Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Warren Holstein: Not in My Backyard: Fear of the Guantánamo Legion of Doom Top
Well, it seems our Superfriends in Congress might be a mite too paranoid about a latter-day Legion of Doom escaping during transfer from Gitmo and wreaking havoc on voters in their districts while fulfilling diabolical plans of world domination (aided and abetted by mutant powers and arch-villain alien technology). Except Brainiac , Bizarro , Scarecrow , Sinestro , Solomon Grundy and Gorilla Grodd aren't the prisoners in question and the malevolent mastermind Lex Luthor isn't leading them in the pursuit of a dastardly Death Ray to eradicate the masses. In fact, up until now maximum-security prisons have had a pretty good record of securely holding normal, mortal human beings for life (especially those isolated in solitary confinement for twenty-four hours at a time--sans the sixty minutes of mobility time granted so that their terrible terrorist muscles and brains don't completely atrophy--this is after all the Post-Cheney Torture Era, we aren't savages, you know!). And to date Ramsi Yousef (convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing), Richard Reid (AKA "the Shoe Bomber") and Zacharias Moussaoui (9/11 co-conspirator--who could forget that creepy wide-eyed mug shot!) all being held in the Colorado Supermax Penitentiary haven't managed to band together, burst out of their poured concrete cells and overthrow our freedom in one fell swoop. This is, after all, reality we are living in, not the prime-time sensation Prison Break or motion-picture blockbusters The Rock or Escape from Alcatraz . Republican fear-mongers, however, would have you believe that one of these non-extradited Afghanistani POWS may have secreted away a stray nipple clamp or doggy-chain link during his enhanced interrogation (not torture!) at Guantánamo Bay and is just waiting for a chance to settle into his new digs to slowly scrape a hole in a wall (sneakily concealed under a Muslim prayer mat a lá Shawshank Redemption ) gradually leading to his inevitable geriatric escape in 2078. Whereupon he will hobble away and be able to reap the benefits of an Al-Qaeda senior-citizen discount until the not-too-distant day when he meets Allah and those blessed 41 virgins. Foiled again! Yup, that's right, the self-same prison system that has held Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and the Son of Sam is apparently no match for a bunch of unarmed, sensory-deprived foreigners who have spent the last seven years stripped of all contact with the outside world (not even a book deal or a 20/20 interview, sheesh!) and attended to by a most accommodating Dick Cheney as concierge. Not to mention all the extra money that would surely be overspent to over insure that their alien jihadist hatred didn't magically disintegrate all God-fearing American patriot prison guards that were unlucky enough to come in contact with such atrocious archnemeses of mass destruction. Even John McCain has done a post-failed campaign 360. Suddenly comparing the Gitmo closure to the infamous proposed nuclear waste disposal site in Nevada, he said: "You think Yucca Mountain is a Nimby Problem? Wait till you see this one." Setting aside his cantankerous use of the antiquated acronym "NIMBY" ("Get off my lawn!"), it should be pointed out that the half-life of a human terrorist equals the half-life of a human being (which unlike the aforementioned radioactive refuse gets weaker and less dangerous over time, and while thousands of years later the toxic sludge will still pose a bio-hazardous health risk, the detainee will have been long ago broken down into harmless, minute molecules of evil which at most might lead to a mildly annoying sneeze on a sunny spring day in the good ole' U.S. of A.). Heaven forbid we should disassemble what has become Al-Qaeda's number-one rallying symbol of recruitment in a politically and economically viable way. For that would hardly serve to fan the sputtering flames of a desperate , ravaged , failed post-Dubya Republican Regime left clinging to one worn, creased crumbling trumped card to play (Buildings go boom! Monsters out to getcha!! Boogie Boogie!!! ). There is nothing to fear...but freedom itself. Or perhaps it's just time for the general public to grow up and banish our irrational fears into the Phantom Zone (hey, it worked for General Zod , right?). More on GOP
 
Frank Dwyer: Political Haiku: Joe Top
Anybody seen Joe? Joe the Plumber! Too soon for Amber Alert?
 
Juanita Stuart, Profiled In Obama Infomercial, Benefits From Anonymous Donor Top
Just before the election, the Obama campaign bought 30 minutes of airtime for a spot that profiled four American families struggling to live the American Dream. Half a year later, one of those families, Larry and Juanita Stuart, an older couple living in Sardinia, Ohio, continues to scrape by. But that's not to say their role in the video didn't change their lives. The Stuarts owned their own home and had looked forward to a comfortable retirement. "But with [Juanita's] rheumatoid arthritis, and other ailments, her medical bills have been rising," said Obama in the ad. "To meet their payments, they've had to take a loan on their house. And they're losing equity." And Larry Stuart, long retired from the B&O Railroad, had to go back to work. In the video, depressing piano music played as Stuart, 72, put on a Wal-Mart name tag. "Associate salesman," he said. "In other words, I just sell stuff." The ad brought plenty of attention to the Stuarts. Friends called, and so did strangers. And so did a lawyer who represented somebody who wanted to become Juanita Stuart's anonymous benefactor. "Someone that saw that ad, wanted to help me and so I've had surgery," Stuart told the Huffington Post. "I've had implants in three of my fingers." The Stuarts' problems haven't gone away by any means, but the surgery provided an emotional boost. "We're just like most middle class people... My dishwasher is not working, I can't afford for the plumber to come in," Stuart says, "but I'm so happy about my hand and my surgery, so life kind of balances itself out." Stuart said she has no idea who the anonymous donor is. "It's an angel from somewhere," she said. "I'm really really happy and I'm sure President Obama doesn't know about my anonymous donor and the help I've received for all my copays." The Arthritis Foundation featured Stuart at its annual advocacy summit in March, where Stuart told her story and met with members of Congress. "She has become a terrific advocate for the Arthritis Foundation," said Amy Melnick, the organization's chief public policy officer, in an interview with the Huffington Post. As for Stuart's anonymous angel, Melnick said, "That's terrific for her, but it's obviously not a solution for the nation. There are countless Americans who have that permanent joint damage who don't have access to medication." Not everybody reacted like an angel to the Stuarts' story. The conservative site Free Republic questioned the Stuarts' existence (they had the wrong name-spelling). "Some Republicans felt that it was something not really legitimate about us," Stuart said. Pleased as Juanita Stuart is to have help with her medical bills, her husband still has to punch the clock part-time at Wal-Mart. "I work in the lawn and garden department. A lot of people buying grills, lawnmowers, flowers, fertilizer and mulch," he told the Huffington Post. A few days ago someone asked him how long he planned to keep working. "In a few days I'll be 73 years old. I'd rather not be working," he said. He didn't know when he'd stop, but he said he knew exactly how he'd do it. "I'm gonna leave the house, and when I get to the store, I'll hand my badge to the boss and walk back out." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Scritti Politti: May 26, 2009 Top
OMG, Sotomayor! Crazy, right? But first, here's an update on your Roland Burris/disputed heroism news. Over the weekend, we received an email from Daniel Blank, who said: This whole thing is pretty funny. The woman that Burris "helped" off the plane is my mother. When the plane landed he pretty much begged her to let him carry her bag. My mom is 83 but she travels all over the world and he just carried her small carry-on bag off of the plane. She told him twice it wasn't necessary and my family had a big laugh over how she fell into a little PR move. We were hysterical when we saw a picture of him carrying her bag up a flight of stairs. So there you have it, Burris appears to have successfully rescued a single piece of carry-on luggage from certain... somebody else carrying it off the plane. OK. We now return to some Sonia Sotomayor stuff, followed by some non-Sonia Sotomayor stuff! Leg's A-Tingle! : Chris Matthews says that the Sotomayor announcement was like a "campaign!" Yay, campaigns! Matthews loves a campaign! In fact, to Matthews, if you recall, "life" is "a campaign!" By which he means "life" is " something that Jon Stewart ruthlessly mocks you for , because, my God... get some perspective!" Rocking The Suburbs : Man, I really can't wait for Sotomayor's critics to find some other case to cite besides Ricci ! Speaking Of : SCOTUSblog has a comprehensive dive into Sotomayor's decisions that I look forward to reading tonight. That's right! I'll be spending part of my evening reading about Sotomayor's legal decisions! Don't you wish you were me? (No, you do not.) Something Not About Sonia Sotomayor : Hmmm. Okay! If you read just one liveblog of the experience of watching Three Men And A Baby on DVD -- well, as far as I know, there is only one such liveblog, so it's not like you have a choice. Still! That one liveblog is by the extremely funny Molly McAleer, so what can I say ? Liveblogs of the experience of watching Three Men And A Baby on DVD are actually doing pretty okay! [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Shirin Mohammadi: Iran's Forgotten Movement Top
In a country where over seventy percent of its population is under the age of thirty, the future of the Islamic Republic of Iran is undoubtedly in the hands of its youth. Since the establishment of Iran's first university in 1934, students have been the strongest advocates of political and social change. Yet as the international community continues to focus its attention on Tehran's nuclear activities and its hostile stance towards Israel, the efforts of the Iranian student movement are being left behind. Blinded by the rhetoric of Islamic fundamentalism, the international community tends to overlook Iran's ongoing reform movement. Despite the Islamic regime's incessant attempts to silence the student movement, their struggle continues to this day. As political repression and human rights violations expand under an increasingly oppressive regime, political opposition continues to grow. Press censorship, government corruption, university crackdowns, and social intrusions into people's lives contribute to the general dissatisfaction. As in the years preceding the Islamic Revolution, the student movement today is paralleled with a women's rights, human rights, and labor movement. The dynamics of the current student movement, however, are by no means comparable to those of the Shah's era. The student movement today is more complex. There is a faction now that supports the regime while such a faction never existed under the Shah. Nevertheless, demand for democratic change remains widespread. Until recently, US policy towards Iran has been giving the radical elements more legitimacy. Incessant talk of 'regime change' has allowed the Iranian government to suspect and detain not only Iranian Americans, but also leaders and elements within the student movement itself. Students who promote democracy and human rights in Iran are subsequently accused of working for the US. Senator John Kerry's recent statement declaring that the US no longer wanted 'regime change' in Iran was followed shortly thereafter by the release of journalist Roxana Saberi. Despite increasing hostilities, the US and Iran should focus on common interests and proceed with engagement. It remains imperative for the US to consider the student movement as it establishes its policies towards Iran. Although the Obama Administration should not publicly state its support for the Iranian student movement, it should ensure that its policies do not undermine it. Sanctions should not interfere with the movement by any means. A careful approach would enable the US to reconcile its strategic interests with its desire to see democracy flourish in Iran. A general support for human rights in future negotiations would give the student movement the international help it seeks. International pressure on human rights violations in Iran would encourage the movement and ultimately compel the regime to ease political repression. Organizations such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders are valuable assets that should not be overlooked. An open and direct dialogue between the US and Iran is necessary to alleviate tensions concerning both Iran's domestic politics (which ultimately affect its foreign policy) and in terms of regional security. The Obama administration needs to prove that it is not after regime change by offering direct talks, economic incentives, and respecting Iran's rights to peaceful uranium enrichment. The Iranian government would then be less inclined to keep its political system shut, as fears of US plots to overthrow the regime diminish. As the political system opens up, the student movement will gain the momentum it needs to drive the reform movement, alongside the labor and women's rights activists. In this manner, solid diplomatic relations between the US and Iran would give the Iranian student movement an opportunity to achieve basic reforms, and would help the US to stabilize the Middle East. More on Iran
 
John Wellington Ennis: Picking on Pelosi Top
It's no secret that the Republican Party is struggling. Polls show party membership at a low of 21% , the crazies have scared off the credible, and the leading spokespeople are beauty pageant runner ups. The languishing magazine business is even piling it on , suggesting that morbid fascination in the wane of the GOP goes beyond the blogosphere and Op-Ed pages, and is actually tabloid-worthy. Thus, Republicans continue to assert their irrelevance through the concerted effort to act like it is suddenly so clearly necessary that Nancy Pelosi resign as Speaker of the House. After all, she said the CIA didn't divulge all of their interrogation tactics seven years ago, and how could anyone question anything the CIA said? John Boehner , Newt Gingrich , Mike Huckabee , Steve King , Dick Morris , Sean Hannity , and others aggressively defending the CIA look disingenuous. We don't really believe that they believe that this secretive bureaucratic goon squad is honest about its activities and intelligence. Honestly, they probably get off on the idea. Defending the CIA against accusations of lying or unseemly behavior is quixotic. It's like acting indignant in defending the mores of Motley Crue. To recount some of the Central Intelligence Agency's greatest hits makes it sound like Cobra from G.I. Joe, the venerable cartoon black ops army with no actual ideological agenda other than evil (before Blackwater). The scheme to sell cocaine to make money to fund a rebel army on the other side of the world was hatched by the CIA, who then lied about it to some guy we arguably elected President, John Kerry . The CIA is the Machiavelli of government agencies. As with so much in the wars of partisan rhetoric, these arguers are more steadfast to dispute any point making their side look bad, because they fear that their entire ideology fails with it. These Bush apologists were happy to accept that a baseless war was the fault of bad intelligence from the CIA like it was all just a case of food poisoning. No, the Right Wing readiness to ignore criticism of the CIA and pounce on Pelosi really reveals their pervasive, peculiar, and apparently perverted obsession with Madame Speaker. From the beginning of her tenure as Speaker of the House, Pelosi has been demonized by Republican rabble-rousers to rattle their base. Her San Francisco sensibility was supposed to be code to the bigot belt, that she would spearhead some homo agenda, and maybe make Congressmen hold hands and share their feelings. Pelosi's outsized political persona has more to do with the paranoia prodded by poor punditry than her stalwart stewardship. It's reminiscent of how vilified Hillary Clinton was as First Lady, when she was still rocking spray bangs and shoulder pads, doing photo-ops with one billion children. But the threat loomed, Republicans sneered, that this pushy dame had a mind of her own, and might just try to get into the act some day. Of course, they were all right about that Hillary Rodham -- she revealed her own ambitions, and damn near went the distance, with even Ann Coulter cheering her on. I had the opportunity to see Nancy Pelosi speak at a Politco panel in Denver during the DNC last year. She explained in so many words that as Speaker, her job is to get things through the House that can pass. Say what you will about her politics -- Pelosi has shown herself to be shrewd and prudent, aware of her attention, but downplaying her presence. As such, her effort to distance herself from the CIA's conceit on torture should not be surprising or cause for outrage. To presume the benefit of the doubt with the CIA after countless destroyed interrogation tapes doesn't even pass the straight face test. Whatever discussions Nancy Pelosi ever had with intelligence officials about "harsh interrogation tactics" were well after these tactics were outlined intricately by Bush's cabinet. This is feigned outrage about information that Nancy Pelosi got third hand. I suspect time will tell of the deep-seeded S&M appetites that ran through the minds of Bush's neo-con perv party. Psychoanalysts will write books on how cabinet members held top-secret White House meetings to conspire about getting men naked and bent over to submit to their throbbing power. Those meetings got detailed in order to hand down the specific language to the CIA. Was anything ever acted out as well? You know, just to explain the positions? Is it so hard to imagine Donald Rumsfeld snapping his fingers at some poor Pentagon aide to get down on all fours on the carpet as a "visual aid" in front of a stately Colin Powell and a vaguely aroused Dick Cheney? Now, in the middle of that tableau -- probably from that wuss John "History will not judge this kindly" Ashcroft -- comes the cold-water question that is bound to ruin the mood: "What do we tell Nancy?" Cut to a much graver briefing with pretentious security presence as Rep. Pelosi is slid a very legit-looking file folder, with a cool CIA watermark and shit, and some bullet points in Courier font and spiffy legalese about how seriously we are going to get those bad guys. Pelosi, not yet the Speaker or third in line for the presidency or the most powerful woman in the history of the republic, nods solemnly at the grim assessment, appreciative that they tell her anything. And now, after so much hot air and regurgitated half-assed talking points, it has come down to powerfully plain sexism: Did the RNC really release a video comparing Nancy Pelosi to Pussy Galore from Goldfinger ? The irony is that in the movie Goldfinger , Pussy Galore was the rare exception of a Bond girl who saved 007's ass when his suave plan fell to crap, and she alerted the CIA to save the day. Besides provoking a unifying growl from women who normally wouldn't care about Nancy Pelosi, the RNC has unwittingly crowned her the most popular Bond Girl of all time, beating out Grace Jones. Nice! But the restless right-wing attacks, as ridiculous as their rhetoric may be, must continue to be debunked and discredited. They can seem scatter-shot and trivial now, but it was after years of an unchecked, open-ended investigation through Bill Clinton's entire career and associates that a popular president was impeached for off-topic lying about his sexual exploits. Controlling the debate and confronting misinformation is akin to justice, and similarly demands eternal vigilance. More on GOP
 
Frank Sharry: Question on Sotomayor: What Does Obama's SCOTUS Nomination Have to Do with Immigration Reform? Top
Answer: Nada. Well, almost nothing. To watch the coverage on mainstream news and in the conservative blogosphere one might think exactly the opposite, however. In “ First thoughts: It's Sotomayor ,” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro announce today’s historic nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a Yale Law School graduate and Princeton undergrad who the President notes , has more experience ‘than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court had when they were appointed.” Impressive stuff. None of these credentials seem to top the fact that Sotomayor is a Latina woman, however. The piece— as well as many, many like it— begins: At 10:15 am ET from the White House’s East Room, President Obama will again make history by nominating the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit. The commentators do not linger long on Sotomayor’s extensive qualifications or unique background before diving into the politics allegedly lurking behind the pick. They speculate that the nomination clearly signals the Administration’s desire to “check the box” when it comes to quote-unquote “Latino issues” in order to dodge a pesky immigration reform bill: As we’ve mentioned before, Latino groups have been grumbling somewhat about their representation (or lack thereof) in the Obama administration, as well as the fact that immigration reform doesn’t appear to be on the White House’s front-burner. But this pick buys Obama A LOT of time with Hispanics -- a demographic he won last year, 67%-31% -- on immigration and other issues. Is it a coincidence that Obama this week heads out West to Nevada and California, two states with large Latino populations? [Emphasis ours]. It’s not just MSNBC making the claim that Obama can “buy time with Hispanics” on pressing national issues like immigration reform. Mark Krikorian, part of John Tanton’s anti-immigrant network, writes gleefully on the National Review today: I predicted three weeks ago that Sotomayor was guaranteed to get the nod — as a consolation prize for Hispanic pressure groups, since there isn’t going to be an amnesty. And while I love Chuck Todd (can't say the same of Mark Krikorian), here’s a little reality check-list for both, from yours truly. Those who think Sotomayor’s nomination means no on comprehensive immigration reform (for those new to this whole world, “amnesty” is what Tanton’s clan call any plan to fix our immigration mess) should consider these four points: 1. Hispanic voters care about immigration reform. A whole lot. 2. So do swing voters . (In fact, the general public’s support for reform is at an all-time high , despite the economy). 3. Obama has renewed his campaign pledge to move reform forward in year 1 . Again , and again, and again . 4. Two words: June 8th . On point #1: the 2008 election produced a mandate for real immigration reform by Hispanic voters, who helped flip 4 states from red to blue and whose influence and clout are growing fast . New polling shows that roughly 72 percent of Latinos think that President Obama will keep his campaign promise and move a comprehensive immigration reform bill forward before the end of his first year in office. To simplify: Democrats in Congress, it's time to lean into this issue and get it done. Republicans, change course and help get this issue solved if you want to stop bleeding Latino voters. On point #2: swing voters see inaction on the immigration issue as a major failure of Washington to20solve tough problems. They don’t think deporting 12 million people is the right way to go, but they also think doing nothing is no longer an option (to them, therein lies the real amnesty— letting unscrupulous employers who undercut American workers and taxpayers off scot-free, while doing nothing to reform the broken system). They overwhelmingly want to see comprehensive solutions enacted, and soon. On point #3, well, enough said. And finally, on point #4, we all know that actions speak louder than words.  In “ Obama sets WH immigration reform meeting for June 8 ,” the Politico reports: President Barack Obama is inviting members of Congress to the White House for a June 8 meeting to highlight immigration reform, an administration official confirmed to POLITICO Wednesday. "The meeting will be an opportunity to launch a policy conversation that we hope will be able to start a debate that will take place in Congress later in the year," the official, who asked not to be named, said. In the lead up to the White House kick-off meeting on June 8th, we're sure to see plenty more speculation about whether or not the Administration intends to take up reform. Even after Obama makes it clear, from the White House, that reform is part of his agenda for this year, I'm guessing most of the commentariat will continue to predict he won't do it, that his plate is too full, that it's too controversial, and on, and on, and on. What they don't get is what President Obama understands: the American people voted for a change from business as usual in Washington. They hunger for leaders who address multiple challenges at the same time, who tackle— instead of cowering before— the controversial issues of our day. Note: Cross-posted at http://www.AmericasVoiceOnline.org/Blog. Join America’s Voice, and receive breaking updates and opportunities to let Washington know where you stand as the fight for real reform heats up. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
ZP Heller: Former Interrogator Slams Cheney Over Torture Policy Top
Let's debunk Dick Cheney's pernicious lies about torture once and for all. Let's look past the mainstream media frenzy over the personal feud between Obama and Cheney, past the ludicrous GOP talking points , and instead focus on a real story that could allow us to hold Cheney accountable. Major Matthew Alexander is a former Senior Interrogator who conducted more than 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised over 1,000 more, including that of al Qaeda-in-Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- and he did so using traditional methods. In an exclusive interview released today by Brave New Foundation , Alexander said Dick Cheney's torture policy "literally cost us hundreds if not thousands of American lives." According to Alexander, the torture and abuse conducted at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay became the number one recruiting tool for foreign fighters and suicide bombers who attacked coalition forces in Iraq. Huffington Post's Ryan Grim highlights the importance of Alexander's testimony: Alexander easily takes down Cheney's arguments. The most immediate blow Alexander strikes is, of course, his obvious success, which undercuts Cheney's case for more brutal techniques. Alexander also engages on the level of principle. For Cheney, the suggestion that torture is a poor strategy because it aids terrorist recruitment is nothing more than old-fashioned blame-America-first cowardice. Alexander, who writes under that pseudonym for security purposes, first voiced this opinion in a WaPo Op-Ed last fall entitled, "I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq." His experience has become widely regarded as proof Cheney's interrogation policy was not only morally bankrupt, but endangered thousands of Americans serving in Iraq as well. Last Sunday on "Meet the Press," Sen. Richard Durbin cited Alexander specifically when asserting that half of the detained al-Qaeda suspects in Iraq had been "recruited and were fighting, trying to kill Americans because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." As the Washington Examiner's Byron York writes: What's striking in the Guantanamo terrorist-recruitment debate is the lack of a definitive text, a study done that shows in detail how the prison has become an engine for terrorist recruitment around the world. In the place of that definitive document, there is Alexander's experience, and there is a statement from former U.S. Navy general counsel Alberto Mora, who in 2008 submitted testimony to Congress saying that, "There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." But there is no big report, no treasure trove of documents, that supports the terrorism-recruitment argument. "We didn't need documents," Alexander told me. "Just ask anybody on my interrogations team." I asked about the relative damage done by Abu Ghraib and by Guantanamo. The Abu Ghraib photos were a complete disaster for the United States; they were devastating evidence of U.S. mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq. But what about Guantanamo? There weren't provocative pictures from there. "One of the bigger things that wasn't torture or abuse was the desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo," Alexander said. "Things like that were extremely inflammatory, even more so than torture and abuse." In the absence of a definitive text or study as York mentions, we need more personal testimonies like Alexander's to build the case against Cheney and those who tortured and abused detainees. We have to urge more experts like Alexander to come forward on the record. As my fellow Open Left blogger Adam Green said over the weekend on MSNBC, "Gitmo is a stain on America to the rest of the world. It is a recruiting tool for terrorists. If we really care about keeping the American people safe, we need to get these facts out there and debunk these ridiculous talking points." More on Barack Obama
 
New York's Highline Park Vision: Reclaiming Abandoned Urban Landscape (VIDEO) Top
The High Line park project in New York City is a really cool one -- they're taking an old, unused elevated train track and turning it into a public space with walkways and grass. What other spaces could be re-imagined this way? WATCH:
 
Allen Keller: Torture by Any Other Name Top
Misconceptions and distortions about torture by former Vice President Cheney and other former Bush administration officials are, if nothing else, impressive for their hubris. In a speech last Thursday, Mr. Cheney asserted that "tough" or "enhanced" interrogation methods were legal, essential, effective, and were not torture. Mr. Cheney is wrong. Waterboarding, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, sexual humiliations and several other cruel and inhuman methods documented to have been used on known or suspected terrorists are forms of torture. My perspective is not theoretical. It is based on nearly 20 years of experience as a physician examining and caring for individuals from all over the world who endured torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment and studying the health consequences of such trauma. This includes Tibetan monks tortured because of their demands for independence, African students tortured because of calling for democracy, and most recently, former detainees from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Mr. Cheney derides the Obama Administration for using "euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy." He then goes on to repeatedly invoke the euphemism of "enhanced" interrogations instead of torture. This term infers a seemingly benign and improved means for eliciting information. It is neither. It is torture when a prisoner is subjected to mock drowning-one of the most terrifying experiences conceivable. Water is poured over a detainee's face which is covered with a soaked cloth while his hands are tied causing him to gag and choke. It is torture when a prisoner is kept awake for weeks or longer by constant loud noises, bright lights or prison guards incessantly rattling the bars of his cell. It is torture when a prisoner is forced to stand while blood pools in his legs causing painful swelling and potentially life threatening blood clots. Forced nudity and sexual humiliations may seem more innocuous than being beaten or restrained in painful positions for hours, but the psychological suffering can be intense. Such techniques are gruesome, dehumanizing and dangerous. Noted one torture victim I cared for at the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture in New York City, "As someone who has experienced torture, I know these things are torture." Clinical experience and data from the medical literature are clear. These techniques can cause significant and long lasting physical and psychological pain and harm. The patients my colleagues and I care for include many who were persecuted and tortured in countries whose regimes we have denounced. They describe forms of torture abuse eerily familiar to what Mr. Cheney and others label as "enhanced interrogations." In a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled "Misconceptions about the Interrogation Memos" William McSwain a former Marine Commander and assistant U.S. attorney stated he was "none the worse for the wear" from waterboarding and sleep deprivation he endured as part of his Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) training. Mr. Cheney's daughter, Lynn, in defense of her father has also referred to the SERE training as evidence that use of these methods are safe and legal. However, there is a profound difference between a soldier subjected to these methods in the context of military training, where they have every right to believe that they will not be harmed and a prisoner who has no such assurances. Furthermore, the SERE methods were never intended for eliciting the truth, but for training our soldiers how to resist torture. In fact these methods were adopted from the Chinese, Soviets and North Koreans who effectively used them to elicit false confessions. The morally and scientifically misguided reverse engineering of these methods occurred under the supervision of U.S. health professionals. Claims by Mr. Cheney and other former Bush Administration officials including former Attorney General Mukasey, and former CIA Director Hayden that such abusive methods were used only with high value detainees as a means of last resort, or were the unauthorized, sadistic practices of a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib, are inconsistent with substantial documentation to the contrary and fly in the face of common sense. Reports showed FBI officials who believed they were getting useful information from standard interrogation techniques refused to continue participating when abusive methods were used. The events at Abu Ghraib were the result of policies and leadership that permitted and in fact encouraged this kind of abuse. A 2008 Physicians for Human Rights report that I coauthored described detailed forensic examinations of 12 former Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo detainees. We found substantial evidence corroborating their reports of torture and the devastating health consequences. All of these former detainees were released after several years without being charged. It is likely that hundreds if not thousands of individuals were subjected to similar arbitrary imprisonment and abuses at these and other U.S. detention facilities including in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. When Mr. Cheney and others who claim that our national security is undermined by the U.S. unequivocally saying that we will treat prisoners in our custody humanely, then at least they should not look to whitewash the enhanced interrogation methods they hold up as necessary and effective, but instead call them what they are -- torture. The recently released memos detailing interrogation methods authorized by the Bush Administration, which by any reasonable standard constitute torture, demonstrate the critical need for an independent and comprehensive investigation into these Bush Administration policies and those responsible for them. Nothing less than our country's national security and stature as a leader in promoting human rights are at stake. Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy got it right when he said "We cannot continue to look the other way; we need to understand how these policies were formed if we are to ensure that this can never happen again." The need for such an investigation is further demonstrated by Mr. Cheney's recent remarks in which he dismisses questions about Bush Administration interrogation policies as "nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative" and "contrived indignation and phony moralizing about the interrogation methods applied to "a few captured terrorists." Mr. Cheney further derides any calls for investigations: Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect, treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors. Just as Mr. Cheney's simplistic assertion that Abu Ghraib was caused by a few bad apples, he now seeks to equate any efforts at accountability as merely political "sour grapes." And while it may be easy to dismiss Mr. Cheney and his statements as marginalized, he is far from alone. On today's edition of Meet the Press , former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also reiterated the false assertion that the "enhanced interrogation practices were only used in very limited circumstances." A full page ad that recently appeared in the New York Times by the "Torture Truth Project" called on the U.S. media to stop misleading the world that our country condones Torture. Again it is the messenger rather than the perpetrator who gets blamed. And it isn't our country that condones torture, but rather our prior administration that condoned torture. This again demonstrates why investigation and accountability regarding torture are essential in demonstrating to the world that we are a country that functions under the rule of law and no one is above the law. I appreciate that President Obama is inundated by pressing domestic and international concerns. Our economy, health care reform, the intensifying war in Afghanistan, and digging ourselves out of the horrible mire of Guantanamo created by the prior administration present enormous challenges. This too might seem good reason to move on, or leave it to the current investigative bodies including Congressional committees who have or will hold hearings, and the justice department to continue. But these separate investigations, will provide snapshots, rather than a much needed comprehensive overview. This is not about looking backward, but rather taking the necessary measures to prevent this from happening again. Such an investigation should also examine the roles that health professionals played in developing and implementing this policy of torture. Furthermore, the focus of this investigation should be on the senior policy makers and not simply the attorneys who wrote the legal memos justifying these policies or the rank and file agents and soldiers who implemented these policies. Torture is neither reliable in eliciting accurate information nor in promoting national security. It is a violation of domestic and international law. Our use of torture has undermined our security and credibility including our capacity to speak out against despot regimes who routinely torture innocent civilians. An honest and full accounting of what happened is a crucial step in making this world a safer place.
 
Joshua Schoen: The Right to Vote, the Right to be Elected Top
In the United States, elections are highly revered. They are the means by which the public achieves adequate representation. When this nation was formed, our founding fathers demanded a government in which the people had a voice. This practice has been expanded upon for centuries with the women's and black suffrage movements in particular, but today there is very little representation in the government for the youth of this country. One New York City teenager is trying to change that. Dodge Landesman, an eighteen year-old, is running for City Council in the Second District of New York. His main platform issue is the reform of the public school system, by having the city council work with the mayor's office. He has also been actively campaigning by making flyers and by posting on his official website. All of this may seem far-fetched for someone still in high school, but Dodge has received some influential support such as noted restaurateur Danny Meyer and esteemed actress Julianne Moore. Landesman knows that the challenges that face him are many. In a recent interview, Landesman stated, "I understand the difficulties that I face, especially considering that I am running against an incumbent (Rosie Mendez). But tides do tend to shift, and hopefully as representative of the youth of my district I can squeak out a victory." Landesman's comments bring out an interesting point and one that is certainly worthy of debate: should youth in the country be represented in public office? There are nearly fifteen million Americans aged eighteen to twenty-four, however, there are very few in public office. One could assume that those few that run are rarely elected because at eighteen they hardly have any experience, but America was founded on the faith in accurate representation for all. That is why people like Dodge Landesman deserve a place in public office, because everyone in this country has a right to a voice in government.
 
Han Shan: The Video Shell Doesn't Want You to See Top
For over thirteen years, multinational oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has done everything in its power to stop a trial from taking place at which the company must answer to charges that it colluded with the Nigerian military to commit serious human rights abuses to quell peaceful resistance to its operations in the Niger Delta region called Ogoni, including conspiring to bring about the conviction and execution of Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his colleagues. On Tuesday, there was a last-minute announcement that the trial is postponed with no new date given but it is expected to commence soon, and the plaintiffs -- Ogoni villagers and family members of people who were killed -- will finally have their day in court. There has been a flurry of media attention as the lawyers prepare for battle in the courtroom. However, some of the most interesting events are happening behind-the-scenes in the lead up to the trial. They show that Shell continues to do everything in its power to keep the truth from coming out. On May 12, Shell's lawyers filed a motion opposing the admission of prominent human rights attorney Paul Hoffman to serve as trial counsel for the plaintiffs. [ download PDF of the document ] As standard procedure for a trial of this kind, Hoffman had filed a "pro hac vice" application with the court. The Latin pro hac vice is a legal term meaning "for this occasion," and refers to the lawyer being granted permission to serve in a state where he or she may not hold a law license. In this case, California-based Hoffman was filing to represent the plaintiffs in federal court in New York. In the motion by Shell's lawyers to oppose Hoffman as counsel, they explain how seriously they take it: "Defendants' counsel have over 70 years of experience among us, and none of the three of us has ever had occasion to oppose a pro hac vice application." So why was Shell opposing Hoffman's participation in the trial? "However, here the website maintained by Mr. Hoffman's firm... contains an announcement that Mr. Hoffman will be one of the lead trial lawyers in this matter, along with a link to plaintiffs' "campaign video" that we have previously raised with the Court ." [Emphasis added] It goes on to conclude: "posting of that link...is, in our view, inconsistent with counsel's obligations under the Canon 7 of the New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility, Ethical Consideration 7-33, and Disciplinary Rune 7-107." Well, the court disagreed. In the 'Minute Entry" of the court proceedings from May 18, the court rules against Shell's motion to deny Paul Hoffman's participation in the trial: "All pro hac vice applications are granted for the purposes of this case. The Court finds that statements made by plaintiff's counsel did not violate Rule 3.6 of New York Professional Conduct." But then it goes on to say: "However, plaintiff's counsel must remove the video from the website." Soon after those court proceedings, the video disappeared from the WiwavShell.org website, maintained by the Center for Constitutional Rights and EarthRights International, the two organizations who have been the plaintiffs' main co-counsel in the case. I don't know how often or how vigorously Shell has complained about this video, but they have. And they take it so seriously that three lawyers with "over 70 years of experience" filed their first motion opposing an opposing counsel's pro hac vice application over it. So what's the big deal? Well, you be the judge. Click on the image to watch it: More on Nigeria
 
Oxford Top Poet Post Spurs Academic Infighting Top
LONDON _ A fight over who gets to be Oxford University's top poet has set Britain's pens racing _ and weakened the careers of two well-known wordsmiths. St. Lucia-born Derek Walcott pulled out of the race for Oxford's Professor of Poetry after letters were distributed highlighting sexual harassment allegations made against him at Harvard and Boston Universities in the 1980s and 1990s. His rival, Ruth Padel, resigned from the prestigious post Monday after admitting she sent e-mails to journalists publicizing the claims. Some commentators called the move poetic justice, but others say the controversy uncovered the racially and sexually charged undercurrents still coursing through the uppermost reaches of academia. Padel, the first female Professor of Poetry since the job was created three centuries ago, was elected only after Walcott, a Nobel Literature Laureate, dropped out under pressure from an anonymous letter-writing campaign. The mysterious missives, dropped in Oxford University mailboxes, reportedly recapped a 1982 incident in which officials at Harvard admonished Walcott for pressuring a freshman into having sex with him, as well as a 1996 sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by a former Boston University graduate student. Walcott called the letters an attempt at character assassination. Padel denied having anything to do with them, but The Sunday Times revealed that she had drawn attention to the charges in e-mail exchanges with unidentified journalists. Some of her previous backers called on her to stand down. "As soon as I was told yesterday that there were people in Oxford who were severely against me I thought it was the right thing," she told BBC radio Tuesday. "I didn't want to divide the university, I wanted to offer it my services, so of course I stood down immediately." A message seeking comment from Walcott's publishers, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, was not immediately returned. But Walcott was quoted in The Times of London on Tuesday as saying he would not run for the position again. Walcott said he had no desire to revisit "that awful business," the Times said. Poet Jackie Kay mourned the loss of Padel, telling The Guardian newspaper that "the old boys have closed in on her." "It would not have happened to a man, and I am very sad," she said. Novelist Jeanette Winterson, herself an Oxford graduate, told the paper that her alma mater was "a sexist little dump." The controversy has been splashed all over the British papers, with some literary pundits lashing Padel and others expressing disquiet that some people appeared not to be taking sexual harassment seriously. Columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said that, as a black man and a woman competing for one of British academia's most venerable posts, Walcott and Padel should have known they would be come in for a disproportionate amount of scrutiny. "At one level, this mirrors the fierce contest between race and gender represented by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton," she wrote in The Independent newspaper. "Only it is more unforgiving and is playing out in what is believed to be that otherworldly, cerebral, ancient place of learning ... Oxford." The notion that such an underhanded campaign _ with allegations of sexual impropriety, anonymous letters, and briefings to journalists _ took place at the English-speaking world's oldest university excited particular comment. Guardian columnist Zoe Williams suggested that it was because the dispute pitted poets _ of all people _ against each other that it was so enthralling. "You have these two people held, as poets, to represent the highest in human sensibility, and as academics, the most advanced in maturity and sophistication, and they're pulling each other's pigtails," she wrote. ___ On the Net: http://www.oxfordpoetry.co.uk/ More on England
 
Afghan Taken To Guantanamo At Age 12: Rights Group Top
KABUL (Reuters) -- An Afghan who has spent over six years at the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay prison was only around 12 years old when he was detained, not 16 or 17 as his official record says, an Afghan rights group said on Tuesday. More on Guantánamo Bay
 
FASHION VICTIMS: Skinny Jeans, Stilettos Can Cause Nerve Damage Top
Aside from the potential eyesore given to passersby, skinny jeans can actually cause health problems, according to an MSNBC article . Meet 28-year-old Parmeeta Ghoman: a true fashion victim. When she wore a pair of super-tight skinny jeans to dinner with friends in December, she noticed an odd tingly sensation running up and down her thighs. And when she got up to walk around, things got weirder. She felt like she was almost "floating," because she couldn't feel her legs. "It felt really strange -- it felt like my leg had gone to sleep," Ghoman says. Ghoman's fashion emergency is a nerve condition called meralgia paresthetica, or "tingling thigh syndrome." The condition can happen when constant pressure -- in Ghoman's case, from the skin-tight denim -- cuts off the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, causing a numb, tingling or burning sensation along the thigh. The symptoms are most commonly experienced among those who wear tight belts or clothing, such as police officers, construction workers, and pregnant or obese women, but the malady is on the rise in young, healthy trendsetters. And for the super stylish, there's an added health risk: high heels only worsen the problem by tilting the pelvis forward. Fortunately, doctors say that the tingling is a temporary sensation that diminishes with wearing looser ensembles. Comfort is key. Check out Michelle Obama 's and Carla Bruni 's fixations on flat shoes. And if you want tight trousers, try leggings instead of jeans. *Follow Huffington Post Style on Twitter and become a fan of Huffington Post Style on Facebook * More on Fashion
 
Francine Hardaway: A Primer on Twitter Top
Image via CrunchBase Let me set the scene for you, It will probably not be a familiar setting. I am at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA. The room is overflowing. This is a successful tech conference in a down economy. Most of the attendees are young, about 90% of them have their laptops out, and about 75% of those laptops are Macs. I am at 140|The Twitter Conference , one of the first conferences devoted to the use of Twitter as a business tool. Twitter, originally an internal communications tool for a trio of developers, launched in 2006 and took off at SXSW, a creative conference held every year in Austin, TX.. Since then, its explosive growth has transformed it from a silly tech tool into part of the brand marketing tool kit. Representatives of many major brands are here trying to learn how best to use Twitter in their arsenal. How does something like this happen? For the life of me, I don't know. I think it's the simplicity; it's not all that difficult to sign up for Twitter and answer the first question, "what are you doing?" The answer to this question used to be characteristically something like "going to the In-and-Out Burger in Mountain View for lunch. Who else wants to?" Now, it can often be "6.9 magnitude earthquake in the southern provinces of China." or "Just got diagnosed with cancer, does anyone know a good surgeon in D.C.?" Or "I'm in Mumbai, and they are shooting across the street from my house." Twitter thinks of itself as a data communications network, or a distribution network -- not unlike a newspaper or a TV channel -- taking data in from its users and providing a platform to re-distribute it back out to other audiences. It is becoming focused on providing tools for the media community, which is pretty interesting when you realize that print media and broadcast media are both dying, but the appetite for news is not. More is happening on Twitter than anyone realizes when they dismiss the service. For one thing, it is a 24/7 service. It dips a little in the mid-week, mid-day, but otherwise it is pretty consistent, worldwide. And it now has users with big "social graphs" (Oprah, Ashton Kutcher) who need special developer services. New users use the web first, and then move quickly to a Twitter "client" that sits on the phone or the desktop (Seesmic Desktop, Tweetdeck, Tweetie) so they don't have to go to the site itself. While newbies feel alone and struggle for followers, power users are past the point of counting their followers; they are more involved with they relationships have built over time with those followers. Tara Hunt, one of the panelists and author of "The Whuffie Factor" http://www.horsepigcow.com/book-the-whuffie-factor/ just showed a slide show of 40 random tweets from people she follows, and the results were 1) hilarious, 2) useful, 3) informative, 4) touching, 5) intelligent. That sums up Twitter in a nutshell. @iJustine, another speaker, built an entire career on Twitter, allowing us all to live vicariously by following her Twitter stream. You truly get a sense of who she is in 140 characters, including her moods, her failures, her highs and her preferences. Some celebrities like @therealshaq use Twitter to build a brand, while others build a brand unconsciously or unceremoniously by putting themselves "out there" talking about their ordinary thoughts and lives. If you are thinking of getting on Twitter, or are on it and feeling lost, here are a few Twitter Tips: The best time of day to get a response on Twitter and get followers: Saturday morning and Sunday night. Tools that make Twitter easier : Tweetdeck: Desktop Twitter client that lets you see all your activity on one screen Seesmic Desktop: Get your tweets, Facebook, and Seesmic posts on your desktop on one screen Tweetie, Twitterific: two good iPhone applications for Twitter Hootsuite: manage multiple Twitter accounts Backtweets: how many times has a link been tweeted Cotweet: how do you manage multiple twitters on one account Twitalayzer:how does your Twitter performance stack up compared to your friends Twitter.mailana.com: who are you talking to most Twitvid: make and post videos to Twitter Twitpic: post photos Don't become a bot. That means no automated tweets, and no automated direct messages to people who follow you. On Twitter, as in life, it's cooler to be answered by a human being than by a robot. And automating your tweets lets opportunity escape. It's best to join conversations and build relationships. Start by listening. Then take part in the conversation, sharing your thoughts, your expertise, your life. I promise. You will love Twitter after a while. More on Twitter
 
Ron S. Geffner: Battle of the Regulators Top
As early as next week, the Obama administration is expected to unveil plans to dismantle parts of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a regulatory reorganization. A proposal, still believed by many to be in draft form, is rumored to reallocate regulatory supervision of the financial titans -- those institutions deemed too large to fail -- to the Federal Reserve. Other items expected to be stripped from SEC oversight include consumer finance products such as mutual funds. A regulatory reorganization is premature and inconsistent with other actions taken on Capital Hill. On February 26, 2009, the Obama administration announced plans to boost the SEC's budget by 13%. The SEC has been underfinanced for almost two decades and as a result, understaffed. It will take time to both hire and train new staff even after the new budget goes into effect in fiscal 2010. Nonetheless, the economic crisis was not a function of the gaffe involving Madoff. The economic crisis is a result, in part, of the real estate bubble, caused by exceptionally long periods of low interest rates, a decision driven by the Federal Reserve. Another culprit, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- thank you Congress. Sorry, but everyone does not deserve to own a home. If you cannot afford to pay for it, don't buy it. If you're a lender and they cannot afford to pay for it, don't extend credit. Our economy was drunk on the American consumer's excess and we are now experiencing the hangover. Point is, there is no regulatory agency nor are any of our elected officials without blood on their hands. Each has contributed to the economic crisis. The SEC has a long history of and experience in monitoring and prosecuting the financial industry. Over the next 12 months the SEC will continue to dramatically recreate and improve itself as the budget increases allow the SEC to hire and train new staff and the new Chairwoman, Mary Schapiro continues to implement her plan. We all want the economy to improve, but recognize that haste makes waste. Allow the budget to kick in and provide the Chairwoman the opportunity to do her job. More on The Recession
 
Howie Klein: WalMart Won't Carry The Best Record Of The Year-- Green Day's 21st Century Breakdown Top
The American record industry allowed itself to be bamboozled into giving WalMart and similar operations a near monopoly over their music. It was a catastrophe for them and their artists, especially emerging artists who now have no place to sell their CDs. But it should be no problem for a superstar act like Green Day, right? Well, no. Green Day won't self-censor their songs, which WalMart demands of artists, even platinum-selling ones. So they're not carrying 21st Century Breakdown , the band's politically charged brand new album. Green Day lead singer Billie Joe isn't budging. "They want artists to censor their records in order to be carried in there. We just said no. We've never done it before. You feel like you're in 1953 or something." 21st Century Breakdown is certainly Green Day's best record ever-- and that's saying a lot. It's also the best record of 2009 so far and perhaps of the almost finished first decade of the new century. Yeah, that good. It's their most mature endeavor, the fulfillment of all the promise they've always had. There are no weak cuts. And, according in yesterday's NY Times the release couldn't have come at a better time for Warner Bros, their label. Reporting on the cascading economics of the music industry, the Times points to CD sales that have been cut in half in the last 10 years. Warner Bros doesn't really stay in business by selling music; they sell bonds to investors who get sold a bill of goods. Last week the group led by Edgar Bronfman Jr. decided to try to sell $500 million of new bonds to replace some of its existing debt and extend the overall maturity of its liabilities. Like tickets for a 1970s concert for The Who, investors practically stampeded to get their hands on the paper. Investors were so enthusiastic that the company expanded the deal and sold $1.1 billion of senior secured notes. As a result, Warner paid off all its existing debt and extended the date by which it needed to pay it back until 2016. U.S. Treasury bonds, for the same time span, are offering a modest 3.4% return while the Warner Music bonds are offering a juicy 9.5% annually. Some people never learn but unless Green Day puts out an album like 21st Century Breakdown every year between now and 2016, my guess is that the suckers who bought the bonds-- or, more likely, the poor saps they get unloaded on-- will wish they had stuck with the Treasuries... or invested their retirement funds in autographed Green Day memorabilia. WalMart, which the record companies helped turn into their biggest sales outlet (perhaps more detrimental to their own health than downloading and piracy) refuses to carry Green Day because of "dirty words." And iTunes, after non-stop badgering and threats from the label, has allowed the labels to set their own prices. Warners promptly upped the price on Green Day's songs from 99 cents to $1.29. Wall Street, always short term thinkers, loves it but it's likely to lead to even more people choosing the... free option. I called a friend to tell him how the new Green Day record was the best thing I had heard in years and before the phone call was completed he was downloading it-- from some kind of illegal site. Warner is bragging because its quarterly earnings were only down 14% (much less than the industry's as a whole). And Goldman Sachs estimates their income could remain flat for the next three years. Break out the champagne? Probably not-- and the cost of the champagne could go towards buying another company, EMI, which is even worse shape than Warner Bros. If they do it fast enough, maybe both companies could get behind "Last Night On Earth," a song incredibly reminiscent of the Beatles' Revolver era. I remember once going for a ride with one of my label's classic platinum artists who had invited me to his home to hear his just completed new album. He bragged to me that he wrote the whole thing in a day and recorded it in less than a week. I never knew for sure if he was joking but the record sounded-- and sold-- like he was describing it accurately. I don't know how long Green Day, along with producer Butch Vig, has been working on 21st Century Breakdown but if they told me it was for the whole 5 years since the release of American Idiot I wouldn't doubt them. It sounds like there was a great deal of thought, energy, sweat and tears put into this opus dealing-- in a very personal way-- with the horrific mess Bush left behind. I might as well admit that the whole post was just an excuse for me to kick back and work on a clip for a Green Day song. It's a daunting task because the songs are so amazing that even before I start looking for photos, I know there's no chance I can do the music justice. It's kept me at bay all week. But... There are two songs called "Viva La Gloria!" (well one is "Viva La Gloria?") that are woven into the only artistically successful rock opera I've ever heard. I'm opting for "Viva La Gloria?" more because there are homages that remind me of the Doors and Queen than because I like it any more than the other--!-- rendition. Viva La Gloria by Green Day from Howie Klein on Vimeo . My friend Harry typed out this quote from Billie Joe Armstrong that's in the new issue of Rolling Stone which came to his house... in the mail. Looks like what the band accomplished with this record wasn't like a coincidence or whimsy. "Maybe that's the reason most people don't go for it," he says. "You can scare yourself with ambition-- having the audacity to want to be as good as John Lennon or Paul McCartney or Joe Strummer. There has been so much great shit before me I feel like a student: Who the fuck do I think I am." "But you have to battle past that," he insists in his rapid fire punk chirp. "It's the people who are overconfident who are the ones putting out the biggest piles of shit. If you're at that place where you're working hard but don't feel like you know what you're doing anymore,then you're on to something." And it looks like the young man accomplished what he set out to do. More on Wal-Mart
 
Model Adriana Lima PREGNANT Top
Lima, a Victoria's Secret Angel, and her husband NBA star Marko Jaric, are expecting their first child together, reps for the couple confirm to PEOPLE exclusively. Lima is due this winter. More on Fashion
 
Mike Malloy: 14th Amendment: R.I.P. Top
The California Supreme Court today upheld a voter-approved ban - the recent so-called Prop 8 - on same-sex marriage, but in the same ruling decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who got married before the ban took effect last November will continue as legally married couples. Is that not an astonishing ruling? Same-sex couples who were married several months ago did so legally, but couples seeking the same status today seek an illegal contract - illegal because of religious insanity. Excuse me a second while my head explodes. In other words, in the brief time after the first Supreme Court ruling on this issue in May 2008 until the religious crazies could get a ballot initiative before the voters last November - a total of six months - same-sex marriage was legal. Now it's not. WTF? Today's ruling indicates the Court was unwilling to, in effect, nullify the decision by a majority of California voters ( 52% to 48%) who decided in the November 2008 initiative to deny the legal, civil right of marriage to couples who happened to be of the same sex. That decision had, of course, no basis in law - except mob law - and had its origins exclusively in religious nuttiness and church-ordered persecution. Today's ruling codifies the right of the majority to tyrannize the minority - at the very least where it concerns denying legal status to people who happen to be homosexual. How else should one read the decision? It was only a year ago that the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights" including, obviously, the right to sign a marriage contract that contains the same rights and responsibilities whether the signatories are homosexual or heterosexual. Last year, writing for the 4-3 majority, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, "We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples." The ruling was comparable to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage (which was also a religious nut-ball ban to begin with). The California ruling was about civil marriage; about fundamental, equal rights under the law. It has nothing to do with religion. People who want to worship a god or an animal or a piece of furniture have a legal right to deny sanctifying a marriage between people who do not worship a god or an animal or a piece of furniture. And that's where it ends. The State issues a marriage license, not a snarling pack of religious bigots. But, we know the story of Prop 8, don't we. Shortly after last year's ruling on the denial of the civil right of marriage, the religious assholes went to work and Proposition 8 was born in an attempt (today proven successful) to duplicate a 2000 voter referendum that banned same-sex marriage. It was that law that was struck down in May of 2008. So, what now? For the time being, the Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, is dead, murdered in California by religious freaks who insist god said he didn't want the queers to marry. The Clause provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Hey, ask any religious idiot and he or she will tell you without hesitation: "Gawd's law is waaayyyyy more important than man's law." The California Supreme Court today agreed with that steaming pile of religious bullshit. - MDM Mike Malloy can be heard daily on his radio show 9pm - 12pm ET. Visit www.mikemalloy.com to stream live or find a station near you.
 
Ray Hanania: Remembering a Major Tragedy From 30 Years Ago at O'Hare Airport Top
It was late on a Friday afternoon before the Memorial Day weekend in 1979 and we were all sitting around in the City Hall press room when word came down that a plane had crashed at O'Hare Airport. I don't know why, except that maybe we were starting to get tired of the five-stories-a-day pace that Chicago's first woman mayor, Jane M. Byrne, created. But I remember telling my editor on the telephone that I wanted to go there to cover it. I had seen crashes on television. But nothing came close to what I saw that afternoon after grabbing my car from a parking lot down the street and driving right to the crash scene just off Touhy Avenue in Elk Grove Village. Flight 191 had taken off on May 25, the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day afternoon, for Los Angeles Airport. The American Airline DC-10 had some 271 passengers including 13 members of the flight crew. Apparently, minutes into the flight, an engine broke and the plane came crashing down in a nearby field killing all the passengers and crew, and two people on the ground. I remember the scene there when I arrived. There were dozens of fire trucks and police cars. Police and firemen were walking all around. There was still some heat from parts of the plane. The field was strewn with litter. No one stopped me or a handful of other reporters from walking near the site, which had been cordoned off. But you could get right up close. Little flags -- I think colored orange -- marked spots where body remains had been found. Eventually, the remains that could be found were taken to a makeshift morgue nearby in a hangar near the airport. Parts of the plane also were moved there, too. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had representatives at the site, too, and they were giving regular briefings. I scribbled what I could into my notebook, and wrote down some observations about the scene. Readers knew there would be deaths. But seeing the carnage right there was shocking. I was afraid to walk around, thinking the area cordoned off wasn't complete. Emergency personnel slowly sifted through the wreckage. Occasionally you would see them lift something from the ground. They'd group together, bend over. Looking like they were inspecting. A photograph would record the scene and then eventually it was removed. I hate to say "it" because I might be talking about the remains of people. I was surprised at how close I was able to get to the crash site. I remember driving on the shoulder to get through the afternoon rush hour traffic to get to the site. I parked on the side of the road and left a police media card in the window. I had a blue Camaro with t-tops that always got stolen until I removed the handles that unlocked them from their roof braces. Thirty years ago is not like today. I didn't have a cell phone and I didn't have a video camera. In fact, I didn't have a camera at all, although I owned a nice Canon AE1, 35 MM, a good one for an amateur photographer. I can imagine how different the story would be today, with everything recorded in video. Twittering notes from my cell with pictures to Twitter and then simulcast posted on my Facebook account to my 1,300 "friends," many of them reporters and journalists and columnists. Not every photo would get published but you photograph everything, including the gruesome images. The bigger picture and the close-up tragedies. Thirty years have passed. Every Memorial Day weekend I remember the crash. I don't know why. I didn't know any of the names on the passenger list. But I often wondered about what their lives might have been like. In 30 years, families are built. Children are born and grown up. They enter their careers. Who knows who might have emerged in some great manner to change the world from those who died that day? Later. when I left the community newspaper and went to the Chicago Sun-Times , I covered many other tragedies, including fires that took the lives of families, children and the homeless who slept in abandoned properties that were torched. I always remember going to the surviving relatives asking about those who died, being greeted with great sorrow. And shock, sometimes, at my even bothering them at these great moments of grief. But I always told the survivors, a mother, brother or friend, that the stories written would survive and become the lasting memories that people would carry around with them as newspaper clippings in their wallets. Years from now, I would say, all that you will have left are your memories and what little the news media might write about their once-full lives. That crash in 1979 is a memory I carry with me always. What would have become of the people on that flight had they lived and gone off to their vacations, business meetings or personal trips in Los Angeles? What would have become of the children on the flight and young people? What lives would have been born had their lives not ended that day? Thirty years ago. All we can remember is what is left to read from reports published in the days and weeks that followed in the pages of newspapers, many of them no longer in existence. All that is left are what little survives in our memories years later. They say people live forever after death, in the memories of those who are still alive. We have to remember everyone, for no other reason than to help keep them alive. Ray Hanania covered City Hall from 1977 through 1992. He hosts a morning radio show in Chicago and writes a column for the Southwest News-Herald. www.RadioChicagoland.com.
 
White House Combines Homeland Security And National Security Councils Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama announced Tuesday he is combining White House staffs dealing with international and homeland security, predicting the change will make Americans safer. Obama also is creating a new office intended to communicate more effectively with other countries about U.S. security policy. The Homeland Security Council, created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, will be kept as a venue for discussing issues concerning domestic security, including terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, natural disasters and pandemic influenza. Its staff will be integrated into the National Security Council. "These decisions reflect the fundamental truth that the challenges of the 21st century are increasingly unconventional and transnational, and therefore demand a response that effectively integrates all aspects of American power," Obama said in a written statement. The president's national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, told reporters the reorganization reflects the view that national security has both foreign and domestic components. "What this does is recognize the world as it is, not as it was or as we perhaps wish it would be," Jones said. "The idea that somehow counterterrorism is a homeland security issue doesn't make sense when you recognize the fact that terror around the world doesn't recognize borders." Similarly, issues like energy and cyber security need to be part of an integrated National Security Council, he said. Fran Townsend, who was President George W. Bush's top adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism, said in an e-mail exchange Tuesday that the important issue is not how the White House is organized. "It has been my view that Homeland Security Council organization is less important than having direct access to the president and adequate resources," Townsend said. "The administration's new (security) organization will require the necessary resource allocations across the broad spectrum of threats against the United States. Gen. Jones and John Brennan are experienced, competent officials up to the task." Brennan is assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. The reorganization will retain that position. The National Security Council has historically been centered on State Department and Pentagon matters, but Jones made clear when he joined the administration in January that he believed national security must be addressed more broadly to include economic, narco-terror, arms proliferation and other issues. Obama said the newly expanded National Security staff, under Jones' direction, "will end the artificial divide between White House staff who have been dealing with national security and homeland security issues." The president also is creating a new "global engagement directorate" within the National Security Council to more effectively use diplomacy, communications and international aid to support U.S. national security. Other new positions on the council include cybersecurity and transborder security. The House Homeland Security Committee's top Republican, Rep. Peter King of New York, said Obama had come up with a "workable solution." He praised the decision to retain the Homeland Security Council but said he would have preferred that Brennan have direct hiring authority and control over his staff.
 
Jenna Busch: Gene Roddenberry's Son Talks Star Trek Top
Rod Roddenberry Nobody can deny that the new Star Trek film has silenced most of the critics. Fanboys (and girls) and newcomers alike have fallen in love with the re-imagining of Gene Roddenberry's beloved characters who "boldly go where no one has gone before". The logical, yet lovable Spock (Zachery Quinto), the bravado-filled Kirk (Chris Pine), the brilliantly cast Scotty (Simon Pegg)... there was even an original cast member. I won't spoil it for you if you haven't seen it yet, (and if you haven't, what are you waiting for?) though he's been doing the talk show circuit, bringing the crew on The View almost to tears by saying his famous line. The franchise has been successfully relaunched, which Roddenberry's son Rod is hoping will bring a whole new generation of fans to the series. "They did a great job in my opinion," he said, "of keeping all the fans, all the admirers of Star Trek , they kept it real for you, but they also did a great job of bringing a new audience in." May 9th on Catalina Island off the coast of California, at the historic Casino Theatre, Rod Roddenberry welcomed original cast members George Takei (Sulu), Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) and scores of fans (me included) to screen the film. I'm sure you've read dozens of reviews by now, mostly positive, so I'll restrain myself and say only this: The film is fantastic. I'm seeing it again and looking forward to sequels from director J.J. Abrams and the almost inevitable new television series. (Fingers crossed for that.) For me, just as interesting as the film, was hearing the reaction of the fans to little details. And when the late and much beloved Majel Barrett's voice issued from the computer, the fans went wild. People stayed for the credits and applauded wildly when her name appeared. Before the film, Rod told a story about his mom from the beginning of the series. It's been told before but it bears repeating. " The Cage ... the pilot that was never released until much later. My father, obviously, fell in love with my mother and put her as, actually, Number One... on the show. She was second in command and it was done in, I think '65, where the idea of a woman a second in command was, oh my God! How can they possibly do that? Women can't think that far... obviously my father was ahead of his time." ` Roddenberry also showed a preview of the documentary he's been working on for eight years, Trek Nation . "My father passed away when I was seventeen. I had no idea what Star Trek was...I really had no clue what the core was. When my father passed away, a few people got onstage and talked about how Star Trek had inspired them...I had no idea...I was watching Knight Rider and Dukes of Hazard ...my eyes and ears were opened. I learned that Star Trek had touched people in a lot of ways...I was shocked to hell that a TV show could do this...so I went on a journey to discover who Gene Roddenberry was because I just knew him as 'Dad'." The six minutes we saw was fascinating and Roddenberry says that if the rough cut they just got looked good, we would hear some news in a few months. Star Trek is in theaters now. Check out the official website here . More on Mumbai Attacks
 
Ireland To Demand Catholic Church Pay Additional Reparations For Child Abuses Top
DUBLIN — Ireland's government announced Tuesday it will summon Roman Catholic orders and demand they contribute more funds to the thousands of people who suffered rampant abuse in church-run residences for children. Prime Minister Brian Cowen said his government fully accepted the damning findings from a nine-year investigation into scores of state-funded, church-run schools for Ireland's poorest children. The report found that children suffered decades of physical, sexual and psychological abuse in the ill-monitored facilities until the last of them closed in the 1990s. Cowen said the 18 orders of Catholic brothers and nuns who ran the workhouse-style schools would be pressed in face-to-face meetings to face up to their moral responsibility to do more, particularly by funding counseling and education services for victims and their families. He said the meetings would begin as soon as possible but specified no date. The premier noted that one order heavily implicated in brutality and molestation at boys' schools, the Christian Brothers, had pledged earlier Tuesday to search their finances and assets for "surplus" funds. "I believe the other individual congregations involved should now also articulate their willingness to make a further substantial voluntary contribution," Cowen said in a prepared statement at his Government Buildings office in central Dublin. Since the abuse report's publication last week, the orders have insisted they won't contribute more to a 2002 deal with the government that left taxpayers to pay almost all of the euro1.1 billion ($1.5 billion) legal bill for 14,000 abuse settlements. But the orders have suggested they might spend more on support services for their victims _ an offer dismissed as inadequate and inappropriate by embittered victims' groups but welcomed by the government. Cowen said he expected the Christian Brothers and other secretive orders to declare their finances and extensive property assets as part of any new deal. He said the public had a right "to assess the significance of these contributions by reference to the resources available to these congregations." He said it was right that taxpayers should bear much of the cost for aiding victims, because governments for decades gave a free hand to Catholic orders to run the schools as they saw fit with little to no effective monitoring from the outside. "It is deeply shameful for all Irish people that this happened in our country and that for so long it was not confronted. The failure of society in the treatment of children is laid bare in this report and it is horrendous," Cowen said. "These children were placed in institutions by the state and the state had a duty of care to them. The victims were betrayed by the state and we must ensure that this can never, ever happen again," he said. "Those orders whose members committed the abuse must too face their moral responsibilities." The Conference of Religious in Ireland, an umbrella body for religious orders, said its members were awaiting a formal invitation for talks with the government. ___ On the Net: Ireland's compensation board for abuse victims, http://www.rirb.ie/ Abuse report, http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/ More on Ireland
 
Rob Diamond: We Need a Truth Commission on Torture...with Immunity for All Top
Ask any member of the United States Armed Forces to show you their military identification card, and you will notice on the front of that ID, at the bottom and in clear print, the words "Geneva Conventions Identification Card." I carried one of these military ID's for 11 years, and whenever I had reason to think about the Geneva Conventions or the possibility, however remote, of becoming a prisoner of war, there was always a small sense of comfort that I would be protected. It is now clear that the Bush administration's decision in January, 2002, that classified members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban as "unlawful combatants"--and therefore outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions--was the key decision in a dangerous chain of subsequent legal opinions that resulted in the mistreatment, abuse and torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and CIA black-sites around the globe. A line was crossed, and laws were broken. However, I agree with President Obama's recent decision that Bush administration officials responsible for writing, authorizing and executing these policies should not face criminal charges. While I do believe they violated the letter and the spirit of U.S and international law, this country does not need criminal prosecution of these people. It can, and must do better. Instead, we should demand that "justice" be brought in a different fashion--by granting these people immunity from prosecution in exchange for the forfeiture of their Fifth Amendment rights, and the requirement that they give full, honest and frank testimony before a United States Truth Commission on Torture. The point of a Truth Commission is not to establish whether abuses occurred, or if prisoners were tortured. We already know they were (Khalid Sheik Mohammed--the embodiment of evil that he is--was waterboarded 183 times in one month. I will not debate here the question of "did he deserve it," but that is torture). Rather, the point of the Truth Commission is to establish why and how these decisions were made, and to identify solutions and recommendations that will insure they can never occur again. Without immunity, we will never fully understand what forces of logic and nature brought members of our government to conclude it was necessary and justified to torture another human being--regardless of that person being a suspected mass murderer and terrorist. No criminal trial will bring to light the full truth, as hard as we press to get at it. Instead, we must demand that these former members of our government stand before the court of public opinion to defend the actions they took and the decisions they made. We, as a nation and as individuals, can render our own verdicts. There is precedent here. After the abolition of apartheid in the mid-1990's, the government of South Africa established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). As the final TRC report itself states, the Commission was founded with a mandate to: "uncover as much as possible of the truth about past gross violations of human rights - a difficult and often very unpleasant task. The Commission was founded, however, in the belief that this task was necessary for the promotion of reconciliation and national unity." Congress should move swiftly to impanel such a Commission, with a similar mandate to bring forth the truth. The Commission should be made up of an even, bipartisan selection of prominent Americans capable of investigation and examination, however unpleasant it may be, and where ever it should lead. As a nation, we cannot pretend that this will never happen again. There will be another terrorist attack somewhere, someday. But without a true and honest explanation of what transpired in the years after 9/11, we risk another generation of government officials repeating these mistakes again. The bottom line is that there is and will forever be a stain on our collective national conscience as a result of the abuse of detainees and prisoners by the United States government. We have a chance to make amends for these sins, not through words, but through actions. Let the decision makers, lawyers, interrogators and anyone else involved in this matter state their case in public without fear of reprisal or imprisonment. Let us find out what really happened, and decide, as a collective republic, once and for all, where our values stand. More on Guantánamo Bay
 
Medical Marijuana Vote Delayed Again By Illinois Senate Top
Supporters of a much-delayed Illinois Senate bill to legalize medical marijuana will have to wait at least another day, as the vote scheduled for Tuesday has again been postponed. As the Illinois legislative session enters its final days, big-ticket topics such as the budget and ethics reform loom large, and time for taking up a controversial bill like SB 1381, The Compassionate Use of Cannabis Pilot Project Act, gets harder to find. Even if the bill passes the Senate, its chances of passing the House are slim -- and even slimmer for passing during this legislative session, the bill's sponsor, Sen. William R. Haine (D-Alton), told the Huffington Post. Haine said he expects the tally to be close and needs to have all of his 'yes' votes present before he'll call a vote. A Haine aide said that several of the likely 'yes' votes were absent from the chamber Tuesday. Haine looked for an opportunity all last week and at one point entered the Senate chamber determined to call a vote but never got the chance. Though Senate President John Cullerton supports the legislation, he is focused on ethics reform and the state budget and not actively drumming up support for the bill, his spokeswoman told the Huffington Post . More on Health
 
Eyes and Ears Assignment Desk: ASSIGNMENT DESK: Prop 8 Upheld By Courts, Gay Rights Advocates Plan Protests Top
The California Supreme Court upheld the controversial Prop 8 ban on gay marriage today in a 6-1 ruling. Gay rights activists, who had held out hope that the courts would rule that the law contradicted California's constitution, have planned protests across the country to express their outrage. If you live near one of these events (see full list here ) help be HuffPost's eyes. Attend your local event and take photographs or video of the slogans and the protesters. Send us your best pics at photos@huffingtonpost.com with your name and location in the subject line and a caption for each photograph in the body of your email. If you take video of the event, upload your video onto YouTube and send us a link at submissions@huffingtonpost.com .
 
Matthew Palevsky: ASSIGNMENT DESK: Prop 8 Upheld By Courts, Gay Rights Advocats Plan Protests Top
The California Supreme Court upheld the controversial Prop 8 ban on gay marriage today in a 6-1 ruling. Gay rights activists, who had held out hope that the courts would rule that the law contradicted California's constitution, have planned protests across the country to express their outrage. If you live near one of these events (see full list here ) help be HuffPost's eyes. Attend your local event and take photographs or video of the slogans and the protesters. Send us your best pics at photos@huffingtonpost.com with your name and location in the subject line and a caption for each photograph in the body of your email. If you take video of the event, upload your video onto YouTube and send us a link at submissions@huffingtonpost.com .
 
Rick Smith: Letting Go of Your Darlings Top
When completing any meaningful project, the last step is often to let go of the things that you are emotionally attached to. Alan Schaefer, the lead singer and acclaimed songwriter for Five Star Iris calls this "letting go of your darlings." "When writing a song, there are parts that hold special meaning to you - the "darlings". Perhaps it was a single lyric that was your inspiration for the entire song, or a brief melody that stuck in your head and motivated you to write," Alan says. "But as the song is written, it evolves - the melody and lyrics often take on their own form and direction. You have to give the song the space and freedom to mature on its own. Inevitably, you often find that the "darlings" - the initial sparks for the song - just don't fit anymore. No matter how emotionally tied to them you are - eventually you have to let them go." I went through a similar process recently with my new book, The Leap . I have been working on this project for the past four years, and in many ways it is full of "darlings." But I might have failed to notice them were it not for some direct comments from Timothy Ferriss, NYT Bestselling author of The 4-Hour Work Week. Tim had reviewed an advanced copy of the book, and while his general comments were extremely encouraging, he did point out a few specific paragraphs that just didn't seem to fit. After a fresh review, I knew he was right. There was a piece of research that had originally been the cornerstone of an entire chapter, but which now seemed out of place. There was a personal story that was interesting and humorous, but did not add to the main point. There was an anecdote that seemed to reiterate a point that had already been sufficiently made. After having read through the manuscript what seems like 100 times, each of these items held a personal meaning to me. Each in its own way was critical to the creation of the book, but none deserved to be part of the final product. In the creative process, the ultimate goal is not complexity, but simple elegance. It is deletion, not addition, that signals closure. When you think that a project is finally complete, take one last look at it. Analyzing it through fresh and impartial eyes may help you identify those once brilliant sparks that now linger as excess baggage. This post was originally published at RickSmith.me Subscribe to Rick's Blog . Friend Rick Smith on Facebook . Follow Rick Smith on Twitter .
 
Switzerland Enlists Half-Naked Farmers To Fight Back Tax Haven Slurs Top
Switzerland, fed up with being portrayed as a tax-dodgers' paradise, is rebranding itself as a land of hunky half-naked peasants with waxed chests and tight leather shorts. More on Taxes
 
Canadian Governor General Eats Raw Seal Heart In Support Of Hunters Top
RANKIN INLET, Nunavut — Canada's governor general ate a slaughtered seal's raw heart in a show of support to the country's seal hunters, a display that a European Union spokeswoman on Tuesday called "too bizarre to acknowledge." Governor General Michaelle Jean, the representative of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as Canada's head of state, gutted the seal and swallowed a slice of the mammal's organ late Monday after an EU vote earlier this month to impose a ban on seal products on grounds that the seal hunt is cruel. Asked Tuesday whether her actions were a message to Europe, Jean replied, "Take from that what you will." Hundreds of Inuit at a community festival gathered Monday as Jean knelt above a pair of seal carcasses and used a traditional ulu blade to slice the meat off the skin. After cutting through the flesh, Jean turned to the woman beside her and asked: "Could I try the heart?" She swallowed a piece whole and deemed it tasty, saying: "It's like sushi. ... And it's very rich in protein." Jean, whose post is largely ceremonial, defended the hunt as an eons-old traditional hunting practice that is not inhumane. A spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas offered no official reaction. "No comment; it's too bizarre to acknowledge," Barbara Helfferich said. Animal rights groups believe Canada's annual seal hunt is cruel, poorly monitored and provides little economic benefit. Sealers and Canadian authorities say it is sustainable, humane and provides income for isolated communities. Barbara Slee, an anti-seal hunt campaigner at the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Brussels said she was disgusted by Jean's actions. "The fact that the governor-general in public is slashing and eating a seal, I don't think that really helps the cause, and I'm convinced that this will not change the mind of European citizens and politicians" because the deal is largely finished, Slee said. EU governments are to sign the ban into law on June 25th after the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to impose the measure. The new EU rule offers narrow exemptions so Inuit communities from Canada, Greenland and elsewhere can continue traditional hunts, but bars them from large-scale trading of their pelts and other seal goods in Europe. Rebecca Aldworth, director of Humane Society International Canada, said Jean's actions were misleading and offensive because of the exemptions. "Inuit people are protected in the legislation. To suggest otherwise is deceptive on the part of the Canadian government," Aldworth said. But, Newfoundland sealer Jack Troake chuckled after hearing of Jean's actions. "That's great stuff," he said. "You've got some of these environmentalists that are going to jump on her, but I think she's strong enough. She can take that, I think." ___ Associated Press Writers Rob Gillies in Toronto and Constant Brand in Brussels contributed to this report. More on Canada
 
Banco Santander To Pay $235 Million In Madoff Case Top
Banco Santander, which funneled $3 billion of its clients' money to Bernard L. Madoff, agreed Tuesday to pay $235 million to settle potential legal claims by the trustee liquidating Mr. Madoff's now-defunct brokerage firm. More on Bernard Madoff
 
Rob Portman Escorted Out Of VA Hospital For Campaigning Top
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rob Portman stopped at the Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center on Sunday, May 24, to "meet and greet" veterans at the Patriot Freedom Festival, but was quickly informed by VA officials that campaigning on federal property is illegal.
 
Government To Announce Billions For Green Jobs, Training From Stimulus Package Top
WASHINGTON — Some of the $4 billion from President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan that was budgeted to renovate public housing will be spent to create so-called "green jobs" by making the dwellings more energy efficient. Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan was making the announcement Tuesday in Denver at a meeting of Obama's Middle Class Task Force. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, another task force member, also will announce that $500 million from the stimulus is becoming available to train workers for these jobs. That sum includes $50 million for communities battered by job losses and restructuring in the auto industry. Both Donovan and Solis also were announcing that their departments are working together to make it easier for public housing residents to find training programs or a green job. The task force, which includes several other Cabinet secretaries, has been working since January to highlight policies and practices to help improve the standard of living of the middle class, an income group that suffered as the economy faltered. The meeting at the Denver Science Museum, where Obama signed the stimulus plan into law three months ago, was being held to outline different ways government departments are working together to steer the middle class toward green jobs. These jobs, broadly defined as related to helping the environment, pay up to 20 percent more than other jobs, are more likely to be union jobs and are more likely to be held by men, less so by minorities and people who live in cities, according to a report the task force issued in February. These jobs also are ones that cannot be easily transferred overseas. Obama has pushed greening the economy _ reducing dependence on foreign energy sources, developing domestic alternatives and easing the effects of climate change _ as ways to help pull the economy out of its worst downturn since the Great Depression. Donovan said Monday that the investment in public housing will help meet several goals: improving the quality of public housing, reducing energy costs for residents and the government, and creating jobs for people who live in the units and in the surrounding community. "A whole set of things can repay investments in a short period of time," Donovan said in an interview. Replacing windows, insulation, appliances and even light bulbs are among the possible energy-efficient renovations. Some of the money for public housing also would be used for basic repairs and maintenance. Jared Bernstein, the task force executive director, said the panel's agenda complements Obama's. "By boosting the green economy, you're promoting green energy and clean production at the same time that you're generating green jobs," Bernstein, who is also Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist, said Monday in an interview. Biden is in charge of the task force. The energy, education and labor secretaries also were set to announce a partnership to help link the unemployed with jobs, training and education opportunities. ___ On the Net: Middle Class Task Force: http://www.astrongermiddleclass.gov (This version CORRECTS to show that some of the $4 billion, not all, is to be spent on 'green jobs'.)
 
James S. Gordon: Old Drug, New Drug . . . Red Drug, Blue Drug? Top
Richard Friedman ( "New Drugs Have Allure, Not Track Record, " May 19, 2009) is appropriately troubled by the loss of a "larger context" by physicians who prescribe newer, aggressively marketed drugs preferentially to older, less expensive but more reliable ones. His own therapeutic context is, however, far too narrow. In evaluating treatments for mood disorders, psychiatrists (and the comparative effectiveness studies proposed by the Obama Administration) must enlarge their perspective well beyond drug therapies. My own work over the last forty years, and my reading of the "evidence-based" scientific literature, strongly suggest that an integrative, non-pharmacological approach based on self-awareness and self-care is in many cases significantly superior to drug treatment. This kind of integrative approach, which may include meditation, physical exercise, dietary modification and supplements, and psychotherapy has been shown to enhance biological as well as psychological functioning--decreasing stress hormones, shifting electrical patterns to portions of the brain associated with optimism, and improving neurotransmitter levels along with mood--without the negative side effects that often accompany drugs. Moreover, such an approach, carefully individualized to meet the needs of each anxious, depressed, and troubled person, significantly enhances the damaged self-esteem of patients who, using it, experience the satisfaction of helping themselves. -James S. Gordon, M.D. Dr. Gordon, a psychiatrist, is the author of Unstuck: Your Guide to the Seven-Stage Journey Out of Depression. This letter of mine appeared in The New York Times yesterday (in somewhat shortened form), under the title, "Alternatives to New Drugs." I thought you might enjoy the unabridged version.
 
FTC Investigating Trojan For Violating Anti-Trust Laws Top
Condoms are not things people tend to linger over before buying, comparing prices and such. Unlike greeting cards, these purchases tend to be more of the grab and go variety. So the condom maker that can command the best real estate on store shelves is definitely going to have the upper hand. A quick survey suggests that the ubiquitous Trojan wins that battle, hands down. Apparently, this is no accident.
 
Michael Markarian: Wildlife Pays the Interest on Credit Card Reform Top
President Obama last week signed a much-discussed credit card reform bill, after Congress attached an utterly nongermane provision having more to do with reloading than refinancing. An amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) forces a reckless about-face on a Reagan-era rule which had, for a quarter-century, barred national park visitors from carrying loaded weapons. The original policy was enacted in 1983 as a way to combat poaching in these few remaining safe havens for wildlife, where rangers are few, miles of roads and trails are many, and animals are accustomed to the presence of people. The rhetoric favoring the guns-in-parks amendment often verged on the absurd, and Erich Pratt, director of communications at Gun Owners of America, offered the most startling of arguments: "People have been raped, murdered, attacked by wild animals," Pratt told Congressional Quarterly . "Whether you're in national parks or Washington, D.C., it's just not right to tell people that you can't protect yourself and we will punish you if you try to." The data show that national parks are some of the safest places in the United States. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report , there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006, compared to 473.5 victims per 100,000 citizens that same year. In other words, you're about 287 times more likely to be murdered, raped, robbed, or assaulted if you're outside a national park.  And what about those vicious wild animal attacks? Hunter and author Ted Kerasote , who lives in Wyoming within Grand Teton National Park, suggests that "pepper spray is a far better deterrent than a .44 magnum, especially in the hands of the inexperienced. I've now used it to turn a charging moose, dissuade a cantankerous bison and send a bear scurrying. The animals had a coughing fit, and I a scare, a far better outcome than guns often produce." In fact, the new rule is likely to make national park visitors less safe around wildlife. Packing heat could give some people a false sense of security and make them more likely to approach bison, elk, moose, and grizzly bears, rather than keep a safe distance which is better for both people and animals. But the most certain outcome of this congressional action is that it will promote poaching. The National Park Service warned in its fiscal 2006 budget submission to Congress that "the poaching of wildlife from national parks has been steadily increasing each year for the past several years ... The data suggests that there is a significant domestic as well as international trade for illegally taken plant and animal parts." Poaching, the agency said, "is suspected to be a factor in the decline of at least 29 species of wildlife and could cause the extirpation of 19 species from the parks."  Rather than listen to the very agency charged with stopping poachers and safeguarding wildlife in our national parks, Congress listened to the bombast and balderdash of the gun lobby. The shot will be heard for generations, and our wildlife will pay the high interest on this credit card bill. More on Animals
 
Martin Garbus: Warren, Black, Marshall, Douglas -- Obama Got It Right. Hooray. Top
Some of the criticism being leveled against Sonia Sotomayor is that her opinions aren't intellectual enough, that she is not intellectual enough in her legal approaches, that she's written no legal decisions that will live forever, and that her scholarship, writing and books are second-rate. The law, notwithstanding what academics say, is not nuclear physics. I have taught law at Columbia at Yale, written five books including two on the Supreme Court, lectured widely at law schools and other places, and feel sufficiently expert to say that in writing the great legal decisions of our time, it was the personality of the writer, the life of the writer, the experiences of the writer, that determined the brilliance of the decision. The great cases of the twentieth century, Brown v. Board of Education, one man one vote, reapportionment, and the pro-choice decisions are often short three-paragraph opinions. You don't need what has become a recent practice in the Supreme Court of three or four judges writing eighty pages, when we all know, before they start to write, what their conclusions will be. Brown v. Board of Education, in one page, said that segregation was wrong. Earl Warren, Hugo Black, Thurgood Marshall, William Douglas could say what they wanted to say in two paragraphs. "Congress shall make no law" does not require a complicated interpretation. Segregation is wrong because the Constitution says it's wrong. Warren, Marshall, and Black were not great decision writers. Most of their language does not linger over time. But what they brought to the Court was unique. Warren, a governor; Black, a trial lawyer; and Marshall, chief counsel for the NAACP, brought their life experiences into every case. Douglas brought his radicalism. Sonia Sotomayor brings to the Court the possibility, perhaps even only a remote possibility, of emulating these four great judges. That is more than enough reason to rejoice and to hope that Obama's choice will dramatically affect the lives of every American in the most wonderful possible way. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Fred Karger: The Watchdog for Gay Equality Top
We are deeply disappointed with today's majority decision issued by the California Supreme Court. As the county moves forward on gay and lesbian equality, our Supreme Court took a giant step backwards. One year ago the California Supreme Court showed great courage and conviction in recognizing equal protection for all. Now we must regain marriage equality, and immediately go back on the ballot to repeal Proposition 8. Next year we will win back our rights. Until that time, Californians Against Hate will continue to closely watch all who oppose our civil rights. We will be a watchdog for our community. We will carefully monitor and take action against those who bully us and spend vast sums of money against us. Individuals and organizations who give millions of dollars to deny our full civil rights will be held accountable. Over the last 10 years, our opponents have beaten us at the ballot box in 30 out of 30 states. Now we are aggressively fighting back. Same-sex marriage is now legal in 5 states, and more will follow soon, including California. During the next election cycle, Californians Against Hate will closely scrutinize our opponents, carefully review their campaign reports and make sure that all who oppose our civil rights are abiding by California Election Law. All major donors must disclose their full financial support be it monetary or non-monetary. Owners and principals of businesses must fully comply with the law. No hiding behind spouses or listing false occupations and information when reporting contributions. We will be watching very carefully. We have also begun looking into the principal organizations and their leaders who qualified and funded Proposition 8. These include the National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association They continually spend millions of dollars to try and prevent us from full equality. We live in a country that was founded with the express belief that "all men and women are created equal." We will fight for that inalienable right so that future generations never, ever have to experience discrimination. More on Gay Marriage
 
Elizabeth Debold: Divine Feminine Alert Top
I'd like to challenge one of the most popular beliefs of our era: that women have a profoundly different value set than men, and that embracing these particularly feminine values will change the world. Men, and masculine thinking, have dominated the world and made a mess, so now women, and the feminine, are desperately needed to clean it all up. That's how the story goes. And in postmodern spiritual circles, these traditional qualities of women that are associated with our roles as mothers, wives, and caretakers are often raised to, well, divine status. That's why I call this the myth of the Divine Feminine. This isn't problematic simply because women end up once again with the thankless task of cleaning up after everyone! As I have written before , this way of looking at the world polarizes the masculine and feminine, and men and women, in ways that are simplistic and divisive. Moreover, our ideas of the feminine—representing compassion, feeling, caring, embodiment, nurturing, etc. etc.—are reheated leftovers of the Victorian ideal of the good woman, the "Angel in the House." We've just sexed her up a bit. How can we create a new culture, if our template for women's role is based on being sexy but "good," bound to 19th century ideals of womanhood? Those feminine values that are supposed to change the world are primarily based on women's age-old roles relating to sex and reproduction. That can't possibly lead to anything new between the sexes, can it? If we want to create a new culture, then men and women will have to find a new basis of trust that will be its foundation. Because the relationship between women and men creates the bedrock dynamic upon which any culture stands. So, here's my first salvo at the idea that women are inherently different (read: more caring, compassionate, peace loving, and just plain good) from men. Check out Cleopatra and the Macedonian queens. (Sounds like the name of a girl band!) In a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Stacy Schiff comments that Cleopatra, who ruled for 21 years, "was essentially a female king." Cleopatra arguably had more powerful female role models than any other woman in history. They were not so much paragons of virtue as shrewd political operators. Her antecedents were the rancorous, meddlesome Macedonian queens who routinely poisoned brothers and sent armies against sons. Cleopatra's great-grandmother waged one civil war against her parents, another against her children. These women were raised to rule. Now, it may seem unfair to call on an ancient queen to make my argument. Admittedly, Cleopatra's time was very different from our own. In the lingo of Spiral Dynamics , the theory of cultural development based on the work of Clare Graves (and carried forward by Don Beck), she was a RED queen—and I'm not referring to Alice in Wonderland. Quite the opposite: at the RED stage of cultural development we see the emergence of kingdoms run by rulers with semi-divine status. (Often a lot of human and animal sacrifice is involved.) The true power behind the throne is impulsivity and the desire for domination. Domination and subordination are the core dynamics of the RED cultural system. Cleopatra, and her lovely female forebears, ruled as long as they could dominate, intimidate, and manipulate. Just like the men did at the time—gender only made a difference because women, who are typically less physically imposing and strong than men, would have had a more difficult time dominating. (While most of these cultures belong to the far off past, RED cultures and rulers exist today. Think of Saddam Hussein—he was a RED ruler. He played out the whole drama of the WMDs, leading to his own demise, in order to appear invincible to his people to maintain his control over them. Appearing weak would have been the end of him.) But there are some fearsome examples of women in history who held the reigns in a RED kingdom with an iron grip. That's part of my point. The expression of the feminine—if by that we mean some essential something that women express more than or rather than men—has varied enormously across history. In Cleopatra's time, and in all RED cultures, you could pretty much say that there really wasn't a notion of the feminine that women were expected to adhere to. One's position in the dominance hierarchy determined behavior, privileges, and status much more than one's gender. Our notions of the feminine today are often idealized and sanitized, excluding aspects of our humanity that, say, a Cleopatra expressed freely. Women's relationship to power is not innocent or pure. So often, blinded by our hopes for the feminine and for a saner world, we deny that women even have self-serving motivations or raw ambition or the desire for power in order to wield control. That denial does us all an enormous disservice. It keeps us women from addressing, in ourselves and with each other, darker impulses and aspects of the self that block us from advancing together and creating a new culture through our relationships with other women and with men. Without facing this head on, women will never be able to hold and express authority cleanly and with the real respect of men. Which reminds me of another recent New York Times article on bullying in the workplace that presented research documenting how women cannabilize each other in order to get ahead. (More men [60%] are workplace bullies, but men tend to be more egalitarian in their approach—"mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure." But women [who are a full 40% of bullies] bully each other, "choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time.") The article cites Peggy Klaus, an executive coach in Berkeley, Calif., who calls this "the pink elephant" in the (board)room. But few women want to talk about this, because it's "so antithetical to the way that we are supposed to behave to other women," Ms. Klaus said. "We are supposed to be the nurturers and the supporters." It's that "supposed to be" that I see as a problem of Divine Feminine thinking. If we are trying to reach the impossible ideal of being perfectly supportive angels, and refusing to deal with the Cleopatra in us, we aren't going to create new, straightforward ways of being with each other and with men that actually changes core dynamics in our world. Read blog entries from other EnlightenNext magazine editors. More on Women's Rights
 
When You Save Water, You Save Electricity (And Vice Versa) Top
One of our aims at the Planet Green website, is to try and provide people with tips and tricks for saving energy and water. Usually, we round up little household hints about how to save electricity or H2O. Most of the time we speak as if these two things were separate beasts. What you may not know is that saving electricity and saving water are actually the same thing. More on Green Living
 
Republicans Weigh Risks Of A Supreme Court Battle Top
President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has put the Republican Party in a bind, as it weighs the cost of aggressively opposing Mr. Obama's attempt to put the first Hispanic on the high court at a time when the party has struggled with sharp setbacks in its effort to appeal to Hispanic voters. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Rani Singh: I Don't See How I Can Ever Go Back to Swat Valley Top
My father was born in the North West Frontier Province. I used to think that that was very cool. The people of this region are handsome; strong-limbed, often tall and elegant, with clear, fair, skins. Their hair is sometimes a lighter brown than elsewhere on the Sub-continent, and often, family members have a characteristic that I adore; light-colored eyes. My father, now in his eighties, has big, hazel eyes. My paternal grandmother had blue eyes. Those light-eye genes move recessively through the generations, so my sister has them, as does one cousin in each branch of my family. I wonder where exactly in my ancestry our bloodline merged with that of a descendant of one of Emperor Alexander's generals. My father was born in Mardan. I have worked all over Pakistan, recording, interviewing and making programs, and I have made a point of visiting many places significant to my family. I feel a pull from the land, especially from the mountains. It is really, really beautiful in the NWFP and especially in the Swat valley; the air is crisp and fresh, village lights twinkle at night as dusk is settling. It was a favorite resort for honeymooners and tourists. I don't see how I can ever go back to Swat Valley now. In 1947, at the time of Partition, there was a mass movement of people traveling between the newly formed Pakistan and India; Muslims going one way, Hindus and Sikhs the other. They became refugees, giving up everything they owned; property, professions, livelihoods. There was mayhem and many innocent fleeing civilians were murdered. Any form of travel was used; trains, trucks, cars, horses, walking. Estimates at the time say that there could have been around a million people on the move. No accurate records were kept. We were always taught to respect the NWFP, where the government gave way to jirgas, control by tribals and village elders. The law of Islamabad had little significance here. It still doesn't. Since the Pakistani military/Talibani fighting began earlier this year, 2009, the UN estimates says that a million people have fled the conflict. I have a real sense of déjà vu, even though I wasn't born when the first exodus happened. Many second generation South Asians like me are scattered all over the world. We carry the legacy of 1947. Though we are born and educated in the countries our parents adopted, we have no ancestral homes to pass on to future generations. Someone else now owns the land our forefathers owned. In my case, my father went to England to study international relations and then became a diplomat. Though I feel a strong attachment to Pakistan and an umbilical cord to the Sub-Continent, I also feel historically lobotomized; for there is no-one from my family living where my father spent his early childhood. My past isn't embodied in a physical entity where I can visit or mourn; if I stretch out my hand, there is nothing to hold onto. We see pictures of civilians fleeing on trucks and carts. They have left the battleground with whatever possessions they could muster, and most likely if or when they ever go back to their towns and villages, they will find destruction and homes razed to the ground. Prime Minister Gilani today visited camps for the displaced persons. Geo News reports that he said that those in the camps 'had sacrificed their today for a better tomorrow for Pakistan.' Problems in Pakistan are so widespread and endemic that I don't think that things can get too much better, however much money is pledged in aid. We don't see the money trickling down to those who need it most. The plight of the Pakistani common man does not become better exponentially. And the waters are muddy. As reported in Pakistan when President Zardari visited the US just last week, he told NBC that the Taliban is a historic creation in which the Pakistani military, supported by the US, played a part. It is no wonder that the Taliban, now strengthened by foreigners in an area awash with arms since the Cold War, is a deadly fighting force. So in a way, the Pakistani military is fighting its own. In this part of the world, though outwardly the unformed sides are divided into khaki and black masked/hooded gunmen, I don't really know who has morphed into whom. The current SWAT crisis is a throwback to sixty-two years ago. What is more tragic is that this time around, it is mainly Pakistanis causing the suffering of Pakistanis... I just hope that the children of those fleeing the current crisis will one day leave the camps or houses where they are sheltering, frightened, and have a life, even if their physical past disappears, just like mine. Ranisingh.blogspot.com More on Pakistan
 
Two More New Yorkers With Swine Flu Die Top
Two more New Yorkers infected with swine flu have died, health officials announced Tuesday. More on Swine Flu
 
Evelyn Leopold: The Mantra of 20 nuclear Weapon States -- Why 20? Top
Even one more nuclear-armed nation is too much. But since the 1960s statesmen, officials and politicians have used the number 20 - as in "there may be 10 nuclear powers instead of 4, and by 1975, 15 or 20 ." ( President John F. Kennedy on March 12, 1963). And in 1996, Mikhail Gorbachev , the former Soviet president, said, "There are at least 20 countries which may have nuclear weapons." More recently, Mohamed ElBaradei , the outgoing director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, told The Guardian newspaper: ( www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/elbaradei-nuclear-weapons-states-un ). "Pretty soon ... you will have nine weapons states and probably another 10 or 20 virtual weapons states." He pointed to the spread of uranium enrichment technology and was concerned about the Middle East. Today there are eight nuclear weapons states. North Korea, which just tested its second device, makes nine. Why 20? Visual acuity because 20/20 indicates perfect vision? Or because 20 questions is a popular party game? But it seems that a line or two once inserted into a speech can evolve into a cliché and become the foundation for a policy or an international strategy. Between Kennedy in 1963 and ElBaradei in 2009, the "rule of 20" has been repeated on end, according to ia compendium by a former U.S. Senate staffer, who asked that his name not be disclosed. The number 20 is used not just in reference to nuclear-armed states but nations harboring all weapons of destruction--nuclear, chemical and biological arms and the ballistic missiles to deliver them. Said the staffer: "I have to assume, and have no reason to believe otherwise, that the 'rule of 20' was cooked up for noble reasons: namely, to snap the public out of their general complaisancy about serious global threats posed by all weapons of mass destruction. Yet it also follows that if this threat is in fact always 'growing', why is it still at only 20 after 40 years ?" "The 'rule of 20' also serves to cheapen the actual value of the various multilateral treaties that exist to eliminate such weapons," he said. "It draws attention away from the abhorrence of the rest of the world for such weapons. Day to day observance of these treaties by the vast majority of states doesn't attract much attention of the media." Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, an expert on nuclear threats, in a June 14, 2007 lecture to the Council on Foreign Relations, was more precise on the spread of nuclear technology. Like ElBaradei after him, Nunn warned of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and Asia. But he too said that "a world with 12 or 20 nuclear weapons states will be immeasurable more dangerous than today's world." The number 20 (and sometimes 25) is also used in reference to weapons of mass destruction in general. "Currently, we believe that as many as 20 countries may be developing chemical weapons..." CIA director William Webster told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1989. Two years later, his successor, Robert Gates , told the House Armed Services Committee: "More than 20 nations have or are acquiring weapons of mass destruction..." And seven years later in 1998, Defense Secretary William Cohen told the National Press Club, "Iraq is one of at least 25 countries that already has, or is in the process of developing, nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and the means to deliver them. " BREAKDOWN OF NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES There are five recognized nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China. Three other nations - India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons and Israel is widely assumed to have a nuclear arnsenal. Iran is pursuing a uranium enrichment program that may lead to nuclear weapons and North Korea has now tested two nuclear devices. South Africa had developed but then dismantled a small number of nuclear warheads. Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program but no bomb prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War. United Nations inspectors supervised its destruction. Libya voluntarily renounced secret nuclear weapons efforts in December 2003. Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan also shelved nuclear weapons programs. According to the Arms Control Organization, a non-partisan Washington-based group, estimates for nuclear warheads are as follows, with the United States and Russia dwarfing every other country in sheer numbers alone: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat United States: 5,914 strategic warheads, approximately 1,000 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 3,000 reserve strategic and tactical warheads Russia : 4,237 strategic warheads, approximately 2,000-3,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000-10,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads France: Approximately 350 strategic warheads. China: 100-200 warheads United Kingdom : Less than 160 deployed strategic warheads. Israel: Between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads. India: up to 100 warheads Pakistan: Up to 60 nuclear warheads More on North Korea
 
White House Compares Sotomayor To Souter Top
Perhaps the most effective argument the White House can make in getting Sotomayor an easy confirmation among the Senate GOP is to make the case that she won't be dramatically different from the individual she will replace: Justice David Souter. The argument risks, of course, the backlash of progressives. Souter was a Bush One appointee whose decisions grew more liberal over time but were hardly ideologically consistent. But the replacing-Souter-with-another-Souter charge could dampen conservative criticism. And, at this early juncture, the White House seems keen to float the comparison publicly. From Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' briefing comes this: "I think most of all, as I discussed in here and as you have heard the President say -- even here -- that he is looking for somebody with a full range and a diverse set of experiences in their background. And I think this is somebody like Justice Souter that brings an array of experience potentially to the job. So I think that the President sought somebody with that richness of experience and I think got somebody who meets that criteria." Following up, Gibbs added: "Comparing her to Souter is probably, in many ways, somewhat coincidental. But, at the same time, I think the president recognized that being a prosecutor, being a private litigator, and being both a circuit and appellate court judge provides you with sort of a vast array of different legal experiences which makes Justice Sotomayor particularly compelling in this moment." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Sonia Sotomayor
 

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)