Wednesday, May 6, 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

Bob Cesca: Republican Political Hackery and the Hate Crimes Bill Top
During the same historic week in which marriage equality was passed in Maine , the Republicans -- the self-proclaimed party of emancipation and "the liberty tree" -- attempted to derail hate crimes legislation with some political trickery that succeeded in allowing Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to accuse the Democrats of protecting pedophiles. Stay with me on this. Rep. Steve King (R-Batshittia) introduced an amendment to the hate crimes bill calling for the term "sexual orientation" to exclude "pedophiles" even though the bill specifically defines sexual orientation as " consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." Pedophelia, as everyone knows, is nonconsensual no matter who engages in it. Not only was King insinuating the derogatory stereotype that homosexuals are pedophiles, but his amendment would've further validated this stereotype by writing it into the legal record. By the way, Joe the Plumber -- another very serious leader of the Republican Party -- advanced the same stereotype this week when he said that he'd never let his "gay friends" anywhere near his kids. Classy. Nevertheless, King making this kind of distinction is sort of like amending civil rights legislation with: "the term 'African Americans' shall not include anyone who rapes white women." It elevates a stereotype while denying one exists. Pretty slick -- in a creepy, sinister kind of way. Obviously, the point of King's amendment was neither to help to separate the LGBT community from nonconsensual sexual deviants, nor was it designed to make sure pedophiles weren't covered under the hate crimes law. King's intention was absolutely to trick Democrats into voting against the amendment -- and they did -- thus allowing the Republicans to say that Democrats are with the pedophiles. So the Republicans are seeking a way out of their current mess by defining the Democrats as the party of pedophilia even though the GOP's every attempt to make the Democrats the pro-terrorist, anti-American party failed miserably to prevent landslide Democratic victories in the last two general elections. But of course King's stupid amendment trick allowed Sean Hannity to repeat throughout his Tuesday night show things like , "Is it safe to say that Democrats were willing to protect pedophiles?" Limbaugh, meanwhile, remarked that the Democrats are "carving out protection for perverts." This from a guy who successfully wiggled out of a legal situation involving the possession of prescription E.D. meds (not in his name) during a stag trip to a destination apparently known for sexual tourism. Here's the thing, though. Hannity, Limbaugh, King and 166 House Republicans are decidedly against the hate crimes bill. The legislation, as passed by the House, specifically defines hate crimes as being "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim." Again, Hannity, King and the rest are absolutely opposed to this. So while the Republicans have vocally and repeatedly expressed their position against "protecting pedophiles," it can be said -- and, quoting King, "it's a matter of record" -- that they're also against protecting women, racial minorities, ethnic minorities, religious people and disabled people, among others. Get it? Why don't you want to protect religious people, Hannity? Why don't you want to protect disabled people , Limbaugh? Why don't you want to protect women, Congresswoman Foxx ? Why do you, Mr. King, support "legal protections" for criminals who brutalize and often savagely kill Christians, Jewish people, amputees and the mentally challenged -- regardless of whether they're veterans, senior citizens, Republicans or dittoheads? (Contrary to what Hannity was saying on his show about the bill not including veterans, I'm pretty sure veterans can be disabled, female, black, religious or ethnically non-Anglo. Was Hannity expecting the bill to include every occupation, too? Would that've changed his support in some way?) The House Democrats, for their part, might've missed an opportunity here, though. Perhaps they should've allowed King's derogatory and disingenuous amendment to pass and then quietly pulled it out in conference (should it get that far). This way, the Democrats could've forced King's trickery to backfire against the Republicans. When the bill with the King amendment came up for a vote on the floor, not only would the Republicans have voted against legal protections for all of the above groups, but they would've voted against King's amendment and thus in favor of "carving out legal protections for perverts" and "pedophiles." The Democrats didn't do this, however. Much to their credit. And that says a lot about how they regard the seriousness of this legislation. Whether or not you agree with the spirit of hate crimes legislation, it's not an issue that lends itself to political hackery. And it doesn't really matter if these are crimes against a hundred people or a thousand people or if it's just one boy in Laramie - or two black men in Texas -- this is legislation about real people who were (or will be) killed for no reason other than for being perceived as different. Vote for the bill or vote against it. Support it or denounce it. Make your case with due respect for what this sort of thing involves. Just don't play politics with it. So you can bet Congressman King and his staff are really, really proud of their clever little hack trap, and I'm sure the scripts for the predictable "liberals are with the pedophiles" ads are already being worked up for the 2010 midterms. The thing is, Americans aren't buying this crap on a stick from the Republicans anymore. Coupled with their lengthy record of incompetence and ridiculousness , it's only succeeding in making them look cheaper and less serious than they were yesterday and the day before. BobCesca.com More on Gay Marriage
 
Lane Hudson: White House speechless on marriage progress Top
When the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny the freedom to marry based on sexual orientation, the White House issued the following statement: The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law. It was quickly noted that the statement lacked the word 'equal' or any variation of it. Under quick and heavy criticism from the gay community, the White House either issued a correction, completing the phrase, ' equal protection under the law'. I sarcastically joked that what was missing in the statement was an entire sentence: President Obama, a brilliant constitutional law professor, supports the separate but equal policy that is increasingly being ruled unconstitutional by State courts. The statement was messaged to death and probably signed off by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs or one of his deputies. I can't help but think that the gay staffers in the White House wouldn't have cautioned that such a response would not be well-received. When the Vermont legislature dramatically overrode the veto of Republican Governor Jim Douglas, the White House had nothing to say. Today, when Maine's Governor John Baldacci became the first Governor in the history of the American nation to sign a bill granting civil marriage rights to gays, the White House didn't issue a statement (but they did issue a Presidential Proclamation for World Trade Week). ABC News' Jake Tapper must have noticed. He asked Robert Gibbs about Maine in today's press briefing (via The Advocate ): Jake Tapper: Does the President or the White House have a reaction to the Governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill? Robert Gibbs: No, I think the President's position on same-sex marriages has been talked about and discussed. Tapper: He opposes same-sex marriage. Gibbs: He supports civil unions. Tapper: Does that mean that he's going to say or do anything against what the citizens of Maine-- Gibbs: Not that I'm aware of. I think the President believes this is an issue that's best addressed by the states. That's all of the acknowledgment that the gay community gets. Nothing more. We're in the midst of mind-blowing progress towards being treated equally by the law and the White House can't muster one bit of emotion or congratulatory tone. To say it's disappointing wouldn't come close. Here's the thing: Robert Gibbs, who I have known since 1998, is a good person and I'm sure he is happy for the advances towards equality for the gay community. But, there is a mentality that anything 'gay' is controversial and toxic. The political 'ruling class' has always propagated that notion and it remains to this day. It permeates campaigns and government alike. That's why we get half-ass measly statements, if anything. Here's the problem: Everybody knows the Democrats are for equality for the gays. The Republicans have spent a gazillion dollars telling everybody that for the past 18 years or so. So when a Democrat back tracks and falls all over himself to answer a 'gay' question, it shows fear. It shows dishonesty. And nobody's buying it. The Solution: The White House and other Democrats should shed their feigned distaste for equal rights for gays. Now is the time. We are in the midst of a revolution. Public opinion is changing faster than ever. Even Republicans are considering embracing some of these issues because they are beginning to realize that their homophobic ranting is driving the under 30 vote away in droves. Embrace history and be a part of advancing the next big expansion of equal rights to a minority in America. We've never looked back on that with shame. Indeed, they are the are some of the proudest moments in our history.
 
James M. Lynch: Finding your "Passion Statement" Top
As a breakthrough performance coach it's important for me to get to a "passion statement," the "why I do this" or "why bother" statement that is at the core of any undertaking. It is the statement from which all other action and strategies begin and it is a core building block in our coaching plan. For example, one of my clients is a financial advisor. In one session she sat forward and powerfully said, "Do you know what I really want? I want women to understand their financial standing on their own, not as a 'subset' of their husband. I want women to be financially empowered." I sat back and took a deep breath and for a moment we sat in silence as the power of her statement echoed between us. I know I've gotten to a passion statement when I feel the little hairs on my arm stand up or just get plain old goose bumps. Once we've reached a passion statement the rest of the work is how to have that vision manifest in the world. For example, when I considered whether or not to write a series here I had first to consider: does it serve my own passion statement and move me towards my purpose? I'll share it with you now: "I create breakthroughs every day." It's only a few words but I've been refining it for years and the most crucial part of it is the most recent addition: "every day". Whenever I feel low-energy, have a feeling of overwhelm or just want to stay in bed and read I access my statement and challenge myself to create even one breakthrough with another person today. Once I've created a breakthrough, the bargain goes, I can go back to bed or take the rest of the day off. Between you and me, once I go out looking to create even a single breakthrough I usually pick up momentum as the day goes on and even the slowest starting days are most often transformed into purpose filled, contentment producing events. So to my question of whether writing this series serves my passion statement: "Yes, as it is another way to cause breakthroughs if even one person gets an 'aha' moment out of something I've put out there." So let's get to YOU now. What's YOUR passion statement? You have one, I'm sure, as a matter of fact everyone does, they just get left in the background as things that are taken for granted or assumed. However, once you take them out of the background and move them into the foreground they have the possibility of transforming your everyday experience into a more vibrant, exciting and 'juicy' place to live. Let's try this on together: Remove all obstacles from your life or occupation (choose either one or even an avocation; any area of your life that could use a little more "sizzle"). Take away considerations of money, time, resources and obligations. If all of those obstacles were removed, as with a "magic wand" and you could create the result of your heart's desire, what would show up in the world? Let's look at a couple from people I'm currently working with; a web design studio and a professional home and office organizer. From the designer: "I would see client's brands that were beautiful, inspired and know that they truly capture the essence of their product and service." The organizer says: "My clients would know the freedom of a place they love to be in, free of clutter and the weight of too many possessions -- every space would be a sacred space." So get out a piece of paper and a pen and start drafting a statement. Don't get stuck by form or poesy, just write whatever is in your head out on paper so that you've got a starting point and get it out of your head and onto the paper. Try out as many iterations as you can. It's best to keep it brief with as few words as possible so that it's not something you have to practice or memorize. It should flow freely and every time you hear your own passion statement you should get a shot of energy. One way to put it is "It will keep you honest." Share the statement with those people in your life who you love and trust and see if it inspires them. Let them ask you questions about it and be your coaches in a way that moves you closer to the core statement that will resound in your entire being and move you past any difficulty. Then help them write their own passion statement and continue until you have a network of people all living from their own passion statements and playing full out. I wish all of this for you and I want you to know that everyone deserves to live this way. Let me know how this works out for you, please, as it will feed my purpose too and let me know how successfully I'm fulfilling the statement: "I create breakthroughs every day". Visit me at www.starofyourownlife.com or email me at James@starofyourownlife.com !
 
Alan Lurie: Me, Me, Me Top
One of my favorite books is a collection of NewYorker magazine cartoons, and my favorite cartoon shows a man sitting at a table across from a young woman. The man is dapperly dressed, with swept-back hair and a confident smile. He leans toward the woman, and in the first frame says, "me, me, me." Again in the second frame he continues talking, with the caption, "me, me, me". The third frame repeats this pattern. Finally, in the last frame, he sits back and says to the woman, "Well, that's enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do you think of me?" We laugh at this self-involved man, who only seems to care about himself and how he appears to others, but most of us do care very much what other's think of us. We care because in our hearts we have a deep need to belong to a community. This need is built in to our very structure; we crave the warmth and safety of community, and dread the possibility of being abandoned and rejected. Other people's views of us let us know that we are valued and safe. As demonstrated in the cartoon, though, our care for what others think of us can manifest in unhealthy ways when, often from feelings of inadequacy or unworthiness, and the anxiety that comes from the possibility of loosing security, the need to belong leads to fear: the fear of judgment and rejection, and of the uncertainty that would result should we need to change. These fears put us in the position of either living our lives as puppets to the perceived opinions of others, or as a drive to dominate others so that we can feel safe. Either way, our relationship with others becomes one of control of controlled - controlled by the perceived opinions of others, or controlling others so that they will think well of us. At the extremes, we can loose our identity in the desire to please or the drive to manipulate. There are teachings that tell us that we should not care what other's think of us; that, according to a popular saying, "What others think of you is none of your business." At the level of control/controlled this is absolutely true. On the other hand, we do live in relationship to a community, and what others think of us reflects our impact on others, and personal areas that require attention and growth. So, how can resolve this dilemma? Are our only choices to care what other people think of us and become neurotic worriers, or stop caring and become insensitive and irresponsible? Not exactly wonderful alternatives! The good news is that these are not our only choices. As individuals we can engage in three basic categories of relationships. The first is an internal relationship with ourselves - an I-I relationship. Here, we introspect and look inward so that we can better know ourselves. Meditation practice helps us to grow this relationship. Since this relationship, essentially, is a monologue, it has limitations, though. If we only rely on our interior conscious to guide us, we can develop blind spots (those things that everyone sees in us, to which we seem strangely unaware), and if we truly stopped caring what other people think of us, we can become oblivious to how our actions affect others. The second type is an I-It relationship. This is the relationship that we have with inanimate objects, but also can be how we relate to others - as objects of our needs. One who cares about the opinions of others out of fear of abandonment is relating in this way; relying on other people in order to feel better about himself and to confirm or reject his worth (me, me, me). Although it seems that I-It is a two-way relationship, like I-I it is also essentially a monologue, since the only feelings that objects have are the ones that we project on them. The last type or personal relationship is I-You. Here, we engage others as fellow human beings who have the same needs and desires as we do. In this way, instead of looking to others for self-validation, we can create healthy relationships of support and nurturing where we care about what the others think because we value their opinion, and know that their input is for our benefit. This is the only relationship that is truly a dialogue. The great teacher of this type of relationship is the theologian Martin Buber, who, in 1923 Buber wrote his famous essay, I and Thou. Buber asserts that I-Thou (I prefer the less formal word "You") relationships happen when people meet without agenda, without pretense, in honesty and authenticity. Buber says that such encounters are powerfully transformational because in those moments of deep connection we experience the Divine in the other. That spark of recognition is God's presence in the world. At that moment we are quite literally looking at the face of God in the full presence of another human being. Buber writes; I require a You to become me; becoming me, I say You. All actual life is [this type of] encounter. In other words, the only way that I can truly know myself is in relationship to another. I am incomplete alone because I need the dynamic of a deep relationship with another to recognize myself as an image of the Divine. In this way, I do care deeply about the regard that others have for me, but not in order to control or be controlled, but so that I can rise to my true, highest self. Imagine truly living in this consciousness - in the awareness of the Divine in other people and, consequently, in yourself! In this way, you would hold other's opinion of you in high regard, as a vehicle for growth, without fear or rejection. This can be very difficult, even in romantic and family relationships, since we tend to shield ourselves from this level of intimacy and exposure. This type of connection is especially difficult in business, since most of our relationships are transactional, and we naturally tend to fall in to an I-It approach. But a conscious I-You connection will help us to better understand the deeper needs of our family, co-workers, clients, and peers. This is a connection of love, and is the only avenue we can choose if we hope to create a finer world for ourselves and for our children.
 
Zalmay Khalilzad: Obama's Moment in South Asia Top
WASHINGTON -- Afghanistan and Pakistan are at the very top of President Obama's list of foreign and security priorities. This week, the president hosted the leaders of both countries for trilateral and bilateral discussions. The U.S. military has embraced this new emphasis, as indicated by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen's recent statement that the war in Afghanistan is now more important than the struggle in Iraq. The increased emphasis on Afghanistan and Pakistan is laudable, because what happens in these two countries is critical in determining the future of extremism and terror -- a defining security challenge of our time. The outcome will depend on whether the United States and its partners can successfully tackle three key issues. First, extremist and terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan must be eliminated. Pakistan has been ambivalent about preventing extremists from using its territory, in large part because Pakistan's security agency, Inter-services Intelligence (ISI), found the extremists to be useful tools in dealing with Afghanistan and India and in attracting the interest and attention of the United States. Now, however, the extremists are threatening Pakistan itself, which hopefully will cause the new Pakistani government to end its ambivalence and actively confront the extremists. The civilian part of the government, led by Asif Ali Zardari, is on board. However, the two other power centers in Pakistan -- the military and the ISI -- are not doing all that they can, and gaining their sustained support will not be easy. Key players in both institutions do not have the necessary confidence in the U.S. and still see India as more of a threat than the extremists. They also believe they must hedge against U.S. disengagement from the region and increased U.S.-Indian cooperation -- and they see continued utility in using extremists to foment unrest in neighboring countries. These ideas and concepts have deep roots in the military and ISI. Second, the coalition's military and economic strategy needs to be adjusted. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has reviewed the military posture. It has judged that there was a gap between ends and means, and plans to close that gap by increasing U.S. forces in Afghanistan dramatically while also committing to significantly build up the size of the Afghan armed forces. This is a necessary move, but taken by itself it will not suffice. One of the key pillars of improved security in Iraq was the dramatic increase in the size of Iraqi forces, which now number one million. Afghanistan has around the same population as Iraq, living on a larger territory -- yet its army and police forces combined currently number less than 150,000. Resources have to be found to train and sustain a much larger Afghan force. A number of other military problems remain. To name one, NATO's model of provincial deployments led by single countries, and therefore following varying rules of engagement, has caused significant confusion. The coalition needs a unified approach to dealing with insurgents. International civilian efforts have not been well coordinated, either. The U.N. Security Council has designated the U.N. special representative as the civilian coordinator for these efforts, but donors have proven unwilling to surrender control to this coordinator. Third, the Afghan government and the Obama administration must form an effective partnership. Success will be difficult if the Afghan government cannot play its role. The current situation is not encouraging. Also, there is a crisis of confidence between President Karzai and the Obama administration. The new administration has encouraged several potential candidates to run against him in elections later this year. This has had the unfortunate effect of pushing Karzai into the arms of those who are hostile to the West, while also fragmenting the opposition -- since every member of the opposition, having been encouraged by Washington to run, assumes that he as an individual has the support of the United States. An effective strategy for the political track is still missing. A weak Afghan government, led by a resentful Karzai whose ties to the United States are strained, is a very bad, but at the moment the most likely, outcome. This can only redound to the benefit of the Taliban, even though they are otherwise unpopular among Afghans. The success of the administration's diplomacy will have to be measured by whether it produces a credible and agreed-upon roadmap for eliminating extremist sanctuaries in Pakistan, including ending the use of Quetta by Afghan Taliban leaders. President Obama's immediate challenge is how to put U.S.-Afghan relations on a more productive path as the Afghans prepare for the presidential elections. Finally, Obama must send a message to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, acknowledging their hopes and dreams and assuring them that the U.S. will not abandon them to extremists and warlords. Zalmay Khalilzad is the former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN, presently a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. (C) 2009 GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK More on Barack Obama
 
Family Research Council Slams New GOP Initiative Top
The National Council for a New America, Republicans' heavily-promoted new initiative, is already facing skepticism from the party's old allies. The Family Research Council, a powerful Christian conservative group, sent out a scathing press release hitting the Council's avoidance of cultural issues. The effort only underscores the Republicans' present identity crisis, as the GOP leadership kicked off the campaign devoid of the values that once caused voters to identify with the party. The group's priorities, which were unveiled at a pizza parlor press conference, include the economy, health care, education, energy, and national security. Notice anything conspicuously absent? Former Gov. Jeb Bush explained the values void by saying it was time for the GOP to give up its "nostalgia" for Reagan-era ideas and look forward to new "relevant" ideas. (Yes, because that worked so well for Republicans in 2006 and 2008!) Bush ignored the fact that abandoning the array of principles that Reagan espoused is exactly what got the GOP into this mess. No one is suggesting that we try living in the past, but President Reagan's principles are the ones that guided our nation from its very inception. Turning away from those fundamental truths would be a death knell for the GOP as little would be left to distinguish the Republicans from the Democrats. Too many Republicans leaders are running scared on the claims of the Left and the media that social conservatism is a dead-end for the GOP. If that were the case, why are pro-family leaders like Mike Huckabee creating such excitement in the conservative base? The Republican establishment doesn't draw a crowd. Governor Sarah Palin does. Also, take a look at the recent Pew Research poll, which showed overall support for abortion in America has dropped eight percentage points in the last year and support for it among moderate and liberal Republicans has dropped a whopping 24%. Based on that, how can the GOP suggest that life is a losing issue? If there were a road sign for the GOP on this new journey, it would read: Welcome to the wilderness. You're going to be there for awhile.
 
James M. Lynch: Paying It Behind Top
A couple of times a month I play a game in the Starbucks drive-through lane. When I get to the cashier I pay for my coffee and the coffee of the person in the car behind me. The configuration of the drive-through makes it easy to hear the car behind me call their order into the speaker phone so I don't risk paying for a dozen caramel macchiatos and a pound of Sumatra. You may be saying that it's not technically a "game"; it's more like a "stunt". Well the game part of it comes as I try to get away from the store and into traffic before the person with the free coffee can catch up to me and get a look at me. I want to stay anonymous and leave them guessing; I think it gives them a longer lasting impression. One time it was friend of mine but he didn't know it was my car so, Todd, if you're reading this, it was me buying you that venti Pike's Peak in March; now you know. Mostly though, it's someone I don't know and I've done this at toll booths and the occasional beach or park entry. It's never cost me that much and I get a lot of fun out of it. I was paying for myself and the woman behind me yesterday and the cashier seemed suspicious and almost a little uncomfortable. I was unsure how to briefly explain what I was doing. I assured her I was just doing a random act of kindness and she seemed to light up and called a warm "Thank you" after me as I drove off. It was only as I was driving away that I figured out I could have said, "Tell her I'm rewarding her for a good deed she'll do today". I thought then of the movie Pay it Forward in which an 11-year-old character played by Haley Joel Osment comes up with a plan in Social Studies class to encourage people to each do a random good deed. The theory is that if instead of paying someone "back" for an act of kindness you encourage them to "pay it forward" to 3 other people and ask them to do it for 3 others who'll then each do it for 3 others, etc. In a period of two weeks you would affect close to 5 million people. That's a lot of java! So here we are, you and me, and the state of the world is one of fear, economic panic, rising unemployment, swine flu, wars and global terrorism; what are we up to? The internet, especially with the advent of 2.0, Twitter, Facebook, and all of the other social networking tools offer a larger than ever opportunity to reach out and touch others. Pay it Forward is a 10-year-old movie but the concept wasn't new then and it's not used up yet. The potential to virally spread goodness and beauty is more fertile now than ever and, like I said, here we are: you and me? What do you want to do about it? How about this -- I'll get you to do a random act of kindness or beauty and you'll get 3 others to do something. Whatever you come up with or your network gets up to, please share it here, or on my Twitter page (YourActingCoach) or on my free coaching site, starofyourownlife.com. I'll post results, pictures, whatever and, just maybe, someday I'll pull up to the cashier at the drive through at my Starbucks and the cashier will tell me, "The person ahead of you paid for your coffee as a reward for 3 good deeds you'll do today". Visit me at www.starofyourownlife.com or email me at James@starofyourownlife.com !
 
FBI Terror Watch List Has Major Flaws, Justice Dept. Finds Top
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has improperly kept nearly 24,000 people on a terrorist watch list based on outdated or sometimes irrelevant information, while it missed others with legitimate terror ties who should have been on the list, according to a Justice Department report released Wednesday.
 
Paige Donner: Youth to See Green with Jobs in California Top
From May until June, Los Angeles is putting another 1,250 youth to work in summer jobs. Starting now our city is placing over 16,500 young people in jobs through the fiscal year 2009-2010. This is the first use of the Workforce Investment Act that is part of the $20.3 million dollars Los Angeles is receiving as part of the American Recovery And Reinvestment Act. On the steps of City Hall Monday morning, both Mayor Villaraigosa and Governor Schwarzenegger announced that California, particularly Los Angeles, is leading the nation in youth employment. What isn't clear yet is whether small businesses and entrepreneurial endeavors, especially in the green space, can partake in any of these stimulus-funds-supported employment programs. I hope to get an answer to this shortly. Small businesses, long the backbone of our economy, are deserving of recovery act assistance as much as are large corporations. HIRE L.A.'s Youth Employment Program connects young adults with local businesses to employ men and women ages 14-24, many of whom are from low-income households. LAUSD School Board President Monica Garcia referred to the "Earn and Learn" Program as one that makes a difference to our youth and makes a difference to our city and our city's future. The Governor noted that kids who have summer and afterschool jobs are likely to lead more productive lives especially when they have the opportunity to earn their own money. "Kids will be working in hospitals, as tutors, as lifeguards," he said. Schwarzenegger also noted that California is the only state in the nation to appoint an Inspector General to scrutinize every cent of the stimulus money being spent in our state. We here in California have been allocated a total of $415 million in Recovery Act funding that is being distributed to 49 local Workforce Investment Boards. We have invested this money in 60 days, rather than taking the 120 days allotted to us by the Feds. Mayor Villaraigosa had the assembled workforce youth chant with him, "Thank you President Barack Obama for believing in our youth." Representatives of Vons (Safeway Inc.) and Kaiser Permanente were also on hand to acknowledge their pledge to employ 500 and 600 jobs, respectively, to the Youth Employment Program. "The White House now understands that cities are where the workforce of America is. It's about investing in our cities again. It's about investing in our next generation." Mayor Villaraigosa then went on to fondly recall how that first summer job or afterschool job that you get is one that you will always remember. "That's an experience you will never forget...struggling with that first job, earning your own money for the first time." He noted that when he took office, the city had 3,000 employed through the Youth Emploment Program. By 2010, L.A. will have 16,500 youth employed through the program. On hand with the Mayor was the Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District, Marshall Drummond. Just on Friday, Governor Schwarzenegger announced his Green Jobs Employment initiative also as part of the Economic Recovery Act. A spokesperson for his office explained that California's leadership is in support of jobs that are for the 21st century. In many cases, they said, that would mean " green " jobs. California Green Corps., dedicated to building up communities and the state's green workforce, will place at-risk young adults aged 16-24 into jobs in California's emerging green economy. "President Obama and I share similar priorities right now when it comes to helping the economy rebound and creating a greener California and America," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "Green jobs are exactly what our economy and environment need right now - and the California Green Corps targets that need while helping at-risk young adults realize a brighter future." And with the Energy Stimulus Funds, California is out in front, too. Schwarzenegger announced today that California's Energy Commission is investing $15 million to build a green workforce to meet renewable and alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technology needs. "The Energy Commission will expand on this plan and leverage $20 million in Recovery Act funds to create a more extensive green workforce on energy efficiency and clean energy sources, including wind and solar energy," announced the Governor's office.
 
Joe Peyronnin: LeBron James: Most Valuable Person Top
Two years ago this July I was in need of a white blazer for one of those summer parties in the Hamptons. I headed down to Ralph Lauren, several blocks away from our New York City home. The good news was I found the last white jacket in the store. The bad news, the jacket was one size too small. So I headed up to the store's tailoring department to see if the jacket could be fitted. To my surprise, LeBron James was sitting on a bench in the fitting room. I could see that LeBron was trying on several expensive and spectacular suits. He appeared to be in the company of another large man who was quietly watching the proceedings. I looked at him out of the corner of my eye and was amazed by how together he looked for a man who was barely 20 years old. Meanwhile, as I stood in front of a three-way mirror my tailor asked me to put the white jacket on. It was clear that the jacket was too tight around my waist and there was not enough fabric to make the appropriate correction. But, because I had to have a white jacket, I instructed the tailor to do the best he could. As I was preparing to leave the dressing room, I decided to say a few words to LeBron. I had watched him play basketball on television many times. He is tall, 6'9", fast and a great shooter. From the very beginning he appeared to have great potential. "I am from Chicago," I said, "I watched Michael Jordan play and met him a couple times." As if I had mentioned almighty God, LeBron James stood up and looked me straight in the eye. "From what I have seen, you will be at least as good as Michael Jordan," I continued. "You have great potential." LeBron stood speechless for a few seconds. He then reached out his hand and shook mine. Then, nodding his head up and down, he said, "Sir, I really appreciate that, I appreciate what you said." His face was earnest and his voice truly sincere. He appeared humbled by the comparison. We spoke a bit more and then I headed out to the cash register across the room. While finalizing my business I noticed that LeBron was walking across the room in my direction. "Sir," he said respectfully, "I want you to know how much I appreciate what you said." He then tipped his head to me, shook my hand again, and left with his friend. From this brief encounter I know that LeBron James is more than just an incredibly gifted athlete. I was struck then by his thoughtfulness, his maturity, by his easy and unassuming manner. LeBron seemed to be a very special person who possessed talent, purpose and decency. I was thrilled to see him win the NBA's MVP award this year. I was not surprised to hear his humble and gracious acceptance remarks, especially the part where he gave credit to the whole team. How refreshing it was not to hear the "I" word. For sure, LeBron James is very special, a "most valuable person" for his family, his community and for his sport.
 
Jacob Soboroff: Obama, McCain Lawyers Unite for Election Reform Top
Here in Los Angeles, you know if the restaurant you're about to eat in is clean, kind of clean, or just plain nasty by the letter grades that are clearly posted in every restaurant's front window by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. But if you're a voter in the United States, you (or your policymakers) have no idea where your state ranks on the list of best-to-worst elections practices, what voter turnout is, and how easy or reliable or secure the voting process is in your own state. But that may soon change. Yesterday in Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, the campaign lawyers for President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain co-authored an op-ed endorsing the idea of ranking state election systems . Robert F. Bauer and Trevor Potter decided to back Yale professor Heather Gerken's plan for a "democracy index" because they see it as a critical step in the right direction to fixing America's (still) broken voting system. As the general counsel to the Obama and McCain campaigns, we had our disagreements -- a fair number of them, as a matter of fact. But we share a deep commitment to fair and well-run elections in which all qualified voters have the opportunity to vote, and all the votes that they cast are accurately counted. Looking back on the 2008 elections, we have no doubt that reforms in the administration of elections in this country are needed if we are to meet these standards. We also believe such reforms can be achieved, with potentially transformative success for the American voter. It may be news to many readers that reforms are still needed. The media widely reported a smooth election, and in some places, those reports were accurate. The problems -- and there were many, scattered across the country -- received comparatively little attention because the outcome of the voting was clear. State voter registration lists suffered from various levels of inaccuracies, there were controversies over registration drives, the lines for early voting almost overwhelmed the system in some states, and absentee ballots often reached voters too late to be cast, especially for armed forces members overseas. And on Election Day, there were many reports of more long lines, inadequate ballots, malfunctioning machines and voters turned away because of registration issues across the country. [snip] Data provide the reality check that forecloses the most extreme positions. Unfortunately, our state and local governments do not generate, let alone make public, the most basic information on how well the system is working. Many states cannot tell you how many people showed up to vote on Election Day. Other states have no idea how many voters are registered or how voters cast their ballots. What little data we have suggest that jurisdictions have widely variable numbers of provisional ballots and markedly different ballot discard rates. Even here, however, we lack enough information to figure out why that is so. It is essential that the data collected is distilled into a useable form. Voters need a readily accessible metric to hold their government accountable for missteps and reward those who perform well. Policymakers need solid, comparative data to referee the inevitable fights that take place between reformers, parties, candidates and election administrators over whether the system is working. Election administrators need a strategy for sorting through widely varying local practices to identify the best ones. At Why Tuesday? we'll be staying on top of this. Read the complete op-ed here . Photo of Los Angeles County Public Health sign by Allen J. Schaben for the Los Angeles Times
 
ZP Heller: Cost of War in Afghanistan: Over $172 Billion and Counting Top
Here's something everyone in Congress needs to see as they consider President Obama's $83.4 billion supplemental war funding bill. National Priorities Project (NPP) just released The Cost of War in Afghanistan , a report examining the exorbitant human and economic costs of this rapidly expanding war, which estimates the war has currently cost taxpayers over $172 billion. When you factor in the projected costs of long-term military occupation, interest, and veterans' benefits, we're talking about a war that will cost close to $1 trillion. "All told," the report concludes, "this is more than the size of the recent bailout of Wall Street and rivals the historic economic stimulus bill just passed by Congress." NPP is tracking the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq using an individual cost of war counter , calculating the state-level numbers and trade-offs of supplemental war spending. In my home state of Pennsylvania, for instance, taxpayers will have to pay $2.9 billion of the proposed $83.4 billion tab. Want to know what $2.9 billion could do instead of fund more war? NPP claims it could provide: 725,689 People with Health Care for One Year OR 3,533,713 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year OR 29,863 Affordable Housing Units OR 460,546 Head Start Places for Children for One Year OR 46,575 Elementary School Teachers for One Year OR The list goes on and on. The fact is not nearly enough members of Congress are seriously considering the cost and impact of more troops, both in the U.S. and Afghanistan. According to NPP Executive Director Jo Comerford, "The purpose of this resource is to help people across the United States reflect on the current Afghanistan war and its proposed expansion." That's certainly not to say everyone in Congress favors a massive increase in war spending. Just yesterday, Representatives Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, and Lynn Woolsey wrote an Op-Ed in Politico called, " Getting It Right in Afghanistan ." The three California Democrats said Obama's supplemental contradicts his recent calls for more humanitarian aid and diplomacy for Afghanistan, considering 90 percent of the supplemental will go toward expanding military operations. Here's the alternative Lee, Waters, and Woolsey recommended: The United States should provide additional resources for reconstruction and economic development initiatives, along with other civilian tools that will be more effective in bringing about long-term peace and stability. One way to accomplish this would be to drop the administration's plan to increase existing troop levels and instead shift resources toward a "civilian surge." Our military forces could then be redirected to support these efforts, while minimizing the impression that they are serving as an indefinite occupying force. This dissent and NPP's report shine a spotlight on a war spending bill that will squander tens of billions more on increasing military operations in Afghanistan, including military construction and the highly controversial Predator and Reaper drones. As these three Reps suggest, Congress shouldn't approve the supplemental until the administration offers clear benchmarks for measuring success, a timeline for troop withdrawal, and an exit strategy. At the very least, Obama needs to provide an explanation as to why taxpayers have to pay billions for military escalation when what this conflict calls for is a regional diplomatic solution. More on Barack Obama
 
Douglas J. Elliott: How to Interpret the Bank Stress Tests Top
Washington and Wall Street are waiting with bated breath for the results of the financial "stress tests" that the regulators have been running on the 19 largest banking groups in the U.S. The public may feel hopeless about the bailout, but it is worth paying attention to what is announced on Thursday afternoon. The fundamental reason is that the banking system is the way we get money from savers to companies and people who want to put those funds to use, whether by growing a business or buying a home. This recession has driven home the basic truth that when the banking system doesn't work, neither does the economy. Economic studies confirm that recessions associated with severe banking crises are much uglier than normal recessions. The financial system headed towards a meltdown last autumn because there was a loss of faith in the strength of the big financial institutions. Much has been done already to remedy this, but the stress tests are an important further step. The regulators have gone into the largest banks and put them through a comprehensive, consistent planning exercise. The object is to determine how much capital the banks need to protect themselves against a recession even worse than what it appears we will experience. (A note to the optimists: we are not nearly done with the pain of this recession. Even when we bottom out, unemployment will rise further and house prices fall more, in a delayed reaction that is completely normal in recessions.) Why is capital so important? Capital consists of the funds held by a bank on which no one has a claim, except the shareholders. The larger the base of capital, the bigger a loss the bank can absorb without hurting depositors, creditors, customers, or the taxpayers. The big banks all have enough capital now to provide a significant layer of protection, but the stress test is intended to determine whether that layer is large enough given the pain still to come, in addition to covering any excessive optimism embedded in the banks' reported accounting numbers. The stress test works like filling in a giant spreadsheet. The regulators specified a number of key variables, such as how badly the economy is assumed to perform in terms of declines in GDP, increases in unemployment, and declines in home prices. The banks are then required to estimate what their losses would be under those conditions on the loans they've made and the securities they own. In addition, they are projecting what their profits will be on new business and all the things they do that are not directly credit-related. The regulators have provided a great deal of guidance on the range of losses the banks should expect from different types of loans. In fact, the regulators are making the final calls on all estimates, so the stress test results will be more about how they see the future than about what the banks themselves think. There is a wide range of outcomes that could theoretically result from these tests. Economists and stock market analysts differ among themselves by hundreds of billions of dollars on the key question of how much capital will need to be raised by the banks through the course of this recession. The banking system has well over $10 trillion of loans and investments, so a $500 billion disagreement represents less than a 5% valuation difference on those assets. In practice, the regulators are likely to conclude that the 19 banks need to issue between $100 and $200 billion of common and preferred shares, most of which will actually be handled by converting existing preferred shares into common shares. (The regulators appear to be targeting a capital structure with a higher proportion of common shares, which are considered the strongest form of capital. Please see " Bank Capital and the Stress Tests ," for more on the different kinds of capital.) How do I arrive at this estimate? First, it would be a reasonable result. It is broadly in line with loss estimates from the International Monetary Fund and others. Consider this the "consensus" view -- one that appears to be shared by the Administration and regulators, as well as most private economists. There are much more pessimistic economists out there, such as Dr. Nouriel Roubini, but the regulators do not share their views. If they did, we would probably be seeing the nationalizations for which those analysts have been calling, because the banks would require more drastic restructuring. Second, there are political constraints that provide a strong incentive not to require capital-raising much larger than my expected range. Bigger numbers would very likely require the taxpayer to supply much of the additional capital, as the Administration has promised to do if private capital is not readily available. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) only has $110 billion left to allocate, plus the possibility that some banks will repay TARP money which can then be redeployed. The Administration is jealously guarding these unallocated funds because they very much do not want to go back to a reluctant Congress for more. (Congress for its part would rather do almost anything than choose between voting for potential financial catastrophe by turning down more TARP funds or facing the wrath of the voters by authorizing that money.) If the required capital-raising is much more than $200 billion, it will be a bad sign about the regulators' views on the stability of the banks. On the other hand, a figure below $100 billion would suggest considerably more optimism than the consensus view. Something in the expected range has less information content, because it could either reflect the regulators' true views or simply be as much as they were comfortable requiring given the political constraints (see " Interpreting the Bank Stress Tests " for more detail). So look to see what the magic number is on Thursday because it will say a lot about the health of our nation's financial institutions, as well as the politics of very unpopular bailouts. More on The Recession
 
Joan Blades: Peaceful Revolution: Honoring Your Mother of the Year Top
Sunday is Mother's Day! At MomsRising.org this week is a bit like the week before Christmas in the retail world. Once a year Mothers are front page news and MomsRising.org does our best to call attention to the peaceful revolution we are working to spark--a revolution that creates economic security for mothers and families by reinventing workplace cultures and passing public policies that benefit us all such as paid sick days, paid family leave, flexible work options, affordable health insurance, and not to forget ending maternal profiling- discrimination against mothers in hiring, wages and advancement. This Mother's Day MomsRising.org created a "Mother of the Year" customizable video using humor, glory, and a subtext of facts to further spark this peaceful revolution. It is not right that a single mother makes sixty cents to an equally qualified man's dollar or for a mother to be 79% less likely to be offered a job than a woman that is not a mom. Small wonder so many women and children live in poverty. MomsRising.org and dozens of partner organizations are sharing our Mother of the Year Award video far and wide so that every deserving mom can be honored, with a bit of education along the way. Check it out and see if you know someone who deserves a Mother of the Year Award. In fact you probably know many mothers who deserve such an award! You can view the video here , and then customize it to insert the names of all the wonderful mothers in your life. Each of them will get the video with her name on the award, and I can assure you, she will be laughing throughout and likely thank you for a very cool Mother's Day gift.
 
Eric Shutt: DC Classic Rock Showdown: 4th Grader Grills Condi Rice on Led Zeppelin Fave Top
At her first public appearance in DC since leaving office, former foreign-policy mogul Condi Rice fielded a venerable dream-list of questions yesterday by a group of students at Washington's Jewish Primary Day School. Courageously championing both democracy and education to the group of 3d - 5th graders, Rice recalled childhood fantasies of being a competitive figure skater, famous concert pianist, or maybe a track star before one student's question went classic: rock. "What's your favorite music, including your favorite Led Zeppelin song ?" the nine-year-old pressed Rice, finally offering DC the Condi moment that until now has all but tortured America by the wait. "My favorite Led Zeppelin song is actually a song called 'Black Dog' which is uhh ... kind of a 1968 anthem." Rice laughed, continuing "I like all kinds of music. I like Led Zepplin, I like Cream, I like really hard rock." Condi admitted "...so I like all kinds of music except for Country & Western which, I don't get it, but some people like it." Unlike many Americans, however, Rice also admitted earlier in the program to remaining "close friends" with George W. Bush. The former President was not available for comment on Condi's rumored ' Oval Office Mix ' or other iPod play-list faves at press time.
 
Democrats Accused Of Using Hate Crime Bill To Protect Pedophiles (VIDEO) Top
The new, new thing in criticizing Hate Crimes legislation is to pretend that the Democrats have gone and given a whole bunch of special considerations or legal protections to pedophiles . That's the case that Representative Peter King made to a suppliant Sean Hannity yesterday: HANNITY: We're running out of time. Is it safe to say that Democrats were willing to protect pedophiles but not offer the same protection to servicemen and women? Is that an accurate statement? KING: Sean, it is a matter of congressional record. Absolutely true -- beyond any doubt whatsoever. The recorded votes are there to prove just what you've said. They -- and on top of that, [Rep.] Alcee Hastings [D] from Florida, that spoke on the rules debate, and he read a list of about 30 different paraphilias -- proclivities, I call them -- including pedophiles, necrophilia, and a number of things that I wouldn't say on this program or any other. And he said I think all philias whatsoever should be protected by this law. That means every perversion that you can imagine would be special protected status under the Democrats' bill that passed off the -- floor of the House of Representatives. [WATCH] OK, in the first place, Representative King needs to get his head examined, brusquely, by some sort of pneumatic hammer. Ryan Grim made note of Alcee Hastings' little bit of Congressional theater , which was done to demonstrate that "every perversion that you can imagine" WOULD NOT BE PROTECTED BY THE HATE CRIMES ACT. But more to the point, this has nothing to do with pedophiles receiving special legal benefits. This has to do with King's attempt to assert an equivalency between homosexuality and "perversion." Really, this is entirely ancillary to the issue of hate crime legislation itself. Let's take a look at the relevant Congressional testimony: KING: This amendment goes to the end of the bill, and it simply says, since we have apparently waived the reading of it, which I do -- it's very short -- it says, "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia." And we've gone through in this debate significant discussion about what sexual orientation means and does not mean. And yet I have not heard from the proponents of this bill into the record a definition of sexual orientation. I would like to have defined sexual orientation precisely . I recognize, Mr. Chairman, it's unlikely that we will get that done in this committee given the reticence on the part of the majority party to consider any of the changes that we've offered here -- I think in a fashion that is determined to bring this bill out of this committee. And I'm frustrated that we're not able to add better definitions to the ambiguous terms to lock people up in penitentiaries if this bill becomes law. And, so, this amendment that I have addresses the issue of pedophiles. And under the term "sexual orientation," if it includes those types of proclivities, particularly the one that is most egregious of all -- and that is victimizing children for the sake of sexual activity with them -- the pedophiles should not be protected under this legislation if we're able to adopt this language that's in my amendment . So, my amendment does not specifically define sexual orientation, although I've tried to do that. But what it does do is say it doesn't include pedophiles, because I think the intent of this committee is clearly that we don't want to provide a, let's just say, special-protected status, for pedophiles . There are others that I would put in that list as well, but this is the one that stands out to me. It should be beyond question that this committee should be able to take a look at this amendment and conclude that whatever we might think about proclivities, pedophiles is not one that should be included. And, so, that's what my -- I'd yield. See, to Peter King, "sexual orientation" lacks a legal definition, and so, barring specificity, how can anyone be sure that we're not accidentally cutting in pedophiles or necrophiles -- or corpophiles like Peter King! -- in on some sweet, sweet, hate crime protection. The only problem here is that sexual orientation has heretofore been given a legal definition, and, appropriately, it's a very narrow one, enunciated with crystal clarity by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, moments later: KING: And so I would urge adoption of my amendment that defines clearly that whatever sexual orientation is, it is not, and does not include pedophiles. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd urge adoption of my amendment, and I would yield back the balance of my time. BALDWIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word in opposition to this amendment, that, well -- the gentleman claims that we have not pinned down the definition for sexual orientation. And, indeed, in our earlier session, yet today, I drew his attention to the fact that there is a definition with regard to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. During the break, I searched to just confirm that what I had articulated earlier today was indeed the definition and it is: "Sexual orientation is means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." That is the definition. Now, as you've noted earlier, there's only one term defined in this legislation, and that's gender identity on page 14. And the reason for that is that that definition exists nowhere else in federal law. This is the first time it's occurring in federal law. But in every other case, gender disability, sexual orientation, race, national origin, color, and -- I'm missing one. The architecture of the hate crime statutes in the United States is those definitions do not lay within that architecture. They exist elsewhere in federal law, and we rely on them. So there is a clear, concise definition of sexual orientation. Baldwin goes on to note: Your amendment is unnecessary and, I would add, inflammatory in terms of insinuations, I would say. But given the definition of sexual orientation meaning "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality," it is absolutely clear that that could not include pedophilia. So there you have it! Either Peter King is making nimrod-hash out of a serious issue because the vagaries of Congressional testimony are just obtuse enough to fool a clown like Sean Hannity, or Peter King just doesn't understand plain English. Either way, no hate crimes protections have been extended to pedophiles, and the insinuation that pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow linked remains a quaint notion, unsupported by scientific research , the end. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Video
 
Obama Vows To "Make Every Effort To Avoid Civilian Casualties" Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared he got the commitments he wanted Wednesday from the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan to more aggressively fight Taliban and al-Qaida militants who are gaining power and sowing violence in their countries. "I'm pleased that these two men, elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, fully appreciate the seriousness of the threats that we face and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it," Obama said at the White House. The presidents of the two countries stood at his side after a day of joint meetings. Obama is sending 21,000 fresh U.S. troops into Afghanistan to help with the anti-terror war. The high-stakes diplomacy had Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's Asif Ali Zardari meeting with U.S. officials separately and together, first at the State Department and then at the White House. Looming over the sessions was a bombing on Monday in Afghanistan that officials there said killed dozens of civilians and for which the Obama administration apologized. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Karzai that the Obama administration "deeply, deeply" regretted the loss of civilian lives. When Obama went before the cameras, he pledged his administration would "make every effort to avoid civilian casualties" in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, where U.S. airstrikes have stoked anti-American sentiment. Obama's national security adviser, James Jones, later said Obama led off his meeting with Karzai by expressing great sympathy over the loss of life and pledging that investigations into what happened in the bombing will be "pursued aggressively." In Afghanistan, the U.S. forces commander said it wasn't a certainty that the deaths happened as a result of U.S. military action. Gen. David McKiernan said American forces came to the aid of Afghans who may have been ambushed by the Taliban in Farah province on Sunday. He said the Taliban beheaded three civilians, perhaps to lure police, and that the United States is working with the Afghans to learn the truth about the incident. State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said Clinton's remarks were offered as a gesture, before all the facts of the incident were known, because "any time there is a loss of innocent life we are going to be concerned about it, and we wanted to make that very clear." Obama emphasized the progress he said was achieved in the Washington meetings, thousands of miles from the conflicts. "We have advanced unprecedented cooperation," Obama declared. "We will work for the day when our nations are linked not by a common enemy but by a shared peace and prosperity." Gathering the three leaders together at one table, along with lower-level officials from the three countries, "reflects the kind of concrete cooperation and detail that is going to ultimately make a difference in improving opportunity and democracy and stability in Pakistan and in Afghanistan," Obama said. The stakes couldn't be higher, he said. "We have learned time and again that our security is shared," the president said. "It is a lesson that we learned most painfully on 9/11, and it is a lesson that we will not forget." The president said all three governments must cooperate in fighting insurgents who control parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan and must "deny them the space" to threaten local residents _ or Americans. Earlier in the day, Clinton told reporters that Karzai and Zardari made specific commitments of how they would increase the fight against militants. She wouldn't name their promises yet, but said the talks were "producing some very promising early signs" of greater cooperation. "I am very optimistic that this process is making a difference," she said in remarks in the White House briefing room. Pakistan's military offensive this week against the Taliban in the northwestern Swat Valley was a positive sign, she said. "I think that action was called for and action has been forthcoming." Pakistan launched an offensive against the Taliban in the region after the collapse of a peace deal that had seen the extremists expand their territory toward the capital. Taliban forces recently have alarmed the U.S. and its allies by striking out from strongholds on the Pakistani-Afghan border to areas closer to the capital of Islamabad. It is the broader struggle against terrorism, with forces led by the United States often fighting shadowy enemies on ill-defined battlefields, that got Karzai and Zardari invited here in the first place. The pair responded positively Wednesday to the call for greater cooperation, saying they, too, were committed to the struggle against the "common threat" posed by the Taliban and other militants. "Madame Secretary, do have full confidence in us," Karzai said. "Pakistan's democracy will deliver," said Zardari. He said his country "faces many challenges. Our democracy is trying to overcome these challenges ... but we are up to the challenge." As for the bombing, Karzai ordered a probe into allegations by local officials that more than 30 civilians were killed by U.S.-led troops battling militants in western Afghanistan. The International Committee of the Red Cross said a team it had sent to the area saw "dozens of bodies in each of the two locations," including women and children. The U.S. has sent a brigadier general to investigate. Obama wanted a renewed commitment by Karzai to better coordinate operations with Pakistan and the U.S., which will expand its military presence in Afghanistan under the president's revised war strategy against the Taliban. The U.S. also wanted assurances from Zardari that his country's atomic weapons were secure. ___ Associated Press writers Ben Feller and Robert Burns contributed to this report. More on Barack Obama
 
FBI Terror Watch List Highly Flawed: DOJ Top
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has improperly kept nearly 24,000 people on a terrorist watch list based on outdated or sometimes irrelevant information, while it missed others with legitimate terror ties who should have been on the list, according to a Justice Department report released Wednesday. More on Terrorism
 
Irene Rubaum-Keller: Why Are We Americans So Fat? Top
Obesity is epidemic in our country. To give you a visual, here are two maps for you to look at and compare. This is what our country's rates of obesity looked like in l989. This is what our country's rates of obesity looked like in 2007. This is not a pretty picture. Since obesity puts one at risk for heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and diabetes, our country is not well. The two most important questions I have on this subject are: 1) Why is this happening? 2) What can we do about it? Recently I was lucky enough to attend a conference on this very subject. The keynote speaker was Dr. Kelly Brownell from Yale. Dr. Brownell was named by Time magazine as one of the most influential people in the world in 2006. I will be sharing some of what I learned from him in this and my next few blogs. To begin to answer the question as to why this is happening, Dr. Brownell talked about the food industry marketing unhealthy food to kids. By January 4th the food industry had already spent 100 million dollars marketing unhealthy food to kids during kid TV time (like Saturday morning cartoons). That works out to 25 million dollars a day selling kids frosted pop tarts, sugary cereal and candy. As a parent, I know that once your kid wants something they see over and over again on TV, it can be very hard to keep saying no. Not only does the food industry push unhealthy foods and drinks through commercials, there are also product placements that seep into almost everything. Those of you who watch American Idol are watching a continuous Coke commercial. Coke paid 30 million dollars to have cups with the Coke logo in front of each of the judges. Ever notice how the logo is always facing the camera? Coincidence? I think not. I was flipping TV channels the other day and noticed the baseball game had a huge banner advertising McDonald's on the stands. Every time the camera was on the batter, it was like watching a McDonald's commercial. The fact that the food industry makes and sells unhealthy food, that happens to be cheap, is part of why we have the obesity problem we have today. The fact that the food industry targets children seems almost criminal to me. More on why we are so fat and what we can do about it, coming up. Don't touch that dial. Some of you are old enough to remember when in order to turn the channel on the TV you actually had to get up, turn the dial, and then go back and sit down. Now, just don't touch that remote. For more information on Dr. Brownell and his work please visit http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/ . If you'd like to participate in the research for Irene's new book about the process of weight loss please visit http://www.eatingdisordertherapist.com/ and take the survey. More on Food
 
Harry Moroz: Of Course We Need Lobbysists, Said the Lobbyist Top
During the presidential campaign and again during the transition, lobbyists were in an uproar about restrictions Obama placed on their money and on hiring them. Now, as the Obama administration doles out the first of the stimulus money, lobbyists inside and outside of D.C. are whining about restrictions placed on their interaction with the federal officials responsible for disbursing the funds. The administration's policy : doesn't prohibit all communication. Lobbyists are allowed to gather logistical information, such as deadlines for applications, for their clients. But they cannot advocate a particular program or project for funding. The lobbyists - who seem strangely capable of getting their voices heard - claim that the restrictions are preventing the most knowledgeable representatives of the private and public sectors from influencing the projects that are funded. "Modest enterprises" (like smaller cities), they claim, will suffer the most. While the claims of the lobbyists (who include the ACLU) seem reasonable, they presume that the best means to expend stimulus funds is for special interests (state and local governments, along with private firms) to tell the government how the funds should be spent. But in a recent article for The American that is otherwise filled with dangerous simplifications, fear mongering, and exaggerations, James DeLong hits upon an important point: In Washington, the debate has atrophied, and few lawyers and lobbyists even know that it was once questioned whether the Special Interest State is an appropriate form of organization for a polity. The theory that government is and should be a contest among alliances of special interests has swept the day. Of course groups struggle to grab and exploit levers of power for selfish ends and then use these to the maximum, and of course agency and congressional staff ally with one or another of these mercenary armies while in government, and of course they then go to work for the interests they used to "govern" (wink, wink), and so what? Do you have a point here? Our agreement begins and ends at this paragraph and I'm certain my conclusions from this paragraph diverge greatly from those of Mr. DeLong. But he is certainly right that we now presume that for government to function at all lobbyists must provide us with their specialized knowledge of, what, the intricacies of carbon capture and sequestration so that we can solve global warming? Are our brains so "atrophied" that we now believe there is no other way for the Department of Transportation to learn what highways need fixing or that the MTA needs funds for its capital plan without a lobbyist for Houston or New York City sidling up to a federal official? Why not reverse the chain of events? Of course citizens need the right to petition their government. But should federal agencies not themselves be actively engaged in figuring out which stimulus projects work best, in concert, to create short-, medium-, and long-term recovery? This is difficult to accomplish. But the Obama administration's lobbying policy is pointed in this direction, towards empowering the federal government to overcome, rather than be driven by, particular interests. Building up a team of policy operatives to visit with state and local governments and with private firms - a sort of reverse lobbying - would enhance the effort further.
 
Leon Despres Dies At 101 (VIDEO INTERVIEW) Top
Leon Despres, the former Chicago Alderman described as the "absolute conscience of the city" for his dedicated activism and consistent opposition to Mayor Richard J. Daley, has died. He was 101. Despres died Wednesday morning, according to Chicago Public Radio , which first reported the news. Elected as the 5th Ward Alderman in 1955, Despres spent the next 20 years locking horns with the first Mayor Daley as the lone consistently independent voice on the City Council. His work on behalf of organized labor, racial and gender equality issues and especially integrated housing led the white, Jewish Hyde Park resident to be known as "the lone Negro on the City Council." After retiring from the City Council in 1975, Despres served as its parliamentarian during the Jane Byrne and Harold Washington administrations. He remained active in social justice issues and continued to practice civil rights, labor and estate law at his firm, Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan. In 2005, Despres published the memoir Challenging the Daley Machine: A Chicago Alderman's Memoir . Despres never shed his engagement with Chicago life. In February he endorsed Tom Geoghegan, his law partner, for Congress and in a series of Slate diaries published in September, Despres wrote about visiting Devon Avenue for Indian food and wishing he could knock on doors for Obama's presidential campaign. In an July 4th, 2008 speech at the Chicago History Museum , Despres called for reparations for the descendants of Native Americans defrauded by the 1833 Treaty Of Chicago: If I were alderman now, I would act by inquiry, resolution and perhaps with dramatic effect. We should learn the whereabouts of the victims' direct descendants. What do they now appear to lack? What do they say they need? How can we make certain that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are available to them? "Throughout his career," Mike Royko wrote in a 1972 piece reprinted as the foreward to Depres' memoir, "he has been in the forefront of just about every decent, worthwhile effort made to improve life in this city. Being in the forefront, he is usually the first to be hit on the head with the mayor's gavel." View more news videos at: http://www.nbcchicago.com/video . More on Video
 
Brad Balfour: The Young Castro Comes Alive In Soderbergh's Epic Che Through Actor Demian Bichir's Performance Top
Now that director Steven Soderbergh is in the public consciousness again with his initimate portrait of a high-class escort in The Girlfriend Experience, I took a look back to an interview conducted about his previous film, Che: Parts One & Two, the epic five-hour telling of Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara's rise and fall. The film premiered as part of the 2008 New York Film Festival and then had limited release as the two-parter that now can be seen as two separate movies. With the thaw between the United States and Cuba in the news recently--the country celebrated the 50th anniversary of its revolution this year--Fidel Castro appearances have nonetheless been scarce to say the least. it was noted that brother Raul has exerted his presence and influence on the country now, not Castro himself. About the only way to see the animated Fidel is to view old news footage or see Soderbergh's massive bio pic about El Jefe's favorite revolutionary, cohort, and fellow traveler, the late Che--played by Benicio del Toro. That two-part film (now viewable as two separate films) detailed Che's rise among Castro's inner circle and his role in fomenting the 1959 Cuban revolution to his demise in the Bolivian jungle when he tried to export the revolution there several years later. If anyone garnered an insight into both Castro and Soderbergh was Mexican actor Demian Bichir, who has been seen by American audiences playing Esteban Reyes on Weeds. Though heasn't got anywhere near the face time of Benecio del Toro who plays Che, he gets into the dictator's head. Q: You played a character who is obviously a living figure but also a mythic one as well. What did you come in thinking about him and how did that change once you actually played him? DB: I came in thinking what a beautiful chance for any actor. What a blessing to play a character larger than life. And what a great responsibility and pressure it is, too. Q: What do you think about the idea of Castro seeing you play him? DB: I would love him to watch the films. Actually, I would love to have feedback about whatever I did as him. I would love that. I don't even know if that's going to be possible or not, but I would love to meet the guy. Q: What were your impressions of Castro? He was a guy from a bourgeois family and then suddenly he's leading an agrarian revolution. DB: You [are burdened] with those kind of ideas, or idealistic ideas about your task in life. He knew that since he was a kid going to school and all that, In our counties--in any other country in the world--it's so easy to see differences between classes and to see how bad that is in the world. So it's not really difficult to realize that we need change almost everywhere. But very few people put that in their hearts as a task, and though he's not the head of Cuba now, actively speaking, he's still writing. He writes almost every day, and publishes his columns about many issues. So, he's restless [though] he's almost at the end of his life, and hasn't stopped worrying about making a difference. That's pretty amazing. Growing up in Mexico, we were always close to the event [of the Cuban Revolution], and I already knew many many things about the revolution. Being a theater person and growing up in a theatrical family, you tend to know more about many things, and so I actually knew a lot about what he did and wanted to do. Then, I had the chance to research the whole thing for five months before we started shooting, and that was perfect for me, because then I had the chance to jump into certain books, materials, pictures, videos, and recordings of this and that. Q: Even though the movie is focused on Del Toro and Che, you're the one who's really his superior, his senior. DB: That's right! Q: How did you two figure out how to play that you're the boss, with the emphasis on Benicio/Che in the cinematic world? DB: The hardest part was just forgetting about whoever Steven Soderbergh and Benicio del Toro were. Those names didn't mean anything for me [at that point]. I couldn't really think about Benicio as this huge actor--as the [monster] he is. I couldn't really be taken in by that, so I was commanding and would have to let him know and feel who was the boss. It was easy, because these guys are so generous and they're there to put this project together--not to glorify whatever they are or whoever they are--so that was pretty simple in many ways. Q: What quirks did you learn about Fidel that you incorporated? Even if you don't see it in the camera, did you add something you read about or saw--a gesture, a way of holding the cigar, something? DB: Oh yeah, many many things. Most of the time, he holds his cigars in the left hand, and it's not because he's lefty, it's because he always writes, so he needs the right hand free, to make some notes, or write this or that. So whenever you see the guy smoking, it's always in his left hand. That's one stupid thing that I always wanted to bring to the character, and the fact that he was also always a secure person, sure, fearless, and stubborn, and bigger than life. I mean, Cubans are big anyway, but this guy is theatrically big. Q: Were there things you learned about Fidel and his history that you wish had been applied in Mexico, because Mexico has a strange history. Theoretically it has had a leftist government in the past; Mexico had its own revolution. DB: Yeah, exactly. We had a revolution, right? Q: And it got corrupted like we've seen happen in Cuba. There have been failings in Cuba--the anti-gay attitude is terrible. But Mexico's been a disaster. What advice would you give to Mexicans that you learned about Cuba?
 DB: Well, that's the only parameter that I have when I think about Cuba and the way they are and the way they were able or not to live their revolution throughout the last 46 or 50 years, and I always compare that and Mexico. We had a revolution 100 years ago, and a revolution is done to make things equal for everyone, right? So where is that in Mexico? You don't see that anywhere, right? It seems like we need another revolution. That's the problem there. So that's part of it. It's like, the [Cubans] have been blocked from the world for 46 years, so can someone explain me why they get the medals in Olympic games, not Mexico? Why do they have the best musicians, the best artists, the best doctors, and why no kid dies when he is born? Everyone reads and writes. Not in Mexico, in Cuba. See what I mean? That's pretty scary when you think about comparing [them], and we are not being blocked. Not for 40 years, or 10 or for two. We are supposed to be the democratic government, with our elections every six years, and all that. So what the fuck's wrong? Q: Having played Castro, did you ever think about participating in a revolution yourself, or about getting political? After doing this film, does it make you run screaming away from any politician you'll ever meet? DB: I'm not as smart, or as brave, as these people were--not at all. One wants to think that--and this is really a stupid thought--that through your art or whatever you do as an actor you can actually affect someone else's lives and thoughts or whatever. I've been offered before to be a member of the Congress for the left party in Mexico, and I said, "You got to be kidding me. I'm complaining about that all the time. Don't offer me that!" And it's a lot of money, too that you can get for that, and I said, "No, I'm an actor. You guys do whatever you do--if anything." Q: There must have been times when you and Benicio had some philosophical engagement about this role and this character. DB: That's funny, because Benicio was insanely busy all the time so we didn't really have the chance to put our ideas together other than on the set. We were always having fun and cracking up and telling jokes and, you know, not really--because he was always, as soon as he was over shooting, he would have to go with producer Laura Bickford and Steven and have meetings here and there, so it was kind of crazy for him. Q: Would you like to reprise this role and play Castro as a more central figure in a film? DB: I would love to do that. There were so many things [he's done] in his 80 years of life. I'm not going to play him when he was 14, but I'd love to explore a little deeper and wider, with another story maybe, but it would have to be done by the same people, because once you're lucky to jump into a character like Fidel, that's fine, that's great, but who's going to do it with you, who's going to direct, who's going to play Che, for example? So whoever's going to tell his story, it has to be as big as Fidel, and if that happens I'll be more than happy to jump in. Q: Did Fidel make a mistake in sending Che to Bolivia at that time? DB: He didn't send Che to Bolivia... Q: Well, according to the notes, it was Fidel's decision that Che went to Bolivia. DB: Well actually, Fidel even thought it was premature for him to start with this dream about liberating the rest of Latin America. It was not the right time yet. It was something I read in this book called One Hundred Hours with Fidel by Ignacio Ramonet where Fidel tells everything. From before he was born up until the last 10 years. He says that he told Che that it was not time to go, that he was not going to be able to help him as much as he could. And Che thought they couldn't waste any more time, and that was part of some confusion about their relationship, which is absurd, because they cared for each other, respected each other, and were friends and comrades. Q: Did you speak with people who had actually participated in the revolution? DB: We had many interviews with key people, The closest I got was... I met Aleida Guevara, Che's widow, and Che's son, Camilo. Q: Did you make an effort to meet Raul Castro? DB: I didn't even try because that's just impossible. Only Sean Penn can do that. Q: Have you been to Cuba before? DB: Yes, and it's really has a strong spirit in many ways. As I told you before, you walk along the Malecón, and you see these perfect bodies of men and women. You say, "Wait a minute, you need to eat to get those bodies, you need to exercise to get those bodies. It's not that easy." So who's starving here? Who's having a bad time? It's all about music, and about smiling; it's about having a great time. So, hopefully things are going to change for the best.
 Q: To ask the obvious, what did you want audiences to take away from this film--if people are not already into it, what would you hope it could change or influence? DB: This is not a political statement. We're trying to tell the story of this extraordinary man that said no to everything he had twice in his life to give it to somebody else, and you don't find that very often. And maybe, hopefully, people would see that image that's so famous around the world and learn about the story behind it. After seeing this film, or films, hopefully they're going to be able to know the story behind the face Q: How has affected your personally, as an actor and as an individual? DB: For me it's been maybe the biggest challenge I've been through as an actor, because not only the character, but also the people involved made it stronger and more difficult. So for me, it was like a huge leap, a huge step into my acting. I don't know if it's going to be reflected in my career or not, but I am a better actor now. Q: How did you relate to Castro's passion? DB: I guess I relate to El Jefe in many many ways. You need a revolution when things are not equal to everyone, and in Mexico we had a revolution a hundred years ago, and it seems like we need another one. Nothing has really changed, and if the vote was respected everywhere, then you'll have that type of revolution--I'm talking about Mexico, and some other countries. So, hopefully now that we have won--I have to say "we won" because I wanted [the election of Obama] here--but it seems that in some places like in Mexico, the vote's not really respected. But there's no other way, right? But I think the last armed revolution we have seen was the one these guys did in Cuba. In Mexico we need a cultural revolution more than anything else. So people can really learn to read, and in that way, get educated and defended themselves better. Q: Did meeting those people affect the performance? What changed your mind? DB: I wanted to meet Fidel, and that's obviously impossible, and it was impossible then, too. A character like this, so well known by everyone, there's so many things about him, and books, and pictures, and video, and footage, and all that, so I had the chance to get access to all that. So that was my material, the things I worked with, and lucky enough I had five months to prepare. I had Fidel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for five months, and that was basically it. I don't remember encountering any other character that made me feel so guilty and lazy, because no matter how hard I have worked, they always worked double and triple. throughout Fidel's life, up until now--he's writing and he reads a lot. He always said that it was a waste of time even shaving. That's one reason, he has said, why he keeps his beard. He said that they wouldn't cut their beards because if anyone wanted to infiltrate his guerillas, they would have to have spent at least six months growing a long beard to be part of it. Castro also said, "It's a waste of time because if you add the 15 minutes that you spend shaving your beard everyday, you could use that [time] by reading, or doing sports." So, I really feel lazy and useless, compared to these guys. Q: Is that why you keep the beard? DB: Yeah, I'm grooming it.
 
Sessions: I Could Support A Pro-Choice Supreme Court Nominee (VIDEO) Top
Social conservatives were likely none-to-pleased on Wednesday, when the new ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, said that he could see himself voting for a pro-choice nominee for the Supreme Court. In an appearance on Fox News, the Alabama Republican said he did not "believe in a litmus test," and was comfortable with a judge who had "a different view on abortion than I have." Such a judge, he added, could "still receive my vote." Asked, specifically, if a pro-choice nominee would could potentially get his backing once he or she was brought to the committee, Sessions replied: "yes" "I would like to know how they analyze the logic behind Roe vs. Wade," he said. "If they are faithful to the law, then we can get along pretty well." The jurisprudence and politics of the senator's remarks provide two very interesting and different story lines. For starters, Sessions could (and probably will) qualify his remark by saying he would only support a pro-choice Supreme Court nominee who believed that the topic should be addressed by the states. Indeed, Sessions added, at the end of his Fox News appearance that "the question would be whether they are activist or not." Politically, however, it's hard to see how the social conservatives who get so geared up for nomination fights find comfort in one of the most influential Republicans in this battle ceding such ground. UPDATE : It extends beyond the abortion debates. Earlier in the day, Sessions said he was not "inclined to think that" a nominee's sexuality (several of Obama's potential choices are openly gay) was not "an automatic disqualification." "I may disagree with some legal opinion on those issues," he said, "but I think fundamentally it will be up to the president to submit somebody who would unite the country and would be a clear statement of a mainstream judge who commits himself to the law." Not so for his Republican colleague, Sen. John Thune. "I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now," said the South Dakota Republican. "It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he'll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Fox News
 
Foreclosure: In The Midst Of Crisis, No Reliable Data Top
On Wednesday, both the House and Senate took up bills aimed holding back the wave of foreclosures drowning homeowners. Just how bad is the crisis? Nobody knows. There is no reliable, centralized data charting the foreclosure rate, even as rising foreclosures have crushed the viability of banks and sunk the country -- and arguably the globe -- into a great recession. If the old adage is true -- that you can't fix what you can't measure -- foreclosures are bound to continue to rise. The House bankruptcy-reform bill passed Wednesday by the Senate includes a provision that would require the industry to report foreclosures and would create a reliable, up-to-date metric of foreclosures and mortgage modifications. It remains to be seen if the measure will live through conference committee negotiations, where the industry will lobby to have it removed. The lack of decent foreclosure data was highlighted in a recent report by the Congressional Oversight Panel, led by Elizabeth Warren, established to oversee the federal government's response to the financial crisis. "The failure of federal banking and housing regulatory agencies to gather and analyze quality market intelligence is striking. The United States is now two years into a foreclosure crisis that has brought economic collapse, and federal banking and housing regulators still know surprisingly little about the number of foreclosures, what is driving the foreclosures, and the efficacy of mitigation efforts," reads the report. A spokeswoman for the Mortgage Bankers Association rejected the report's conclusion, expressing confidence in the lobby group's numbers. And the bankers don't want any federal help counting. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said that the industry has pushed back against his efforts to require accurate reporting of foreclosures. And he's losing confidence in the numbers they do provide. "In the past those guys have worked on separate floors and didn't talk to each other -- their lobbyists, their public relations people, the guys who keep market data -- but I've become suspicious of their data," says Miller. "I think maybe they have started talking to each other, because they've heard their own statistics used by their opponents on policy issues." Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, thinks the banks like it just fine the way it is. "The banks are probably not anxious for better information on foreclosures for the simple reason that it may provide more evidence as to how troubled their troubled assets really are. They are making their best effort to paint an everything-is-fine picture even though this is quite obviously not the case," said Baker. Miller, who introduced his amendment with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), has been pushing for foreclosure transparency for more than a year. The issue got some life last June, when John C. Dugan, comptroller of the currency, which oversees national banks, said his agency had found "significant limitations with the mortgage performance data reported by other organizations and trade associations." For Miller, the data is important "so we can get a good handle on how many mortgages they really are modifying, what those modifications really consist of, what the re-default rate is and what the foreclosure rate is." Banks often tell Congress, says Miller, that they have modified a sizable number of mortgages. What they don't say is that many of those modifications -- roughly half, according to one study -- modified the mortgage upward, making it more expensive, not less. That explains why people are re-defaulting shortly after the alleged modifications. "An alarming trend has emerged where a significant number of homeowners are re-defaulting on home loans within just a few months of an initial mortgage modification," says Cummings. "To better guarantee that families will be able to stay in their homes, we need to understand what works and what doesn't when it comes to loan modifications, and we need to verify that lenders are providing the most effective and efficient assistance to borrowers -- particularly given the abusive practices that led many people into loans they can't afford in the first place." Logically, if the homeowner couldn't make the pervious mortgage, he or she won't have much luck paying the upwardly modified one, either. But without accurate numbers, it's hard to know how often that's happening. The media largely rely on data from the private firm RealtyTrac. But it has big problems, according to the report. "RealtyTrac publishes a monthly U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, which tracks foreclosures, not delinquencies or loss mitigation efforts. RealtyTrac's report is based on court filings and does not include information about the specific characteristics of loans. Moreover, RealtyTrac's methodology overstates the number of unique properties in foreclosure because it measures foreclosure filings, and there can be multiple filings for an individual property. Moreover, many foreclosures that are initiated result in cure and reinstatement, a workout, a short sale, or a deed in lieu. RealtyTrac also tracks completed foreclosure sales, although it does not publish these numbers, but these are a more reliable indicator of foreclosure activity, albeit with a significant delay." The problem extends across the federal government. The oversight panel reported that it set out to survey what data was kept by the Departments of Treasury and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). "The results of the survey were distressing," concludes the report. The report singled out the FHFA, which had sparse data even on mortgages held by government-sponsored enterprises under its domain. "The Panel is puzzled how FHFA can be performing its mission of overseeing the safety and soundness of the GSEs when it lacks basic knowledge of GSE losses," it reports. In the midst of the foreclosure crisis, nobody's accurately tracking foreclosures. "No agency appears to have identified mortgage market intelligence gathering and analysis as its responsibility," concludes the oversight report. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Christian Avard: Surviving Within: Helen Benedict Uncovers the Harsh Realities of Women in the Military Top
"I'm more afraid of men [in my unit] than I am with the enemy." Those were the words that Helen Benedict heard from several female soldiers. The enemy was within. Since March of 2003, more than 160,500 women have served in Iraq. More women have fought and died during this war than in any other since World War II, yet they still account for one in 10 soldiers. But behind their noble service and love for their country, many female soldiers find themselves in virtual isolation among men. Their seclusion, combined with the military's history of gender discrimination and the uniquely challenging conditions in Iraq, has resulted in a mounting epidemic of sexual abuse, physical degeneration, and emotional distress among many female soldiers. Author Helen Benedict uncovers the harsh realities female soliders face in her latest book, The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women in Iraq. Weaving together the poignant and grueling accounts of the war in Iraq, Benedict offers new insight into the lives of women in the military, before, during, and after the war. The Lonely Soldier was released last month by Beacon Press and I recently spoke with Benedict about her latest work. What was this work a culmination of? Why was this book started? I followed the Iraq War from the beginning and I went to a vigil on the first anniversary [of the invasion]. That was when I met my first Iraq war veteran. He spoke about the lack of armor, the mistreatment of soldiers, and the number of civilians being killed. That piqued my interest because I thought that was a brave thing to say when you're in the Army in the climate. I went to a meeting he was part of and that was where I met my first female veteran, Mickiela Montoya, who I wrote about in the book. She said "nobody believes that I was at war because I'm a female." Then I found out one out of 10 soldiers are women and I was struck that we weren't seeing them in the front page, in documentaries, television, or anywhere. They were invisible. So, I interviewed her and she put my on to another military friend, and I went form there, mostly finding soldiers through veterans' groups. The women were very eager to talk to me because they all felt invisible. [So I grew] curious why women would enlist in the military and what it was like to be in combat. I didn't realize how much I'd find out about sexual abuse until I start talking to them. That's not what I went out looking for, although the first thing Montoya said to me "there's only three things the guys let you be in the military 'a bitch, a ho, or a dyke.'" I was hearing that from everyone. I wrote an article for Salon and I got a lot of response to that and a lot of women and men were writing to me saying "I've got more stories to tell" and I found many more soldiers that way. What is it that the layperson doesn't understand most about women serving in Iraq? First, you'd be amazed how many people don't know that women are in the military or even in ground combat in Iraq. Everybody still thinks of military women doing paperwork in the back room. I've had people tell me "you mean women are allowed to carry weapons?" Women have been allowed to carry weapons since after Vietnam. It's just astonishing how oblivious much of the civilian public is. They also don't understand how women experience the double trauma of combat and being harassed or assaulted by the men they're supposed to trust. What were the most shocking things that you learned about women serving in Iraq? The degree and the prevalence of sexual assault was shocking. The statistics I found looking at veterans from several of the past wars put together showed that 30% were raped, 71% were assaulted, and 90% were harassed. These are studies done with veterans who were funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. They were also published in Military Medicine or the Journal Against Violence Against Women. The numbers shocked me. But what also shocked me was how saturated the military is with misogyny. There was the horrible language about women that drill instructors routinely use to denigrate male soldiers. The most shocking of all to me was how many women are punished or threatened into silence when they try to report an assault. The attitudes are really bent on doing everything they can to shut these women up. One of the things you mentioned early in the book was the amount of distrust between the military, which is a very insular institution, and the civilian world. Is this in any way playing a big role in why the armed forces are not willing to change? Why is that? Well, in 2005, the armed forces started the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. They did that in response to pressure from Congress, who in turn responded to public pressure after Tailhook and other scandals came up. Most of it was a public relations effort. Although they've done some things that are valuable, such as anonymous reporting. So you could at least get help. There are some efforts. I can't say they haven't tried to do anything, but is it making a difference? It really has to come from within the culture from the top-down and the bottom-up. In military and civilian life, it seems that men are predominantly the perpetrators against women and men in sexual and physical violence cases. What is being done to teach men to about violence against women and men? There is prevention training that all recruits [are required to go through] and they just revamped it. It's been going on for a few years, but up until recently, it was a joke. It was like those trainings you receive in your freshman year in college. Everybody just laughs it off. One solider said to me, "we'd watch this and someone would lean over, pinch you on the ass and say 'Oh, I'm harassing you!'" That's was partly because the films perpetrated old stereotypes, like the sexy woman half-asking for it. Apparently, the new films and lectures they show are better. However, how much can you change a culture of misogyny with videos and lectures? It's better than nothing but it's not enough. What they need to do is put into place is real consequences, not only for the perpetrator but for the commander of the unit it's happening in. If the commander blocks an investigation, intimidates people into not reporting, or covers it up, she/he should be punished. We don't have enough of that. Do many women become disillusioned with the military after they complete their military service? Some feel horrified, betrayed, feel bitter and traumatized. They can't even go near a VA hospital. They won't go near veterans organizations because they tend to be male-dominated and hierarchical, just like the military. Even the sight of a solider can make someone throw up. But more often, I've found many are completely torn between one side of them that's loyal to the unit and the ideals of the military but they are also infuriated and horrified by the abuse and injustice. They're torn to whistle-blow or to be loyal. If you report the incident, you're turning against your best friends or your family. Soldiers are trained to see their soldiers as their family. It's even more traumatic when one assaults them because it's like incest. That is much more traumatizing than assault by a stranger because the very people you trusted turned against you. You can't go home at the end of the day. You have to live with them. It's a nightmare. Do many women serving in the Iraq feel that men in the armed forces are a much bigger threat than the Iraqi resistance, Al Qaeda? I had a lot of women say to me "I'm more afraid of men on the inside than I was with the enemy." I heard that a lot. Not all women feel that way, but I heard it often. Many authors are using books as a means for social change. Do you see your book playing that same kind of role and if so, what do you hope The Lonely Solider will achieve? I would like women who are considering the military to read this, so they know what they're going into. I would like it to stimulate true reform and to inspire men to be responsible and not turn a blind eye. This isn't something that's fun anymore. It's all about respect, respecting women and fellow soldiers. More on Iraq
 
Mark Weisbrot: Hillary Clinton Recognizes Multi-Polar World, Failures of U.S. Latin America Policy Top
Three years ago I wrote an article arguing that the political changes sweeping across Latin America were epoch-making and probably irreversible, and that they would fundamentally alter the relationship between the region and the United States. Some of the most important economic causes of the region's shift to the left - including the unprecedented long-term growth failure since 1980 - were unrecognized then and remain mostly unacknowledged to this day. At the time, Washington's stated strategy was to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors. This was before the election of additional left governments in Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Paraguay, and El Salvador. I argued that this strategy was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what was happening in the region, and that it would only succeed in isolating the United States from its southern neighbors. All this has come to pass, but more interestingly, for the first time we have an acknowledgement of this failure from the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. At a press conference last Friday, she said in response to a question about Venezuela: "[W]hen we look around the world, actually, we see a number of countries and leaders -- Chavez is one of them but not the only one -- who, over the last eight years, has become more and more negative and oppositional to the United States. . . the prior administration tried to isolate them, tried to support opposition to them, tried to . . . turn them into international pariahs. It didn't work." This is a remarkable confession, and didn't get a fraction of the attention it deserved. Clinton did not name the countries, but in Latin America, Bolivia would have to be included as a country where Washington has incurred resentment by supporting opposition movements against President Evo Morales. And of course there is the 47-year failure of the embargo against Cuba: "We're facing an almost united front against the United States regarding Cuba. Every country, even those with whom we are closest, is just saying you've got to change." She didn't mention that they are also saying that Washington must change its policy toward Venezuela. President Lula da Silva of Brazil, who has consistently defended President Chavez of Venezuela, has told President Obama as much and reportedly counseled him at the Summit of the Americas not to listen to his advisers - most of whom have appeared to seek continued hostility toward Venezuela and possibly Bolivia. It is remarkable that pressure for a reality-based view of the world has had to come from the South, and says a lot about the state of civil society in the United States. How is it that nobody from our leading foreign policy institutions could have figured this out years ago? On Cuba, there has been dissent -- partly because there are powerful business interests that want access to the island, and partly because 47 years of failure is a long time even for slow learners. But on Venezuela, the primary focus of U.S. foreign policy in the hemisphere for the past seven years, there has been an overwhelming consensus of fantasy and hype. Hugo Chavez is the only democratically elected leader in the world, facing a media that is still overwhelmingly controlled by his political opposition , to be successfully maligned as a "dictator." And a threat to the United States - what exactly has he done to the United States, anyway, other than provide a $100 million annual subsidy to poor people here for heating oil? The sad reality is that while the United States has at least some civil society organizations that can present an independent view to the public on domestic issues, on foreign policy issues we are much more like Russia. The vast majority of expert opinion on foreign policy that is allowed access to major media in the United States consists of government officials, former government officials, or people who or are otherwise influenced by the government. This is one reason why it was so easy to invade Iraq, and so difficult to get out of there or out of Afghanistan - in spite of the American public's long-standing lack of enthusiasm for sending combat troops overseas. Hillary Clinton also took note that Russia, Iran, and China are gaining economic and political influence in Latin America, and recognized that we are operating in "a multi-polar world." This is also obvious - China has recently invested billions in Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba, and Ecuador, and agreed to a 10 billion dollar currency swap arrangement with Argentina. This week China also passed up the U.S. as the number one recipient of Brazilian exports. But Clinton's recognition of a "multi-polar world" is unusual and probably unprecedented for a U.S. Secretary of State. The signals from Washington remain mixed: the State Department last week took another gratuitous swipe at Venezuela, listing the country as a "terrorist safe haven," among other unsubstantiated allegations. (A few days later, Venezuela deported five Colombian guerillas to their home country). Obama's top economic adviser Larry Summers recently made a point of saying that Argentina would not qualify for the IMF's Flexible Credit Line, from which Mexico had just received a $47 billion commitment. Washington is the IMF's principal overseer; Mexico and Brazil also each have access to a $30 billion currency swap arrangement with the Fed. These are large commitments, and a reminder that Washington is still using its clout in a time of crisis to play political favorites, rather than contributing to regional balance of payments support. But Clinton's unprecedented reality-based remarks are an indication that she and President Obama may have taken home some important lessons from their conversations with other presidents at the Summit of the Americas on April 22. Such new thinking would be long overdue. This column was published by The Guardian Unlimited on May 6, 2009. More on Argentina
 
Vitter's FEMA Block Just "Political Posturing": Gibbs Top
With the start of hurricane season just around the corner, the White House did not mince words Wednesday in blasting Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) for placing a hold on President Obama's nomination to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that Vitter's hold on Craig Fugate, who held the same position in Florida, amounts to "political posturing" at a time when Vitter's state and the entire Gulf Coast region need a FEMA director in place.
 
Hero Dog Saves Hiking Owners From Mountain Lion (VIDEO) Top
Hoagie the mixed lab defended his owners from a mountain lion when they were all hiking in the Santa Ana Mountains in California. The dog fought off the lion and they all escaped, but the dog was severely injured. WATCH: More on Video
 
Mitch Ceasar: The Cheap Gourmet Top
Saturdays are sometimes a day for recreation or reflection. However most of the time it is a day for errands, such as run to the dry cleaners, get to the drugstore, drop the dog off at the groomer. But no matter how many chores exist, there is always time for my favorite task of the day -- cruising for free food. You see, weekends are about shopping, and merchants need to do something extraordinary to drive you into their store. As a member of the "me" generation, there is nothing more rewarding than something for nothing. Haven't you ever said to yourself, "It's lunchtime, where can I eat cheap; or better yet, for free?" In these tough economic times, when the going gets tough, the tough go sampling. To the uninitiated, the top four stores for such a pursuit are Costco, Publix, Whole Foods, and Crown Liquors. These varied stores are willingly competing against each other for your food and entertainment dollar. All are very different, so one must choose based on their individual demographic. In other words, how hungry and shameless will you be when returning to the same free sample station eight times? Today I will only discuss my favorite, since the others are too classy for me. My criteria has always been quantity over quality. Costco is big, loud and family oriented. This means you will bump into relations, neighbors, and people you owe money to. The ambiance of concrete floors and metal ceilings is perfectly conducive to a grazing extravaganza. As you cruise with your wagon filled with 114 rolls of toilet paper (so you appear to be a real shopper, not just a moocher), you will note many others acting similarly. Do not be alarmed, as they will become invisible to you upon bursting through to the first free food station. As a "regular" at Costco, I have come to know many of the employees. It's important to become friendly. They are hoping you will buy 600 pieces of that rubber chicken you just ate; so smile and pretend those frozen boxes are going into your cart. If possible, build a relationship with your server. Clearly that will assist you in returning to their location multiple times without fear of embarrassment, rejection or name calling. Much like a favorite bartender who pours a little extra, or a blackjack dealer, you never want a "switch" to occur during mid feeding .. If that happens, a spouse, child or any senior will do as carrier of the tasty tidbits back to you. Some days Costco provides excellent favorites such as chicken, chocolate, multiple types of pizza, bread and fruit drinks. This allows all food groups to be accessed. Unfortunately there are times when the selection is very limited. That reality will necessitate a purchase ($1.50) of the foot long hot dog to supplement your endeavor. But fear not, since that also includes unlimited soda. Costco understands their shoppers' needs, by including beverage lids for convenience while browsing. After one full trip around the store has occurred, you must proceed immediately to the patio furniture section. There, you will discover beautiful large comfy chairs, couches, and barbecue pits. Always balance the interests of location and comfort prior to your seating. From this vantage point you may sit, consume, and watch your "competitors" go by. This works better in a team effort, otherwise other hungry folks will steal your seats. From your home base you can then return to food stands that possess the cuisine worthy of repeat consumption. Remember, the better the quality the longer the line. So, your strategy must be similar to rides at Disney World - hit the quality locations early in the day and stroll back periodically, after you have visited the lesser attractions. As you can tell, I am a dedicated Costco fan. I have learned that not all food establishments are equal. So, to paraphrase the commercial from the clothing folks, "An educated sampler is our best customer." Kinda ..
 
Admiral Michelle Howard Essence Interview: Discusses Her Role In Rescue of Captain Richard Phillips Top
Who could have guessed that Rear Admiral Michelle Howard's first week on the job would play out like something out of a James Bond movie, gripping us with every twist and turn. But this was no movie. The drama on the high seas was real. Eventually U.S. snipers saved Captain Richard Phillips, who was kidnapped by Somali pirates a few weeks ago. And there at the center of the rescue mission was Howard, the first African-American woman to hold her position. While the captain was eventually rescued, the struggle to end piracy continues: Captain Phillips testified this week before the Senate that private security could prevent piracy. Somali pirates are still lurking the seas, and just last week hijacked a merchant ship from the United Arab Emirates and a Greek-owned bulk carrier near Madagascar. Meanwhile, Howard is going about her work; continuing to guard the high seas. She talks exclusively to ESSENCE.com about last month's dramatic events.
 
Scott P. Layne: Swine Flu: Remain Vigilant! Top
Swine flu came to international attention within the past two weeks. Now, almost as quickly, it seems to be fading from the attention of the news media at least. This roller coaster has little to do with emerging infectious disease realities. To be sure, many questions remain unanswered -- public health experts are still working 24/7 to clear the fog associated with rapid outbreak investigations. And they will! The outbreak investigations are complicated, in part, because they cross international boundaries. Yet two foremost questions remain: Will there be a Swine flu pandemic? And, if so, how severe will it be? There are three key factors that will ultimately govern Swine flu's pandemic potential. 1. Transmissibility or the ability to pass from infected persons to susceptible persons. At this point, Swine flu has proven that it can be transmitted from person to person. When a susceptible person comes into close contact with a Swine flu-infected person, the chances of transmission are about 20% according to preliminary reports by outbreak investigators in North America. This figure will be refined with more data but it appears sufficient to sustain a pandemic. 2. Immunity or the ability to protect against infection once exposed. Swine flu appears to be a new influenza strain for many if not most people. In other words, most humans worldwide are susceptible and have little, if any, prior existing immune protection. Whether past influenza infections or vaccinations will offer any benefit to certain individuals remains unclear. It is nevertheless clear that Swine flu will require a new vaccine to reduce human susceptibility on a worldwide scale. The lack of widespread prior immunity makes conditions sufficient to sustain a pandemic. 3. Virulence or the ability of the virus to morbidity and mortality. For unknown reasons, Swine flu appears to be more deadly in Mexico than in other countries, including the United States. Yet investigators do not have good explanations for these difference. Is it related to: Nutritional factors? Baseline health of certain populations? Access to health care? Access to medications? More undetected infections than realized with some causing deaths? Counting deaths not caused by Swine flu? Intensive outbreak investigations are underway to solve this riddle. The good news is that Swine flu appears to have relatively low virulence outside Mexico. The bad news is that Swine flu is constantly rolling its genetic dice, so virulence could vary (increase or decrease) over time. At this point, it is impossible to guess or calculate what will happen next. The current predicament: Swine flu has already fulfilled two criteria -- efficient transmissibility and limited prior immunity worldwide -- to sustain global spread. The often used definition of a pandemic is that 25% of the world's population becomes infected by the same influenza strain. The new Swine flu certainly has that potential. The situation at present is fluid. Swine flu has not yet fully revealed its propensity for virulence, including the ability to cause health care visits, hospitalizations, pneumonias, respiratory failure, cytokine storm, and death. If virulence remains low, the pandemic could be mild. If virulence increases significantly, the pandemic could be severe. The World Health Organization's pandemic alert levels signal the spread and distribution of Swine flu cases. Yet they do not signal how bad a pandemic might be. These levels are more a reflection of transmission and immune vulnerability, rather than an indicator of severe outcomes. There are six WHO alert levels, numbered one to six. Before the Swine flu appeared, the alert level was set at 3. After the Swine flu spread in North America, it escalated from 4 to 5 within days. Alert level 5 reflects spread of a new strain to at least two countries or one continent -- we are there. Alert level 6 reflects community level outbreaks in multiple countries and continents -- we are almost there. News reports indicate that Swine flu has been seeded in 21 countries, with total WHO-reported cases at 1,409. There are indications that WHO may declare Alert Level 6 very soon, especially if a large outbreak cluster is documented on another continent. This is no time for complacency. We must remain vigilant. The new H1N1 Swine flu remains a real, unpredictable and worldwide threat. More on Swine Flu
 
John W. Whitehead: Pete Seeger: A Legend in His Own Time Top
"Here's hoping enough of your dreams come true to keep you optimistic about the rest."--Pete Seeger On Sunday, May 3, 2009, a contingent of some of pop music's best entertainers assembled in Madison Square Garden to perform a tribute concert in celebration of Pete Seeger's 90th birthday. They included Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, John Mellencamp, Eddie Vedder, Arlo Guthrie, Joan Baez and dozens of others. Seeger, who has shied away from events such as this, agreed to appear with the celebrities to raise money to benefit the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, a nonprofit organization Seeger founded years ago to help preserve the Hudson river, which has suffered from pollution. Seeger is a legend in his own time. As the New York Times notes, this musician, songwriter and song collector-historian "helped spur the politically tinged folk music revival of the '50s and '60s. He spoke out against the Vietnam War and has remained an activist, notably on environmental issues." Seeger's roots reach back to the time when music, as we now know it, was just beginning. Before the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Byrds, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul and Mary and Bob Dylan, to name a few, there was Pete Seeger. With his five-string banjo in hand, he helped lay the foundation for American protest music, singing about the plight of everyday working folks and urging listeners to political and social activism in hopes of improving their country. Born in New York City on May 3, 1919, Pete, whose father was a pacifist musicologist, was plunged into the world of music and politics from an early age. He studied sociology for awhile at Harvard but dropped out. He then spent the summer bicycling through New England and New York, painting watercolors of farmers' houses in return for food. Looking for but failing to get a job as a newspaper reporter in New York City, he then worked at the Archives of American Folk Music in Washington, D.C. Shortly thereafter, Pete met the legendary Woody Guthrie and formed the Almanac Singers, a group that became known for its political radicalism. In 1942, Pete was drafted by the Army and sent to Saipan in the Western Pacific. After the war, he helped start the People's Songs Bulletin, later Sing Out! magazine, which combined information on folk music with social criticism. In 1950, Pete formed the Weavers. Although the group became the first commercially successful folk group--selling four million records in two years--the House Un-American Activities Committee blacklisted them in 1952. As a result, they could no longer record or appear on radio and television. In 1955 during the "Red Scare," HUAC subpoenaed Pete to appear before them. In the hearings, he refused to disclose his political views and the names of his political associates. When asked by the committee to name for whom he had sung, Pete replied, "I am saying voluntarily that I have sung for almost every religious group in the country, from Jewish and Catholic, and Presbyterian and Holy Rollers and Revival Churches.... I have sung for many, many different groups ... over the twenty years or so that I have sung around these forty-eight states." He was sentenced to one year in jail but, after quoting the First Amendment, successfully appealed the decision after spending four days behind bars. Thereafter, Pete began touring on his own, inspiring a new generation of musicians who looked up to him as a mentor. He primarily extended existing materials to create several of the most popular folk revival songs of the 1960s, including "If I Had a Hammer," "Guantanamara" and "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" He used references from the Old Testament and Welsh poet Idris Davies for lyrics in songs such as "Turn, Turn, Turn" and "The Bells of Rhumney." A leader in the peace and civil rights movements, Pete recorded "We Shall Overcome" and sang it on the 50-mile walk from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, with Martin Luther King, Jr. and 1,000 other marchers. That former gospel song went on to become the anthem for the civil rights movement and was translated into many languages. Pete was awarded the prestigious Kennedy Center Honors in 1994. In 1996, he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for his contribution to music and to the development of rock and folk music. In April of that year, he received the Harvard Arts Medal and, after decades of creating songs, won a Grammy Award in 1997 for Best Traditional Folk Album for Pete. While many of the legendary men and women he associated with are gone, Pete continues his political work with a focus now on environmental endeavors. He still subscribes to the same philosophy he held four decades ago when he advised young people to follow their hearts and take initiative: "Here's hoping enough of your dreams come true to keep you optimistic about the rest. We've got a big world to learn how to tie together. We've all got a lot to learn. And don't let your studies interfere with your education." It is Pete Seeger's still vibrant optimism that is amazing. As he told me: "I tell everybody a little parable about the 'teaspoon brigades.' Imagine a big seesaw. One end of the seesaw is on the ground because it has a big basket half full of rocks in it. The other end of the seesaw is up in the air because it's got a basket one-quarter full of sand. Some of us have teaspoons, and we are trying to fill it up. Most people are scoffing at us. They say, 'People like you have been trying for thousands of years, but it is leaking out of that basket as fast as you are putting it in.' Our answer is that we are getting more people with teaspoons every day. And we believe that one of these days or years--who knows--that basket of sand is going to be so full that you are going to see that whole seesaw going zoop! in the other direction. Then people are going to say, 'How did it happen so suddenly?' And we answer, 'Us and our little teaspoons over thousands of years.'"
 
Records Show How Madoff Used Firm As "Piggy Bank" Top
Mr. Madoff listed family members, boat captains, housekeepers and others as employees of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, even though they never actually worked for the firm, newly released documents show. The convicted swindler also used his firm's money to pay for real estate, yachts, private planes and country club memberships, according to court filings by the trustee charged with liquidating the Madoff firm. More on Bernard Madoff
 
Rory O'Connor: Babes in TortureLand Top
On April 6, 1977, David Frost was having a particularly difficult time interviewing former President Richard Nixon. Frost's colleague James Reston, Jr. suggested a new line of questioning, one used earlier in the trial of former Nixon aide John Ehrlichman: Were there no limits to what a president can do, even if it's plainly illegal? Could he do anything despite the law? "If the president does it,that means it's not illegal," Nixon notoriously replied , arguing, "that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution..." While speaking recently at Stanford University , where she steadfastly defended the Bush Administration's "enhanced interrogation" policies, ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice revealed herself to be a Summa Cum Laude graduate of the Richard M. Nixon School of Government. "We did not torture anyone," Rice told the Stanford students . "The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture... And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." From Nixon to Bush and beyond, such contentions have seemingly passed muster with large swaths of both America's citizenry and its press. Now, however, challenges are finally emerging to such dangerous and unconstitutional ideas -- albeit from some unlikely sources. Have you ever heard the saying, for example, "Out of the mouths of babes?" Biblical in origin , the phrase is most often used when truth bubbles up unexpectedly - such as when a young person says something that surprises because it shows what we expect to be an adult's wisdom and understanding... And so it was recently in our nation's capital, as Secretary Rice made "her first Washington appearance since leaving office" to speak to students at the Jewish Primary Day School -- only to be pressed once again on the troublesome topic of torture, just days after telling the Stanford undergraduates that the gruesome form of torture euphemistically known as waterboarding was "by definition" legal "if it was authorized by the president." After years of facing softballs from a doting Washington press corps, Rice must have been taken aback as she fielded still more questions about torture -- from a 4th-Grader no less! As reported in the Washington Post , Rice "held forth amiably before a few dozen students about her love of Israel, travel abroad and the importance of learning languages" before opening the floor to their questions. The inquiries, developed by students with the assistance of their teachers, had not been screened in advance by Rice. "At first, they were innocuous," noted Post Staff Reporter Alec MacGillis. "What was it like growing up in segregated Birmingham, Ala.? What skill did she want to be best known for?" Then a fourth-grader named Misha Lerner asked a tough one: what did Rice think about the things President Obama's administration had been saying concerning methods used by the previous administration to get information from detainees? (According to Misha's mother, Inna, her son had originally come up with an even tougher question: "If you would work for Obama's administration, would you push for torture?" But Misha's teachers apparently acted as editors: "They wanted him to soften it and take out the word 'torture,'" Ms. Lerner explained. "But the essence of it was the same.") "Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country," Rice responded. "After September 11, we wanted to protect the country. But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country." Rice's response to the Babes in TortureLand echoed what she had said earlier at Stanford, while pleading for sympathy: "I hope you understand that it was a very difficult time. We were all so terrified of another attack on the country." Nevertheless, she reiterated, "Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal..." Despite her contention, one student still demanded, "How are we supposed to continue promoting America as this guiding light of democracy and how are we supposed to win hearts and minds in the world as long as we continue with these actions?" "Well, first of all, you do what's right," Rice replied. "That's the most important thing -- that you make a judgment of what's right. "And I'll tell you something," she continued. "Unless you were there in a position of responsibility after September 11th, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans. And I know a lot of people are second-guessing now, but let me tell you what second-guessing would really have hurt me -- if the second-guessing had been about 3,000 more Americans dying because we didn't do everything we could to protect them." Apparently when you're in that position of responsibility, it helps to be 'tough-minded" like Bush and Rice. "Foreign policy is full of tough choices. Very tough choices," Rice explained. "The world is not a bunch of easy choices in which you get to make ones that always feel good." Rice's student questioner then pointed out that our government had never resorted to torture, "Even in World War II, as we faced Nazi Germany -- probably the greatest threat that America has ever faced." She quickly shot back, "And we didn't torture anybody here either. Alright?" "Is waterboarding torture?" the student then asked. "I just said -- the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture," Rice maintained. "And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture." Yes, but... is waterboarding torture? And if so, is it illegal --- even when the president condones it? Or are there no limits to what a president can do, even if it's patently illegal? Can the president do anything despite the law? Unless someone in the Obama Administration soon starts asking uncomfortable questions like those coming out of the mouths of babes like Misha Lerner, the Nixon/Bush/Rice position that we live in a nation ruled by men --- and not laws - may yet prevail. More on Richard Nixon
 
Elliot Washor: At the Core of the Apple Store: Images of Next Generation Learning Top
Innovation is more highly prized than ever, but innovation that makes a significant difference is hard to find. This is particularly true with respect to schools, where few innovations of the last decade have had real, positive, and lasting impact on basic skills performance, high school graduation, or college success. As the Obama administration embarks on a massive effort to improve America's schools, we hope disruptive innovations outside of the existing education system are carefully considered. At the Apple Store, we found one model for such disruptive innovation that holds real promise for America's schools. The Store has three carefully designed learning environments for playing, buying, and learning. The spaces for playing and buying are certainly effective, but the spaces for learning -- Studio and Genius Bar -- are what we think merit a closer look. The Studio is devoted to one-on-one and small group instruction about Apple products and software applications. Seminars and workshops are scheduled regularly, but most learning opportunities are ad hoc and customized for whomever signs up. Of the Studio, the Apple literature says, "There is no better way to learn more, or learn it faster, than with one-to-one personal training sessions." Customers "create a program that is customized to your level of experience" with "personal training sessions designed to move at your pace and provide the support and guidance you need." The Genius Bar is a space for problem solving and troubleshooting. Here, customers receive personalized technical assistance in addressing just about any problem. The Genius Bar has technicians serving as teachers and tutors, sometimes therapists. Apple has elevated the technician to "genius" level, empowered to repair and to teach. The play area up front shares a lot in common with a typical kindergarten classroom, the Studio with a graduate seminar, and the Genius Bar with a lab. The environment provides customers with multiple options and pathways for engaging their hands, minds, and, yes, hearts -- typically through one-on-one learning experiences. What are the essential features of the Apple Store's learning culture? * The learning experience is highly personalized and focused on the interests and needs of the individual customer. * Customers can make mistakes with little risk of failure or embarrassment. Thinking and tinkering with the help of a staff member provide opportunities for deep learning. * Challenges are real and embedded in the customer's learning and work. * Assessment is built right into the learning, focusing specifically on what needs to be accomplished. A disruptive innovation? We think so. The Apple Store has created a new type of learning environment that allows individuals to learn anything, at any time, at any level, from experts, expert practitioners, and peers. One question the Apple Store designers certainly addressed was: How might we design a store and an experience that gets people to come back again and again? And buy again and again? In that spirit, we ask: How might schools design learning opportunities and learning environments so that all students choose to engage in deep and sustained learning? And choose to do that kind of learning again and again for the rest of their lives? Of course, technology is a critical enabler. Networks, social networking, and "wiki" capacities can be employed to support learning. The thousands of how-to sites on the Internet allow anyone to learn and practice how to do just about anything. What all of these resources require is a framework, a system for helping each learner make sense of all of these resources and integrate them into a personalized learning plan. That is a task for schools. The sci-fi novelist William Gibson wrote that the future is already here; its just not evenly distributed. If Gibson is right, then there's a big chunk of the future of learning in the Apple Store just waiting to be more evenly distributed. And we would do well to spread that future into schools and communities throughout our country.
 
Climate Change Threatens Pika, A Tiny US Mammal Top
SALT LAKE CITY — A tiny mammal that can't handle warm weather could become the first animal in the lower 48 states to get Endangered Species Act protection primarily because of climate change. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Wednesday that listing the American pika may be warranted because of climate change. Federal officials will now launch an in-depth review of the species and submit findings by Feb. 1, 2010. The pika _ a furry, big-eared relative of the rabbit _ dwells mostly in high, rocky mountain slopes in 10 Western states. Even brief exposure to temperatures of 78 degrees or warmer can be deadly to the animal. As the West warms, scientists say some pikas have tried to move upslope to find cooler refuges but have run out of room. More on Climate Change
 
SECOND Crash This Week On Nicolas Cage's Movie: 9 Crew Members Hurt Top
NEW YORK — Nine crew members working on a Nicolas Cage film in New York's Times Square have been treated for minor injuries after another car crash near the movie set. It's the second accident this week involving the film "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." The most recent happened about 3:28 a.m. Wednesday. The SUV's driver says she tried to avoid hitting a taxi and instead struck a parked car. Police say both vehicles jumped the curb where crew members were sitting under a marquee. All but two have been released from hospitals. Early Monday, a stunt driver apparently lost control of a Ferrari during filming of a chase scene. Two bystanders were injured when the car plowed into a restaurant just blocks away from Wednesday's accident scene.
 
6 Puerto Ricans Arrested For Disrupting Congress Top
WASHINGTON — A group of six pro-independence Puerto Ricans was arrested Wednesday for demonstrating inside the House, a Capitol Police spokeswoman said. The group got passes to the House gallery from Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico's delegate to Congress, his office said. Constituents can request and obtain passes to watch House proceedings through their representative. Pierluisi said he recognizes the group's right to express their opinions, but incidents like the demonstration could hurt Puerto Rico's image. "There are appropriate and lawful ways to speak one's mind about the political status of Puerto Rico that do not violate the law or interfere with the orderly proceedings of government," Pierluisi said in a written statement. The people arrested were Jose Rivera, 60, Ramon Rivera, 72, Luis Rivera, 67, Luis Romero, 55, Maria Rodriguez, 31, and Eugenia Perez, 59. They have been charged with disrupting Congress, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The group was holding up signs in the visitors' seating area that overlooks the floor of the House, she said. It's not clear what the signs said.
 
Valerie Tarico: Church-Going and Torture Approval -- What's the Connection? Top
The circles I run in include a fair number of recovering fundies -- people who were raised on the notion that morality comes from Jesus. In fact, the former Calvinists among us were taught that anyone who is not "washed in the blood" is utterly depraved. For real. A Seattle Calvinist mega-minister, Mark Driscoll, had this to say to his flock: "If the resurrection didn't literally happen, there's no reason for us to be here. If the resurrection didn't literally happen, there are parties to be had, there are women to be had, there are guns to shoot, there are people to shoot." (Have you heard that Calvinism is all the rage ?) Children are hard-wired to be credulous, to accept what they are told -- which means that this shit gets inside people at a gut level -- which means it takes a lot of work to get it back out. Recovering fundies spend a fair bit of time reminding each other that just because something got wired into your brain before your critical faculties developed doesn't mean it's true. So of course last week's Pew report about churchgoing and torture approval made the rounds. In case you missed it, Pew released survey data showing that the more frequently someone went to church, the more likely they were to approve of torture. (So much for total depravity on the outside.) Church attendance in this case may be a proxy for conservative religious belief. Of the groups surveyed, Evangelical Christians were most likely to think that torture is often or sometimes ok (62%), followed by Catholics (51%), followed by mainline Protestants (46%). Nonbelievers were least likely to agree (40%). What's the deal? Over at the Washington Post religion blog, On Faith , modernist theologian Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, suggested that maybe the problem is rooted in theology, what is called the "penal theory of atonement." Jesus gets torture and death because the rest of us deserve it. So through the twists and turns of theo-logic, Jesus getting tortured to death turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to the human race. It's the way believers escape the fate that awaits the rest of us -- and is a part of God's perfect, loving plan. "For Christian conservatives," Thistlewaite says, "severe pain and suffering are central to their theology." In evidence, she points to Evangelical enthusiasm for Mel Gibson's movie, a theologically justified orgy of Hollywood torture. She has a point. Convinced of the film's salvific merit, my mother's church bussed in teens and made special arrangement for wheelchair-bound elderly. Wouldn't want them to miss that half-hour beating scene. Does penal atonement theology lead to torture approval? Could be. A host of other hypotheses were suggested in response to Thistlewaite's article, most of them none too flattering in their assessment of those Evangelical churchgoers: --It's political. They've allowed the GOP instead of the gospel to shape their thinking. --They don't think. Being a Christian requires you to torture logic every day. --Christians have a higher duty to protect innocents than prisoners. --Since God approves of torturing most of the human race for eternity it must be ok. --Witch drowning, heretic burning, even medieval waterboarding - the Church has a lot of practice at torture. --Evangelicalism is authoritarian -- so is torture. --Anyone who believes in torture isn't a true Christian. --They approve because it's Muslims who are being tortured. --The ends justify the means in saving souls; the ends justify the means elsewhere. --Since Christian leaders are saved, they can do no wrong. --Evangelical Christianity is a tribal religion, focused on distinguishing in-group from out-group, and out-group actors don't have rights. --Christians walk around with an instrument of torture dangling from their necks. --Many Christians misunderstand the message of Christ. After spending 10 years watching my tired father twitch in church, I'll confess to my personal favorite: "Sometimes sermons are such that congregants who cannot fall asleep feel that torture is part of God's plan; this does not imply that they like it." But one comment actually made me think. It was from a nonbeliever who expressed her dismay, not that so many Christians were willing to condone torture, but that so many nonbelievers did too. Christian fundamentalism may increase tolerance of torture, but if so, it is part of a broader problem. Scholar Riane Eisler ( The Chalice and the Blade , The Real Wealth of Nations ) offers a framework that may lend some relevant insights. Eisler proposes that all institutions, ideologies, and relationships can be thought of on a continuum from domination orientation to partnership orientation. In a domination orientation, people are caught up in the business of competing for control. You either eat or are eaten, and given the option, most people would rather be at the top of the food chain. Underlings use what power they do have: manipulation, deceit, passive resistance, even suicide. Those in power do harm, often because they perceive that the alternative is "being done to." Being the torturer is better than having your hands tied behind your back and a hood over your head. Evangelical Christianity has a strong dominance orientation. The metaphor of "spiritual warfare" is ubiquitous. Onward Christian Soldiers. Dominionists seek to take control of the reins of power to rule the rest of us according to Biblical principles. In the church I grew up in, women were taught to submit, even to abuse. My pastor gave a full sermon on breaking the will of his two year old. Spare the rod . . . But the rest of us are not immune from this mentality of domination either, which ultimately is a mentality of fear, the fear of exploitation or insufficiency. It's so ... primate. Unless the weaker monkey can sneak, the dominant monkey will eat all the grapes. Unless the weaker chimp can sneak, the dominant chimp will get to mate with all the best females. But even our primate cousins would have impossibly wretched lives without the rudiments of compassion and cooperation. Chimpanzees both seek help from one another and give it . Rhesus monkeys have been willing to starve for a week rather than shocking another monkey to get fed ( Hauser , pp. 354-355). Their behavior reflects a complex blend of domination and partnership strategies dictated largely by instinct. But, our intelligence allows us more behavioral flexibility than any other species. We who call ourselves homo sapiens sapiens -- wise, wise -- have the power to understand fear and domination deeply and to orient our personal relationships and social institutions toward the other end of the continuum. Even as old an institution as Christianity has the power to learn. That may be one of the most important take-aways from the Pew study. Yes, as many people pointed out, the Church has a history of embracing torture, sanctifying it theologically and using it to defend purity of belief. And yes, those Christians who are still stuck defending the "fundamental" belief agreements made in the Fourth Century may be stuck defending torture as well. But Christians like Thistlewaite who have been willing to re-evaluate the old regula fidei or rules of faith have moved both theologically and morally. Many mainliners center their theology not in "penal atonement" but in radical hospitality. Call it love. Like partnership-oriented Humanists, Buddhists and others, modernist Christians teach their children how to think rather than what to think and don't feel a need to "break" them to control their spiritual quest. If that doesn't help us to outgrow torture, I don't know what will. More on Christianity
 
Heather Cabot: How to Have a Happy Mother's Day Top
Deep down, even on those days when you've cleaned up the kitchen umpteen times, you know your family appreciates all that you do. Do we really need a greeting card holiday to make us feel special? Well, it certainly doesn't hurt and right now, your loved ones are probably thinking about how to mark the day and make it special for you. Here are a few ideas for taking the day in stride and enjoying the occasion. Manage your expectations Hallmark may say you should be queen for a day. But let's get real. Despite your family's best attempts, even on Mother's Day, you'll probably still be the one packing the diaper bag, picking up dirty laundry off the floor and putting away the toys. That's okay. It comes with the territory of being "chief household officer." Instead of resenting the fact that the day is not an entire day off, try to manage what you expect from your loved ones and get into a gracious mindset going in. If they pull out all the stops and surprise you -- even better. If not quite, you'll still feel appreciative that they made the effort. Help plan your day (even at the last minute) It would nice if your husband or partner could send you for a day of beauty and spa treatments. But thanks to economic and other practical concerns, for most of us, pampering will have to take place close to home. That's okay. If what you'd like to do is have an hour to browse at the book store or go to that yoga class you always want to go to (but can never make), tell your family and say that's what you'd like. Reduce the pressure of shopping for a gift for you by letting them know what you'd really enjoy is a little time off....and then schedule it! Tell your husband when the class starts or what time you'd like to split up so he can watch the kids while you grab a tea and a good book. Make Every Day Mother's Day As for time for you, you shouldn't wait for the big day once a year to catch a break. Try to work with your family to give you the "you-time" you need amid everything you do every day. Your family needs to see you taking care of yourself to understand how essential it really is to your overall well-being. Whether it's asking your partner to watch the kids before work so you can go for a jog or arranging for help so you can go to book club or shopping with a friend, you deserve it and need that time off. It should be an essential. Celebrate You Take stock of all of your hard work and remember to pat yourself on the back (and your own mom's back, too). Do something nice for yourself on Mother's Day and every day. Sit down for a meal, buy yourself flowers, call/email/text girlfriends regularly. Keep a journal so you can look back and see all you have achieved (sometimes recognizing how wonderful you are can be tough when your day ends in a blur.) Hail To The Chief Focus on your mom if you are lucky enough to have her in your life. Schedule a phone date or better yet, a special outing with your mother. Many of us only truly understood the gifts mom gave us when we became mothers ourselves. Show your appreciation for all of her hard work on Mother's Day and as often as you can and you'll feel great. For more thoughts on motherhood and the pursuit of wellness in mind, body and spirit, please check out The Well Mom.com
 
Carrie Pollare: Let Animals Take The Edge Off: Remember To Smile! Top
When I was growing up, my French Poodle, Touche, would make a face on command, that we endearingly called "Little Teeth." It used to crack me up because he looked like he was smiling. He would bear all of his teeth and stick his tongue out. You would think that, as an adult, I would grow out of a childish delight like this...no way! To this day, I still love "smiling" animals. I can be in the worst mood, but show me a photo of a dog with "little teeth" and it can change my demeanor in an instant. In fact, in my office for many years, I had what was endearingly called the "fang board." It was a bulletin board with a huge collection of animals "smiling," many of which were contributed by my employees. I had hundreds. And, on the home front, my son has taken responsibility for teaching our dog, Noah, to smile whenever they wrestle together. It never gets old. So, why am I telling you this? It's because I'm amazed at how great ideas are often born from the simplest life experiences. In our continuing effort to spread the word about fighting animal cruelty, encouraging people to rescue and raising money for Best Friends Animal Society , we are constantly seeking new ways to draw attention to the cause. Who knew that this childhood pleasure could turn into that "tipping point?!" We came up with the idea to make a video to raise awareness about animal cruelty, but we didn't want to do the typical cages and violence theme. Our effort is all about making positive change. The concept became showcasing "happy" dogs and cats, and the message was to "help us keep the animals smiling." As I found more and more hilarious photos, my brother/partner, Dan, kept hearing me hysterically laughing from my office and joined the effort. Soon, we had narrowed hundreds of photos down to our top 20 and the 60-second SMILE video was born. Beyond our wildest expectations, the video took off and has now been viewed well over 100,000 times. Who knew?! So, what do you do when you have a successful "film?" You make the sequel, of course. I love my job! This time, however, we're out to spread the joy. We want all the animal lovers out there to help us find the next precious pup or kooky kitty superstars. And so, we have just launched the SMILE2 Photo Contest . Between now and June 30, 2009, anyone can send us photos of their dogs or cats "smiling" or making a funny face and, if we like what we see, their "fur kid" will be posted on the I'm Tired of... SMILE2 website and could ultimately grab one of the 20 spots in the upcoming SMILE2 video, which we know is going to be huge!! We've got a phenomenal panel from I'm Tired of... and Best Friends Animal Society (including some of the stars of National Geographic Channel's " Dogtown "), who can't wait to judge our contestants. And, we're posting all the qualified entries on our SMILE2 website for everyone to see and chat about! We also have prizes for the winners and a grand prize for the top dog and cat. Now, not only do I get to spend a good part of each day looking at all the precious faces and laughing, but you can get a nice dose of my "happy place" too. We launched just a few days ago and the entries are pouring in. We're posting all the candidates on the SMILE2 website . I recommend you visit every few days, especially when you're particularly stressed or that little dark cloud is following you around. I promise...there's nothing like a little goofiness to take the edge off. And, if you have a "smiling" pet or know someone who does, send their photos our way. Of course, in the spirit of what we're trying to achieve, this is all about spreading the word on the fight against animal cruelty and the importance of animal rescue, just in a positive and fun way. Go ahead... Smile! Click here to go to the SMILE2 website! More on The Giving Life
 
Wesleyan University Student Fatally Shot; Suspect At Large Top
MIDDLETOWN, Conn. — A Wesleyan University student was shot and killed at a bookstore near the central Connecticut campus Wednesday afternoon, officials say, sparking a manhunt while police cautioned students and staff to remain indoors. Officials didn't identify the victim, but said she was a student who was at the Red and Black Cafe inside Broad Street Books. A gun was recovered at the scene, the university said in a statement. Police cordoned off the area around the bookstore as officers wearing camouflage and carrying automatic rifles walked the streets as onlookers gawked. Officials at the private university notified students and faculty members by e-mail, text and voice mail about the emergency and asked them to remain inside. Middletown Mayor Sebastian Giuliano said he did not believe the public was in danger. "It was focused. This wasn't random from what I can tell," Giuliano said. "Somebody went into a bookstore and fired multiple shots at one person." State and city police did not immediately return calls Wednesday. All campus events scheduled for Wednesday, including its popular Spring Fling concerts, were canceled. Officials at nearby St. Mary's School, a Roman Catholic school with 240 students, ordered a lockdown for about 30 minutes Wednesday afternoon, Principal Kathleen Dutil said. Police arrived and children were dismissed once authorities gave the go-ahead, she said. Middletown, in central Connecticut, has a population of about 48,000.
 
TERRORIST REHABILITATION PROGRAM: US Hopeful On Yemeni Detainee Deal Top
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Obama administration says it is inching closer to a deal that would send an estimated 100 Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Saudi terrorist rehabilitation centers and speed the closing of the Navy prison. The Yemeni prisoners make up the largest nationality among the 241 detainees left at Guantanamo. But deep-seated tensions among Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United States have held up decisions on where to send them as U.S. President Barack Obama prepares to shutter Guantanamo by January 2010. The delay has fueled not-in-my-backyard critics in Congress, mostly Republicans, who say Guantanamo should remain open until it is clear where the detainees will be prosecuted or released. The diplomatic impasse was one topic U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates discussed with the Saudi deputy interior minister during a 21-hour visit to Riyadh that ended Wednesday. Speaking to reporters at a military base, Gates cited "our positive impression" of the Saudis' rehabilitation program as a destination for at least some of the Yemeni detainees. The Yemenis sent to the Saudi facilities "would be those with strong Saudi family connections or strong connections to Saudi Arabia," Gates said at Eskan Village, a Saudi military base where U.S. troops are stationed. He added: "I think (Yemeni) President (Ali Abdullah) Saleh is reluctant to speak out openly and say that this would be a good idea, in part because he may feel that it reflects an inability in Yemen to handle the problem. So I think he is not likely to speak out." A second senior Obama administration official said the Yemeni government appears more agreeable now to send its citizens to Saudi Arabia. Most of the evidence against the Yemeni detainees remains classified, but the official said San'a recently acknowledged they might fare better in a Saudi rehab center than in front of an American judge. The Obama administration official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue more freely. The negotiations over the Yemeni detainees are complex and delicate. Mideast political expert Joseph A. Kechichian described them as "a triangulated hornet's nest." Few dispute that Saudi Arabia has one of the most successful jihadist rehabilitation programs in the world. Thousands of extremists, including Guantanamo detainees, have received job training, psychological therapy and religious re-education before being sent back to society. The vast majority have not rejoined the fight, according to Saudi officials and terrorism experts. Yet some have. In an embarrassing episode for the kingdom, Saudi officials announced in February that 11 former Guantanamo detainees who went through the rehab program are now on its government's most wanted terrorist list for their connections to al-Qaida. Among them is Said Ali al-Shihri, who emerged as a leader of Yemen's branch of al-Qaida after being released from the Saudi program a year ago. Yemen is setting up its own rehabilitation program for jihadists and is seeking U.S. aid to open it. In a Newsweek interview last month, Saleh said, "We will always insist that these people should return directly to Yemen." Earlier this week, Gates said he did "not necessarily" believe Saleh was more open to having the detainees rehabilitated in Saudi Arabia, although he did not elaborate. U.S. officials point to Yemen's history of either releasing extremists or allowing them to escape from prison as evidence of why the Guantanamo detainees should be sent to Saudi Arabia. Yemen infuriated the United States in 2007 by releasing Jamal al-Badawi, the convicted mastermind of the 2000 USS Cole bombing that killed 17 American sailors. Al-Badawi was set free after turning himself in and pledging loyalty to Saleh, but has since been taken back into custody under pressure from Washington. A State Department report issued last month concluded that Yemen's security situation "deteriorated significantly over the past year as al-Qaida in Yemen increased its attacks against Western and Yemeni government institutions." Kechichian, the Mideast expert, said it's likely the U.S. will offer Yemen some sort of aid package as part of an agreement to sent the detainees to Saudi centers. White House counterterror adviser John Brennan met with officials in Riyadh and San'a earlier this year to broker a compromise. Yet Congress this week cut $50 million for Guantanamo detainee issues from an Obama spending plan, saying the administration would not get the money until it detailed where it would be spent. The three nations could also agree to split the Yemeni detainees, with some going to Saudi centers and the least dangerous heading home, according to Kechichian, who said in an interview this week that he speaks regularly with Obama administration and Saudi officials on the issue. Until then, however, the detainees "are going to be used as bargaining chips among the three governments," he said. "Everybody is going to try to get something out of them," Kechichian said.
 
Rev. Lennox Yearwood: A Cause Worth Saving Top
When an award confirms the virtue of a cause at the same time that cause is dying the slow death of underfunding, there is obviously a problem. Last week Attorney General Eric Holder honored Kenneth Barnes Sr. with the National Crime Victim Service Award, for outstanding service on behalf of victims of crime. But even with that award Barnes, and his organization ROOT, Inc., face an uncertain future. "After getting the highest award you can get for victim services in the country I can't even keep my lights on," says Barnes who had to let staff go due to a lack of funding. My friend's cause is one worth saving, because his story is truly remarkable. "I had gone to school and was working for a degree in clinical psychology," said Kenneth Barnes. "I was in my third year working on my doctorate, and then my son got murdered." In the aftermath of the murder of Kenneth Barnes Jr., his father tracked down witnesses, outhustled police and put the pieces together that soon led to an arrest and conviction. In doing so Barnes developed relationships on the streets of D.C. and learned that his family's tragedy was not unique. "That's when I dropped school and dedicated my time to dealing with the insanity of this violence on the streets, the gun violence," says Barnes. "I felt that there was not enough attention paid to our own everyday lives, especially those of our children." In 2002 Barnes formed Reaching Out to Others Together Inc. ROOT, Inc.'s mission is to motivate and mobilize communities to reduce the gun violence that plagues urban society. For the better part of a decade Barnes held workshops and seminars, and spoke in cities across America. Now Barnes feels he's on the verge of seeing real progress. "We have a bill out in Congress now that I feel real proud of," says Barnes. "The Communities in Action Neighborhood Defense and Opportunity Bill, or CAN DO bill. "It is the only bill in Congress that's addressing gun violence from a public health proactive perspective. Nothing else in this Congress is doing that." With the recent award from Eric Holder, a chance of getting his bill passed on Capitol Hill, and even a day named in his son's honor, one would think that the future is bright for Barnes and ROOT. That is simply not the case though. Just as the accolades and acknowledgements piled up, the funding and support dried up as well. The current financial crisis has devastated non-profits and community based organizations such as ROOT. However the problem has less to do with the crisis itself and more to do with the fact that groups like ROOT were dragged out as the first sacrificial lamb to the recession. The government tells us that some industries are too big to fail and therefore they deserve to be bailed out. Well I think some causes are too sacred too give up on. With jobs scarce, times desperate the burden to keep low-income urban areas safe and secure now falls on understaffed, overworked and underfunded causes like ROOT. And now they can't even keep the lights on. But it doesn't have to be like that. If you can spare a dime or a dollar please find it in your heart to send it to ROOT, Inc., and keep them alive. Regardless of whether you can give though, please call the House Judiciary Committee and tell them to bring the CAN DO Act of 2009 to a vote, as a way of thanking Kenneth Barnes and showing your support.
 
Ginsburg: Supreme Court Needs Another Woman Top
n interviews with USA TODAY before Souter's retirement announcement Friday, Ginsburg said the court needs another woman. "Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. I don't say (the split) should be 50-50," Ginsburg said. More on Supreme Court
 
Charlotte Hilton Andersen: Fun for the Whole Family: Girls Can Now Expect Longer Puberty Top
In what had to be one of the most awkward studies to both participate in and administer, Danish researchers studied the onset of breast development in 2,095 European girls . Let's hope that was self-reported. All pedophilic weirdness aside, the researchers found something very interesting: the average age of breast development in European girls has dropped one year, from 10.8 to 9.8 years. As a girl who didn't develop breasts until about 16 -- and even then that point could be argued (I love you Victoria's Secret gel bras!) -- the thought of 9-year-olds with boobs was shocking enough to me. The researchers, however, not caring about my chest size or lack thereof, were concerned because breast development is one of the earliest signs of puberty in girls and the marked decrease has implications far beyond training bras next to the Littlest Pet Shop display. After controlling for BMI and the age of menarche (hello Aunt Flo!), the researchers discovered that neither body weight nor menstruation was causing the earlier breast development. Which leaves us with two serious implications: 1) The environment, particularly estrogenic compounds like the much vilified bisphenol-A (BPA), is affecting girls' hormonal development. While this has largely been speculated previously and more research would be needed to proclaim a direct link, this research does lend some credence to this theory. 2) While the average age of menstruation has held steady for the past 50 or so years at about 12 years of age, puberty as defined by breast development begins earlier, meaning girls now endure a longer period of awkwardness and angst. And to anyone who thinks my use of "endure" to be hyperbolic, well, you have obviously never been a girl in the throes of puberty. Researchers sort of helpfully concluded, "The concern is that early puberty is linked with higher breast cancer risk in adulthood. Early puberty has also been linked with social problems and depression, and is associated with high-risk behaviors in adolescence such as alcohol and drug use and unprotected sex. It's not clear whether these concerns are the result of physiological changes that influence behavior or are explained by the social pressures girls encounter when their bodies mature. "Whether or not these associations apply to girls who develop breasts at younger ages remain speculative,'' Dr. Aksglaede said. "Probably, the majority of these girls will mature without any side effects. The problem is that we do not know." Somehow parents of teen girls are not comforted.
 
Rob Asghar: A Rock and Roll Jihad for the Soul of Pakistan Top
The Taliban's forerunners stole the show from Salman Ahmad one evening two decades ago. He and a growing army of Pakistani artists and cultural leaders intend to take it back -- and in the process, to rescue their nation and renew the cultural vibrancy of their ancient heritage. Ahmad's plan was to impress the audience at a talent show at his Pakistani college, by playing a spot-on version of Van Halen's legendary "Eruption." But militant students from the local madrasas managed to rock the crowd even more convincingly, erupting onto the stage, declaring music to be blasphemy and violently sacrificing Ahmad's Les Paul to the gods of intolerance. They even destroyed the drummer's kit for good measure. A little like the Who at their peak, just without amplifiers. Ahmad was destined by heritage and by coursework to be a doctor, and he dutifully responded. Still, he loved music enough to decide later that guitars rather than stethoscopes would be his instrument of healing. He went on to help create what is known throughout South Asia and beyond as Sufi Rock, as his group Junoon persevered through bannings, wiretappings and intimidation to sell some 25 million records in India and Pakistan. Junoon proved along the way that culture and art can bridge hostile neighbors -- which is exactly what bothered their enemies, who exploit such divisions to maintain their own power. Sufism represents spiritual kryptonite to the Taliban -- and it offers a fresh but ancient face of Islam to a West that is wary of invading hordes. Sufism is the tolerant, embracing and mystical form of Islam that influenced the Asian subcontinent during a thousand-year period of cultural and intellectual development. It unleashes a spirit of singing and dancing and celebration and unity, a spirit that threatens grim Talibaners at their core. Mention Islam to typical native-born Americans, and they are likely, intentionally or unintentionally, to conjure up an image of Osama bin Laden or the Ayatollah Khomeini. They would be surprised to find that the BBC has called a Muslim, Rumi, the most popular poet in America. Rumi speaks not of struggles against outer enemies, but against the inner jihad against anything that would keep the soul from loving God and others unconditionally. Where modern jihadists seem to be violent incarnations of agitation and self-doubt, Rumi asks the enlightened soul to "feel the artistry moving through and be silent." The mystical traditions of Western and Eastern religions have powerful common denominators, but Sufism brings its own flavor of pleasure-loving mischief, calling as it does for the soul to become a drunken lover in communion with its Creator ("Junoon" itself means passion or obsession ). It is not the stuff of violent wars, but of spirits that seek to place violence in subjection to the liberated human spirit. And it may offer a potion capable of curing the cancer that has staked a claim on a mass of the Muslim world. The BBC recently examined Sufism's potential to play such a role in Pakistan, and has also noted the rise of Sufism in Iran, which that nation's leaders would obviously see as a threat. Sufism's potential is even expanded by its tendency to express itself in form of art and music that transport and transform the human spirit in ways that will not be subjected to despots. This form of art is changing us in ways we don't even realize. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, the late Sufi qawwali singer from Pakistan, enjoyed legions of fans throughout South Asia and even the West, collaborating with and mentoring artists ranging from Ahmad to Eddie Vedder. Ahmad says his experience seeing Led Zeppelin perform in Madison Square in 1977 helped call him to a musical career, and that it also exposed him to the cultural collision of East and West (think of South-Asian and Middle-Eastern elements in "Kashmir," "Black Mountain Side" and Jimmy Page's eerie violin bow solos, and their trips to Morocco, and how such influences took center stage in Page's and Robert Plant's reunion in 1995). It's entirely possible that Zeppelin's desire and ability to bridge East and West made them so potent, in ways that would confound critics who initially dismissed them. As Ahmad himself wrote in the Huffington Post in 2007, "The band's music validated the belief of another hero of mine, the great Sufi Ibn al-Arabi, that only through a multitude of sources can universal harmony be achieved." Ahmad would continue to combine sources and bridge worlds, in a way that put Western instrumentation in the service of indigenous arts. In much the same way, he believes Pakistan does not need to mimic the West as much as it needs to blend influences in a way that reinvents its ancient heritage within our new global context. But he hardly believes that the arts and culture are sufficient for such a rescue operation: Hungry bellies cannot hear divine anthems. "Education, jobs and peace," he tells me, "are what I keep hearing about when I talk to Pakistanis." He says that Pakistanis must move effectively to deliver such basic services, as the Taliban has been winning converts by playing a Robin Hood role to fill the void that has not been addressed by a succession of dysfunctional governments. Having served as a UN goodwill ambassador in past years, he now leads efforts to spur a Pakistani renaissance through both culture and commerce -- efforts that begin by mobilizing Pakistanis to seize their ownership stake in society and that encourage the West to play a secondary supporting role. It is an ambitious and urgent venture, but he has allies who believe he's uniquely equipped to help Pakistanis steal back the stage from the Taliban. "He's been incredibly courageous in rejecting this false assumption that Pakistan would either be a military dictatorship or a fundamentalist theocracy," says Varun Soni, the dean of religious life at the University of Southern California and a colleague of Ahmad's. "That's allowed him to inspire millions of progressive kids in Pakistan." Soni, a practicing Hindu who is impressed by the Muslim rocker's ability to gain popularity across the contentious Indian subcontinent, thinks of him "like a Bob Marley or a John Lennon -- someone who transcended superstar status to become a prophetic voice." Ahmad, for his part, appears genuinely humble and self-effacing. "Left to myself," he says, "I'd just jam on the guitar all day" in his home outside Manhattan. But he is not being left to himself, for now, and he is able to summon a passion for the challenge that harkens back to the challenges he overcame to first perform his craft in Pakistan. "This is a great opportunity for Pakistan to reinvent itself," he says excitedly, which is most decidedly an act of putting a good spin on a lousy situation. But that is what leaders of significance do. "Knowest thou not the beauty of thine own face?" asked Rumi, who is the source of lyrics for many of Junoon's songs. "Quit this temper that leads thee to war with thyself." It is this approach that appears to inform Ahmad, as he seeks to help Pakistanis renew a distinct culture that he sees as their ancient birthright -- a life-affirming culture that he believes cannot be silenced, just as the madrasas students could not silence his own love for music. More on Celebs Talk Politics
 
Swine Flu In A Minute (VIDEO) Top
"In a Minute" videos are back! We know you've missed having news shows, events, and stories condensed into 60 seconds so you can avoid the boring parts. We jumped back in with swine flu coverage: The pandemic that panicked the media! For more "In a Minute"s click here. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on In A Minute
 
Gov. Martin O'Malley: Maryland Unveils the Mikulski Express Top
Starting tonight, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) can make her daily commute home from Washington to Baltimore on a locomotive that bears her name: the Senator Barb "Go Green" Express. The Maryland Transit Authority dedicated one of its new diesel trains to Sen. Mikulski earlier today. And though it may sound strange to say, I'm not sure I can think of a better, more fitting monument to her. Unlike a plaque or a park named in her honor, the train stands for so much of what Barbara's been fighting for in Congress over the past two decades -- a policy direction our state and country must continue to follow in the years to come. That direction is toward the funding of sustainable transportation options -- and away from infrastructure spending that will only serve to further choke our roads and pollute our air. Consider some straightforward math our new Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, recently presented to Congress. On one hand, by 2050 we can anticipate that the demand for surface transportation will be two and a half times what it is now. On the other, "We certainly cannot more than double the number of lanes-miles of highways," LaHood said in his testimony. "Lane-miles of highway have increased by only 5.42 percent over the past 24 years, and an extrapolation to 2050 suggests that highway capacity will only increase by 10 percent that year." Highway capacity simply can't keep up with transportation demand. Our environment can't sustain more auto emissions, either. As a senator of a state that's the fourth most vulnerable in the nation to the effects of climate change, Sen. Mikulski knows that better than anyone. That's why I think the train MTA dedicated to Barbara today honors her so well. She's been a strong advocate of mass transit for years. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, she's fought hard for funding for MTA, MARC Commuter Rail, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and local bus systems. The locomotive dedicated to Barbara today is one of 26 new energy-efficient, low-emissions locomotives we'll be rolling out in Maryland over the next several months. They all meet stringent new EPA requirements for all types of pollutants, reducing nitrous oxide emissions by 42%, carbon monoxide by 70%, and particulates such as soot by 67%. Maryland is also leading the charge toward sustainable transportation by committing to convert MTA's entire fleet of buses to hybrid-electric fuel by 2014, among other green initiatives. Another great feature of these new locomotives? They were manufactured in Boise, Idaho. The work to upgrade MTA's buses to hybrid-electric fuel will also put lots of people to work. Sustainable transportation isn't just the future of the way we get around and the way we protect our environment. It's an important part of our path to economic recovery.
 
Jose A. Garcia: Turning The Developing World Green Top
A recent op-ed for the New York Times calls for a "green" trade system which would eliminate tariffs on clean technology products. This proposal should be taken one step further. A forthcoming Demos report argues for the implementation of a "Most Favored Green Nation" program which would offer duty-free access to United States markets for developing countries that exceed emissions targets. It has become increasingly clear that developing countries must become active participants in the global fight against climate change. According to a book published by the World Bank: Though developed countries remain the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases today, the growth of carbon emissions in the next decade will come primarily from developing countries, which are following the same energy-and-carbon intensive development path as their rich counterparts have done...It is projected that, between 2020 and 2030, developing country emissions of carbon from energy use will exceed those of developed countries. Current expectations for developing countries are inadequate if we hope to keep climate change to two degrees or below. The Most Favored Green Nation program would provide a strong incentive for developing nations to contribute to the fight against climate change. The system provides support for developing countries to continue to lower their emissions once they have already met their emissions targets. As mentioned in the Times' op-ed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States is "ready to lead" on climate change. The Administration should lead the way by adopting this proposal. More on Hillary Clinton
 
E-Waste Expected To Plateau By 2015 Top
According to a study by Pike Research called "Electronics Recycling and E-Waste Issues," we can expect to see a leveling out of the amount of e-waste heading to landfills by 2015.
 
Matthew Kavanagh: Obama's Global Health Plan's Missing the Money Top
Yesterday President Obama announced a new " Global Health Initiative ." Gayle Smith from the National Security Council and Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, the chief of staff's brother, summoned a number of my colleagues to the Old Executive Office building early yesterday to announce this new initiative with great excitement. Should we all be excited? The good news: Many of us have been waiting to see just what President Obama and his team would do with global health--the area of our foreign aid that has arguably seen the biggest and clearest results. It is good to see the Administration taking global AIDS seriously since it continues to be the leading cause of death in Africa--killing millions of mothers, brothers, and children. The administration also this week announced the appointment of Dr. Eric Goosby to be Global AIDS Coordinator and Ambassador, a very good sign that Secretary of State Clinton is emphasizing this post and looking for leaders close to her. Meanwhile this Administration is finally paying attention to programs like family planning, which the right wing so vociferously undermined in the last eight years. This is great news for women, youth, and people around the world. The bad news: Looking at this announcement, though, I'm very worried that the administration is falling into a very scary trap of pitting funding for HIV/AIDS against other funding. The reason why AIDS, TB, and malaria programs have been prioritized is that they're the major infectious killers in Africa--if we can get ahead of them, we can save lives now and prevent new infections for the future. What we've seen is that these programs are also really good building blocks for other health services--like the family planning programs Republicans were so against in the last administration. What would make a lot of sense--and what's implied by the President's announcement--would be to increase support to other areas like reproductive health and child and maternal health. These essential areas could build off the success of AIDS programs and bolster the lives of people living in poverty. Doing so, though, will require increased investments... and that leads us to the worse news: The worse news: This big new announcement does not actually include an increase in funding for global health and, in fact, it suggests a decrease in planned AIDS funding. As this chart from RESULTS shows, the administration is trying to get away with adding new priorities without new money by promising a six-year project instead of five and moving money around. If the very AIDS, TB, and malaria programs that Obama, Clinton, and Biden co-sponsored are fully funded (for six instead of five years) and all other programs got no boost then we would expect a total of $64 billion--$1 billion more than Obama's "new" initiative. This is not worthy of Obama--who has promised to get rid of Bush's slights of hand in the budget process that hide the true costs of programs. Meanwhile, while the announcement of a $63 billion initiative sounds big--this year sees essentially flat funding on almost all global health accounts (save malaria). Not an auspicious start. A number of activists and advocacy groups have already come out with worried statements --and tomorrow when the budget comes out there is likely to be very bad news. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria--whose board is meeting now in Geneva--is going to face the first crisis. We've all been hoping the Obama administration would reverse Bush's position of undermining and underfunding the Global Fund (because it wasn't US controlled and supports scary programs like needle exchange and sex-worker programs). The Fund faces a $4-$5 billion gap between life-saving programs planned for approval in the next year or so and what donors have pledged and will face a major crisis without renewed support from the US. Global health programs are massively smart investments: healthy people build healthy economies and strong communities. It's some of the best spending to lift people out of poverty and stabilize societies in crisis (Afghanistan and Pakistan have two of the worst TB epidemics around which sucks lives and jobs!). But Obama does not deserve credit for taking from one planned program--that we know has been successful and saved millions of lives already--and put it into another. Doing so only changes who will die from what cause. People around the world deserve better. More on Barack Obama
 
Marc Gunther: Wal-Mart CEO Has a Problem With Gays Top
Mike Duke, who has been chief executive of Wal-Mart Stores for just three months, is getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere. It's not the kind of attention a new CEO wants. "Shameful, bigoted and discriminatory" is the headline over one blog post about Duke. Why? Because, it turns out, Duke signed a petition last year that put an initiative known as Act 1 on the ballot in his home state of Arkansas. The controversial initiative says that only married couples may become adoptive or foster parents in the state, closing the door for same-sex couples. It passed in November with 57 percent of the vote. Mr, Duke, what on earth were you thinking? Needless to say, this is unwelcome news for Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, and it's especially hurtful to the company's gay employees. Wal-Mart has struggled in recent years to figure out how to deal with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) issues. It supported an employee group called Wal-Mart Pride, which triggered a backlash, which subsequently caused the company to pull back its support for national gay-rights group. (See my 2007 FORTUNE.com column headlined Wal-Mart shuns gay groups .) More broadly, Wal-Mart has worked hard and for the most part effectively to position itself as a good corporate citizen as it tries to expand from its rural roots into urban, liberal areas. This will be a setback. News that Duke had signed the petition caught the company flat-footed. When I asked a Wal-Mart spokesman for a comment, I got this response and no more: I can confirm that Mr. Duke did sign the petition. Also, Wal-Mart did not take a position on the ballot initiative. I learned from a source inside Wal-Mart that Duke was going to meet with the Wal-Mart Pride group to talk about the issue. (Note to Wal-Mart employees -- feel free to let me know how that meeting went by email at marc.gunther@gmail.com.) A gay employee told me that he hopes that this incident will be a catalyst for positive change. The story of how Duke's name came to light -- you can see a photocopy of the petition sheet (PDF) here -- is the latest illustration of how digital media is exposing corporate and individual behavior. Last week, a gay rights group i called KnowThyNeighbor.org posted online the names of the 83,000 Arkansas citizens who signed the petition, in a searchable database. The petitions are public records. KnowThyNeighbor.org had previously published names of more than 500,000 people who signed anti-gay petitions in Massachusetts and Florida. In a press release about the Arkansas outing (my word), Tom Lang, the group's director, says: These petition signers need to stand behind their signatures and be responsible for this dehumanizing attack on the gay community. It's disgraceful that they have chosen to exercise their prejudice at the expense of children who are now being denied access to loving adoptive and foster parents. Lang urges family members, friends, co-workers and customers of those who signed the petition to confront them: These conversations can be uncomfortable for both parties but they are desperately needed. The more that gays and lesbians talk about the importance of their relationships and their love for their children, the faster stereotypes break down and both sides begin to realize how much they have in common. Two days later, a reader identified as Concerned Arkansas Citizen posted a comment: One VERY prominent person in Arkansas that has signed the petition is Michael Duke of Rogers, AR. He is the new CEO of Walmart Stores, Inc. He should explain himself. By Monday, gay and liberal bloggers like Queerty and Daily Kos were running with the story and gettings lots of comments. Who says bloggers never dig up news? For what it's worth, Wal-Mart got a 40% rating in 2008 on the Corporate Equality Index published by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's biggest LGBT advocacy group. Target, a rival, got a 100% rating and Costco got a 93% rating. Ellen Kahn, Director of the Human Rights Campaign's Family Project, sent me this comment by email: When Mike Duke voted in favor of ACT 1...he essentially closed the door to a hopeful future for the hundreds of children in Arkansas's foster care system...Duke should think about the real lives of these kids and show some compassion. Duke's defenders including Jerry Cox, director of the Arkansas Family Council, who called it an invasion of privacy to publicize the names of citizens who are exercising their right to petition the government, according to the Arkansas Times . What's more, he wrote, many voters will sign any petition based upon "one simple principle: that the people, whenever possible, have the right to vote on issues that could directly impact their lives." I'm not persuaded. Duke chose to sign a petition, which is a public document, so how has his privacy been invaded? What's more, if you believe, as I do, that equality for LGBT people under the law is a civil rights issue, then there's no reason to put it up to a popular vote. At the very least, Duke's decision to sign the petition reflects poor judgment. As a senior executive of Wal-Mart, he should have known that supporting a controversial measure widely seen as anti-gay could boomerang. (The Arkansas Democrat and Gazette called Act 1 "just another exercise in stirring up bad feelings.") Duke has alienated LGBT customers and their allies, as well many of his own employees. And if Duke figured that no one would ever know, well, that wasn't very smart either. Several years ago, the writers Don Tapscott and David Ticoll wrote a book about transparency in business aptly called The Naked Corporation . There are few secrets these days in corporate America. CEOs (and future CEOs) need to pay close attention to how they behave -- on and off the job.
 
Obama Speaks On Afghanistan, Pakistan Top
The Obama administration took on high-stakes diplomacy with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan Wednesday, seeking more cooperation against Taliban militants while apologizing for a U.S. bombing strike that Afghans said killed dozens of innocent civilians. WATCH PRESIDENT OBAMA LIVE:
 
Meredith Barnett: Mommy Madness -- Woof! Top
In honor of Mother's Day, an ode to my little one: I feel terrible pangs of guilt every time I leave him. When I went away for a week, I brought his picture with me and used it as a bookmark, cooing over it multiple times per day. He won't wear a raincoat, yet I hate to have him cooped up inside on gloomy days. So I follow him around the park carrying an umbrella as he splashes through puddles and tries to eat the dirt. His name is Richie. I call him Richie Boo, Richie Bear, Baby Bear, The Baby, Boobala, and Boo Boo. In a baby voice. In the elevator. In front of the neighbors. I wasn't going to let him sleep with me, but he's so cute and cuddly that I often put him in the bed when he cries. When Richie had to get stitches and had part of his head shaved, some little girls we passed on the street started laughing and pointing at him. He didn't notice, but I almost killed them. His daycare has a webcam. It's more addictive than Facebook. Richie can be a bit hyperactive at times, so I bought him all-natural calming treats infused with chamomile and lavender. The brand is called Mellow Mut. Richie is six month old puppy. And that makes me...Richie's Mommy? I struggled with the term. But in the same way that I correct people when they call his "crate" a "cage," "mommy" seems more humane (human?) than "owner," especially when -- let's face it -- he is the boss of me. (I loved the pictures of Obama being dragged along by Bo at the first puppy's official White House unveiling. Clearly, the leader of the free world answers to a canine just like I do.) I am also everything I swore to my friends and myself that I wouldn't be. I am one of those people . Oh! I have my limits. No kisses on the lips. (Just the nose.) No unnecessary clothing. (Unless someone else gives it to him.) Let me stop myself now. Consumer spending on pets is thought to be recession-proof. In fact, the American Pet Products Association (APPA) estimates that $45.4 billion will be spent on pets in the U.S. in 2009 (compared to $43.2 billion in 2008 and $41.2 billion in 2009). It seems that as we sacrifice cars, vacations, and new spring wardrobes, we still find space in the budget for Spot. My personal experience echoes the trend: I got Richie right around the time when I took a recession-induced step back from my own business. Suddenly, I had time to on my hands. Fortunately, my fear of boredom (a paralyzing fear for the tens of thousands of type A's like me who are suddenly out of work) was quickly replaced with The Puppy Project. Training. Socializing. Feeding. Belly rubbing. Walking. Potty. Potty. Potty. Really, it's a full time job! Yes, dogs are a lot of work , as anyone will remind you whenever the subject comes up. But they give back in spades with cuddliness, loyalty, companionship and never ending cheer. 63 percent of U.S. households own pets, and it's no surprise that Marley & Me was a bestseller. Despite the hopeless job market, I don't feel down. The APPA says that pets have been proven to help reduce stress and depression. They can even lower blood pressure. As for me, I've been so busy with Richie that I haven't had time for the blues. In between informational interviews and emailing resumes, I've got a puppy to walk! When I walk Richie through the neighborhood, take him to the park or hang out with him at daycare (it's so much fun to watch him play with the other puppies -- why would I want to leave?), there are countless other people just like me -- working age, no kids in sight -- hanging with their dogs like they've got all the time in the world. "Who are they?" I wondered. "Oh, they're all unemployed," the doggy daycare owner told me. Back in my mother's day, dogs were named Buddy, Skippy and Sparky. Richie's friends are Madelyn, Sydney, Ollie, Greta, Lucy, Chloe, Bella, Hailey and Brooklyn. We feed them vitamin-enriched diets, bring them on trips, and get professional portraits taken. In a time when we're supposed to be cutting back, spending on our pets gives us the same satisfaction as shopping for ourselves, yet it can somehow be justified. True, the designer clothing, monogrammed dinnerware, and even doggie yoga classes can get a little excessive. But I don't care to judge -- I don't have time! I've gotta take Richie to the groomer.
 

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)