Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Dean Sluyter: It's Official: Nobody is Cool. (Kerouac Posthumously Blows It) Top
So now we know. In case you missed the news , literary archaeologists have unearthed the evidence, more earthshaking and culture-shocking than any suppressed scroll Dan Brown could dream up. Jack Kerouac -- Mr. On the Road, the King of the Beats, who begat the beatniks who begat the hippies who begat the hipsters -- Jack Kerouac, the fountainhead of cool -- that Jack Kerouac was obsessed with -- guess what. Freedom? Alienation? Restless, rootless wandering? Mad pursuit of the beatific vision? Nope. Jack Kerouac's deepest-rooted, longest-lasting obsession was ... fantasy baseball. How obsessed was he? So obsessed that, years before fantasy baseball existed, he invented his own version of the game, with whole teams and leagues named for colors and makes of cars, and series and seasons played out with marbles for balls and toothpicks and matchsticks for bats. So obsessed that he filled notebooks with meticulously recorded stats, made illustrated team rosters, and wrote letters back and forth between his various team-managerial personae, haggling over trades. So obsessed that he persisted in this childhood hobby through all his on-the-roading and dharma-bumming, through obscurity and fame and alcoholic decay, almost till his death. So obsessed that he concealed his decidedly uncool secret from all but one or two of his aspiringly cool fellow Beats. I guess we should have known when we found out that Marlon Brando was a ham radio operator. What next? Any day now we'll probably learn that James Dean collected stamps, that Lou Reed and Andy Warhol traded Matchbox Cars, that Miles Davis' real passion was his model trains, which he ran while wearing an engineer's cap. Mr. Cool, the guy who started it all, was a geek. And if Kerouac's not cool, nobody's cool. What a relief! We can just relax and be ourselves. (That would be ... cool?) Of course, Kerouac didn't really start it all. He got the cool thing from jazz musicians, hanging around the 52nd Street nightclubs during his brief stint as a benched football player at Columbia, transforming the laid-back-even-when-frantic rhythm of bebop -- the beat -- into Beat Generation prose, writing lovely poetic tributes to Charlie Parker's Buddha-eyes. If anyone started it, it was Prez, Lester Young, half a generation before Parker. Somehow lightening and purifying the gutbucket sound of the tenor sax till it sang like an alto, Prez used that cooled-out voice to slice through the overheated busyness of early jazz, unhurriedly hanging behind the beat or somehow mysteriously hovering above it, in an ever-cool, rarefied realm not touchable by the mundane world of 4/4. And just incidentally, Prez appears to have been the first person to wear sunglasses as a cool fashion statement; he may even have coined the word "cool" as a term of approval. Interesting word, actually. In physics, that which is cool is that which exhibits less random molecular activity -- that which is more settled. Maybe real cool, the essence of cool, is inner cool, settled awareness, buddha mind, the nirvanic state. In that case, we can amend our statement. Nobody's cool but those who have stopped shaking and stirring this jar of muddy water called the mind long enough so that the mud can settle and the water's natural clarity can shine forth. That is, nobody's cool but buddhas. Note that I didn't say Buddh ists : buddhas can be Christians, atheists, Hindus, or Venusians. (And Buddhists can be buddhas or knuckleheads like anyone else.) But cool as an outer pose -- as a book or an outfit you can buy, as an attitude you can cop -- is dead. Long live cool. When the truly cool people show up in your life, you won't recognize them -- they'll be too cool for that. More on Fashion
 
ZP Heller: Spilling the Beans About Starbucks' Union-Busting Tactics Top
Put down that grande non-fat caramel macchiato or whatever Starbucks concoction you're drinking. Turns out the coffee giant has a nasty history of being anti-barista, anti-union, and thus anti- Employee Free Choice Act as well. The National Labor Relations Board has repeatedly found Starbucks guilty of illegally terminating, harassing, intimidating, and discriminating against employees attempting to unionize. Late last year, a judge ruled Starbucks had committed over a dozen violations of the National Labor Relations Act at a few New York stores. Starbucks has settled five such labor disputes in the last few years in New York, Minnesota, and Michigan, spending millions on legal fees to avoid exposing their anti-worker ways. To make matters worse, Starbucks has led the charge on a so-called Employee Free Choice Act "compromise," joining Costco and Whole Foods to form the Committee for Level Playing Field . This Orwellian-sounding group has come up with a "third way" on Employee Free Choice, which would require 70 percent of workers to sign union authorization cards instead of the far more manageable 50 percent initially proposed by this legislation. We've known for a while where Starbucks' billionaire CEO Howard Schultz stands on unions. After all, it was Schultz who once said that if workers "had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn't need a union." Yet Starbucks pretends to be pro-barista, claiming to offer workers decent wages and health insurance. The reality is the company insures less than 42 percent of its 127,000 baristas in the U.S. As Liza Featherstone recently reported , even Wal-Mart, a company notorious for its anti-labor practices , insures 47 percent of its employees. Like Wal-Mart, Starbucks offers its workers low wages averaging $7.75 an hour, and Starbucks also refuses to guarantee workers set hours. Instead, the company adheres to an Optimal Scheduling policy that requires baristas to make themselves available 70 percent of open store hours just to work full time in any given week. This means low-wage earning baristas often don't have time to take a second job. Moreover, it precludes tens of thousands of Starbucks employees from working the 240 hours per quarter needed to qualify for the company's health insurance. Starbucks' ethical reputation is misleading, its "progressive" policies less substantive than the company's frothy beverages. Sign the memo to Howard Schultz insisting he allow workers to unionize.
 
Judge: Tucson Citizen Closing OK Top
TUCSON, Ariz. — The Tucson Citizen won't be forced to resume publication. A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Arizona attorney general's office failed to show that the Citizen's owner, Gannett Co., violated antitrust laws. The state has contended that closing the Citizen with Saturday's issue is eliminating competition and fostering a monopoly situation for Gannett and Lee Enterprises, publisher of the city's Arizona Daily Star. The two companies own Tucson Newspapers Inc., which runs the non-editorial functions for both newspapers. They split costs and profits. The state contends Gannett stopped publishing the Citizen simply to make more money for the partnership. The state hasn't decided whether to appeal. Gannett will continue the Citizen as a commentary Web site, without news coverage, and distribute a printed Citizen editorial weekly with the Star. More on Newspapers
 
Comcast Way Up In Cable Customer Service Survey Top
PHILADELPHIA — Comcast Corp. showed the biggest gain in customer satisfaction among cable and satellite TV operators, a survey showed Tuesday. Philadelphia-based Comcast's overall score rose 9.3 percent from the prior year, according to the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index. The improvement comes as the cable operator reached out to disgruntled customers who posted complaints through blogs or on social networking sites. It's a marked turnaround for Comcast, where complaints against service ran so deep at one point that a Web site called ComcastMustDie.com arose and a frustrated customer smashed a keyboard with a hammer at a Comcast office in Manassas, Va. DirecTV Group Inc. came in on top, up 4.4 percent, keeping a perch it has enjoyed for several years. It pulled away from fellow satellite TV operator Dish Network Corp. whose customer satisfaction score fell 1.5 percent to a historic low as the company retools its service. Satellite TV operators partner with phone companies to offer phone and Internet services, and the choice of partner affects customer satisfaction. The Michigan researchers pointed out that DirecTV has a deal with Verizon Communications Inc., which ranks high on customer service, while Dish partnered with Sprint Nextel Corp., which ranks low. Atlanta-based Cox Communications Inc. was the top cable TV performer for the sixth straight year, up 4.8 percent to an all-time high score. Time Warner Cable Inc. had the same score from a year ago while Charter Communications Inc., which is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, fell the most. Its satisfaction score fell 5.6 percent to a record low for any company in the survey's 15-year history.
 
Carine Fabius: Your Credit Card Company is Spying on You Top
I guess I always knew we were being watched but it gave me the shivers nonetheless when I read in the New York Times Sunday Magazine that the evil ones -- that would be the credit card companies -- had taken up spying on us. We already know that years ago they started scurrying around like panicked rats, worried that they were only making money off things like standard interest rates on unpaid balances, annual fees, and the usual rate hikes on the delinquent. Never mind that they were already laughing all the way to the bank a/k/a home sweet home; they wanted more. No one ever said that sustained effort, focus and determination don't work. Pair these things with endless funds, and success is virtually guaranteed. In any case, all that mad scurrying and racing to the bottom of the greed barrel resulted in two aha! moments for the demon executives of Visa, MasterCard and American Express, just to name the top three. 1) They figured out that they made more money off people who defaulted, and, 2) they devised a way to identify those most likely to default. How? By scouring and analyzing the spending habits of their customers -- information provided to them on a daily basis by us, their unwilling victims. In the good old days, before the economy melted like a giant pat of butter in a frying pan, they were able to gorge on the excesses of green college students, shopaholics and the working poor -- all of whom they seduced with low introductory rates then waited, like vultures, for them to screw up with late or missed payments. But after the meltdown, when far too many of their customers started going down that road, they realized they had to revamp their model. They now take all our private information, and use it against us in a brand new way. Did you know that if you buy a no-name brand of motor oil for your car, you are more likely to default on your credit card payments? And I bet you didn't know that if you pay your dentist with a credit card, you are less likely to default. Enjoy a good game of pool? Deadbeat! Like to feed your feathered friend premium birdseed? That means you're a stand-up kind of guy. Visit a pawn shop lately? Uh oh. Sure indicator of despair. Seeing a marriage counselor? No doubt about it, you're going to break up soon, end up with half your income and, bingo! default on your credit card payments. Expect to get your rate hiked so they can collect as much as possible from you before that happens. Do you check your online balance in the middle of the night? That indicates anxiety. Call the credit card company during the day? Shouldn't you be at work? That must mean you're unemployed. Don't be surprised if they suddenly tell you that your card is canceled. The problem with this tactic is its arbitrariness. I'm one of those good customers who try to pay their balance off every month. I don't always succeed -- especially when my business goes through its annual slow season -- but I'm always on time, and make substantial monthly payments. Yet, I've paid my dentist plenty of times with a credit card; I've purchased no-name brand motor oil for my car because I believe in using generic brands whenever I can; and I'm self-employed, so when I call my credit card company in the middle of the day with a question, that does not mean I'm out of a job. There have been untold accounts in recent months of perfectly good customers being flummoxed at having their rates hiked or cards canceled. Ever notice how those customer representatives are at a loss to tell you why? Because, according to the article, "...they worried that customers would revolt if they found out they were being studied so closely." You bet your ass, buddy. Can we get going with that revolt, please? As Congress gets ready to vote on a bill that will limit the damage the credit card rats can inflict on customers, let me tell you they are scurrying even more now. Reports say they're getting ready to target their best customers (with sudden rate hikes, etc.) in order to minimize the "damage" being inflicted on them -- that damage being their inability to continue gouging the most vulnerable among us. For years I've wondered out loud why the US government seemed hellbent on allowing banks to bankrupt its citizens. Could it really just be for the purpose of enriching its corporate fat cat friends? I thought that was just too shortsighted, but silly me! As Obama tries to address this issue, there is plenty of griping about him being too tentative and not going far enough. I, for one, would like to see a slash and burn approach to the rodent problem. But I fear this thing -- so deeply entrenched in the corridors of power as it is -- may have to take a slower road. I think Obama is like a chess player, whose every move, which may not seem to make any sense at first, builds toward a specific end goal. I certainly hope so, anyway. In the meantime, although we've been set up to depend on credit cards to navigate the lives we live (try renting a car without one), I think the thing we can do as individuals is to start using them less. For starters, let's start using debit cards and cash as much as we can. F*#@! these guys. More on Financial Crisis
 
Sarah Jessica Parker Concerned For Safety Of Surrogate Top
LOS ANGELES — Sarah Jessica Parker says she's concerned for the safety and well-being of the surrogate through whom she and husband Matthew Broderick are expecting twins. The "Sex and the City" star tells "Access Hollywood" that the attention has led to an invasion of the surrogate mother's privacy. Parker says she worries about her "and the safe delivery of our children." The 44-year-old says in an interview airing Tuesday on NBC that the surrogate's telephone and computer have been hacked into, and she's received threats. Parker says it hasn't ended there: "She's had friends threatened and family threatened and she's had family of friends threatened."
 
Berlusconi Bribed Lawyer David Mills To Shake Corruption Charges: Italian Court Top
Silvio Berlusconi was tonight under withering fire from opposition leaders in Italy after a court declared that he had bribed his lawyer, David Mills, so that he could avoid conviction on corruption charges and hang on to "huge profits made from the conclusion of illicit corporate and financial operations". More on Italy
 
Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse, Teen Somali Pirate, Indicted In NYC Court Top
NEW YORK — A Somali teenager whose role in the commandeering of an American cargo ship thrust him into the international spotlight has been indicted on multiple criminal charges, authorities said Tuesday. Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse _ the only pirate to survive the siege _ has been jailed in Manhattan since he was captured on April 12 and flown to the United States to face what's believed to be the first U.S. piracy prosecution in more than a century. He was expected to enter a plea later this week on charges of piracy, conspiracy, hostage-taking and brandishing a firearm on the high seas. He faces life in prison if convicted. U.S. prosecutors have branded Muse the ringleader of a band of four pirates who provoked the deadly drama, while defense attorneys have insisted he's a bewildered teenager snatched from obscurity. He wept last month when his lawyers failed to convince a judge he was only 15 and should be tried as a juvenile. His lawyers didn't immediately respond to telephone messages seeking comment Tuesday. Muse, 18, grew up destitute in Somalia, the oldest of 12 children and the product of a violent, lawless nation where piracy has flourished. On April 8, he teamed up with other young bandits who targeted the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama, which is managed by Norfolk, Va.-based Maersk Line Ltd., as it transported humanitarian supplies about 280 miles off the Somali coast. An FBI criminal complaint said Muse was the first to board the boat, firing his AK-47 assault rifle at the captain, Richard Phillips. He entered the bridge, told the captain to stop the ship and "conducted himself as the leader of the pirates," according to the complaint. The pirates held Phillips, of Underhill, Vt., hostage for several days on a sweltering, enclosed lifeboat that was soon shadowed by three U.S. warships and a helicopter. The standoff ended when Navy snipers got the go-ahead to shoot three pirates after one held an AK-47 close to Phillips' back. More on Crime
 
Srinivasan Pillay: Medical Formulae: Do Medical Costs Determine your Diagnosis? Top
When you go to an emergency room for any medical problem, you may or may not be aware that the treating doctor is doing as assessment of you that will eventually be fed into his or her brain's newly learned "protocol". What happens to you after the assessment is not quite as unique as the questions that were asked of you might seem. You will likely enter a "chest pain" protocol, a "head trauma protocol", an "asthma protocol" or any relevant protocol that the receiving facility has designed to maximize its efficiency and operations and minimize cost to you and the hospital. How did these treatment algorithms originate? What are their advantages and disadvantages? Why should you be wary of such approaches? What can you do about this? Treatment algorithms or standardized approaches to care arose as a result of the need to streamline medical approaches so as to maximize efficiency and ensure that the minimum steps were being taken to address particular issues. Also, treatment algorithms are ideally based on research, so that any protocol would likely be designed to reflect this research and minimize "fluffy" approaches that do not have a basis in proven science. While these are admirable goals and obviously serve important functions, I have also noted a trend in some domains of medical research, to justify short cuts so as to justify spending less money on medical care. A test, for example, may not be done, since the likelihood of it helping out is not very great. However, if this were my loved one, I would want the test to be done anyway, as even if there was a small chance of it being helpful. These "small chance" tests and treatments do not make it into standard algorithms, so that unless you are proactive about your own care, you are not likely to receive the test or treatment. If you have ever tried to get yourself checked into a hospital recently, unless you are about to kill yourself or someone else, or going in for acute treatment, you are unlikely to be able to stay for more than a few days. This may be less true if you are part of a "boutique" network and pay out of pocket. While socialized medicine may limit the number of available boutiques, I would argue that boutiques exist for a good reason: that their thorough, often intensive approaches that exceed the current standardized hospital approaches could be actually necessary and helpful. They may be too expensive to be part of the norm of care, but you might notice that even the same hospitals often have two treatment centers for the same disorders: one that routinely costs much more than the other. Why then, do boutique protocols differ from regular protocols? Should you care? I believe that you should and my focus here is on the individualized approach to diagnosis and treatment. For your next medical appointment, you might want to go in with a different set of questions than you might ordinarily do. Here are some potential questions and considerations to ask your PCP about so that you can gain more clarity about the care you are receiving: 1. Ask your PCP: How do the tests you are doing differ from test that a boutique service may offer? 2. Ask your PCP: Are the additional boutique service tests unnecessary or are they more thorough? 3. Ask your PCP: Could you recommend a boutique specialist in the area that I could talk to? 4. Then, call up a boutique specialist, and ask them specifically how their approach to dealing with your illness differs from standard care. 5. Ask for a three-way conversation between your PCP, the boutique specialist and yourself. 6. Ask your PCP: what other tests might you do if cost were not a consideration? Why? 7. Most importantly, do not leave the office until you have a plan that will help you understand the duration of your care. For example, I often meet people who are seen for back pain, and who just accept months of no change in treatment without any sense of when surgery might be necessary, or of what the potential dangers of surgery are. The message of this column is that unless you track your own care, you will likely be part of a "standardized" approach to care. While it is extremely difficult for doctors to do anything outside of this norm, it is also important for you to be clearer about what you are getting and not getting. If you do, and if you take charge of your own health, you are likely to receive much better care than if you do not. As we approach "health care coverage for all", we must also be more aware of an increase in standardized approaches. We must constantly be weighing the pros of "at least having care available" with the cons of suboptimal care. Boutique approaches are not necessarily better, but they potentially offer the patient an individualized treatment approach. If you are not receiving such care, it is imperative to ask: is there anything that I am missing? If so, how can this be addressed?
 
Marcel Pacatte: Dowd's Plagiarism Excuse Inexcusable Top
Maureen Dowd's excuse for being caught plagiarizing is as lame as her plagiarism is inexcusable. A friend fed her a line? And she used it? Not realizing the friend was quoting Marshall? Oh. Well. In that case, forget we brought it up. I teach journalism at Medill and her excuse doesn't, if you'll pardon the wordplay, excuse her. Plagiarism is still plagiarism no matter the source from which the words are stolen. Perhaps she thinks because this imaginary friend of hers doesn't have a column or blog that is published that she can slip the noose here. But in fact, it's almost less excusable that she stole it from a friend than had she copped to having lifted it from Marshall: Stealing from a friend without giving the friend credit is just as reprehensible. Don't you think the editors at the Times pay Dowd for Dowd, rather than for the company she keeps and the lines that she's fed? I'd be interested in meeting her friend. More on Newspapers
 
Robert L. Borosage: The Health Care Lobby: Watch What They Do Top
A crisis that demands fundamental change. A president with a mandate to drive it. A Congress, controlled by Democrats, ready to act. Now comes the hard part - actually getting something real done. These are salad days for Democratic lobbyists, because deep pocket interests - health insurance companies, Big Pharma, oil and gas and coal companies, the utilities and, of course, the banks - are buying them up to help harness the gale winds of change. Get ready to be dazzled - the strategies employed will reflect the imagination of Washington's most clever operators. For example, the health care lobby has employed one basic theme in trying to stop health care: scare the hell out of Americans by decrying a "government takeover" of health care. But in the age of Obama, they want to be seen as part of the solution, not simply part of the problem. So last week, the leading health care trade associations - -the lobbies for insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, plus a union -- stood with the president to pledge dramatically to "do our part" to reduce the rate of soaring health care costs by 1.5% a year over the next decade, a promise that if fulfilled would save some $2 trillion from the cost of care. Not surprisingly, the president - eager to show that his efforts to give everyone a seat at the table were bearing fruit - was happy to hail that promise. The lobbies got national coverage that their clients were for reform and would make a real contribution to it. This bolstered their argument that while regulation might be in order, we don't need a public plan like Medicare to provide a choice for businesses and individuals. Give us time to fulfill our promises (and for this reform moment to pass), they argue. If we fail, then consider a public plan (when the president may be less popular and the Congress more conservative). Word was Senator Grassley, a Republican Senator actually looking for bipartisan accord, thought that the argument made a lot of sense. Outside the photo op, however, the reality was very different. A new report released today by Health Care for America Now, a leading citizens' coalition pushing for comprehensive health care reform, put the industry claims in sharp relief. The HCAN report shows that after 400 mergers involving health insurers over the last 13 years, concentration has gone up in local markets across the country. The single largest provider of small group coverage (for small businesses, for example) controlled a median market share of 47% in 2008. The AMA says 94% of insurance markets in the US are highly concentrated. The result, of course, is soaring prices - with premiums up, on average, more than 87% over the past six years. Profits at 10 of the country's largest publicly traded health insurance companies in 2007 rose from $2.4 to 12.9 billion (428%) from 2000 to 2007. The CEOs of these companies in 2007 alone collected an average compensation of $11.9 million each. Nice work if you can get it. As then Senator Barack Obama said in September 2007, "These changes (mergers) were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed." Insurers use their position to pass rising costs onto the insured. And, not surprisingly, Medicare does better. A recent study by University of California professor Jacob Hacker for the Institute for America's Future (which I co-direct) shows that from 1997 to 2006, private health insurance spending per enrollee grew at an annual rate of 7.3% while that of Medicare was at 4.6%, or more than one-third less. The concentration of insurance markets and the lack of private competition provide compelling reasons for the Congress to establish a public plan like Medicare as an option for those seeking insurance. Give consumers a real choice. The public plan would provide both a benchmark for private plans and much needed competition in what are now perversely concentrated markets. That certainly offers better hope for bringing down prices than the voluntary promises of the hospital, drug and insurance company lobbies, made without detailing how they would go about fulfilling those promises. (promises that many of them began to wiggle away from two days after the press conference when the TV lights were no longer on). HCAN and other citizen groups are scrambling to counter the calumnies, claims and cash of the health insurance lobby - but of course, they can't match the industry's firepower. What they do have is the best moment for serious reform since the sixties when Johnson ushered Medicare into existence. And the possibility of rousing citizens to put their legislators on notice that they are paying attention, want real reform, and aren't going to be distracted by the health care lobby.
 
A Consumer's Guide To The New Credit Card Rules Top
At first glance, the sweeping credit card legislation that passed the Senate on Tuesday looks like a huge victory for consumers. The bill (and similar legislation that has already passed the House) contains relief from penalty fees and instant interest rate spikes. It even limits expiration dates on gift cards.
 
Chris Kennedy Planning To Run For U.S. Senate: Sun-Times Top
A son of Robert F. Kennedy is planning to run for the U.S. Senate, the Chicago Sun-Times ' Michael Sneed reports . Chicago businessman Chris Kennedy has been conducting polling on a potential 2010 Senate run for weeks and apparently likes what he's seen. Kennedy, a son of a son of Robert F. and Ethel Kennedy, will announce his candidacy next week, according to Sneed. Kennedy has retained AKPD Message and Media , the high-profile political consulting firm founded by President Obama senior advisor David Axelrod, and has already shot a campaign ad, Sneed reports. Kennedy will face a crowded Democratic primary field, with State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson and the embattled incumbent Senator, Roland Burris, all considering running. More on Senate Races
 
Amy Sewell: SHE'S OUT THERE! The Next Generation of Presidential Candidates Essays by 35 Young Women Who Aspire to Lead the Nation Top
"Where are all the women?" asked 9-year-old Alexandra Desaulniers when visiting the White House portrait gallery. Her mother explained, "There are no portraits of women here because there haven't been any female presidents yet." That's the moment Alexandra decided she wanted the job. After hearing this story, I realized there must be a lot of young women out there thinking about running for president, and I wanted to know who they are. What I found out is that Alexandra is not alone. More and more American women are choosing to pursue careers in public service -- and they're deciding to do so earlier and earlier in their lives. There may be disproportionately few high-profile female politicians in America today -- but not for long. While women currently make up only 14 percent of governors, 17 percent of the House, and 17 percent of the Senate, women are starting to fill, in greater numbers, the ranks of local and state political offices. This seems only logical since women make up 51 percent of the U.S. population. They are building a platform from which they will get to the higher positions. And so, it's not a matter of if a woman will lead the United States -- but a matter of when. Will it be in 2016? 2024? 2036? Who knows? But what we do know is that it's inevitable. She's out there somewhere -- Who is she? What is she like? To find out, I worked with the New York City-based research firm Fresh Perspectives and the nonprofit women's organization The White House Project to collect essays from young women nationwide who want to be president someday. My co-editor Heather Ogilvie and I chose the 35 best essays and traveled the country with award-winning photographer Robert A. Ripps to meet the young women. Robert took photos of the essayists in local settings that reflect their commitment to public service. This collection of essays reveals what drives the political ambitions of a younger generation of American women -- and reveals their vision for our country. Between the ages of 5 and 35, these outspoken girls and women represent our country's next generation of female political leaders. (I chose 35 essays because this is the minimum age a U.S. president must be.) The women in the book are from 20 states and diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. They voice opinions from across the political spectrum. Two of the essayists -- Agxibel Barajas and Jennifer Abraczinskas are also featured in my 2008 documentary on women's leadership, What's Your Point, Honey? , that I directed and produced with Susan Toffler. The film paints portraits of seven possible future presidential candidates at a pivotal moment in history when the most viable female candidate ever is running for the highest office in the land. The movie shows that political equality is not about one, breakthrough candidate; it's about hastening the day when just as many women grace the presidential debate podiums as men. On that day, the nation as a whole will get beyond gender to agenda. The book also lists "35 Current Leaders" serving in public office who have caught my eye as being potential future presidential candidates. I asked them what advice they would give to younger women considering a career in public service. To make the book very hands-on, I list the women's groups and political organizations that can help young women who are interested in politics to a move on! My hope is that the essays collected in this book will not only inspire other young women to speak out about issues that affect them and to pursue public office, they will also give readers a sense of the direction female leadership is likely to take our country in the future. We've got the New York State Debate Champion Novice Division who we refer to as the "Tiger Wood of Politics," a Political Chair of the Black Liberation Affairs Committee, a super model who just happens to be Wellesley, MIT and Columbia educated AND an entrepreneur at the age of 19, and an a former U.S. Army captain who trained Iraq's first all-female military company, or a 10-year-old who knows that you're never too young to get involved and make a difference and volunteers at fundraisers for her local fire department, helps out at the firehouse, and recently addressed her city council about adopting her anti-litter proposal. For those girls and young women who are mystified by politics, it is that simple! The personal is the political -- it's the sidewalks we walk on, the local libraries and firehouses, the communities and its people -- taken to a local level or international level. Another aspect that gave me a jolt better than my morning caffeine infusion was when I noted the future contenders' names -- Chidinma Hannah Nnoromele and Folasade Fayemi Kammen, or Lynna Lan Tien Nguyen Do, Wieteke Aster Holthuijzen or Raquel Rivera -- names that certainly give the name Barak Hussein Obama a run for the money. It is obvious we are headed into a new era. So take a look at these 35 young women in the book, I think we'll be watching them for a long time. And let's open our ears and eyes to them right now as they join this blog on the Huffington Post.
 
Grant Whitney Harvey: Moonshadows: Part 4 Top
Unlike the suddenness and great contrast that Billy had experienced before, the turnover from spring to summer at USC seemed to overlap as smoothly as the baton exchange of the university's relay team. It was as though a continuous season had fallen and left the terrible illusion over all the freshmen new to Southern California that the lush simplicity of so easy a year could remain forever. The only sign which kept the changing seasons from going unnoticed was the all too drawn-out finals week, wherein each day further into it fewer and fewer students cluttered the halls and cement courtyards and quad - by Friday leaving them the vast, lonely remnants of the annual summer exodus, dwindling students away like seed to pigeons. Billy stood atop the stone stairs outside the main library, feeling a weakening emptiness as he looked out upon the vacant courtyard on the final Friday of the term. He was waiting for a newly befriended alpha-type named Maxwell to finish an exam. The thought immediately crossing Billy's mind as he waited was that the university, being the reputable, proud, highly regarded one which it was, seemed to lose its importance without a swilling of students from class to class. It seemed dead; as unimportant, as un-influencing as a body without life. The students seemed to have been its blood. They seemed to have been its soul. Without them, the University of Southern California was only a collection of buildings - rather nice buildings - filled with books, sunlight from the windows and the first signs of collecting dust. The university was now massive and hollow, which contributed largely to the emptiness, uncertainty and loneliness which Billy felt standing there. It had been as if the place had slipped right from under him, and now reminded him that everything was rather just teetering there, smack on the brink of uncertainty, like the mystique of dark water. Still, Billy was coming off a good year, somehow managing to get through it without having to get a job. His grades were a reflection of the extra time the absence of a job afforded him, so accordingly his GPA saw a rise to a "perfect 4" by the second half of the term. The extra time also afforded him a position in one of the university's most swank student clubs. Bored, sitting alone in the dining commons one day before class, he was flipping through an extracurricular weekly when his gray eyes, loosely and carelessly comprehensive, tightened-in on evidence of a sailing club. By no more than a week later he had talked his way into the company of the club's dozen or so university legacies, many of whom hailed from rich Oceanside communities of the center East Coast; the rest from the nearby West Coast boat towns around Catalina as well as a few up North in the rougher, colder waters around Big Sur and even much higher off the Newport and then even the Seattle coast. All, however, were lead by the club's hansom president Maxwell Dewitt, who was from Cape Cod. Never had a sore-thumb healed so quickly. They referred to it as "The Inlander." He was very poignant in his approach to them, restricting his words to those which he knew would help pry his self into the club's acceptance. Maxwell, a tall, dirty-blonde, fittingly ex-Polo model and Luke Raines, shorter but equally thin with a shaved head, thicker dark eyebrows and a square jaw, were moving about and around the ship one day when Billy approached. Maxwell was hosing off the top of one of the small twenty footers with a hose while Luke sat on the dock, dangling his feet over the side. When Billy, in shorts and Frank's Sperry's, approached, they both stopped dead, not even attempting to greet him. "I'd like to join your club." The two looked at each other and then didn't say anything. Billy placed his hands in his pockets and rocked a bit. "I, um... I'm from a ski town, and now that I'm going to SC I'd like to try my hand at sailing." The two looked at each other again, now livening a bit. Maxwell kinked the hose. "A ski town?" "Yeah." "Which one?" "Mammoth. Mammoth, California." "I've been there," Maxwell said. "Who hasn't," Billy replied. So they had him, at which point it was his usual reservation which kept most of the small club from knowing any details that would perhaps enable them to lift a nose at him. Eventually, when they did come to know Billy's background, they had become his friends, making his economic stance but a side-note and his book-smart brilliance, which they also discovered, his own sort of flattery on a plain as high if not higher than those which they stood upon - not to mention that having a beautiful girlfriend was a sort of right of passage to the shallow outfit which, in itself, took its toll on Carrie and Billy. Before Billy had joined the Trojan Yacht and Sailing Club, his time, as was alluded to a little ways back, was a currency that which sat plump in his account. Much of it was invested in his studies, some was wasted away, some was left for games and social occasions, while the large remainder went for the purchase of Carrie's adornment. Billy, while not overtly interested or possessive, was trusting and readily available. In combination with his handsomeness, his unconsciously charming awkwardness and sense of protection he cast, the time he handed over for Carrie kept her devoted and, for the most part, satisfied. So when his expenditures began shifting to cleaning the hulls and decks of the club's two twenty footers, filling that void left by the absence of skiing - ever-deepened by the love of Abigail, Carrie began to fade-off, more often giving in to nights in Hollywood with her girlfriends and, of course, Valentine, and then spilling those Hollywood nights into only Valentine, who she insisted until the last time her and Billy ever spoke was only a good friend. Billy, his hair destroyed; in pajama pants, slippers and a t-shirt, left his dorm early one morning after a restless night to go grab tea. In the lobby he had caught Carrie just arriving home from the previous evening, her hair an equal wreck, her dress ruffled and her pumps in hand. Although he called and texted her repeatedly throughout the night before to no avail, he never felt too worried or jealous, for he had spent the evening at the season-closing pep-rally alone star gazing at his beloved tiny-dancer. But when he saw Carrie that morning, hungover and barely slept, that wretched sensation of betrayal coated his body like a straight-coat. All she could ask is "What?" to the look he cast. "Where were you," he said, rhetorically. "You didn't pick up or anything all night." "My phone died." He didn't erupt. An eruption, perhaps, would've got her back. It wouldn't take much of a fight if he wanted to keep her. But she wasn't his obsession. She never was. So he was only stabbed a bit and nodded, more comfortable with the silence than her. Even the Resident Assistant, sitting behind her desk, turned away. "I'll call you later," is all Carrie said. When Billy continued to the café, he addressed the RA as he passed: "She slept in a battlefield." Maxwell ran and hopped jauntily down along the long cement patio. "Sorry that took so long! I hadn't studied at all!" Grabbing Billy's shoulder, he joined him in observing the dead university. "We've got the whole place to ourselves, it looks like." He then cupped his hands around his mouth and yelled out before smiling at Billy and then yelling out again: "We're outa here!" The two made way down the steps into the courtyard, balancing their ways along small walls and obstacles, plant pots and benches, jumping on and off of them. "Now where are we going? Something about stars or something," Billy asked. "This cool little place up the coast. We're drinking free." Billy stopped. "You never mentioned that!" "No? It never occurred to me I guess," Maxwell said, coursing a small garden's ledge. His real reason, though, for not telling Billy such a detail was that he didn't want Frank slithering his way in. Not that he didn't like him, but simply because he wasn't a member of the club. "What's the occasion?" "Duh, Billy. It's summer. School's out." "Yeah, but..." "It's this old guy's place in Malibu. I mean, it's a restaurant. He helped kick-start our club, like, ten years ago. He always feeds us and gets us drunk after finals." Billy grinned. "I mean, you don't have any plans, do you?" "Just to go back to Mammoth." "Tomorrow or Sunday, yeah?" Now he smirked. "I haven't procrastinated all year. I'll procrastinate now. Besides, I already told you I'd go." "That-a-boy! The old bastard's gonna love you. He hates me." Both jubilant, the two of them reached the end of the courtyard. Turning and facing back at it mid-stride, backpedaling, feeling the straps of their bags until they stopped to take one last look at their campus before what always seemed like the longest season at the start, and by far the shortest upon its close. III The piano seemed as though it was playing behind the evening. Nobody could see it, and nobody would notice it either unless it was to stop. Bob Paxell had years before discovered the perfect volume to which set the Baby-Grand so that it be as such, like the foundation of a building. They cross no one's mind; people could go their whole lives not thinking about the foundations holding their homes, their offices, their restaurants and their bars and dance-floors secure below their shoes. So they dance upon them - just as they did in Moonshadows affront and upon that lovely, rainy trickle keeping the steps without admittance the whole night through. So when removed, the setting becomes almost like an entirely different day and an entirely different place just as to remove a foundation of a building would be to compromise such an unconscious, unknown, illustrious security. A blankness falls between the silences of exchange, and then a reality creeps in and then an obligatory voice whispering each guest to go home... Yet the piano was all Billy heard when he was stunned by the peripheral sight of her. The piano was at his forefront of things, only muffled in the curdling of rushed blood around his ears. He had an empty glass in his hand. A thick strand of hair had fallen away from the rest of it, slicked back and shiny, across his eyes. He had been doing something - he was serving someone a drink, perhaps. But that had all since vanished. His focus was wrecked. He seemed frozen. Scott, who had a year or so before gone back to going by his proper name, who tonight shared the main bar with Billy, was leaning against it a little ways down, entertaining a few business-men types who had just arrived. They were all smiling at Billy as Scott sardonically grinned smart-ass jokes at him. "That's Billy," he said. "He's supposedly the best, by far hardest working guy working here, but at the moment I don't think he even knows where he is." The business-men laughed. One of them even attempted to include his self into the roast. "You alright, man - " Scott cut him off, though, from saying anything more. " Dude," he said towards Billy, "What are you doing?" Billy didn't respond, but instead reluctantly began turning his head the opposite direction, toward the beautiful girl being greeted by a handful of people beyond the far end of his side of the bar. With only his head facing her direction, he peered at her as if something forbidden, ready to at any moment spin his gaze away. She was being greeted with hugs and exchanging pecks cheek to cheek just in from the entrance by an assortment of people mostly older than her, accenting the vibrancy of her appearance by a communal dimness in fashion so that she seemed to pop like a rose blowing in a heap of ash. "You must be admiring her dress," a voice more near his end of the bar casually said, coming out of the trickle to Billy with a nostalgic sound equivocal to the appearance of his almost was . It was perhaps the only voice that so effortlessly could've retrieved Billy's attention in so captivated a moment. Billy looked its way. Leaning against the bar was Mr. Harding. "Oh! Hello, sir," Billy said, immediately recognizing him. Mr. Harding nodded as Billy gestured to shake his hand which he immediately halted upon realizing that Mr. Harding hadn't recognized him. It had been four years, after all. "She's going to New York next week to live. She'll travel, but that's where she's going to live. beautiful, isn't she." Billy looked her way again, more composed now, and nodded back at Mr. Harding. "Very," he said. "Would you like a drink?" "Belvedere rocks, please." As Billy poured the drink - the vodka like a smoother looking kind of water splashing over the ice cubes, reflecting the soft lights of the place in a scrambled array around the shining glass, he felt rather glad that Mr. Harding hadn't recognized him. Despite not having seen him since that night five years before on the docks, Billy still regarded him as one of the foremost people he'd like to impress. Not only that, but he also felt an obligation to make up for any offense or insult or disrespect he caused him on that night. Then again, he didn't want to overestimate himself by addressing an incident that Mr. Harding may had long forgotten, and therefore seem somewhat weird or awkward in seeming to have held on to such an issue for so long. Billy slid Mr. Harding the drink. He was still watching his daughter smile and nod, shake hands, hug and laugh. "Thank you, son." Billy gestured her direction. "She's popular." "Oh, yes." Billy smiled. "You must've had guys knocking down your door." Mr. Harding, leaning low and relaxed against the bar, his ever-thinning hair slicked back, looked up at Billy and grinned and nodded. "She's got a younger sister too. The shotgun was in play double time." "How much younger?" "A little more than a year. Her mother and I wanted to keep them close." Billy nodded. Mr. Harding looked back her way. "If you look closely at her, you can tell how much she'd rather be doing something else right now. She's really sincere, so she hates having to act a part." Another business-looking man holding a woman around the waist was attempting to get Billy's attention a couple feet down the bar-top. Billy excused himself and attended to them, returning to Mr. Harding quickly after. "Would you like to keep a tab, sir? Casually reaching for his wallet, Mr. Harding looked closely at Billy. "Do I know you, son?" Billy looked down at himself, becoming a bit self-conscious, and then smiled a little nervously, looking to Mr. Harding as if jostled by being put on the spot and knowing all the while the truth of the matter. "I don't think so, no," he said, retrieving the credit card. He could see that Mr. Harding was thinking on it, so Billy disrupted him. "Perhaps from here." "I've only been here a couple times," he said, shaking his head. "Well maybe that's it." "A couple times over the last twenty years," he said, half laughing. Then after thinking a moment more, Mr. Harding began nodding. "Yeah. Probably." "Mr. Harding!" A voice suddenly blurted. Scott walked over, holding out his hand at Mr. Harding. "Scott Franklin. I'm a Sigma Nu. I've met you a ton of times at the Sailing Serpents socials." As Billy cringed, immediately attending to other patrons, Mr. Harding extended his hand to Scott. "Yes! Look at you!" "How are you, Mr. Harding?" "Things are well, very well - " Billy, although in the middle of serving a round of drinks to a handful of people, was entirely honed in to Scott and Mr. Harding a little ways down the bar. It was
 
Oleg Kozlovsky: Medvedev Imposes Control Over Russian History Top
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. 1984 Russia now has its own little Ministry of Truth. Dmitry Medvedev issued the decree to create a new body with a long but meaningful name: the Presidential Commission for Prevention of Falsification of History to the Prejudice of Russia's Interest. This Commission will monitor "attempts to falsify historical facts and events" that may undermine "the international prestige of the Russian Federation" and coordinate efforts of government institutions of "adequate response to... and neutralization" of such attempts. 26 of 29 members of the Commission are either public servants or represent state bodies (or both), including FSB and SVR (External Intelligence Service). Head of Medvedev's Administration will be the Chairman of the Commission. Only two professional historians are going to participate, both representing the semi-governmental Russian Academy of Science. Although the Commission has no legal authority, there is no doubt that it may be very powerful thanks to its high status. Powerful -- and useful for dealing with unwanted ideas. Since "falsification of history" is a very vague definition, their field of work is only limited by their own fantasy. Two topics are almost sure to be the first on the Commission's agenda: Holodomor (famine in Ukraine and some other parts of the USSR, reportedly planned and organized by Stalin) and the occupation of Baltic states by the USSR. But soon, more subjects are probably to come. Russia's newest history textbooks call Stalin an "efficient manager" and his mass political repressions "side effects of modernization". KGB is rehabilitated and its proud successor FSB is the most powerful state agency. Any attempt to argue against these axioms will undoubtedly be considered a "falsification of history" and equated with a thought-crime. More on Russia
 
George Lakoff: Why Environmental Understanding, or "Framing," Matters: An Evaluation of the EcoAmerica Summary Report Top
EcoAmerica is soon to make public a report on the framing of the environment called "Climate and Energy Truths: Our Common Future." The New York Times , on May 1, 2009, ran a front-page story on the report by John M. Broder called " Seeking to save the Planet, with a Thesaurus ." It amounted to a belittlement of the report. Broder quoted Drexel University Professor Robert J. Brulle as saying that "ecoAmerica's campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. 'The form is the same; the message is just flipped,' he said. 'You want to sell toothpaste, we'll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we'll sell that. It's the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.'" The story missed most of the main issues, but at least it was on the front page. Broder, a fine environmental policy reporter, did his best with a very limited understanding of framing. I am glad that Broder and the Times saw that the issue is significant enough for the front page. This is an attempt to make better sense of that story. Framing is Understanding How the environment is understood by the American public is crucial: it vastly affects the future of our earth and every living being on it. The technical term for understanding within the cognitive sciences is "framing." We think, mostly unconsciously, in terms of systems of structures called "frames." Each frame is a neural circuit, physically in our brains. We use our systems of frame-circuitry to understand everything, and we reason using frame-internal logics. Frame systems are organized in terms of values, and how we reason reflects our values, and our values determine our sense of identity. In short, framing is a big-deal. All of our language is defined in terms of our frame-circuitry. Words activate that circuitry, and the more we hear the words, the stronger their frames get. But if our language does not fit our frame circuitry, it will not be understood, or will be misunderstood. That is why it matters how we talk about our environment. But the frame circuitry in our brains doesn't change overnight. Just using the language of scientific facts and figures does not mean that the significance -- especially the moral significance -- of those facts and figures will be understood. That moral significance can only be communicated honestly and effectively using the language of value-based frames, preferably frames already there in the minds of the public. What makes this hard is that there are two competing valued-based systems of frames operating in our politics, one progressive and one conservative. Parts of the conservative framing system is actually at odds with a realistic understanding of the environmental problems facing us. For many years, the powerful conservative Republican messaging system in the country has communicated a greatly misleading picture to the public, successfully getting their frame-circuits established in the brains of a large proportion of the public. Meanwhile, the environmental movement and the Democrats have done a less-than-sterling job of communicating the reality of what we all face. Luckily, a large proportion of the public has versions of both conservative and progressive value-systems in their brains, applying to different issues. Many Americans are conservative on some issues and progressive on others. It would be nice if political value systems were not involved here, but they are. The good news is that it may be possible to activate a realistic view of our situation by using the fact that many swing voters and even many Republicans are partially progressive, from the perspective of the value-systems already in place in their brains. If we are to talk about the environment effectively, we need to make use of this neural fact to bring about a true understanding of our situation through honest communication. What the Times Missed The summary report, commissioned and publicly presented by Bob Perkowitz of ecoAmerica, discussed the results of message research done by Celinda Lake and Drew Westen. Lake is one of the most prominent Democratic pollsters and Westen, a psychology professor at Emory University, is the author of the excellent book, The Political Brain . These are people to be taken seriously. They had been asked how environmentalists should be responding to right-wing attacks on climate and energy issues. What about Robert J. Brulle? He is a sociologist who has written studies about the sociological divisions in the environmental movement. He seems unaware of the extensive research on framing in the cognitive sciences. He comes from a social movement tradition that uses the concept of "discursive frames," which are conscious and superficial, though not inaccurate. He discusses movements that have different "discourses," -- preservation versus conservation, versus deep ecology, versus environmental justice, versus ecofeminism, and so on. Correct but superficial, not at all getting to what values are the same across these social movements. Nothing about unconscious value systems and frames physically realized as neural networks in the brain. And nothing about how to respond to the Right's attacks. Of course, Brulle would see Westen and Lake as selling toothpaste. And not surprisingly, Broder, a reporter on environmental policy not cognitive science, would miss the brain-based determinants of public understanding. Brulle and Broder are both fine folks with all-too-common limits on what they understand about how brains work. Unfortunately, the ecoAmerica report plays into that misunderstanding. Much of the report uses the language, not of understanding the significance of the scientific facts and figures, but of sleazy marketing: "winning messages," "appeal to," "generate positive emotional responses," "Americans like ...," "top messages beat ..." The framing report could have been framed better. What Westen and Lake Get Right I've spent a number of years studying, writing, and speaking publicly about environmental communications, based on results from the cognitive sciences. Westen, in his contribution to the report, makes many of the same observations: speak the truth, stick to the high ground, play offense not defense, appeal to the best in people. Most people don't understand all the facts and figures thrown at them. People think in terms of fundamental values like freedom and responsibility, and themes that are close to their everyday lives, like health, jobs, and their children's future. Polluting fuels are dirty, both physically and morally, and should be called that. I'm delighted to see these basic observations from the cognitive sciences finally getting applied. I don't agree with all their conclusions and language recommendations, but that is beside the point. They do get a lot right. It is about time. They deserve real credit. An Unfortunate Diagram Unfortunately, one of the things Westen and Lake get right is in an incomprehensible diagram on the back page: an explanation of why discussions of climate fail. It is hidden in a discussion of "associations," an inadequate way of discussing the public's frame-based logic. Climate and weather are usually understood as beyond immediate causation, something you are subject to, but can't just go out and change right away. Climate is not directly and causally connected to the values that underlie our concerns about our planet's future: empathy, responsibility, freedom, and our ability to thrive. They try to say that in the diagram, but the arrows and lines don't communicate it. What Westen and Lake Miss The right wing has spent billions of dollars over decades on a widespread system of think tanks, language experts, training institutes for speakers, grassroots organizing, buying media, computer communications, and the daily booking of speakers in the media across the country. They have worked long-term at a deep level. They have gotten their deepest values into the brains of tens of millions of Americans. The Westen-Lake messaging approach is short-term; something that can be said straightforwardly tomorrow. Much of the argumentation is sensible. Nonetheless, there are huge holes, though they are much more difficult to deal with and one can understand why Westen and Lake didn't go there. Here is what is missing. First, the public's very understanding of nature has to change. We are part of nature; nature is not separate from us. Nature nurtures us. The destructive exploitation of nature is evil. What is good is the use of nature that doesn't use up nature. Second, the economic and ecological meltdowns have the same cause: the unregulated free market and the idea that greed is good and that the natural world is a resource for short-term private enrichment. The result has been deadly, toxic assets and a toxic atmosphere. Third, the global economy and ecology are both systems. Global causes are systemic, not local. Global risk is systemic, not local. The localization of causation and risk is what has brought about our twin disasters. We have to think in global, system terms and we don't do so naturally. That is why a massive communications effort is needed. Fourth, the Right's economic arguments need to be countered. Is it too expensive to save the earth? How could it be? If the earth goes, business goes. Fifth, we are the polar bears. Human existence is threatened, and the existence of most living beings on earth. Sixth, we own the air jointly and we can't transfer ownership. Polluting corporations are dumping pollution into our air. They need to gradually be made to stop, two-percent less a year for 40 years: that is what a "cap" on carbon dioxide pollution is about. And meanwhile the polluters should pay us dumping fees to offset the cost of fuel increases and pay for the development of better fuels. Seventh, even the most successful emissions cap would only take us halfway. Business needs to do its part to take us the rest of the way. Large corporations need to face up to reality and join in the effort. Finally, for those in the business world: Corporate interests are constantly putting forth arguments based on cost-benefit analysis. But the very mathematics of cost-benefit analysis is anti-ecological; the equations themselves are destructive of the earth. The basic math uses subtraction: the benefits minus the costs summed over time indefinitely. Now those "benefits" and "costs" are seen in monetary terms, as if all values involving the future of the earth were monetary. As any economist knows, future money is worth less than present money. How much less? The equation has a factor that tells you how much: e (2.781828...) to the power minus-d times t, where t is time and d is the discount rate. Now e to a negative power gets very small very fast. Just how fast depends on the exact discount rate (that is, interest rate), but any reasonable one is a disaster. The equation says that, in a fairly short time, any monetary benefits compared to costs will tend to zero. That says there are no long-term benefits to saving the earth! Cost-benefit analysis is just the wrong paradigm for thinking about global warming. Those are among the big ideas that have to be understood by the public. Language is needed, imagery is needed -- whatever will communicate the significance of the truth. Ideas like these have to be repeated over and over. Liberals don't like repetition, but that's what it takes. Why? Because that's how brains work. The ecoAmerica report, when it appears, should be taken seriously -- and critically. The issues the report raises are too important to be belittled. More on Climate Change
 
Why Iranians Want Nukes: Analysis Top
In their talks today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama will no doubt have discussed the uncomfortable subject of Iran. More on Iran
 
Rob Perks: Defending the Climate Against Dirty Fuels Top
" The U.S. should not pursue energy options inconsistent with the national response to climate change." That is the sober -- and welcome -- conclusion of a new report by the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), entitled Powering America's Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security . The report, written by a dozen retired generals and admirals, explores the national security implications of America's energy policy choices.  It is a follow-up to CAN's groundbreaking 2007 report National Security and the Threat of Climate Change , which found that "climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges." This new report focuses on the following: security risks inherent in our current energy posture; energy choices the nation can make to enhance our national security; the impact of climate change on our energy choices and our national security; and the role the Department of Defense can play in the nation's approach to energy security and climate change. To summarize, the report's "Roadmap for Energy Security" makes the following recommendations: Priority 1: Energy security and climate change goals should be clearly integrated into national security and military planning processes. Priority 2: DoD should design and deploy systems to reduce the burden that inefficient energy use places on our troops as they engage overseas. Priority 3: DoD should understand its use of energy at all levels of operations. DoD should know its carbon bootprint . Priority 4: DoD should transform its use of energy at installations through aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency, smart grid technologies, and electrification of its vehicle fleet. Priority 5: DoD should expand the adoption of distributed and renewable energy generation at its installations. Priority 6: DoD should transform its long-term operational energy posture through investments in low-carbon liquid fuels that satisfy military performance requirements. Given the U.S. military's push for unsustainable high-carbon fuel alternatives during the Bush administration -- most notably the Air Force's quixotic quest for liquid coal -- it is refreshing and reassuring to see that "green" no longer just applies to the color of our warriors' uniforms.  Since global warming poses a direct threat to America's national security it makes perfect sense to avoid jumping from the frying pan into the fire via dirty fuels that only exacerbate the climate crisis.  Rather than wasting tax dollars on dirty, costly, and unsafe technologies like tar sands , oil shale , and liquid coal , our nation should be harnessing our greatest resource -- our American ingenuity -- to create a secure energy future based on never-ending supplies of energy like wind, solar, and geothermal that will keep the air we breathe clean, the water we drink safe and our country prosperous. With CAN's expert analysis, and the climate advocacy of a host of old and new veterans groups and security hawks, the voice of our military leaders matters more than ever.  We salute these allies for engaging with us to protect the planet and we welcome them to the fight against dirty fuels .   This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog . More on Energy
 
T.C. Conroy: It's All in Your Head: Who's Your Internal Director? Top
At a very young age, I came to realize that there are people in the world who will work against me and that I don't need to be one of them, working against myself. This knowing led me to believe that one of the most important relationships you will ever have in this life is the relationship you have with yourself. My hunch is that most people spend more time thinking about their hair than they do on building a healthy relationship with their internal self. EVERYTHING comes from inside of you. Every thought you think, every feeling you have, and every experience that comes into your life is generated by you. Your level of happiness and well-being is solely dependent on you. You will be how happy and well you think you are. If you want to feel good, it is crucial that you understand powerful connection between thought, feeling, and outcome. Where do you live? Where do we all live? We live inside of our heads; our mind is the filter through which we process everything that takes place in our lives. I encourage you to take a moment to ponder this sentence; your mind is the filter through which you process EVERYTHING that takes place in your life. That's heavy, right? Every thought, every feeling, every experience and every emotion gets run through the filter of your mind. The average human thinks over 12 thousand thoughts per day, which breaks down to 500 thoughts per minute. And for many people, that internal voice that it your constant companion can also be your worst enemy, bombarding you with negative fear filled messages and limiting beliefs. Philosophers to therapists, religious theorists to 12-step programs have all devised tangible ways to understand exactly what that talking voice is inside our heads. Ids, egos, first-self, second-me, your guardian angel, the devil, the committee inside your brain and so forth - we could spend forever going over and debating the issue, so I just want to break it down to the simplest of terms and start by asking you these questions: 1.Who is directing your life story? 2. When you talk to yourself, what are you saying? 3. Are you acting or reacting to these thoughts? An easy way to think about it is via what most of us know: the world of movies. If the film is helmed by a great director, all the players feel safe and protected and give the best performances. When Steven Spielberg is in charge, you know you will get a great result. When you step up and become your own A-list director, you will develop positive self-esteem, refuse to call yourself names, no longer put up with putdowns or hold onto limiting beliefs. A person with a great director is lead in a positive way: holds themselves in high regard, genuinely loves her/himself in a healthy way that is motivating, giving the courage needed to succeed. Of course, this person will experience fear and doubt, but the fear and doubt is not in control. The director will be motivational and supportive in a way that allows space and forgiveness for human fear and the ability to go forward in spite of it. This person believes that there is success in every action. The only failure for this person is inaction. If your director isn't an A-lister then give him a pink slip and hire a new one! With awareness + consistency you can re-program the neurological pathways in your mind. From this moment on, refuse to speak down to yourself, treat yourself with the same kindness, dignity and respect that you would give to a person you love. Old Model: My director (mind) runs free, thinking and saying whatever it wants. New Model: I am in control of my thoughts and I refuse to believe thoughts that are negative or limiting. When you've hired the right director, you will be able to turn out award winning performances scene after scene! More on Relationships
 
Extremists Threaten To Unseat Mainstream Rivals In European Parliament Top
From Stockholm to Sardinia, Waterford to Warsaw, a noisy and eclectic band of nationalists and eurosceptics are on the campaign trail hoping to unseat their mainstream rivals in the European Parliament. Dutch anti-Islamists, Hungarian nationalists, Italian separatists and an Irish-backed anti-Lisbon Treaty party are all clamouring for seats when Europe goes to the polls between 4 and 7 June. And a combination of dismally low voter turnout and the economic downturn looks set to play into their hands in the vote. Job losses and the grimmest economic forecasts in decades have created the ideal conditions for single-issue candidates and marginal groups hostile to the EU to win seats in the Strasbourg assembly. "It's a worrying trend" says Urszula Gacek, a centre-right Polish MEP whose country is itself home to several arch-conservative Catholic parties and headed by a eurosceptic President, Lech Kaczynski. "The extremists are better at mobilising their voters, by playing on citizens' fears and talking up the need for protectionism and the closing of borders." Many, like Ms Gacek, view the possible arrivals from the extreme fringes of the political landscape with a trepidation bordering on fear, fretting that their new fellow parliamentarians will attempt to hobble the workings and powers of the institution to which they are seeking election. "It is bad enough having our sessions broken up by anti-EU ranters from the United Kingdom Independence Party [Ukip], but what if these people actually get power now?," says one Portuguese deputy. During their last pre-election session of parliament in Strasbourg, chatter about the looming changes to the balance of power dominated the corridors. Over glasses of wine in the parliament's bars, politicians pondered about possible alliances to disrupt the traditional dominance of the centre-right and the socialists. One prospect is the establishment of a new eurosceptic faction, thanks to the British Conservatives' much criticised plan to abandon the powerful centre-right, umbrella grouping European People's Party. The Conservatives are now reportedly seeking to team up with Irish businessman Declan Ganley's Libertas, a pan-European movement set up specifically with the ambition of derailing the Lisbon Treaty. More worrying is the threat from the far-right, which could well include the British National Party (BNP). The BNP is poised to win at least one seat and has been seeking "greater co-operation between European nationalists". Last month, Nazi salutes greeted the BNP's deputy leader, Simon Darby, at a far-right rally in Milan, organised by Roberto Fiore, an Italian MEP and head of Forza Nuova, which seeks the expulsion of about 150,000 Roma gypsies from Italy. "It's really very ironic that these groups have decided to go European, given that they are all basically campaigning against the EU," says the Green Party's co-president Monica Frassoni. But she points out that these parties are so rooted in domestic politics that Romanian and Hungarian groups campaigning on an anti-Roma gypsy ticket are unlikely to get into bed with, for instance, the Vlaams Belang, which wants independence for Flanders. "I can't see how they will organise themselves into a credible new faction given the complete disarray and isolation they've faced before." A new party of far-right groups, Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty, collapsed spectacularly just weeks after its creation in 2007, when Italy's Allessandra Mussolini hurled verbal abuse at her "scum" Romanian colleagues, and Poles were left fuming over Austrian mutterings about the need to change the Polish-German border - a far cry from the cosy European spirit that has seen even British members grow used to kissing their foreign colleagues on both cheeks. "Inevitably it all dissolved into a shambles and now they will never make up the numbers they need to create a new political entity," says Andrew Duff, a British Liberal MEP, referring to recent changes to triple to 28 the minimum number of politicians needed to form a viable political grouping. Only a group can wield power at the parliament, he says, as they can chair committees and sway voting. "Independent members count for nothing, which is why the risk posed by these extremists is in reality so insignificant." At the other end of the scale, the parliament risks being seen as a depository for outlandish wannabes or failed has-beens. France's fallen political star, the former justice minister Rachida Dati (UMP), can at least boast cabinet experience, unlike the string of female soap-opera starlets and models being fielded by Italy's Silvio Berlusconi for his centre-right party, to the outrage of his wife, who last week filed for divorce, calling the move "shameless". In Britain, the former Apprentice star and Met Office worker Katie Hopkins announced she will stand as the sole candidate for the Katie Olivia Hopkins Independent Party in Exeter. "It makes us look like a bunch of amateurs," said one Dutch MEP. Although the parliament has massively increased its powers since it became a democratically elected chamber three decades ago and now wields its zeal for regulation wherever it can, the world's only trans-national parliament still leaves most Europeans cold: two-thirds say they know little or next to nothing about what it does and only one-third plan to vote next month, one poll found. "Everyone is worrying about the economic crisis, but people don't necessarily believe that the parliament can address it," says Ms Frassoni. Its 785 MEPs like to blame the media for the plummeting public interest, accusing it of failing to report on its achievements in swaying legislation on issues as diverse as working hours for employees, EU environmental targets and mobile phone roaming charges. Instead, the assembly's reputation is all-too-frequently dogged by scandals over MEP allowances and the extravagant idiosyncrasy of being the only parliament in the world with two houses. MEPs and armies of assistants and translators leave the gleaming steel-and-glass hemisphere in Brussels once a month to travel several hundred miles to Strasbourg for a four-day plenary session in a time-honoured practice branded the "travelling circus', "Euro gravy train" or any variation of the two. The monthly move to France of thousands of staff wheeling boxes of documents as well as the upkeep of a state-of-the-art premises which stands mostly empty costs European taxpayers about €200m a year. Even if Strasbourg's restaurants buzz with the nightly patronage of the MEPs during sessions, many elected representatives don't even bother to show up. "We had around 150 colleagues missing during the last session, which is completely unacceptable and dangerous as it skews voting results." says the British Liberal MEP Andrew Duff. "Some Mediterraneans hardly ever show their face". Others seethe with frustration at the parliament's reluctance to self-reform. "In the past, Strasbourg was a symbol of Franco-German reconciliation. Now it's a symbol of waste," says Alexander Alvaro, a German Liberal MEP who wants to scrap the Strasbourg location - a historic arrangement enshrined in EU treaties. However, there are signs the European Parliament is getting the message. New rules on allowances will curb some of the excess. And if Ireland passes the Lisbon Treaty in a second referendum in the autumn, Strasbourg will be conferred with a greater say over justice, immigration and foreign policy, rather than wasting its breath on passing resolutions on matters beyond its remit. Ironically, the europhobes and extremists may find themselves wielding real power rather than just disrupting hand-wringing debates on the situation in Burma or the disappearance of the brown bear. Related article: Mary Dejevsky: My generation has failed to promote vision of Europe Read more from the Independent. Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Europe
 
Arrest Ordered For Colleen Hauser, Mom Of Boy Resisting Chemo Top
NEW ULM, Minn. — A judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of a 13-year-old boy resisting chemotherapy after the pair missed a court hearing on his welfare. Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel Hauser be placed in protective custody so he can get proper medical treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma. The cancer is considered highly curable with proper treatment, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment and with his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son. The family was due in court Tuesday to tell the judge results of a chest X-ray and arrangements for an oncologist. But Daniel's father was the only one who appeared. He told Rodenberg he last saw Colleen Hauser on Monday evening. "She said she was going to leave," Hauser testified. "She said, `That's all you need to know.' And that's all I know." He said his wife left her cell phone at home. The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that Daniel's tumor has grown and he needs immediate assessment by a pediatric cancer doctor. Joyce said he examined Daniel on Monday, with an X-ray showing that his tumor had grown to the size it was when he was first diagnosed. "He had basically gotten back all the trouble he had in January," the doctor said. Daniel was accompanied by his mother and Susan Daya, who Joyce said was an attorney from California. Joyce testified that he offered to make appointments for Daniel with oncologists at Children's Hospital, the University of Minnesota, Mayo Clinic or elsewhere, but the Hausers declined. He also said he tried to give Daniel more information about lymphoma but that Daya, Daniel and his mother left in a rush. "Under Susan Daya's urging, they indicated they had other places to go," Joyce said. Daya did not immediately return a page left on her cell phone Tuesday by The Associated Press. Her voice mailbox was full. Besides examining Daniel's chest X-ray, Joyce also said he asked Daniel how he was feeling. The doctor said the boy told him he had pain on the right side of his chest, which Daniel rated a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. Joyce said the pain was around the port that was inserted into Daniel's chest to administer chemotherapy. He attributed the pain to the growing tumor, which is pushing the port out of place. Daniel also told the doctor he had a cough, though he wasn't having any trouble breathing, Joyce said. Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Phil Elbert, asked Joyce if Daniel was at risk of substantial physical harm if no action is taken. The doctor said yes. In his ruling last week, Rodenberg wrote that he would not order chemotherapy if Daniel's prognosis was poor. But if the outlook was good, it appeared chemotherapy and possibly radiation was in the boy's best interest, he wrote. Daniel's lymphoma was diagnosed in January, and six rounds of chemotherapy were recommended. Daniel underwent one round in February but stopped after that single treatment. He and his parents sought other opinions, but the doctors agreed with the initial assessment. Colleen Hauser testified at the earlier hearing that her son "is not in any medical danger." She said she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives. Rodenberg wrote that state statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough. He also wrote that Daniel, who cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill. Daniel testified that he believed the chemo would kill him and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them." The Hausers, who have eight children, are Roman Catholic. They also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.
 
Italy's Iran Visit Will Break With EUP Policy Of Shunning High-Level Contact Top
Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, plans to break with European Union policy of shunning high-level contact with Iran by flying to Tehran on Wednesday for talks on the Islamic republic's strategic role in the region and possible openings for direct engagement with the US. More on Italy
 
The Progress Report: The Road To Slashing Emissions Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Pat Garofalo To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Today, President Obama will unveil "the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks," a move that Sierra Club President Carl Pope says is "one of the most significant efforts undertaken by any president, ever, to end our addiction to oil and seriously slash our global warming emissions." Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign calls it "single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions." The Obama administration will also raise fuel efficiency targets so that by 2016, cars and light trucks will have an average mile requirement of 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2016. For 2009 model cars, the average fuel efficiency is 25 mpg. "The projected oil savings of this program over the life of this program is 1.8 billion barrels of oil," announced a senior administration official on a conference call with reporters last night. "The program is also projected to achieve reductions of 900 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions under the life of the program. That is equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road or shutting down 194 coal plants." Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Daniel J. Weiss called today's announcement a "triple play" because it will "help move America off foreign oil, save families money, and spur American businesses to take the lead in developing the job-creating, clean-energy technologies of the future." CLEANER, MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT CARS: In 2006, cars, light trucks, and other vehicles accounted for nearly 24 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with 94 percent as carbon dioxide. Today's announcement stems from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said President Bush's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had violated the Clean Air Act by failing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The Obama administration plans "a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, roughly the equivalent of what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. Vehicles sold in 2009 are expected to emit about 380 grams per mile, industry sources said." As a result of these new emission limits and mileage standards, "cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016." In yesterday's White House press briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that today's announcement would help end the American "crisis" in the "emission of dangerous greenhouse gases" and "our dangerous dependence on foreign oil." GOOD NEWS FOR STATES: Under the Bush administration, states fought to impose tougher vehicle emission standards on their own. But in 2008, the White House pushed EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson -- against the advice of EPA staffers -- to deny California a waiver that would have allowed 16 states to implement these landmark reductions. Basically, the Bush administration refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously forbidding other states to do so on their own. The Washington Post reports that "[s]ources close" to the Obama administration say it will now be issuing California a waiver at the end of June, but state officials have agreed to "not exercise it in light of the new national standards," which are very close to what California had proposed. Even more important, California's stringent plans for a 30 percent reduction in emissions will now be extended to the rest of the country. While California made modest concessions in today's deal, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called it "good news for all of us who have fought long and hard to reduce global warming pollution, create clean energy jobs, and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil." A BROAD COALITION: At today's announcement, the Obama administration will be joined by "groups that are normally aligned against each other," as Gibbs told reporters yesterday. There will be environmentalists, state officials such as Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), union officials, and industry executives. "It launches a new beginning," added David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "The president has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table." In fact, the auto industry plans to drop all lawsuits challenging stricter emission standards because the Obama administration's plan provides "the single national efficiency standard they have long desired, a reasonable timetable to meet it and the certainty they need to proceed with product development plans." But McCurdy told The Progress Report that national standards are only the first step. The next steps require "a comprehensive mix of support for new technologies, investment in infrastructure, and smart regulation." "After all, it's going to take a lot of efficient vehicles to make a dent in total emissions," he added. "So, we hope politicians will commit to providing real incentives that enable consumers to quickly adopt those newer, more efficient vehicles."
 
John Kenagy: To Fix Healthcare, Let's Not Just Rearrange the Deck Chairs on the Titanic Top
As physician, healthcare executive, academic scholar, author, advisor and, most importantly, a patient, I propose the answer to our current healthcare dilemma starts with a laser-like focus on getting patients exactly what they need at continually lower cost. But current healthcare proposals are offering more of the same. Over the last 40 years, I have heard that we shall transform healthcare by the exact same solutions proffered to Congress by health care industry leaders this week: simplifying administrative costs, making hospitals more efficient, reducing hospitalizations, managing chronic illnesses more effectively and improving health-care information technology. Yogi Berra said it best: "It's déjà vu all over again." We are not going to transform healthcare by trying harder at 1978 ideas. Trying harder will instead deliver exactly what it has already delivered -- less care at higher cost Trying harder is simply rearranging a few more deck chairs on the Titanic -- it might improve the appearance of the healthcare ship, but it will continue to leak and it will inevitably sink. The recent announcement of the eminent insolvency of Medicare Part B suggests our Titanic is taking on water a lot faster than we anticipated and we have a limited number of very antiquated lifeboats with which to save ourselves. We better start building a few more lifeboats fast. Fortunately, there is a simple set of principles for building more lifeboats and eventually constructing a much better healthcare ship. To begin, we must recognize that healthcare transformation is not dependent on what we have done in the past or are doing now, but rather on how we adapt what we are doing to a constantly changing environment. We also must recognize that the structures and systems of current organizations and the habits, behaviors and values of the people embedded within them will usually slow, stall and stop adaptive change. This is an organizational fact of life developed by Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen in his concept of disruptive innovation, and most of us have experienced it. Therefore, healthcare transformation begins with those few organizations strategically and operationally "designed to adapt." These organizations have incredible competitive advantage in a rapidly changing world. They represent the opportunity. They are where we will make the new lifeboats for our sinking ship. Christensen says it is almost impossible for an established organization to lead disruptive change. But, if it's "almost impossible," that means it's possible. It means that we can expand the adaptive potential of established organizations, and in doing so, expand the possible solutions for healthcare. How do we build adaptive organizations? We follow the methods that create great innovations. In healthcare, these methods have been proven to work in many organizations. Here's what the process looks like: 1. Find a place to start close to the patient. 2. Focus exclusively on getting patients exactly what they need at continually lower cost. 3. When that fails to happen, understand why and then rapidly problem-solve the system. 4. Use discipline and structure to rigorously test and validate the solutions. 5. Develop the knowledge and creativity to replicate what works as rapidly as possible. Working adaptively means developing, leading and challenging the knowledge, creativity and problem solving ability at the point of care, not by sending more data up and implementing more big solutions down, as we have been doing for 40 years. This time, rather than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, let's develop, coordinate and control problem solving and improvement where the information already is -- in the workplace, at the point of care. This isn't to say government has no role in transforming health care. Becoming more adaptive requires organizations to work differently and that requires strong leadership. Government can help by creating the safe harbors that encourage adaptive work. It can build the places where management, caregivers, unions, insurance, industry, employers and patients can come together to learn to work differently. But government must be willing to adapt its role. If it does more of the same, we'll all drown. Dr. John Kenagy MD, MPA is a former Visiting Scholar at Harvard Business School and the author of the forthcoming book Designed to Adapt: Leading Healthcare in Challenging Times (Second River Healthcare Press, 2009).
 
2013 Super Bowl To Be In New Orleans Top
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — New Orleans is a Super Bowl city again. NFL owners voted Tuesday to play the 2013 Super Bowl in New Orleans, the first time the championship game will be played there since Hurricane Katrina shredded parts of the Louisiana Superdome. The hurricane caused 1,600 deaths and devastated the Gulf Coast four years ago. New Orleans beat out Miami _ which sought a record 11th Super Bowl _ and 2008 host Glendale, Ariz., for the game. This is the 10th time New Orleans will be the site for the Super Bowl. "It's a great day for our community," Saints owner Tom Benson said as he walked onto an elevator at a South Florida hotel, on his way to the formal announcement. New Orleans last hosted in 2002, when Adam Viniateri's 48-yard field goal as time expired lifted New England over St. Louis. Still unclear: Where will the 2013 Pro Bowl be played? It's coming to Miami a week before this coming season's Super Bowl, then going back to Hawaii in 2011 and 2012. It was not part of the bidding process for the 2013 Super Bowl. "Where it (the Pro Bowl) goes after 2012 is something we'll decide later on," said Frank Supovitz, the NFL's senior vice president for events. Louisiana lawmakers have already approved plans to spend $85 million in Superdome upgrades, which would be completed in time for the 2013 NFL title game. The upgrades would include additional seating, new suites, wider concourses and other measures for the New Orleans Saints to generate new revenue streams. The Superdome played an iconic role during Katrina, which struck the city in August 2005. It was an evacuation center during the storm, housing thousands of people who had nowhere else to go, and the devastation was nightmarish. Within days, the building was tattered, filthy inside from mold, debris and raw sewage. Over the next year, the Superdome was rebuilt, and slowly, New Orleans has tried to get back to what it once was. The stories of suffering are still everywhere _ even now, some who lost nearly everything in 2005 are fighting to keep their federally provided trailers a bit longer. One thing is back to normal: New Orleans still knows how to host an event. College football's national championship game was played there in 2008, followed about six weeks later by the NBA All-Star game. Arizona also failed in bids for the 2011 and 2012 Super Bowls, which were awarded to new stadiums in North Texas and Indianapolis, respectively. More on Sports
 
Lisa Jackson Says Everyone Benefits From New Fuel Standards (VIDEO) Top
EPA Administrator answered questions about the new fuel regulations on Fox Business News today. Among the anchors' concerns: Will consumers buy into higher fuel standards? Will the automakers be able to handle higher standards? WATCH: More on Cars
 
10-Year-Old Expelled For Bringing Unloaded Gun To School Top
A 10-year-old boy who brought a handgun to school in his backpack and showed it to friends Friday at Mary Seat of Wisdom School in Park Ridge has been expelled, parish officials said today.
 
Jane Levere: Kelli O'Hara on the Pleasures of Pregnancy Top
The cockeyed optimist portrayed by Kelli O'Hara in her starring role as Nellie Forbush in the Lincoln Center Theater revival of South Pacific doesn't seem to be entirely an act. O'Hara, an Oklahoma native who is expecting her first child this summer with her husband, singer Greg Naughton, waxed rhapsodic recently about her pregnancy and how it has changed her voice and made her a better performer. Interviewed before singing at the New York Philharmonic's spring gala at Avery Fisher Hall in New York, O'Hara said her pregnancy had "opened up my high voice, it's changed my tessitura, my breaking point. It has made it higher. So a lot of my stuff, especially South Pacific, became very difficult for me to sing, so I had to rethink it, but I did." O'Hara, who had a cabaret show last month at Manhattan's Café Carlyle after taking a maternity leave from South Pacific , said, "Singing cabaret, it's a much more intimate thing, and so you can kind of float around certain notes that may have given you trouble before." Pregnancy, she added, "does change you. Change can be for the better, because you can find little tricks that help you." O'Hara said she hoped the change in her voice is permanent, "because once you learn something new and adapt and change your technique to fit something, you hope that you can go from there and not have to start over again." "When you're pregnant, things at least for me get very sincere and very wholesome, and it's about family, and singing becomes about warmth. This is kind of where I am right now. After I have a child, I'll get back to whatever other journeys I'm going on.' O'Hara said she had discussed her pregnancy with fellow performer Audra McDonald, who has a young daughter. "She was telling me about the joys of having a child and how it opens up your breath," O'Hara said. "You look at people like that that sing as well, and you say, 'Well, they've still done it, and they can still do it, and their voices are still huge and strong, so it obviously only adds to your singing.' I think anything emotional adds to your acting and singing, no matter what it is that you go through. It will always add to it, never take away." Next up for O'Hara, after the birth of her baby: Two more weeks at the Café Carlyle in September, then a return in early October to South Pacific , through the end of the year. After that? "Get back into the world of performing, get back on my feet, try to be a mom, and then I'll see what's going on." O'Hara performed at the gala with her South Pacific co-star, Paulo Szot, though they sang a song from another Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, "If I Loved You," from Carousel . Conducting the New York Philharmonic was composer Marvin Hamlisch, who wrote the score for O'Hara's first major role on Broadway, J. J. Hunsecker's younger sister in the 2002 musical, Sweet Smell of Success . More on Carly Fiorina
 
George F. Colony: Beyond the Gateway Recession: What CEOs Will Face Next Top
We'll look back on this recession as much more than an ugly economic moment. History will view it as The Gateway -- a portal connecting two very different eras. When the economic clouds clear, many prevailing elites will have been swept away, organizational structures will have fallen, and many who were formerly in control will have lost power. Those who can speak digital will thrive, and those who cannot will finally get the message and retire. The signs are everywhere. Post-Gateway players: Obama; Amazon; Zappos; Jet Blue; Twitter; Facebook; blogs; Craigslist; broadband; Wikipedia; DVRs and iTunes. Pre-Gateway: GM; the New York Times ; the Republican party; shopping malls; print advertising; excessive executive pay; TV networks; boards of directors full of aging plutocrats; and the TV-centered Washington chattering classes. Like the US Civil War, which separated an agrarian society from an industrialized economy, or World War I -- a death knell for many European elites -- the Gateway Recession is exposing fundamental weaknesses in long-standing political, cultural, and economic institutions. Here are the new challenges and rules that await CEOs on the other side of that door: Digital will be mandatory, not a choice. Pre-digital CEOs could get away with IT/BT (information technology/business technology) ignorance. No longer. Tech will be key to how you sell, connect to customers, become more efficient, and lower costs. Why is Amazon so powerful? Because it combines two old-world attributes, great customer service, and superb execution with a critical post-Gateway attribute -- digital. In the new world, CEOs of all stripes will have to have it all, in the mode of Amazon. Brand loyalty will be limited. For five years, Forrester has been tracking the precipitous decline in brand loyalty -- particularly for complex products like cars. Brands will afford only limited protection for your company in the new world -- because choice has been radically expanded. All brands are subject to consumer testing, discussion, disclosure, and transparency. You can no longer own your customer -- your customer will own you. Customers will look very unfamiliar. They will learn, play, work, and live differently than you or the customers you studied in business school. In the US, 18- to 27-year-olds spend 30% less time reading magazines and newspapers than 28- to 40-year-olds. They spend twice as much time playing digital games, 53% more time on cell phones, and twice the amount of time on social sites like Facebook. You may not like it, and you may not understand it, but your customer is being changed by technology -- and your customer will change your company. The war for people will be intense. It's a counterintuitive thought at this moment of high worldwide unemployment, but the post-Gateway era will be distinguished by a pitched battle for good people. Basic demographics are at work -- in the next eight years 35% of nurses and 40% of federal government workers will retire in the US. Already-low fertility rates in Europe will continue to fall. Yes, the baby boomers' kids will fill the gap but not for another 20 years. CEOs will fight for people on three fronts: 1) Attracting and winning the best and the brightest takes world-class offices and factories, the best internal technology, and truly compelling corporate purpose and values; 2) retaining the best workers takes a great corporate strategy, excellent leadership, and inspiring management; and finally 3) getting productivity from the limited workforce you have -- again, this loops back to nailing the technology imperative. You will sell differently. You used to advertise in the local newspaper, BusinessWeek , CNN, Le Monde , or the Wall Street Journal . Many of these channels won't survive in the new era -- because the new consumer won't pick them up or tune them in. You will have to reach customers in new ways -- blogs, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and whatever supersedes them. The way you innovated is dead. The era of black-box innovation has passed. Look to P&G for the new model. CEO A.G. Lafley searches for product ideas all over the world -- competitors, customers, China, and India -- then partners to bring the new innovation to market. The biggest change will be the involvement of customers in building your products -- a concept that I call "social sigma" (with apologies to Six Sigma). The idea is that the customer, through social technologies, will spec the new product -- that the customer will be an active participant in broad aspects of product development. The forces of the recession will trigger many of these changes. But the end of the Gateway Recession will also usher in a new technology era. Tech and the Internet have been around for decades, so why is their impact felt post-recession? Because while technology changes quickly, people don't. It has taken 15 years of cultural fermentation, generational transitions, and habit breaking for society to catch up to what technology can do. Pre-Gateway, society wasn't ready. Post-Gateway, technology and human behavior will align to create a powerful brew. Elites will die, but new ones will take their place. The Sulzbergers will fade from view, but the Brins and the Bezos will fill the void. New companies (and therefore new elites) will aggregate around three areas: 1) new healthcare; 2) new forms of energy; and 3) technology. As CEO, you'll have to drop your connections to the dying elites and figure out how to form connections with the emerging ones. More on The Recession
 
Mike Stark: Tacky, Tacky, Wha???? Top
Taylor Marsh has a piece out asking Virginia voters to vote for anyone but Brian Moran. She says he's tacky for... get this... running ads on black radio stations. I guess only Terry McAuliffe is allowed to support black radio. OK, here's the whole story. Several months ago, Terry McAuliffe was busy being Terry McAuliffe . You know, shamelessly disingenuous. He took to black radio across Virginia and ran an ad talking about how much "we" did to get Barak Obama elected. Of course, he never mentioned that he, personally, led an effort to ensure that Barack Obama never got anywhere near the White House. He, personally, had played the fool all over national television while ensuring that Hillary Clinton's campaign would be forever noted for its colossal underachievement. So yeah, after the primary was settled, Terry McAuliffe , as a second-rate surrogate that couldn't do much damage, was allowed to hit the trail for Obama. He toned down his act, stopped drinking rum in the morning on national television, and rolled up his sleeves. He did some good work for Obama. But that was only after he went to the mat to make sure Obama didn't get the nomination. So when I heard the ads he ran all over black radio, I thought to myself: chutzpah ! I think most other cognizant observers with two brain cells to rub together probably thought the same thing. I guess that wasn't true... It seems there are more than a couple of McAuliffe supporters that value integrity less than they probably should. Because Moran has been savagely attacked for setting the record straight. What did he do? Well, as I said, he went up with ads on black radio stations and told the other half of the truth: That Terry McAuliffe was not a Barack Obama supporter for much of 2008; that McAuliffe earned his buffoonish reputation by saying things like "Kiss my ass, Barack!" on the Jon Stewart Show. Look, i get how this works. Some folks are still bitter that poor little Hillary didn't win the nomination. Boo-hoo, boo-hoo and cry me a river. Seriously, you need to get over that. Because, by a long shot, Brian Moran is the most progressive and most qualified candidate in the Virginia race. He was a Democratic prosecutor in a blood-red state back when Terry McAuliffe was ripping off S&L's with his father-in-law. As McAuliffe graduated to selling off the Lincoln Bedroom and trading access for sweetheart deals with Global Crossing, Moran was beginning his career as a Virginia state legislator. McAuliffe has never spent a day governing a boy scout troop, let alone a state. Moreover, he's always business interests (think DLC) first -- at the expense of the common good and working people. There is a reason Democrats found themselves in the wilderness after four years of McAuliffe leadership at the DNC. I challenge you: if you see McAuliffe at a campaign event, ask him a question: What have you ever done for working people? And if you see Brian Moran, ask him the same question. I don't think you'll have to do anything more than that to decide who your nominee should be. More on Voting
 
William Smith, New Chief GOP Counsel For Senate Judiciary Committee, Linked Gay Marriage To Pedophilia Top
The new chief Republican counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote a blog post last month in which he linked same-sex marriage to pedophilia, according to a Web site that has since been taken down. More on Gay Marriage
 
Robert Teitelman: Michael Lewis on Warren Buffett Top
Michael Lewis has up at the New Republic a book review of Alice Schroeder's biography of Warren Buffett, "The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life," which, beyond everything else, has to be one of the worst titles for a biography in years. But no matter. Lewis' review is nuanced: He suggests that the book is too long, too windy, too reverential. But he also admits that it's highly readable and full of revelatory personal details -- perhaps more than Buffett himself might have wished. The review has already generated blogospheric comment: Felix Salmon at Reuters characterizes it as a "monster" at 4,700 words (which is actually around the normal length of a New Republic essay-review) and suggests that Lewis has done a "takedown" on Buffett. As one of Salmon's commenters notes, that isn't really the case based on the review itself. It's only the case compared to the caricature of Buffett that's floated around for years -- a portrait that was substantially revised by Roger Lowenstein's fine 1995 biography of Buffett, "Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist," which Lewis fails to mention. In fact, for anyone that's been paying attention, Buffett was "taken down" years ago, if that characterization refers to the reality of the man, not the myth. Still, Lewis' review does focus on the complexities of Buffett's life and reputation. His family background was difficult, he was by no means a perfect child (a penchant for shoplifting, a stubborn streak in school, a deep desire bordering on mania to remain in Omaha and an adherence to simple, child-like appetites) whose personal life with his children, his first wife and her replacement, is at considerable odds with the image of beneficent sagedom. He was something of a prodigy from the start; Lewis points out astutely how he learned from Ben Graham but almost immediately reinterpreted the pessimistic tenets of Graham and Dodd investing for his own more optimistic mind set. In this review, Lewis paints a portrait of Buffett that is far stranger than the myth. But it is an oddness, as Lewis admits, that brings some humanity to him. Take away the astounding success, the brilliant use of PR (as Lewis notes, Buffett often seems incapable of saying something boring, though in recent years he has tested that, particularly on cable TV), the sheer good sense, and you're left with a man who for many years focused with remarkable discipline on one thing: Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE:BRK.A). Buffett arranged his entire life around this all-consuming preoccupation, with some time out for bridge; and both Lowenstein's and Schroeder's biographies describe how wives, girl friends, children, colleagues were essentially required to cater to his needs. Lowenstein has a revealing anecdote of Buffett at home while a birthday party for one of his children is going on reading analyst reports, lost in his own world. (How Katharine Graham, who was hardly one to subordinate herself to anyone after her husband died, fit into this lifestyle is a mystery.) In short, Buffett is a grind and, according to Schroeder, stingy. Indeed, much of his success (though not all: there's a deep, anomalous genius at work here too) stems from this obsessional focus on investing and his willingness to subordinate his life to its ends. There's nothing wrong with that, though it's hard on the people around you. In The New York Times Tuesday, David Brooks offers a column , bristling with his usual academic studies, that argues that the best CEOs are hardworking, anal-retentive, detail-oriented grinds, and that fancy degrees, charismatic personalities and great fame perform less well than a sheer focus on execution. That's a not a huge surprise, though it runs counter to much of the conventional wisdom that sees CEOs as magicians, and one could question the methodology of studies that compare CEO performance across industries. But what Brooks never says but is undeniably true is that while we laud CEOs, they are really just masters of large bureaucracies -- in some cases closer to governmental agencies than, say, entrepreneurial startups. Bureaucracies operate by routine; they are weighed down by legacy operations; and for any CEO this side of Steve Jobs, the opportunity for creativity is limited. Berkshire Hathaway is primarily an insurance company, with a large investment portfolio. Buffett is creative, but in a very narrow, if astoundingly successful, way. But Americans love a winner, and they tend to extrapolate hard-won success in business into something larger: a philosophy of life, a deep wisdom, a link to larger cosmic forces. Buffett has spent his entire life thinking about and seeking the accumulation of money. He has been uniquely brilliant at it. He has been able to communicate hard-won truths about doing business in a rare, very American, plainspoken style; and, looking at the life as a whole, Lewis admits there is something "deeply admirable" about it. But Buffett is, as Lowenstein's book suggests, an American capitalist above everything else. He is a sage and a philosopher in the same vein as someone he apparently once read with great avidity: Dale Carnegie. The irony of Buffett is that his talent and his will are unfathomable, but his flaws are not. The one thing we can truly understand about him is the part of him that's just like the rest of us . - Robert Teitelman Robert Teitelman is the editor in chief of The Deal. For more check out The Deal More on Warren Buffett
 
Rumsfeld Disputes GQ Report: Aide Says He Didn't Make Slides Top
An aide to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Keith Urbahn, e-mails to contest a widely-discussed GQ article by Robert Draper, which suggested that Rumsfeld "appreciated" the practice of quoting Biblical quotations on the cover sheets of classified briefings, and that Rumsfeld brought the briefings to President Bush. Urbahn e-mails that the briefings in question were not routinely sent to Rumsfeld, and that Rumsfeld considers the cover slides "harmful and counterproductive to the war effort."
 
Samantha Orobator Not Raped In Jail: Mother Top
A pregnant British woman awaiting trial in Laos on drugs charges has said she was not raped while in prison, her mother said Tuesday. More on Asia
 
James Rotondi: Obama's Catholic Baptism By Fire Top
"The Day the Dome Was Tarnished Forever." So read the backs of T-shirts worn by some number of anti-choice protesters during President's Obama's visit to the Catholic University of Notre Dame over the weekend to deliver a commencement address, one which took a typically civil, sensitive and conciliatory stance in discussing an issue that is deeply polarizing for many; and has become the somehow holy inspiration for others to engage in crass sloganeering and even violent action. The irony is that, by selecting Obama to speak at its commencement ceremonies, Notre Dame was clearly honoring the school's Catholic tradition, which, at its best, celebrates the power of the intellect and the spirit to overcome obstacles and bring social justice to the community. The overwhelming majority of the school clearly understood this. Meanwhile, the small number of strident pro-lifers clogging the campus with their placards of mangled fetuses and "baby killer" signs were exercising their right to assemble with loads of gruesome imagery and quite a bit of tasteless insult, all of which are generally outside the temperament and the tone of Catholic discourse. Even the members of ND Response, a student group organized to oppose the President's visit, were offended: "That's not Notre Dame," said a group spokesman. "You teach through winning over the mind. We don't feel that those images will do anything constructive." Damn -- er, "darn" -- straight. So what's taking place here, exactly? Has some chunk of the academic Catholic community, people generally devoted to "winning over the mind," now been corrupted by the intolerance and anti-intellectualism that are the hallmarks of so many factions of the Fundamentalist Christian movement? Will American Catholics soon be terrorizing 10-year-olds with plastic fetus dolls (see film, Jesus Camp )? Consider the conceptual leap required for a 25-year-old Notre Dame student to boycott his own graduation because Obama's policies "are opposed to the culture of life and therefore our Catholic values." Are all other Catholic values -- helping the poor, developing the mind, caring for the sick, practicing social justice, all that old, unglamorous stuff -- to be demoted to second-tier virtues? As with any political persuasion or religious orientation, being Catholic does not automatically mean that you agree with the official line on every issue: it means that you are engaged -- civilly and soulfully -- in the debate. If you think the Church's stated positions are wrong on abortion, gay rights and stem-cell research, that is your right, as a conscientious member of the community. It does not disqualify you. The Catholic Church, it should be remembered, stands entirely opposed to the death penalty. Why isn't that the dividing line? Look, Catholics may be religious, but they're generally not stupid. (After all, tens of millions of them voted for Obama.) The idea of even a minority of students and priests at a Jesuit-leaning university -- a tradition that has always encouraged consensus-builders and cultural ambassadors -- protesting the appearance of the brightest and most socially conscious President that we've had in a generation should strike most of us as beyond contradictory. To even further imagine that Obama's policies "are opposed to the culture of life" is an unimaginable sort of self-delusion. Or else, it's the manifestation of eight years of Bush-era incivility and shrinking of the mind, the Fundamentalist-championed "You're with us or against us" brain-freeze in public discourse that Obama has made clear is perhaps his most problematic inheritance from the Bush 43 years. Consider Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele actually having the nerve to say that Notre Dame should not have given Obama an honorary degree; that it was somehow "inappropriate." Really? That's not an appropriate honorarium for someone who overcame racial and financial barriers to attend -- and excel at -- Columbia and Harvard Law School and become the first black President of the United States, while setting an example of Christian faith in action by his good works, exemplary family and his tireless efforts to raise the level of public conversation in these "In-Your-Face" United States? No? Not appropriate? But, surely, such a degree would have been perfectly appropriate -- and, in fact, an invitation was once extended -- for a noble anti-choice, pro-death penalty activist like Dubya, a man with an avowed, documented distrust of academics and intellectuals, a man who never once attempted to find common ground on the issues of race, abortion or gay rights -- not that he had the emotional IQ to do so -- who floated through his college years with barely a scintilla of intellectual passion, who executed an illegal war in Iraq against the wishes of the Church, and who, as part and parcel of an inarticulateness that still amazes, repeatedly called the natives of the country where the modern church was built "Eye-talians"! Would that have been more "appropriate," more in keeping with "Catholic values"? Obama's address, far from tarnishing that dome, burnished it with the high-mindedness and promotion of understanding -- including on the issue of abortion -- that he has made his mission and his mandate. As the majority of Notre Dame graduates recognized, they were lucky to have him. So are we. More on Barack Obama
 
Column In University Of Chicago Paper Calling Students 'Tramps' And 'Skanks' Prompts Retraction, Debate Top
A column in the student newspaper at the University of Chicago offended enough readers that the paper not only apologized for running the opinion piece, but also retracted part of the column a day later.
 
Khamenei: US Promotes Terrorism In Iran Top
TEHRAN: Iran's leading authority accused the United States on Tuesday of promoting terrorism in border areas and using arms and money against the Islamic state, in his latest verbal attack on Tehran's arch enemy. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's comments in a televised speech are likely to further disappoint the US administration of President Barack Obama, which is seeking rapprochement with Iran after three decades of mutual mistrust. More on Iran
 
New Hamas-Free Palestinian Government Sworn In Top
RAMALLAH, West Bank — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday swore in a new government comprised mainly of members of his Fatah Party, but without representation of his bitter rivals from the militant Islamic Hamas group. The move underlines the failure of attempts to bridge differences between the two movements, which have been negotiating to form a joint government that would reunite the West Bank and Gaza and open the way for renewed foreign aid. Hamas overran Gaza nearly two years ago, expelling Fatah forces. The government sworn in Tuesday will effectively only rule the West Bank. Nations and aid organizations have been dealing with Abbas, but Hamas and Gaza have been largely left out because the EU, U.S. and Israel list Hamas as a terror organization. In Gaza, Hamas official Mushir al-Masri rejected the new Cabinet. "This government is illegal, unconstitutional and came with the blessing of the Zionist and American administrations, and it poses an obstacle on the way to national reconciliation talks," he said. After Israel's war on Hamas in Gaza, which ended in mid-January, Egypt hosted several rounds of Palestinian unity talks. The aim was to set up a unity government, mainly to handle reconstruction in Gaza, until presidential and parliament elections can be held in January. However, the talks are deadlocked over the political program of a joint government. Hamas has balked at Western demands that any Palestinian government recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous peace deals. Abbas has said the new government would step down if a power-sharing deal is reached. In the meantime, Salam Fayyad will retain his position as prime minister of the government. The respected economist has worked to restore transparency to murky Palestinian finances, a step toward reassuring donor nations that their money is being put to good use. Speaking to reporters after the swearing-in ceremony, Fayyad pledged to work for reconstruction of Gaza after Israel's offensive there earlier this year. He stressed the need for Palestinian unity and reconciliation. "This is a high priority for all of us, and we hope we can reach it as soon as possible," he said. The new Palestinian government has 24 ministries to rule over around 2.5 million people in the West Bank and to provide some services for Hamas-ruled Gaza. The large government is meant to appease Fatah operatives who have complained that Fayyad had given posts to independents and overlooked Fatah in his first government. More on Israel
 
Jodi Jacobson: "Game-Changing Pick" Under Consideration to Head New Foreign Assistance Effort Top
Dr. Paul Farmer, a founder of Partners in Health, recipient of the MacArthur "genius" award and a long-time provider of and advocate for basic health care for the poor is under consideration by the Obama Administration to head a newly overhauled foreign assistance program, according to sources close to Farmer. He will be meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week to discuss the post. Farmer, is a world renowned medical doctor, anthropologist and human rights activist, who began his career in the 1980s by bringing basic health care to the poor in Haiti, a country in which he has continued to work for over 20 years. His focus on human rights as an organizing principal for access to health services sets him apart from mainstream development policy and practice. This is in no small part because he often challenges the basic premise of "trickle down" theories inherent in the delivery of much of traditional development assistance, which often uses the rhetoric of human rights without adhering to the principles of a human rights approach to development. "If access to health care is considered a human right," asks Farmer, "who is considered human enough to have that right?" "Paul has a vision that is grounded what he has learned in Haiti and elsewhere throughout a 20-year development career," said a source close to Farmer speaking on condition of anonymity. "He has a vision of how to benefit the poor, starting from a principle of truly community-based and sustainable efforts that involve the population and work in collaboration with the local government to achieve real outcomes." "If this vision could be spread to even part of US foreign assistance, " continued the source, "it would save a lot more lives, and dramatically improve health and improve economic conditions." Sources close to Farmer also confirm he is in discussion to lead a wholly revised U.S. international assistance strategy, with portfolio over all non-military U.S. foreign assistance, including but not limited to the programs funded by USAID, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Millennium Challenge Account, humanitarian assistance, emergency assistance and potentially food aid. This would be a wholly new position with far broader purview than the current USAID Administrator's portfolio. Such a reorganization would also be in keeping with calls by many advocates who have long criticized the lack of integration within and across health and development programs funded through USAID and other agencies, including the State Department. Kaiser Network and the Boston Globe reported earlier this week that Farmer had not decided whether he would take the positions, but sources close to Farmer contacted for this article suggested that this weekend he in fact expressed eagerness to take the post if it entails reorganizing U.S. foreign assistance, and if he has widespread grassroots support from the global health community. And in fact, many health advocates are ecstatic at the prospect of Farmer taking on this role. "This is a precious opportunity for all those who care about the health and well-being of people around the world," said Gregg Gonsalves, an international AIDS advocate and co-founder of the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (a coalition including thousands of advocates and researchers in over 135 countries). "What better chance to change things for the better than to have Paul at the helm? He is a pioneer in health and human rights." William Smith, Vice President for Public Policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, agrees: "He would be an excellent choice with a strong background in the rights-based area where the U.S. has lost significant ground over the past 8 years." People who have worked with Farmer underscore that he is also an advocate for sexual and reproductive health and rights. According the one source contacted who asked not to be named, "The first programs [Paul] started in Haiti focused on women's health. He is a strong believer in women's access to primary sexual and reproductive health services. And while Partners in Health always worked within the law of a given country, and did not provide safe abortions where these were legal, Paul saw and treated botched abortions all the time." Gonsalves and others have high hopes for Farmer's ability to work across silo-ed programs to ensure that health services are themselves integrated and meet the needs of the poor, while also ensuring collaboration and integration across other portfolios to expand access to safe water, increase food security, and meet other fundamental human needs. While U.S. assistance has long funded programs in these areas, they remain largely uncoordinated and often unconnected, making it difficult to achieve sustainable gains in any given area. Gonsalves and other AIDS advocates contacted for this story underscored that having Farmer overseeing development programs would go a long way toward the recent disappointment caused by less-than-hoped-for-levels of funding for global health programs in the President's 2010 budget. "Putting Paul in charge is change of the kind we all hoped for," said Gonsalves. "He represents a new kind of vision for global health, because he is not an insider, not a bureaucrat, not just interested in making incremental changes. He wants to reform the way we fund and measure overseas development going forward. He also understands that AIDS has been a catalyst for change in global health and he realizes that there are positive ways to build on this change." "If Obama is real about wanting to change the way overseas foreign development is conducted," said Gonsalves, "he will have a willing partner in Farmer." "Nothing in DC is ever done until it is done," he continued. "But all I can say is that this would be a game-changing appointment, an unprecedented one in my lifetime, and yes, change we can truly believe in this time." State Department representatives and others in the community could not be reached in time for this posting, but RH Reality Check will continue to update this story as it develops and provide reaction from other sources. More on Foreign Policy
 
Doug Stanton: Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan Top
Prologue: UPRISING Qala-i-Janghi Fortress Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan November 24-25, 2001 Trouble came in the night, riding out of the dust and the darkness. Trouble rolled past the refugee camp, past the tattered tents shuddering in the moonlight, the lone cry of a baby driving high into the sky, like a nail. Sunrise was no better; at sunrise, trouble was still there, bristling with AKs and RPGs, engines idling, waiting to roll into the city. Waiting. These were the baddest of the bad, the real masters of mayhem, the death dealers with God stamped firmly in their minds. The city groaned and shook to life. Soon everyone knew trouble had arrived at the gates of the city. Major Mark Mitchell heard the news at headquarters nine miles away and thought, You're kidding. We got bad guys at the wire? He ran downstairs, looking for Master Sergeant Dave Betz. Maybe he would know what was happening. But Betz didn't know anything. He blustered, "One of the Agency guys came down and told us we got six hundred Taliban surrendering. Can you believe that?" Surrendering? Mitchell couldn't figure out why. He thought the Taliban had fled from the approaching forces of the Northern Alliance to Konduz, miles away. American Special Forces and the Northern Alliance had been beating them back for weeks, in battle after battle, rolling up territory by coordinating airstrikes from the sky and thousands of Northern Alliance soldiers on the ground. They now stood on the verge of total victory. Konduz was where the war was supposed to go next. Not here. Not in Mazar. Not at Club Mez. Besides, these guys didn't surrender. They fought to the death. Die fighting and you went to paradise. Mitchell stood at the dirty plate-glass windows and watched. Here they came, a motley crew of the doomed, packed into six big trucks, staring out from the rancid tunnels of their scarves. Mitchell could see their heads over the barricade that ringed his headquarters, a former schoolhouse at the junk-strewn edge of the city. The prisoners -- who surely included some Al Qaeda members -- were still literally in the drivers' seats, with Northern Alliance soldiers sitting next to them, their AKs pointed at the drivers' heads. The prisoners turned and stared and Mitchell thought it was like looking at hundreds of holes punched in a wall. "Everybody get away from the windows!" said Betz. Major Kurt Sonntag, Captain Kevin Leahy, Captain Paul Syverson, and a dozen other Special Forces soldiers knelt behind the black and white checked columns in the room, their M-4 rifles aimed at the street. Behind them, in the kitchen, the local cook was puttering -- the air smelled of cooked rice and cucumber -- and a radio was playing more of that god-awful Afghan music that sounded to Mitchell like somebody strangling a goose. He had been looking forward this morning to overseeing the construction of the medical facility in town, and the further blowing up of mines and bombs that littered the area like confetti. Each day, a little bit more of the war seemed to be ending. Mitchell had even started to wonder when he would get to go home. He and a team of about a dozen Special Forces soldiers had moved into the schoolhouse only forty-eight hours earlier. Their former headquarters inside the Qala-i-Janghi Fortress, nine miles off, in Mazar's western quarter, had given them the shits, the croup, and the flu, and Mitchell was glad to have moved out. It seemed a haunted place. Known as the House of War, the fortress rose like a mud golem from the desert, surrounded by struggling plots of wind-whipped corn and sparse cucumber. Its walls towered sixty feet high and measured thirty feet thick under the hard, indifferent sun. The Taliban had occupied the fortress for seven years and filled it with weapons -- grenades, rockets, and firearms, anything made for killing. Even Enfield rifles with dates stamped on the bayonets -- 1913 -- from the time that the Brits had occupied the area. Before their hurried flight from the city two weeks earlier, the Taliban had left the weapons and smeared feces on the walls and windows. Every photograph, every painting, every rosebush had been torn up, smashed, stomped, ruined. Nothing beautiful had been left behind. After three years of Taliban rule, there were old men in Mazar with stumps for hands. There were women who'd been routinely stoned and kicked on street corners. Young men who'd been imprisoned for not wearing beards. Fathers who'd been beaten in front of their sons for the apparent pleasure of those swinging their weapons. The arrival of Mitchell and his soldiers on horseback had put an end to that. The people of Mazar-i-Sharif, the rugmakers and butchers, the car mechanics and schoolteachers, the bank clerks and masons and farmers, had thrown flowers and kisses and reached up to the Americans on their horses and pulled affectionately at the filthy cuffs of their camo pants. The locals had welcomed the balding, blue-eyed Mitchell and two dozen other Special Forces soldiers in a mile-long parade lining the highway that dropped into town out of the snowy mountains. Mitchell had felt like he was back in World War II, his grandfather's war, riding into Paris after the Nazis fled. Now thirty-six, Mitchell was the ground commander of the Fifth Special Forces Group/Third Battalion's Forward Operating Base (FOB). It had been a distinguished nearly fifteen-year career headed for the top of the military food chain. His best friend, Major Kurt Sonntag, a thirty-seven-year-old former weekend surfer from Los Angeles, was the FOB's executive officer, which technically meant he was Mitchell's boss. In the tradition of Special Forces, they treated each other as equals. Nobody saluted, including less senior officers like Captain Kevin Leahy and Captain Paul Syverson, members of the support company whose job it was to get the postwar operations up and running, such as providing drinking water, electricity, and medical care to the locals. Looking at the street now, Mitchell tried to figure out why the Taliban convoy was stopping. If anything went bad, Mitchell knew he was woefully outnumbered. He had maybe a dozen guys he could call on. And those like Leahy and Syverson weren't exactly hardened killers. Like him, these were staff guys, in their mid-thirties, soldiers who had until now been largely warless. He did have a handful of CIA operators living upstairs in the schoolhouse and eight Brits, part of a Special Boat Service unit who'd landed the night before by Chinook helicopter, but they were so new that they didn't have orders for rules of engagement -- that is, it wasn't clear to them when they could and could not return fire. Doing the math, Mitchell roughly figured that he had about a dozen guys available to fight. The trained-up fighters, the two Special Forces teams that Mitchell had ridden into town with, had left earlier in the day for Konduz, for the expected fight there. Mitchell had watched them drive away and felt that he was missing out on a chance to make history. He'd been left behind to run the headquarters office and keep the peace. Now, after learning that 600 Taliban soldiers had massed outside his door, he wondered if he'd been dead wrong. The street bustled with beeping taxis; with donkeys hauling loads of handmade bricks to the city-center bazaar; with aged men gliding by on wobbling bicycles and women ghosting through the rising dust in blue burkhas. Afghanistan. Never failed to amaze him. Still the convoy hadn't moved. Ten minutes had passed. Without warning, a group of locals piled toward the trucks, angrily grabbing at the prisoners. They got hold of one man and pulled him down -- for a moment he was there, gripping the battered wooden side of the truck, and then he was gone, snatched out of sight. Behind the truck, out of sight, they were beating the man to death. Every ounce of rage, every rape, every public execution, every amputation, humiliation -- every ounce of revenge was poured back into this man, slathered on by fist, by foot, by gnarled stick. The trucks lurched ahead and when they moved on, nothing remained of the man. It was as if he'd been eaten. The radio popped to life. Mitchell listened as a Northern Alliance commander, who was stationed on the highway, announced in broken English: The prisoners all going to Qala-i-Janghi. Remembering the enormous pile of weapons cached at the fortress, Mitchell didn't want to hear this. But his hands were tied. The Afghan commanders of the Northern Alliance were, as a matter of U.S. strategy, calling the shots. No matter the Americans' might, this was the Afghans' show. Mitchell was in Mazar to "assist" the locals in taking down the Taliban. He figured he could get on a radio and suggest to the Afghan commander presiding over the surrender that the huge fortress would not be an ideal place to house six hundred angry Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers. But maybe there was a good reason to send them there. As long as the prisoners were searched and guarded closely, maybe they could be held securely within the fort's towering mud walls. And then Mitchell thought again of the weapons stockpiled at Qala-i-Janghi, the piles and piles of rockets, rifles, crates of ammo -- tons of violence ready to be put to use. Not the fort, he thought. Not the damn fort! Belching smoke, grinding gears, the convoy of prisoners rumbled past the fortress's dry moat and through the tall, arched entrance. The prisoners in the trucks craned around like blackbirds on a wire, scanning the walls, looking for guards, looking for an easy way out. In deference to the Muslim prohibition against men touching other men intimately, few of the prisoners had been thoroughly searched. No hand had reached deep inside the folds of their thin gray gowns, the mismatched suit coats, the dirty khaki vests, searching for a knife, a grenade, a garrote. Killer had smiled at captor and captor had waved him on,Tashakur. Thank you. Tashakur. The line of six trucks halted inside the fort, and the prisoners stepped down under the watchful eye of a dozen or so Northern Alliance guards. Suddenly one prisoner pulled a grenade from the belly-band of his blouse and blew himself up, taking a Northern Alliance officer with him. The guards fired their rifles in the air and regained control. Then they immediately herded the prisoners to a rose-colored, plaster-sided building aptly nicknamed "the Pink House," which squatted nearby in the rocks and thorns. The structure had been built by the Soviets in the 1980s as a hospital within the bomb-hardened walls of the fortress. The fort was immense, a walled city divided equally into southern and northern courtyards. Inside was a gold-domed mosque, some horse stables, irrigation ditches encircling plots of corn and wheat, and shady groves of tall, fragrant pine trees whipping in the stiff winds. The thick walls held secret hallways and compartments, and led to numerous storage rooms for grain and other valuables. The Taliban had cached an enormous pile of weapons in the southern compound in a dozen mud-walled horse stables, each as big as a one-car garage and topped with a dome-shaped roof. The stables were crammed to the rafters with rockets, RPGs, machine guns, and mortars. But there were more weapons. Six metal Conex trailers, like the kind semitrucks haul down interstates in the United States, also sat nearby, stuffed with even more guns and explosives. The fortress had been built in 1889 by Afghans, taking some eighteen thousand workers twelve years to complete, during an era of British incursions. It was a place built to be easily defended, a place to weather a siege. At each of the corners rose a mud parapet, a towerlike structure, some 80 feet high and 150 feet across, and built strong enough to support the weight of 10-ton tanks, which could be driven onto the parapet up long, gradual mud ramps rising from the fortress floor. Along the parapet walls, rectangular gunports, about twelve inches tall, were cut into the three-foot-thick mud -- large enough to accommodate the swing of a rifle barrel at any advancing hordes below. In all, the fort measured some 600 yards long -- about one third of a mile -- and 300 yards wide. At the north end, a red-carpeted balcony stretched high above the courtyard. Wide and sunlit, it resembled a promenade, overlooking a swift stream bordered by a black wrought-iron fence and rose gardens that had been destroyed by the Taliban. Behind the balcony, double doors opened onto long hallways, offices, and living quarters. At each end of the fort's central wall, which divided the interior into the two large courtyards, sat two more tall parapets, equally fitted for observation and defense with firing ports. A narrow, packed foot trail, about three feet wide, ran around the entire rim along the protective, outer wall. In places, a thick mud wall, waist-high, partially shielded the walker from the interior of the courtyard, making it possible to move along the top of the wall and pop up and shoot either down into the fort, or up over the outer wall at attackers coming from the outside. In the middle of the southern courtyard, which was identical to the northern one (except for the balcony and offices overlooking it), sat the square-shaped Pink House. It was small, measuring about 75 feet on each side, too small a space for the six hundred prisoners who were ordered by Northern Alliance soldiers down the stairs and into its dark basement, where they were packed tight like matchsticks, one against another. There, down in a dank corner, on a dirt floor that smelled of worms and sweat, brooded a young American. His friends knew him by the name of Abdul Hamid. He had walked for several days to get to this moment of surrender, which he hoped would finally lead him home to California. He was tired, hungry, his chest pounding, skipping a beat, like a washing machine out of balance. He worried that he was going to have a heart attack, a scary thought at age twenty-one. Around him, he could hear men praying as they unfolded hidden weapons from the long, damp wings of their clothing. The above is an excerpt from the book Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan by Doug Stanton. The above excerpt is a digitally scanned reproduction of text from print. Although this excerpt has been proofread, occasional errors may appear due to the scanning process. Please refer to the finished book for accuracy. From Horse Soldiers by Doug Stanton. Copyright © 2009 by Reed City Productions, LLC. Reprinted by permission of Scribner, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc, NY. More on Afghanistan
 
Larry Kramer: Homo Sex in Colonial America Top
No, there was no right word for it that you wanted to use for it if you were doing it. Buggery and sodomy connoted anal penetration and thus were, in many places, punishable by death. That does not mean that men did not know they were gay (to use today's word), know what to do with their cocks, know when they were smitten with other men, know where to go to find them, know what it meant to get violently rejected, or the reverse, find a friend, in other words, the whole gestalt, to use another of today's terms. A penis has never been something that you pick up and put down and put away idly without consideration. When both US News and the New Yorker ran pieces on the 400th anniversary of Jamestown in 2007, they were both so annoyingly ignorant of the fact that almost all of its inhabitants were men that I submitted my thoughts to both magazines. US News , which appeared first, of course said No, (they never have liked gays very much), but the New Yorker , which ran their Commemorative Piece a few months later, published the following from my letter to the editor: "Jamestown was initially an all-male settlement. ...in subsequent years...male colonists outnumbered women by roughly six to one in the 1620's and four to one in later decades... It is difficult to believe that a group of young and notoriously unbridled men remained celibate for an extended period of time. It seems likely that some male settlers deprived of female companionship would have turned to each other instead. "Settlers in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake often paired off to form all-male households, living and working together. ...it would be truly remarkable if all the male-only partnerships lacked a sexual ingredient... IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ASSUME , [my caps and bold], that much of the sex that took place... was sodomitical." These words are from Sexual Revolution in Early America , by Richard Godbeer an associate professor at UC Riverside and published by Johns Hopkins. My own research for my book, The American People , has revealed that not only were male-only partnerships quite in evidence, but services were often conducted to join the partners "under God," and that, of equal interest, was their adoption of Indian children to raise as their own. I hope it will not be too much longer before scholars will be able to deal with the fact that Jamestown was in fact not only America's first colony but its first homosexual community. I tried unsuccessfully to contact Professor Godbeer to thank him for writing as he did. In all my researching of Jamestown, he was the only historian of the profuse number that has written about it with the guts to put forward this very logical assumption. Now I wonder if my assumption about his gutsy homosexuality or his devotion to the study of The Real Us was more a figment of my wishful thinking. For now comes this. This is The Overflowing Friendship: Love Between Men and the Creation of the American Republic . (Also published by Johns Hopkins; Godbeer is now a full professor of history and gender studies at the University of Miami.) For me, it seems to be a heartbreaking refutation of the possibility he'd put forward in his earlier work. If he is gay, he should be ashamed of himself, and if he isn't he has a lot to learn. In this new book, Godbeer is hell-bent on convincing us that two men in colonial America could have exceedingly obsessive and passionate relationships (he calls them, variously, "sentimental," "loving," "romantic") replete with non-stop effusive correspondence that rivals anything in Barbara Cartland, and spend many a night in bed together talking their hearts out, without the issue of sex arising in any way. He tries very hard to convince us that then was so different from now, that men, in essence, in all of this behavior, had no sex drives, indeed no functioning penises that perked up when the luscious emotions and activities he is describing completely dominated the lives he is detailing. Oh, no, insists Godbeer. Most of these friendships were not in the least sexual. You know, a sort of I Love You, Man for colonial America. This historian is in such denial that he needs therapy. His early chapters detail young men obsessively in love with each other, wanting to sleep beside each other night after night, and often doing so, exchanging that word "love," quite generously. One young man relates a dream in which he pulls his friend out of the water: "he seemed to be stark naked and as we were running along hand in hand to the place where his clothes were --I awakened-- greatly agitated by the danger from which we seemed to have escaped." Tormented when apart, greedy for more when together. "...determined we should never part again..." "I will give myself up to you, I will go wherever you go and one shall not go without the other." "I love you very much." "Yours for ever--and ever and ever." These two men were twenty-seven years old. Godbeer keeps telling us, as if this explains something epochal, that, of course, there was, to be sure, no word for homosexual then. To which I reply, so what? Men in love with other men, by this very act alone, knew who they were without a word for them. And anyway there were hundreds of words for homosexual. I have a dictionary filled with them. The Queen's Vernacular , it's called, which documents centuries of what we called ourselves. Do you know that men loving men does not require the sexual act to qualify them as homosexuals? My American Heritage unabridged dictionary lists two definitions for homosexuality: the first: "sexual orientation to persons of the same sex; and the second: "sexual activity with another of the same sex." In other words, it is not necessary, nor should it be, to have had sex with another of the same sex, to maintain that a person is homosexual. Why, then, do most academics, indeed why does everyone, insist on this second definition over the first? This definition makes it all but impossible in many cases to claim a person as gay. Gay history gets eliminated as if we never existed. Perhaps this is why this second definition rules. By the first of these definitions, every person in Professor Godbeer's book would qualify as homosexual, certainly to me, with or without the word. Just because his research has not uncovered smoking cocks does not mean these loving friendships weren't shooting themselves off all over the thirteen colonies and into the Louisiana Purchase soon to come. To use his very own words, " IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ASSUME ." How does Godbeer know that most of the intimate friendships he describes were sexually chaste? He has no more evidence to prove his case than do those, like me, quick to discern orgies in colonial beds. The argument goes both ways. If one side cannot wave Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress, neither can the other side wave immaculate bed sheets. I do not understand why historians and academics, including gay ones, especially gay ones, refuse to believe that homosexuality has been pretty much the same since the beginning of human history, whether it was called homosexuality, sodomy, buggery, or had no name at all. "What's in a name," old Will Shakespeare, who certainly knew what one was, has Juliet ask us; "That which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet." Isn't it time for us to put a stop to this nonsense that produces retrograde books like this one, another in the long line of what I call the Doris Kearns Goodwinitis School of History As Highway Robbery? Doris is among the most visible and vociferous of our assailants, herself hell-bent on preventing us from claiming Lincoln as one of our own. Doris, if you recall, believes Lincoln could not have been gay because lots of men slept together in the same bed for four years and lots of men wrote love letters full of passion and caring, just like the plethora of ones in Godbeer's book. I wonder if Doris ever actually saw that bed Abe and his lover, Joshua Speed, slept in for four years. It was a very narrow bed, (I slept in wider ones in boys' sleep-away camp), and there is no way that two big men could have slept in it except in each other's arms. Gay people are victims of an enormous con job. An awful rip-off. A tragic heist. This has been going on for too many years. It is time to call its bluff and grow up. This means recognizing that we have been here since the beginning of the history of people. This means accepting that men loving men, men having sex with men, has been here since the beginning of history. Period and Amen. And that every single correspondent quoted by this Professor Godbeer knew what I am talking about. If they didn't write about it, well who knows why not. I must say that many of these young men sound to me like what we used to call weenies, wimps, sissies, wusses, whatever expression you want to use for the guys who never got chosen for the team. There is not a butch, or masculine sounding fellow among them. Read enough of their endless platitudinous meanderings and you long for some real men to come along and stop their whining and grab their crotches and plant a deep long kiss, avec tongue. Yes, IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ASSUME they knew how to do this then. We have known how to do all this from the very start of... well anything and everything. And please don't tell me that I'm guilty of applying today's "sensibilities" to something that happened over 300 years ago. You bet I am, and so what? "Has something changed in the biology of human sexual response whereby young men in bed together who can't keep their hands off each other today and get erections and copiously spurt sperm, whereas two or three hundred years ago they merely embraced, their penises somehow indifferent to all the clutching and loving?" cries Lewis Gannett, the editor of C.A. Tripp's monumental The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln . Godbeer tries very hard to convince us of this. Puh-leaze. I'm meant to take this Godbeer seriously? What kind of gay history are they teaching down in Miami? They've been out in the sun too long. Gender studies has gone to their heads. Sodomy was against the law and depending on the moment in time or place, punishable by death. So of course these guys are not going to write down in their letters An Ode to Your Gorgeous Penis and/or Tush, and stuff like that. The rest of the gay sexual repertory seems to have been acceptable enough to keep you alive, but not that acceptable that you wanted to tell Dear Diary about every jot and tittle. Such honesty is, even today, rarely available in even the Dearest Diaries of Great Modern Gays. Judging from how much Godbeer quotes from them, much of this romantic friendship stuff appears to have been whipped up by, of all things, newspapers, "for the love of one's country." He quotes from one uncredited editorial: "It would flow outward and transform society as a whole." "It is like a crystal fountain, uncontaminated at its source, issuing its stream along the vale and over the fertile mead, which makes the flowers in spontaneous order spring and flourish, and the valleys smile with pleasure, uniting fragrance over the wide expanse." What upstanding gay man would not respond to this challenge! Go to bed with your best chum and shoot the shit and be an example for all America. No, I can't prove much of what I am going on about. Just as no historian can disprove it. So why do we let Dick and Doris take us on such low roads? Such "scholarship" as Doris and Dick are going on about says more about modern "interpreters" than it does about what they are claiming to have discovered. IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ASSUME ... that Doris, (or Dick), can't claim with any more definitive authority that Lincoln, for instance, didn't sleep with men than s/he can claim the reverse. And since there is evidently much written about friendship, noble friendship, and very little written about sexual love between men, then that is what Godbeer is writing about and puffing up into something so huge that it is quite hard to buy, in the John Locke sense, who believed man should accept what he is and take joy from it. John Locke was a big deal in those days, to men who could think for themselves. IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ASSUME ... that erotic same-sex love was surely available on a much broader scale than any "historian" has yet been courageous enough to trumpet, indeed to research with half the skill that has brought us this friendship stuff. Indeed, our history is bereft of scholars willing to stop settling for the nonsense and willing to accept that IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ASSUME ... that is, common sense. That is, putting two and two together and not coming up with two and a half. Just because they can't locate the hard stuff does not mean that same sex sex did not exist. Even Ron Chernow and James R. Gaines in their respective well-regarded biographies of Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton , and Lafayette, For Liberty and Glory , in laying out all the intertwining relationships between Washington, Hamilton, Lafayette, and John Laurens (Hamilton's great love) admit they could have all been having sex. Of course, each says he doubts it (and of course no reasons are given for this position) but at least they admit the possibility, which in this day of Goodwinitis, is a tidge of progress. "While there is no irrefutable proof that Laurens and Hamilton were lovers," there is "sufficient circumstantial evidence to render indefensible any unqualified pronouncement that they were not," Godbeer quotes, in a footnote, from William Benemann's Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic Friendships . But Godbeer says, not in a footnote, "Yet we cannot simply assume that men who loved one another must have wanted to have sex..." Why not why not why not? ask I. The man is a coward and simply not up to fighting off the Goodwinitis that is murdering our past, should he only recognize her highway robbery for what it is. In fact, his book is overflowing with statements that provoke in me the same angry responses I have when I read Doris when she attacks the love of our Abe and his Joshua: "Figuring out what these romantic friendships meant to people living in the eighteenth century involves setting aside modern assumptions about love between members of the same sex." WHY?! "The modern assumption that most people are attracted--sexually and romantically--to either men or women would have surprised early Americans." WHO SAYS?! "Early Americans in general were taught to believe that all sex outside marriage...was driven by innate moral corruption inherited from Adam and Eve." SO WHAT?! "We know that there were men in British America who found themselves attracted to other men, yet the modern category of 'homosexual' would have made little sense to them or their neighbors... Strictly speaking, men who practiced sodomy during this period did not engage in homosexual acts, any more than the planter giving his wife 'a flourish' was engaging in a heterosexual act." Again, SO WHAT?! This ridiculous obfuscation is what they are teaching the kids today in schools? What with all those Mathers, Richard and Increase and Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards, all rushing around ranting about any kind of sex being a sin, I think gay men were probably scared shitless of what they might be feeling and thinking, much as much of today's youth in similar situations often feel. But from where comes the idea that we were so innocent and unschooled then? If ancient Greece knew about homosexuality and the England of George III knew about it, why couldn't we in New York or Boston or especially Philadelphia, a hot town in those days, have known about it? Yet again, let's get real here, please. It has been proved
 
Caption This Photo, Vote For Tuesday's Best, See Monday's Winner! Top
Original Caption: President Barack Obama bends over so the son of a White House staff member can pat his head during a family visit to the Oval Office May 8, 2009. The youngster wanted to see if the President's haircut felt like his own. TUESDAY'S FAVORITES: MONDAY'S WINNER: Upon waking up in Wembly Stadium after a lost weekend with Nancy Pelosi, Gordon Brown decides he has to give up drinking. By kms34786. More on Caption Contest
 
"Daddy Ate My Eyes": Angel Vidal Mendoza Accused Of Biting Out Son's Eye, Mutilating The Other (VIDEO) Top
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. &mdash (AP); A 4-year-old California boy may be permanently blinded after police say his father bit out one of his eyes and mutilated the other. Bakersfield police say 34-year-old Angel Vidal Mendoza appeared to be under the influence of PCP when he attacked the boy April 28. Afterwards police say Mendoza rolled his wheelchair outside and began hacking at his own legs with an ax. Four-year-old Angelo Mendoza Jr. told police, "my daddy ate my eyes." Doctors at Mercy Hospital say it's unclear whether Angelo will regain vision in his right eye. The boy's mother wasn't home at the time. Four-year-old Angelo Mendoza Jr. told police, "my daddy ate my eyes." Doctors at Mercy Hospital say it's unclear whether Angelo will regain vision in his right eye. The boy's mother wasn't home at the time. Mendoza is due in court Wednesday. Charges include mayhem, torture and child cruelty. Jail officials say they don't know whether he has an attorney. ___ Information from: The Bakersfield Californian, http://www.bakersfield.com More on Crime
 
Retired Generals, Admirals Consider Oil Depence A Security Risk Top
WASHINGTON — An advisory group of retired generals and admirals said in a report issued Monday that reducing America's reliance on oil and addressing climate change are critical for future national security. The report, presented to members of Congress and the Pentagon, said that energy security and efforts to reduce the risks of climate change should be included in the nation's national security and military planning. The retired, high-ranking military officers concluded that overreliance on oil _ not just foreign oil _ leaves the country vulnerable to unstable and hostile countries. They said future oil markets will be marked by limited supplies and increasing demand, posing a national security risk. "U.S. dependence on oil weakens international leverage, undermines foreign policy objectives and entangles America with unstable or hostile regimes," said the report, written by the Military Advisory Board of CNA, a nonprofit research organization. The board is made up of some retired senior officers of all branches of the military. The report was released as the House began work on a sweeping climate bill in its Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill would put limits on greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, and give incentives for development of noncarbon energy sources. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that he strongly agrees "with the stark conclusions" made by the advisory group, including that the competition for oil in the coming years is likely to precipitate conflicts. "Energy security is national security," said Lugar. The report identified a number of risks created by America's current energy policies and practices. The concerns extend beyond America's dependence on foreign oil, the report says, because no matter what the source, America's dependence on oil "undermines economic stability, which is critical to national security." Also, the report called for modernizing the nation's electric power system. The country's "fragile domestic electricity grid makes our domestic military installations and their critical infrastructure unnecessarily vulnerable to incident, whether deliberate or accidental," said the report. The report raised alarm about three converging concerns: A future global oil market shaped by limited supplies and increasing demand, rising fossil fuel prices caused by regulating climate-changing emissions, and the impacts of climate change on global insecurity. "Confronting these converging risks is critical to ensuring America's secure energy future," said the report. Retired Air Force Gen. Charles F. Wald, the advisory board's chairman, said in a statement, "We cannot turn a blind eye to the dangerous realities of our energy situation." "There is a relationship between the major challenges we're facing. Energy security, economics, climate change, these things are connected," added retired Gen. Gordon Sullivan, a former U.S. Army chief of staff. ____ On the Net: CNA: http://www.cna.org More on Energy
 
Waste Into Fuel: The Coolest Green Fuels Top
We have an oil dependency. We create too much waste. Wouldn't it be swell if we could kill two birds with one stone here? Here are some of the coolest waste-into-fuel technologies we've seen lately: CHOCOLATE WASTE There's a race car that runs on the byproduct of making chocolate. The makers also incorporated potatoes and carrots into the production of the car. Sounds delicious, looks fast. Check it out: BEER WASTE Are you a chocoholic, but for booze ? Well, then the car might not have done it for you, but this will: Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. makes delicious beer and has green practices to brag about. One of the coolest? It has a deal with E-Fuel to turn beer byproduct into ethanol . Make beer, get beer and fuel for cars. BUT DON'T BREW AND DRINK AND USE THE BYPRODUCT FOR FUEL AND DRIVE. WASTE WASTE If you don't make beer or chocolate, but you do make waste, then this next one might be more up your alley: Scientists have long known how to convert waste into fuel, but the US was only recently motivated to start doing it . Virtually any material containing hydrogen, carbon and oxygen could potentially be turned into motor fuel. That includes plastics, construction debris, forest and lawn trimmings, wood chips, wheat straw and many other types of agricultural waste. Apparently science has advanced enough that some folks think that styrofoam, the bane of our existence, may actually prove less... useless : The energy crisis has given rise to a new source of fuel - the Styrofoam cup. Mechanical engineers at Iowa State University in Ames have demonstrated how to boost the power output of biodiesel simply by adding waste plastic to the fuel.
 
Heather Wood Rudúlph: Much Ado About Abortion... Top
The Life vs. Choice debate is hot and heavy again. Of course this polarizing issue will never completely go away, but in the wake of a new Supreme Court Justice pick, there's been nonstop media attention on where Americans stand on abortion. According to a new Gallup Poll released this week, 51% identify as pro-life, marking the first time since 1995 (the first year Gallup started asking the question) that the scales have tipped that way. President Obama is under fire from both conservatives and liberals over whether he's going to choose a new Justice who will defend Roe v. Wade , and to what degree . And all the hubbub surrounding the pro-life President's commencement speech this weekend to a bunch of Catholic Notre Dame graduates makes it seem like he was threatening to perform an abortion right there on stage. Yes, things can get ugly in the abortion debate, but what's missing -- again -- from this all-important discourse is any real focus on sex education. Preventing more unwanted pregnancies -- especially among teenagers -- is a win-win for society and morality (a point Obama stressed to the Notre Dame class). But the national discussion on sex education has been censored to a point where any mention of birth control near a school is treated as if a child predator were on the loose. (Anti-abortion activists have no problem parading in front of health clinics and schools with super-sized photos of aborted baby parts, but bring up birth control in a classroom and that's crossing the line?) The fact is teenagers have sex, and they're having it sooner and more carelessly than previous generations. And that's just dumb. One inalienable benefit of time ticking by is the opportunity to take lessons from our past to better prepare for the future. Look just about anywhere in America where comprehensive sex education is included in school curriculum and you'll see fewer teen pregnancies and STDs. But in most states, contraceptives are still treated like porn. Only 69% of school districts in the United States teach sex education, and most of those that do focus exclusively on abstinence. And we know how well that works . Of course, how we educate is important too. Go rogue -- like the U.K.'s United Health Service did by releasing a video of a school girl giving birth on a football field (filmed like it was shot from a cell phone) -- and you'll irk sex-ed naysayers and get banned by YouTube . But do it just right, like the funny/informative Midwest Teen Sex Show , and you have a chance at actually getting a safe-sex message through to teenagers (and possibly scoring a development deal with Comedy Central!). The bottom line is, we can't afford to keep sex information from teens. The idea that hormonal adolescents will stick to a chaste moral code because their parents, church, or teen pop idols say it's the right (or supercool) thing to do is naïve at best and criminal at worst. Not educating our youth about the ticking time bombs they have in their pants is akin to sending untrained soldiers into the mountains of Afghanistan without so much as a map. Heather Wood Rudulph is the co-founder and editor of SirensMag.com . To read the original post, click here. More on Sex
 
Holly Robinson: Still in Love with Spock After All These Years Top
My love affair with Spock is no passing fancy. I was starstruck at age 11, when I first watched Star Trek on TV and hid under the coffee table because I was afraid of having the salt drained from my body by an alien and being covered with red welts, just like Darnell in The Man Trap . I wanted to be Spock, whose blood was immune to such things. I vowed to live long and prosper, and I wore a red turtleneck every day of sixth grade because I wanted to be mistaken for a member of the Enterprise crew. (You can imagine what this did for my popularity.) I could only do that weird split-finger Vulcan salute with my right hand and never my left, due to some genetic quirk. Despite this minor physical shortcoming, I persevered. Whenever my best friend and I played Star Trek , with our very own cardboard box Enterprise bridge and my pet gerbil as an extra crew member, she was always fearless Kirk to my rational, conflicted Spock. Spock was the first man to whom I wrote a love letter, and in return for it I received an autographed photograph. I pressed that picture inside my favorite horse book, My Friend Flicka, for the next six years or so. (I would still have it, but my father was a Navy officer, so nothing was forever.) I thought my lust for sexy Vulcans was gone for good, too, until I went to see the latest Star Trek movie with my youngest son, now 11, exactly the same age I was when Spock first ignited my passions. It was Mother's Day, so we saw Star Trek in a sold-out IMAX cinema north of Boston. It was a digital, full body experience far removed from the pale, flickering television of my youth. This theater had a towering screen, rumbling seats and a sound system that made me feel like the theater was being nuked the minute before the opening credits. But I didn't think about the theater at the time. While my husband and son were entranced by the battle scenes, I had eyes only for Spock. Or should I say "Spocks"? Leonard Nimoy was the Spock of the future, a grand old man who can still do the most famous split-finger salute in the universe and say "Live long and prosper" and make you think he means it. Our present-day Spock was played by Zachary Quinto, who had to have his fingers glued because he couldn't do that funky Vulcan finger thing, either. Must be the same genetic quirk I have. (William Shatner used fishing line to perform the trick in the original series. Check out http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25459863-5012980,00.html) I first noticed the actor Quinto as Sylar (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0704270/bio) on the brain-bruising Sci Fi conundrum that is Heroes (http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/) . He is perhaps best known as the villain who can open the craniums of his victims the way you or I might lift the lids off of yogurt containers. Could Quinto possibly pull this off, I wondered? Could he reignite my passion for all things Vulcan and make me remember why I loved Spock? Yes, yes, yes! Quinto plays a brooding Spock with such loyalty to his human mother that he does unVulcan things like clock whatever dumb ass insults her. He has the classic arched eyebrow, the ability to easily subdue lesser men with a single shoulder pinch, and says "fascinating" with authority. Did I care whether the Federation, with its courageous Enterprise crew, subdued this latest rebel ship of the Romulan Empire (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Romulan_Star_Empire)? Not one whit. On Mother's Day, I cared only that the movie brought my first love back to me.
 
Loaded Guns Allowed In National Parks Under Credit Card Bill Top
WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled Congress is moving to restore a Bush administration policy that allowed loaded guns in national parks. The Senate voted Tuesday to allow guns in national parks and wildlife refuges, and the House could follow suit as soon as Wednesday. The measure is included in a popular bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Democratic leaders have said they hope to send a final version to the White House for the president's signature by week's end. The Senate vote is a stark reversal from what many gun-control advocates expected when a federal judge blocked the Bush policy in March. The decision reinstated restrictions that had been in place since the Reagan administration. The rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored. The Obama administration accepted the March 19 ruling, saying that the Interior Department would review the policy over the next several months. That timetable changed quickly last week after Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn inserted an amendment to the credit card bill that would allow concealed, loaded guns in parks and refuges. To the surprise of many, the amendment easily passed, winning support from 67 senators _ including 27 Democrats. Among those who voted "yes" was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had blocked Coburn's amendment from coming to the Senate floor for more than a year. Seven other Western Democrats voted with Reid to support the Republican senator's amendment, which allows a range of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law. Spokesman Jim Manley said Reid is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, adding that the guns in parks issue was a major concern for many Nevadans. "The rules that apply to our federal lands are felt acutely in Nevada, where 87 percent of the state's land is managed by federal agencies," Manley said. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which sued to block the Bush policy, called the Senate vote reckless. The group called on President Barack Obama to demand that the gun provision be stripped from the credit card bill. "Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke. "The president should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns." Helmke and other critics, including environmental groups, park rangers and the Humane Society, say the Coburn amendment goes further than the Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges. The measure would allow individuals to openly carry rifles, shotguns and even semiautomatic weapons on ranger-led hikes and campfire programs at national parks, the groups said. Coburn said the gun measure protects every American's Second Amendment rights and also protects the rights of states to pass laws that apply to their entire state, including public lands. "Visitors to national parks should have the right to defend themselves in accordance with the laws of their states," Coburn said. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Tuesday that the House could vote separately on the gun legislation. Doing so would allow each measure to pass, but Democrats who endorse credit card reform could still vote as they wished on the gun measure. Hoyer said the two bills would then be rejoined and sent to the president as a single bill.
 
How The Illinois Crime Lab And Blagojevich Got The State's Massive DNA Backlog Wrong Top
When the U.S. government hired Michael Sheppo to help eliminate a crushing backlog in untested DNA evidence, he had all the right credentials. As one of the country's top forensic scientists, Sheppo served on the board of the nation's leading center for researching and teaching DNA testing. And during Sheppo's tenure as chief of the Illinois State Police crime lab, scientists there wiped out a backlog of 1,000 cases in little more than a year, according to lab reports. But those reports were wrong. Far from being eliminated, the backlog still existed then and remains today. Now, almost three years after Sheppo took the helm of the National Institute of Justice's forensic science division, his old lab is under fire. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Charlie Cray: On a clear day what's gonna be left to see? Top
Once again, Ralph Nader is sounding the alarm as the Dems and their union allies seem willing to let multinational corporations screw the country over. President Obama (via Ratner's auto task force and Treasury Secretary Geithner ) is about to let GM and the auto industry seek "financial viability" through bankruptcy. Once that happens, Congress loses control and as Ralph suggests, and others like the Nation's John Nichols and William Greider have also noted, means the industry could be allowed to restructure their operations so that they end up relocating the vast bulk of their production operations to China. Mainstream financial journalists like Allan Sloan are now picking up on this scam, asking how it is that we seem to be using taxpayer money to rescue the U.S. auto companies, rather than restoring the U.S. auto industry. What about all the blather about how the bailout was going to preserve jobs? It's often not polite to question the unions' role in liberal company, but you gotta wonder where the UAW is on all this? Aren't they in effect selling their current and future members' jobs out for a slice of company equity that they'll end up selling to cover the retirees' pensions? Are they as short-sighted as that? The game is almost over -- unless more than a few members of Congress have the guts to block the auto industry task force from going to bankruptcy court before there's a full vetting of these issues. More on Barack Obama
 
Linda Hirshman: I'm Not a Theologian But I Play One at the Times Top
It's a good thing Ross Douthat is back to empty calories . His column last week invoking the recent Pew poll on support for abortion actually required some research and analysis, at least to see what the Pew poll really meant. Most analysts dismissed the usually reliable Pew as putting a scary headline on a poll that was just a little different from the decades of polling showing stable support for abortion in just about the circumstances that apply now. When the Gallup Poll came out later, reflecting an actual decline in support for abortion below 50%, it took a bunch of numbers crunchers to figure out what was wrong. Here is the estimable John Sides, a political science professor, on the numbers and on the other smart people looking at the numbers. Take away message: little change. Except in the overheated imagination of the avidly anti-choice Ross Douthat. But today Douthat uses his roughly 1000 word space at the Times website to review the collected works of Dan Brown, author of such political books as "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels and Demons," educate the public on the fictional nature of these works of, er, fiction, and inform his readers of the eternal truth of the "jealous, demanding apocalyptic" Jesus of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." To be charitable, let us assume that Douthat, who did not, even as an undergraduate, study theology, is actually making a political point. He might be arguing that the popularity of Brown's books reflects an American preference for a kind of civil religion, which does not immediately drive people to pile up the wood around the stake, the better to slake the appetite of their jealous and demanding god. Many commentators on the American political scene including, for example, the locus classicus of American observers, Alexis de Tocqueville, noticed the same thing. The only difference is that they thought it was a good thing that American democracy was buttressed by a spiritual element which did not immediately involve hooded minions, whereas Douthat regrets. One does not have to be Christopher Hitchens to be grateful that, so far, Douthat and his co-religionists, wherever they may be found (I extend Roman Catholicism the respect of not thinking that Douthat's one liner sums up their understanding of the Gospels or the relationship between the Cities of God and Man), have not yet enticed a majority of American voters to their grand new party. Indeed, being a descendant of (if not a believer in) the people of the prior jealous and demanding god, all Douthat's column caused me to do was . . . check my passport.
 
John Feffer: Return of Utopian Visions? Top
What would it look like if Quakers ruled the world? The World Bank would be renamed the International Frugality Fund. All political institutions would run on the principle of consensus. And there would be meetings. Lots and lots of meetings. It would be like living in a huge group house. Some people love process, agendas, facilitated discussion, and moments of silence. They would flourish in this Quaker utopia. Other folks avoid meetings at all costs. For them, Quaker World would be a dystopia, and they would find themselves permanently outside of consensus. After all, one person's utopia is another's nightmare. In Plato's Republic , for instance, the philosopher is king. But poets have to shut up or go into exile. Can you imagine writing a novel or making an upbeat film about a Quaker utopia? Kind of a snoozer. Utopias tend to be rather static. Dystopias, on the other hand, are much more popular with the creative class. Darker visions of the future -- 1984, Blade Runner, The Handmaid's Tale -- showcase the most dynamic of tensions: between renegade individual and conformist society. In one respect, though, our dystopian narratives conform to one general rule: they take place in the developed world. The future looks like totalitarian England or rain-soaked Los Angeles or cyborg Tokyo. As Henry Kissinger once famously and fatuously said , "The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, crosses over to Washington, and then goes to Tokyo. What happens in the South is of no importance." Science fiction writers seem to have unconsciously absorbed Kissinger's axiom. Not Alex Rivera, though. In a radical change of perspective, this Rivera has set his new film Sleep Dealer south of the border, in Mexico. "We've seen the future of Los Angeles, in Blade Runner ," Rivera tells Foreign Policy In Focus senior analyst Mark Engler in Science Fiction from Below . "We've seen the future of Washington, DC, in Steven Spielberg's Minority Report. We've seen London and Chicago. But we've never seen the places where the great majority of humanity actually lives. Those are in the global South. We've never seen Mexico; we've never seen Brazil; we've never seen India. We've never seen that future on film before." In Rivera's future, the borders are closed and manual workers "commute" to their construction jobs and taxi driving stints by way of robots. Their communities, except for the occasional streak of ultramodernity, remain underdeveloped. Wars, meanwhile, are fought largely at a distance, through remote-controlled drones. The world of Sleep Dealer is tied together by electronics and divided by walls. It is a dystopian vision well-suited to the Bush era when Rivera was producing his movie. Many of the features that Rivera describes -- the underdevelopment of the Global South, the Pentagon's use of remote-controlled drones -- have continued into the Obama era (For a new website devoted to cataloging America's air wars, check out Our Bombs ). And the global situation is certainly far from optimistic. For some Americans, Europe represents a utopian vision. It already has some of the social democratic features, such as stronger safety nets and Greener laws, which progressives are pushing for in the United States. For conservatives, however, Europe is the worst kind of dystopia. Francis Fukuyama located his "end of history" in Brussels and what he imagined would be a metastasized bureaucracy. But the tone in Washington has shifted. President Obama's upbeat rhetoric and his focus on a better future have stimulated a certain amount of utopianism. After eight years of being on the defensive, progressives can at least dream of a nuclear-free world, universal health care in the United States, and a shift to a Greener planet. This week, we indulge in some optimistic futurology of our own. FPIF contributor Richard Register imagines a world of sustainable cities. "It's puzzling that almost no one connects the largest things we build -- our cities -- to the largest problems that we're experiencing, much less connects them to solutions to those problems," Register writes in Cities Can Save the World . "We can do more, much more, to redesign our cities for pedestrians and bicyclists, taking up very small areas of land in more compact development. Taller buildings with rooftop gardens and solar greenhouses can be linked by pedestrian connections between rooftops and terraces above ground level, making city centers intimately accessible to people on foot. As we add population and ecological architecture in pedestrian/transit centers, we can gradually eliminate the unsustainable suburbs." Europe is having just such an argument about its future. The European Union has nearly doubled its size in the last six years. It stands on the verge of expanding further and having a greater voice in global affairs. But the Lisbon Treaty, which would give Europe a real parliament and a new foreign minister position, has gone down to defeat in referenda in Ireland, Netherlands, and France. Is the EU's latest treaty designed to create a more perfect union or a more bureaucratic super-state remote from the people? As FPIF contributor Paul Hockenos points out, the criticisms of the Lisbon Treaty as maintaining or even increasing the "democratic deficit" in the European Union are wide of the mark. "The parliament would have full budgetary discretion, which will put it on an equal footing with the executive branch, the current locus of power run by the national states," Hockenos writes in Learning to Love the European Union . "And, among other issues, it will finally be able to take on the EU's scandalous agricultural subsidies, the sacred cow of agribusiness giants France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Also, civil society and social movements will win a new voice through direct all-European 'citizens' initiatives.' These changes would constitute meaningful progress toward the creation of a Europe-wide public sphere and demos, the prerequisites for a real European politics." Throughout Europe, Hockenos points out, left-wing critics of globalization and right-wing nationalists have teamed up to fight against the Lisbon Treaty and the European Union's attempts at self-improvement. The Europe of the Lisbon Treaty is certainly no utopia. But nor is it a dystopia. That great European Voltaire once wrote that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." We need utopian visions, just as any journey needs a horizon, and we need cautionary dystopian stories, so that we can see more clearly the logical consequence of our worst actions. Politics, as the art of the possible, must wind its way between these poles. The challenge, in this age of dystopian fictions and utopian dreams, is to find precisely where along the spectrum to pin our hopes. More on European Union
 
Arkansas GOP Chair Slammed For Gay-Baiting Speech Top
The media fallout over Arkansas Republican Party chair Doyle Webb's anti-gay comments suggests even in red states people are in no mood for the politics of division. Last week Webb admitted the stump speech he's given across the state has included references to the state legislature's sole openly gay member, Rep. Kathy Webb of Little Rock.
 
Judith M. Bardwick: ACT and Take Control Top
The bad news keeps raining down, drowning us in unrelenting pessimism. In this, the winter of many discontents we have not seen the sun for far too long and there's no relief in sight. How does that make people feel? The answer is depressed, anxious and fearful. These are not the ingredients of an economic recovery or of courage and resilience for individuals and organizations. Instead, the overall mood is one of hopelessness fueled by the overriding feeling we don't have any control over what is happening to us. The most debilitating emotions are those of anxiety coupled with the feeling of being powerless. That makes us passive observers, without the energy or will to act. Anxiety is a shapeless and amorphous feeling of dread that envelops us like a dark fog, creating threats that are too vague for us to take arms against them. It's when we're filled with anxiety that we huddle in the corner of our bed, cuddling our blankey, sucking our thumb. Anxiety is effectively countered when the amorphous threat is converted into specific concerns because specificity lends itself to problem solving. That converts passivity into an active act with a good chance of being successful. It is is not hard to transform amorphous threats into specific problems and goals; it merely requires knowing that's the task. * Initiate and Succeed Identify no more than three specific tasks that are important to achieve and accomplish them. Success is what really matters so it is fine if these initial efforts at problem solving involve baby steps, reasonably easy changes in your routine like only responding to email at the beginning and end of the work day, or exercising for 30 minutes four times a week. Learn to break larger projects into separate parts or steps and prioritize which need to be done swiftly and unusually well. Do not sweat the smaller stuff which are not critical. As you actively solve problems you'll discover your anxiety level declines and you feel more competent and in control. * Get Out of Your Box. Find a new goal that is significant to you and make a commitment to it. In other words, break your comfortable habits in some way so you start fresh in something new that you think might be worthwhile. You might, for example, volunteer to help teach children or adults to read...or you could enroll in a class on ancient history...or you could decide to join a three day march to raise money to fight breast cancer... In itself, deciding to do something you have never done before and actually doing it, will increase your general confidence and sense of competence. * Know Your Self Nobody is good at everything. I love Peter Drucker's advice in which he says, "Work on what you do well and don't put much effort into what you don't do well. If you pursue improving what you don't do well, at best you'll become an average performer. But if you hone what comes naturally, you'll be outstanding." Wise people draw to their strengths and as much as possible and avoid their weaknesses. My late husband Allen was dyslexic and created a very successful career in the Coast Guard and as a Master Mariner based on seamanship and leadership rather than writing policy analyses. He was a very wise man. * Stand Out If you've ever been in a position to select the successful candidates from a large pool, you will have learned how very difficult that can be. The quality of almost all groups of candidates will usually fall into a normal bell-shaped curve which means there are relatively few people in either tail. In other words, almost no one falls into either the-walk-on-water or the why-did-they-apply?! groups. Very simply, the great majority of people fall into the he or she-could do it population. As the differences between most candidates are very small, judges hunt for anything that makes a person really special or anything that could disqualify someone. That's why your #1 job is to be more notable than anyone else. How might you do that? First, read, ask, and listen so you have a good idea of the direction your field is more likely to take in the near future and the implications of that for your company's future growth and investment. Become an expert in those areas through school, a new job, or projects at work. Increase your value to management: by communicating the results of your research; by utilizing your new expertise; by demonstrating your entrepreneurial go-getting and collaborative spirit; by leading effective change efforts; and by demonstrating the depth and integrity of your commitment and engagement to the organization and its' work. Perhaps the most important advice about becoming invaluable is, do not accept a job that doesn't contribute to the core business or to its' profitability if it's a for-profit organization. The reason why staff functions are often seen as necessary but are held in low esteem, is staff is a help to - but not a direct contributor to - the business of the business and its success. If, for example, you are a trainer in a manufacturing company, you are seen as staff and a cost. On the other hand, if you are a trainer in a business that develops, sells and offers training, you are part of the core business and a potential profit center. There is a world of difference in these seemingly similar situations. * Become visible to the decision-makers. Many years ago a writer and I became good enough friends so we exchanged drafts of manuscripts with each other. He was writing a novel and I thought it was already pretty good, except for two chapters that I thought slowed the action way too much. Tell me, I asked, what are these chapters about and why did you go into so much detail about the relationship of your primary character and this other guy. Judy, he wrote back, those pages are all about the hero and his mentor. That had never occurred to me because in those days there were no mentors (or coaches or supporters) for women. Some time after that, I was an Associate Dean at the University of Michigan and the Dean, Billy Frye, became my informal mentor. What an extraordinary experience that turned out to be! He was a model of a modern leader, a man who listened as well as he told, and I tried to emulate his style. He encouraged me to be a leader of innovation and in doing that I discovered that just because I had access to him, every door was now open to me. He aught me to be shrewd as well as smart because from him I learned about strategy, how to gain and use power. He was my teacher, my supporter, and a very good friend. Relationships at work don't get better than that. The best relationships involve mutual respect and trust as well as liking and ease. While I was overwhelmed by Billy's kindness to me he assured me that he was learning from me while I was learning from him. We had worked together for a year before he became my mentor and we both knew we could trust each other, that in this relationship it was very easy to be truthful, and we were both deeply committed to the university and its' mission. 70 percent of the Fortune 500 companies have formal mentoring programs as well as training and coaching. I don't know if those relationships are as effective as an informal mentoring arrangement that develops naturally as people work together, but they are certainly assets in terms of improving yourself and becoming visible to those who make decisions about you. Even in a meritocracy, a really big asset is a boss who blocks and tackles...and toots your horn.
 
Senate Votes To Allow Loaded Guns In National Parks Top
WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled Congress is moving to restore a Bush administration policy that allowed loaded guns in national parks. The Senate voted Tuesday to allow guns in national parks and wildlife refuges, and the House could follow suit as soon as Wednesday. The measure is included in a popular bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Democratic leaders have said they hope to send a final version to the White House for the president's signature by week's end. The Senate vote is a stark reversal from what many gun-control advocates expected when a federal judge blocked the Bush policy in March. The decision reinstated restrictions that had been in place since the Reagan administration. The rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored. The Obama administration accepted the March 19 ruling, saying that the Interior Department would review the policy over the next several months. That timetable changed quickly last week after Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn inserted an amendment to the credit card bill that would allow concealed, loaded guns in parks and refuges. To the surprise of many, the amendment easily passed, winning support from 67 senators _ including 27 Democrats. Among those who voted "yes" was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had blocked Coburn's amendment from coming to the Senate floor for more than a year. Seven other Western Democrats voted with Reid to support the Republican senator's amendment, which allows a range of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law. Spokesman Jim Manley said Reid is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, adding that the guns in parks issue was a major concern for many Nevadans. "The rules that apply to our federal lands are felt acutely in Nevada, where 87 percent of the state's land is managed by federal agencies," Manley said. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which sued to block the Bush policy, called the Senate vote reckless. The group called on President Barack Obama to demand that the gun provision be stripped from the credit card bill. "Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke. "The president should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns." Helmke and other critics, including environmental groups, park rangers and the Humane Society, say the Coburn amendment goes further than the Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges. The measure would allow individuals to openly carry rifles, shotguns and even semiautomatic weapons on ranger-led hikes and campfire programs at national parks, the groups said. Coburn said the gun measure protects every American's Second Amendment rights and also protects the rights of states to pass laws that apply to their entire state, including public lands. "Visitors to national parks should have the right to defend themselves in accordance with the laws of their states," Coburn said. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Tuesday that the House could vote separately on the gun legislation. Doing so would allow each measure to pass, but Democrats who endorse credit card reform could still vote as they wished on the gun measure. Hoyer said the two bills would then be rejoined and sent to the president as a single bill.
 
Stuart Whatley: Moral Majority or Immoral Minority? Top
In the upcoming hearings to vet and confirm Supreme Court Justice David Souter's replacement, Senate conservatives are expected to center their focus on same-sex marriage , marking a departure from the past when abortion ruled the culture war divide. Their new strategy seems ill advised, unless of course there is something to gain from making oneself the Hector of the political battlefield. Indeed, the right is demonstrating a continued inclination to be stubbornly loyal to stale, unfashionable arguments (torture; global warming; government spending during a recession), establishing a trend that could ultimately see it falling on its own political sword. The fact is that, compared to abortion, there is less and less going for the anti-same-sex marriage side of the fight. With abortion, the divide is a toss-up between the stipulated life of a first trimester fetus and a woman's right to privacy over her own body, ruled to be implicit in the Constitution. Abortion is a far more intractable issue because it is centered on a third party who is argued to lack any representation or defense. However, with same-sex marriage, the consideration of this third party is absent, leaving little to no justifiable claim for two peoples' relationship to be subjected to government intervention or refutation. And as such, an April Washington Post-ABC News poll found 49 percent of those asked to be in favor of legalized same-sex marriage, versus 46 percent who are opposed. The shift towards tolerance is especially due to younger constituents who, regardless of personal beliefs, can't see how who marries whom is any of their business. Moreover, they find it civilly and democratically -- and indeed, morally -- questionable to deny to one group of the citizenry rights and benefits enjoyed by everyone else. If conservatives wish to elevate their fight against same-sex marriage to primus inter pares without a smarting backlash, they will have to somehow justify this exclusive denial of rights as something other than hidebound bigotry. Indeed, a mis-tackle of this issue could very well transform the soi disant 'moral majority' into an immoral minority, considering that an increased percentage of people will consider such a position to be driven more by social sadism than personal righteousness. One often hears a claim that same-sex marriage would sully traditional heterosexual couplings, or that same sex parents would raise heinous miscreant children. The problem is that most real-life examples of these scenarios suggest the complete opposite (and there was never any evidence to support the claims in the first place). With these arguments falling flat, all that is really left is the sad position articulated recently -- and hysterically -- by Miss California's Carrie Prejean: that it's her belief, and nobody can touch that. Prejean's controversial answer to a same-sex marriage policy question stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman, which lost her the Miss America contest -- a venue where real-life blow-up dolls with the erudition of a toddler are sometimes asked to proffer informed opinions on the most intractable issues of the day. The Prejean debacle underscores a crucial distinction between one's own beliefs and others' rights that is rarely appreciated by opponents of same-sex marriage. Prejean and her defenders are correct that everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs, but they are wrong to think that personal beliefs should be allowed to have any bearing on the private, individual rights of strangers under law. In fact, the notion that the government should decide if two people may marry, or which married couples may enjoy federal benefits, flies in the face of traditional, no-government-involvement conservatism -- how conservative same-sex marriage opponents reconcile this contradiction seems a rather pertinent question. *** For his part, President Obama treads the line gracefully. As The Economist put it last week, "Barack Obama says he supports civil unions but, as a Christian, opposes gay marriage. The incoherence of this stance makes it conveniently difficult to attack." However, this position should not be viewed as incoherence, but rather as one where personal beliefs are appropriately compartmentalized from public policymaking. In fact, as soon as this is achieved, the issue ceases to really be an issue at all. In New Hampshire's same-sex marriage debate, Democratic Governor John Lynch is working to establish protection for churches and religious leaders who fear being forced to officiate and bless marriages for same-sex couples. This is not only fair, it also seems to all but eradicate the point of most contention. As with many divisive issues, the same-sex marriage debate is falling more and more into the realm of farce, due to unremitting straw man attacks. Paranoid conservatives cry shrilly that same-sex marriage is an affront to their religion, except that most gay couples just want equal recognition under law and could care less about religious dogma. According to the Washington Post , the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples over 1,100 federal benefits that are enjoyed by other couples. Most same-sex couples presumably couldn't care less about the traditional religious definition of "marriage" because they know they would immediately and arbitrarily be precluded -- the government, being a secular entity, shouldn't care either. A dozen states already recognize some form of same-sex union under law, revealing that the dispute need not be irresolvable. The risk the GOP takes by centering on this issue now is that it could indelibly be identified as nothing more than the Frivolous Asshole Party -- using paranoid arguments to attack a group of people for demanding personal rights they've been exclusively denied for centuries, as if anyone can blame them. One wonders when Republicans are going to figure out how to appeal to people rather than traditions. Touting antediluvian principles may very well make someone a good, loyal Burkean or Reaganite (read: Luddite), but without some updates to the political outlook, it's quite easy for that conservatism to become atavism. There are a slew of crucial issues confronting the nation; if GOP congressmen have decided to expend what is left of their political capital fighting a battle more and more people consider inane, unnecessary and, indeed, easily resolved, then it may be a presage for a rather forlorn Republican future. More on Gay Marriage
 
Arab Home Demolition Escalating In Jerusalem Top
While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington getting an earful from US lawmakers about the need to stop Jewish settlements and establish a Palestinian state, back in Jerusalem the new mayor is implementing a very different policy. More on Israel
 

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)