Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Blog Alert
Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Chicago Becomes First Major City To Ban BPA Baby Bottles, Sippy Cups Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- Chicago on Wednesday became the first U.S. city to adopt a ban on the sale of baby bottles and sippy cups containing the chemical BPA. The Chicago City Council approved the ban on a 48-0 vote. It is slated to take effect Jan. 31, 2010. "This is an important step in a landmark consumer protection initiative. This legislation will protect Chicago's children and send a clear message to other jurisdictions considering similar legislation," said Alderman Manny Flores, co-sponsor of the measure. BPA is short for bisphenol A (BIS'-fen-ahl AY'). It's used to harden plastics in many consumer products including CDs, sports safety equipment and reusable bottles. It's also present in some food container linings. Experts disagree on whether it poses health risks to humans, but some manufacturers of baby bottles have voluntarily removed it because of safety questions. "We should err on the side of caution and not needlessly expose people to the harmful effects, especially children," said Alderman Edward Burke, the measure's other sponsor. Some scientists and environmental advocates argue that BPA can mimic hormones and cause reproductive problems in children, but the chemicals industry says BPA-containing consumer products pose no health threat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said that FDA-approved products containing BPA that are currently on the market are safe; its review of BPA research is ongoing. Advocates say Chicago is the third jurisdiction in the country to adopt a ban. Last week Minnesota became the first state to ban BPA from plastic baby bottles and sippy cups. And last month, a suburban New York county adopted a ban on the sale of baby bottles containing the chemical. Last year, Canada became the first country to announce plans for a similar ban. The Canadian government is drafting regulations to prohibit the importation and sale of baby bottles containing BPA, although most retailers there have already removed them from store shelves. Chicago's ban requires Mayor Richard M. Daley's approval and a spokeswoman said he intends to sign it. A proposed federal ban on BPA in food containers is pending in Congress, and 24 states have pending bills that would restrict BPA, said Max Muller, program director of Environment Illinois, an advocacy group that supported Chicago's ban. He called the city's action "a good first step. Children have the highest exposure. It's a limited approach but it's targeting the most vulnerable people." The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, issued a statement saying Chicago's ban is unwarranted. "The new Chicago law is contrary to the global consensus on the safety of BPA and ignores the expert evaluations of scientists and government bodies from around the world," the council said. Consumer Reports publisher Consumers Union, which has sought a national ban on BPA in food containers, praised Chicago for taking the lead on citywide action. "Nationwide consumers will remain at risk until federal action is taken. We are hopeful that the new leadership at FDA will act swiftly to address this important public health concern," said the group's Urvashi Rangan. Chicago's ordinance requires retailers to post notices declaring that products they sell do not contain BPA. Violators could be fined up to $100 or more per offense and could lose their licenses. --- On the Net: NIH: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/bpa-factsheet.pdf FDA: http://www.fda.gov -ASSOCIATED PRESS More on Health
 
William Bradley: What Does Obama's Afghan Command Change Mean? Top
The Obama Administration wanted "a fresh look" and General David McKiernan seemed attuned to a different sort of campaign. For the first such change in wartime since Harry Truman replaced General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War in 1951, Barack Obama is replacing General David McKiernan in Afghanistan. Obama is moving both to change a stalemated war in Afghanistan and to scale back expectations there. McKiernan, the commander of conventional ground forces for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is being replaced by a special operations expert, Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal. As head of Joint Special Operations Command, McChrystal oversaw the capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the killing of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. McChrystal, a West Pointer who became a Green Beret not long after graduation, following a stint as a platoon leader in the 82nd Airborne Division, is currently director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, the executive staff to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The new deputy commander, filling a new slot, will be Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, the top military aide to Defense Secretary Bob Gates and former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who travels with him around the world. Defense Secretary Bob Gates announced the sacking of McKiernan and designation of McChrystal, as well as his own top aide, Rodriguez, as deputy commander. The new American commander in Iraq, whose appointment was announced by Gates on Monday, has to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He doesn't come without a nimbus of controversy. McChrystal's former outfit, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which he commanded from 2003 to 2008, has been criticized by some on the left, including journalist Seymour Hersh, as "an executive hit squad." JSOC is a combination of many of the various military service's top special operators, i.e., commandos, including the Delta Force. It was formed in the aftermath of the failed 1980 attempt to rescue hostages from the American embassy in Iran. Some of McChrystal's troopers have been criticized for using torture during interrogations. The family of football star-turned-Ranger Pat Tillman, killed by "friendly fire" in Afghanistan, want to know what McChrystal knew and when he knew it. And the family of Pat Tillman, the football star who became a Ranger after 9/11 and died in a "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan, criticizes McChrystal for approving Tillman's Silver Star citation for bravery "in the line of devastating enemy fire" just a day before distributing a memo saying that it was "highly possible" the former Arizona Cardinals safety was killed by his own colleagues. None of which has dissuaded Obama from making McChrystal -- with, perhaps not coincidentally with a president who so values the spoken word, a reputation as an outstanding briefer -- his commander in what is now America's most troubled war. So why the switch? Unlike McChrystal, a West Pointer who went airborne, then Special Forces, McKiernan is a College of William & Mary ROTC graduate who went into the armor section of Army, going up the ranks commanding units focused on tanks and other armored vehicles. Working under the overall commander, General Tommy Franks, McKiernan commanded the conventional ground forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Which, actually, went very well. Then the trouble, probably predictably, really started with the various Iraq insurgencies emerging. In Afghanistan, McKiernan, drawing on the lesson that the Iraq force started out far too small to provide stability after Saddam was ousted, has repeatedly insisted on more troops for that mountainous, farflung country. President Barack Obama made it known before he took office that there would be a new direction for the troubled war in Afghanistan. General David Petraeus, who oversees Afghanistan as well as Iraq now as head of U.S. Central Command, has also been pushing for more troops for Afghanistan. But Obama, backed by Gates, is delivering about half as many troops as Petraeus and McKiernan wanted. Putting McChrystal -- whose expertise is in carefully-targeted, highly-lethal, mostly ground force raids on jihadist leaders and cadre -- in command reinforces the message that there will not be the sort of massive surge of American troops into Afghanistan that current commanders wanted. Incidentally, though the exact numbers are classified, McChrystal's vaunted JSOC may number no more than a few thousand. Under McKiernan's command, American forces in Afghanistan have been increasingly criticized for air strikes that result in many civilian casualties. The administration says that air strikes will continue. But sources say that the strikes will be more discriminating and targeted. The probability of civilian casualties goes up in the absence of experienced soldiers on the ground calling in the strikes, something which is a function of the special operations forces McChrystal has served with throughout his career. Then Vice President-elect Joe Biden met with McKiernan in Kabul on January 10th. The move from McKiernan to McChrystal also seems to signify an end to nation-building fantasies in Afghanistan. The Bush/Cheney Administration spoke of building a much more modern nation-state in Afghanistan, which is not nearly as modern as Iraq. Not much was actually accomplished, however, as the fateful Iraq fixation took hold and became the chief enterprise of an entire presidency. When Obama announced his new strategy for Afghanistan -- and Pakistan, the deterioration of which during the Bush years accelerated into outright crisis -- on March 27th, there were distinct overtones of nation-building. Not so much now. Oh, they're still moving to stabilize what passes for a central government, do more in the vast rural areas, and provide more economic development aid, as well as real training for the Afghan army and police forces, but it's all with an eye to compromise rather than outright victory. There've been a variety of apparently desultory talks with the Taliban in the past, with all but ousted former Afhan leader Mullah Omar, now ensconced in Pakistan, seen as being in the ballpark. That was then. Today Reuters reported that former Taliban officials , working with the administration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, have contacted Mullah Omar and other top Afghan Taliban leaders to set up peace talks. On the table, among other things, asylum for militants in Saudi Arabia in exchange for withdrawal of foreign forces, as well as negotiation on the shape of a new constitution and government. Not exactly unconditional surrender. The Obama Administration seems to be focusing on the original ostensible purpose for going into Afghanistan in the first place after 9/11: To disrupt Al Qaeda and deny it a base in Afghanistan. More on Barack Obama
 
Stewart Acuff: REAL MOVEMENT FOR CHANGE Top
No one knows exactly how to create a social movement. It happens when good, solid organizing meets a certain social zeitgeist. We know movement is preceded by good organizing and leadership development, but we're not exactly sure when good organizing turns into movement. We do, however, know many of the elements of movements: spontaneous action organic, unengineered action; moral outrage and righteous indignation; a sense of moral superiority; broad acceptance of social change. We are now just beginning to see these elements of movement in the right to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. This week Karl Rove is touring the Midwest speaking at small meetings of business leaders against the Employee Free Choice Act. I wonder how much Rove's speaking fees are to speak to 30 businessmen in Peoria, Ill. And everywhere he stops he is being met by demonstrations of rank and file union activists and leaders protesting Karl Rove and his position on the Employee Free Choice Act. Those demonstrations in Peoria and St. Louis and other places were not called by the AFL-CIO in Washington. They arose organically spontaneously by local activist and leaders who know America needs the Employee Free Choice Act and who are willing to fight to pass it. Those demonstrations are fueled by moral outrage about the yawning and growing income and wealth inequality in America and the economic crisis created by 30 years of failed trickle down economics. The campaign to pass the Employee Free Choice Act has other elements of movement, too. Our country and our people are not only ready for change, we are demanding it. In 54 years of life I don't think I have seen the opponents of change quite so inept, incompetent, and out of step with the American people. And I am certain that I have never seen Corporate America and the radical rightwing so overreach, so tone deaf to the kitchen table concerns of all Americans. So there is ample moral outrage and demand for change, spontaneous action, and moral superiority. Democrats must understand that they cannot engineer every solution, that the most important and useful thing they can do is to free American workers to act in their own behalf, to act spontaneously and organically, to act to organize and to act freely to form unions and bargains collectively, to act not through someone else and not waiting until 2010 and not vicariously through President Obama but right now, directly, in concert with fellow workers in everyone's interest to re-create an exit route from poverty, to attack inequality, to directly attack 30 years of failed trickle down economics, to rebuild the American middle class. With the party change of Arlen Specter and the coming seating of Al Franken, President Obama and his Democratic Party have the power and the obligation to meet the grassroots movement and demand for change with the best kind of change -- change that invites average people to move and at on their own behalf, collectively, to organize on the job for a better standard of living and a better quality of life for their own kids and families -- and everyone else's too. Just by passing the Employee Free Choice Act More on Barack Obama
 
Eric Schmeltzer: Godspeed, GOP Top
The Republican Party is in shambles. Yeah, I know. That's been kind of obvious for a while. But never was it crystallized more than in the two stories running today showing the party to be completely rudderless. First, Adam Nagourney in the New York Times reports: A party and a conservative movement that over the years have been home to a parade of optimistic figures in American politics -- like Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, who died last week -- is increasingly worried about coming across as downbeat or angry. He quotes a bunch of the old guard, like former Chairman Richard Bond, worried that the party is coming off as increasingly angry (read: "crazy"), and lamenting that the party seems to be heading over the cliff. At the same time, a story from Roger Simon in the Politico reports that this weekend, the party is expected to approve a resolution calling on everyone to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party." To those in the party like the current Chairman, Michael Steele, who don't think this is wise and might resist, an RNC member said, "Who cares?" I'm fairly sure most of those in the leadership in the party aren't Ozzy fans, but his lyrics seem pretty spot-on here: "Mental wounds not healing... Who and what's to blame... I'm going off the rails on a crazy train..." Being in the "wilderness" isn't a new phenomenon for political parties. It was a relatively short time ago that the Democratic party was wrestling with its own future, and which way it would go. The difference is that Democrats (and even Republicans during their soul-searching of the 70s) didn't focus on tone, but on carving out a positive agenda that fit the times. But this is what happens when Boss Limbaugh is the real leader of your party. An entertainer, Limbaugh is all about tone, and not much about ideas. Tone gets ratings. An angry tone gets boffo ratings. But, an angry tone without ideas doesn't get votes. And by forcing a battle over how angry your tone should be, before you even know what you stand for anymore, you make radio hosts happy, but you lose the American people at a fast clip. And so, by focusing on tea parties that protest everything, offer nothing, and feature signs with Barack Obama made up like Adolf Hitler , and keying their internal battles on whether or not to call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party" or not, Republicans aren't just on their way off the rails on a crazy train, they're about to head straight into the sun, warp factor 10. Godspeed on that voyage, Grand Old Party. More on GOP
 
Brad Listi: Outrage: An Interview with Director Kirby Dick Top
Florida governor Charlie Crist. Former New York mayor Ed Koch. California congressman David Dreier. Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Ken Mehlman. Ex-Idaho senator Larry Craig. Ex-Louisiana congressman Jim McCrery. All play starring roles in Outrage , the incendiary new documentary from Academy Award-nominated director Kirby Dick. The film's thesis: The American political system is home to a large number of closeted homosexual lawmakers. Most are Republican. Nearly all of them oppose equal rights measures for gays because they want to conceal their own sexual orientation. In the words of openly gay congressman Barney Frank: "There is a right to privacy, but there is no right to hypocrisy." Outrage digs deep, and what's more, it names names. Now playing in theaters , it is a timely, unsettling exposè that is sure to generate a good bit of controversy.     Are you gay? Kirby Dick : What right do you have to ask the question?! Just kidding--I'm straight.

 So what brought you to make this film? I was in Washington, D.C. in August 2006 promoting my last film, This Film Is Not Yet Rated , which is about censorship in the MPAA film rating system. While I was there, I heard numerous stories that many high profile politicians were closeted and that a number of them were protecting their closet by voting anti-gay. I was equally surprised to learn that there was very little coverage of this hypocrisy in the mainstream media, and decided almost immediately to make a film on the subject. 

 Your film presents Washington as a place that is home to many high-powered, closeted gay people. It comes as a surprise to many viewers, but DC is actually a very gay town, and a very high percentage of the staffers who work on Capitol Hill are gay. Many are closeted to one degree or another, but most are out. What also comes as a great surprise is that there are nearly as many gay Republicans in DC as gay Democrats. Do you feel it's morally justifiable to out closeted politicians who vote against gay rights? My film isn't about outing closeted gay people; my film is about reporting on the hypocrisy of closeted politicians whose anti-gay actions harm millions of LGBT Americans. Not only do I feel it is justifiable to report on this hypocrisy, but I also feel it is the responsibility of journalists and documentary filmmakers to do so.

 And if you do out closeted politicians, what about other folks in the public sphere? Actors? Television personalities? Journalists? Pundits? When is it not okay to out someone? My film focuses primarily on hypocrisy of politicians who are entrusted to uphold the rights of all citizens equally. Closeted gays and lesbians in the other professions you mention have not been elected to enact laws that affect the entire citizenry, and they are not usually acting hypocritically. The film does report on one journalist, Shepard Smith, who was first reported on by Kevin Naff of the Washington Blade . Shepard Smith works for Fox News, which has been a major factor in the rise of anti-gay hysteria in this country over the past two decades. As one of the most prominent people in Fox News---according to the New York Times , Smith makes 7 to 8 million dollars per year---his complicity with the network's homophobic agenda rises to a level of hypocrisy that I felt was worthy of reporting. Barney Frank has a pretty compelling line in the film: "There is a right to privacy, but there is no right to hypocrisy." Is this the central message of your film, more or less? One of the central messages. The other message is that the closet contorts the American political system. Closeted politicians who would generally vote pro-gay instead vote anti-gay to protect the closet because they are afraid their constituency might view a pro-gay vote as an indication that they are gay. Jim McGreevey candidly admitted that he had made just this calculation when I spoke with him.

 Was it difficult to get people to talk on camera? And if so, how did you convince them? Dina Matos McGreevey must have been difficult to persuade, no? It did take a great deal of effort to get many of the interview subjects to speak on camera. In the end, however, I thought we wound up with a very impressive selection of people who were very familiar with the corridors of power. This is primarily due to the incredible efforts of my producer, Amy Ziering, who was especially skilled in getting people to agree to appear in what some might perceive as a controversial film. Dina Matos McGreevey stepped forward because she felt it was important that the spouses in situations like hers be given a voice to let the public know that the deception of closeted politicians has a very personal cost to those around them. Has there been any backlash? Did you meet a lot of resistance while making it? Any weird threats? Warrant-less wiretaps? Any windowless vans trailing you around town? Visits from the IRS? I was surprised by the level of fear expressed by many of the sources I spoke with. Many of these people were very supportive of the film but chose not to go on the record because they were afraid of repercussions. I don't know if their fear is warranted, but that fear is definitely out there. The mainstream media has been loath to address many of the issues raised in Outrage . Why? The mainstream media have been loath to address these issues, but generally it's not because the reporters themselves don't want to cover them. Instead, this reluctance comes from people above the reporters. Many news outlets are afraid to discuss issues involving gay sexuality because their readership is straight and they think coverage of gay sexuality may turn off these readers. I also think that in some situations these outlets, which are often owned by large media conglomerates that do a great deal of business on Capitol Hill, do not want to run a story that would antagonize powerful members of Congress. Finally, some straight reporters may feel they are doing the right thing by not outing even if it means not reporting on hypocrisy. However, the gay press has been reporting on these issues for years and and calling on the mainstream media to do so as well. For years the Republican party has used gay rights issues as a wedge and a way of currying favor with the Religious Right. Do you get the sense that the Republicans might slowly be changing their tune on this issue? The party seems to be in flux. Is it becoming more politically viable for them to do so? There is a growing debate within the Republican party over whether or not this is the best strategy. One of the best things that could happen for the gay rights movement would be for a significant, out gay or lesbian Republican (or Democratic) candidate to contend for the presidential nomination. I am hopeful that we will see this happen within the next decade. It's been a big year for gay rights in American cinema. Milk was big success. Hugh Jackman hosted the Oscars. (Just kidding---I think.) Is gay rights the central, defining human rights issue in American life at this time? Absolutely. I think there should be zero tolerance for any attempt to delay 100% human and civil rights for all American citizens. And I think it's time that Obama fulfills the promises he made during the campaign to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and remove the HIV travel ban. 

 Did you request interviews with guys like Governor Crist or Ed Koch? Any response from their camps as the film makes its way into theaters? For most of the politicians I reported on in my film, I included their responses to the question as to whether they are gay or straight. Koch did tell the NY Post that he was "outraged" by Outrage and I certainly appreciate the fact that he mentioned the title of my film twice in his response. Crist, Koch, Craig: Which one is most likely to come out of the closet by 2012? Handicap it. I hope they all come out. Every time a closeted politician comes out it advances the cause of gay rights tremendously. Any surprises as you made the film? Any, um, Deep Throats? To me the greatest surprise is how stunned audiences are by the information in this film. It shows how little mainstream media coverage the subject has received. Is Karl Rove gay? Care to set the record straight? There are rumors out there that he is gay but I came across no credible information that would substantiate those rumors. His stepfather, who raised Rove until he was a teenager and whom Rove refers to as his father, was gay (he has since passed away). Sort of surprised that no mention was made of Jeff Gannon . A gay male prostitute posing as a journalist who gets credentialed for White House press briefings and then pitches softballs to George W. Bush. How the hell does that happen? My film is about the hypocrisy of powerful closeted politicians. While the Gannon story is related, he is neither powerful nor closeted (although since the scandal he has become less forthcoming about his sexual orientation). Watching the film, one of the prevailing sentiments is a profound sadness. Charlie Crist in particular is pretty heartbreaking to watch. He seems like a very decent guy, and yet his voting record on gay rights issues is miserable. He may be a very decent guy. And I think he believes that gays and lesbians should have full civil rights. However, this makes his public anti-gay positions all the more reprehensible because they are part of a purely political calculation to protect the closet. Jim Kolbe and Jim McGreevey were pretty powerful examples of formerly closeted pols who now live much healthier existences. You think they might inspire other politicians to come forward? Or is that just wishful thinking? I hope so. I think one of the reasons they were so forthcoming is that they wanted people going into politics to realize the incredible personal cost of living in the closet. In fact, I was just recently contacted by a gay man who had decided not to run for political office because he didn't think he could win as an out candidate. But after seeing my film, he is seriously reconsidering that decision. Do you get the sense that we are approaching the tipping point with this stuff? I hope so. The closet has contorted the American political process for far too long, and I hope my film will help contribute to the demise of the closet in American politics. Because the mainstream media have been reluctant to cover this issue, people entering politics have often chosen to stay in the closet because they feel they can get away with this deception. Once the film is out and the public becomes more aware of this issue, I hope many more politicians will realize the right thing to do, both personally and politically, is to be open about their sexual orientation, and this goes for both Democrats and Republicans. 

 What's next for you? Ripping open another "closet" (one unrelated to gay issues). I can't say anything more about it because I don't want the people and institutions I'm looking into to know I'm coming their way. Sounds good. And best of luck with it. Many thanks for your time. My pleasure. Thank you.     This interview first appeared at TheNervousBreakdown.com . Brad Listi can be found at www.bradlisti.com . More on Charlie Crist
 
Bob Cesca: The Real Motive Behind the Cheney Family Torture Tour Top
I never thought I'd ever lead off a column by quoting Jesse Ventura. Not because I don't respect him. I do. Hell, he was in Predator ! But rather, I never really had a specific reason to quote him. Until today. The following is perhaps the best elevator pitch against the Bush administration's criminal torture policy, and it cuts the heart of exactly why torture was employed: "You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders." For several weeks now, I've been attempting to unravel the answers to a pair of important "why?" questions, and Jesse's quote helped to crystallize some possible answers. Why did the Bush administration authorize torture when other methods were more successful? And why is Dick Cheney so desperate to exonerate himself and to skew the debate with trivialities? The second question first. I don't know if it's even possible for a vampiric supervillain like Cheney to experience the human emotion known commonly as desperation, but I tend to question the motives and stability of anyone who, as part of his public defense against a possible criminal investigation, shoves his daughter into the ring to absorb some of the punches intended for his own translucent-fleshed cheek. This was a guy who, when questioned about his other daughter's homosexuality, made it perfectly clear that his family was off limits. And now he's enlisted Liz Cheney as a surrogate in a bit of parental psychosis not seen since the contents of Cody and Cassidy's poopy diapers became unofficial sidekicks on Regis . That's not to suggest Liz is doing this against her will or that she can't hold her own. She was clearly blessed with daddy's Freon chromosome. Personally, however, I grapple with the very idea of herein mentioning that I have a daughter. It's impossible to even fathom the notion of asking her to somehow go forth and publicly defend my work. And if she were to volunteer for such an effort, I would physically block her. You know, lay down in the path of her car and the like. Yet here's Dick Cheney employing his daughter, who, until now, we never even really heard from, to defend his decision to authorize the domestically and internationally illegal act of torture. What motivates a man to exploit his daughter like this -- and in the context of an issue possessing such serious consequences? I believe it's the desperation of a crook who's under significant strain and duress. And as information related to his authorization of torture trickles out, the reason for his desperation becomes increasingly evident. This isn't just about torture or a tangential debate about ticking nukes or "keeping us safe." It's apparent that torture was authorized for the purpose of fabricating a case for invading Iraq. According to multiple accounts and experts , the efficacy of torture is limited to ascertaining what the torturer wants to hear -- rather than information that's actually true. In other words, if Jesse Ventura tortured Dick Cheney with The Waterboard, he could very likely force Cheney to confess to the Sharon Tate murders even though, obviously, Cheney didn't have anything to do with them. April 21, 2009: The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist. On Monday, the body of terror suspect Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was found in his Libyan cell following what appeared to be a suicide. Andrew Sullivan, who has been tracking the relationship between torture and Iraq for some time now, wrote: ...Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was first captured by the US and tortured by CIA surrogates in an Egyptian cell. Apparently, they beat him and put him in a coffin for 17 hours as a mock-burial. To end the severe mental and physical suffering, he confessed that Saddam had trained al Qaeda terrorists in deploying WMDs. This evidence was then cited by Colin Powell as part of the rationale for going to war in Iraq. We still don't know if they coerced al-Libi to confess to the Sharon Tate murders. But we do know that the torture of Abu Zubaydah began only after CIA operatives ascertained this false information about Iraqi WMD from al-Libi. (On Wednesday, former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan told Congress that he was able to get actionable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah within about an hour by employing legal interrogation techniques.) For the record, here's what then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said about al-Libi in his now infamous speech at the UN: I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it. And, as we're all aware, that UN speech outlined the administration's entire case for connecting Iraq, al-Qaeda and WMD, and thus the case for war. We now know that one of the chief conclusions in the speech was actually formed from the tortured confessions of a man, al-Libi, who was flogged, buried alive, then forced to confirm the administration's mushroom cloud fantasy. (By the way, I'd like to hear from the cable news and talk radio sadists about whether or not the so-called interrogation techniques used on al-Libi were torture or not. I doubt Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would submit to being beaten and stuffed in a coffin for 17 hours. Charity or not.) Sadly, the complexities and parameters of torture appear to be open for debate these days. But using torture as a means to falsify evidence for war is a far more damning and despicable can of worms. So it stands to reason that Cheney would roll out whatever ammunition he has in order to obfuscate and sidetrack the issue. Including the use of his daughter as a spokesperson. This way, we're all wrapped up in debating whether waterboarding is actually torture, or whether the Bushies kept us safe ( they didn't ), or, in the case of the cable news talkers, whether or not the Cheney family "closed the deal" with their various TV performances. It's all horseshit to prevent us from seriously examining the Bush administration's motives for deliberately breaking the law and selling-out our American values. And the evidence is pointing to a motive for war. If we eliminate the idea that torture works; if we eliminate the fact that the terror suspects who were tortured had previously revealed valuable information without being tortured ; if we factor in the reality that these techniques were invented in order to gather intentionally false confessions; and if we look at the evidence showing that detainees were tortured so they would specifically connect Iraq and al-Qaeda, we're left with no conclusion other than this. Or sadism for sport. No wonder Dick Cheney is so frantic. BobCesca.com More on Dick Cheney
 
Neil Hicks: Getting Half the Message on the Middle East Top
In the coming weeks, President Obama is expected to meet with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak as part of a round of meetings with regional leaders geared towards resuscitating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This meeting and a likely follow-up in Egypt soon thereafter will set the tone for the bi-lateral relationship between the new U.S. administration and Egypt. The meeting will also provide an early indication of the importance the new administration will attach to human rights and democracy promotion for the Arab region as a whole. The Obama administration has acted swiftly to present a more conciliatory face of U.S. policy to the people of the Middle East. Justifiably alarmed by America's plunging popularity in the region, the administration appears to have taken to heart the view that much of this discontent was caused by unpopular U.S. policies including: the war in Iraq, the tactics pursued in the so-called "Global War on Terror" -- thoroughly discredited by the Abu Ghraib scandal, revelations about the use of torture by U.S. interrogators and the regime of indefinite detention without trial epitomized by the Guantanamo Bay detention center, and perceived uncritical support for the State of Israel in its continuing conflict with the Palestinians. In response to concerns about these policies the Obama administration has announced its intention to draw down U.S. military forces in Iraq; to close Guantanamo and to end the use of torture and secret detention centers; and to work toward a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of these steps have been welcomed in the region. President Obama also scores high marks for making a point of addressing an Arabic speaking audience directly in an early interview with the Al-Arabiya satellite television network and for his frequent respectful references to Islam and Muslims in his speeches, such as those he delivered during his visit to Turkey in April. As in many other parts of the globe, the new president enjoys considerable popularity in the Arab world, probably much more than the kings and presidents who rule the Arab countries. Despite these advantages and positive gestures, the Obama administration is in danger of missing one of the most important contributory factors to the widespread unpopularity of the United States in the region in recent years -- the perception that the United States is the power behind the throne of the region's unpopular autocratic rulers. Administration officials now argue that President Bush's strident calls for greater freedom in the region achieved little and that a different approach is needed, but such a conclusion is not shared by many human rights activists in Egypt and other Arab countries. They do not fault President Bush for calling on their rulers to change their autocratic ways and for calling for more freedom and democracy. In fact, they see the problem as being not too much U.S. pressure for change, but too little, since the Bush administration reverted to the traditional stability first approach and eased back on exerting pressure on the Freedom Agenda as events in the region overwhelmed its ambitions half way through Bush's second term. Local activists do find much to fault President Bush for. They note the irony of the U.S. government urging its allies to uphold human rights while violating them itself, an irony that is even darker when it emerges that the torture cells of the same repressive governments the administration was urging to reform were the destination of U.S. detainees subject to extraordinary rendition. The context of making democracy and human rights promotion part of the Global War on Terror discredited these values in the eyes of much of its intended audience, which makes it even more remarkable that progress was made at all, and yet it was. Under concerted and sustained U.S. pressure between 2003 and 2005, despite all the adverse circumstances of the time, repressive Arab governments, including Egypt, made important concessions that benefited and emboldened local activists. These concessions resulted in noticeable advances in human rights conditions. In Egypt, these included the publication of more independent newspapers, the emergence of an active and visible online human rights community and the proliferation of independent human rights organizations. The Obama administration is not burdened with the unpopular baggage of its predecessor and enjoys a level of goodwill that the Bush administration could only dream about. This condition may not last forever, of course, especially once the administration becomes embroiled in the minutiae of Middle East peacemaking, but, for now, President Obama has the opportunity to speak out on the urgent need for human rights progress in the Arab world from a position of relative strength. One way the new President can ensure that his popularity in the region is not short-lived is to make clear in his meetings with President Mubarak and his public speeches in Egypt that promoting human rights and democracy in Egypt and the region remains a policy priority for the United States. More on Egypt
 
FBI Investigating Coleman In Minnesota Top
The FBI is investigating allegations that former Senator Norm Coleman had clothing and other items purchased on his behalf by a longtime friend and businessman Nasser Kazeminy, according to a source in Minnesota who was interviewed recently by federal agents. E.K. Watkins, a spokesman for the Minnesota FBI, would neither confirm nor deny the report. The source provided details of the interview to the Huffington Post, in addition to copies of business cards left by the agents. The FBI has also been conducting interviews in Texas, according to media reports , in regards to different allegations that Kazeminy tried to steer $75,000 to Coleman through his wife's employer. Up to this point, there have not been reports of any FBI work taking place in Coleman's home state. The Minnesota source said the FBI questioning focused on whether Kazeminy had purchased clothing on Coleman's behalf, reports of which surfaced in October . At the time, Coleman vehemently denied the allegations. "Nobody but me and my wife buy my suits," he said. The source, who requested to speak anonymously to discuss the matter more frankly, said that payments made to the company that employed the former senator's wife, Laurie Coleman, were also addressed. In April, Norm Coleman requested permission from the Federal Election Commission to use his remaining Senate campaign funds to pay legal fees resulting from the lawsuit filed against Kazeminy. A request for comment from Coleman's office went unreturned. The receptionist, upon hearing the topic of inquiry, called the matter "old news." In the past, both Coleman, who is engaged in the final stages of a lengthy election recount battle, and Kazeminy, a longtime benefactor of the Minnesota Republican, have denied any wrongdoing. The possibility exists that the sole target of the FBI's work is Kazeminy and not Coleman. The prominent businessman stands accused of fraud for his handling of the company Deep Marine Technology. As part of that suit, former Deep Marine CEO Paul McKim alleged that he was forced to overlook $75,000 in payments to Hays Company, the employer of Coleman's wife. Separately, it has been reported that Kazeminy made purchases on behalf of Coleman himself. Ken Silverstein of Harper's magazine was the first to report that suits had been bought on the then-Senator's behalf. A the time, Coleman's chief of staff would only rebut the charge by saying that he "has reported every gift he has ever received." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Reid Backs Up Obama: "We've Had Quite A Few Pictures -- I'm Not Sure We Need Anymore" Top
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is tentatively standing by President Obama's decision to withhold photos of U.S. personnel reportedly torturing detainees. "We've had quite a few pictures. I'm not sure we need anymore," he said in response to a question from the Huffington Post in the hallway off the Senate floor. "I haven't seen the pictures," he added. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the senate intelligence committee, isn't sure if she's seen the photos. If they are the unreleased photos from Abu Ghraib, then she has seen them, she said, and doesn't think they need to be released. "I don't know what the point of releasing them would be, other than to have an enormous cataclysmic reaction. We saw the Abu Ghraib photographs," she said. Her committee is currently investigating Bush administration torture. As part of the inquiry, she said, the panel should have access to the photos. "I think the intelligence committee should obtain these photographs," she said. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Barack Obama
 
Wendy Diamond: White House Pet Correspondent Lucky Sees Stars & Stripes! Top
WOOF! Did Lucky & I have one eventful week! First stop in New York City was Bidawee's Gala on the Green (as in Central Park's Tavern On The Green) where we ran into supermodel Paulina Porizkova, judge on America's Next Top Model (wife of Cars singer Rick Ocasek) and an avid animal advocate. She was very funny -- commenting that her dog was a "Classic Cadillac!" Paulina was all smiles as she took a photo with America's Next Top Dog, Lucky! The oldest dog to date, a 21-year-old Daschund (147 in human years) named Chanel was there celebrating with parents Karl and Denise Shaughnessy. Denise shared that life has been hectic with Chanel and although Chanel doesn't go to many social events, this was one event she couldn't stray from; she said, "Chanel is like Barbra Streisand, aren't their noses similar." She was given a Guinness World Book Records award for being the oldest living dog. Iams Pet Food and Home 4 the Holidays Campaign was also honored at the event -- this campaign helped to save the lives of more than 1.2 million pets this past holiday season. Next we ventured over to the 5th Annual Housing Works' Design On A Dime Extravaganza. Extreme Makeover - Home Edition 's Ty Pennington was there, and we couldn't help but ask what kind of doghouse Bo Obama should have built to mirror his new extreme makeover and lifestyle. Ty said "I would have to know exactly what kind of personality the dog has to match the temperament to the tenement, it shouldn't be a little miniature White House and certainly not overdone." He added, "I suggest some shag carpets, earthy tones, definitely a relaxing mood". Sounds right with all the political howling going on around, Bo! When we asked former Charlie's Angels star, host and judge on Shear Genius , Jaclyn Smith which Charlie's Angel her Poodle Elizabeth looks the most like she immediately replied, "Farrah Fawcett, she is bigger than life, has curly hair and everybody loves her." As for Jaclyn's four other dogs, she said Kate is her French Bulldog, Bird is "intense, sharp, brightest of the dogs", of Ralphie (her Boston Bull Terrier) she said, "would never get through casting", and "Charlie would be my dog Tank (French Bulldog) ... always mysteriously hiding." Jaclyn added, "I am more like my dog Emma Jane." No wonder she started a new brand (jaclynsmith.com) featuring housewares, furniture, linens, and furniture, she needed the extra furniture and linens to house her pack of five dogs, in comfort of course! Lucky and I had a Presidential whirlwind, when we headed down to Washington, DC for the White House Correspondents dinner weekend -- Lucky is our official "White House Pet Correspondent"! If Lucky decides to throw her collar into the race and run for president, she certainly met her staff! Lucky as the White House Pet Correspondent" (puplitical commentator and writer) -- she promises to report all the latest barking news on the energetic First (Portuguese Water) Dog, Bo Obama (already known for breaking bipartisan ground on the White House lawn). Knight Rider actor Val Kilmer will possibly be running a political campaign to become the next New Mexico Governor. He has a new dog, named after his good friend, rapper 50 cent. And calls him "Fitty" (that's 50 cent's nickname). Fitty (the dog) is a "loner mutt misfit." says Val. Val lends his time to charity and feeds 100's of animals, including buffalo and horses. Former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright has cows and when asked which was her favorite? She quipped, "All of them!" Moo-over! When Gossip Girl 's Chace Crawford said fellow Gossip Girl star Blake Lively's dog Penny has the worst breath, Lucky just looked away, then searched for a greenie in her bag. Journalist and TV personality Greta Van Susteren of Fox News (airing on weeknights) let us know that every Wednesday she posts animals up on her rescue website (petconnectrescue.org). Our favorite meet and greet was Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who doesn't have any pets at the moment but informed Lucky that although they have decreased many items in the Homeland Security Budget, they have increased the necessary dog-sniffing security budget. Of course she had to get a photo with Lucky -- Lucky made sure she gave the meanest Maltese military look she could muster! Meet The Press host David Gregory was excited to see Lucky, he was hands (and paws) down our favorite interview when we promoted our book How To Understand Men Through Their Dogs on The Today Show (buy now: www.animalfair.com). TV Producer extraordinare Tammy Haddad (a former producer for MSNBC ) and David Adler the founder of BizBash Media were the hosts of this fabulous fete on Saturday before the big dinner. The political fun kept on as we ran into some fun loving animal people at the Vanity Fair Bloomberg Party after the White House Correspondents Dinner. We swooped over to hero Chesley Burnett Sullenberger, aka Sully, the skilled pilot (he's one Bird Dog) who safely glided and landed a distressed US Airways Airbus A320 onto the New York's Hudson River. Sully is the proud parent to a dog named Twinkle, who used to be a guide dog (seems heroism runs in the family). He was so inspired by Twinkle that Sully now trains other guide dogs. Marley & Me actor Owen Wilson told us he has an Australian Shepherd named Garcia named after surfer Sunny Garcia. Lucky would be envious if she found out that Owen's dog had a cameo in Marley and Me. Okay, I must note "Lucky & Me" would be a hysterical movie, and our ending would have people crying ... with laughter! Then we bumped into some "Washington Top Dogs". The man who masterminded putting Obama into office, Senior Political Strategist David Axelrod, was excited to chat about his cat Twinkle (not Obama) and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is not a pet guy (maybe Bo Obama will "change" that). Finally, pet-less Jon Favreau -- the President's head speechwriter -- made us laugh; he's the guy writing the one liner jokes about Bo Obama for President Obama. Jon must have given Obama this line during the White House Correspondents Dinner when he said "He's warm, he's cuddly, loyal, enthusiastic; you just have to keep him in on a tight leash, every once in a while he goes charging off and gets himself into trouble," referring to his new pooch, Bo (not Joe Biden). Sammy Davis, Jr. is the name of actors Idina Menzel (who was our favorite star in Broadway's Wicked) and Taye Diggs' (as seen on CBS' Private Practice and Grey's Anatomy ) Yorkie and they said it's the perfect moniker since actress Idina is Jewish and husband Taye Diggs is black. The animal loving duo also had me cracking up about their two rescue cats, named Coltrane and Ella (feeling a jazzy play date with Bo Obama happening soon -- named after Diddley). Finally we ended the week with our dear friends Christina and John McLaughlin, (the Political host of the McLaughlin Group), for their annual Brunch (Lucky never misses brunch -- no matter what party). Senior advisor to U.S. presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, and Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996, Pat Buchanan along with his wife told us a cat-chy story about their late beloved kitty. In the early '80s, when Ronald Reagan became president, a young kitten wandered into their lives at the same time. After a day on Capitol Hill, Pat arrived home and joyfully named their new pet after the well-liked president, Gipper. Pat said, "He was one hell of a cat." (President Reagan or Pat's cat Gipper?) With all the presidential advice Lucky received this past weekend from the above-mentioned, she is well on her way to being appointed White House Pet Correspondent to Bo Obama. This weekend produced enough excitement to last me for at least another year, and Lucky seven dog years! More on Richard Nixon
 
Trafigura Dumped Toxic Waste On Ivory Coast: Documents Top
Documents have emerged which detail for the first time the potentially lethal nature of toxic waste dumped by British-based oil traders in one of west Africa's poorest countries. More on Africa
 
Providence Mayor Wants To Tax College Students Top
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The mayor of Providence wants to slap a $150-per-semester tax on the 25,000 full-time students at Brown University and three other private colleges in the city, saying they use resources and should help ease the burden on struggling taxpayers. Mayor David Cicilline (sis-ah-LEEN-ee) said the fee would raise between $6 million and $8 million a year for the city, which is facing a $17 million deficit. If enacted, it would apparently be the first time a U.S. city has directly taxed students just for being enrolled. The proposal is still in its early stages. But it has riled some students, who say it would unfairly saddle them with the city's financial woes and overlook their volunteer work and other contributions, including money spent in restaurants, bars and stores. "We want to support the city as best we can, but financially is not really what we can afford to give," said Heather Lee, president of the Brown Graduate Student Council. "We're more able to provide labor, we're more able to apply the things that we're learning in the classroom, than we are to write a $300 check." Cities often look for revenue from universities to compensate for their tax-exempt status, and many schools already make voluntary payments to local governments. Providence's four private schools _ Brown, Providence College, Johnson & Wales University and the Rhode Island School of Design _ agreed in 2003 to pay the city nearly $50 million over 20 years. The idea of a student head tax has been floated before in other cities, generally to start discussions about collecting money from universities in lieu of taxes. But Tony Pals, spokesman for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, said he knows of no city that charges students a direct fee. "The bottom line is, a tax like this has never gone into effect," Pals said. "The timing is also unfortunate, given the significant amount of budget-cutting that institutions have had to go through because of the recession." The four schools generate more than $1 billion a year in economic activity, said Daniel Egan, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Rhode Island. They employ nearly 9,000 people in a city of roughly 172,000. "We think the indirect and direct benefit of students within the community would outweigh any costs," Egan said. Cicilline's office said there is no study showing how much students cost Providence for the use of police and fire protection and other services. The city points out that the private schools' property, valued at more than $1.7 billion, is tax-exempt. Many college students are already involved in tutoring, arts education and mentoring for public school students. Providence College, for instance, offers student volunteers to staff after-school programs, and Brown is raising money for a $10 million endowment to help the city school system. Even so, Cicilline said everyone should be expected to help the city through this economic crisis. He said he wants students to have a vested interest in their city instead of seeing themselves as visitors just passing through. "It's really about a shared commitment to the well-being of your community that you're a part of," the mayor said. "Everyone should be doing their part and coming to the table." Students at Rhode Island College, a state school in the city, and the Providence campus of the University of Rhode Island would be exempt. A city head tax on students would need approval from both the City Council and state lawmakers. However, a similar measure failed in the state Legislature in 2005, and Rhode Island's colleges are likely to fight this proposal, too. Josephine Nash, a Brown junior from New York City, said the idea seems reasonable, provided it doesn't overly burden students on financial aid. "I do spend the majority of my year here, and I do use the services of the city," she said. But Susette Holman, a Johnson & Wales freshman also from New York, said her mother works seven days a week, sometimes 14 hours a day, to put her through school. "I have three sisters at home, so how's she going to be able to provide an extra tuition fee?" she asked. University administrators also object, saying students and their families spend years saving for college and shouldn't have to bear more costs. Tuition at Brown costs nearly $40,000 a year, with about 40 percent of undergraduates receiving financial aid. "Given at least the rhetoric of trying to retain students, be a place that's attractive to students and young people shortly after college, it just seemed counterintuitive to at least the students I talked to," said Richard Spies, Brown's executive vice president for planning. More on Taxes
 
Bill Seidman, Ex-FDIC Chairman, Dead Top
ALLENDALE, Mich. — Former Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. L. William Seidman has died. Grand Valley State University, of which he was the founding chairman, says Seidman died Wednesday at age 88. The Grand Rapids native was the managing partner of Seidman and Seidman, an international accounting firm. He also had been president of WZZM, a Grand Rapids TV station that he helped found. Seidman joined President Gerald R. Ford's administration in 1974 as an economic adviser. Seidman chaired the FDIC from 1985 to 1991. He also served as head of the Resolution Trust Corp. in the aftermath of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. He was a principal founder of Grand Valley State, a state-funded university in Allendale, about 15 miles west of Grand Rapids.
 
Sarah Tofte: Making Rape Victims Pay Top
As a researcher on the rape kit backlog in the US, I have interviewed many survivors of rape. Still, this experience did not prepare me for the story I heard in January from a disabled woman in North Dakota who was brutally raped by an acquaintance. While this woman was recovering from surgery required to repair her internal organs after the rape she received a bill from her hospital for the cost of her rape kit, a forensic exam to collect DNA and other evidence from the body of the victim. She was eventually able to get her state's victim compensation board to pay the hospital, but in the meantime she kept receiving notices from the hospital's bill collector. "I could not believe this was happening to me, after all this," she told me. "It got resolved, thank God, but not before I started to worry that my inability to come up with the money to pay the hospital would jeopardize my case. They tell me it wouldn't have, but it was so much worry that I didn't need." Last week, a local TV station reported that some rape victims in Texas had been billed for the cost of their rape kit - which, depending on the state and the hospital, can reach $2,000. Last year, a newspaper reported that rape victims in North Carolina were asked to bill their insurance for the rape kit cost and, if they refused or did not have insurance, they were sent the bill. And then there was the election season story that Wasilla, Alaska (led by then-Mayor Sarah Palin) billed rape victims for their rape kit collection. These examples have stirred up justifiable outrage. No crime victim should be asked to pay to collect evidence and it is even more horrifying that this would be asked of survivors of a heinous crime like sexual violence who have already demonstrated enormous courage and commitment to justice in submitting to the examination. A victim agrees to the collection of a rape kit in the hope that DNA testing will help police apprehend her (and sometimes his) assailant. Charging the victim to collect the evidence is so foreign to our sense of justice and basic compassion that it is comforting to believe it is limited to these few places. Unfortunately, poorly drafted state laws and bureaucratic bungling mean that too many rape victims across the country are pressed to pay, or arrange payment for, the cost of their rape kits. The federal Violence Against Women Act prohibits states from charging victims for rape kit collection, or risk losing federal funding, and every state has passed a law to implement this requirement. This is a significant and necessary reform, but its effect is limited by weak state laws and the way hospitals, the police, prosecutors, and victim compensation funds interpret and carry out their obligation to assume the cost of rape kit collection. Some state laws are simply inadequate. For example, Oklahoma's law caps compensation for rape victims at $450. This covers barely one-third of the estimated cost of collecting a rape kit in that state. Maine's law caps compensation at $500.The laws in North Dakota, Oregon, and the District of Columbia allow the victim to seek compensation for any cost she incurs for the collection of her rape kit. This means that the victim may first have to pay the bill herself, and then apply for compensation. In Montana, the victim is supposed to be compensated as long as the victim compensation fund does not run out and as long as she cooperates with the investigation. Other states, like Texas, have laws that appear adequate but can be poorly executed. Texas's statute seems clear: law enforcement must pay the cost of a rape kit. In practice, the payment process is far from simple. In February 2009, I spoke with a rape victim in Texas who received a notice from the hospital that the police had paid $700 toward the cost of the exam, leaving her responsible for the remaining $800. She didn't know about the victim compensation fund, and made two payments of $50 each before a victim's advocate helped her to apply to the fund, which eventually paid the remainder. The woman told Human Rights Watch: "I don't understand why they had to involve me at all. Why couldn't [the victim compensation fund] and the police and the hospital have worked it out on their own? The payment of my rape kit seemed like a big hassle." If rape kits are to be treated like fingerprints collected at a robbery - in fact like every other kind of forensic evidence - then states should assume the full cost, in every case, regardless of the circumstances. States also need to prohibit the parties responsible for payment, such as hospitals, from billing the rape victim or pressing her to pay the bill and seek compensation later. Agreeing to the collection of a rape kit represents a victim's hope for justice in her case. Receiving a bill in the mail for basic police work represents an unacceptable but still too common truth - that the criminal justice system has a lot to learn about how it deals with rape victims. Sarah Tofte is a researcher with the US Program at Human Rights Watch, focusing on sexual violence and rape kit evidence. More on Sexual Violence
 
Richard Walden: Apres Le Deluge: A New School Opens In China A Year After The Quake Top
Last May 12th and for a month afterwards, most of China's populous Sichuan Province shook as a huge fault deep under a mountain range began to move. Tens of millions were displaced, 80,000 died and 230,000 were injured. Among the dead and injured were 5000-7000 students at a number of flimsily built schools which collapsed. The Chinese Government's response, under Premier Wen JiaBao, an engineer, was remarkably open to allowing news media access to quake areas and quake victims; the Government invited foreign relief groups (NGOs) and international firms working in China to participate in the relief and recovery effort. I was part of an unusual delegation set up by the Business Roundtable in Washington, DC: 7 major corporate leaders from companies like Honeywell, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Cisco, Merck and Chevron flew to China and along with 3 major American NGOs (Operation USA, World Vision and the American Red Cross) and representatives of the US Government including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore and senior officials from the US Treasury and Department of Commerce. The US Chamber of Commerce also traveled with the group. The Chinese Government made a huge effort to be inclusive and available to the group of senior level officials of every government agency which had anything to do with the relief and recovery effort. The American corporate representatives, for their part, knew that they were expected to make more than a symbolic commitment to helping people recover their lives and livelihoods. With a $150 billion Chinese Government reconstruction budget however, there was no need for massive amounts of US funding. There was an expectation of and need for "smart aid"-- training Chinese in disaster preparedness, providing seismic engineers in the rebuilding, and taking on small, well targeted projects with advanced technology like the Honeywell "Three Villages United Primary School" outside Chengdu. The Honeywell school had its pre-opening shakedown week starting yesterday on the First Anniversary of the Quake; on May 21, senior level Chinese officials, Honeywell's China CEO and the CEO of Operation USA (the NGO which built the school with Honeywell funds and technologies) gather in the small village of Nonglian, 2 hours drive west from Chengdu, to celebrate the opening of this new school. The three schools of Nonglian and two neighboring villages were destroyed by the Quake. Small steps to be sure but steps in the direction of the development of civil society institutions in China, of openness to international aid (and ideas!), and of corporate social responsibility by US companies in China. More on China
 
Many CTA Stations Can't Accommodate Disabled Riders Top
A three-month investigation of the CTA found that 41 percent of the handicap-accessible train stations could not be fully used by customers in wheelchairs, calling into question whether the nation's second-largest mass transit system is doing what it should for hundreds of thousands of disabled Chicagoans.
 
Philadelphia Inquirer Defends Hiring John Yoo As Columnist Top
The Philadelphia Inquirer is a bankrupt newspaper run by a guy who hates David Axelrod that spends what meager monies it has paying ungodly sums to people like former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum to write columns, about whatever the heck Rick Santorum thinks he knows. Now, the Inquirer has chosen to make occasional columnist John Yoo a regular writer, a move that has drawn the ire of many because, hey, in case you missed it, John Yoo LOVES HIM SOME TORTURE. Yesterday, The Plum Line's Greg Sargent was one of the first to report this news , and was one of the first to draw a response from the Inquirer : After I posted on the Philadelphia Inquirer's decision to given torture architect John Yoo a contract for a monthly column, the paper's editorial page editor, Harold Jackson, emailed me to argue that the paper has been good on torture: The Inquirer in its editorials has been a consistent voice against the torture (and we do call it torture) that occurred during the Bush administration. Just as we also consistently opposed that administration's domestic spying program. An observation: It seems that the paper is trying to justify Yoo's hire on the basis of having been a "consistent voice against torture" (and they do "CALL IT TORTURE!" they say, because I guess they deserve special recognition for clearing the bar marked "bare minimum of intellectual honesty"). This means that Yoo -- by the Inquirer's own admission! -- is a contrasting, inconsistent voice against torture. The Inquirer 's protests to Sargent basically suggest that we should merely subtract Yoo's enshrinement from the "good torture points" they've already accrued. But that's ridiculous. The paper is merely going from having a coherent and consistent voice on torture to an incoherent and inconsistent voice on torture. If you take a steaming dump on a perfectly made bed with clean sheets, no one in their right mind will want to sleep in it. All large numbers multiplied by zero come out zero. And this is why it's no wonder this paper is going bankrupt. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]
 
Intern Sets Up Offshore Tax Haven In Panama (VIDEO) Top
It's so easy for U.S. corporations to set up an offshore tax haven in Panama, an intern could do it. Really! To make this point, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division had one of its interns call up some Panamanian law firms for advice on starting up a shell company. "Panamanian corporations basically pay no taxes on foreign-derived income," one man explained to the intern, Jessica. Another said: "You're protected by the strictest banking secrecy laws in the world," thereby "totally removing you from the legal trail." In a video on Public Citizen's website , Jessica is told that all she needs to do is provide a passport photocopy, a bank reference letter, some info on her professional activities, and her plans for the company -- all of which could be sent by email. WATCH: Public Citizen produced the video as a serious debate over the pending Panama free trade agreement begins to heat up in Congress. Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) is leading a coalition of House Democrats in an effort to slow the Obama administration in case it plans to move forward on the agreement. "We have an expectation that trade agreements are going to have basic standards to protect labor rights, environmental standards, food safety regulations, financial regulations and taxation transparency," Braley told the National Journal 's Peter Cohn on Wednesday. "And that's why this particular trade agreement creates such concern, is because of Panama's tax haven status." The Senate Finance Committee is set to hold a hearing on May 21. Public Citizen opposes the agreement , calling it "the wrong handout for the wrong interests." "It would give investors registered in Panama new rights to challenge U.S. anti-tax haven regulations and other initiatives for taxpayer-funded compensation," said Todd Tucker, research director for Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division, in an interview with the Huffington Post. In April, Public Citizen released a study that found several companies that had lobbied for the Panama FTA -- including bailout beneficiaries Citigroup and AIG -- "have a combined dozens of subsidiaries in Panama that would be empowered with expansive new rights if the FTA is implemented. These firms have been among the top advocates for the Panama FTA." Tucker said that the Panama FTA would compromise the Obama administration's recently-announced crackdown on tax havens , which the president said would save $210 billion over the next decade. (A 2008 Senate report estimated that the U.S. loses $100 billion to tax havens every year.) The Panama FTA was negotiated and signed by the Bush administration but has not been sent to Congress. In April, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said he predicted the agreement would win congressional support. Democrats are expecting the administration to send it to Congress soon. But Tucker stressed that nobody in the administration other than Kirk has made noise about it. "It's not clear that the entire administration is behind the initiative," Tucker said. If the agreement is being floated as a trial balloon, "they are certainly provoking a reaction." Tucker said his intern didn't follow through with registering her Panamanian subsidiary. She could have, but it would have cost a couple hundred dollars in fees -- probably more than an intern at a nonprofit can afford. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
SEC Recommends Fraud Charges Against Countrywide's Mozilo Top
The man who was once lauded as the greatest friend to the homeowner for happily extending credit to anyone with a pulse is looking at possible civil fraud charges from the SEC, reports WSJ.
 
Yoani Sanchez: Looking Behind the Stage Set of Cuba's Potemkin's Schools Top
At a school in Cerro, several foreign visitors were coming to donate notebooks and pencils. Two days beforehand the teacher sat the hardest working students in the front row and asked them to ask their parents for ornamental plants. The director explained in the morning assembly that while the distinguished guests were with them they couldn't run during recess nor would they allow the sale of candy near the main entrance. That Wednesday when the delegation arrived at the educational institution, they served chicken for lunch and the classroom televisions didn't show the usual Mexican soap operas, only tele-classes. The fifth grade teacher avoided the red lycra she prefers and came dressed in a warm jacket she'd normally wear to weddings or funerals. Even the young student teacher was different in that she didn't demand that the children, like every other day, give her a share of the snacks they brought from home. The visit seemed to be going well; the school supplies had been delivered and the modern cars parked outside would soon carry off the smiling group of outsiders. But something unexpected happened: one of the guests broke the predetermined protocol and asked to use the bathroom. The seams of the hasty "cosmetic surgery" that had been applied to the school were evident in that unhealthy space of a few square meters. The months it had gone without cleaning, the clogged sinks, the absence of doors between one stall and another, showed up the farce of normality they'd tried to hard to present. The spontaneous guest left the bathroom with his face flushed and went without speaking to the exit. After seeing the machinery behind the stage he understood that instead of paper and colored pencils, the next time they should bring disinfectants, cleaning cloths and pay for the services of a plumber. Yoani's blog, Generation Y , can be read here in English translation. More on Cuba
 
Carolynn Carreño: The NYTimes Scooped My Blog Top
I guess I'm one of the few people who still believes in the power of newspapers, because I wrote this two weeks ago and decided not to post it because I hoped to write it for a newspaper, which I imagined would have two advantages: a) I would get paid to write it; and b) I imagined someone (besides my mother, my sister, and The Foodinista ) might actually read what I wrote. Then today, The New York Times ran what I think of as "my" sea urchin story . I like to think that my version have been better. Still, I hate it when that happens. This is the post I didn't post. It's not great literature, but I was, as they say, on the right track. My Pitch: Sea urchin has moved out of the sushi bar and into pasta bowl. Spaghetti con i ricci, prepared very simply with garlic and oil, then tossed with the sea urchins at the end, is a traditional dish in seaside areas where urchins are found. I fell in love with it in the seaside restos of Palermo and was crestfallen not to be able to find it here. But now I'm seeing it all over. Okay maybe not all over, but a few weeks ago at Osteria Mozza Matt Molina sent out a small portion, a little nest of squid-ink colored pasta tossed with the briny urchins. I spotted it on the menu at Osteria Angelini last week. (We're known for pulling the best sea urchin in the world off the coasts of San Diego and Santa Barbara -- just north and south of here.) And now in today's Tasting Table Everywhere (link below) a SF chef is also offering it -- under the familiar name of "carbonara." My So-Called Post: For some it's obvious: New Yorkers have their pizza. Cubans have their coffee. San Franciscans have cioppino. As a Southern Californian (I was born in Tijuana, spent my childhood in San Diego, and now live half the time in Los Angeles), I have my points of regional culinary pride, too. The list goes like this. Fish tacos. Lately they've been fetishized but for some of us, the relationship is something deeper, lasting and sincere. It's proximity to Mexico. I can't even begin to tell you the ways -- edible and not -- that this is beyond cool, and anyone who says that Tijuana isn't really Mexico (which I've been told almost as many times as I've told people I was born in Tijuana) is an idiot. I know I should say "spiny lobster." That would be the "foodie" thing to do. But guess what? I may like it if it's on my plate, or in my mouth. But I do not know spiny lobster very well. Sea urchins, on the other hand, pulled from reefs off the coast of San Diego or Santa Barbara -- I think I love them. So when I saw "Spaghetti with Sea Urchin" on the menu at Angelini , where I dined with my mother for her birthday recently, I couldn't resist. I was introduced to sea urchin pasta on a trip to Sicily several years ago, where I was writing a cookbook for two Italian ladies. There's a seaside strip in Palermo called Modello, with one restaurant after another -- think Fisherman's Wharf meets The Godfather III -- where men unloaded giant nets of the spiny crustaceans onto the sidewalk. I'd been trapped in the mountains eating nothing but fennel sausage and sheep's milk ricotta (are you crying for me yet?), so when my captors finally freed me, took me to the seaside, and fed me spaghetti tossed with uncooked, barely warmed sea urchin, I about fell out of my chair. Below is the entry that I included in the book, headnote and all. The recipe is so whacked I figured it must have been the author's idea of a joke. So the next day I went back to Angelini and asked for their version, which was just as simple, but just as oddly prepared -- and just as delicious. The key, of course, is that you have fresh, delicious sea urchins and that you serve it within seconds of pulling the almost undercooked spaghetti out of the way. From there, you can't really go wrong. Spaghetti con i Ricci From early spring to early fall, it is very popular for Palermitani, those who live in Palermo, to visit the seaside community of Mondello. There you will find outdoor restaurants all along the waterside, every one of which claims to serve the very best spaghetti con i ricci. I got this recipe from my friend Paolo, because I knew there was no way that a restaurant would give me their true recipe. To have the full taste of the sea urchin eggs, you must not cook them. 1/2 cup extra virgin olive oil, plus more to add to the pasta water 2 garlic cloves 1/2 cup finely chopped fresh Italian parsley, plus more to sprinkle on the pasta 1 1/3 cups sea urchin roe Salt and freshly ground black pepper 1 pound spaghetti For this pasta, the sea urchin roe is not cooked. It relies on the heat of the spaghetti to warm it, which means you must have the table set and everyone a tavola before you begin to cook the spaghetti. Pour the oil into a heatproof cup and place it in a pot of hot but not boiling water to heat it without cooking away any of the olive taste. Crush the garlic very well using a mortar and pestle, or mince it very fine. Scrape it into the bottom of the bowl you will serve the pasta from. Add the parsley, the warm olive oil, and salt and black pepper to taste and stir it all together. Add the sea urchin roe and let this rest while you cook the spaghetti. Bring a big saucepan of water to a boil. Stir in a small fistful of salt and a splash of olive oil. Add the spaghetti and stir. Boil the spaghetti, stirring often to prevent it from sticking together, until it is al dente. Lift the spaghetti out of the water using a spaghetti strainer and place it directly into the bowl with the roe. Don't worry if a little water comes with the spaghetti into the serving bowl; the hot pasta water will help the texture of the condiento. Toss the spaghetti with the roe, adding more pasta water if necessary. Sprinkle with more parsley and serve immediately. More on Newspapers
 
Bill Clinton To Cheney: "It's Over" Top
Bill Clinton jokingly laughed off a question Wednesday about former Vice President Dick Cheney and his recent claims that the country is less safe under the Obama administration. More on Dick Cheney
 
Kathleen Wells: Congressman Jim Moran on Torture and Accountability Top
After my interview with Congresswoman Diane Watson, I felt compelled to follow the Guantanamo torture theme. Jim Moran (D), a ten-term Congressman representing Virginia's 8th Congressional District, accompanied Congresswoman Watson on one of her trips to Guantanamo. The Congressman generously took time out of his busy schedule to grant me the following interview: Kathleen Wells: First, I'd like to know when did you and Congresswoman Diane Watson visit Guantanamo Bay? Congressman Moran: Well, I accompanied her in April. I've gone two or three times, but at least one of those trips was with Diane. And I think both of us are glad that we went. But in terms of informing us as to the conditions in which the prisoners are kept, I think it was only marginally informative. We didn't get a chance to get near the prisoners, let alone talk with them. And Guantanamo was set up to be a bit of a dog and pony show for the visitors, certainly. They have more visitors than they have prisoners. They are very adept at trying to communicate a message - public relations. Kathleen Wells: Were you able to witness interrogation procedures of the detainees? Congressman Moran: Not at all. They had no interest in showing us the way in which they (detainees) were interrogated. They showed us videos, but the videos weren't necessarily representative. Kathleen Wells: So, what are your thoughts about that; being in the Congress and not being informed or having any access to the methods used when detainees are interrogated? Congressman Moran: Well, I wasn't surprised. But bear in mind, this was during the Cheney-Bush Administration. They had no intention of informing the Congress about anything. And for six years of that time, the Congress had no interest in learning anything. They were simply a rubber stamp. So the fact that we weren't given the respect of seeing any actual interrogations or having any communication with the prisoners was certainly consistent with the way in which Congress had been treated by the Cheney-Bush Administration. Kathleen Wells: Congresswoman Watson indicated to me that the interrogators were private contractors. Would you agree with that characterization? Congressman Moran: Some were. But that was largely in the beginning. I think the majority are government employees; in fact, military personnel. They do contract with some psychologists and other interrogators, but that's more the exception than the rule. Kathleen Wells: Do you think those that violated the Geneva agreement, those that condoned tortured, should be prosecuted? Congressman Moran: I do. Because it's not about what we have done in the past, it's about what we will do in the future. And if we want to avoid these kinds of illegal and unconstitutional, harmful actions that people need to be held accountable. Now from a political standpoint, it isn't a pleasant thing to do. It's a loser politically, except for a relatively small portion of the people who want to go through all that. Kathleen Wells: What do you mean, "it is a loser politically?" Congressman Moran: I think the Obama Administration understands that this will ignite the right wing. It will be more fodder for the hate radio networks. And it will distract people from their very full agenda of healthcare reform, cleaner environment through cap and trade, things like that. Those are very high priorities. It is not the priority of the Obama Administration, I know, to bring these people to justice. They are in charge now. These people are past, history. But I do think there is a responsibility, at least on the part of the Congress, many of whom stood by and let it happen, to bring these people down to justice so that it won't happen again. Kathleen Wells: So, when you say, "part of the Congress, who stood by and let this stuff happen," are you saying that there is some accountability actually in the Congress? Congressman Moran: I don't think there is much accountability in terms of actually knowing what was happening and not doing the right thing. But the culpability is in not figuring out what was taking place. The reality is the people who would have done anything about it were in the minority. It wasn't until the Democrats were elected to the majority of the Congress in 2006 that (there) would have been any opportunity to change any of this policy. But clearly there were some people, primarily those working with the White House and in the Republican Party, who did have some idea of what was going on and sanctioned it. I don't think it is likely that they will be held accountable because they didn't write the memos. They simply, at most, looked the other way. Kathleen Wells: And we know that Gonzales and Bybee did write the memos, so...? Congressman Moran: Yes, Bybee seems to be culpable. Gonzales clearly knew what was going on. John Yoo appears to be one of the apologists for unconstitutional actions. So, those people who wrote the justification for doing things that were in violation of the Geneva accords, I think, should be held accountable. Kathleen Wells: So, is there anything else you'd like to address? Congressman Moran: I know we all feel a temptation to move on and to leave this wretched eight years behind us and just kind of label it the worse administration in American history. But unless we know the full extent of their actions and unless we undo the damage, we are basically sending a message to future generations that this kind of stuff should be tolerated. And I think that's the wrong message. Future generations ought to be able to read a history book and be at least maybe saddened by what happened over the last eight years. But they should at least be heartened by the fact that this generation, my generation, saw fit to hold people accountable and to put research into what took place, so that we will never go through the same kind of national nightmare where our reputation aboard is torn asunder and we've lost thousands of lives in a war that should have never been fought and we destroyed the economy and undermined our own values and principles that define who we are as a nation. It's serious enough that there needs to be some accountability. And I think the Congress is the best place for that to occur. It doesn't mean we can't do other things while we are holding people accountable. The judiciary can look into this stuff. They can ask the (current) Administration to release what's appropriate. And we can continue to move forward in terms of healthcare, infrastructure, investment and recovery from this deep recession. Kathleen Wells: And do you feel that Congress is moving forward in investigating the wrongdoings of the last administration? Congressman Moran: I think there is reluctance on the part of the legislative and executive branch. I can understand that reluctance. I sympathize with it from a purely expedient standpoint. I think you'd much rather move forward and let history take its toll on people who got in this mess. But my own personal feeling, for whatever it's worth, (is) there does need to be some formal accountability process that takes place. Those who are culpable need to be judged by their peers and I think we need to put in place some kinds of structures to ensure that we never repeat our mistakes. Kathleen Wells: If the American people put pressure on politicians to hold an investigation, to hold those responsible, that may have some influence on Congress, right? Congressman Moran: Well, that's the way the system is supposed to work. We represent the people. The legislative branch doesn't necessarily act on its own initiative. We are there to represent the will of the American people. And once that will is determined, the executive branch's role is to carry out the laws as representative of the will of the people. So, basically, the executive branch's judgment is much more constrained than Congress. Their job is to carry out the laws that we make. Our job is to inform and be responsive to the will of the people. And, then hopefully, the media acts in a responsible enough role that the will of the people represents an informed judgment. Kathleen Wells: Tell me how do you feel that the Obama Administration is different from the Bush Administration? Congressman Moran: Well, the Obama Administration wants to do right thing for America. I think there is a much better appreciation of who we are as people. People calling the shots in the Bush Administration suffered from deep male anxiety, constantly trying to prove themselves. What's probably reflective of that is none of them were willing to serve in the military. They were cheerleader types still looking to prove themselves. And, of course, they used that military to try and do so. The Obama Administration handles things very differently. He is intellectually secure and is not afraid to listen to other opinions. And he has the courage of his convictions. To get back to your original question, Guantanamo is such a case study on how not do things. Here you've brought in 772 people, without any clear idea what you are going to do with them, without any basis upon which to hold them and, yet, deciding to hold them indefinitely; mischaracterizing them as the worse of the worse, when only five percent had been involved in any hostile action against the United States. Here were 772 young men. You had an opportunity to expose them to all of the world's great literature. We have it all translated from the Library of Congress into Farsi or whatever language they understood. We could have given them the best literature ever in the world and enabled them to read that. Just as in the movie, "The Reader." Once the female prison guard was able to read and understand she was able to empathize. Once anyone learns to read, then they enhance their ability to empathize. We had an ability to teach these young, impressionable men what it is that we, as a nation, stand for. Over a five-year period, they could have become people who could have served as our allies on this war against ignorant, violent extremism, which is orthodoxy. We blew that chance. We kept them in a little cell. We only gave them the Koran to read. We know that our philosophy is far superior to this kind of medieval orthodoxy that they were taught. We did everything possible to radicalize them - to the torturing, to the confinement, to only allowing them to read, one religious doctrine, the Koran, without the benefit of enlightened interpretation. Kathleen Wells: And why was that? Why did that happen? Congressman Moran: Because that's who Cheney and Bush and the people they hired were all about. Even the torture issue. I'll give you an example and, again, I'm digressing here. During World War II, we captured a number of Nazi officers and put them in a camp in Virginia. They needed people who spoke German and who they could trust and they brought in dozens of German Jewish men who had every reason to hate their captors. Instead they befriended them. They got to know them and they elicited more information than any interrogation camp in the history of interrogation. History is replete with those examples. We don't take the Chinese Communist manual on how to elicit false confessions as the manual we apply. What you do is understand them, try to work with them to gain their confidence and you get the maximum amount of information. We didn't do that. We didn't try to understand them. We didn't try to work with them. We treated them like animals. And what information we got from the torture was not helpful. And I think that the reason why we did that is because of the very limited psyche, imaginations of the people who were in leadership. They were people who were not intellectually or emotionally secure. They were trying to prove themselves. They spent eight years trying to prove what tough guys they were. Cheney at one point said, "We don't negotiate, we dominate." It wasn't him dominating. He was trying to use these young military men to overcome his own insecurities, apparently. So, for eight years, this administration conducted itself in the most counter-productive way imaginable and we are left with a whole lot of damage. Basically, we are left with a manual on how not to do things. Well, I think we need to make that clear this is the wrong way. This is not who we are as a nation. And by exposing the people who made those decisions and the people who gave them the legal underpinning to act in illegal, let alone ineffective ways and that we show that we fully understand that. And that this is not reflective of who America is and America is much greater than this and that's the point of reviewing all of this and making clear that these people who acted in this way were not acting true to America's values. More on Guantánamo Bay
 
David Geffen Wants To Turn New York Times Info Nonprofit Top
The Geffen sources NEWSWEEK spoke to are knowledgeable about his investment decisions and specifically about his overture to acquire a Times stake, but they declined to be identified. "The New York Times is a very special institution," said one of the persons. "It's essential to be preserved. And David believes the correct model to preserve it is nonprofit."
 
Atlantis Astronauts Grab Hubble Space Telescope, Now Face 5 Treacherous Space Walks Top
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — Atlantis' astronauts grabbed the Hubble Space Telescope on Wednesday, then quickly set their sights on the difficult, dangerous and unprecedented spacewalking repairs they will attempt over the next five days. Hubble and Atlantis are flying in a 350-mile-high orbit littered with space junk. The shuttle already has an ugly stretch of nicks from Monday's launch, but the damage is considered minor and poses no safety threat. NASA continued to prep another shuttle, though, just in case Atlantis is hit by orbital debris and the crew needs to be rescued. After seven years of orbital solitude, Hubble looked surprisingly well. Flight controllers gasped when the telescope first came into view. "It's an unbelievably beautiful sight," reported John Grunsfeld, the telescope's chief repairman. "Amazingly, the exterior of Hubble, an old man of 19 years in space, still looks in fantastic shape." NASA hopes to get another five to 10 years of dazzling views of the cosmos from Hubble, with all the planned upgrades, which should leave the observatory more powerful than ever. Shuttle robot arm operator Megan McArthur used the 50-foot boom to seize the school bus-sized telescope as the two spacecraft sailed 350 miles above Australia. Then she lowered the observatory into Atlantis' payload bay, where cameras checked it out. Going into the mission, Hubble scientists and managers warned that Hubble might look a little ragged because it hasn't had a tuneup since 2002. But initial observations showed nothing major. "Everybody's very excited up here, I can tell you," said Grunsfeld, who will venture out Thursday with Andrew Feustel. They will replace an old Hubble camera that's the size of a baby grand piano, as well as a science data-handling unit that failed in September and delayed Atlantis' flight by seven months. This is the fifth time astronauts have called upon Hubble. The previous overhauls went well, but those repairs were straightforward, with spacewalkers pulling equipment in and out. This time, Grunsfeld and his team will venture into the guts of broken instruments. "Don't hold us to too high a standard," NASA space operations chief Ed Weiler warned before Monday's launch. "We're trying to do two things that we've never done before, take apart instruments that aren't designed to be taken apart in space and operated on by gloved astronauts, and fix them after pulling out 110 or 111 screws. "That's one heck of a challenge." Two teams of spacewalking astronauts _ two men per team _ will take turns stepping outside. Besides swapping out the old camera and science data unit, they will replace Hubble's batteries, gyroscopes and a pointing mechanism. They also will install fresh thermal covers on the telescope, along with a docking ring so a future spacecraft can guide the telescope into the Pacific Ocean sometime in the early 2020s. And in the toughest challenge, they will open up the two broken science instruments to replace fried electronics. No one will visit Hubble after the Atlantis astronauts leave next week, so NASA crammed as much as it could into the five spacewalks and poured more than $1 billion into the mission. Managers also chose two experienced spacewalkers who have been to Hubble before, Michael Massimino and Grunsfeld, who is making a record third visit. Atlantis is loaded with 180 tools; 116 were designed for this 11-day mission. "We've set the bar extraordinarily high for ourselves," said senior project scientist David Leckrone, "and nobody should consider this mission a failure or any of the crew a failure if for some reason we don't get all things done to the 100 percent level." The mission almost didn't happen. A year after the 2003 Columbia tragedy, NASA canceled the repair effort, saying it was too dangerous. The astronauts would not have anywhere to seek shelter because the international space station is in a different, inaccessible orbit. But a new NASA regime reinstated the flight in 2006 after shuttle repair techniques were developed and tested in orbit. A plan also was put in place to have a shuttle on the launch pad to blast off within days for a rescue. Since then, Hubble's unusually high orbit has become dirtier as a result of satellite smashups; even a small piece could pierce the shuttle or the suit of a spacewalker. Shuttle Endeavour will remain on standby until Atlantis and its crew of seven head back to Earth at the end of next week. ___ On the Net: NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/main/index.html
 
Judith Shapiro: Proposals of "Marriage" Top
The gay marriage initiative has been gathering an increasing head of steam, striking, respectively, hope and fear into the hearts of Americans. The arguments favoring marriage between members of the same sex (or gender) have generally invoked the principle of equal rights. Those opposed have maintained that gay marriage would destroy one of the major foundations of our culture. The fact is, however, that gay marriage will be accepted not just because it reflects basic beliefs about individual rights, but because it is in harmony with the dominant cultural definition of marriage in America. Marriage in American society involves both a set of legal arrangements and a cluster of cultural beliefs. One approach to providing most or all of the legal aspects of marriage to gay couples is to approve same-sex civil unions while withholding the "m" word. In the state of New Jersey, for example, there is no difference between the rights conferred in same-sex civil unions and the rights conferred by marriage, which in that state is currently restricted to cross-sex couples. More commonly, there are differences in the scope of rights between marriages and civil unions. But what, aside from legal rights (which could be made identical for marriages and civil unions), is at issue with "marriage"? For some, it is a sacred bond linked to religious belief. But no one is arguing that there should be an end to religious weddings, and those wishing to have their unions blessed in this way would presumably continue to do so regardless of how secular, state-sanctioned "marriage" evolves. We Americans, whatever our differences, generally view marriage as a relationship brought into being by "love" -- more specifically, sexual love. Indeed, this is the very reason that the term "gay marriage" is used, as opposed to the more accurately descriptive term "same-sex (or same-gender) marriage". As it happens, we do not inquire too closely into how many gay men and lesbians may be closeted in so-called "heterosexual" marriages, as long as their gender bona fides has been determined. "Gay marriage" is a more reliable term, since it is unlikely that large numbers of secret heterosexuals are hidden away in same-sex marriages. How many of these married folks -- straight or gay -- are still active sexual partners is another matter, and one that has provided continuing material to stand-up comics. Whatever the trajectory of the sexual bond in a marriage, the "love" is expected to provide the groundwork for a relationship of mutual commitment and responsibility that ideally persists until death do the couple part (or at least for a respectably long period of time). Insofar as this is the sentimental foundation for marriage -- in fact, for American kinship more generally -- it makes as much sense for the partners -- or, for that matter, the co-parents -- to be of the same sex as to be of opposite sexes. We can bring the question of gay marriage into even sharper cultural focus by looking at another case of same-sex marriage from the other side of the world, in a very different time and place. Anthropologists have long studied a practice, found in a number of traditional African societies, in which a woman marries another woman. What made this possible was that the roles of "husband" and "father" were based not on sexual and biological ties, but on property exchange -- that is, on "bridewealth" paid by the family of the "groom" to the family of the "bride". In cases where women were able to get access to the kinds of property generally held by men -- notably, cattle -- they could occupy the kinship statuses generally reserved to men. Thus, the female husband had rights to the domestic services of her "wife" and was the legitimate "father" of the wife's offspring, regardless of who the genitor might be. And it was the father who got to claim the child as a member of his (her) lineage. Clearly, these woman-woman marriages followed a completely different cultural logic from marriage between lesbians in contemporary American society. The important point, however, is that each case of same-sex marriage makes sense within the cultural meaning of marriage in their respective societies. This also explains why marriage between two men would make the same cultural sense as marriage between two women in the American case, but not in the African cases, where it is, in fact, not found. The timing of a successful gay marriage initiative in our society is clearly tied to the history of activism around the issue and the varying political responses to it. But the cultural backdrop against which these actions are playing out, which lends an air of inexorability to the process, is not only an ideal of transcending the forms of discrimination we find intolerable, but also our deepest hopes and dreams of what a marriage should be. More on Gay Marriage
 
NYC's Smallest, Coolest Apartment Top
ApartmentTherapy.com has chosen winners for its 'Smallest Coolest' contest , and one of this year's winner is New Yorker Kevin Patterson. Patterson's West End Avenue abode clocks in at just 210 square feet and costs $1550 a month. "About 4 steps in either direction you change rooms," Patterson told a WPIX TV reporter. WATCH: More on Video
 
Matthew Palevsky: ASSIGNMENT DESK: Banks Demolish New Houses Top
HuffPost recently reported on a Southern California bank that demolished new and unfinished houses that had recently been obtained through foreclosure. Check out the video below: According to the website that released this video, Visions for Victory, there are other bank-owned houses in Southern California that are scheduled for demolition. This might be a localized event or it could be happening in other areas around the country as well. Help us find out. Email submissions+foreclosure@huffingtonpost.com if you hear about houses in your area being destroyed by banks that have foreclosed on the property. Also, if you are facing foreclosure, or have already lost your home, tell us about your story. [If you haven't already, sign up here to become a member of HuffPost's Eyes and Ears Citizen Journalism Unit]
 
Mike Malloy: "Sadistic . . . violent . . . inhuman" Top
They must be horrific. So violent, in fact, so obscene, so counter to even the basic tenets of human decency that President Barack Obama sought today to block the release of hundreds of photos showing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan being abused, violated, tortured. He ordered this reversal of his position - he had been in favor of the decision to release this further evidence of war crimes committed under orders from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - after military commanders warned that the images could inflame anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops. But, it is far worse than that. The reality is this: Anti-American sentiment could not be more "inflamed" than it already is in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Our policy of indiscriminate bombing after the location of a "target" has been determined has caused the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our policies of providing weapons of terror - such as white phosphorous, concussion bombs, advanced jet fighters, massive tanks bristling with the power to annihilate anything in its path, explosives packed in cases made of depleted uranium - to be used by Israel against an utterly defenseless Palestinian population is known throughout the Middle East, throughout the world, except, of course, here in the U.S. No, the release of the photos and videos in question would do more than "inflame anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops." If we are to believe reports that began circulating four years ago, reports from investigative journalists such as Seymour Hersh, their release would unleash a wave of anti-American hatred that would endanger the lives of not just U.S. soldiers, but the lives of all Americans, civilians as well as military personnel. Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: " Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men ... . The women were passing messages saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened. Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They [the Bush Crime Family] are in total terror it's going to come out." At today's White House press briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the president was concerned that the photos' release would pose a national security threat. In other words, these unreleased photos and videos show acts of degeneracy so vile there is no way they can be explained or rationalized. They contain images of children - some of them the children of detainees - being raped and sodomized ( http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14864 ) as a means of forcing confessions from the adult detainees that would provide the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaeda that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush insisted were the basis of their orders to invade and occupy Iraq. Children of detainees being raped and sodomized as a means of obtaining confessions. In testimony before Congress five years ago no less a war criminal than the murderous former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman." Two months ago, Hersh, speaking at the University of Minnesota, said the following in trying to reveal yet more of the incredible depravity and lawlessness of Dick Cheney: "After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet. That does happen. Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/world/asia/10terror.html?_r=1&hp) that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it's called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they r eported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. "... Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us." [emphasis added] [Note: The former head of JSOC - Lt. General Stanley McChrystal was named this week to replace Gen. David McKiernan as U.S Commander and Commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan.] Torture conducted by the CIA. The rape and sodomizing of children. Sending detainees to countries whose methods of torture are medieval in their scope and techniques. Assassination squads that answered only to Dick Cheney. This was your country. This was your country in the grip of a madman. This is your country trying desperately to deny, to hide, to bury, the evidence of war crimes on a massive scale. - MDM Mike Malloy can be heard daily on his radio show 9pm - 12pm ET. Visit www.mikemalloy.com to stream live or find a station near you. More on Dick Cheney
 
Barbara J. Nelson: I Am Like A Free Person of Color in a Slave State Top
On March 5, 2009 the California Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, is valid. The Court has 90 days to decide whether to allow or forbid same sex marriage. On November 5, 2008 37% of the 17.3 million voters in California supported an initiative that would change the constitution to make marriage exclusively available between one man and one woman. In contrast, 26% voted to keep same sex marriage legal and 37% of the electorate did not vote at all. In the almost three months the Supreme Court has been contemplating its response five more states--beyond Massachusetts--have legalized same sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. For the combatants on both sides, those in favor and those opposed to same sex marriage, Proposition 8 is a test of how human rights policy is made in California, because on May 15, 2008 the Supreme Court of California had ruled that same sex marriage was legal in California. Specifically the Court held that given the legal rights available to gays and lesbians in California, to deny us the right to marry was a harmful and discriminatory distinction. The oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court on March 5th produced three lines of discussion, one of which may create a distinction in human rights law not seen in the United States since the days of slavery. The first argument was that the Justices were concerned that people like me, married when the Supreme Court said that same sex marriage was legal, need to be able to rely on their highest court, its jurisdiction and reasoning. Coverage of the oral arguments suggests that the Court will uphold our marriages. If the newspapers in Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco are right, the Court may create, by analogy, a legal class like free people of color in a slave state, that is, gay and lesbian people who married under the full protection of the law in the window when same sex marriage was legal and who retain their marriage rights, while other gays and lesbians now are unable to marry and may not be able to do so in the future. John Hope Franklin, the great historian of the African American experience who died at 94 last month, wrote in his first book, The Free Negro in North Carolina, 1790‐1860 , "that free Negroes in a slave society must be carefully regulated lest their very presence serve to overturn the system. p.10 More on Gay Marriage
 
Feingold Rebukes Obama For Detainee Photo Reversal Top
Senator Russ Feingold became one of the first elected officials to criticize Barack Obama for his reversal on releasing of detainee abuse in a statement Wednesday afternoon. Saying he saw no "compelling reason" to object to the release of the images, the Wisconsin Democrat said: "I am generally opposed to keeping the American people in the dark for no other reason than to shield misconduct, avoid embarrassment or other reasons not pertaining to national security. From what I've heard so far, I'm not convinced there is a compelling reason these photos shouldn't be released." The remarks come just hours after the White House explained that it would be exploring an additional legal avenue to delay or potentially block the release of the detainee photos. Spokesman Robert Gibbs explained, during Wednesday's briefing, that the administration had not sufficiently explored the extent to which the publishing of these images could do damage "to our troops and our national security." "That is the case that the legal team will now make," he added. "The Department of Justice will now seek to look for different avenues and, as I said earlier, will likely seek a stay." Advocates for the release of the photos scoffed at the argument, noting that the administration had agreed to their release as recently as late April. "We are extremely disappointed," said the ACLU's Alexander Abdo. "Understandably we believe this change in position is inconsistent with the promise made by Obama at the end of April. It is also inconsistent with his promises of transparency."
 
Palestinian Woman Judge Transforming Islamic Court Top
Khouloud el-Faqeeh has shattered the glass ceiling of Islamic jurisprudence. After years of pushing to break into the all-male ranks of sharia judges in the Palestinian territories, she finally secured a post after scoring among the best - along with another woman - in a recent test for new jurists. More on Religion
 
Jeff Biggers: Dear Mr. President: Declare August 3rd as Armistice Day in the Appalachian Coalfields Top
On the upcoming anniversary of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, President Barack Obama has the opportunity to declare an armistice in the polarized Appalachian coalfields, mend a 30-year mining policy of betrayal, and call an end to the most divisive and egregious human rights and environmental violation sanctioned by our federal government. On August 3rd, the President should keep his campaign promise, travel to Appalachia and publicly announce a timeline on when his administration plans to formally end mountaintop removal operations. While dramatic moves by the EPA to scrutinize and suspend select mountaintop removal operations in southwestern Virginia and West Virginia are laudable and deeply appreciated by those who have endured the helter-skelter of unchecked strip-mining operations for decades, and while the deliberate move by the Department of Interior to rescind the Bush administration's mishandling of the 1983 stream buffer zone rule is admirable, one indubitable fact remains: Mountaintop removal is an immoral crime against nature and our citizenry, and it must be abolished, not regulated. A publicly proposed "roadmap to withdrawal" and an announced "timeline for transition from mountaintop removal coal to underground coal or alternative clean energy sources" would send a clear signal that the Obama administration will not tolerate human rights abuses on American soil. August 3rd is not simply the anniversary of a benign Act; it is a sobering cautionary tale for today's Obama administration and young environmentalists of the catastrophic effects of well-meaning liberal Democrats who engage in compromises with an untenable and ruthless coal industry. On August 3rd, 1977, surrounded in the White House Rose Garden by beleaguered coalfield residents and environmentalists who had waged a ten-year campaign to abolish strip-mining, President Jimmy Carter signed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act with great fanfare. President Carter may have attempted to put on a good face, but he admitted to the 300 guests, according to the New York Times, "in many ways, this has been a disappointing effort." Calling it a "watered down" bill, Carter added, "I'm not completely satisfied with the legislation. I would prefer to have a stricter strip mining bill." "The President's other main objection to the bill," wrote the New York Times, "is that it allows the mining companies to cut off the tops of Appalachian mountains to reach entire seams of coal." Outraged by this duplicitous compromise to grant federal sanctioning of mountaintop removal mining, an "Appalachian Coalition" of coalfield residents and environmental groups called the SMCRA a "blatant travesty." Three decades later, the Appalachian Coalition's and President Carter's worst fears have been realized. Over 500 extraordinary mountains--all of which would have easily been recognized as national monuments in other states--have literally been blown to bits; an estimated 1.2 million acres of hardwood forests have been subjected to a scorched earth policy reserved for warfare; over 1,300 miles of headwater streams have been jammed or filled with mining waste. And the peace and prosperity of some of our nation's most historic communities have been shattered, locked out from any diversified economy, and forced to bear the burden of a failed mining policy. "When Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in 1977," testified Joe Lovett, the Executive Director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, at an Oversight Hearing of the US House Committee on Natural Resource on the 30th anniversary of the SMCRA, "it thought that it was enacting a law to protect the environment and citizens of the region. OSM has used, and has allowed the states to use, the Act as a perverse tool to justify the very harm that Congress sought to prevent. The Members of Congress who voted to pass the Act in 1977 could not have imagined the cumulative destruction that would be visited on our region by the complete failure of the regulators to enforce the Act." All well-meaning intentions aside, this is what is going to happen on August 3rd under our current policy: An estimated 540 million pounds of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil explosives will have ripped across and devastated our nation's oldest and most diverse mountains since President Obama took office in January. With military-like precision at 4pm on that day, Vietnam veteran Bo Webb's ancestral family cemetery and vegetable garden in Clay's Branch in West Virginia, for example, will be blanketed with silica dust and heavy metals from strip-mining blasts, while other gallbladder disease-stricken American citizens in neighboring coalfield areas will lug bottled water into their contaminated kitchens and bathrooms. Down the valley, teachers at the Marsh Fork Elementary School will be readying to return to work, as nearby mountaintop removal explosives send shocks through the earthen walls of a high ridge pond that holds back 2.8 billion gallons of toxic coal sludge a few football fields above their heads. On that same historic day in August, untold tons of coal stripped from mountaintop removal mines in these areas of central Appalachia will have been mined, processed, shipped and used in the Potomac River coal-fired plant to generate the electricity for the White House's first 180 days. In effect, by August 3rd, the White House will have decided Appalachia's fate. That is why it is imperative that President Obama makes a public stand on this scandal, while his outstanding and dedicated administrators at the EPA, Department of Interior and Council on Environmental Quality continue their measured actions to enforce the weak laws and regulations. By standing at the site of a mountaintop removal amphitheatre of destruction, declaring "Armistice Day" in the coalfields, and announcing an Appalachian Revitalization Program for green jobs and renewable energy manufacturing plants, a massive Appalachian Reforestation and Heavy Machinery Jobs Program, and a veritable fund dedicated to the national service and health and pension plans of the United Mine Workers, President Obama will truly bring peace and justice to our nation's coalfields. More on Green Energy
 
CANNES: Festival Opens With Glamour, Stars And 3-D (PHOTOS) Top
(SCROLL FOR PHOTOS) CANNES, France — The evening gowns glittered, the red carpet was unfurled _ and the 3-D glasses were at hand as the 62nd Cannes Film Festival opened Wednesday with the soaring animated adventure "Up." "Up'"s delighted filmmakers from Pixar Animation joined the crowd of stars and cineastes on the red carpet in this French Riviera resort and said being invited to Cannes was a dream come true. "We're just a bunch of animation geeks from northern California on the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival," said a beaming John Lasseter, Pixar's creative maestro. Edward Asner, who voices "Up'"s main character, did not come to Cannes. But his counterpart in the French-language version, crooner Charles Aznavour, was there. Lacking star power from the "Up" voice cast, the biggest name on the red carpet was Academy Award-winning actress Tilda Swinton. Inside, Roxy Music singer Bryan Ferry serenaded the crowd with a version of Aznavour's "She," before Aznavour declared the festival officially open. Organizers were hoping "Up" would provide a buoyant start before the festival plunges into 12 days of movies that take in passion, murder, Korean vampires and a band of Nazi-hunters led by Brad Pitt. Members of the jury, led by French actress Isabelle Huppert will be wrangling over which auteurs _ from a slate that includes Pedro Almodovar, Ang Lee, Quentin Tarantino and Ken Loach _ should receive Cannes' coveted prizes. But on Wednesday, Huppert was in a gentle mood. "I don't think we are here to judge," she said. "I think we are here to love films _ and to see what we love more than others." Huppert is one of only a handful of women ever to head the jury at the world's most prestigious film festival. She said the numbers didn't bother her: her predecessors _ who include Sophia Loren and Liv Ullmann _ were "women who count for a lot." Fellow juror Hanif Kureishi, the British screenwriter of "My Beautiful Laundrette" and "The Mother," was more concerned with another omission. "I'm not aware we've ever had a black or Asian president of the jury," he said. "It will be interesting to see when that will occur." Scores of celeb-watchers waited patiently outside Cannes' waterside film complex Wednesday, hoping for a glimpse of the stars _ any stars. Few knew who was due to arrive, but most didn't seem to mind. "I want to see Angelina Jolie on the red carpet," said Corinne Besnier, who traveled hundreds of miles (kilometers) from Reims in northern France. "And Johnny Hallyday" _ the French rock star who plays a killer in Hong Kong's director Johnnie To's "Vengeance." Hundreds of brightly colored helium balloons festooned the building in honor of "Up," the story of an old man and a young boy who float off to South America in an airborne house. There's weightier fare among the 20 films in competition, including Tarantino's World War II epic "Inglourious Basterds," with Pitt as leader of a group of Jewish soldiers hunting down Nazis. Gloom and gore abound: Lars von Trier's "Antichrist," about a couple's trip to the woods that turns chilling; Park Chan-Wook's "Thirst," in which a priest turns bloodsucker; and Gaspar Noe's "Enter the Void," billed in the festival program as a nightmarish "hallucinatory maelstrom." On a gentler note, Jane Campion's "Bright Star" depicts the poet John Keats in love, while Lee's "Taking Woodstock" set on the fringes of the seminal '60s rock fest. The lineup looks strong, but festival organizers and industry attendees are apprehensive about how the global recession will affect the event. Festival director Thierry Fremaux said he expects attendance to be up slightly from last year, but Vanity Fair magazine has canceled its annual Cannes party, and some soirees are rumored to have swapped champagne for sparkling wine. Off the red carpet, there is an apprehensive mood in the sprawling festival market where movie deals are done. But for one evening, stars and festival-goers ignored the gloom, walked the famous red carpet in their evening finery _ and promptly donned clunky plastic glasses to watch the 3-D opener. "The thing I'm looking forward to the most is seeing that great image of all these people tonight in their tuxedos, bow ties and gowns, wearing 3-D glasses in that big theater," said Pixar's Lasseter. "That's going to be a good picture." PHOTOS: More on Photo Galleries
 
Iraqi Military Faces New Threat: Lower Oil Prices Top
BAGHDAD — Lower oil prices are threatening Iraq's efforts to build a military capable of defending the country, raising the possibility that the Iraqis will need substantial U.S. help for years after the Americans leave by 2012. The budget crunch not only affects ground forces that bear the brunt of the fight against Sunni and Shiite extremists _ it also slows development of an air force capable of defending the skies and a navy able to protect vital oil exporting facilities in the Persian Gulf from terror attacks. All that is forcing U.S. and Iraqi planners to make tough choices during the countdown to the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011. With the Obama administration shifting resources to Afghanistan, the U.S. is not in a position to finance the Iraqi budget shortfall. "Realistically, as we look out to 2011, this year's budget will not keep them on track they need to be on," said Army Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick, the American officer in charge of training the Iraqi security force. "These ministers in defense and interior are having to make very, very difficult decisions, having to prioritize their requirements." Iraq's security plans have gone off course because of the slump in oil prices, which now stand around $60 a barrel after hitting highs last summer of nearly $150 a barrel. Oil sales account for more than 90 percent of government revenue. When prices were soaring last summer, the U.S. Government Accountability Office predicted Iraq could end the year with as much as a $79 billion budget surplus. Instead, Iraq's government had to slash its 2009 budget to $58.6 billion from an initial figure of $79 billion. The higher figure was based on the assumption that oil prices would average $80 a barrel this year. Instead of wallowing in a surplus, Iraq is tightening its belt. There's little chance of a windfall unless oil prices rebound or the government can boost production substantially _ which would require a deal with the Kurds over control of fields in their self-ruled northern region. Helmick said the Defense Ministry this year needed $8.5 billion but received about $4.5 billion, and the Interior Ministry needed about the same and received about $5 billion. About 70 percent of the defense budget goes to salaries, Helmick said. If oil prices fail to rebound, Iraq's budget _ and its defense spending _ in 2010 and 2011 will again be curtailed, making it nearly impossible to have its security forces adequately trained and equipped by 2012. "It would be a really tough year in 2010, if they get the same budget or less," Helmick said. Abbas al-Bayati, chairman of parliament's security committee, played down the cuts in Iraq's defense spending. He said the budget covered most requests, including building new bases and providing training and arms _ though there was no mention of naval or air power. U.S. military advisers are working with the ministries to re-prioritize how to create a fully functioning security force, examining every possibility from cutting back on purchasing military equipment to creative financing. Among the priorities being discussed by the government, Helmick says, is whether to increase its army logistics units, buy ships for its navy or buy aircraft to train pilots. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Wednesday that Iraq may ask the British navy to help the Iraqis protect ports and export facilities after the British withdraw by the end of July. Al-Dabbagh said such an arrangement could allow for fewer than 400 British service personnel to carry out tasks inside Iraqi waters. Last January the Pentagon reported that only 17 of the Iraqi army's 175 combat battalions could operate without U.S. support, largely because of supply and logistics problems. Chief among U.S. concerns is bolstering Iraq's protection of its oil platforms, borders and skies. They are areas considered critical by American commanders _ especially oil platforms which are vulnerable to seaborne terrorist attack. Iraq's air force has no fighter jets to defend against possible incursions by neighbors including Iran, Turkey and Syria. Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Askari said the government is negotiating with the United States to buy F-16 warplanes. The target calls for the aircraft to be patrolling the skies by 2016 _ four years after the current U.S. withdrawal deadline. But Iraq doesn't have the money to buy the planes and train the pilots. "We can't really train enough fixed-wing pilots right now, because we don't have enough fixed-wing trainers to do that," Helmick said. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been making the rounds with world leaders, and defense and interior ministers have been meeting with foreign counterparts as part of an effort to expand the country's revenue sources, boost oil production and, perhaps, buy less expensive military equipment. Iraq has purchased nearly $5 billion in military items from the U.S. since 2006, and recently asked to buy $3.8 billion more. It has not funded that request. ___ Associated Press Writer Sinan Salaheddin in Baghdad contributed to this report. More on War Wire
 
Don McNay: Empathy for Society's Child Top
< em>One of these days I'm gonna stop my listening, Gonna raise my head up high. One of these days I'm gonna raise up my glistening wings and fly. But that day will have to wait for a while. Baby I'm only society's child. - Janis Ian Janis Ian's songwriting broke ground in two crucial areas. Society's Child was about interracial dating in the 1960's. Her 1975 hit, At Seventeen , reflected on the angst of unpopular high school kids. Both songs are relevant to a celebration I attended. My longtime friend, Bob Babbage, was recently inducted into Lexington Kentucky's Henry Clay High School Hall of Fame. Bob had been elected to two of Kentucky's highest offices and is now the state's most successful lobbyist. Like many adults who receive hall of fame awards, Bob was a geek in high school. He wasn't in the in-crowd and wasn't particularly cool. He was elected student council president and found his niche in politics. Bob graduated in 1969, the year his all-white school merged with an all-black school. Bob talked about how that year influenced his decision to fight discrimination during his adult life. The school honored another self-professed nerd, Billy Reed, class of 1961. One of Kentucky's most famous sportswriters, Billy had a long career writing for Sports Illustrated and several other publications. Billy never played sports. He started covering them for the Lexington Herald in high school and still hasn't stopped. There were only three African-American students in Billy's high school class. Before his induction, Billy attempted to track down all three to invite them to the dinner. One of the classmates had died and one had no desire to relive painful childhood memories. The third was Nanine Neal Watson. She came to the dinner all the way from Oakland, California. She brought with her to the dinner several family members, including her nephew, former Pittsburgh Steeler All-Pro, Dermontti Dawson. Ms. Watson talked about how high school was unpleasant and how she appreciated the effort that Reed made to reach out to her, 48 years later. Ralph Keyes' book, Is There Life After High School ?, is based on the premise that high school is the four most important years in shaping a person's life. If you look at Reed and Babbage, that holds true. Each chose professions (sports writing and politics) spawned from his high school experiences. They both came away from high school understanding what it was like to be an underdog. If Billy had been a high school sports star, instead of someone who wrote about sports, I wonder if he would have noticed or felt the pain of his three classmates. I doubt it. Being excluded is one of those things you never get out of your system. For many of us, it gave us compassion for those who got the same treatment. I played sports but was never a "cool kid" at any point in my life. As I grew up, I became an ardent adversary of discrimination. I am against any kind of discrimination, against any classifying of people, for any reason. It is a passion fueled by childhood experience. Somewhere along the way, I took comfort in the idea that "the geeks would inherit the earth" If you study the life of famous and successful people, very few were popular in high school. Of our recent presidents, I can only think of the elder George Bush as a potentially "cool" high school kid. Although Barack Obama is the ultimate in adult cool, he notes in his book, Dreams of My Father, that it was not that way growing up. The product a bi-racial, single parent family, growing in the 1960's, Obama was the ultimate "Society's Child". Thus, it wasn't a big surprise when Obama listed "empathy" as a qualification for his first pick to the Supreme Court. Some right-wing pundits poke fun at the idea of "empathy" being a qualification. They suggest that Obama wants a justice who is wimpy and soft. Obama is looking for is the same characteristic that Billy Reed and Bob Babbage showed at the banquet: The ability to feel what it is like to be on the outside. I want someone on the United States Supreme Court who can look back at actions that were wrong, feel a sense of injustice and make amends, even if the act happened forty or fifty years ago. Time doesn't heal wounds. People do. Empathy has been part of world culture for centuries. Many major religions require confession of sins or have days of atonement. 12 step programs require addicts to make amends to people they wronged. It's a good process for the person apologizing and a good process for the person accepting the apology. . Obama wants a Supreme Court Justice who can show the kind of empathy that some special people showed on a very special night. For all of our sakes, I hope he finds one. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the founder of McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement consulting firm, in Richmond, Kentucky. He is the author of Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You When The Lottery. You can write to Don at don@donmcnay.com or read his award winning column at www.donmcnay.com. McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table. Like his friend Bob Babbage, McNay is a member of the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni. More on Sports
 
Lost Season Finale: Character Ben "SHOCKED" At Outcome Top
NEW YORK — Michael Emerson, who plays the ever-devious Ben on ABC's "Lost," is glad to be back on the island. Not the mystical time-tripping island that "Lost" calls home. Or the Hawaiian isle of Oahu, where the show is actually based. Emerson is glad to be back on the island of Manhattan, where he lives, having wrapped this season's grueling, gratifying, shoot. The fifth-season "Lost" finale airs Wednesday at 9 p.m. EDT (preceded by a special catch-up hour), with a scheme afoot to somehow undo the fateful Oceanic Airlines crash and everything that followed. Meanwhile, Ben seems undone himself. "Ben looks about as whipped as he has ever looked," chuckles Emerson, who in person has a friendly, laid-back manner far removed from the creepy, cold Ben. Not that anyone should ever count Ben out. "He's still operating," says Emerson with an appreciative smile. "He's still looking for opportunities." From the start, "Lost" has had an epic, mind-bending sweep and a vast array of characters (among them, series stars Matthew Fox, Josh Holloway, Evangeline Lilly and Terry O'Quinn). But mysterious milquetoast Ben has loomed large through it all _ ever since he arrived in Season 2, originally meant for just a handful of episodes. It was Ben who, on last season's finale, pushed a big frozen wheel to "move" the island" _ and moved it into a different realm of time. This season, time-skipping has been a key part of the increasingly prismatic saga. Emerson assures viewers that "Lost" will tie up all its loose ends by the series' conclusion a year from now. "Our writers' agenda is larger than just jerking the audience around," he declares. "They're wrestling with some big themes: death, rebirth, redemption, atonement. There are a lot of philosophical and quasi-religious undercurrents in our show, played against a sci-fi/action background. "And the scripts have gotten more ambitious as time goes on. We get the scripts and say, 'Stop! We're a TV show, not a studio feature!'" And with that he emits another chuckle, the sign of an actor still savoring his character and unlikely stardom. Before "Lost," Emerson, now 54, had carved out a career as a classically trained actor who hailed from Toledo, a small farming town in Iowa. He landed stage roles (and, while at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival in 1994, met his future wife, Carrie Preston, a fellow actor who now stars on HBO's drama, "True Blood"). He won the occasional TV guest role, and won an Emmy for his performance as a serial killer on "The Practice." Then came a character Emerson hails for "alertness and calculation," even while conceding that Ben "is deeply flawed. He's a wreck. He's a teller of half-truths." Not that truth, in any ordinary sense, is commonplace on "Lost," as the finale is sure to demonstrate. It left Emerson "a bit shocked when I read the script," he confides. "Can they DO that?" Emerson says he asked himself, sounding like any "Lost" fan. ___ Associated Press Writer Lauri Neff contributed to this report. ___ ABC is a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Co. ___ On the Net: http://www.abc.com ___ EDITOR'S NOTE _ Frazier Moore is a national television columnist for The Associated Press. He can be reached at fmoore(at)ap.org
 
'Good Bad' Economy Inspires Consumers As Slump Eases Top
May 13 (Bloomberg) -- Brooke and Doug Sterenberg booked a seven-day, $2,800 cruise to the Bahamas on Carnival Corp.'s ship the Conquest, with its three-deck-high Twister water slide. It's the family's reward for Doug keeping his job.
 
Obama Asks Tamil Tigers To Surrender, Sri Lanka To Mind Civilians Top
President Obama, speaking this afternoon, made a direct statement to both the Tamil Tigers as well as the Sri Lankan government regarding the enduring civil war and widespread civilian devastation in that country. Obama asked that the Tigers lay down their arms and surrender to the Sri Lankan government, and he asked that the Sri Lankans cease the use of heavy artillery, which has been decimating fleeing civilians, in order to address the growing humanitarian crisis that has captured international attention for weeks now. Obama's statements Wednesday came shortly after Amnesty International (AI), and various other humanitarian groups, issued an official plea, saying, "While U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice have voiced concern, President Obama himself must speak out publicly and forcefully over the wanton disregard for human rights in Sri Lanka." AI also reached out the the United Nations Security Council, writing in their statement, "The Council must convene without any further delay to discuss the latest disturbing developments and immediately require that attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan army or the LTTE be stopped; that the LTTE allow all civilians to leave the conflict area; and that the Sri Lankan government provide immediate access to international monitors and humanitarian agencies." Earlier today, Sri Lankan shells rained down on the last remaining hospital in the northern region, killing at least 50. according to the Associated Press: The military has denied firing any heavy weapons in recent weeks, but Human Rights Watch says both sides are using the estimated 50,000 civilians packed into the last rebel-held territory as "cannon fodder." The Red Cross said one of its workers was killed in shelling Wednesday. It is estimated that 50,000 civilians remain trapped in Tamil Tiger-controlled, besieged northern area. More to come shortly. More on Sri Lanka
 
Arnold Bogis: Planning for Nuclear Terrorism as Well as the Flu Top
Every day brings news about the spread of swine flu in the U.S. and instability in Pakistan. It is too early to tell how either story will end, but we are prepared to deal with the potential consequences of only one of these situations. Confronted with a potential pandemic flu outbreak, President Obama thanked the Bush Administration for "creating the infrastructure so that we can respond." Extensive planning began several years ago, and these efforts encompassed all levels of government as well as the private sector. As the Taliban's influence spreads, concern about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and materials grows. Terrorist acquisition of a nuclear bomb, or the materials required to construct one, would fulfill President Obama's warning that "one terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction." Significant, if insufficient, action has been made toward preventing nuclear terrorism while little has been accomplished in terms of preparedness for an attack. Similar to pandemic flu planning, such efforts need to occur outside of Washington, DC and include private businesses and citizens. The "Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation," developed by the White House Homeland Security Council, stressed that it is "incumbent upon all levels of government" to prepare "through focused nuclear attack response planning." According to that same guidance, "local and state community preparedness to respond to a nuclear detonation could result in life-saving on the order of tens of thousands of lives." Unfortunately many communities have not gotten the point. Two assumptions prevail at the local level: that any nuclear explosion will completely destroy a major city and that the military is the only organization capable of responding. These ideas are fueled by Cold War-era memories in which the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union meant thousands of bombs would fall on U.S. cities. However, scenarios involving a nuclear terrorist attack, though horrible, are not equivalent. The federal government will eventually take charge of response efforts and military aid will be required. Yet as overwhelming as it will be for local and state resources, it is all that will be available in the first hours following the explosion. So what should local officials do? First, accept the threat and understand the military cannot arrive immediately to help. Although probability of such an attack is low compared to conventional explosives, natural disasters, or even bioterrorism, the possibility is real and the consequences catastrophic. Local officials should not delude themselves into thinking that existing plans for responding to dirty bombs can be simply expanded to deal with nuclear terrorism. There is no comparison between the two -- as Harvard professor and nuclear terrorism expert Graham Allison describes it, "a dirty bomb is to a nuclear bomb as a lighting bug is to lighting." When this lighting strikes, it may be several days before the federal government can respond in force. Although the Defense Department has recently tasked thousands of U.S.-based troops to support local authorities in case of such a catastrophic event, local officials should assume this federal help might not arrive for up to 48 hours after an explosion. Second, realize this is not a problem for only large "high risk" cities, but one that requires a regional response. People will self-evacuate, fallout will be blown long distances, and the only resources available will be found in neighboring communities. Third, actually make plans. This has to take place across local jurisdictions and among disciplines that often compete for scarce resources as well as include business and other private entities that often are not brought to the table. As recommended by the recent WMD Commission, a serious program of engagement with the public will be required to not only encourage disaster preparedness but also provide guidelines to track their local officials' progress. Such planning is not necessarily specific to nuclear terrorism. Regional preparedness and response can be leveraged for a range of catastrophic events, including hurricanes, earthquakes, and pandemics. Plus, preparing for the "big one" will help communities deal with the small disasters they face every year. More on Nuclear Weapons
 
James Moeller: The Omnipresent President Top
He's everywhere, or at least it seems that way. It's hard to imagine a President who has dominated the airwaves, editorial pages and digital landscape more than Barack Obama in his first 105 days (even in our celebrity-obsessed culture, it's unprecedented). He's on the cover of New York Times Magazine (again), he bounds into the White House Briefing Room to confirm the resignation of the Justice Souter, he announces the bankruptcy of Chrysler and he personally welcomes Senator Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party. And that was just the end of last week. He indeed appears to be everywhere, doing everything. While there's been criticism and concern about him taking on too much, there is no denying that he is dominating the stage like no one before him. And yet by traditional measures, he's been no more visible than his two most recent predecessors. According to the New York Times, in their first 100 days Bill Clinton held 13 news conferences while Obama held 12. In his first 100 days, George W. Bush held 197 public events, while Obama held 187. And despite what has felt like a saturation of the airwaves, Obama gave two nationally televised broadcasts -- exactly the same number as Bush and one fewer than Clinton. All of this begs the question: why does it seem as if Obama is everywhere all the time, if he's really not? Is it a fawning media that critics claim fell in love with him during the campaign and now can't help themselves as they focus on every action big and small - from Bo to Bailouts - in creating a truly larger than life President? Maybe. A Washington press corps fatigued by eight years of obfuscation passed off as "message discipline" during the Bush years is undoubtedly enjoying a new approach and better access. And there is always a bit of a media honeymoon with a new president, although it is truncated these days (see President Clinton and gays in the military on Day 9). Perhaps it's the fact that there are crises on so many different fronts - the economy, the auto companies, Afghanistan, swine flu - that the President is addressing (seemingly personally). These are big issues that demand public attention. While both Clinton and Bush took over in the midst of mild recessions, neither had the magnitude of immediate challenges Obama faces. There is of course the historic nature of his presidency as the first African-American president, which coupled with his youth, energy and oratorical skills make a compelling story. Chances are it's a combination of all of the above that have worked together to create the omnipresent President. Whatever the cause, he clearly relishes it and uses his ability to dominate the stage to his great advantage. He makes his opposition seem small and petty by comparison (although given the state of his opposition, perhaps that's not such an accomplishment). They shrink as he takes dramatic action and tackles big issues while they focus on grainy details. As he elevates these issues to major topics of coverage he draws support and puts his opponents on the defensive from the outset. There are risks, of course, to being omnipresent. There is the threat of over saturation that may lead the media, Congress and voters to tune him out simply because we've heard and seen him so often There is also the very real risk that he comes to own all of these issues in the public's eye and when one or more of them worsens, he will bear the brunt of criticism and, worse, disappointment. While these outcomes could hobble his still young presidency, they are risks he's obviously willing to take given the potential payoff.
 
Obama's Supreme Court Pick: Has More Than 6 On List Top
WASHINGTON — A source tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama is considering California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and more than five other people as nominees for the Supreme Court. An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood _ people who have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates. The official said there were other people under consideration. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because no names have been publicly revealed by the White House. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) _ President Barack Obama plans to announce his Supreme Court choice soon but isn't saying who is being seriously considered, senators who met with him said Wednesday. "I don't envy him the decision, but I think he's going to make it soon," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told The Associated Press after a private White House session. "I think when he goes out west today and tomorrow, he's going to have a lot of stuff on the airplane with him." Obama was leaving later in the day to give a commencement speech at Arizona State University, while the debate simmers about the nomination of a successor to retiring Justice David Souter. Asked if the president ran any names of candidates by the senators, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said: "No. No names." Obama's bipartisan consultation came as he zeroed in on a nominee. Souter is part of the court's liberal wing, and his replacement by the new Democratic president is not expected to change the high court's ideological balance. Obama is widely expected to appoint a woman to replace Souter, and he is under pressure from some Latino officials to name the nation's first Hispanic justice. Obama met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on Judiciary; Leahy; and McConnell. Vice President Joe Biden, a former Judiciary Committee chairman and veteran of confirmation hearings, also attended. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama and senators reached agreement that the confirmation process "would be civil." Sessions said that Obama didn't give a timeframe for his decision but indicated he wanted to get it done soon. "My impression was he doesn't want to let it take too long," Sessions told reporters on the White House driveway. The White House has said Obama will not announce a decision this week. It appears increasingly likely, though, that he will do so before month's end. One official said none of the senators present at the closed-door White House meeting mentioned the names of any potential nominees. "The president said we may disagree on how to vote on a nominee, but we can agree on the process, or the tone of it," Sessions said. "I think that's true." Obama wants his nominee confirmed before the Senate goes on recess for the summer in early August. But the senators would not commit to that. Reid said the chamber would not be wedded to "arbitrary deadlines" and cautioned about the Judiciary Committee's busy schedule. "We'll work out a decent schedule," said Leahy, who promised a fair chance for Republicans and Democrats to ask questions during confirmation hearings. "Let's get the nominee first." An emerging point of debate is Obama's insistence that his nominee be someone who is willing to show "empathy" in making rulings. Some Republicans have balked at the notion, including Sessions, who wrote an op-ed in the Wednesday editions of The Washington Post prodding Obama not to pick someone who would rule based on personal feelings. Asked whether that matter came up, McConnell said: "We did have a discussion about the importance of following the law, and not acting like a legislator on the bench." Should Obama make his pick shortly, that would leave June and July for his nominee to get through the vetting process, with voting presumably taking place in the Senate by August. It is possible, however, that the confirmation process would carry on into September. Leahy said he saw no problem in having a nominee confirmed by the start of the new court session in October. ___ Associated Press writers David Espo and Chuck Babington contributed to this story. More on Barack Obama
 
Nan Aron: Justice Delayed Top
You may have heard that Republicans in the U.S. Senate are blocking the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, and you may be wondering, "So what?" This actually matters. A lot. The person who heads that office tells the executive branch of government which actions it is considering are legal and constitutional and which infringe on such basic rights as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and privacy. This is the job that Jay Bybee held during the Bush administration when he wrote his infamous memo providing legal cover for illegal torture and wiretapping without warrants. President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen to restore integrity to the office. She served there for five years under President Clinton, including as acting director. She's a distinguished law professor at Indiana University who specializes in the question of protecting against abuses of executive power. She spearheaded an effort by legal experts who served in the Clinton administration to develop guidelines to ensure that the Office of Legal Counsel fulfills its proper role in the future. In other words, she's exactly what you would look for in a qualified nominee. That's why she is supported by Doug Kmiec, who was deputy director of that office under Bush Sr.; Walter Dellinger, who ran the office under Clinton; and Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff. So why are Senate Republicans using a threatened filibuster to block a vote on the nomination they know they would lose? Number one -- partisan politics. At this point, if President Obama said he favors the sun coming up in the morning, most Republican senators would object, saying it comes up too far to the left. Number two -- the Republican's extreme ideological agenda. They are attacking Johnsen because she spoke out against the misuse of the Justice Department to justify illegal torture by the Bush administration. Apparently, anyone against illegal acts by the President is unfit to serve. They are also attacking her for supporting the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. That decision is supported by a large majority of Americans because for more than 35 years it has protected our right to privacy and kept the government out of our personal lives. If favoring Roe v. Wade disqualifies someone from serving our nation, there will need to be an awful lot of resignations from office, including President Obama himself, a majority of the Senate and House of Representatives, and a majority of the Supreme Court. Then, there's a third reason for the filibuster threat against Dawn Johnsen. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to you, but it seems that some Republican senators have an allergic reaction to women in positions of responsibility. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) ridiculed Johnsen, saying she does not have the "seriousness" for the job. Can you imagine Republican senators saying that about a man who formerly held the job to which he was being appointed and whose academic specialty as a law professor was the very subject he would be dealing with in that position? The partisan obstructionists in the Senate are hoping that the public won't bother to contact their senators about a nomination many Americans know little about. I hope they're wrong. More on Barack Obama
 
Urbanization Leading To The Rise Of Slums (AUDIO)(SLIDESHOW) Top
The year 2007 was a turning point for the world, marking the first time when the majority of the global population lived in cities rather than in the country. The world's population is expected to surpass 9 billion by 2050, and increasing urbanization will push the urban-rural divide even further. Do the world's cities have the jobs, infrastructure and space to support this kind of growth? The answer might be found in the explosion of world slums over the past decade. The United Nations predicts that 2 billion people worldwide will live in slums by 2030. In his 2006 book "Planet of Slums," urban historian Mike Davis paints a dark picture of the future to come, writing: The cities of the future, rather than being made out of glass and steel as envisioned by earlier generations of urbanists, are instead largely constructed out of crude brick, straw, recycled plastic, cement blocks, and scrap wood. Instead of cities of light soaring toward heaven, much of the twenty-first-century urban world squts in squalor, surrounded by pollution, excrement and decay. Worldfocus.org's weekly radio show explored urbanization and the rise of slums, examining how such deplorable conditions might be addressed, even as the global economic crisis looms. Worldfocus anchor Martin Savidge hosted a panel of guests. Erhard Berner is an associate professor of developmental sociology at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. He has done extensive research on urban poverty and community responses in the Philippines and elsewhere and served as a consultant to UN-Habitat, NGOs, and government institutions. Robert Neuwirth spent two years living in shantytowns across the developing world to write "Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World." He is now at work on a book chronicling the global reach of the informal economy. Mary Wiltenburg is an independent reporter, now following a year in the life of a refugee family in the U.S. and Tanzania in a series called Little Bill Clinton, a real-time multimedia project with The Christian Science Monitor and the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Below, view a slideshow of life in five major world slums. See more from Worldfocus Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on United Nations
 
Cenk Uygur: Obama Makes Terrible Mistake by Not Releasing Pictures Top
This is an unbelievable moment. Dick Cheney's PR offensive over the last month actually worked. Barack Obama just crumbled and will follow Cheney's command to not release the new set of detainee abuse pictures. By the way, if you hadn't figured it out by now, that's why you saw every Cheney in the world on television arguing that torture works and that releasing more information would gravely harm the troops. They weren't worried about what was already released; they were worried about what was going to get released. They were trying to preempt the most damaging thing of all -- the pictures that show the torture. Just talk about torture doesn't really do it for the American people. But when they see pictures, they get it. That's why Bush had to apologize profusely and throw a few low-level soldiers under the bus when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out. You think there would have been anywhere near that level of controversy or accountability (such that it was) without the pictures? How many Americans have heard of Bagram Air Base and how we tortured people to death there? A scant few. How many would have heard of it if there were pictures of detainees shackled from the ceiling in a Palestinian hanging or bleeding to death? Pictures are worth a billion words. You know why? Television! If something isn't on television, it didn't happen. And television producers are obsessed with visuals (makes some sense since it's a visual medium, but their obsession winds up dumbing down the news if there aren't any pictures or video to go along with an important story). Television has a multiplier effect. The New York Times story on how we beat a man named Dilawar to death at Bagram just sits there and whoever reads it, reads it. And then, it's done. On television stories spread and multiply and get spread to other channels and other mediums. Television doesn't just report the news; it decides what the news is. So, that is what this whole fight has been about -- the pictures. And now Obama adopted Cheney's position that it endangers national security to release the pictures and he will be saddled for the rest of time with the obligation to fight Cheney's battle for him. And anytime any reasonable person makes a case that as a free and open democracy we should know what our government did, the right-wing will counter with, "Even Obama thinks it endangers national security!" The reason why this is such a maddening argument is that it is so f'in obvious that the real problem isn't releasing the pictures; it's what we did in the pictures. The argument that Obama so stupidly accepted just now shifts the blame from the people who committed the abuse to the people who want to uncover it and put an end to it. If you released the pictures and show how the "enhanced interrogation" memos directly led to these abuses , there would be no more torture debate. Everyone could see with their own eyes the horrific results of torture. Now instead, Obama has not just protected the torturers, but empowered them. They now get to claim they tried to protect America and that anyone who tries to show their misdeeds endangers America. The news reports will tell you that Obama listened to his generals on this. Yes, who put Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno in their current positions? Oh yes, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Very fair and balanced advice you would get from them. This isn't about protecting the troops; it's about protecting their own behinds. They might have been in the chain of command that allowed this abuse to happen. Expecting unbiased advice from them is ridiculous. Now, it looks to the rest of the world that we are trying to hide something, that we have not turned over a new leaf, that it is the same old lies and duplicity -- and that Obama is on it. This was colossally stupid. And to add insult to injury, we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that Dick Cheney still runs DC no matter how unpopular and despicable he is. He still has the Democrats eating out of his hand. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. There should be an overwhelming Democratic and media revolt over this decision. The Democrats cannot be like the Republicans and bow their heads at all of the president's decisions. They should fight him tooth and nail on this. Don't hold your breath. Other than Feingold and a few others, they will all immediately lay down. But I come back to a question that keeps popping back up -- are there any real journalists in this country? Has everyone become so obsessed with access and so cowed by possible governmental reaction that they don't actually do their job anymore? They seem so damn frightened by what the big, bad government might say about them. If there's a real journalist in this country, they will get their hands on those pictures and release them to the world. We did what is in those pictures. The longer we cover it up, the more culpable we all become. Not showing the pictures doesn't make the reality of what happened go away. It only aids and abets the torturers who did the crimes and stained this country's name. They should all be thrown into the sunlight. This is what the press is supposed to do. Now, are so-called journalists going to act or are they going to just sit there and take it again? We're going to find out if we have attack dogs in the press that uncover the truth as it actually is or if we just have a bunch of lap dogs that can't wait for their master to give them the crumbs off his table. This is a litmus test. Is this an free and open country, or isn't it? Watch The Young Turks Here More on Barack Obama
 
Sotomayor's Medical History Sparks Wider Debate Top
With President Obama's Supreme Court choice expected within weeks, the vetting process for prospective candidates has grown more intense. Judicial rulings, legal papers, public statements and financial records all are being pored over with eagle eyes. So too is a far more sensitive matter: medical records. The health of a Supreme Court candidate is, naturally, a touchy subject, falling in a gray area that includes deeply private information. In recent administrations, however, it has become a focal point of the vetting deliberations, with lifespan moving up alongside jurisprudence as a criteria for a nominee. As President Obama approaches his first Supreme Court appointment, the question of how much scrutiny he should give to a candidate's health could rise to the surface once more. A frontrunner for the post, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is a Type One diabetic. It is one of the more compelling aspects to an already compelling biography. And while hardly a debilitating disease -- indeed, recent medical advancements have made it quite manageable to live with -- there remain enough late-in-life health implications to have sparked debate in legal, political and medical circles. Just how relevant are medical issues to Sotomayor's or any other potential Supreme Court nomination? "It is obligatory [to look at this]" said Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN and author of "The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court." "The issue of duration of service for a Supreme Court nominee is critical to any president, and thus health and medical issues are very much at the forefront of their considerations... It would be irresponsible for any president not to make the health of the nominee a major subject of concern, because presidents want decades of service from their nominees." Added another political operative who has worked on judicial nominations in the past: "I don't even think it is very sensitive. I think it is just obvious.... It is part of who we are. And so I think you find that there is almost in this day and age, there is almost no area of inquiry that is out of bounds." Not everyone believes that medical conditions of prospective candidates should be considered so critically in the vetting process. George Dargo, a professor of law at New England Law in Boston, noted retiring Justice David Souter himself should serve as evidence for Obama that gaming out how a Supreme Court pick will fare is an imprecise art. "I believe that this should not be a factor," he said. "There is one constant in Supreme Court history, and that is the inconstancy of the appointees... President Obama may want to appoint someone who will be there for at least a generation, but he might be disappointed." Moreover, few, if any, in the medical profession view Sotomayor's diabetes as a major disqualifier. Far from it, many experts argue that there is a stigma attached to Type One diabetes that doesn't exist with other conditions. A history of coronary disease, high blood pressure, Crohn's Disease or Lupus can present far more difficult medical quandaries. The vast majority of the roughly 24 million people who suffer from diabetes live long and fruitful lives, with a list of political luminaries that includes former New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, Mikhail Gorbachev and Menachem Begin. "The advancements for management of type one diabetes have been just amazing over the last two decades because of the advent of insulin pumps and the ability of people to measure their glucose levels at home," said Dr. Paul Robertson, President of Medicine & Science at the American Diabetes Association. "We're talking a whole different ball game now in terms of how well patients can do; what their longevity is like and how well they can function. Many of the pro athletes as you may already know have type one diabetes and they function perfectly well." That said, the complications faced by Type One diabetics can be immense. According to Joana Casas of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, patients suffer high rates of kidney disease, heart disease, stroke and nerve damage. "The average life expectancy for people with Type One is lowered by an average of ten years," she added. And with there being no time or term limit to a position on the Court, some legal observers wonder whether this could end up complicating the likelihood of her appointment. "I myself am a Type 2 diabetic for over three decades," said Howard Ball, author of "The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans" and a political science professor at the University of Vermont. "It calls for vigilance daily... I am sure that the judge [Sotomayor] has developed such a regimen over the years... This certainly make Obama's decision a very political one because, as you know, the president wants to select someone who will be on the court for decades doing the right thing in cases and controversies. I would suspect that she will not become a viable possibility for that reason, although I may be wrong." Sotomayor has been open about her diabetes in the past, noting that when she was diagnosed at he age of eight, it foiled her hopes of becoming an investigative detective like her heroine, Nancy Drew. Her office, however, did not return requests from comment. Sources close to the Obama White House say they are, as expected, taking each candidate's medical history into consideration. But officials refused to comment for this article. Health concerns have factored into previous Supreme Court nominations, often in complicated and rather secretive ways. The most obvious example of medical issues affecting an appointment, Toobin argued, was Richard Arnold, an Arkansas federal appeals court judge who President Bill Clinton desperately wanted to appoint to the bench before medical tests showed a reemergence of cancerous tumors in his body. A weeping Clinton decided against the appointment and ultimately settled on Justice Stephen Breyer. Roughly ten years later, Arnold died due to complications with his treatment. There are other historical anecdotes, though far less gripping. David Atkinson, author of "Leaving the Bench," hypothesizes that Justice Charles Whittaker likely had some medical problems before President Eisenhower appointed him to the Court. He ended up suffering a nervous breakdown on the bench in 1962 and was granted his retirement soon thereafter. Horace Lurton, William Taft's 65-year-old nominee, promised to "hit the ground running," Atkinson noted. But "he lasted only a very short time before he became very ill and died." Mainly, however, health concerns arise during the end, not the beginning, of a Justice's tenure. The esteemed Thurgood Marshall, for one, was suffering from a bad heart, deafness and glaucoma by the time he retired at age 82. Justice William Brennan, as well, admitted that he ended his career not quite as mentally astute as when he started. Currently, the Court has one member who is suspected of suffering from epilepsy -- Chief Justice John Roberts -- and another recovering from surgery for cancer -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. With this backdrop in mind, Atkinson argues that Justices and nominees should be more forthcoming with medical information. "I've been making this case for a long time," he said. "Presidents, since Eisenhower, have been very good at this. The Justices have not been so good." With Contributing Reporting By Susan Crile Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Barack Obama
 

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)