Monday, May 11, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Barack Obama To Lisa Leslie: "I Love Tall Women" Top
Women's basketball star Lisa Leslie said President Barack Obama's first words to her when she met him during his Inauguration were, "You know I love tall women, right?" "He was just really nice to me, like 'Oh my gosh, you know I love tall women.' That's really what he said," Leslie recalled in an interview with ESPN. "The first lady, she was walking by, and he was like, 'Now you know I love tall women, right?'" More on Barack Obama
 
Black Rhino Hope: Conservationists Want To Move And Breed Rare Rhinos Top
NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya and Tanzania could relocate black rhinos to neighboring countries under a plan to increase the endangered species and boost tourism in the region, wildlife officials said Monday. Kenya has 603 of the 709 rhinos in eastern Africa and hopes to move some of them to Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda. Tanzania has virtually all the other rhinos. "If you have them (the rhinos) in one basket, for example, when a disease strikes or there is political instability in one country then you can loss them all," said Benson Okita, a senior scientist with the Kenya Wildlife Service. "If you spread them across the region then when something happens then you have a chance of rebreeding and increasing the population." The six eastern African countries hope to raise the black rhino population to 3,000 by 2039, Okita said. Wildlife authorities and other conservationists agreed to the plan after a one-day meeting in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi on Monday. They will hold further meetings over the next two years to pin down the details. Moving rhinos is a complicated process because of the animals' weight _ an adult can weigh more than a ton _ and the distance to be covered among the six countries will be vast. Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda also hope to boost the black rhino population by pooling together money for conservation as well as working together on anti-poaching programs and scientific research, said Okita. He also said countries like Burundi and Ethiopia, whose black rhino populations are extinct, can offer to swap animals with other countries that still have black rhino populations. "We are reducing our risk and we are spreading our risk. When you do this, you have a high chance of success," Okita told The Associated Press. The black rhino is only found in eastern and southern Africa. It is labeled one of the big five, a category of must-see animals while on safari _ the buffalo, elephant, leopard and lion being the others. The black rhino, which is actually gray, is hook-lipped and has a thick, hairless hide. It has two horns, the longer of which sits at the front of the nose. Rampant poaching decimated the black rhino population from a high of 65,000 across Africa in the 1970s. Southern Africa now has a population of 3,600 black rhinos. More on Kenya
 
Max Stier: Improve Federal Work Force Hiring Top
This was originally published as an exclusive commentary for Politico . President Barack Obama will fill nearly 600,000 government jobs, or close to a third of the current federal work force, during his four-year term, offering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remake our depleted and often embattled civil service. This hiring explosion, a product of baby boomer retirements, Obama's ambitious spending plans and the economic stimulus package could mirror the 1930s under Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1960s under John F. Kennedy, when a huge influx of highly capable people were brought into government and served the nation for decades. The president's economic recovery program is premised on short-term stimulus spending and tax cuts and multiyear public investments in health care, energy and education to create sustained growth. He must follow the same path for our government, hiring now to meet immediate needs and investing smartly in the next four years to create a revitalized federal work force for the long term. This opportunity comes at a pivotal time. The government is facing growing and complex demands and requires a specialized work force of engineers, scientists, accountants, information technology professionals, acquisition and contract experts, doctors, nurses and skilled employees in many other important professions. Warm bodies are not enough. We need talented and engaged civil servants to oversee the financial markets, monitor our food supplies, safeguard our computer networks, make smart procurement decisions, ensure our national security, protect the environment and manage effectively the billions of dollars in new infrastructure investments. Unfortunately, the federal public service has been downsized, demonized and outsourced in recent decades -- leaving it bereft of many critical skills and hard-pressed to properly manage programs and policies even in ordinary times. There are now huge numbers of well-educated professionals out of work, a new enthusiasm for public service created by Obama's election and increasing expectations that the government must be part of the solution to the nation's ills. Yet the chance to capitalize on this moment and begin to effectively recharge the diminished federal work force could easily be thwarted by a government personnel system that lacks the ability to attract, hire, train and retain the very best talent, and by a management structure that is antiquated and inflexible. The federal government is the nation's largest employer, but it hardly operates like a well-run business with regard to its work force management. We need to invest in our civil service in a way that makes it the role model for the world. The president has shown some encouraging signs. He has named a number of Cabinet secretaries publicly committed to good management, as well as a director of the Office of Personnel Management who understands the shortcomings. He has approved staffing increases in some long-starved areas, nominated a chief performance officer and issued executive orders on contracting reform and on making government more transparent. But Obama must do more, making it clear to agencies and his top political appointees that improving government operations and strengthening the work force is a top presidential priority -- and that the success of the administration depends on the health and ability of our federal government to execute and implement its initiatives. The president -- in some cases with the aid of Congress -- also should: • Create a governmentwide strategic plan that provides a road map for identifying and meeting current and future work force needs, including delineation of the appropriate roles for contractors and grantees. We must understand our work force requirements and skill gaps and use that information to recruit and hire the best talent. • Fix the nightmarish hiring process. Government needs to hire faster and better. The process needs to be easier for the applicant (who should be required to submit a résumé, rather than traverse an obstacle course), and it needs to be transparent. Applicants should know where they are in the process, just like they can track a FedEx package they've sent. • Ensure that government managers, now largely disconnected from the hiring process, take ownership of the talent hunt and have competent HR professionals to help them build a highly skilled and motivated work force that meets the country's needs. • Invest heavily in training workers and managers and foster leadership development. "The People Factor," a new book by Linda Bilmes and W. Scott Gould, makes a compelling case that a $10 billion investment in human capital would return nearly $300 billion to $600 billion through higher productivity, better contact management and a significant reduction in waste and duplication. The president must be clear that his long-term view of creating a prosperous nation also applies to improving the capacity and the talent of the civil service. The president's legacy will depend not only on the wisdom of his policies but also on the quality of people he brings into government. More on Retirement
 
David Geffen Made Offer To Buy 19% Stake In New York Times: Report Top
Last month, sources tell me, former Hollywood mogul David Geffen made an offer to buy the 19% stake in the Times held by hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, but no deal was struck. (Geffen and Harbinger declined to comment.). And a few weeks before that, Scott Galloway, a Web entrepreneur and New York University Business School professor who is one of two Harbinger appointees on the Times board, made an overture to Google co-founder Larry Page about Google buying the Times Co. Even though Google CEO Eric Schmidt has publicly lamented the state of the newspaper industry and dismissed the notion of Google investing in it, people involved said the company looked seriously at the opportunity before deciding to pass. More on Google
 
Coal Ash Clean-Up: EPA To Oversee TVA Disaster Recovery Top
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will oversee the cleanup of a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee that brought national attention to the environmental risks of storing the power plant byproduct. New EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday the federal agency is taking charge and "bringing to bear its resources and expertise" under the federal Superfund law. So far, the EPA has been assisting state regulators with the cleanup of 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash that spilled Dec. 22 from a retention pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant. The spill covered 300 acres with grayish, toxic muck, destroyed or damaged 40 homes, and stirred a national debate on regulating ash facilities around the country.
 
Sheri and Allan Rivlin: Could Heath Care Reform's Success Bring Failure Again? Top
Without a doubt, it is good news that the major players in America's health delivery system have come together on a strategy to reduce the cost of health care by 2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Millions of American families and businesses have been struggling to keep up with costs for health insurance that have been rising far faster than wages and prices in the rest of the economy. But is this announcement, made first by the White House, further evidence that the medicine, pharmaceutical, and health insurance industries, former opponents of changes to the health care system, are now Obama's allies in bringing about reform - or is this another effort to undermine reform? The 1993-94 Clinton health care reform effort was successful in at least one respect. The health care delivery system dramatically slowed the pace of price increases that had fueled demands for reform, until the reform failed. Then, for some reason, health care costs began rising again, fueling the renewed interest in health care reform that is driving this week's news. The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation has compiled a great deal of data about US health care and health insurance costs and made them available here . The pattern is pretty clear. The annual rate of change in national health expenditures (NHE) per person was 10.8% in 1988 the year George H.W. Bush won the White House. This was well over the annual rate of change in consumer prices (CPI) of 4.1%. The health spending inflation rate stayed above 10% per year until it dropped to 8% in 1991, the year Harris Wofford won an upset Senate race in Pennsylvania by calling for health care reform. The rate of inflation in health spending continued to decline each year as Bill Clinton campaigned for and won the White House (1992 = 7.1%), Hillary Clinton prepared her plan (1993 = 6.1%), and Congress debated and killed the plan (1994 = 4.1%). There may, of course, be sound economic reasons, rather than political ones, to explain why the pace of increases in health care costs was more than cut in half during this period. Throughout this period, much of the discussion coming from the White House centered on ways to extend coverage to more uninsured Americans, but as we discussed here , public opinion polls revealed that the driving force of voter interest in health reform was rising costs, just as it is today. To be fair, the managed care movement was in full swing in the early 1990s and this may account for some of the reduction in the rate of health care spending inflation, but at best this is a partial explanation for why one of the most vexing political challenges of the era, double digit increases in health care costs, would simply solve itself before the government could step in with a new regime. And it was temporary. As the recent update to the chart shows, rates stayed low through the next presidential election (1996 = 4.1%) and then started creeping back upward, jumping up in George W. Bush's first year (2001 = 7.5%) and reaching a peak of over 4 times the rate of change in consumer prices back up at 8% in 2002. This time around, the health care reform battle lines are far less clear. Many of the 1993 adversaries have come to the White House for "stakeholder meetings" and announced their support for reform in principle, while reserving the right to differ over specifics. The greatest area of difference has been over the question of whether the plan will include a "government option," a health insurance plan offered by the government that competes with private plans that some opponents see as a gateway to a government takeover of all of health care. Many veteran Washington watchers are starting to assume that there will be some health care reform this year, but the real question is whether it will include a government option or not. It remains an open question whether the recently-announced concern from hospitals, doctors, drug makers, and insurance companies about the rates they charge represents, on the one hand, a new spirit to coming together to solve national problems, or on the other hand, the smartest way to undercut public demand for inclusion of the "government option" in the reform proposal. More on Barack Obama
 
IG Report: Waterboarding Was Neither "Efficacious Or Medically Safe" Top
An inspector general report from May 2004 that is set to be declassified by the Obama White House will almost certainly disprove claims that waterboarding was only used in controlled circumstances to effective results. On Monday, the Washington Post reported the impending release of a May 7, 2004 IG report that, the paper added, would show that in several circumstances the techniques used to interrogate terrorist suspects "appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture" and did not produce desired results. It is difficult, the paper will reportedly conclude, "to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks." A fury of speculation ensued among a host of reporter-bloggers , who viewed the forthcoming information as the strongest proof to date that proclamations of waterboarding's usefulness were overblown. But there is no need to wait for the report's declassification. Information from its pages was already made public in the footnotes of the Office of Legal Counsel memos written by Steven Bradbury in 2005 and released by the current administration less than one month ago. And the conclusion seems pretty clear: Not only did interrogators, for a period of time, use waterboarding that was deemed by U.S. officials to be more frequent and intense than was medically safe, it did so to apparently limited results. As the Huffington Post reported back in mid-April, on a footnote on Page 41 of the Bradbury memo, it is written that "Agency interrogator[s]" had "in some cases" used the waterboard in a manner different than the way "used in the [the Marine Corps' Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape] SERE training." "The difference was in the manner in which the detainee's breathing was obstructed," read the footnote, citing the IG report. "At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator... applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose." Medical personnel at the detention facility protested the use of the waterboard in that form, stressing that "there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.'" The important things to take away from the footnote seem clear: for a period of time interrogators were using the waterboard with a "frequency and cumulative use" that had to be toned down. Moreover, they were doing it in a way that was determined to not be "efficacious." The officials tasked with crafting and implementing the interrogation methods adjusted the techniques to fit within the legal parameters set forth by the Bush Department of Justice. But for a period of time, they were operating in excess and outside those bounds.
 
Cantinero: Plastacine: An Upbeat Song for Downbeat Times Top
I was recently asked to contribute a song for a movie trailer, they wanted something that exemplified the human struggle, working against the machine but resolving in triumph, whilst remaining lyrically vague? You have to take every opportunity that comes your way, but this really stumped me. I consider myself to be the Anti-Jack Johnson, we both do catchy, but I am more "Shit that bus is about to crash into that wall and I cant believe no-one is watching" than "Hey its a sunny day and its gonna be alright". I mean, where to find something positive in the midst of the turmoil that is 2009? Well, I smoked some pot, took a long walk in the woods and came up with "Plasticine" a somewhat self-deprecating, feel-good song for our Summer of Discontent! Click below to hear the song!
 
Mark Nickolas: Khalid Sheik Mohammed: "I Gave A Lot Of False Information" To Make Torture Stop Top
For all the attention that the Bush administration torture memos have been receiving over past month, those documents pale in comparison to the revelations documented in the leaked 40-page report issued by the International Committee for the Red Cross following two rounds of private interviews it held with the 14 " high value detainees " held at Guantanamo Bay. If you want to know what our country did to those detainees -- especially Khalid Sheik Mohammed , Abu Zubaydah , and Rahim al-Nashiri (all three were waterboarded and suffered the worst treatment) -- then read the Red Cross report. It will leave you with a very sickening feeling about the depths to which President Bush and Vice President Cheney were willing to go to try to justify its disastrous war in Iraq (while the detainees were providing ample information during FBI interrogations about the 9/11 plot, the torture apparently began as they sought evidence about the non-existent al-Qaida/Iraq link) and how we morphed into the very monsters that we once condemned when it came to the actions of other nations. Of enormous importance is the fact that it is the Red Cross which is the body designated by the Geneva Conventions to supervise treatment of prisoners of war and to judge that treatment's legality. They are the ones that are charged to make the initial finding as to whether war crimes have been committed. Here's what the Red Cross declared in its report : The allegations of ill-treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture . In addition, many other elements of the ill-treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment. ...The totality of the circumstances in which the fourteen were held effectively amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty and enforced disappearance, in contravention of international law. So, according to the group which the U.S. has agreed would determine whether a country violated the Geneva Convention, they have found us guilty. Again, read the report if you want to be sickened over how we treated these despicable detainees. The Red Cross report was presented to President Bush in February 2007. As you might expect, no action was ever taken by the administration. Finally, the report ends with a summary of its interview with Khalid Sheik Mohammed that is worth remembering as former Vice President Cheney sadly continues to insist that torture worked, when it did not: Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base , and this story was from his original post, " Khalid Sheik Mohammed: "I Gave A Lot Of False Information" To Make Torture Stop "   More on Guantánamo Bay
 
Paul Snyder: Forget Everything You Thought You Knew About Star Trek Top
In some ways the tart title Star Trek seems ridiculous for the eleventh movie in a series plus six television series, almost ignoring the episodic nature of the franchise. Director J.J. Abrams and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are obviously and admittedly no Trekkies, and they bring back a young Kirk and Spock without exactly making it an origin story, in the alternate-dimensions/Marvel multiverse mode (ala Batman Begins ), which the series has never exactly done before. But despite the action-movie makeover Star Trek appears on its surface, the title suits because the movie is about the franchise. Anyone who's ever seen a Star Trek before knows its aesthetic feels weirdly dated for a series set in the distant future. Continuity with Gene Roddenbery's original creation has always trumped cool spacegear; even the small advances have been justified by setting subsequent series further ahead in spacetime. But the series has always been contemporary as an allegory, making analogy to current events, ethics and philosophy. The integrity of that analogy has always been more important than kinky duds, and its effect on ratings may be one reason the latest series "Enterprise" was cancelled. This Star Trek doesn't take enormous liberties with costume, starship or even Spock's hair, but it does action and storytelling in a dramatically different way. The way it's lensed and color-corrected instantly shout "this ain't your daddy's Star Trek ". Kirk and Spock do a lot of punching, for Kirk and Spock. This is Star Trek with the Beastie Boys in it. People get naked. Like Captain Kirk, the series is reborn young, sexy and a lot less sensible. The story centers around a tiny blob that creates black holes called 'red matter', which, having falling into the wrong hands, has led to the creation of... black holes. It's so silly a plot device they had to have Leonard Nimoy explain it to the audience. A far cry from the meditative Star Trek: The Motion Picture , this Star Trek 's moralizing doesn't hold a lot of red matter, so to speak. It gives an obligatory gloss over what it means to be Vulcan--whether intellect and emotion are mutually exclusive--but it's not a really important struggle in the world today, a superabundance of logic, whatever Maureen Dowd says. Despite its departure from the rest of the series, in some ways Star Trek is a paean to nerddom. Ironic as it is to be sentimental about a Vulcan, the film is most deeply felt in its reverence for Nimoy as Spock--plus he's given the best jokes at the end. There's an inexplicable scene where Scotty accidentally beams into the plumbing (because nerds love schematics, right?) and after a cheap laugh about fencing, Sulu saves the day with his incredible swordsmanship. Those little episodes are done with unabashed style, giddy with invention, and they reinforce the fact that Star Trek has its nerdy cult for a reason: it's great entertainment. But the biggest shift is that Star Trek , as a prequel, reworks characters and events in the Star Trek universe, even to the prohibition of events from previous movies. Entire planets don't exist anymore. We can infer that Spock gets laid. More importantly, if Shatner isn't Kirk, what is Kirk? Apparently being raised by a single mother has made him flamboyantly angsty. And the rest of the crew: is eastern European really an archetype? Is that why Chekov is suddenly a child prodigy? Just mention a wormhole and the audience forgives these leaps, but it makes very clear that they're not continuity problems they're reinventions, that the franchise has nowhere to go but everywhere, and that this isn't meant to be the series' origin story so much as a re-origin story. Star Trek actually does go where the series has gone before... but it boldly goes. If there is a cohesive philosophy underwriting Star Trek , it's Kirk's ethos of discovering a way to win whatever the odds, and that sometimes the best logic is to behave erratically. And as the new Kirk fights harder and thinks less, so does Star Trek , and it certainly finds its way to win: beating expectations, the box office, and inaugurating a new era for the franchise. While it isn't the series' most nuanced message, its masterstroke is that the new crew's brash ethos is completely endemic of the film itself, which makes it a hugely satisfying package.
 
Evan Derkacz: Carrie Prejean, God's Prophet or Porn Star? Top
Feminist religion scholar Paula Cooey penned this piece for Religion Dispatches . Here's a snippet: Bad Theology Leads to Bad Ethics For my part, beauty pageants ceased to be of interest some time ago. In my opinion they are exercises in the banality of soft-core pornography; a feminist critique that appeared over thirty years ago. So it would normally be ridiculous to weigh in on this brouhaha, except that in this case the ethical and theological implications of opposition to same-sex marriage--always in the name of God and Christian faith--are horrible for those who don't agree with her position, at least some of whom understand themselves to be Christian. Furthermore, the ironies and inconsistencies that riddle her claims and those of her defenders reveal a deep ambivalence toward human embodiment that extends, beyond the fatuousness of their assertions and their religious loyalties, to the culture at large. Of course, each citizen has guaranteed rights to religious expression and free speech, but what are the implications of what we express in terms of what we actually practice? And how do our practices affect one another? In the last analysis, this is a matter of bad theology and cultural hypocrisy leading to bad ethics. Read the rest HERE . More on Miss California
 
Jessica Gross: Chico Hamilton, Octogenarian, Releases New Jazz Album Top
Chico Hamilton answered the door of his midtown east penthouse in a big blue sweater and grey sweatpants. The apartment -- equipped with drum sets and keyboards -- was cozy, unassuming, like Hamilton. Unassuming, especially in light of his stature. A jazz drummer and composer, Hamilton became a band leader at 35. Now 88, with a shuffle and a cane, Hamilton has played with stars including Sammy Davis Jr., Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday; composed songs for The Sweet Smell of Success ; launched Eric Dolphy's career; and recorded more than 50 albums. And, shuffle or no, he's still playing and composing. Hamilton just released a new CD, Twelve Tones of Love , for which he wrote 15 of 18 tracks. He teaches music at the New School, and two of the album's tracks feature Jose James, a student of Hamilton's with a voice like honey. Chico Hamilton's EPK . Hamilton came upon the drums almost by accident. In his elementary school in 1920s L.A., music was compulsory, and Hamilton started on the clarinet. When his family raised the $2 needed to rent the instrument after two years of saving, Hamilton discovered he "just couldn't play it." His older brother Oren, though, played the drums, so when he graduated from grade school and left his drums behind, Hamilton figured he'd give them a try. Why did Hamilton, of all the drum-playing kids in that school, bloom into a jazz great? "God made me different," he said. Hamilton's faith -- in both God and jazz itself -- is fundamental to his process. When he and his band record a song, they keep the first take nine times out of 10. "If the feeling is there, I'm satisfied. I don't care if I have wrong notes or things like that -- it don't bother me." Playing, for Hamilton, is organic; it's emotion, not technicalities. When he sits down to write, sometimes nothing comes out. Other times, the melodies flow from his fingers. "I believe that music is one of God's wills, and God's will will be done," he said. "Can you imagine this world without music? That'll stun you. That'll make you think, right?" Above all, Hamilton's jazz is about him having a good time. "I don't make music for people. I make music for music's sake," he said. "I don't care where I make it. I could make music in the men's room, it don't matter." To download Twelve Tones of Love , go here . To listen to more jazz by Chico Hamilton, visit his MySpace page .
 
Pakistanis Prioritize Economy Over Terrorism: Poll Top
As the Pakistani military pressed its campaign to root out Taliban militants from three districts northwest of the capital, a new poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis does not consider terrorism to be the most important issue facing the country, but rather the economy. More on Pakistan
 
Mike Alvear: How to tell her she's rubbish in bed. Top
She's so bad you fall asleep halfway through her moans. How does a man bring up such sensitive topic without getting kicked to the curb? By avoiding a conversation at all costs. Let's face it, we men suck at talking. We always end up buying ourselves a late-night spot on the couch. I always suggest the Foreplay Forum instead. Get naked in bed and ask all the questions you want her to ask you. Like, "What are three things you'd like more of? Show me how you want me to go south on you. Show me the best way to touch you." Test-drive her suggestions by asking, "Like this or like that? Harder or softer? Slower or faster?" Once she sees how much interest you take in *her* pleasure, she'll be a lot more receptive to yours. Now, if she's got an awful "stick-it-in-I've-got-clothes-to-fold" attitude, then you have to talk. Where? Anywhere but the bedroom. Too threatening. When? Not after sex. Aim for mellow time--like a Sunday morning when you're sipping coffee and pretending to read the New York Times . How? Casually. No pronouncements like, "Honey, We've Got To Talk About Our Sex Lives." That's a guaranteed way of going from bad sex to no sex. Instead, frame it as a desire to take both your sex lives to the next level. Keep things positive and for God's sakes, don't be honest. She doesn't need to know that the National Hurricane Center gave your last session a Category 5 Yawn. And don't think you can tell her what she's bad at as long as you tell her what she's good at. She'll never forgive you. When you get down to specifics, tell her what you want more of, not less of. Bottom line: Don't cop an attitude when you can cop a feel. How to tell HIM he's rubbish in bed.
 
Sylvia Sukop: She Said Yes, but the Government Said No Top
"She said yes!" read the happy subject header on my email to friends announcing that my girlfriend Bonnie and I had become engaged on May 15, 2008, the same day the California Supreme Court handed down its historic ruling in favor of marriage equality. I'm not known for wasting time and, as far as civil rights are concerned, too much time has already been lost. By now the struggle for full recognition of loving same-sex relationships is literally ancient. Consider Greece. The birthplace of democracy is arguably also the birthplace of gay identity. But despite its rich historical and mythological legacy of poets, philosophers, artists, athletes and warriors who celebrated love between members of the same sex, Greece last week legally invalidated its first-ever lesbian and gay marriages. Like his San Francisco counterpart Gavin Newsom four years earlier, Tassos Aliferis, progressive mayor of the small Greek Island of Tilos, had risked his political career in June 2008, deliberately challenging discriminatory laws by issuing marriage licenses without gender restrictions. The nearly 4,000 San Francisco marriages lasted less than six months; conducted in February and March of 2004, they were annulled that August by the California Supreme Court. The state's marriage window opened again, albeit briefly, between June 16 and November 4, 2008, allowing some 18,000 same-sex couples to wed, though the fate of those marriages remains uncertain. (Because my fiancée and I wanted a proper engagement period rather than a shotgun wedding date imposed on us by Proposition 8's presence on the November 4th ballot, we decided not rush down the aisle, and now may have missed our chance.) The two Greek marriages survived less than 11 months before being annulled on May 4, 2009; those couples now intend to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Mayors Newsom and Aliferis (whose political careers are incidentally still going strong) both acted in defense of basic human rights. As for whether the courts will ultimately do the same, the jury is still out. Here in California, the same Supreme Court that banned marriage discrimination on that happy May 15th last year now seems poised to enshrine it in our State Constitution, with a most-likely favorable ruling on Proposition 8 expected by the end of May this year. Are we or are we not on the threshold of winning our rights for good? Or, for so many of us, will marriage remain a mirage? The reality is a shifting patchwork of marriage laws across the United States, mirroring a similar patchwork and disproportionate influence of conservative religious ideologies around the world. For those of us in committed relationships seeking legal recognition and protection, it's an emotionally draining, two-steps-forward, one-step-back process, state by state, country by country. Despite continuing progress, as of this writing only five U.S. states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont) and seven countries (Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden) offer identical legal marriage to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Gay rights leaders are confident that time is on our side, that the younger generation supports us, and that marriage equality will ultimately prevail. Last summer I made my fifth visit to Greece, part engagement celebration, part research trip for a book I'm working on. When I interviewed the two newlywed Greek couples in Athens, two gay men and two lesbians, we shared in the movement's sense of optimism. Their marriages and my engagement were still fresh and cause for celebration. But now our freedom to marry hangs once again in the balance. I picture giant Justice wearing her blindfold while couples like Bonnie and me and our Greek friends get tossed about on her scales, tipping this way and that, forced to endure the very opposite of the security and respect that we are seeking and that we deserve. But we keep holding on, trusting Justice -- and our democratically elected governments -- to get it right in the end. Author's note: Today, May 11, 2009, is the 50th anniversary of my parents' wedding, and I dedicate this writing to their loving memory. More on Greece
 
Glass-Steagall Act: The Senators And Economists Who Got It Right Top
The footage of him speaking on the Senate floor has become something of a cult flick for the particularly wonky progressive. The date was November 4, 1999. Senator Byron Dorgan, in a patterned red tie, sharp dark suit and hair with slightly more color than it has today, was captured only by the cameras of CSPAN2. "I want to sound a warning call today about this legislation," he declared, swaying ever so slightly right, then left, occasionally punching the air in front of him with a slightly closed fist. "I think this legislation is just fundamentally terrible." The legislation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (alternatively known as Gramm Leach Bliley), which allowed banks to merge with insurance companies and investment houses. And Dorgan was, at the time, on a proverbial island with his concerns. Only eight senators would vote against the measure -- lionized by its proponents, including senior staff in the Clinton administration and many now staffing President Obama, as the most important breakthrough in the worlds of finance and politics in decades. "It was more like a tidal wave in 1999," the North Dakota Democrat recalled of that vote in an interview with the Huffington Post. "You've seen the roll call. We didn't really have to deal with push back because they had such a strong, strong body of support for what they call modernization that the vote was never in doubt... The title of the bill was 'The Financial Modernization Act.' And so if you don't want to modernize, I guess you're considered hopelessly old fashioned." Ten years later, Dorgan has been vindicated. His warning that banks would become "too big to fail" has proven basically true in the wake of the current financial crisis. He seems eerily prescient for claiming then that Congress would "look back ten years time and say we should not have done this." But he wasn't entirely alone. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin and Richard Bryan also cast nay votes. As did Sen. Russ Feingold, who, in a statement from his office, recalled that "Gramm-Leach-Bliley was just one of several bad policies that helped lead to the credit market crisis and the severe recession it helped cause." The late Sen. Paul Wellstone also opposed the bill, warning at the time that Congress was "about to repeal the economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place." Outside government, doomsday-ing over the repeal of Glass-Steagall seemed far more palatable a position to take. Edward Kane, a finance professor at Boston College, warned that "nobody will be able to discipline a Citigroup" once the legislation passed, because the banks would be too big and the issues too complex. "It made it possible for the very big firms to take risks in away that would require a great deal of investment risk and time for regulatory agencies," Kane recalled ten years later. "You had people who could basically outplay the regulators." Jeffrey Garten, who at the time had left his post as Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade at the Clinton White House, wrote in the New York Times that if these new "megabanks" were to falter, "they could take down the entire global financial system with them." "Sooner or later, perhaps starting with the next serious economic downturn," he wrote, "the US will have to confront one of the great challenges of our times: how does a sovereign nation govern itself effectively when politics are national and business is global?" Consumer protection advocate Ralph Nader, meanwhile, was far more succinct in his skepticism. "We will look back at this and wonder how the country was so asleep," he said at the time. "It's just a nightmare." When the Senate voted to pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley by a vote of 90-8, it reversed what was, for more than six decades, a framework that had governed the functions and reach of the nation's largest banks. No longer limited by laws and regulations commercial and investment banks could now merge. Many had already begun the process, including, among others, J.P. Morgan and Citicorp. The new law allowed it to be permanent. The updated ground rules were low on oversight and heavy on risky ventures. Historically in the business of mortgages and credit cards, banks now would sell insurance and stock. Nevertheless, the bill did not lack champions, many of whom declared that the original legislation -- forged during the Great Depression -- was both antiquated and cumbersome for the banking industry. Congress had tried 11 times to repeal Glass-Steagall. The twelfth was the charm. "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy." "I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.). "The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.). "If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive." Looking back, members of Congress have tried to downplay the significance of their support. One high-ranking Hill aide notes that his boss, who voted for the bill, did so because banks were already beginning to merge with investment houses. It should be noted, additionally, that Dodd and Schumer were able to hammer out, as part of the legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to extend lines of credit to predominantly minority areas. Officials from the Clinton White House, meanwhile, shift between defensiveness and repentance. One former high-ranking official argued that while the legislation changed the balance between a bank's commercial and non-commercial activities, the problem was not necessarily the blurring of those lines. "What really brought the economy to its knees was the incredibly over-leveraged and unregulated risks taken by these non commercial banks." In short: there wasn't enough oversight. "The White House task force meetings covered a whole series of these issues," said the official. "A lot of people raised serious questions about how far we were going. And it wasn't just here. There were a whole series of issues around the same time in which the Treasury was always promoting the interest of big finance. It was true under [Bob] Rubin and at least as true under Larry [Summers]." Not everyone looks back at that vote with regret. The repeal of the law, they argue, was responsible for the sharp growth that the economy experienced in the 1990s. Moreover, the argument goes, if not for the over-leveraging of credit in the housing market the gut shot that many major banks endured could have been avoided. That said, the concept of regulation has, over the past decade, taken on a drastic shift in public perception, from being viewed as a hindrance to economic growth to a guardrail from future disaster. And spearheading that effort at revamping the regulatory system is the same senator who foresaw the problem in the first place. "I'm from a little small town of 300 people in North Dakota," Dorgan told the Huffington Post. "Where I grew up, we have seen a history... of some of the larger banks and difficulties farmers have had in dealing with some of the larger banks over the last century or so. And so, my own view about these issues is that there needs to be, to the extent that you can, create a free market that works with price competition and product differentiation and so on, but there needs to be a referee with a whistle and a striped shirt, I mean the free market sometimes needs referees." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Sean L. McCarthy: The SNL FAQ: #34.22 (Justin Timberlake) Top
It's late. You have questions about last weekend's Saturday Night Live. We have answers. Did they open with a political sketch? YES. Will Forte, as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, revealed that the feds had given the nation's banks a written test in addition to the "stress test" to see if they could remain viable. And some of the banks didn't take the test seriously enough, it seemed. About as funny as one could make a sketch about bankers. How did the host do, and did he/she do anything outrageously funny? Justin Timberlake did exactly everything you'd expect from him -- which is both great and kinda predictable. Take your pick. Do you love JT? Then you loved him on SNL. But he did essentially reprise just about everything you had seen him do in his previous hosting gigs there. Lots of talent. Lots of energy. Little in the surprise department. Who played President Obama? With the real-life Obama cracking jokes and getting ribbed at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday night in D.C., perhaps this was a good time for an Obama-free SNL. Or the worst time?! Was there a digital short? YES. JT and Andy Samberg produced a follow-up to their award-winning "Dick in a Box" with a gift for Mother's Day, "Mother Lover." Yes, they slept with each other's mothers for Mother's Day. The twist: Susan Sarandon and Patricia Clarkson played the moms! Was there a fake ad? YES. Also Mother's Day related, Jason Sudeikis helped sell a Mom Celebrity Translator. It was funny because it's usually true. Did the musical guest lip-sync or otherwise do something worth mentioning? Ciara performed two songs, one with Justin Timberlake. Good. Let's move on. Did my favorite character return? YES. Kristen Wiig's Target Lady was back to annoy the customers, but this time with a friend in "Peg" (Timberlake). We also saw the return of the Barry Gibb Talk Show (Timberlake with Jimmy Fallon), and Timberlake & Forte teamed up for a new spin on an old sketch, this time singing about Plasticville instead of Homelessville or Omeletville. Were there any celebrity cameos? YES. In addition to Sarandon, Clarkson and Fallon, we also got a trio of Star Trek actors onto the Weekend Update desk, with Zachary Quinto, Chris Pine and Leonard Nimoy promoting their movie. Did any celebrities get impersonated? YES. Jimmy Fallon returned to SNL to play Barry Gibb with Timberlake as Bee Gee Robin. That sketch had "celebrity" guests but were overshadowed so much by the "Gibbs" that you'd be hard-pressed to remember them. Did any politicians get impersonated? YES. In addition to Forte's Geithner, Bill Hader as disgraced former New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer and Fred Armisen as current Gov. David Patterson returned to the Update desk to tell more New Jersey jokes, and Wiig appeared briefly as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. For the full recap and analysis of this episode of SNL, click here . More on Timothy Geithner
 
Janice Taylor: Elizabeth Edwards: From Public Humiliation to New Reality Top
People say that we only get 'what we can handle,' that there are 'lessons to be learned,' and some simply say that God works in mysterious ways. I'm not so sure about any of that, but what I do know is that when the bottom falls out, when the sky falls in, when the rug is ripped out from under, when our spirits have plummeted 10,000 leagues beneath the sea, we can either dig deep, find a way to move forward, grow, and cultivate an "I can take this on; I can get through this" attitude -- however painful -- or we can fall into the abyss. With that in mind, I am humbled and at the same time curious by Elizabeth Edwards' new reality and the way in which she negotiates her way through its ever-changing, enormously complex and multi-layered landscape. As if she hasn't had enough 'life lessons,' in particular the loss of her dear son, Wade, she now endures a series of new losses -- her health, a most sacred relationship, and her reality. I am sure Elizabeth has her meltdown moments (or even days or weeks), and well she should let it out, but instead of sending out invites to a pity party, she writes (without a ghost writer, straight from her own heart) her book Resilience which offers a lesson. Elizabeth Edwards' life was on track, and she was steaming forward on all eight cylinders. From a place of incredible abundance and achievement, with the kind of status and prestige that people only dream of, her journey took an unexpected hair-pin turn, and suddenly she was plunged into a pit of shame, confusion, sadness, betrayal, loss and illness, all very much in the public eye. Inevitably, there are for all of us, new realities to cultivate -- to tend, to plow, to grow. Even when all systems are a glowin' happy, life can and sometimes does take an unexpected twist. Life is precarious. And it makes us wonder... ... At the end of the day, what can we count on; what's it all about? Answer: Character -- The capacity to feel hopeful, to hold to a deep conviction that there is meaning in life, and to have a sense of connection to the bigger picture, whether it is God, or family or community. Spread the word... not the icing, Janice Janice Taylor is a Life & Wellness Coach, the author of Our Lady of Weight Loss and All Is Forgiven, Move On. Visit Janice: Our Lady of Weight Loss Janice's Beliefnet Blog . Janice LIVE at Omega Holistic Institute "Janice Taylor is a certain kind of kooky genius." ~ O , the Oprah Magazine "mindful eating in humorous yet earnest style . . . ." ~ the New York Times. Illustration by Janice Taylor More on John Edwards
 
Steele: Should Coleman Concede? "Hell, No" Top
Embattled RNC Chair Michael Steele let his 100th day at the GOP helm slip by with little fanfare amid last weekend's White House Correspondents Dinner festivites. But in an interview after the gala, Steele said that if the state Supreme Court doesn't rule ex-Sen. Norm Coleman the winner, "then it's going to the federal courts." Asked if Coleman should concede if entertainer Al Franken (D) is deemed the winner, Steele said, "No, hell no. Whatever the outcome, it's going to get bumped to the next level. This does not end until there's a final ruling that speaks to whether or not those votes that have not been counted should be counted. And Norm Coleman will not, will not jump out of this race before that." More on Michael Steele
 
Glamour Magazine: Anne Hathaway, Kate Winslet More Glamorous Than Michelle Obama Top
Glamour magazine selected its top 50 most glamorous women of the year for the June issue, based on a panel of judges and online reader polls. Of course, we're barely halfway through the year and a yearlong retrospective seems a bit presumptuous. But it's the winner's circle that leaves us perplexed. More on Michelle Obama
 
Mitchell Bard: In Choosing Souter's Replacement, Obama Should Follow the Lead of ... George W. Bush? Top
If someone asked me what was the single most important thing I learned in law school, it would take me all of a nanosecond to answer: U.S. Supreme Court justices are far more powerful in shaping American society than the average person realizes. As these officials are appointed and not elected, and serve for life, the selection of a justice to the Court is one of the most important decisions a president will make during his time in office. As a former constitutional law instructor at one of the top law schools in the country, I have full confidence that President Obama understands the immense importance of selecting the right replacement for David Souter. My hope is that as he goes through the process, he uses as his guide the most unlikely of mentors: George W. Bush. No, of course I don't want Obama to opt for the kind of right-wing, religiously conservative, out-of-touch-with-the-values-of-the-American-people jurists that Bush selected. But there are (at least) three important lessons Obama should take from Bush's two forays into choosing a justice for the Supreme Court: 1. The Younger, the Better When we elect a president, we know that in four years, if we think we've made a mistake, we can take a do-over (just ask George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter). And no matter how popular a chief executive is, after eight years, that leader is gone. But Supreme Court justices serve for life. Consider, for example, that William O. Douglas was sworn into office before the U.S. entered World War II (April 17, 1939) and served until after the fall of Saigon (November 12, 1975). During Douglas's stint on the Court, he watched the beginning and end of three wars, and the country went from radio to color television, from ship service to Europe to trans-Atlantic flights, and from segregation to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (not to mention from African Americans not allowed in the Major Leagues to an African-American player becoming the all-time home run leader ). In other words, if a president plays his cards correctly, his choice of a justice can leave an impact on the country for decades after he or she leaves office. This is something that Bush seemingly realized. Chief Justice Roberts was only 50 when he took his oath of office, meaning that it's plausible he will serve for 25 years or more. Bush's second appointment, Samuel Alito, was a bit older, 56, but that means that 20 years on the bench is entirely possible for him. So two of the Court's nine votes will be in the hands of right-wing extremists when Malia Obama becomes eligible to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2023. Obama can go Bush one better and appoint a justice in his or her early to middle 40s, giving the candidate the opportunity to shape American policy for 30 to 40 years. This approach would not be unprecedented. Extreme right-winger Clarence Thomas was a mere 43 when the first President Bush selected him in 1991. If George W. Bush was able to influence the Court for the next 20 years, Obama certainly should do the same. 2. The Further to the Left, the Better I'm all for Obama's bipartisan efforts, even if they have yielded little in return. That's because I'm all for taking the high ground. In the end, I feel like it pays off, with the electorate, it would appear, increasingly able to sniff out nonsense. And I fully realize that whenever critics (and I've been guilty of this) have urged Obama to act more confrontationally than he has, in the end, his measured approach has usually paid off. But this is different. And yes, I'm sure observers have written that about every issue Obama has faced. But the selection of a new Supreme Court justice really is objectively different. Unlike Congress, which has some balance to it, with an ideological breakdown that is at least somewhat in sync with the ideological outlook of the country, the Supreme Court has been completely skewed by the Republican domination of the presidency over the last 28 years. Right now, there are four extremely conservative justices on the Court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Antonin Scalia) with values that are, based on virtually every poll and recent electoral results, far to the right of the average American. A fifth justice, Anthony Kennedy, votes with the four arch conservatives more often than not. And these justices are on nothing short of a crusade to remake the country in their narrow-minded image, running roughshod over decades of precedents in the process. (A sampling: In the last two years, the Court has overturned a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. while finding, for the first time, an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, reversing a 70-year-old precedent to the contrary; explicitly overturned a 90-year-old antitrust precedent in a decision favoring big corporations; and essentially gutted the long-held exclusionary rule for using evidence in criminal trials obtained during illegal searches; not to mention issuring very conservative decisions on issues like campaign finance reform, partial-birth abortion and collective bargaining.) The Republicans love to talk about the sins of liberal "activist judges," but the Roberts court has shown what a dishonest farce that charge really is. In its disregard for precedent and its completely open pursuit of a right-wing agenda, the current four extreme conservatives on the bench are every bit as "active" as any progressive judge in crafting the law to attain the result they are looking for. What Republicans really don't want is judges who don't share their conservative views. They are certainly allowed that point of view, but to attach an epithet to the progressive position is nothing short of a gutter campaign strategy. Conservative judges have no moral high ground; they are no less advocates for a point of view than their progressive colleagues are. Only, thanks to 20 years of Republican presidential rule since 1981, there are a lot more conservatives than progressives on federal benches. And it's time for that to change. To balance the extreme-right slant of the Court, an injection of some strong, progressive voices is needed. A moderate approach here just won't work. Bush didn't look for any moderation at all in his selections. He chose two extremely conservative federal appellate court judges to continue their right-wing ways on the Supreme Court. Obama should take the exact same approach, instilling progressives to balance out Bush's conservative picks. 3. He/She Better Be Qualified Once someone is nominated to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court, that person has only won half the battle. To actually make it to onto the Court, the nominee has to secure approval in the U.S. Senate. There is no doubt that senators opposed to a nominee's political slant have tried to keep that nominee off of the Court, but the experiences of Bush's selections are instructive as to what a minority in the Senate can and cannot accomplish when the president shares a party with the majority. When Bush nominated Roberts, it was pretty clear he was a conservative in the Scalia mode. Sure, the nominees always do a song and dance about having no set ideas on issues like abortion or other hot-button topics, but it's not like there is much of a mystery as to what the nominee believes, especially when, like in the case of Roberts, the nominee is a sitting federal appellate judge who had written and joined in opinions. But Roberts had a stellar record of career achievement. He is a graduate of Harvard, for both undergrad and law school, and he clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (a major court that covers New York) and then-Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court, before working for the Justice Department and eventually making his way to an appointment as a judge on the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an important court in examining big federal issues. When another opening on the court came up shortly thereafter (Roberts had originally been nominated to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but when Chief Justice Rehnquist died less than two months later, Bush shifted Roberts to that position), Bush went for someone with far less impressive constitutional law credentials, White House Counsel Harriet Miers. A graduate of Southern Methodist University Law School and a former commercial litigation partner with a Dallas law firm, before becoming part of Bush's inner circle, Miers's career had certainly been successful, but it was not the kind of background one would look for in a Supreme Court justice. The result was that there was an opening for the Democrats to oppose the appointment of Miers. And less than four weeks after the nomination, she was forced to withdraw when it was clear her approval by the Senate was far from certain. Bush's next selection, Alito, was more like Roberts. With more than 15 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and a resume that included serving as a clerk for a Third Circuit judge and working as an assistant U.S. attorney, assistant attorney general and assistant solicitor general, Alito was unquestionably qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. So he was able to make it through the Senate, with four Democrats joining all but one Republican in confirming his selection. The lesson is that Bush was able to get a candidate that was ideologically repugnant to Democrats through the confirmation process, but he could not succeed with someone not viewed as qualified. (As an aside, I am not defending Alito and Roberts. If I had been a senator, I would have voted against both of their appointments based on their extremely conservative approach to the law. My point is strictly one on strategy: That it's harder to oppose a qualified candidate based on ideology than it is to go against a nominee based on a lack of credentials.) With Democrats controlling 59 votes (and maybe 60 if Al Franken is seated) in the Senate, the lesson of Bush's appointments is clear: Obama needs to select someone with an unassailably qualified resume. While a progressive candidate should be able to make it through confirmation despite angering the Senate minority (as Roberts and Alito did), a lack of qualification is the only lifeline to the Republicans in bringing the choice down. If President Obama follows George W. Bush's lead in choosing a replacement for David Souter -- a young progressive with a traditionally impressive resume -- he will have done a good job in carrying out his responsibilities. And it may be the last time he will ever be able to look to Bush for help on how to do something right. More on Barack Obama
 
Katy Tur, Keith Olbermann's Girlfriend, Joins The Weather Channel Top
Katy Tur, the 25-year-old girlfriend of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, has joined The Weather Channel as a tornado-chaser. Tur will join Vortex2 host Mike Bettes as he conducts a five-week field experiment to "explore the origins, structure and evolution of tornadoes." Tur, who was a freelance reporter for New York's CW affiliate (WPIX) in 2008, will join the program as a Digital Journalist. On Friday, Bettes interviewed Tur about her feelings on the new assignment and coined a nickname for her — the "Tur-nado chaser." From their Q&A: Mike : What did your family say when you told them you were going chasing? Katy : "Awesome! Can we come?" Tur's dad, Bob Tur, is a legendary Los Angeles helicopter reporter. Olbermann denied any speculation that he assisted Tur in getting the Weather Channel gig, telling TVNewser (the same outlet/author he trashed in a DailyKos post ) that Tur was hired based on talent alone. "Anybody who suggests so is misinformed, and/or sadly unaware that in this time when the industry is collapsing around us, nobody gets a job based on 'influence,' only talent," he said. NBC acquired The Weather Channel with private equity firms Blackstone and Bain Capital last summer. More on Keith Olbermann
 
M. Zuhdi Jasser: Getting Real on Shariah Top
Recently, the Obama administration released a message to senior Pentagon officials instructing that the term "Global War on Terror" is no longer to be used. It is to be replaced with "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO). Set aside the flashbacks to meaningless phrases employed by "Big Brother" in Orwell's 1984, are we really now of the opinion that there is no common unifying ideology which hatches the radical Islamist groups attacking us? Many of us have been proclaiming for quite a while that the "War on Terror" (WoT) was obviously misnamed. A nation cannot have a military engagement (a war) against a tactic. It would have been no different to have called WWII a "War on Blitzkrieg." We were rather more clearly fighting the ideologies of Nazism and fascism. But OCO is a major step backward from WoT. The current conflict can also be defined against an ideology. It is certainly not about random acts of violence. There are some obvious and definable common ideologies and goals of the perpetrators of radical Islamism. Their primary unifying cause is the overriding ideology and dream of Islamism -- the goal of establishing the Islamic state. Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbullah, HAMAS, the Taliban, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Lashkar e-Taiba, Jamaat Islamiya, Muhajiroon or the Wahhabis of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to name a few, these groups all have common core ideologies driving their radical movements. The commonality of these groups is simply put -- radicalized Islamism. Radical because they seek "any means necessary" including terror -- "the targeting of noncombatants." They are "Islamist" because their ultimate goal is the establishment of various forms of "Islamic states." Thus we can no longer ignore the fact that non-radical (non-violent) Islamists who seek a peaceful means of establishing an Islamic state are also part of a global movement which stands against western secular liberal democracies. The Islamic state is a nation-state based upon the premise that the rule of law of the nation is guided by the legal constructs of Shariah . Shariah is the body of laws of Islamic jurisprudence as interpreted and enacted by clerics and scholars ( ulemaa ) of Islamic law. To Islamists, societies like ours in the United States based in "one law" derived from reason and a human document are an anathema and represent the ideology of "Godlessness." Recently on these pages on April 24, 2009, Imam Faisal Rauf made a brief dismissive argument that somehow in his own understanding, interestingly as an expert and an imam (Arabic for "teacher"), Shariah is a benign concept that no one should fear. Sorry but as devout Muslims, my family came to the U.S. to have the freedom to choose our own religious advisors. Most Muslims actually want to steer clear of any public legal system run by clerics ( Imams ) who make interpretations of Shariah not for individuals but for the collective--thus imposing Shariah . He stated: It is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about the Laws of Nature and Nature's God... What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. Where there is conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with the moral imperative of the Shariah . What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law. The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter. Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam. One must first congratulate the imam for having the courage which few leading Muslims have had to actually raise these ideas on Shariah in mainstream media. However, his hypothesis cannot be left unanswered on this blog. To do so would be to deny the core struggle, arguably the most important element of the battle of ideas between the West and Islamism in the 21st century. This battle is only just beginning within the very soul of Islam as it is practiced by Muslims in every nation across the globe. If Imam Rauf's brief summary of Shariah teaches anything, it reveals the depth of denial and apologetics in our Muslim faithful and especially among our clerics and their fantasies on Shariah versus the reality. To a Muslim, Shariah is certainly by definition "God's law." But once it is interpreted and enacted by Muslims it becomes human law regardless of what we may call it. Rauf's comparison to our U.S. Constitution implies some kind of synonymous balance of powers in a system based in Shariah . First, no real example exists on earth of such a codified and functional interpretation of Shariah in any governmental system. And even if there were, would Imam Rauf want to live as a Muslim minority in the United States if his rights were similarly "promised" by a Christian majority which had a semblance of balance of powers in a system guided by the religious laws of the majority? Comparing the universality of our American system based in one secular law to a legal system based in the interpretations of clerics like Rauf is either uninformed or intentionally deceptive. Not only is Shariah centuries behind such checks and balances, but no matter how "balanced," it is still theocratic where American law is secular. Mr. Rauf oddly dismisses imams who disagree with him as rare aberration of a "firebrand" quality. Are lay Muslims to entrust the interpretation of Shariah to the whim that clerics like Rauf will lead the interpretations rather than the "firebrand" clerics Rauf offhandedly minimizes? Actually many of the tried and true Islamist imams are not "firebrand" but rather thoughtful in their preference of the Islamist system of Shariah over the universal secular system based in reason. That is the danger of theocracy. Lay people and non-Muslims alike are left to the devices of clerical powers. In what can sadly only be described as denial, he ignores the fact that Shariah is not a secret, it fills mosques, Islamic bookstores, and madrassas (schools) across the world. His generalization of what Muslims actually believe about Shariah has not been studied empirically and may actually be true. But to whatever Muslims he is referring in his generalizations about "what Muslims want" are certainly not from the leading "Islamic institutions" or "Islamic thought leaders" around the world in Cairo (i.e Al-Azhar University) or Saudi Arabia. It is our mission at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy to publicly counter and debate political Islam (Islamism) and the harmful integration of the political imam and Shariah into governmental law. While many Muslims may practice a "modernized Islam," we have very little intellectual material to counter the current state of Shariah . Rauf's assertions come out of an assumption that Muslims want to live in an "Islamic state" run by laws which are Shariah or mimic Shariah . It is quite revealing that Imam Rauf is silent on the preference of most Americans of secular law over theocracy no matter how "balanced" his version of Shariah may be. Rauf's endorsement of Shariah runs against our own Establishment Clause, the separation of church and state -- in his case "mosque and state." Shariah is not just a misapplied penal code as Rauf would suggest. Just review the Cairo Declaration of Human rights of 1991 and try to explain why all the so-called "Islamic" countries of the OIC insisted on signing that document instead of the truly universal United Nations' Declaration on Human Rights . The differences between the two documents are an affront to human rights of all citizens and especially the individuals living in the 57 nations of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference). The Cairo Declaration reflects not only the immorality of their dictatorships, monarchies, and oligarchies but also reflects the current medieval status of the body of laws which is Shariah in the 21st century. Muslims living in the west may have modernized our interpretations of Shariah (God's law) by living here and picking and choosing our own interpretations of how we may practice "God's law". But that is only of personal relevance. Rauf mixes public and private Shariah as if all Muslims see them as synonymous. Not all Muslims tow the line of political Islam despite Imam Rauf's obvious avoidance of any condemnation of political Islam. Some Muslims do believe that real faith is abrogated when it is imposed by government as 'law'. There must be a clear demarcation between the domain of the cleric's laws and the domain of our government's laws -- i.e. our Establishment Clause. The American Establishment clause is incompatible with any form of Shariah . Imam Rauf ignores this fact. It is no longer "God's law" when it is interpreted into any manifestation of human law. "God's law" is only "God's law" within the personal relationship of an individual with God. Once a human collective interprets law if it is done in the name of religion, it is theocracy, not God's law. Rauf's linkage to the Declaration of Independence rings on deaf ears. No matter which way he spins it, one faith cannot create a system of laws for all humanity unless it comes from a supremacist theocratic mindset. Rauf dismisses reform as simply being a matter of updating penal codes and customs associated with culture. He equates his own interpretation of Shariah with the ideas of our founding fathers. I am sorry but he does not understand American law. The word Christian does not appear in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution. A system based "under God" is vastly different than one based under the legal tradition of one faith regardless of how "ecumenical" Imam Rauf would like us to believe his version of Shariah has become. Certainly, I would love to be referred to consensus documents and books of fiqh (human understanding of Shariah or Islamic jurisprudence) which are actually demonstrative of legal decisions which corroborate his short missive on the benevolence of Shariah . The vast majority of books on Shariah and fiqh which I have are riddled with laws and opinions incompatible with American law or any western law including rulings regarding women's rights to name one area. Additionally, one can academically use American law as a yard stick on a blog, but when these Shariah systems are autonomous in Muslim majority nations, they will not use American law as a yardstick and will always drift to a theocracy which does not come close to the minority rights of equality to all recognized in America. American law works because it abandoned the theocratic yardstick. That reform away from governmental Shariah will take generations regardless of the denials and apologetics of imams like Rauf. Certainly, aside from government, a modernization of Shariah is very important and commentaries like Mr. Rauf's demonstrate that there is certainly a profound need for real reform and in fact all Muslims have a stake in our legal tradition being updated. At the minimum we must first defeat the ideas of theocracy. More importantly, though, is a far more significant discussion of exactly what should be the realm of operation of the clerics and their Shariah . Should it be in the mosque and universities or should it be in the public square specifically in the legislatures? This concept of a modernized Shariah which is equal and universal is impossible for a non-Muslim to accept or become a part of as a minority in Muslim majority nations -- just ask the Bahais of Iran, the Ismailis of Pakistan, the Christians of Saudi Arabia (if there are any left) or the persecuted anti-Islamist Muslims of any of these nations. Minorities are not given rights by majorities as Shariah implies, they have them inalienable from God. Thus law cannot be defined by one faith -- it must be derived from reason. Certainly, for a Muslim to live with internal harmony as citizens in our nations, we must come up with a personal interpretation of Shariah which is not at odds with the laws of the land. More importantly we should have the freedom to practice the personal parts of Shariah (God's law as we understand it) which we believe in as Muslims. But this application of Shariah should never become a platform for political activity or for government. Once it does, it becomes theocracy. Does Imam Rauf not see a difference between a nation of laws like the United States and nations of the medieval era which ran under Canon law? Or would Imam Rauf rather live under a system of Canon law with priests giving our Muslim minority dismissive guarantees that the rights of non-Christians would be guaranteed just like our U.S. Constitution provides? Mr. Rauf, please point us to your fatwas (religious legal opinions) and sources of Shariah which contradict the laws of Shariah which guide schools in Saudi Arabia, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Syria, and Pakistan to name some of the most common sources of imams (teachers who are experts in Shariah law) globally. These schools teach ibn-Taymiyyah , Ibn -Kathir , Al-Mawdudi , and other well known Islamic scholars of the primary legal schools of thought in Islam. There are four major schools of legal thought in Islamic fiqh (hanafi, Shafii, Hanbali, and Maliki) with very little significant difference between them. Many of the rulings of these schools of thought vary on some specifics of religious rituals in forms of practice but agree on most other issues. Rauf, neglects telling us which of these schools of thought he is discussing; I believe that is because it does not exist. His concept of Shariah is still in the imagination and whims of western imams sitting in the comfort of homes in the United States pretending that Islamic law has reformed without any evidence or body of rulings to the contrary. Tariq Ramadan, a rather deceptive European "reformist" and grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, in a widely televised debate with now President Nicolas Sarkozy could not even get himself to definitively rebuke corporal punishment as still called for in
 
I'm On A Boat: Bert And Ernie Take On T-Pain (VIDEO) Top
In March, T-Pain, Andy Samberg and Akiva Schaffer hit the open waters in the SNL digital short, "I'm on a Boat." Now Bert and Ernie are getting in on the act with a little help from video masher-uppers, Attack of the Show, who took some old "Sesame Street" footage and added a fresh beat. WATCH: More on Funny Videos
 
Philip N. Cohen: Today's Speech for Tomorrow's Managers Top
Here is the text I gave to graduates in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Management and Society program. After some opening pleasantries . . . For this year's commencement I think we need to talk a little about myth and reality, and about a word you've all heard a lot of in your studies here, and in the news for the last year: markets. Markets are sacred in our era, and yet in the last eight months there has been a noticeable tendency toward the profane when they are invoked. That's a good thing, because even if you like markets, treating them as sacred is a bad idea -- as any free marketeer could (or should) tell you. Markets are mostly a way of setting prices, and for that they are pretty efficient. It's hard to figure out the right price for something without them. But they are always situated in a social context - as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as a free market. But we can speak of markets as being relatively unfettered versus relatively highly regulated. When markets are relatively unfettered, two outcomes are predicable. First, economic inequality will increase. That is because in the competitive arena, winners crush losers and take their stuff, creating fewer winners with more stuff, and more losers with less. Second, corruption spreads. Of course, corruption can occur as a result of heavy regulation as well. But the free-market kind of corruption results from the concentration of wealth and the tendency of winners to hoard resources, especially information, in ways that end up distorting the market. Before last year, one of the best examples of this was Enron, in which a giant corporation operated in an area of the economy -- energy futures trading -- that was not heavily regulated, and they got so carried away with their power that they ended up actually flipping traffic lights on and off in California to increase their short-run profits. After last year, of course, the best example of this is our banking industry , in which financial instruments were bundled and sold, based on valuations that were fictional, to put it mildly. Interestingly, one of America's chief rivals in the new century, China, also presents good examples of both outcomes of unfettered markets. Economic inequality is through the roof in China , as the country has gone from one of the most egalitarian to one of the most unequal in scarcely one generation. And we have seen rampant corruption, ranging from the tainted milk scandal to the collapsing buildings in last year's earthquake -- both cases of the society's most vulnerable people falling victim to the greed of unfettered marketeers. These examples suggest that social control over markets serves a useful purpose. So that we may use market forces for what they are good for -- setting prices - without being used by them for what they are bad for -- greed and corruption. But the dark secret of markets is one that sociology has revealed: they don't work the way their worshipers say they work. There is always a human element, always a particular angle, always a deviation from the model. That is why I have found in my own research , for example, that the gender of a manager matters for how an organization operates. Why should the gender of a manager matter? It shouldn't. It's inefficient, irrational -- or as Spock would say, illogical. But of course it matters. The gender of a manager matters in the same way that regulation -- or social control -- over markets matters. Because it imposes an explicit value system over the supposedly pure market mechanism. The gender of a manager matters because people's experience shapes their perspective, and their values. And the actions that people take are reflections of their perspectives and their values. For today's graduates in Management and Society, I think this holds a simple lesson. The human element, human agency, matters -- matters in the sense that it is unpredictable yet influential. The model is not perfect. The market is not sacred. And the future is uncertain, subject to change. It is subject to change not just because of random chance, but because of the intentions and actions of people who decide that they will change the course of history, in ways big and small, for better or for worse. Thank you, and congratulations to the class of 2009. More on China
 
Bank stock offerings weigh on financial shares Top
NEW YORK — KeyCorp, which is among 10 major banks ordered by the government to raise more capital as a buffer against future losses, joined several other banks Monday in announcing public stock offerings. The offerings put pressure on financial shares, but underscore the improving conditions in the capital markets and the increasing demand for bank stocks, which have skyrocketed in the wake of the market's massive two-month rally. Three banks that have received a clean bill of health from the government _ U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp. and BB&T Corp. _ said proceeds from their common stock offerings would go toward repayment of federal bailout funds received last fall, pending government approval. Banks that received money under the U.S. Treasury's TARP Capital Purchase Plan have become subject to increased government scrutiny, as well as limitations on executive pay. A number of banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and American Express Co., have expressed their desire to return the funds as soon as possible. "We believe that the TARP investment, philosophically, is not good for our company from a long-term point of view, because of the entanglements of how we run the business, including how we compensate our people," said BB&T President and Chief Executive Kelly King in an interview with The Associated Press. "We believe long term that the political involvement in the lending process is not good." The original intent of the Troubled Asset Relief Program was to boost lending and stimulate the economy after the collapse of investment firm Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the subsequent freezing up of the credit markets. But King and others insist that lending is taking place and will continue to do so even once the funds are returned. "We have people in the street looking to give loans," he said. "This notion that people can not get loans is a myth. Banks are making all the good loans they can find." Analysts are encouraged by banks' ability to go to the public to raise funds. "As capital markets are now open and banks are raising common equity, our concerns are partially mitigated," wrote Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. analyst Paul Miller in a note to clients Monday. As such, he and a team of FBR analysts raised their price targets on 17 banks "to reflect less dilution risk, stronger capital levels and easier access to capital." KeyCorp shares fell 43 cents, or 6.2 percent, to $6.54, after the Cleveland-based bank said it will sell up to $750 million of its common shares. The bank must increase its capital levels by $1.8 billion to satisfy the findings of the government's stress tests, the results of which were announced late last week. The tests were designed to determine which of the nation's 19 largest banks might need more capital to cover rising loan losses if the economy worsened. Ten banks, including Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., must raise a total of $75 billion in new capital as a backstop against possible future losses. U.S. Bancorp, Capital One and BB&T were among the nine banks deemed to have sufficient capital to withstand a deeper recession. Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp, which received a $6.6 billion investment from the government, said it will sell $2.5 billion of its common stock. The bank may also offer medium-term notes. Its shares fell $1.29, or 6.3 percent, to $19.25 in afternoon trading Monday. Virginia-based Capital One, which received $3.55 billion from the government, announced plans to sell up to 64.4 million shares at $27.75 a share for gross proceeds of $1.79 billion. The offering price is an 11.5 percent discount to the stock's Friday closing price of $31.34. Shares dropped $3.52, or 11.2 percent, to $27.82. Southeast regional bank BB&T said it will sell $1.5 billion in common stock, and will also cut its dividend by 68 percent to 15 cents to save $725 million annually. The North Carolina-based bank received a $3.1 billion investment from the government last fall. BB&T shares fell $1.43, or 5.4 percent, to $24.90. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., MetLife Inc., American Express, and trust banks State Street Corp. and Bank of New York Mellon Corp. were among the other banks the government did not ask to raise more capital. Among those banks that do need to raise funds, Bank of America needs $33.9 billion, Wells Fargo & Co. $13.7 billion, GMAC LLC $11.5 billion, Citigroup $5.5 billion and Morgan Stanley $1.8 billion. Regional banks Regions Financial Corp., SunTrust Banks Inc., Fifth Third Bancorp, and PNC Financial Services Group Inc. also need to raise funds. The banks will have one month to devise a capital-raising plan and six months to implement it. Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America has said it will raise capital through asset sales, earnings in the upcoming quarters and from private investors. Morgan Stanley on Friday raised $4 billion in a common stock offering. The company also priced an offering of $4 billion in bonds. Wells Fargo, meanwhile, raised $8.6 billion in a common stock offering _ more than it originally set out to raise. Together, the 19 firms that took the test hold two-thirds of the assets and half the loans in the U.S. banking system.
 
BriTunes: Brian Williams Launches Music Web Series Top
Music lover and NBC "Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams has launched a web series focusing on music and musicians. "BriTunes" debuted Monday with an interview of Brooklyn-based Deer Tick, whose new album "Born on Flag Day" comes out in June. Williams is perhaps most well-known as a Bruce Springsteen super-fan, but he says that he's always loved identifying up-and-coming artists, and hopes BriTunes will be a place where viewers can sample new music. "I have always loved identifying good music and good groups -- discovering them early (bar bands are best) and following them through their journey," he wrote. "While we'll interview some established musicians, mostly I'd like this to be a place where people can sample some of the great music being created every day, by talented musicians who wouldn't dream of doing anything else." Watch Williams interview Deer Tick below: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy Visit the BriTunes home page. More on Brian Williams
 
Gary Reback Sues Bear Stearns For $2M Bonus Top
NEW YORK — A former Bear Stearns Cos. executive has sued the firm for a $2 million bonus he says it owes him. Gary M. Reback was fired from Bear Stearns in May 2008 as JPMorgan Chase & Co. bought the nearly collapsed investment bank. The suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on May 1 names Bear Stearns and JPMorgan as defendants. Reback claims that even though Bear Stearns was on the verge of going under, he helped make millions of dollars for the Wall Street firm. Reback also is suing for $1.1 million in severance pay he says Bear Stearns promised him. Messages left Monday at Reback's Scarsdale home and for his lawyer, Jonathan S. Sack, weren't immediately returned. JPMorgan spokesman Brian Marchiony said, "Mr. Reback is not owed any money."
 
Palin Cleared Of Two Ethics Complaints; Dozen More Pending Top
Gov. Sarah Palin won dismissal Friday of two separate complaints alleging she broke ethics and election law. More on Sarah Palin
 
Victoria Namkung: 5 Things Not To Do On a Date Top
As the co-founder of the user-generated blog My Very Worst Date , I spend good parts of my day reading hilarious, cringe-inducing and unbelievable stories of dates gone horribly wrong. Sometimes it's his fault; sometimes it's hers. But often times these dates could have been prevented by using common sense. But judging by the amount of bad dates we hear about, we have to assume that a good portion of the daters out there may need a reminder of the what-not-to-do basics. Here are the five most common mistakes that people make on first dates: 1. Avoid getting drunk . Sure, a drink or two can often loosen you up on a date or make things a bit livelier. But when a cocktail turns into three - or five - things will go south quick. You could harm yourself or even end up in jail . At the very least there will be damages to your ego. 2. Don't lie . Whether it's on your online profile or your first getting-to-know-you phone chat, there's simply no benefit to lying about your height, weight, age, occupation, financial status, etc. so why do people continuously do it? Your date will be disappointed and turned off . 3. Don't be cheap . Sure, we're in a recession and no one would fault you for wanting to save a few bucks, but some offenders take things too far, like the guy who refused to buy his date a hot dog in Central Park. Traditional etiquette would tell you that if you ask a woman out then you should pay for the date. Most rational women will offer to go dutch or take you out after the third date. If you're looking for inexpensive fun try bowling, wine tasting, hitting a museum, taking a picnic to the park or going on a bike ride. 4. Leave past girlfriends or boyfriends out of it . Of course it's important to know if this person has had past relationships, but a first date is no the place to delve into past love or detailed dramas. Aside from actually running into the ex on your date, it doesn't get much work than this awkward situation . Discussing your dating past will make your date horribly uncomfortable until he or she knows you better. 5. Don't get religious or political . If you have certain deal breakers when it comes to your date's political views or religious stance, then we understand wanting to get to the bottom of things, but criticizing one's beliefs or arguing on a first date is a sure way to end it fast. And by all means, avoid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict . At least till your second date. Dating is never easy. Trust me, we've all been there, but if you follow these five steps we have a feeling you won't be contributing to My Very Worst Date anytime soon. More on Relationships
 
Helicopter Crash VIDEO: Couple Miraculously Survive Top
The stunning crash of a small helicopter was caught on tape by a young boy. The crash occurred in a small grass landing strip near Tacoma, Washington and amazingly both the pilot and the passenger, his wife, escaped with their lives. In fact, the pilot got out of the helicopter nearly right after the crash, and his wife was taken to the hospital and treated for noon-threatening injuries. [WATCH] Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Video
 
Joel Schwartzberg: Why Must Kid Films Demonize Divorce? Top
When my kids stay with me as part of their weekly custody arrangement, we usually spend Saturday mornings eating my wife's homemade pancakes and watching a movie I taped from either the High School Musical channel or the Sponge Bob channel. My nine-year-old son handles DVR remote control duties with the fluid dexterity of Liberace on the piano. At some point during recent showings of The Shaggy Dog and The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl , I picked up on two common themes: 1) The willingness of Sex and the City 's Kristin Davis to play a suburban housewife under any circumstances, and 2) The leveraging a child's worst nightmare -- divorce -- for gratuitous dramatic effect. In both kid films, the parents' marriage is in some state of jeopardy; in one, the kids perceive a role in saving it. In each case, the parents avert tragedy and ultimately fall lovingly into each other's arms. (Though Davis should consider parting with her agent). Said a friend of mine recently, "I remember as a kid of divorce, being deeply offended by "The Parent Trap" for its premise that a marriage could be fixed just by sticking the parents in a room together! Even in the far superior The Incredibles , Violet warns her brother Dashiell: "Mom and Dad's life could be in danger. Or worse, their marriage !" What's the takeaway for spongy young minds other than defining divorce as a fate worse then death? I'm all for positive nuclear family images in kid films, even the "hit-you-over-the head-with-a-mallet" kind (see: Spy Kids ). What makes me uncomfortable is when divorce is superfluously depicted to kids as the end of the world. The obvious inference to real-life children of divorce (of which there are roughly one million a year): Your family is broken . Happy ending for us; stinks to be you. In reality, while divorce is an unfortunate outcome, these children are not necessarily wounded for life. A comprehensive 2002 study of more than 1,400 families and 2,500 children by a professor emeritus in the department of psychology at the University of Virginia found the negative impact of divorce on both children and parents has been "exaggerated": Roughly 20-25% of youngsters experience long-term damage after their parents break up, but the large majority end up coping comfortably. The difference between coping with upheaval and being deeply scarred by it seems to hinge more on good parenting -- as well as what was going on before the divorce -- than on family definition. Divorce is clearly not the psychological terminal sentence for kids it's sometimes made out to be. Knowing this, Hollywood writers looking to put their kid protagonists in jeopardy should stick to the safe slate of villains and demons, and avoid the all too easy road of demonizing divorce. Joel Schwartzberg is an award-winning essayist from New Jersey whose first book " The 40-Year-Old Version: Humoirs of a Divorced Dad " is now available .
 
Carrie Prejean: 'Satan Was Trying To Tempt Me,' Plus New Pics With Michael Phelps Top
As Miss California Carrie Prejean's fate is being decided by Miss USA pageant owner Donald Trump, who has called a Tuesday morning press conference to announce if she'll keep her crown or will lose it due to contract violations, Prejean is keeping busy talking to Dr. James Dobson about how Satan tried to tempt her with a question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant. She is a guest Monday and Tuesday on "Focus on the Famiy," as TMZ is revealing just how badly she lied about the topless photos she took. She took not only more than one ( obviously ), which she lied about, but she took them this year, not when she was 17. An exchange with Dobson: Dobson: Why did you give the answer you did with regard to the affirmation of marriage? Prejean: . . . I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, "Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these people . . . you need to witness to them and you need to show that you're not willing to compromise that for this title of Miss USA." And I knew right here that it wasn't about winning. It was about being true to my convictions. Listen here . Meanwhile, thedirty.com keeps finding more ( pre-free implants ) shots of Prejean. They just found old photos of her with alleged hook-up Michael Phelps, whom she supposedly met in Las Vegas. Phelps denied a relationship Here's a sample image: More on Miss California
 
Irene Rubaum-Keller: Why Are We Americans So Fat (Part Two) Top
The obesity epidemic in our country has many causes. In my last blog I covered the affect of food marketing, particularly to children, and how that contributes to obesity. Continuing with the work of Dr. Kelly Brownell, from Yale, I'm going to be talking about his concept of "optimal defaults" when it comes to food. Default food is that which is available to us first, or most easily. Here are some examples of America's current default foods: High School Lunch Dorm Food Hospital Food Airplane Food Have you ever tried to find healthy food when you are traveling? Airplane food, airport food, Denny's restaurants, and McDonald's drive thrus, are all examples of default American foods. College campuses, high schools, elementary schools, and hospitals are all places where you have to eat what is served, unless you really planned ahead. Most of these institutions serve unhealthy, cheap food that is filled with fat, sugar and salt. A close friend of mine had to go to the Mayo Clinic for tests recently. She told me that she could not find healthy food there. Here she was at the Mayo Clinic, because she had an illness, and the food she had to choose from was not healthy, fresh food. Is it possible to find fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins in our default food systems? Yes, as I have done so, but it is difficult, expensive, and requires extra planning and effort. That kind of takes the default out of it. The fact that our schools serve unhealthy food to our kids, and that some of our poor kids eat both breakfast and lunch at school, is very sad. I will be covering some fabulous folks who are changing what schools serve and the amazing results in a future blog. Meanwhile, be aware of the default food in your own house. Do you have fresh fruits and vegetables readily available? Can you grab something healthy when you need something fast? If not, start there. Make sure you have "optimal defaults" at home, where you have the most control. If part of the problem is cost, and fresh produce costs a lot more than cheap, packaged, processed food, try getting your produce from your local farmer's market. It will be less expensive than the regular supermarket, and grown locally. We need to think more long term about our future health and the health of our kids. It is much more expensive to be sick than to be well. Most of the poor people in our country have no health insurance. In fact many of the middle class in our country cannot afford health insurance. If you have been laid off and have to pay cobra fees for your health insurance, good luck. The prices are outlandish. Perhaps one day, with the efforts of people like Dr. Brownell, and the Rudd Center at Yale, we will see a change in how our country is operating. I will be talking about some changes that are already taking place coming up. In the meantime, do what you can to keep yourself, and your family healthy. Eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean protein. Cook from scratch as much as you can. Avoid processed foods, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, fat and salt. Exercise whenever possible and remember, in the immortal words of Jack LaLanne, "You are the most important person here." For more information about Dr. Brownell's 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
 
White House On Sykes-Limbaugh: 9/11 Jokes Cross The Line Top
Two days after comedian Wanda Sykes quipped during the White House Correspondents Association dinner that Rush Limbaugh was likely the 20th hijacker on 9/11 (only he was so strung out on Oxycontin he missed the plane), the White House publicly distanced itself from the remarks. "There are a lot of topics that are better left for serious reflection rather than comedy," said spokesman Robert Gibbs. "I don't think there is any doubt that 9/11 is one of them." This next-day backtrack is fast becoming a standard of the White House correspondents dinner ritual (helped along, of course, by reporters eager to stir up some controversy ). Before her performance on Saturday, Sykes told "Extra's" AJ Calloway that she had been warned to keep it clean. "They told me not to say the F word or the N word," she said. "I'm offended they even told me that. What do they think? I'm some ignorant a**. Like I'm going to go in there, 'What's up n*****. Like what the f*** they think I'm going to do?" It's worth noting just how tawdry and offensive some of these dinners were in the past. A reader sends over a Washington Post write -up of Nixon's March 14, 1970, Gridiron dinner, in which racial sensitivities were left decidedly at the door. "Things got no better at the Gridiron that night. Absolutely determined that a good time would be had by all, and equally determined to bring down the house, Richard Nixon appeared as the final act. The curtain pulled back to reveal the president and Vice President Spiro Agnew seated at two modest black pianos (Dwight Chapin at the White House had requested grand pianos or at least baby grands but the Statler Hilton could only manage uprights). This was the first time a chief executive had appeared on the Gridiron stage, and Nixon opened by asking: "What about this 'southern strategy' we hear so often?" "Yes suh, Mr. President," Agnew replied, "Ah agree with you completely on yoah southern strategy." The dialect, as Roger Wilkins observed, got the biggest boffo. After more banter with the "darky" Agnew, Nixon opened the piano duet with Franklin Roosevelt's favorite song ("Home on the Range"), then Harry Truman's ("Missouri Waltz"), then Lyndon Johnson's ("The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You"). Agnew, drowned him out a few bars into each with a manic Dixie on his piano, and the Gridiron crew got louder and louder. "The crowd ate" it up," Wilkins observed. "They roared." Nixon ended with his own favorite songs, "God Bless America" and "Auld Lang Syne," and here Agnew played it straight." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Wanda Sykes
 
Lesley Stern: How To Live On $0 A Day: Bargain Hunting Tips For Corporate Execs Top
It's really not fair that we're so outraged at the spending habits of corporate executives. After all, aren't we applying our cultural standards on people to whom they're totally alien? Unlike most of us, they've never had to learn how to find a product at a fair and reasonable price. Unscrupulous merchants are taking advantage of their ignorance. Clearly, nobody needs our compassion and guidance more than these poor souls. Let me be the first to extend the olive branch to corporate America with a few ideas on how to save millions of dollars on basic necessities. Let's start with something easy, like plumbing. It's an easy mistake for a cloistered Wall Street executive to think that installing an $80,000 18th century commode in your office suite is a reasonable, cost-efficient way of dealing with pressing lavatory needs. You probably weren't even aware that there's a restroom down the hall. Or maybe you were aware, but don't have a Segueway to transport you. There are quite a few other options if you really feel you can't conduct business without a toilet in your office. And the prices start at $5.49 (for a pooper scooper and roll of plastic bags). My recommendation is the Excret 4200 at $159.00. It also doubles as a chair, so you can auction off your current $20,000 Louis Quatorze desk chair at Christie's. The total possible savings are $99,994.51. While that may seem like small potatoes to you in the scheme of things, remember, every little bit helps. At the very least you'll be able to take yourself out for a decent lunch. More on Financial Crisis
 
Crony Capitalism: How The Financial Industry Gets What It Wants Top
The tilt of American policy in favor of the finance industry -- reflected in the policies of recent Treasury Secretaries Timothy Geithner, Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin -- cannot be attributed to any one person or institution. The industry flexes unsurpassed muscle in the political system, backed by billions of dollars invested in candidates and lobbying, a vast grassroots lobbying network of local bankers, the growing centrality of finance in the national economy, and widespread acceptance among public officials of a pro-market, deregulatory philosophy. "Both the end-stage Bush and new Obama administrations have been exceptionally fawning in their support of failed bankers," William K. Black, associate professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, told the Huffington Post. "Crony capitalism is now common in U.S. finance." Since 2000, the finance sector has funneled a total of $2.84 billion directly into the political system, $961 million in donations to candidates and political parties, $1.88 billion in publicly disclosed lobbying expenditures to influence Congress and the executive branch. The leading firm in both lobbying dollars and campaign contributions is Goldman Sachs, which not only produced Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Paulson, but which has also begun to emerge from the current financial crisis as the top dog of Wall Street. In 2008, the largest corporate or trade association source of campaign contributions, including employees, was Goldman Sachs at $6.9 million, followed by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. at $5.8 million. Citigroup, $5.5 million, came in fourth; Morgan Stanley, $4.3 million, 7th; and the American Bankers' Association (ABA), $3.7 million, 10th. Over the past two decades , Goldman Sachs has been the second largest corporate contributor (including employees) at $30.9 million, beaten only by AT&T, at $40.8 million. "When we write history books we will wonder why the government seemed to coincidentally do the things that favor Goldman Sachs and somehow in extremis get them out of trouble," Nassim Nicholas Taleb -- author of "The Black Swan" and distinguished professor at New York University Polytechnic Institute -- told the Huffington Post. The strength of the financial sector and its interlocking allies in insurance and real estate has been repeatedly demonstrated over the past year: Despite near universal agreement that actions of the industry inflicted untold harm on the American and global economies, the Bush and Obama administrations have treated captains of finance with velvet gloves, and Congress, especially the Senate, has consistently deferred to the powerful financial lobby. Looking over the past decade, Simon Johnson, professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, provided a coherent, well-conceptualized description in The Atlantic of the political prowess of the banking community, a subsection of the financial industry and a community that Johnson and co-author James Kwak view as an American oligarchy. "From this confluence of campaign finance, personal connections, and ideology there flowed, in just the past decade, a river of deregulatory policies that is, in hindsight, astonishing: * Insistence on free movement of capital across borders; * The repeal of Depression-era regulations separating commercial and investment banking; * A congressional ban on the regulation of credit-default swaps; * Major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks; * A light (dare I say invisible?) hand at the Securities and Exchange Commission in its regulatory enforcement; * An international agreement to allow banks to measure their own riskiness; * And an intentional failure to update regulations so as to keep up with the tremendous pace of financial innovation." In Congress, the big test of continued banking muscle in the aftermath of the financial collapse came on April 30. That day, the Senate voted 51-45 to kill administration-backed "cramdown" legislation which would have allowed bankruptcy judges to change the terms of mortgages, many of which were originated by what are now recognized as specialists in predatory or sub-prime lending. The Senate in effect chose to support banking interests over the interests of constituents who are in bankruptcy and facing foreclosure on their homes. "The American Bankers Association appreciates the Senate's decision," declared Floyd E. Stoner, the ABA's executive director, declared. "We are thankful that the Senate recognized [our] concerns." While campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures are reliable measures of the leverage of the financial industry, these figures by no means tell the full story. One of the industry's most powerful tools is the vast network of community bankers who are often key members of local establishments in rural and small town America. Ten of 12 Democratic senators who voted against the cramdown bill -- Max Baucus (Mont.), Michael Bennett (Colo.), Robert Byrd (W.V.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), and Jon Tester (Mont.) -- represent states that are disproportionately rural, states in which such bankers are especially influential. Johnson and Kwak, in their May Atlantic article provide crucial additional insight. For one thing, the finance industry in recent years has become a lynchpin of the national economy: "From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16% of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19%. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21% and 30%, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41%. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99% and 108% of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181% in 2007." These findings are illustrated in the following two charts: At a more subtle level, Johnson and Kwak describe what amounts to an ideological shift, a shift experienced most intensely in the nation's capital: "[T]he American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital-a belief system.Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world." All of which helps to explain Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin's outburst on a Chicago radio station last April 27 as he watched the steady erosion of support for the measure allowing bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of home mortgages: "And the banks - [it's] hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. They frankly own the place." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Goldman Sachs
 

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)