support, the risks are real for the hundreds of smaller regional and community banks that may have more concentrated commercial real estate portfolios. In either case, the stakes are too high for us to acquiesce to an opaque determination of commercial real estate portfolios' robustness. More on Real Estate
 
Dan Baum, Fired By New Yorker, Recounting His Story On Twitter Top
So, this is strange: Dan Baum, whose contract with the New Yorker was not renewed back in 2007, has taken to Twitter -- today -- to chronicle a full-blown narration of the events leading up to his dismissal . It all started about three hours ago, with a series of tweets that read: People often ask why I left the New Yorker. After all, I had a staff writer job. Isn't that the best job in journalism? Yes. Nobody leaves a New Yorker job voluntarily. I was fired. And over the next few days, I'll tell that story here, in 140 Character chunks. And off he went! Without any regard for Twitter conventions, he dumped some sixty odd tweets, which, if read in the wrong order, come across like one long surrealist tone poem. He finally concludes today's outburst by saying: "Quick note, since there seems to be some confusion: I was fired in 2007, and just telling the story now because people on my book tour ask." Baum did some superlative work for the New Yorker , most notable his excellent " New Orleans Journal ," which was part post-Katrina chronicle, part love letter to New Orleans. As someone who worries that the cynics will be right about New Orleans - that the old city will never reflower - Baum provides a testment to the beating and irrepressible heart of that city, still capable of leaving a unique mark on those who seek it out. Here's a nice example, from the "Journal's" final entry : "Do You Know What It Means To Miss New Orleans?" an old song asks; another reminds us, "You don't know what you got 'til it's gone." Since Katrina, I've often been asked (though never by someone in New Orleans) why the country should bother rebuilding it. Is it really worth the billions it would take to protect this small, poor, economically inessential city, which is sinking into the delta muck as global warming raises the sea around it? But the question of "whether" has been settled--New Orleans is rebuilding itself, albeit slowly, fitfully, and imperfectly. Now it's only a matter of how and how long. That is better news than perhaps the rest of America fully understands. It's the American way to focus on the future--we are dreamers and schemers, always chasing the horizon. Looking forward has made us great, but it comes at a price. (Mexican immigrants often describe life in the United States as puro reloj, or "nothing but the clock.") New Orleanians, on the other hand, are excellent at the lost art of living in the moment. Étienne stopped at our house one afternoon to drop off some papers he wanted me to see. No, he said, he couldn't stay; someone was waiting for him downtown. But we got to talking, and gradually moved to the chairs on the porch. We had a beer. The shadows lengthened as the day cooled, the jasmine across the street smelled sweet, and a few houses away someone was practicing the saxophone. Margaret brought out a dish of almonds. We all had another beer. It was dark by the time Étienne left. And here's the true miracle of New Orleans: the person waiting for him downtown no doubt had an equally pleasant couple of hours, and Étienne surely paid no social penalty for being late. Back in 2007, Doree Shafrir reported on Baum's dismissal : All New Yorker writers are on one-year contracts. Baum, who's been a contributor since 2003, found out in January that his contract--which would be up in September--was not going to be renewed for a fourth year. Since Hurricane Katrina, he's been writing almost exclusively about New Orleans (he also wrote about the tsunami in Asia--here's a man who likes his natural disasters!), but has also covered immigration and the military extensively. The contract called for him to write 30,000 words per year. When he was told that the magazine would not be renewing his contract, they also suggested that he finish out his current contract online, and not in the pages of the magazine--which is why he's been writing the New Orleans Journal online, and his byline hasn't appeared in the magazine since October 2006. (He's also working on a book about New Orleans, to be published in 2009, around the same time that city gets back on its feet maybe.) We called Baum at his home in Denver and asked why the magazine had decided not to renew. "Remnick was not happy with my work," he said. "But I would like to go back there." But instead of going "back there," he's rehashing the whole saga in brief, truncated online bursts. And what can I say? I enjoy using Twitter (this post will end with the suggestion that you follow me there!). But Baum reminds me that some stories will always be too big for it. [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 Twitter
 
Carbon Footprint Labeling Coming To TP In UK Top
Want to know exact amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated in the production of a single roll of toilet paper? If you're a shopper at Tesco, the UK-based mega-retailer, you'll soon have access to that info whether you like it or not.
 
Youth Radio -- Youth Media International: An Almost Man and his Mom on Mother's Day Top
Originally published on Youthradio.org , the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe. Over the past six years, Logan Barnes and his mom Diane have been through dramatic ups and downs. At 12, he was the good son, looking after his brother while his mom worked long hours. But things between he and his mom got bad, so bad that one night at 3 AM she opened the door to his bedroom and sent in two "transporters" to take him away to a wilderness boot camp. Now 17, Logan Barnes reflects on his whirlwind relationship with his mother, and how she made him the "almost man" he is today. Read Logan's story here , or listen below: Youth Radio/Youth Media International (YMI) is youth-driven converged media production company that delivers the best youth news, culture and undiscovered talent to a cross section of audiences. To read more youth news from around the globe and explore high quality audio and video features, visit Youthradio.org
 
Andrew Wetzler: Problem for Polar Bears: A disappointing ruling from Department of Interior Top
In another disappointing turn of events, today Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar effectively endorsed the Bush Administration's policy of excluding the effects of global warming pollution on polar bears from consideration under the Endangered Species Act.  The Secretary decided not to repeal or modify a rule, first issued when the polar bear was listed as a threatened species, that effectively excludes global warming pollution from the prohibition against "taking" (harming or killing) polar bears. The weird thing about the rule is that it treats global warming pollution differently than other forms of global pollution.  Mercury pollution (ironically, also emitted from coal-fired power plants) also harms wildlife, but we've never categorically ruled out its consideration under the Endangered Species Act.  The same can be said of PCBs.  Indeed, one of the impetuses for passing the Endangered Species Act as the widespread use of DDT, which endangered bird species around the globe.  My point is this: the Endangered Species Act is a valuable tool that can be used to help control many different forms of pollution.  We should treat greenhouse gasses no differently. Another strange thing about the Secretary's decision is the fact that just last week he decided to withdraw an eleventh-hour Bush Administration regulation that changed the requirements for inter-agency consultation under the Endangered Species Act.  Those regulatory changes were in large part premised on excluding the consideration of global warming pollution during such consultation.  So why did the Department of the Interior choose to withdraw one, but not the other? This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
David Murray: Has the Drew Peterson-Kathleen Savio Story Awakened Will County Politicians and Law Enforcement? Top
I insisted to my wife that we watch the Drew Peterson indictment coverage Thursday night on Larry King, and then I talked her into watching Greta for awhile. But I found I kept looking at my magazine instead, and when my wife noticed this, she switched over to "House Hunters" and I moped into the other room to watch the Golf Channel. Pretty weird behavior for the guy who had an investigative story in Chicago Magazine a year ago this month on the death of Kathy Savio. That piece, "Unanswered Cries," explored how authorities in Bolingbrook, at the Will County State's Attorney's office, at the Illinois State Police and at the Will County coroner's office managed to let a screaming woman slip silently through the cracks. It was like the Kitty Genovese story --only in slow motion and involving not everyday citizens, but rather government officials paid to protect citizens in danger. The story had my full attention for four months of reporting. So why couldn't I tear myself away from a week-old Sports Illustrated to watch this Peterson coverage? Because the story has long since stopped being about the issues I think are important, and it has become a personality story about an odd and unpredictable suburban cop. I was interviewed last week by the Justice Café , a website that has done an admirable job of keeping the story covered between the Peterson-home stakeouts and now. They asked me whether I thought the Savio story was one of "cover up, incompetency or complacency." I said: I'd say incompetence due to complacency, and then kind of a queasy cover-up. A longtime Will County watcher I spoke with called the politicians and law enforcement people out there "a bunch of chicken farmers." Meaning, most of them rose through the ranks many years ago when Will County was basically Joliet surrounded by farm country and some villages--long before it became a Chicago-like bustling population center with a high volume of exotic crimes and other problems. The feeling I got as I grilled various Will County officials about why they didn't take this Savio story more seriously from beginning to end (and after the end) was kind of a self-pitying: How could we have known this was going to become such a big deal? To be honest, I felt for them--and hoped voters would put them out to pasture on the nearest remaining chicken farm. So what has happened in the aftermath of the Savio case? • The state's attorney at the time of the Savio disaster, Jeff Tomczak is long gone, replaced by the implacable and widely admired Pompadour of Justice, Jim Glasgow . • The Bolingbrook police department is several chiefs removed from Mike Calcagno, the former chief who practically hyperventilated during our telephone interviews; the current guy is admired by the former guy, who I admire. • Longtime Bolingbrook mayor and Peterson pal Roger Claar recently won an election handily, having distanced himself from this story, saying in my piece that though he knew Savio and Peterson, she never approached him with her concerns. As I told the Peterson Café people, I imagine Claar would like to have kept this story inside Bolingbrook and maybe tried to hush it; and knowing Claar, I imagine he could have been sympathetic to Peterson's characterization of his wife as a "hellcat." But had he believed Savio was in real danger I don't think he would have protected Peterson--and I doubt he'd make the same mistake again. • And a referendum to reform the coroner's jury system that's been blamed for the post-mortem bungling of the Savio case failed , and that system remains in place, and Will County coroner Pat O'Neil, who also stammered and sweated through our interviews, kept his job. I'm sure he knows he's lucky he did. So things are better in Bolingbrook and Will County. Some of the those who let Savio down are gone and the rest are wide awake. Alas, I don't think old Greta's all that interested in any of that. And, it turns out, I'm not that interested in Greta.
 
Dan Dorfman: Count Dracula: Part 11 Top
Nearly 2 1/2 years ago, around Halloween of 2007, I interviewed David Tice, one of the investment community's most notorious bears, while writing a column for the late New York Sun . At the time, bullish sentiment was running rampant, exemplified by the fact the Dow Jones Industrials were trading at around 13,900, just a shade below their all-time high of 14,164. Tice, running counter to the Wall Street herd, thought the bulls were out of their mind and he predicted that all hell would soon break loose, with both the economy and the stock market going into a tailspin. In response to his grim outlook--which turned out to be right on the money--one unhappy reader sent me a biting note, which I still recall. "Why do you devote editorial space to such loonies? All they want to do is to suck the blood out of this market by driving stock prices lower. It will soon be Halloween and your guy Tice should dress up as Count Dracula." But that was yesteryear. With stock prices shooting up nearly 28% in the past two months, coupled with indications that the economy may be moving from bad to less bad, just maybe, I thought, the Count might have had a change of heart. I was wrong. I caught up with Tice the other day and the portfolio strategist for the Pittsburgh-based $1 billion Federated Prudent Bear Fund, whose strategy is to make money in down markets, is still a growling grizzly. "I'm confident," he says, "the market is heading back to book value or maybe less (versus its current book of about 1.7 to 1.8)." As far as the S&P 500 goes, such a decline in book value would knock the index down to below 400, which is what Tice expects to occur in the next 18 months or maybe sooner. Such a retreat would be devastating, as it represents about a 55% decline from present levels. As bad as that scenario would be, it has the potential to get even worse in Tice's mind since he doesn't think such a collapse would mark the market bottom. The reason: his profit outlook calls for S&P 500 earnings this year of about $40, and he doesn't believe the bear market will end until the index reflects such earnings expectations with an accompanying multiple of between 6 and 9. Such a range would erode the market even further as such multiple valuations suggest an S&P 500 range between 240 and 360. Tice, whose fund is down about 2% this year, following a 28% gain in 2008, further worries that we haven't yet seen the necessary capitulation, that wave of selling that could finally set the stage for a meaningful and sustained market rebound. He notes, for example, there was $6.5 trillion worth of equity mutual funds as of January 1, 2008. As of March 9, the figure dropped to $3.1 trillion. Of that decline, only $100 billion represented outflows, meaning relatively little actual selling. As far as economy goes, Tice argues it's dysfunctional, asserting that the excesses--such as overleveraging and the government's issuance of excessive credit to grow GDP, leading to excessive borrowing and consumption for more than two decades--still have to be worked out. Pointing, too, to overexpansion on the consumer front, Tice insists we have, for example, way too many shopping centers, restaurants and theaters. "We have to cut down the consumer infrastructure," he says. The economy of recent years, Tice observes, has largely been finance-driven through a credit bubble, resulting in a huge amount of borrowing, and luxury consumption, but this model is not functional anymore even though we're trying to perpetuate it. He figures the economic decline still has another five years to run to work off the imbalances and that it's not something that happens overnight. "It's like drinking too much," he says. "You go through a heck of a hangover before you sober up." A number of market pros, including former Merrill Lynch economist Richard Bernstein, believe the recent market rallies are for real and a signal that better days lie ahead. Tice, on the other hand, thinks such a view is off the wall. These rallies are gifts for investors, he says, nothing more than golden selling opportunities for them to get out of the market and curb their losses. Wrapping up, Tice also says it's worth taking an historical look at the longevity of major bear markets and three periods that produced market 50% declines for an insight into what may lie ahead.. One such decline kicked off in the Depression era starting in 1929 and lasted 17 years. A second, 18 years in duration, began in 1966. Each was followed by rallies and subsequent multiple declines and prices eventually fell below their prior lows. Noting we've already had another recent 50% decline (with the Dow falling to a low of 6,547 in March of 2009 from a high of 14,164 in October of 2007), Tice contends it makes no sense to believe that this time out the bear market will be compressed to just about two years. "We're in the midst of once again taking out the lows and it's only a matter of time," he says. Or, as Transylvania's Count Dracula might put it, I want more blood. Dandordan@aol.com More on Financial Crisis
 
Bill Chameides: Cash-for-Clunkers Agreement: Still Not Ready for Prime Time Top
Dr. Bill Chameides is the dean of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He blogs regularly at theGreenGrok.com . Congress has been kicking around the idea of paying people to scrap their old cars and buy new, more fuel-efficient ones. On May 5, Democratic lawmakers and President Obama reportedly agreed on a one-year cash-for-clunkers proposal. Unfortunately, as far as the planet is concerned, the proposal ... well, kind of clunks. The reported " goal of the 'cash for clunkers' legislation is to sell 1 million vehicles." It's also supposed to help get old gas-guzzlers off the roads and put Americans into cars with higher gas mileage in an effort to: cut back on our dependence on foreign oil, limit air pollution, and emit less greenhouse gases. Great idea in theory, but in practice it's not quite that simple. The Devil in the Detail Manufacturing a new car requires energy and that in turn leads to greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide (CO2). It's estimated that when you drive your new car out of the showroom your car has already effectively emitted anywhere from three to 12 tons of CO2 -- we call those embedded emissions. For purposes of illustration, we'll use an average value of 6.7 tons for our embedded emissions, a little more, it turns out, than a typical car emits over a year of operation. When you scrap an old car for a new one, you actually start out having emitted more CO2 than you would have if you had just stayed with your clunker -- about a year and a half's worth. If your new car is more fuel-efficient than the old one, those excess emissions shrink with each mile you drive. Eventually, you reach a break-even point when your new car's embedded emissions are offset by those emissions you avoided by driving that new car. The time for that to occur is called the payback time. It's not until the payback time is over that the cash-for-clunkers swap begins to accrue real greenhouse gas emissions savings. An environmentally sound cash-for-clunkers program must require a big enough miles-per-gallon differential between the old and new cars to keep the payback time short, and certainly no longer than the lifetime of the new car. Cars today probably last about 10 years or more. How the New Plan Stacks Up The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has released a fact sheet [pdf] that lays out the basics of the new plan. Here's the summary. Minimum Requirements of Cash-for-Clunker Trade in Proposed House Bill   Old Vehicle (mpg) New Vehicle (mpg) Minimum Difference (mpg) Cars less than 18 22 4 Light trucks 18 or less 18 2 Large light trucks (6,000-8,000 lbs.) unspecified 15 1 All of the above deals are worth $3,500. A voucher of $4,500 can be earned by purchasing a new vehicle with even better fuel economy: 10 mpg (for cars), five (for light trucks), and two (for the road hogs). The Worst Case Scenarios Building on the example from my first post on this topic, here are the payback times for a cash-for-clunker program involving the minimum mileage differential required to qualify for the $3,500 voucher. Old vehicle (mpg) New vehicle (mpg) Payback time (years) Car less than 18 22 5 Light Truck 18 20 10 Large truck 15 16 14 Short Payback Time Highly Dependent on MPG Want more details? Interested in a different comparison? Our graph and table below show the payback time in action. The number of years it takes to "drive off" the embedded carbon dioxide emissions in a new vehicle when it replaces an old one. The x-axis shows the new car's mpg, and the various line are for different old vehicles. Assumptions: New car's embedded emissions are 6.7 tons CO2; average number of miles driven in a year is 13,000. What to Do? Click on table for larger, readable version. (Table will open in new window.) The curves in the graph show that a cash-for-clunker deal can have real greenhouse gas benefits. If the requirements are stringent enough (like those in the $4,500-voucher deal), reasonably quick payback times of two years or less are achievable. You can see how focusing on scrapping old vehicles with fuel efficiencies of less than 12 mpg would be especially effective. But the latest proposal on the table is too lax. Payback times of five years for a car and 10 years or more for a truck strike me as far too long to subsidize a new car purchase to the tune of $3,500. My recommendation, Mr. or Ms. Congressperson, if you are interested, is to scrap the $3,500-voucher -- it's a clunker. And if you're really serious about ratcheting down the pollution from our roadways, don't just help Detroit -- make the voucher dependent on the amount of embedded CO2 emissions in the new vehicle as well as the mpg differential. Now that would be really innovative. More on Climate Change
 
Kari Henley: Embracing the "Other" Mothers: Step-Moms, Ex-Wives, And Everyone Else Top
Mother's Day is here again, and I look forward to crayola-smudged, home made cards, a half-burned breakfast in bed with stone cold coffee, new plants for the garden, and sweet kisses that warm me up inside and out. It is wonderful to be recognized for the act of nurturing a child. To me, motherhood is all about getting attached and letting go, over and over again. We get attached to our round belly, and then let go into birth. We get attached to our baby, and then choke back tears as they climb on the giant bus to kindergarten. We get used to a sentient child that is fun to talk to, and then let go into the turbulence of teenagers. Always a hello, and a good-bye. This year, I realize Mother's Day is not all about me. I think about how many women "mother" my children in some way, and realize I just can't take all the credit. I believe mother's day is a great opportunity to acknowledge the circle of women who shape and mold their lives, and mine. Women like the aunts, neighbors, teachers, counselors, mentors, or special ballet instructors- all of them deserve to be recognized for their role of mothering. I am a mother of four, and all of them challenge me beyond my singular skills. Luckily, each have been touched by various women who see in them something I can't, relate to them in a new way that amazes me, or teach me something about myself that helps me to become a better mother. Can any woman mother alone? Ask one, and she will tell you it's impossible. It takes a gaggle, a village, a LOT of people to raise a child. Want a great new twist on Mother's Day sure to increase your happiness levels and make you smile? Write a group email to all the women who have touched your childrens lives, and wish them a Happy Mother's Day too. The attachment part is thinking we can do it all. The letting go part is surrendering to the wise hands that come along, and accepting help with gratitude. We are trained to believe mothering equates to super hero skills of single handed competence. Yet, life for women is more of a tribe than a race, and we simply must pull though together. Sometimes the journey of motherhood involves the hello and good bye of our husbands or partners, and we are left alone to mother. Sometimes motherhood is the tough pill to swallow of having a new woman in your kid's lives, and letting go of being the only mother figure around. It's a process of attachment and letting go that can be raw and intense. This is a tricky subject. The world is watching Elizabeth Edwards as she faces marital affairs, cancer and a relentless public eye. She is the epitome of resilience and a model mother to their children. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon of finger pointing and blame. But, for many couples who split up, eventually the pain starts to ebb, life moves on and new relationships form. Divorce is excruciating- I know. Watching someone you love find another is gut wrenching. I also know that eventually, an acceptance comes that another woman's hands are shaping the children, and with it a choice to take the high road or the low road. Many women who mother our kids are shoved in the dark labels of our collective female archetypes: Step-Mothers and Ex-Wives. I believe they deserve a little credit on Mother's Day too. Where's the acknowledgement or gratitude for their efforts? Nobody gives the step-mother a card - you can't even find one in the Hallmark store. Certainly no one would dream of giving one to the ex-wife, are you crazy? I am a mother. I am also a step-mother, and an ex-wife. I was a single mother too. Each role carries its own rules, regulations and expectations. You are supposed to hate the women who come after you in relationships. You are supposed to mistrust them, ignore them or say every bad thing you can think of about them. Kids are not supposed to like their step-parents, even if they really want to. But, sometimes, with time and mindfulness, these women can be a gift to our kids. Our instinct as women is to tend and befriend our families and our children, regardless of circumstances. Kids benefit if both women can rise above resentment, and embrace the moving on. For me, one of the triumphs of motherhood is the letting go and allowing ex-wives or girlfriends to gift my children with their time and special attention. A majority of families today are blended in some way. Single parent households or remarried households are standard fare. Yet, the myth of the "evil" step mother and vengeful ex-wife continues unabated. Wives are NOT supposed to fraternize with Ex-Wives. Ever. Step-parents keep their level of intimacy at bay. I am very fortunate to be dear friends with my husband's ex-wife. We spend many holidays at her house, and we both are very grateful for the mutual respect and camaraderie we have developed. She has no ties to my children, and every reason to ignore us all together, yet my allows my daughters to romp through her shoe closet, and engages in intellectual long talks with my older son that he savors. I also have a great relationship with my ex-husband's girlfriend, who teaches my daughter how to make Italian dinners that are beyond my culinary expertise. Both of these women have played a significant role in helping to shape my children's lives. When do they get flowers? When is it going to be ok for mother's to officially band together and raise our children in the village it truly is? People often look at me as if I have two heads when they hear about our strange family ties. For me, it is source of pride, hard work, surrendering ego, and reaching for the highest common denominator. Happy Mother's Day to all the women who dare to mother outside the lines. More on Happiness
 
Danielle Crittenden: White House Correspondents Dinner: The Reality Show Top
Over the past month or so, producers of two different reality show projects contacted me about series they planned to set in Washington, D.C. (where I live). In fact, there seems to be a multitude of reality show producers prowling the city, scouting all kinds of Capital "types"--young, attractive Hill staffers; gumshoe reporters; colorful lobbyists; competitive housewives; "blonde charity mafias"; power players, etc. Just yesterday, I bumped into one of my neighbors at the gym, who told me that he and his gay partner had signed to do a reality show with TLC, based on their exotic family life in the newly "glamorous and hot" capital. So what did these shows want from me? It was never very clear exactly--nor were the producers forthcoming about how they got my name (which I found slightly alarming. Was I known generally as some sort of "local character" who would provide rich, amusing fodder for their viewers? Kind of like the blue-painted homeless lady with Tourette's Syndrome who haunts our nearby Metro stop?). In any case, once I made it clear that I was not interested in Tweeting for their cameras, I cheerfully gave them "background" information on life in Washington--which mostly consisted of disabusing them that the city was "newly glamorous and hot." I've seen this cycle before--the last time during the Clinton reign. And as a Republican (maybe that's what makes me exotic?!), I've been known to grumble amongst my friends that it's only when a Democrat becomes president that Hollywood suddenly takes an interest in Washington. Exhibit A, of course, is Saturday's White House Correspondents Dinner, the annual prom for political journalists and politicians. The list of celebrities showing up for this year's event dwarfs even that from the Inauguration. So much so that media whiz Tammy Haddad felt there was a niche opening for a website devoted entirely to the subject of the dinner. Here, guests and eRubberneckers can get up to the minute details of the menu ("Petite filet with sundried tomatoes "), which stars are sleeping--sorry, attending--with which media organizations (Katie Holmes, Tom Cruise, Robert de Niro, Sting, Elton John...), and the "exclusive Vanity Fair-Bloomberg after-party," one of three big bashes being thrown to accommodate celebrity overflow (the others will be held by Time and People). "Gosh, remember the celebrities WE got?" a conservative friend of mine sighed, as we discussed the first of the parties we would not be attending for the next four years. "I remember seeing Bo Derek at one," I replied. "That was pretty good." "I suppose. But we mostly had to settle for--you know--network correspondents 'from New York' and American Idol contestants. " "And don't forget--oh, what was his name? That guy with the big moustache from the 1970s--" "G. Gordon Liddy?" "No! Tom...Tom Selleck!" (We had Liddy too. ) "And disgraced politicians," my friend added. "They were big." The Democrats will have those as well of course--including, this year, Alberto Gonzales, who will be attending as a guest of the Houston Chronicle. Although why "Fredo" would want to mingle under all those Hollywood death stares I'm not sure. Unless he is pitching a reality show of his own? Still, no amount of celebrity sugaring can coat Washington in glamor. Not even that hot Obama guy can. For the reality of the D.C. reality show is this: Washington remains a capital city in the mold of other dull official, capital cities--Ottawa, Brussels, Canberra, Brazilia, Strasbourg. It's not a capital in the manner of London, Paris, or Berlin. When a city's main business and raison d'etre is politics, then it's, de facto, going to be a dull place. Hollywood thrillers aside, Washingtonians are rarely found using zip lines to break into ultra-secret rooms hiding stashes of revealing documents. Break into your typical Senator's office, and the most interesting document you are likely to find will be that day's minutes from the meeting of the Joint Committee on Printing. Our nation's capital is, as my husband once quipped, "Toledo with nuclear weapons." And maybe with slightly better architecture. But not, I think, better parties. Thus the White House Correspondents Dinner unfailingly disappoints most of those who attend it. All the magic is in the build-up. Then you find yourself squashed into the grand salon of the downtown Hilton, circa 1960s, with two thousand others equally disappointed by the person they find themselves sitting beside (except for the two guests at the head table seated on either side of the President, and the media bosses who have put the starlet or general next to themselves). That's because the majority of your tablemates are advertising executives whom your host is trying to reward and/or impress. One of my best friends is married to the head of a publication that habitually sponsors a table--and she is not permitted to attend as these invitations can't be "wasted" on spouses. Frigid air conditioning pours down upon your bare shoulders (if you are a woman). You you can barely hear yourself think above the stockyard noises of the surrounding egos, braying for attention--noises amplified by the ballroom's stadium-like acoustics. As you roll bread between your fingers, you may be at a loss to decide which is worse: gamely trying to make conversation with the ad guy, whose eyes keep straining around the room trying to catch sight of a bona fide celebrity--or the empty chair on your other side, vacated,for most of the evening, by a journalist trying to get face time with media higher-ups and/or congressional sources. Meanwhile, Hilton staff deal the plates on to the table like poker cards; behind you, there are near mid-air collisions of trays bearing water glasses and the remnants of the last course. You'll have to reach across the table to refill your own wineglass--and most likely, that bottle is already empty and there isn't another anywhere to be found, not even if you were willing to purloin it from another table. Finally the speeches happen--but they are hard to hear over the non-stop shmoozing. A sound man clunks your head with his boom. You wonder why you didn't stay home to watch the whole event on C-Span--and better, you'd have an unobstructed view! And then, when it's all over, there is the stampede to the doors for more of this, at another venue... Take it away, Democrats. It's your party now.
 
Wendy Braitman: Why We Can Never Do Enough for Mother's Day (No Really, We Can't) Top
With Mother's Day hours away, I would like to honor my beloved mother, by using the word mother in a sentence as often as possible. No, not that sentence. The next one. I am taking this moment to pay tribute to Anna M. Jarvis, the mother of Mother's Day, who in an ironic twist of fate was never a mother herself. Did I write ironic? I don't honestly see it that way, but rather it was precisely because Ms. Jarvis did NOT become a Mrs. nor a mom, that she devoted her life's work to persuading the nation (and 43 other countries) to officially revere mothers and in doing so, carved out a 24-hour time slot in which we get to feel like we haven't done enough. Anna was tormented by not doing enough for her Mom. In 1907, a few years after her mother died (and left her a tidy inheritance), she created and led the "Mother's Day Movement," and began one of the most organized and successful letter-writing campaigns in history, reaching out to influential businessmen, religious leaders, newspaper editors, mayors and eventually to governors of every state. Within seven years, a resolution was passed by both houses of Congress for a national observance of Mother's Day. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation calling for a "public expression of our love and reverence for the mothers of our country," setting aside the second Sunday in May, which also commemorated the anniversary of Anna's mother's death. As it was her mother's favorite flower, and she was in charge, Anna declared the carnation the official Mother Day's emblem. Florists quickly began to reap the benefits. Soon confectioners and card companies wanted a piece of the action, and the holiday got commercialized to such an extent that Anna Jarvis could hardly recognize it. "This is not what I intended," Anna wrote in letters to hundreds of newspapers. "I wanted it to be a day of sentiment, not profit." She spent the rest of her life (and life savings) in desperate battle against those who didn't demonstrate the proper piety and respect for what she considered a holy day, and died penniless and alone. Anna M. Jarvis was born in 1864 in the rural community of Grafton, West Virginia, and she grew into a tall, attractive, redhead, eager to find her way in the world. She had watched her mother put aside pleasure and ambitions for the considerable duties of motherhood, and Anna wanted more out of life. At 27 and unmarried she took a bold, modern step and moved away from home to live in Philadelphia, working first as a stenographer and then as a writer for the advertising department of an insurance company. As to why she didn't wed, a family friend said, "she had a disastrous love affair when she was young. It left her shocked and disillusioned, and thereafter she turned her back on all men." (My theory is, she wanted a career.) After years of living on her own, Anna moved her widowed mother to Philadelphia. In 1905, she went into a period of "pathological mourning" when her mother died, creating an alter of dried flowers, and talking about little else. I asked my therapist friend why Anna was so obsessed. "In a word," he said, "guilt." When my dear mother was still alive (did I mention that she was one of the greats!) I used to procrastinate before calling her on Mother's Day, for fear that I hadn't done enough. The first misstep was moving to San Francisco, which put me three time zones away, so my call would land at her New York doorstep in the afternoon. I would always send a card, but a card wasn't flowers (e.g. carnations) and on the rare occasion when I got it together to mail a gift, I wasn't there in person to deliver it. Once, when I timed a visit to coincide with Mother's Day, that effort also fell short because, I figured, my ultimate misstep boiled down to not having a husband or children. Now that I understand Anna Jarvis, it all adds up. Mother's Day was created by a talented, entrepreneurial woman, who felt terrible about not following in her mother's footsteps. She spent an operatic life trying to make up for it, and embedded in her glorious, global tribute, the essence of never doing enough. But we all keep trying, as we should, because our mothers deserve it (especially mine).
 
Katie Couric: Aboard A C-17 To Turkey Top
Flying to an American airbase in Incirlik, Turkey from Kabul in a C-17 cargo plane, a massive, lumbering aircraft which is like traveling in a Beacon's moving van in the sky, almost as long as a city block. Rather than troops and equipment it's carrying the Defense Secretary's staffers and policy experts and the dozen or so members of the media who've been following him around all week. Today I sat down with Mr. Gates for our final interview. We covered a lot of ground on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, I can't see him as I write this. He's safely ensconced inside something called "the silver bullet" that looks like a futuristic rail car ... but it's really an Airstream trailer updated with what's called "a comfort package." He and his staffers stay and work inside it away from the deafening noise (thank you Bose) and cavernous interior. He emerged once in his jeans and white shirt to pick up four bags of chips, etc., from a table that's set up outside. Today was interesting with breathtakingly beautiful scenery. The press boarded a Chinook helicopter and went to a forward operating base (FOB) in Wardak province, southwest of Kabul. There are FOBs strategically located throughout the country, basically bases that the U.S. and other troops can use. I saw some Dutch and British during my trip. There are some 32,000 international troops in all. General McKiernan and Secretary Gates both told me they were disappointed with NATO's commitment and some of the caveats to it (won't go to certain areas, etc). Meanwhile, I learned that those who don't leave their bases are called "fobbits." Very Tolkien. There were some Afghan tribal leaders there, as well as the Governor of the province, briefing Gates on a new initiative that trains locals to guard their villages. I met the Afghan head of the program -- a thin man in a dark green uniform who's really quite brave. He's received death threats but told me (through a translator, of course) that he wasn't afraid of the Taliban. I spent a lot of time chatting with soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, New York. I interviewed them with my Flip and I'll put the videos on my YouTube channel next week. All in all, it's been an extraordinary experience. The Chinook pilots let me sit in the jumpseat up in the cockpit on the leg to Kabul. Flying over the city, which looks much less primitive than the area right around the base, with its hotel and office buildings, they told me they didn't worry about RPG's (rocket propelled grenades) except in certain areas in the north. In those cases, they would fly there under cover of darkness. They sometimes see the tracers from small arms fire, and if it just happens to hit the wrong place on the helicopter, that can be devastating. They did say they are always on the lookout for kites over Kabul, and actually spotted one on our trip. They sometimes fly them 600 feet in the air. (I didn't ask them if they are covered with ground glass a la "Kite Runner.") As I write this I am sitting in the cockpit of the C-17 with a great crew of pilots ... three of them got laid off from their commercial jobs after 9/11. They're based out of McGuire Air Force base in New Jersey. They're heading to Germany after they drop us off. All incredibly nice, smart guys. Who knows if this mission in Afghanistan will be a success? There is so much to accomplish...building infrastructure including wells, bridges and schools, providing jobs, transitioning poppy farmers to growing other legal crops, securing populated areas, winning trust while protecting the locals from being recruited or killed by the Taliban ... Oh, and wiping out the Taliban and keep them from providing training areas for al Qaeda, not to mention training an Afghan police force and army and establishing governmental institutions where none exist. This is the challenge. The good news is most of the troops I talked to believe in the mission and that it is possible to succeed. Surviving in these conditions -- a vast, dry roasted dustbowl -- they have to believe. Words like sacrifice, dedication and patriotism have become so overused in recent years they've almost become white noise. Coming here and meeting the troops reminds me what those words mean, and just as I felt when I left Iraq, I am humbled and in awe. This post originally appeared at CBSNews.com. More on Turkey
 
Goldman Chief Blankfein: Economy "A Lot Better Today" Top
NEW YORK — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chairman Lloyd Blankfein sounded an upbeat note about the economy at the company's annual meeting Friday. "It's a lot better today even though you could still argue about whether the end of this recession will be sooner or later," he said. "There are reasons for optimism." He said the economy is in better shape than in the fall when credit had dried up after the collapse of the brokerage Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Goldman was among the banks Thursday that the government didn't ask to raise more capital following a review of the books of the nation's 19 largest financial institutions. Blankfein said Goldman expects to "soon" repay the $10 billion in government loans it received last fall under the U.S. Treasury Department's plan to invest in hundreds of banks to try to revive frozen credit markets. Asked by a shareholder whether the company would write a check by year-end, he said, "I would expect so." Goldman raised $5 billion in April through a sale of shares designed to raise money for the repayment. American Express Co. on Thursday became the first major financial institution to formally request permission to return money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Goldman, like others seeking to hand back the money, is eager to move out from under the restraints imposed by the government, which include caps on pay. At the meeting not far from Goldman's Lower Manhattan headquarters, Blankfein read a three-page outline of the company's compensation principles, which include discouraging "excessive or concentrated" risk-taking and evaluating workers beyond what they contribute in a single year. "We know what a hot button this is for people," he said, referring to pay packages on Wall Street seen as lavish by many in Washington and elsewhere. Misplaced bets on mortgages and complex financial instruments are part of what felled Lehman Brothers last September and touched off the freeze in credit. Big bets meant big pay packages but there was little recourse when the trades soured. "Employees should think and act like long-term shareholders," Blankfein said. He said so-called clawbacks should be in place to strip workers of pay that has already been awarded if they are found to have endangered the company. Blankfein said he doesn't expect the company will cut workers. "I feel like the business is off its lowest ebb," he said. Goldman shares rose $3.92, or 2.9 percent, to $137.65 in afternoon trading. Board member Stephen Friedman, who resigned Thursday as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's board, defended his conduct Friday in serving in both posts. Friedman was the subject of a Wall Street Journal story that raised questions about his ties to Goldman. "I followed the rules as I always have," he said. Friedman said he received a waiver to serve another year. "I felt it was my obligation to continue to serve," he said. Goldman received the Fed's OK late last year to become a bank holding company as a way to boosts assets. During that time Friedman sat on Goldman's board and had a large holding in the company, a violation of Fed policy, the Journal reported. The New York Fed's general counsel Thomas Baxter says Friedman's purchases of Goldman stock didn't violate the Fed's rules. More on Goldman Sachs
 
Eyck Freymann: 2010 Senate Midterm Preview Top
November 2008 is just behind us, but the parties are both gearing up for what promises to be a critical midterm election in 2010. 34 Senators, 36 Governors, and all 435 members of the House will face re-election. Traditionally, the party of the incumbent President loses seats in the midterm elections (though usually more in the midterm of his second term). Most likely, this is because a President is never quite able to live up to all his campaign pledges, displeasing some voters. But Obama has handled his first four months with remarkable political skill. Over 80% of Americans approve of him personally, and his job approval rates are sky high. But his continued popularity will ultimately depend on the course of the economy. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said yesterday that we may be out of the recession by the end of this year. Especially if this is the case, 2010 could potentially see a third straight cycle of Democratic gains in both houses of Congress. Two races have seen interesting developments in the past few days. In Ohio, a new Quinnipiac poll matches the two most likely Democrats against the two most likely Republicans. The poll shows the frontrunners for both nominations pulling ahead. State Attorney General Jennifer Brunner (D) would have made a good candidate, but it looks increasingly likely that the Democratic establishment will nudge her out of the race to avoid a bruising primary battle. The eventual matchup will almost certainly be Ohio Lt. Governor Lee Fisher (D) against Congressman Rob Portman (R). Portman was the former chair of the Office of Management and Budget. In fact, he was my prediction for John McCain's 2008 VP pick. The jury is still out until fundraising numbers come in, but given the Democrats' recent gains in Ohio, this race is Fisher's to lose. In Delaware, Joe Biden's son, Beau, is widely expected to run. However, new polling shows him being crushed by likely Republican opponent Mike Castle. Castle has represented the state at large in the House for eight terms. At 70, he may retire -- but with his war chest of $850,000 (a lot of advertising in the tiny state) he can give the Democrats a run for their money. It seems ludicrous for him to turn it down. Two Democrats, Roland Burris and Chris Dodd, seem especially vulnerable this cycle. But both come from very liberal states, and will face their dangers in the primaries: the inevitable Democratic nominee will almost certainly keep the seat blue. I'll write a preview for all the Senate races when we know a few more candidates. If Bunning retires in Kentucky or Crist decides to run in Florida, the Republicans have the decided upper hand in those races. But if both decide to stay with business as usual, the Democrats will come close to 2/3 in the Senate. Until we know about Bunning and Crist, though, everything is pure speculation. More on Barack Obama
 
Jane Hamsher: Feinstein, Specter Compromises Pave the Way For Passage of Employee Free Choice Act Top
New compromise measures supported by Diane Feinstein and Arlen Specter may pave the way for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). With 900,000 union members in the state of Pennsylvania, the Arlen Specter firewall appears to be crumbling.  He knows he can't win a Democratic primary in Pennsylvania without labor, and they have made it clear that their support is contingent on his vote on Employee Free Choice.   Which is why Penny Pritzker and fellow billionaires are getting nervous, publicly breaking with the White House and President Obama over his support for the bill. The "centrist" Dems of the Senate, led by Tom Harkin, know they won't be able to shrug and say "what can we do, we only have 59 votes" much longer.  They have thus been trying to write an acceptable compromise so the party's progressives (including the unions) don't decide to stay home when Specter and others need their help in the 2010 elections.  According to the National Journal : [Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union. As Harkin says, the Feinstein compromise has the advantage of "protecting the secret ballot, so people can do it in private," which neutralizes that particular right-wing criticism of the bill.   The other bone of contention has been arbitration clause of the Employee Free Choice Act.  Specter himself supports "last best offer" arbitration.  It's also called " baseball arbitration ," and has incentives to get both parties to quickly make their best, most reasonable offer.  Bill Samuel of the AFL-CIO says "we're open to that." Labor will no doubt be disappointed with such sacrifices to the bill, but if it means getting something passed, they will probably be happy to make these concesssions which satisfy the demands of critics like Blanche Lincoln , Mark Pryor , Jim Webb , Michael Bennet , Mark Udall and Ben Nelson .   George McGovern was recently dis-invited to the Progressive Magazine's 100th anniversary event because of his outspoken opposition to the bill on behalf of his good friend Rick Berman.  If McGovern is interested in reclaiming his reputation among progressives as something more than the pawn of a right wing astroturfing scumbag , he now has the opportunity to acknowledge that these compromises would satisfy his concerns. Follow Jane Hamsher at firedoglake.com and on Twitter More on Jim Webb
 
Jim Wallis: A New President and a New Generation Seek a Nuclear Weapons Free Future Top
An important article appeared today in the Washington Post . It lays out the "philosophical shift" from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration on nuclear weapons policy. Last month in Prague, Barack Obama committed to seek a "world without nuclear weapons" in a historic shift from many previous administrations. In that vision, the new president is now joined by prominent voices from some of those past administrations. A group of prominent former officials -- Republicans George Shultz and Henry A. Kissinger, and Democrats William J. Perry and Sam Nunn -- have written two pieces in the Wall Street Journal urging "setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the action required to achieve that goal... ." Shultz is quoted in the Post as saying, "The subject kind of fell off the table ... Now it's back up in front, because people see the dangers." There are four upcoming policy decisions where the new Obama commitment could be felt: the U.S.-Russian strategic-arms treaty, an international treaty banning nuclear testing, an agreement on halting production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, and strengthening the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the same time, a new project was launched last week, led by a new generation of Evangelical Christians, called The Two Futures Project . Its mission is "a movement of American Christians for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. We believe that we face two futures and one choice: a world without nuclear weapons or a world ruined by them. The initiator of this most hopeful effort is Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, who said in the press launch last week, "It's not about conservatives becoming in favor of a liberal issues. It's about evangelicals raising an authentically Christian voice about a nonpartisan issue," George Shultz was on the call with the young Evangelicals and said ""What human being thinks that he or she should have that kind of power to unleash that kind of destruction?" I was happy to be one of the early endorsers of this project -- when Tyler first called me about his exciting new idea, I almost wept. The experience of having worked so hard for so many years on the issue of the nuclear arms race, and then having a new generation take up the mantle of that mission is a source of great delight for me, and of thankfulness to God. And having nothing to do with the initiation of it, except just to endorse it, is even a greater delight. The Spirit is indeed at work in this new generation of Christians who refuse to separate their faith from justice and peace. The juxtaposition of a new president's and a new generation of believer's commitment to freeing the world from the danger, tyranny, and idolatry of nuclear weapons couldn't be more timely. To reverse the habits of the heart, the assumptions, and policies that have dominated U.S. national security policy for more than 60 years will be a monumental achievement. And the pressures against that happening will be enormous. This is indeed a job for faith, and the energetic commitment of the faith community to accomplish this magnificent goal will be absolutely crucial. Perhaps after all the years of struggle on the huge theological and political issues surrounding nuclear weapons, the time for new beginning has finally come to eventually end their threat to our world, our humanity, and our faith. More on Barack Obama
 
Obama Congratulates New South Africa Pres. Jacob Zuma Top
US President Barack Obama telephoned Jacob Zuma on Friday to congratulate him on becoming South African president and urged Zuma to take a leadership role on the African continent, the White House said. More on South Africa
 
Steven Petrow: Gay & Lesbian Manners: Is Outing Closeted Legislators Unethical? Top
Q: I've heard a good bit about the controversial new film "Outrage" over the past few days, especially the filmmakers' outing of closeted gays in Republican circles. What's the deal on outing? I always thought that members of our community agreed that coming out was a highly personal decision. Is this good manners or bad manners? A: Well, it's a good question and a timely one as the movie is opening this weekend. As I've written before: "Don't legislate the schedule or the degree of someone's coming out.... Coming out is an extremely personal decision." And, in my previous book, "The Essential Book of Gay Manners & Etiquette" I added: "Outing a colleague - intentionally or unintentionally - is a violation of that person's privacy. Don't do it!" So, what do we see in this new film by director Kirby Dick, but a hard hitting documentary that squarely takes aim at Republican lawmakers who are believed to be closeted gays. The film's trailer notes that these deep in the closet politicians lead "secret double lives" as they have sex with men but fight against same-sex marriage, vote against AIDS research, and denounce adoptions by LGBT parents. And, indeed, names are named. To cut to the chase, we have two conflicting values at war here: privacy versus hypocrisy. At the time I wrote "Gay Manners" - back in the '90s --I often said in interviews that were I to have known that Senator Jesse Helms had had same-sex relationships, I thought it completely appropriate that they be disclosed and that he be outed. The harm his policies caused to LGBT people in this country - for instance, his hatred of gays and his refusal to support AIDS funding initiatives - would have been more than sufficient to outweigh any right to privacy. Today we have a new cadre of elected leaders who vote against LGBT rights and under cover of dark - or away on vacation - maintain liaisons with same-sex companions. That is the definition of hypocrisy and as gay Congressman Barney Frank says in the film: "People who make the law ought to be subject to the law." Manners usually takes up on the side of privacy, but when hypocrisy is at play, truthfulness and honesty are our more important companions in our struggle for fairness and equality. Send any future LGBT manners questions to Steven Petrow at queeries@live.com
 
Bruce Friedrich: The Essential Vegetarian Reading List Top
As a vegetarian for more than 20 years who works on vegetarian advocacy for PETA, I am often asked for my recommendation of the best books for someone interested in learning about vegetarianism. Here are my favorites, with some reflections on each; I (strongly) suggest that all vegetarians read (and own) all of them, so that you can recommend them articulately and loan them to friends and relatives. • The Food Revolution by John Robbins If I could make everyone in the world watch one movie, I'm with Peter Singer: I'd make them watch Sean Monson's Earthlings . If I could make them read one book, it would be this one. John Robbins' writing style and overwhelming avalanche of facts makes an irrefutable case that anyone who cares about the environment, their health, the global food crisis, or animals should be eating a vegetarian diet. Says PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, "A vital and wonderful book and easy to digest, this is a perfect read for anyone with a body, a mind, and a heart. The Food Revolution is the most positive book of the decade." • Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating by Erik Marcus I'm quoted on the cover of Vegan stating that this is the best concise introduction to veganism that exists. Eight years after its publication, that's still true. You can read it in a few sittings, it's extremely well-written, and it does most of what Robbins does, but more concisely. For someone who is open to reading about vegetarianism but may not want to read something as in depth as Robbins, this is the perfect choice. • Skinny Bitch and Skinny Bastard by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin The best selling vegetarian book in world history, Skinny Bitch has been published in more than a dozen languages, boasts more than 3 million copies in print, and has turned countless people vegetarian, including home run slugger Prince Fielder and other notables. This is by far the best book for the younger set (and for anyone, really, who enjoys a chatty and irreverent -- and I do mean irreverent, so be warned! -- tone). Skinny Bastard is the male version, and should be on your gift list for all the young men you know. Just to be clear: These are far more than diet books; they also go into all the reasons to eat a vegetarian diet -- with humor and verve. • Quantum Wellness and The Quantum Wellness Cleanse by Kathy Freston In our toxic society, Kathy Freston is pumping in some much-needed fresh air, with chapters discussing not just the importance of eating a vegetarian diet for health, ecological, and spiritual reasons, but also discussing a range of other practices that will inspire readers to be the happiest and healthiest people we can possibly be. Anyone you know who enjoys Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, Thich Nhat Hanh, or the Dalai Lama -- give them these books. The first book sports an introduction by Mehmet Oz, M.D., and the second by Dean Ornish, M.D. -- you can't beat those endorsements! • Eat More, Weigh Less by Dean Ornish, M.D. Ornish's foreword to the 2001 edition remains one of the most convincing and concise health arguments for vegetarianism that I have ever read, and the entire book is superb. Ornish crushes the Atkins diet and explains that a low fat vegetarian diet is the only way to long-term weight loss, with concomitant benefits including increased energy, better sex, and a much lower likelihood of dying from a heart attack. Speaking of which-- • Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell Esselstyn, M.D. If you know someone with angina or who has suffered a heart attack, stop reading now and buy them this book -- it's just spectacular. Although it only covers heart disease, it makes an overwhelming and irrefutable case that heart disease -- which kills half of men and almost half of women -- is self inflicted and that a vegetarian diet can not just prevent, but reverse the disease. On the American Heart Association diet, patients keep getting worse, just a bit more slowly. On Esselstyn's vegetarian diet, they all get better -- yes, all of them. And the book makes the case with stories about actual people -- named in the book -- who have changed their lives by adopting a vegetarian diet. The stories are priceless. • The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. There is a small war between those who think that Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease makes the best scientific argument for vegetarianism from a health perspective, and those who believe it's this book. What Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease does from a heart disease vantage, this book does regarding cancer, making an overwhelming scientific case that animal protein both causes and fuels cancer. • The Engine-2 Diet by Rip Esselstyn Texas firefighter Rip Esselstyn explains how he put his entire unit on a low fat vegetarian diet, and how every one of them found the health benefits to be so awesome that they've kept at it to this day. These were already healthy guys, and they were definitely GUYS -- Texas fire fighters! If they can do it, anyone can. With an extremely appealing narrative style, Esselstyn offers up the overwhelming scientific evidence on behalf of vegetarianism for health reasons, covering heart disease, cancer, and obesity especially well. The Engine-2 Diet is Skinny Bastard for people who are a bit older and/or a bit less irreverent or who aren't interested in the environmental and animal protection reasons to adopt a vegetarian diet. • The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)'s Healthy Eating for Life Book Series PCRM promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research. This series includes books on women's health, raising healthy vegetarian kids, cancer, and diabetes. They're a bit drier than the other selections, but the Vegetarian Diets for Children and the Vegetarian Diets for Women books are by far the best books that exist on these two topics. There is, of course, quite a bit of overlap amongst these books. The overall theme is that there is a vegetarian book for everyone you know. Happy reading!
 
UNFPA: No Woman should Die Giving Life Top
This Mother's Day will be no different than any other day--every minute a woman will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Nearly all of these women will die in Africa, Asia, or in the poorest countries of Latin America. Nearly all of these deaths could be prevented. In the United States "dying in childbirth" rarely occurs, with only 1 in 4,800 women at risk. But in Africa, where one woman in every 26 is at risk, pregnancy is the leading cause of death for young women. Women in Ethiopia however, have reason to hope that giving life will no longer bring the threat of death. The government is working to improve maternal health by implementing a primary health care plan that will address key factors relating to maternal death: lack of skilled attendants at delivery; lack of emergency obstetric care and a lack of access to family planning. To download video: ftp://208.112.10.235/video_drop username: ftpuser password: Ldo325t Filename : MaternalMortaliLg_Prog.mov
 
KEVIN GRUBB, Former NASCAR Driver, Dies Top
RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia police say former NASCAR driver Kevin Grubb died from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Henrico County Police spokesman Lt. Doug Perry said Thursday that Grubb's body was found by personnel at the Richmond-area Alpine Motel on Wednesday. Perry said they found no indication of any drug use inside the room, but toxicology results may not be available for up to six weeks. The 31-year-old was suspended from NASCAR indefinitely in 2006 because he refused to submit to a random drug test following the Busch Series race at Richmond International Raceway. The Mechanicsville native was previously suspended in March 2004 for failing a drug test. But he agreed to random testing as part of his reinstatement. Grubb's career began with NASCAR's lower-tier series in 1997.
 
WATCH: Brooke Astor's 100th Birthday Party Top
According to the New York Post , the defense in the Brooke Astor trial showed a video of the New York society doyenne's 100th birthday party. The 2002 party at the Rockefeller estate in Pocantico Hills, Westchester, was submitted as evidence by the defense yesterday to show that Astor was not yet suffering from Alzheimer's. The prosecutors had planned to use the same video for the opposite reason, before the defense team beat them to the punch. Astor's son, Anthony Marshall, is defending himself against allegations of elder abuse, including forcing his mother to stay in a room with a urine-stained couch . He is also accused of mismanaging her funds, and improperly siphoning, along with his wife Charlene, millions of dollars from her will. The video, WATCH: More on Video
 
Rihanna Nude Photos Hit Web Top
Nude photos of Rihanna, or what is supposedly Rihanna, are floating around the web. Seven pictures being hosted by imagehaven.com show various body parts, including two close ups of what is clearly Rihanna's face and a third photo of Rihanna head-to-knee reflected in a bathroom mirror with a message of "I love you" scrawled on it. All seven shots seem to be self taken in the same white bathroom and bedroom area. The four shots that do not include Rihanna's head in them include two of a bare bottom as seen reflected in a mirror, one of a dark lacquer-nailed hand squeezing a bottom and a photo of an undressed torso from a reflection in a mirror. One breast is pierced and pink Nike towel is flung over a shoulder hiding the other. Rihanna has been in New York all week, starting with Monday's Vogue-sponsored Met gala, in her first public appearances since the Grammy-eve fracas with then-boyfriend Chris Brown. More on Celebrity Skin
 
White House: No Supreme Court Nominee Next Week Top
WASHINGTON — The White House says President Barack Obama's announcement of a Supreme Court nominee is not imminent. Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs on Friday ruled out the possibility that Obama's decision would be unveiled next week. Gibbs said Obama is at the beginning of the process of deciding on a replacement for Justice David Souter. Souter is retiring in June. Yet aides also say the White House process of gathering names of potential candidates for the high court began even before Obama took office in January. Obama wants to have a nominee confirmed by the Supreme Court session that will start in October. He is in the midst of consulting with senators. More on Barack Obama
 
Drew Peterson Cracks Jokes As He Appears In Court On Murder Charges (VIDEO) Top
JOLIET, Ill. — Drew Peterson will have to wait more than a week to answer allegations he drowned his third wife in a bath tub. A judge continued the former police sergeant's arraignment to May 18 because neither of Peterson's attorneys were at Friday's hearing. Peterson was charged with murder Thursday in the 2004 death of Kathleen Savio. He's also a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy. He's denied wrongdoing. Peterson didn't speak in court except to tell the judge he understood the continuance. But the 55-year-old was cracking jokes when he arrived. Wearing a red jail jumpsuit, Peterson was brought in handcuffed and shackled around the legs. He told reporters he was getting "three squares a day" and joked about his "spiffy outfit" and "bling." More on Video
 
Phoenix Kidnappings: Police Fear Incidents Could Grow Top
PHOENIX — A 13-year-old girl was grabbed off the street and thrown into an SUV by Mexican kidnappers who mistakenly believed she was the niece of a drug dealer who helped steal 55 pounds of marijuana. The girl pleaded with her kidnappers that they had abducted the wrong person, but they hit her over the head, bound her with duct tape and drove away as relatives watch helplessly. In the wave of abductions that have gripped the Phoenix area, this case illustrates one of the greatest fears of police: the possibility that kidnappings might expand beyond the underworld of drug and human trafficking to target law-abiding people. "We get enough problems with just bad-guy-on-bad-guy" abductions, Police Chief Jack Harris said. "If you expand it to where they are going after these regular citizens, we just don't have that kind of personnel to be able to invest in those kinds of cases at that level." With 368 reported kidnappings in 2008, Phoenix has swiftly become the nation's kidnapping capital. Abductions have become such a persistent problem that police created a special squad of anti-kidnapping officers. Authorities hope to avoid the mistakes of Mexican police, who ignored kidnappings involving smugglers _ a decision that may have encouraged gangs to start snatching ordinary people displaying signs of even modest wealth. The Mexican government usually disregards the problem "unless it is a high-profile case _ a very rich person or a famous person who was kidnapped," said Jose Luis Velasco Cruz, a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and an expert in drug crimes. Over the last several years, many kidnappings in Phoenix have involved drug traffickers abducting rivals, associates or their relatives. The abductions offer a way to collect unpaid debts, steal money from fellow traffickers or retaliate for earlier abductions. Immigrant smugglers have also been known to do kidnappings, sometimes holding customers hostage to extort money from their families. The kidnappers typically seek ransoms ranging from $30,000 to $1 million and sometimes demand drugs, too. Two victims were killed last year. Others have been tortured by having their legs burned with clothing irons, their arms tied to the ceiling or their fingers broken with bricks. Some families have heard victims scream in pain during ransom calls. In May 2008, kidnappers shot an immigrant smuggler in the head, brought his corpse to an alley and set it on fire in a garbage bin. The victim's girlfriend then got a call telling her to watch the news. When kidnappings spiked, Phoenix investigators were so overwhelmed at first that they did not spend a lot of time asking in-depth questions to understand the pattern that was emerging. "We couldn't, because it was common to have a kidnapping, be halfway into it and have another kidnapping come into the door," said Lt. Lauri Brugett, who oversees the special kidnapping squad created last summer. When a kidnapping victim is located, it takes as many as 60 officers to rescue that person, including a SWAT team. When innocent people are targeted by kidnappers or home invaders in Phoenix, it's usually because an attacker got his orders wrong. In the case of the 13-year-old girl abducted in March 2008, drug traffickers wearing police-like gun belts demanded the whereabouts of a suspected drug dealer who lived in a house near where she was playing. She did not know him, but they took her anyway. Her brother and stepbrother, ages 16 and 17, tried to stop the attackers, but backed off when the men pointed guns at them. The siblings watched as their sister was forced into the SUV and driven away. She was released hours later in a Phoenix suburb after her abductors realized they had indeed kidnapped the wrong girl. But investigators say law-abiding people in Phoenix have little to fear. There are no signs that traffickers intend to kidnap innocents, and, police said, trafficking bosses do not want the level of scrutiny that such abductions would bring. Still, police worry. "You can't be naive," Brugett said. "You really have to look at the worst-case scenario and try to figure out how effectively you can accomplish things _ and then your goals for doing that. And one of those goals is that it doesn't get so easy for them that they do start targeting real victims, true victims." Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, the top prosecutor for Phoenix, was so alarmed by the abductions that his office set up a three-person team of prosecutors specializing in kidnapping cases. "If these criminals are willing to brutalize other human beings in that fashion, in one way, I don't see any reason why they would necessarily hold back from doing the same crime on innocent citizens if they conclude that it's in their interest to do so," Thomas said. Since June, police have made 300 arrests on charges of kidnapping and home invasion, and they have dismantled 35 abduction teams. Authorities report that fewer family members of smugglers are being targeted. Most kidnappers, police said, are from the violent northwestern Mexican state of Sinaloa, a major source for drugs being funneled through Arizona. In their effort to crack down, police pursue anyone who played a part in an abduction, however small. For instance, authorities arrested a man who got paid $600 to loan his car to a kidnapper. Authorities also check to see if victims have outstanding arrest warrants. If any warrants are found, victims are booked immediately after they are rescued, because police say today's victim might be tomorrow's suspect.
 
Louis Caldera, White House Military Affairs Director, Resigns In Wake Of Air Force One Flyover Top
Louis Caldera, Director of White House Military Affairs, resigned today from his position in the wake of the Air Force One flyover photo-op over lower Manhattan two weeks ago. President Obama accepted the letter of resignation, in which Caldera wrote he felt that the controversy surrounding the event made it impossible "to effectively lead the White House Military Office." In addition to Caldera's resignation letter, the White House also released a report on the incident, as ordered by President Obama, as well as the product of the controversial flight -- a photo of Air Force One in the sky over the Statue of Liberty.
 

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)