Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Mike Hegedus: In the Clown Car of U.S. Media: Eric Schmidt, John Kerry and more Bozos Top
It was always my favorite act at the circus, the clown car. No matter how small it was, they just kept coming: one goofy looking clown after another. It seemed endless and funny. Just like the constant chatter these days about how to 'fix' the American news media. Except for the funny part. Take Sen. John Kerry. Please. Imagine, holding hearings about how to save, fix and or bail out the U.S. newspaper business. The only problem was that he didn't actually invite anyone with an idea. There was hand wringing. There was self interested chest pounding. But the whole excercise, one more clown car occupant after another, came up with.....? Are you really looking for a plan to 'save' the U.S. newspaper industry? Here it is. 1) Charge more. But people won't pay it you say? Why not? See the following...... 2) Sue people who steal your stuff and give it away for free. In other words, no matter what Eric Schmidt of Google (who by the way yelled 'Shotgun!' when the clown car came around) says--sue him, make him pay. Him and everyone else who 'gleans' the content you're paying good money to create. The 'free enterprise' system doesn't actually mean it's 'free'. 3) Promote yourself. Convince people you're as important as you think you are. Okay that might be too hard. After all, you ARE important. But, promote what makes you different, what people can trust about you, what they can get from you that they can't get from anyone else. When was the last time you saw or heard an advertisement for a newspaper? When was the first time? Good Lord people, get in the game!! 4) Become relevant to the people you're trying to sell your stuff to, so that they'll pay what you're charging and believe your promotion. Hey NYT--don't cut the book review section, it's the only reason I buy the Sunday Times. Oh, and Escapes. Oh, and Travel. Oh, and Styles. Oh, and Science. Get the picture? Oh yeah, those too, pictures. Was it too bad the Rocky Mountain News went under? Sure. Did the people of the Rocky Mountains care? Obviously not. Why not? Because the Rocky Mountain News didn't make them care. That's the plan, now do it. Turning now to television news. Easier fix. This Senator Kerry CAN do something about. I have three letters for you Senator--F C C. Ever since the Republicans pulled its teeth, it has been gumming up the television business. Likely not to the degree that the banking industry needs new 'guidelines', but TV needs a touch of 'old school'. First and foremost it's time to remind all broadcasters that they work with a federally granted license. This means of course that in order to maintain that license you need to do certain things. Used to be a long list. Not anymore. I think all you need to do these days is be able to spell TV. So it's time to stiffen up that ole license renewel form. Reinstitute performance guidelines. Public affairs programming. News. Family hour. And come on people, where are those license challenges of old??? Example--some outfit called Mission Broadcasting just killed the news department at WYOU in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. No more newscast. The claim is that WYOU should be called WIOU because it's having a tough time economically. Too bad. But you shouldn't be able to cut the news and keep your license. 'But my revenues are down,' says the crying GM. So figure it out, be innovative, be a better business person. Get smarter. Killing the news just makes you dumb. How do they get all those clowns in that car????? More on Eric Schmidt
 
Gordon Brown Addresses UK's Rampant Organized Crime Top
British Prime Minster Gordon Brown, speaking on crime for the first time in nearly two years, announced plans Tuesday to clamp down on rampant organized crime. More on England
 
Christopher Brauchli: Bees, Baptism and Salvation Top
I'll convert YOU! Into a stew. A nice little, white little, missionary stew! T.S. Eliot, Sweeney Agonistes They're still at it. I'm referring to the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Colorado Springs. They've probably learned that it really works. How else to explain its practices. We examined its practices in 1993 and 16 years later it's still going strong. It's called involuntary baptism. In 1993 the Cornerstone Baptist church advertised a kids' carnival that featured, among other things, a water fight, free balloons, squirt guns and candy. The carnival was obviously directing its advertising at children since most adults are not attracted to an event just because it has water fights, balloons and squirt guns. Unadvertised, but nonetheless a big part of the festivities, was a spontaneous (as far as the kids were concerned) baptism. Reports suggest that the pastor encouraged the carnival attendees to become baptized by telling them that without the baptism they could be killed by bee stings. If he was right, those accepting the invitation were permanently inoculated against that particular peril. Right or wrong, most children would probably find that appealing since any inoculation one can obtain without being given a shot seems like a very good kind of inoculation indeed. Baptism in carnival like surroundings was not the only type of surprise baptism engaged in by the church. In at least one case it was sued by a parent whose child had not gone to the carnival but had gone to the church with two women from the church. Aware of the church's tendency to surprise young attendees with baptism, Audrey Ausgotharp told the two women that she did not want the children to come home baptized. As it turned out, the church did not have a hair dryer. When the children came home their hair was wet. Their mother figured out instantly that either they'd been given a shampoo or they'd been baptized. Given Cornerstone's reputation she put the notion of a shampooing out of mind and settled on baptism. She was right and righteously angry. When the two women who had picked the children up were confronted they were apologetic and said the children had been baptized by mistake. The Cornerstone Baptists were not the only denomination that increased the church rolls by involuntary baptism. In 1996 it was reported that the Anchor Baptist Church in Woburn, Massachusetts had taken to the same practice. It wasn't as much fun for a couple reasons. The first was that it violated all truth in advertising rules and the second was the actual event was preceded by a long and presumably predictably boring sermon. The Anchorfolk reportedly attracted hundreds of kids by promising pizza and basketball. The Anchormen, notwithstanding their love of the Lord, were not infected by the truth in advertising bug. There was, as it turned out, neither pizza nor basketball. Instead of pizza there was a sermon and instead of basketball, swimming-sort of. The swimming was a full body immersion and to participate the children had to disrobe and put on church garb. That is, of course, history, having taken place in 1996. Who'd have thought that a practice from the dark ages of 1996 would still be in vogue today? The answer is it is. In early May it was reported that representatives of the Cornerstone Church tried to lure a seventh-grader at Russell Middle School in Colorado Springs into a van. Most children lured into vans face consequences far more drastic than a simple hair washing and promise of salvation. The 7th grader refused to enter the van and upon learning of the encounter, the school principle cautioned parents about the threat and reminded them to remind their children not to talk to strangers, even if carrying bibles. According to reports church members have also been approaching children on the playground and outside the school grounds preaching the bible. Van luring is not the church's only method of capturing souls. The carnival is still a favorite. On May 1 the carnival was again announced but before the attendees could do the fun stuff they were required to be baptized by total immersion. Whether the very tangible benefit of immunity from bee stings was offered, in addition to the promise of salvation, was not stated. Asked about the practice, assistant pastor Ford Glover said he would have no comment. Dan Irwin, an associate pastor said: "No one can show me one passage in the Bible where it says parental permission is required before a child is baptized." Pastor Dean Miller of the church says the church is merely pursuing the Bible's "great commission" to baptize lots of people. On Cornerstone Church's home page there is a pretty picture of clouds and blue sky. Across the sky in block letters is written "Salvation" and beneath that in cursive, "Easy As 1. 2.. 3..." One probably stands for the carnival, 2 for baptism and 3 for bee sting immunity. Getting 1 and 3 for free would seem to make 2 no big deal. It's hard to understand why parents object. Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com More on Religion
 
Joseph LeDoux: Guns, Germs, and Squeals Top
I learned what a brain was by digging bullets out of them as a kid in my father's meat market in Eunice, Louisiana. In those days, cows and pigs were killed by a 0.22 caliber right between the eyes. Sounds barbaric, but was probably pretty quick and painless in the end. Since customers didn't like chomping down on lead while enjoying their sautéed sweetbreads (brains and visceral organs), my job was to trace the bullet holes with my small fingers and pry the lead out. That was before mad cow disease, when most people thought cow brains were a tasty delight rather than a source of a horrible medical condition that rots your brain (karmic isn't it that eating brains kills brains). It was also before the USDA started, in the 1970s, enforcing stricter standards to protect people from eating tainted meet. It's true that the conditions at the slaughter house, located at our farm three miles out of town, were not super-sanitary. It was a cinder block building with no air conditioning, but the high ceilings seemed to keep it from being too hot, even those blistering summer months. After being processed (gutted, skinned, and hosed down), the sides of beef and pork would hang in the cooler (this had proper chilling) until it was time to bring the meat into town. Today, most people are aghast to find out that the meat was shipped in the back of a pickup truck with nothing but a tarp draped over it, the country air and dust whipping underneath the tarp as the truck zipped down Highway 190. In spite of those conditions, I never heard of any complaints of people getting sick from the meat. If anyone did get sick, the problem would have stayed local because the meat was processed, sold, and consumed in town. Nothing that my father or any other small butcher could have done could have affected more than a small number of people. Today, there are hardly any small butchers left. My parents used to complain about being driven out of business by the big meat packing companies and the supermarkets that were being supplied by the packers. It was hard to compete with the efficiency and economies of scale that the big companies had. And only they were really able to afford the new kinds of facilities being required by the USDA. But it all seemed part of the natural progression of things. Big business should mean fresh, safe food on a mass scale. I remember my parents beings relieved when they decided to retire. My father, Boo, was in his early 60s, and was pretty much ready. He has his horses out at the farm to occupy him full-time. My mother, Pris, was younger but was happy to have the time to fish. It was clear by then that I was not destined to follow in my father's steps and take over the meat business the way he had done. So rather than convert their cinder block slaughter house into a stainless steel palace at great expense, they sold the store and turned the old building into a saddle repair shop. It was the best move they ever made. It was 1975 or so, and the next year they took off on a wagon train adventure as part of the Bi-Centennial celebration. Afterwards, they thrived on the fame. Boo became a local legend, traveling around to rodeos and crafts shows telling stories of having been a bull rider in Madison Square Garden in the depression, a wagon master for the Bi-Centennial, and a saddle craftsman and horseman forever after that. Back to meat. Big business is organized and efficient, and indeed much less should go wrong. But about the time my folks sold their business, the Peter Principle was becoming a popular concept. If something can go wrong it will. Indeed, each year we hear about the discovery of harmful pathogens in meat. If e. coli gets into the hamburger meat of a major meat packer that ships their product to the far reaches of the country, and perhaps internationally, people all over the world can be affected. Epidemiologists have been talking about the problems created by raising lots of animals in small confined places, as is done by major meat producers. In a recent article in the Huffiington Post, "Swine Flu Outbreak -- Nature Biting Back at Industrial Animal Production?," David Kirby notes that US companies set up farms of this type in Mexico, where the labor is cheap and access to Latina American markets easier. He goes on to say that "scientists around the world have worried that large-scale, indoor swine 'factories' would become breeding grounds for new pathogens that could more easily infect humans and then spread out rapidly in the general population -- threatening to become a global pandemic." There is indeed a swine factory, presumably with squealing pigs packed in tight quarters, near the suspected source of the recent swine flu outbreak. Whether this factory was the origin of the outbreak is not known at this point. I'm currently in Cambridge, England, where they are far ahead of the US in thinking about living lean, green and clean. Sometimes I think they go overboard, as when they have a knee-jerk response to any kind of genetic manipulation of crops or in the ultra-radical animal rights activities of some. But for the most part the British commitment to recycling and awareness of the importance of keeping small producers of food in business is impressive. I try to shop as much as I can from the farmer's market store on the corner of Lensfield Road, near where I live. It features fresh products from small local producers. When I go back to New York I'm going to take much more advantage of the outdoor farmer's market at Union Square. Sometimes you have to go away to appreciate things you have at home. That brings us to the song of the day: "The Green Green Grass of Home" by Tom Jones. Just kidding. Way too cheezy. The song of the day is actually "Green Onions" by Booker T and the MG's. Green onions, or scallions, are an integral part of any Cajun meal. I actually never ate brains, but I imagine that they would have been garnished with green onions had I eaten them. More on Swine Flu
 
Richard P. Wenzel: H1N1 in Mexico - Lessons Learned Top
The Mexicans have taught the world that transparency and full disclosure was brave and admirable and saved countless lives but came at the price of severe economic consequences. The argument made by me and others after SARS that the World Bank should provide incentives to countries for rapid reporting of novel pathogens causing epidemics seems to still be valid today. A week or so after the outbreak, a flight to Mexico from Atlanta was only 15% occupied, and on arrival the airport was nearly deserted. I had been asked to Mexico City by my colleagues at the National Institutes of Respiratory Infection and planned to make rounds with them in the wards and ICUs. The city was awakening from the infection control measure called social distancing. The traffic on this mega city of 20 million was only half of its usual density compared to my experiences in 25 prior trips. Cabbies still wore masks, as did the staff in all restaurants, most of the police officers, and perhaps 10-20% of the citizens walking around. On that day the swimming pools and restaurants were opening for business; football (soccer) was about to resume, and schools were opening on Monday, May 11th. Almost two weeks earlier Mexican health authorities announced to the world the increasing number of cases and deaths from the new strain of influenza virus fully cognizant of the economic consequences. In a brief 10-day interval they made a critical decision for transparency, in bold contrast to the 110-day interval before the world learned about SARS in China. Because there was no vaccine and no certainty that the available drugs to treat influenza would be effective, the only option left was social distancing. On Friday and Saturday I made rounds on the wards and ICUs of the National Institute of Respiratory Infection and National Institute of Nutrition. Outpatient visits had fallen in the last week by almost two thirds, but as referral centers the ICUs were still full, and three new admissions per day were occurring. Patients in their 20s, 30s, and 40s were on respirators, and so the inhuman statistics now had meaning. In the last few weeks, those in ICUs intubated and on mechanical ventilators included a bus driver, a housekeeper from one of the hospitals, an anesthesiologist and a mechanic. H1N1 appears to be an equal opportunity virus. Outside the hospital, medical residents in training and wearing masks were screening all people entering the hospital. At another table nurses and physicians had set up a center for health care workers and their families to answer any questions, to give the 24/7 hotline and instructions. They were essentially managing fear and offering psychological support. One infectious diseases specialist told me he cried at the outset of the epidemic, worried about his young son and wife. Another said his wife forbade him to sleep on the same floor as her and their two-year-old child. A third physician thought she would lose her 16-year-old daughter when fever, diarrhea and respiratory distress arrived. Fortunately, the teenager is recovering. The management of fear among health care workers in the face of death and uncertainty is an essential element of response to an epidemic. Their creative implementation of triage outside of the hospital entrances is wise. On Saturday rounds in the ICU at the Nutrition Institute, a young man had just died and a second had relapsed and returned from the ward to be intubated. Influenza has the ability to cause severe illness and kill healthy young people. We have been fortunate in the U.S. with mild cases, but complacency would be a foolish path ahead. Influenza H1N1 may rear its dark side yet in the U.S. It may soon advance to South America where the winter is approaching, and may resurface with a new face in the Northern Hemisphere in the fall and winter 2009-2010. We have time to prepare for a vaccine if needed, and we certainly can applaud the Mexican health authorities and learn from their remarkable encounters with H1N1.
 
Obama Mideast Plan Best Since Camp David: David Miliband Top
David Miliband hailed President Obama's efforts to kick-start the Middle East peace process yesterday as a once in a generation opportunity to resolve the 60-year conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. More on Middle East
 
Jennifer Weiner: To Boldly Go...Backwards Top
I can't remember wanting to love a movie as much as I wanted to love the new Star Trek . I grew up watching the original series in re-runs, entranced by the hard-charging, womanizing captain of the Enterprise, his coolly logical (but underneath the exterior, tormented and passionate!) first officer, and its egalitarian vision of the future. I watched every episode. I went to all the movies. I devoured every paperback that detailed the further adventures of the Enterprise's crew. When I was thirteen, I even -- oh, this is painful -- convinced my parents to take me to a Star Trek convention in downtown Hartford. (My parents were not the most socially adroit people, but even they somehow realized that this was a severely nerdy undertaking. They dropped me off at the corner). When the ads for the new film started running, I should have been suspicious. "Not your father's Star Trek ?" What was wrong with my father's Star Trek ? I liked my father's Star Trek ! But still, there I was, on opening day, with a bucket of popcorn, surrounded by what looked like the entire staff of several area comic-book stores. There was much to love about the movie. Kirk was hot, and Spock was cool, and their relationship felt just right, at once edgy and familiar. Unlike the earlier outings, where a shaken camera connoted a collision, danger, and/or black holes and time warps, the special effects were, indeed, special. I'm not so much of a nerd that I couldn't handle the way the film chucked continuity and ignored some of the original show's rules of the road (although, note to J.J. Abrams: if a Vulcan is bonded and his spouse suddenly dies, he either dies, too, or ends up in mortal agony, and should not be depicted just calmly hanging out on a transporter pad. Okay, fine, maybe I am that much of a nerd). I was even okay with the way the plot recycled Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (in "Khan," the villain deploys a Doomsday weapon because he believes Kirk was responsible for the death of his wife. In "Trek," the villain deploys a Doomsday weapon because he believes Spock was responsible for the death of his wife....and let me just add that, in the all-important categories of "pecs," and "scenery chewing," Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban.) Honestly, I didn't have a problem until about midway through the film...at which point I realized that every single lady on screen was either a mother, a ho, or an intergalactic hood ornament. We begin with mama Kirk. As the film opens, she screams and grunts her way through labor, pops out young James T., bids her doomed husband a weepy farewell, and is never seen or heard from again. How does she feel when her reckless son runs off to join Starfleet? We don't know. The movie doesn't ask. Next up: the luscious Andorian Kirk beds at Starfleet Academy. She's green. That's about it...except somewhere, Eddie Murphy is smiling (I'd link to his bit about the dubious hygiene of green-faced girls, but it's filthy. Filthy!) Even though Romulan war ships were, in the original series, frequently commanded by women, there's nary a chick aboard rogue Romulan Nero's vessel. This, perhaps, explains why he and his crew are in such a bad mood. The film throws the ladies a few bones in the form of a couple of female members of the Vulcan High Council. There's a woefully underutilized Winona Ryder as Spock's human mother, and a tossed-off reference to Leonard McCoy's ex (the bitch took everything, don'tcha know, leaving him with just his...well, never mind). Finally, there's Uhura...and what Abrams and company do with the Enterprise's communications officer will not be warming the cockles of any feminist hearts. We first meet her at a bar, all ponytail, miniskirt, and long legs. Kirk hits on her. She brushes him off. He persists, prompting Uhura's fellow cadets to mop the floor with him (couldn't she have kicked his ass herself? Probably. So why didn't the movie let her?) We are told, rather than shown, that Uhura is an extraordinarily capable linguist. We are told, rather than shown, that she's intercepted an important transmission, the plot device that jump-starts the film's action...as soon as Kirk tells Captain Pike about it. But Uhura's primary function isn't professional. Her job, in this brave new universe, is to look cute in a red dress, and to humanize (and by "humanize" I mean "mack on") her coolly logical, eminently reasonable mate. In other words, she's Michelle Obama in outer space. I'm willing to be patient here. I understand that, to attract an audience glutted on testosterone-heavy summer flicks, you need a certain amount of the old ultraviolence to get butts in seats, and that the lofty, utopian ideals of the original have to make way for a few brute shoot 'em ups. I understand the value of simply showing audiences an (allegedly) strong black woman, even if most of what she does is stand around looking worried; the same way I know that Michelle Obama has to tread carefully as she makes the role of First Lady her own. And hey, maybe organic gardening and pairing J. Crew twin sets with kicky belts and cute pins aren't bad places to start. Baby steps. In spite of my disappointment, I've still got high hopes for the new Trek franchise. In a few years, my daughters will be old enough to watch TV and movies the way I watched them: for entertainment, yes, but for inspiration, too, for a vision, or a series of competing and overlapping visions, of how their future could look. Plus, if the guy who gave us Sydney Bristow and Kate Austin can't serve up any kick-ass, take-charge ladies, then who can? It's only logical. More on Michelle Obama
 
Senators Weigh Tax Hikes To Pay For Health Care Top
WASHINGTON — Senators are considering limiting _ but not eliminating _ the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits to help pay for President Barack Obama's plan to provide coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Tuesday that there are no easy options. Senators began grappling with how to finance guaranteed coverage, a cornerstone of Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system. Independent experts put the costs at about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Obama sees a world in which doctors and hospitals compete to offer quality service at lower costs, and the savings help cover the uninsured. Turning that vision into reality remains the biggest challenge for the president and his backers, because hard cash _ not just ideas _ is required to cover upfront costs of expanding coverage. The president put health care industry leaders on notice Tuesday that he expects them to fulfill their dramatic offer of $2 trillion in savings over 10 years. "I will hold you to your pledge to get this done," Obama said in a letter released by the White House that went to groups representing insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug makers and others. But those savings _ even if the industry delivers every penny _ won't all accrue to the government. So the financing package for Obama's plan is likely to include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts in federal health programs. Among the possibilities: tax increases on alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and sugary soft drinks, and restrictions on other health care-related tax breaks, such as flexible spending accounts. But some taxes don't seem to be on the table, such as a federal sales levy to pay for health care or a new payroll tax. Congressional leaders say they want to pass legislation in the Senate and House this summer. On the controversial question of taxing health benefits, Baucus is staking out a position that could put him at odds with Obama. The president adamantly opposed such taxes during the campaign, arguing they would undermine job-based coverage. Obama's aides now say he's open to suggestions from Congress, even if he criticized Republican presidential rival John McCain for proposing a sweeping version of the same basic idea. Baucus said he wants to modify the tax break, not abolish it. "We are not going to repeal it," he said. Baucus suggested that the benefit could be limited by taxing health insurance provided to high-income individuals, although he did not specify at what income levels. He also said that plans offering rich benefits _ for example, no co-payments or deductibles _ might be taxed once their value exceeded a yet-to-be-determined threshold. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs resisted being drawn into the congressional debate. "We're not going to get into a daily scorekeeping of each idea and proposal," he said. Employer-provided health insurance is considered part of workers' compensation, but unlike wages, it is not taxed. The forgone revenue to the federal government amounts to about $250 billion a year. Proponents of repealing the benefit say it encourages lavish health insurance plans that only add to waste in the health care system. And they argue that the benefit is unfair, since self-employed people don't get as big a tax break for health care. Many experts say that Congress won't be able to come up with the kind of money needed to provide coverage for all unless limitations on the health care tax break are part of the mix. "I don't see how you're going to put a package together ... unless you touch the exclusion," said Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income people. In government jargon, the tax-free status of health insurance is called the "tax exclusion." Obama has proposed to pay for the plan with a 50-50 mix of tax increases and spending cuts. On the tax side, the president would limit income tax deductions for families making more than $250,000 a year, raising $267 billion over 10 years. Baucus said Tuesday that idea deserves consideration. The ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, said lawmakers should try to squeeze wasteful spending out of the system before imposing new taxes. But Grassley ridiculed the health care industry's pledge of $2 trillion in savings through voluntary efforts to hold down costs. "I'm sure we will be waiting for some time before this fairy dust becomes real gold," he said. One option for lawmakers would be to codify the industry's cost reduction offer in federal law, giving it some teeth by applying it to federal health insurance programs. Protesters who back government-run health care disrupted the Finance Committee hearing. Police ejected five doctors and nurses after they interrupted Baucus and Grassley at the start of the session. ___ Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
 
Makenna Goodman: Farmers Markets are the Stores of the Future Top
Did you know that humans have 98% of the same DNA as chimpanzees? I bet you did. But you probably didn't know we have 40% of the same DNA as a BANANA. That's right. From about our midsection down, we are pretty much made out of the same stuff as bananas. Hard to believe, but think about it: proteins, starches, water. It makes sense. And with this information, it's kind of a no-brainer that if we truly are what we eat, we'd want to protect what we grow . That's why this summer you should support local agriculture and shop at the nearby farmers' market, not Whole Foods. One of the scarier truths about the environmental and "farm-friendly" movement is that much of its good will gets lost (and sometimes reversed) in the marketing process. Farm-fresh cheese can be called as such, but flown in from France, which is an oxymoron. To keep it fresh, it has to be refrigerated, then flown quickly in a jet across an ocean, then packed in ice in a truck that's sped to the loading dock of another truck station, and then onto the shelves of the store. By the time the cheese has gotten to our cracker, tons of energy has been wasted all in the name of "Farm Fresh." Stephen and Rebekah Hren, authors of The Carbon-Free Home (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008), are both actively involved with renewable energy, natural building, and edible urban gardening. They're also pretty good at providing staggering statistics about how much energy it actually takes to feed people these days, and why this model of consumption is not necessary: How did things get to such a sorry state? As with many things, our move toward convenience has come at the cost of our independence. Where at one time many families grew some of their own food and knew the grower of any other food they consumed, now the grower of our food is on average 1,500 miles away, and oftentimes much farther... Exporting produce thousands of miles away ensures that the nutrients locked in that food can never be returned to the soil from which they came to cycle through again. This deficiency ensures the missing nutrients must be replaced by fossil fuels or other fossil accumulations that are being rapidly depleted, such as phosphorus. When we consider these facts in the context of peak fossil energy and global climate disruption, then it's not surprising if our first reaction is some good old-fashioned fear and loathing. Not only is our food system consuming unsustainable amounts of energy...it's also over-consuming our water and topsoil resources at a prodigious rate. Can there be any hope of rectifying a situation that has gone so awry? ...Fortunately, the same path that brought us down into this fossilized abyss is the same one we can take back out. By gradually re-localizing our food production we can return to an agricultural system that is much less energy intensive. If there's one good thing about a system being so grossly inefficient and out of whack...it's that dramatic improvements can be made very quickly once we realize the need to turn around. First and foremost, local farmers need our support. For real, though; not just with hip graphics on a tote bag. And while many places—including Whole Foods and local co-ops—have developed business relationships with farmers and choose to stock their shelves with small-scale farmed goods instead of conventional chain brands, it's still way better to buy directly from the farmer. This is why farmers markets are the grocery stores of the future. Primarily, these markets cut out the middleman, which means the farmer makes more money and gets to pocket their commission (there's a small fee to join a market, but nominal.) This supports farmers' growth, their sustainability, and their capabilities of steering clear of pesticides and other fix-it-quick schemes that ruin food quality in the name of easy cash. Second, it saves us money! The mark-ups in markets are a total atrocity. Buying straight from the farmer more often than not is a better deal financially, and the food is fresher, tastes better, and is better for you. Our social responsibility lies not only in our intentions, but our actions. Sustainable food consumption should be a top priority in the future of social systems, and supporting local farmers is number one in that mission.   Find your local farmer's market: http://www.localharvest.org/farmers-markets http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets More on Food
 
America's Most Overpriced Cities: ABC News Top
Bloated Housing Prices, Lofty Living Costs and High Unemployment Rates Make These Cities the Most Overpriced in the U.S.
 
Bradley Burston: How Would Israel Look, if Its Left Finally Died? Top
The social democratic movement that brought this country into being, Labor, has entered what may be the final stage of a remarkable and tragic transition from colossus to hospice. Its self-styled healer, Ehud Barak, also constitutes the most lethal symptom of its affliction. It has begun to dawn on the heirs to the Labor estate, those who still possess a modicum of youth and vigor and vision, that the disease, and in particular, the treatment, may soon drain the inheritance to nothing. Longtime friends are distancing themselves from the patient, whose bed is surrounded with disgruntled family members blaring their hatred of Barak as an extremist capitalist dictator (Amir Peretz) and a Mafioso (Eitan Cabel). Many are threatening to leave the patient forever. The clock is ticking, and the end may be no more than weeks away. Meretz, Labor's rapidly aging love child, has meanwhile turned from ideological refuge to sheltered housing. Its onetime helmsman, Yossi Beilin, having run the party aground, has jumped ship. Many Arab political movements have become increasingly hardline, some distancing themselves from cooperation from the Jewish left -- one, at least, espousing anti-Semitism and backing violence against Jews. So, in a country founded by leftists, how would Israel look if its left finally died? It might look just like it does. The Prime Minister would work just as diligently as the man he once ordered assassinated, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, to find creative new ways to reject the concept of two states for two peoples. The Finance Minister would be a onetime Peace Now activist -- injured in the same 1983 grenade attack which killed fellow Peace Now organizer Emil Grunsweig during a Jerusalem anti-war demonstration -- turned apologist for the repeal of government social benefits for the needy. The Foreign Minister would be a man who in 2007 warned EU Mideast envoy Tony Blair that any attempt to address the core issues surrounding the establishment of a Palestinian state at a U.S-hosted peace summit would "bring about the collapse of the coalition and the government in Israel." The head of the opposition, whose advice on enlisting the Arab world in the Mideast peace process is being incorporated into Obama administration policy, would be a former lifelong Likud activist, rather than a Labor, or former Labor, supporter. Every single day, several times a day, there is a concrete reminder of the direction things are headed. The need for powerful voices on the left is stronger than ever. The government, for its part, is already honing its approach: Stalls, feints, alternation of crude outbursts (Lieberman) with sophisticated and meaningless formulae (everyone else). For the entire post on Haaretz.com, go here . More on Israel
 
Greenspan: Fed Didn't Feed Housing Bubble Top
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Tuesday brushed back critics who contend that easy monetary policy fueled the housing bubble and ensuing bust, saying, "I respectfully disagree; they're wrong." More on Alan Greenspan
 
Dr. Frank Lipman: Feeling Spent? 5 Easy Ways to Overcome Exhaustion Top
First, a confession. I love music and have been obsessed with rhythm from an early age. I grew up in South Africa, where music and its ritual use are a very important part of the way of life in traditional African cultures. In my home, music was always playing from the time I woke up to the time I went to sleep. What I did not know then, was that my love for music and rhythm, would be a portal into understanding the way I see health today. In 1984, a few years after finishing my medical training in South Africa, my wife and I emigrated to the USA and settled in New York City - we could no longer continue living under Apartheid. I completed a 3 year residency in Internal Medicine and for a number of years after that, immersed myself in the study of Chinese Medicine, Functional Medicine, Nutrition, Yoga and Meditation. When I opened my own clinic, the Eleven Eleven Wellness Center in Manhattan in 1992, I had a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of my Western training and of all the other systems I had been studying. Over the years, I started seeing more and more patients coming in complaining of feeling exhausted, depressed, overwhelmed, achy, run down and older than their years. They weren't sleeping well, had no sex drive and were running on empty. I labeled this "syndrome" SPENT because that's how these patients were feeling. It is a modern day stress syndrome and has become epidemic. Western Medicine does not have any solutions for it and in fact, does not even recognize that it exists despite so many people feeling this way. When I started thinking about why this was happening, I realized that the only time I never saw patients who had these symptoms was when I was working as a doctor 28 years ago in KwaNdebele, a rural area in South Africa. I saw diseases symptomatic of physical hardship, of poverty and malnutrition, very different to what I see today in my practice. There was no electricity, indoor heating or refrigeration in KwaNdebele. Folks went to bed when it got dark, arose with the sun and ate whatever foods were available in season. They lived in accordance with the cycles and rhythms of nature, they had to. I thought about what I had learned in Chinese medicine, that humans are part of the natural world and governed by the universal forces of nature. Human bodies do not exist in isolation; we are creatures of our environment and are subject to the powerful dictates of cyclic rhythm. This rhythm is an integral part of the self-organizing dynamic of nature and so I looked to see if there was scientific research on what I thought was happening. Sure enough there was a field called chronobiology, the science that examines cyclical phenomena in living organisms. Your body has more than 100 Circadian rhythms. They are based roughly on nature's 24-hour cycle, influencing different aspects of your body's function, including sleep & wake cycles, body temperature, hormone levels, brain wave activity, heart rate, blood pressure and even pain threshold. These rhythms are part of every aspect of our body's inner working. Although most of us know that such rhythms exist, we fail to appreciate their power in determining our health. Even in medical circles, chronobiology, the study of physiological rhythm is consistently underrated. We have internal body clocks set precisely to these rhythms and cycles of nature. The "master clock" is located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a distinct group of cells located in the hypothalamus , which uses signals like light and darkness to know when to release certain hormones and neurotransmitters, which tell us when to wake or go to sleep. Destruction of the SCN results in the complete absence of a regular sleep/wake rhythm. Light is the drummer in our physiological band or orchestra, it keeps the beat, our body clocks try to harmonize themselves with nature. Then I looked into the field of genomics, the study of genes and I had my Aha! experience on why this was happening. We evolved over millennia as people who lived in harmony with day and night and the seasons. These cycles and rhythms became imprinted in our genes, which are almost identical to our ancient ancestors. So in our genes we are still our ancient ancestors, but we have outpaced our biology and are living at a pace that is foreign to it. Our modern lives are out of sync with these rhythms and we land up feeling Spent. For most of us, the only time we become aware of body rhythms and their importance is if we have jet lag. This is probably the easiest way to recognize our internal body clock. Anyone who has flown over a few time zones, for instance New York to London, knows what I am talking about. You get tired easily, feel sluggish, you have trouble concentrating or thinking clearly, your body aches, you have trouble sleeping and you may even have digestive problems. But unlike when you are Spent, after a few days your body clock adjusts to the new time zone and you feel better. Our lifestyle today simply makes it harder to stay in tune with the rhythms of nature. While no doubt beneficial in many ways, we have created artificial environments that insulate us from the cycles of the seasons and of daylight and darkness. We use artificial light to extend our activities well into the night and even during the day, we spend most of our time under artificial lights, getting very little natural light. It becomes difficult to hear the ticking of our body's internal clock. The result is that many of us pay a price as our natural body clock gets thrown out of it's natural rhythm. Our poorly synchronized lifestyles extract a significant toll. The good news is that when prompted correctly our genetic clocks can reset themselves. The body will move naturally towards healing if we give it a chance. When our rhythms are in sync, we have more energy, everyday tasks are easier to perform, things just seem to flow better. Athletes call this "being in the zone" or having their game on. Finding your "groove" is not just psychological, it is physiological too. By making small changes in your lifestyle, you can feel remarkably more energetic, start sleeping better and reclaim your rightful vitality. Here are just a few tips taken from my new book, Spent: End Exhaustion and Feel Great Again that will help you to reset your body clock and rediscover your natural rhythm. * Get some natural light during the day by going for a walk, preferably in nature. * Keep a consistent daily schedule. Get up at the same time every day, regardless of what time you go to bed. * Have an "electronic sundown". At around 10 pm, turn off your computer, TV and all electronic equipment. * Darken your room completely. That means covering or turning off any of the blinking or glowing lights from the alarm clock, the cell phone charger, the DVD clock and timer, etc. Each little bit of light can stop your melatonin levels from rising, which you need to induce sleep and to reach the deep restorative sleep your body requires. If you can't darken your room, wear an eye mask. * Eat in accordance to your body's rhythms. Since your metabolism peaks at about noon, it is better for your body to have a bigger breakfast and lunch and smaller dinner. Eat good fats and protein for breakfast because that is what your body needs for fuel during the day. Healthy smoothies are a great way to get both of these into your diet. The typical sugar and carb-laden breakfast of a bagel, muffin, toast or sugary cereal are just about the worst things you can have; so avoid those at all costs.
 
Steve Mariotti: Looking to Entrepreneurship Education During the Economic Crisis Top
As the whirlwind of news surrounding the vast global economic crisis continues, I stopped to reflect on why providing an entrepreneurship education to low-income youth matters so much, especially now. Entrepreneurship and innovation provide a way for students and professionals to overcome the global challenges of today, building sustainable development, creating jobs, generating renewed economic growth and advancing human welfare. Many years ago, a graduate of The National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE) and business owner, Michelle Araujo, summed it up: My dream is not to die in poverty, but to have poverty die in me! When we speak about entrepreneurship, we are defining it in the broadest terms and in all forms -- entrepreneurial people in large companies, in the public sector, in academia and, of course, those who launch and grow new companies. Now more than ever, we need innovation, new solutions, creative approaches and new ways of operating. We are in uncharted territory and need people in all sectors and at all ages who can "think out of the box" to identify and pursue opportunities in new paradigm-changing ways. Power and influence in our country is granted to those who own -- own their own land, their own houses, and their own businesses. Yet interestingly enough, we teach our students to be employees and not business owners. Many high schools have job placement programs to help their students, but rarely do we see the possibility of entrepreneurship presented as an option. Many also fail to see the correlation between the health of the economy and the people who have a vested interest in its health: entrepreneurs. Of equal importance is the simple fact that our country's 1.2 million dropouts costs over $329 billion in lost wages annually, according to Governor Bob Wise. The decision to drop out is a one-million-dollar decision in lost wages for each child who makes it. Further, 90 percent of the fastest-growing employment categories in America require a college degree -- and these kids won't be able to compete. Then, even more jobs will have to go overseas. In his research for The Silent Epidemic , author John Bridgeland interviewed high school dropouts and asked them why they dropped out of school: **81% said they would not have dropped out if the subjects were more relevant to real life. Teaching children how to make it financially (and we are strong proponents of the growing financial literacy movement), how to own their futures as economically productive members of society, is both real life and relevant. Getting business leaders into classrooms to share their expertise and optimism is a key component of entrepreneurial success. Youth entrepreneurship engages young people and gives them a good reason to go to school and then apply to their own lives. The drug war taught kids to say No to drugs; starting a legal enterprise is a concept our young people can say yes to. In 2006, the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) released a critical report calling for a major overhaul of the country's educational system. A report titled "Tough Choices, Tough Times," written by YESG's Vice Chairman, Thomas Payzant, highlights the link between education and the economy and provides policy recommendations for America's schools. In President Obama's speech that addressed the "No Child Left Behind Act" on March 10, Obama stated, "I am calling on our nation's Governors and state education chiefs to develop standards and assessments that don't simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test, but whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking, entrepreneurship and creativity." Additionally, research by the Harvard Graduate School of Education has found that students, having taken a 50-plus-hour entrepreneurial course show: increased interest in furthering education and career aspirations; increased feeling of control over their lives; and increased leadership behaviors. NFTE findings further indicate that these entrepreneurial courses: increase engagement in school; increase students' sense of connection with adults in business and the community; increase independent reading; and Increase business and entrepreneurial knowledge. Research and findings prove the need, want and yearning from students to take control of their future through entrepreneurship education. We need to fast-track our work so we reach these kids and not lose another generation of students before we can teach them to fuel their dreams and have belief in their own potential. This in turn will reward our country handsomely, not only with a more educated workforce, but one that adds to and nurtures our economy's health - because it impacts their own. We can't afford to let 1.2 million kids fail annually. NFTE (www.NFTE.com) is a global non-profit organization that has been providing students in low-income communities with entrepreneurship education since 1987. Often described as a mini-MBA program, NFTE teaches real-world business knowledge to middle and high school students to help shape their future, whether it be higher education or the business world.
 
A. Siegel: Semantically correct ... entirely misleading Top
This is one of those cases where it's entirely possible to be semantically correct and leave a misleading impression. Dow Jones put up a story, and the Associate Press cribbed from the reporting, suggesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had some serious heartburn with the EPA's conclusion that motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare . How accurate was that reporting? Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)'s proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded . Peter R. Orszag, Director Office of Management and Budget When the director of an organization weighs in (quickly) to discuss reporting of an organizations work, that often suggests that the reporter just didn't get it. In this case, not surprisingly, Republican politicians seized on a news report that the the Obama White House was pushing back against scientific-based EPA work finding that greenhouse gas emissions threaten Americans. The anti-science syndrome deniers and delayers whipped into a happy frenzy over this, seizing on the AP reporting that White House memo challenges EPA finding on warmin g An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that could lead to regulating the gases blamed for global warming will prove costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions, according to a White House document. This sounds pretty severe, no? This reporting picks up on Republican action. Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, waved the nine-page document at Lisa P. Jackson at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works committee this morning (see video above). He called it a "smoking gun" that proved the proposed finding was based on politics, not science. "This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business," Mr. Barrasso said. "This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America." What is the next line of the EPA story? The nine-page memo is a compilation of opinions made by a dozen federal agencies and departments before the EPA determined in April that greenhouse gases pose dangers to public health and welfare. Note that this review occurred before Obama Administration political appointees and staff could take their posts (with many delayed by Republican action). Note how this memo is marked: labeled "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege," In fact, what this memo looks to be is a collection of opinions -- unnamed, unreferenced -- opinions from around the US government. These might, in fact, simply be holdovers from the previous Administration ("burrowed" holdovers, for example) seeking to continue to foster anti-science, pollution promoting policies. Interestingly, only one agency was the source of all the critiques ... thus, it is possible that just one holdover bureaucrat (that unnamed, unelected official) is the source of all the challenge. From Orzag's post . Clearing the Air The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice. Perhaps more importantly, OMB concluded review of the preliminary finding several weeks ago, which then allowed EPA to move forward with the proposed finding. As I wrote on this blog on April 17, the "proposed finding is carefully rooted in both law and science." I also noted: "By itself, the EPA's proposed finding imposes no regulation. (Indeed, by itself, it requires nothing at all.) If and when the endangerment finding is made final, the EPA will turn to the question whether and how to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles." The bottom line is that OMB would have not concluded review, which allows the finding to move forward, if we had concerns about whether EPA's finding was consistent with either the law or the underlying science. The press reports to the contrary are simply false. For an excellent discussion of this, see David Roberts at Grist . This is one of those cases where it's entirely possible to be semantically correct and leave a misleading impression. The story in the bloodstream now is that the White House thinks EPA greenhouse gas regulations will kill the economy. If the headline had been, "random, un-named source somewhere in the federal bureaucracy believes EPA regulations unwise," it would have been more accurate but less linkworthy. .... If a story is technically accurate (the memo was submitted, as required by law, by the OMB, which is a White House agency) but leaves a false impression (the comments in the memo do not reflect OMB or White House positions), is it legit? Is it worth criticizing? Do reporters have an obligation to contextualize and interpret or only to make non-false statements? Is this update way too long? More on Climate Change
 
Elizabeth Birch: Of Barbies, Bratz and Bimbos Top
Of Barbies, Bratz and Bimbos by Elizabeth Birch I don't know about you, but I am done with the celebration of Barbie's 50th birthday. To be honest, I wasn't that wild about her 5th birthday in 1964. That was the year my mother dutifully handed me this micro-waisted, ample-busted, curvy doll with a blonde bob, and feet that only could have been produced by centuries of foot binding. As a little girl who grew up largely swinging from trees on Vancouver Island, I did not know what to make of this creature. We know from the recent coverage of the big 50th anniversary, Barbie was modeled largely on an East German prostitute. Well, let's be fair. Barbie was actually modeled on an East German doll named Lilli, who was based on a trashy, wise-cracking, sex-talking glam cartoon character named Lilli (that appeared during the 1950s in the Hamburg tabloid of Bild-Zeitung). The cartoon character was based on the prostitute. A Mattel executive traveling in Europe at the time brought a few Lilli dolls home, and by 1959 she morphed into Barbie and a multi-billion dollar brand. The Lilli doll was widely regarded as a novelty sex gag babe long before an actual child ever claimed her as a toy. I suppose we should be grateful that at least with Barbie, you have to dig for the hooker angle. Not so with the Bratz doll. That designer didn't waste a moment. He went straight for the red light district. (And apparently he did so right under the nose of all the Barbie people at Mattel where he was employed. In fact, Mattel recently won a suit in which they convinced the court that the Bratz design was a work-for-hire created on Mattel equipment and time, and therefore owned by Mattel.) When I was a child, we girls intuitively understood that Barbie would never walk, let alone stand up. Those tiny feet would hardly support a hobbit let alone Barbie herself. But the Bratz design and dimensions took design through the guise of male sexual fantasies to a whole new level. A Bratz doll using human proportions would have a waist 23 inches, a bust of 42 inches and her head (not including makeup) would weigh approximately 100 pounds. Whereas Barbie could not stand up, the Bratz doll would not even be able to lift her head off the brothel cot. Perhaps that was the point. So why do I care? I have a ten year old daughter. And so I am frustrated and fed up. Why is it that at this late stage of our human evolution that dolls and media images are rife with the most extreme sexual characteristics. This stretches way back, but seems to be getting worse. It does not seem to matter whether we are talking about the parade of early Disney Princesses or more recent entrants like Mulan or Pocahontas. Even the very recent Kim Possible, Spy Girls and the single female transformer have the same shape. There is not a wasted calorie between them. And even the wonderful, healthy and fun latina character, Dora the Explorer, is joining the reverse march. Bending to Disney, those smart Noggin people have succumbed to refashioning Dora as a thinner, longer-haired, hipper urban tween. This is a blow for girl's and children's culture alike. Like all parents, I am stretched and tired and, at times, a bad choice roll over me borne of chaos and exhaustion. But we can do better for our children. We can do better than feed a continuous diet of dolls that celebrate eating disorders to our kids, and then wonder why they are expressing a desire to diet as early as third grade. And don't misread me. I feel just as protective of my ten year old son. He is presented with: 1) a massively muscular, steroid-ridden, tough and rugged action figure, or, 2) a massively muscular, steroid ridden tough and rugged war figure as key options for his choice of toys. We can and must do better for our kids. But Tackling this family by family, kid by kid is a lost cause. It is simply impossible to compete with the media Super Parent that enters every orifice of our homes and the lives of our children 24/7. But if we put our heads and hearts together we can do this. Together we can expand children's media and toys beyond princess pink and warrior green. That is why I am joining with other parents on May 19, 2009 to launch TrueChild.org, a new community of parents, educators and experts, all dedicated to breaking through the stereotypes that limit and harm our children. Watch for us and write me at EBirch@TrueChild.org. TrueChild.org. Let Every Child Shine. Elizabeth Birch is President of TrueChild.org (EBirch@TrueChild.org) & CEO of Birch and Company (ElizabethBirch.com).
 
Chrysler To Cut Up To 800 Dealers On Thursday: AP Top
DETROIT — Chrysler LLC plans to fire up to 800 of its 3,200 dealers on Thursday, a lawyer seeking to represent the dealers said on a conference call. The lawyer, Stephen Lerner, who heads the bankruptcy and restructuring practice of the law firm Squire Sanders, told dealers on the Tuesday call that the automaker plans to reject at least 800 franchise agreements, according to a dealer who listened to the call. The dealers were told that Chrysler will file a list of dealers it wants to retain with the U.S. bankruptcy court, said the dealer, who asked not to be identified because the call was confidential. A Chrysler spokeswoman said Tuesday that the automaker is working to reduce the number of dealerships along with other restructuring actions. Spokeswoman Kathy Graham said the 800 number was just speculation. "We do not have any finalized list as of this point in time," she said. Asked if the company would soon have a list, she said: "It's too early for us to say. We're not through that process yet." Chrysler, which has received $4 billion in government loans, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 30. The company has asked a bankruptcy judge to approve the sale of all its assets to a new Chrysler controlled by Italy's Fiat Group SpA. With Fiat as a partner, the U.S. government has said it will provide up to $6 billion more in financing to help Chrysler get through the bankruptcy process. A message was left for Lerner. The dealer said the law firm asked the dealers who think they might lose their franchises to post $4,000 each so the lawyers could begin the legal fight.
 
Cheney Whacks EFCA, Labor Welcomes Him As Spokesman Top
Former vice president Dick Cheney keeps elevating himself to the role of Republican Party spokesman on key political issues. Usually the topic has to do with foreign policy. But in his interview on Tuesday afternoon on Fox News, he grasped hold of one of the GOP's biggest rallying cries -- the Employee Free Choice Act. Describing himself as not inherently anti-labor -- "I carried a ticket for six years in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in my youth," he said -- Cheney nevertheless hit all the right talking points in decrying the legislation. "I think it'd be a huge mistake," he said. "I don't think we want to get into the business where we make it easier for there to be the kind of intimidation that we've sometimes seen in these operations in the past and where people wouldn't be able to cast a secret ballot in terms of whether or not they want to join a union." He even touched on what is the usually privately-held but quite-dominant conservative fear over the labor-backed provision: that an increase in union membership as a result of EFCA would result in the consolidation of Democratic power for decades to come. "I think what the unions are trying to do here is dramatically expand the base, in terms of membership, and they will in turn generate vast sums of money, in terms of dues and political contributions," he said, "and I think it does have wide-ranging ramifications..." Lest one have any doubt, labor officials scoffed at Cheney's criticism, noting that EFCA actually doesn't do away with the secret ballot and isn't some nefarious gateway to political dominance. But they also had some fun with his rather unpopular persona. And, like the Democratic Party as a whole, they weren't exactly quivering at having the former vice president as the public face of the opposition. "Dick Cheney is as much of an expert at helping America's workers as he is on not shooting people in the face," said AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale. "If Cheney wants to emerge and be the lead spokesman against the Employee Free Choice Act, I'll help book his interviews." Here's a transcript of part of Cheney's interview: Neil Cavuto : Joe Biden was making news today, speaking to a union group, saying, 'we have to rebuild the middle class and the way to do that is to help labor unions grow.' What do you make of that? Dick Cheney : Well, I'm not anti-labor union. I carried a ticket for six years in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in my youth. I built power line transmission lines all over Wyoming and Utah, Colorado, that's how I paid for my education. So I'm not anti-union. I do think the legislation that the administration is supporting and the unions are pushing hard, the so-called "card check" law, would do away with a secret ballot in terms of the question of organizing unions. I think it'd be a huge mistake. I don't think we want to get into the business where we make it easier for there to be the kind of intimidation that we've sometimes seen in these operations in the past and where people wouldn't be able to cast a secret ballot in terms of whether or not they want to join a union. Cavuto : Jack Welsh said that it would be deleterious to our economic recovery, do you agree? Cheney : Well, I always felt that what Ronald Reagan did, um, back in 1981, in the early part of his administration, when he was very touch with the air traffic controllers, was a good, sound, solid move. I think that, as I say, if people want to join a union, fine, that's their business. There are provisions for that, that allow unions to be represented. But I think what the unions are trying to do here is dramatically expand the base, in terms of membership, and they will in turn generate vast sums of money, in terms of dues and political contributions, and I think it does have wide-ranging ramifications and that the current system, where we have secret ballots for people to decide whether or not they want to be represented by a union is a good way to go. We ought to preserve it. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Dick Cheney
 
Ron Kuby: Cheney's Right: Limbaugh's A Better Republican Than Powell Top
When Dick Cheney was asked on "Face the Nation" whether he supported Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh, after Powell opined that Rush is bad for the GOP and the country, Cheney made it clear whose side he was on: "If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh," Cheney said. "My take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican." Cheney did not explain his answer, perhaps because the reasons were self-evident. Having worked among right wing nut radio hosts, I feel I should explain Cheney's remarks to the non-cognoscenti, by evaluating Limbaugh and Powell on all the criteria most important to right wingers. Values Limbaugh is pro-life; Powell is not. The first rule of Republican leadership is that all life, particularly your life, is precious. Limbaugh realized this at an early age. He used the medical excuse of a pimple in the base of his butt crack to get classified 4-F, unfit for duty in Vietnam. Dopey Powell not only went to 'Nam, but did two tours of duty there, as a freakin' volunteer, in battle. He got wounded -- and volunteered to go back again! He could have been killed! Dead Republicans don't exercise much influence on the party (except Reagan). No contest -- Limbaugh wins in the all important "values" category. Economics Limbaugh is an entrepreneur. He saw an emerging market for hate, and he supplied the product. Did pretty well for himself, too. Powell has been the beneficiary of a bunch of those phony government jobs, ya know, soldier, general, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State. He's been sucking on Uncle Sam's teat for too long. Limbaugh best embodies the GOP's economic views. Powell wasted his time going to college and graduate school when he could have been out making real money. He probably even got his Master's Degree as a result of that welfare program, the G.I. Bill. Limbaugh, au contraire , dropped out of college after only two semesters and never went back to those liberal-infested halls. Now he can buy and sell all those smarty-pants professors! Real Republicans know that you don't need all that fancy education to figure out that dinosaurs really did roam the earth with people, like in "The Flintstones." Marriage Limbaugh believes in heterosexual marriage. He really, really believes in it. He has been married and divorced three times and is currently hunting in the Dominican Republic, with a bottle of Viagra, for lucky wife number four. Powell has only been married once (snicker) and is still with the same woman. As GOP party stalwarts Newt Gingrich (three marriages, two divorces) and Rudy Giuliani (three marriages, one divorce, one annulment when he discovered he married his cousin) can attest, the proper regard for the sanctity of heterosexual marriage requires diverse experience in the area. Limbaugh three, Powell zero. Give up Colin, become a Democrat. I hear they take anyone. More on Colin Powell
 
Kelli Conlin: More Uncomfortable News for the Right: Decades of Work by Anti-Choicers Does Nothing to Decrease Abortions Top
Who knew that anti-choice activists were actually trying to increase the number of second-trimester abortions? Because that's precisely what they've done with their ill-advised, ongoing and ineffective attempts to restrict women's access to safe, legal healthcare. While the American public has repeatedly rejected laws that would make abortion illegal and treat women like criminals, anti-choice lawmakers in twenty-four states have resorted to chipping away at abortion rights by making access more difficult by mandating counseling and waiting periods. Proponents of these tactics claim that they are designed to give women time and information upon which to base their decision to have an abortion. But these barriers are really ruses to block access. They reinforce the myth that abortion is a decision that women take lightly. The unmitigated truth is that women facing unwanted pregnancies will have already carefully weighed their options before even picking up the phone to make an appointment with a provider. Women evaluate what is best for them based upon their needs and the needs of their families, often consulting with people whom they trust, like family, a partner, and friends. A Guttmacher Institute paper released today ("The Impact of State Mandatory Counseling and Waiting Period Laws on Abortion: A Literature Review") once and for all validates the pro-choice community's opposition to obstacles like waiting periods and mandatory counseling sessions, finding that they do not reduce abortion rates, but rather cause unnecessary burdens. With the exception of one state that saw a decrease in abortions overall--though, critically, along with a concurrent increase in second-trimester abortions--not a single restriction showed any evidence of decreasing abortions. Anti-choice activists have therefore succeeded not in reducing abortion rates, but in increasing the number of second-trimester abortions and in making life more difficult for women facing unwanted pregnancies. Because, while women aren't changing their minds about abortion based on these barriers, they do find themselves jumping through more hoops to circumvent them. Women are having more second-trimester abortions (on average, 3 weeks later than their original intent) on account of these barriers or are traveling to other states with less burdensome restrictions. Waiting periods cause the added burden of having to visit a provider twice, requiring them to take extra time off from work and finding extra child care. For women who have to travel long distances to reach a provider who will perform an abortion, traveling back and forth to that site twice presents a double barrier. Counseling sessions could have the effect of shaming women who have already weighed all their options and decided on abortion as the best option for them. If anti-choice activists are really interested in reducing abortions, then they would be wise to take the statistics into account before pressing forward with further barriers to women's access. If they want to increase later abortions and make women's lives even harder--well they've already done that.
 
David Barstow: TV Networks Have Ignored Defense Department's Retraction Of Report That Exonerated Generals Top
AMY GOODMAN: I think what's so interesting about this story is not only what the Pentagon has done; it's the lack of reporting on this by the networks. Of course, you know, that is your subject here, how the networks use them. How many times have you been invited on the networks--you just won the Pulitzer Prize for this investigation--to explain this story of the networks' use of these pundits? DAVID BARSTOW: You know, to be honest with you, I haven't received many invitations--in fact, any invitations--to appear on any of the main network or cable programs. I can't say I'm hugely shocked by that.
 
Jack Healey: Is There a Doctor in the House? Not in Burma Top
The military of Burma has crushed the nonviolent monks, uses Burmese children as soldiers, allowed a cyclone and its consequences to sweep over 100,000 Burmese to their deaths, driven a half million from their homes and now the military will not allow the proper medical care for their Nobel Peace Prize winner. Aung San Suu Kyi is ill and not doing well. Having led the National League for Democracy to a massive victory in 1990, Aung San Suu Kyi could have left Burma and traveled the world, enjoying her freedom and the respect of the world, gathering doctorates and living a reasonably good life. She instead stayed home in Burma. Isolated, surrounded by soldiers who are terrified of a woman who doesn't even weigh 100 pounds. But her life and writings are strong. Many see her as the living symbol of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She certainly is the symbol of hope for many outside of Burma, but she is deeply needed inside of Burma. The Burmese military are an out of control government who have the firm support of the Chinese government. Human rights groups of all kinds strain to tell of the brutality and monstrous actions of this government. People like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, REM, Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey, Bono, Sting, President Obama, the US Senate Women's Caucus and Peter Gabriel have all sent messages of support. But still, Burma is far away from us. Few know her name. Fewer can pronounce it. Most do not know where Burma is. So what do we do? We rally around her, is what we do. Just like we did for Mandela and all the Mandela's of the world. This is one time that the US government is in advance of the cause. Aung San Suu Kyi has the support of our president and of the Western governments. My search for my own symbol of hope took me to Burma in February of 1999. My lady and I pretended to be tourists, actually antique dealers, so that we might get a moment with Aung San Suu Kyi. It worked because we spent many an hour walking up and down in front of the little dilapidated headquarters of the National League for Democracy. At that time she was allowed to give rice out to her people once a month. We found her that day and got in line with her followers and finally met her for about 20 minutes. She is a steel flower. Bright, articulate, focused. A no nonsense person, no wonder she won 82% of the vote. We finally took a picture and got her autograph for my stepson. On the way out that night, the customs people tried to find these but to no avail. A deep fear will and has gone through the Burmese community all over the world. They know she, their Mandela, cannot fall before the fall of apartheid. We all live and we all die... but if the Burmese military denies her medical support appropriate to the problems, and she dies, it will be a devastating blow beyond all comprehension for the decent people of Burma. We must not allow that to happen. Her father Aung San, the founder of the military of Burma was executed when he was 32. It was a premature death. We must not allow this to occur to his daughter. More on Burma
 
Ghent: Belgian City Officially Vegetarian One Day Per Week Top
The Belgian city of Ghent is about to become the first in the world to go vegetarian at least once a week. More on Food
 
Ward Sutton: Paying Attention in the Information-Overload Age Top
You're sitting in a conference room with a table full of coworkers. As you're discussing a pressing issue, everyone is simultaneously typing on a laptop, subtly checking their email, Facebook and Twitter accounts, pounding their thumbs on a blackberry, or reading a text message on their vibrating cell phone -- all in the name of maximum productivity. Productive? Winifred Gallagher, who calls multitasking a myth, would disagree. In her new book, Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life , Gallagher thoroughly makes the case that our lives -- and the people we are -- are a product of what we choose to focus our attention on. Please check out my full review-in-cartoon-form of Rapt here . Psychologist Barry Schwartz, quoted in Rapt , sums up our modern predicament: "On the one hand, you've got to defend your limited cognitive resources so you can attend to what really matters. On the other, you can't just tune out. You need to find a way to be part of society as it is without being weighed down by all the claims on your attention it imposes." In the digital age, we seem to be under constant bombardment from distractions, and it can be head-spinning. "It's not a coincidence," Gallagher points out, "that the term distracted once referred not just to a loss or dilution of attention but also to confusion, mental imbalance, and even madness." "Unless you can concentrate on what you want to do and suppress distractions," she adds, "it's hard to accomplish anything, period." Gallagher, whose previous titles include The Power of Place, Spiritual Genius, Just the Way You Are , and Working on God , is no stranger to writing about that which can improve our lives. Rapt extends well beyond workplace efficiency to topics such as relationships, decision-making, creativity, general health and attention disorders. Gallagher concludes that all areas of our lives can be improved simply by taking the time and energy to focus. "Paying rapt attention," she explains, "increases your capacity for concentration, expands your inner boundaries, and lifts your spirits, but more important, it simply makes you feel that life is worth living."
 
Moira Gunn: The Cheese Sandwich Tweet Top
Back in the early days of blogging, which was not so long ago when you think about it, when people were pronouncing "blogging" verrrry slooooowly while making double quotes in the air with their fingers, there became something known as the "cheese sandwich blog." As the story goes, one early blogger felt so compelled to blog something every few hours that he is reported to have written: "I ate a cheese sandwich." Precisely true or not, the concept stuck, and it has evolved through a successive set of definitions over recent years which invariably range from simply the pedestrian to excruciatingly boring. My point, however, has nothing to do with this definition, but rather with the early experience of blogging as an example of what happens with any emergent Internet phenomenon. It's happening with Twitter today - cheese sandwiches, et al. The first characteristic of a new technology is "over-enthusiasm." For me, it usually arrives with the pitching of a guest on Tech Nation who has built or led the first creative push of the phenom in question. The pitching party is in hyper-drive, trying to convince me that life will never be the same. I hesitate to tell him or her that life is never going to be the same in any event, with or without the tech in question, and that I'm hard pressed to name any technology which changed everything overnight in any context. Over-enthusiasm is followed closely by the emergence of a small community of "early pioneers" - the folks who write or download an early version of some strange software and are trying to figure out what it's good for. How to use it, and how not to use it. What's hot, and what's not. These are the people who make the cheese sandwich blog mistakes while bringing into focus how the technology may fit into the big picture. If the technology is going to catch on, it starts getting broad adoption, it moves into the general population, and then we begin to see if the technology is here to stay. Frankly, this is often different from the vision of the original creators. So here we are with Twitter and its 140-character Tweets, those tiny messages coming fast and furious from cell phones and the like everywhere and at any time. Twitter has been through the introduction phase, and it's now all about gaining followers, with celebrities elaborately creating competitions to see who can gain the most followers. Of course, these technologies are never lone wolves. Sure, they are new unto themselves, but just like television affected radio, twittering has redefined the blogosphere. Unbelievably, blogs have matured, and it's as if they have found themselves. In addition to being lengthier, they are slower in creation and more deliberate. If you want rapid fire delivery, Twitter is the app of choice, although once it was advocated that blogging would fill those shoes. Besides, tweets and blogs can relate. You write a blog; you promote it with a tweet, a kind of May-December techno-relationship. To be sure, how Twitter, blogs, and all the rest will be used in the end is yet to be seen. It's not hard to guess that all that twitters is not gold. But here's to the "Cheese Sandwich Tweet" - all those messages people are pumping out right now and nobody is reading. As misguided as it may seem (and some think it's a big waste of time), all this effort is giving Twittering life. In doing so, we'll get it all worked out eventually, no doubt just in time for the next new technology to leap onto scene and greet us with promises of life-changing proportions ... than Twittering will look just a little dull, a bit like last year's model. More on Twitter
 
Rick Horowitz: Cheney and Torture: The Buck Stops...Where? Top
The question was certainly straightforward enough. The answer, though -- the answer left a few threads hanging. Of course, since the man providing the answer was one Richard B. Cheney, former veep of these United States, you have to expect the occasional bit of obfuscation, misdirection, even on a Sunday morning. After all, if Dick Cheney told us everything, he'd have to kill us. (And he wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over it either.) Still, it was an answer that only raised more questions. This is last Sunday on Face the Nation , and CBS's Bob Schieffer is pressing Cheney about the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used on certain ostensibly high-value prisoners in U.S. custody. (You can call it "torture" if you like. Everybody with a half-decent dictionary does -- a rather large group that apparently doesn't include Cheney.) Anyway, at one point in the interview, according to CBS's own transcript, the conversation goes this way: SCHIEFFER: How much did President Bush know specifically about the methods that were being used? We know that you -- and you have said -- that you approved this... CHENEY: Right. SCHIEFFER: ... somewhere down the line. Did President Bush know everything you knew? As I said, a pretty straightforward question. But the answer? Not so much. CHENEY: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew -- he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it. "Basically"?! The president "basically" authorized it?! He knew "a great deal" about the program?! It was "a presidential-level decision" that "went to the president"?! And he "signed off on it"?! That's it?! That's as much as George Bush was involved in one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency?! (It was , technically speaking, his presidency, even if Cheney and Cheney's people tended to ignore that fact when it was more convenient to pretend otherwise.) Now, there are at least two ways to read Cheney's response. One, that he's trying to keep his former boss -- even to say the word is to laugh -- out of the line of fire. "Plausible deniability" and all that. Or two, that Cheney's trying to show -- without giving too much away, of course -- that, despite all the rumors to the contrary, he wasn't a totally loose cannon, that everything he did had the president's approval. More or less. But then there's the third, even more chilling, possibility: that Cheney is being, in his fashion, accurate. Even precise. That George Bush "basically" authorized the torture program -- but no more than "basically." That he knew "a great deal" about the program -- but not everything. (What about the nasty bits? Was he told about the nasty bits?) That this "presidential-level decision" in fact "went to the president," who "signed off on it" -- but did he realize what he was signing? Did he understand its implications? On those questions, Cheney leaves us -- yet again -- in the dark. But we're certainly free to wonder: What did George Bush know, and how well did he know it? After all, how many times did those lovable cut-ups on M*A*S*H trick their hapless commander into signing something he should never have signed? A line of snappy patter, a pile of distracting documents, a quick application of emotional blackmail -- they were all in the toolkit for putting one over on the big guy. You don't think that George Bush was at least that hapless in real life? Or that Dick Cheney was at least that resourceful? Call it the Bush-Cheney administration if you insist, but you're twisting -- torturing? -- the facts. All the evidence suggests that when it really mattered, it was the other way around. Basically. # # # Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com. More on Dick Cheney
 
Lee Camp: Miss California Topless? THE HORROR! Top
 
Helene Pavlov: Imaging Studies, Radiation and Children Top
Outdoor sports can frequently lead to injuries and fractures which can result in your child requiring a hospital emergency room or doctors' office visit. Many of these injuries will require imaging examinations to help identify the problem, confirm or exclude the extent of the injury and also help to determine treatment. Recent media coverage regarding high levels of ionizing radiation associated with frequent use of CT (computed tomography) scans has heightened fear and concern regarding imaging examinations. In order to better understand important safety protocols, here are some key things to think about when your child is having an imaging examination: Less is Best Keep in mind that your child is still growing and their body is more susceptible to the effects of ionizing radiation. The less ionizing radiation, the better. Talk to the Doctor Before you agree to any imaging examination ask what the doctor suspects and is there an alternative non-ionizing radiation imaging examination, such as an MRI or an ultrasound that can be substituted. Make Sure Shielding is Practiced Ensure that the radiology technologist shields your child, and confines the area being exposed to the area in question. It is okay to ask if the technique being used is adjusted to the size of your child. Inquire About Repeat Rates Inquire about the center's repeat rate or how often does an image need to be repeated because of motion, positioning, or technique. If it is high, you may want to rethink where you are having your child's imaging done. It is also wise to inquire about the number of pediatric patients in their practice. The higher the percentage of children routinely seen in a practice, the more experienced the team has with getting the optimal image right the first try and with the least upset to the child or the parent. . If you follow the tips above and ask questions you will be doing your best to protect your child from unnecessary radiation exposure.
 
Flu Costs Spanish Woman $172 Million Lottery Jackpot Top
A 25-year-old Spanish woman who won a record 126 million euros (172 million dollars) in the Euro Millions lottery only learned of her good luck days later after spending the weekend bed-ridden with the flu, officials said Tuesday. More on Health
 
Jeez, This Place Is A Dump (PHOTO) Top
SAN FRANCISCO - MAY 12: Trucks dump garbage into a pit at Sunset Scavenger May 12, 2009 in San Francisco, California. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom announced today the city of San Francisco leads the nation with a 72 percent recycling rate. A new mandatory ordinance to recycle compostable materials will begin this week following the mayor's successful construction debris recycling ordinance that accounts for the lowest tonnage sent to landfills in over 30 years. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
 
Disgrasian: Not Just a Torture Expert Top
Torture expert John Yoo has a new gig...as monthly columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. In addition to yawn-y legal opinions , he'll also be sharing his thoughts on how to commit war crimes and get away with them , how to re-brand waterboarding into an extreme sport and lobby to get it into the next Olympic Games, and how to rock a White Man's Puff when you're not white! He has so much to offer, people, beyond how to almost kill people without actually killing people (factoring in the occasional "Oops!" of course). Open your minds and give this man a chance!
 
James Heffernan: WHAT WILL WE DO IF THE NEW YORK TIMES TANKS? Top
The short answer is what I'm doing right now, which is Googling my way to other sources on a story the TIMES itself resolutely refuses to tell. The latest and most reliable dispatch on this crisis comes from Richard Siklos of FORTUNE (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/11/news/companies/siklos_nyt.fortune/index.htm), who reports 1) that former Hollywood mogul David Geffen has offered to buy the 19% stake in the Times now held by Harbinger Capital Partners (a hedge fund), with no deal struck so far; 2) that the Times owes $250 million--borrowed at steep interest rates-- to the Mexican media billionaire Carlos Slim. Though the company has actually increased its print circulation revenue in the past two years and now has more than 830,000 print subscribers, it lost $74 million last quarter and according to one analyst (Craig Huber of Barclay Capital), its common stock is set to slide within a year from about six dollars to just one buck. Given that prospect, how can the Sulzbergers--who control the paper through their supervoting stock--.pay Slim back? According to Gawker (http://gawker.com/5248960/nyts-sulzbergers-broke-dangerous) they don't have the cash, and even at current prices they'd have to give him 48 million shares of common stock, which is far more than the 8.9 million they own. And the longer they wait, the less the stock may be worth. Of course the company can't be sold or surrendered to Carlos Slim or any other investors without the unanimous (or near unanimous) consent of the Sulzberger family. But according to Paul Tharp of the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05112009/business/run_out_of_times_168615.htm), the family has lost more than 86 percent of its fortune and their annual income from the paper is down to $4.5 million--probably a small fraction of the interest they owe each year. And that's just part of what makes this loan so scary. In nine months, the family owes the first installment of $47.5 million. If they pay that in stock rather than cash (which they don't have), it would soak up nearly all of their shares (even at today's prices), leave them with over $200 million (plus steep interest) to pay in the next five years, and effectively hand the company to Carlos Slim. Now consider the final irony: this is one of the biggest stories in the history of the NEW YORK TIMES, but you won't find one word about it on the TIMES website or in its printed pages. It's almost as if captain of the TITANIC suddenly decided that his brush with an iceberg called for radio silence.
 
Gail Lynne Goodwin: Time for Your Great Work Top
Imagine being given the gift of 1,440 minutes today to spend in any way that you choose. You can spend those minutes doing things you have to do, or enjoying things you'd like to do. Either way, we all receive the gift of 1,440 minutes each and every day to spend in whatever way we choose. We can all identify with waking up chasing the day, wishing we had more hours to get through our massive to do list, only to fall into bed exhausted, wondering where the day went. Even more frustrating, many days we get to the end of the day and realize although we were very busy, but spent little time on the things that mean the most to us. A major factor in determining the quality of our lives, is the choice we make in each moment on how to spend our time. It's a matter of priorities. If we look at where we're spending our time, there are always things on the list that don't bring us joy and we would be happy to never do again. Part of the beauty in life is that those things that are "work" for us, are often a joy for someone else. The secret is in knowing your priorities and knowing what you can say "yes" to. To really understand this, it helps to ask yourself, what fills your heart with such joy and excitement that you just can't wait to do it? What would you do just for the sheer joy of it, even if you didn't get paid? People that follow their passion live a life of fulfillment, by avoiding the energy drains that usually turn into time wasters. Time is devoured when you're doing something you don't enjoy and those precious moments are gone- never to return. Then lack of time becomes an even greater problem and the cycle continues and accelerates, like getting sucked deeper and deeper into quick sand. If we change our habits that have created the problem, we can break the cycle by simply refocusing on our priorities. According to today's Inspirational Luminary, Michael Bungay Stanier, work can be broken into bad work, good work and great work. Typically, bad work consumes 10-40% of our time and is comprised of the things we have to do, not what we choose to do. These are usually the routine things in life that we define as responsibility. Our talent and passion go unused when we are doing bad work. For most of us, the majority of our time is spent performing good work. Even though we're not stretching our comfort zones or growing, good work is comfortable, familiar and productive. There is stability in life and a routine that makes us feel safe. The real excitement and oft times the greatest risk, comes from doing great work- our passion in life. This work both challenges and inspires us. When we're doing great work, we feel the most alive! Sadly, the average person spends less then 25% of his or her day doing great work. It's usually what we desire to do most, but actually create the time for the least. Michael teaches how to get going and get unstuck. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar (although he is one) to know that we create our own level of happiness by how we spend our time. He'll challenge you to look at your own life to evaluate your current mix of how much time you're spending in each of these areas. When we take the time to truly look at who we are, what really matters to us, what brings us alive and what work we're doing in the world, we open to possibility. As we gain clarity on this alone, we are propelled towards more great work and a more fulfilled life. The goal then becomes to spend more of our time doing great work. That's easiest to achieve when we look at what we're saying "Yes" to, and conversely, what we're saying "No" to. A life filled with great work means stepping forward towards a life of greater impact. No one benefits when we're miserable and playing small in the world. When we choose to eliminate the things in our life that don't bring us joy, it's not selfish, but rather just plain smart. By consciously reviewing and focusing on our great work and walking away from those things that don't serve us, we'll receive more time, more joy and greater ways to serve the world. Today, may you have the courage to walk away from those things that no longer serve you, create the time to do the things that bring you the greatest joy and celebrate the things to which you can say "Yes"! We invite you to listen to today's FREE Inspired Interview with host, Gail Lynne Goodwin, Ambassador of Inspiration from InspireMeToday.com and today's guest, Michael Bungay Stanier.
 
Jon Chattman: Adam Lambert for the Win Top
Judges love his theatrical ways. Teenage girls fawn over him despite the fact -- let's face it -- he's probably just not that into them. His tight pants leave little to the imagination, his nails and eyeliner are straight off a Hot Topic shelf, and his falsettos sound as if someone is gloriously squeezing the life out of his testicles. Yes, "American Idol" frontrunner Adam Lambert has a lot going for him, but there's something missing. I think I know what it is. It's getting fairly comical at this point to say -- given that many sites are popping up petitioning this celeb to grow one and that celeb to grow one -- but in a perfect world, Lambert would grow himself one Freddie Mercury of a mustache. I'll explain... Lambert has been praised all season as the most courageous and boldest contestant in "American Idol's" history. He'll prance around stage one week singing an unorthodox version of Play that Funky Music , and then switch gears the very next week with a stripped down version of Tracks of My Tears . He's effortlessly tackled everyone from the Bee Gees to Led Zeppelin on the show, and hasn't let rumors of his sexuality nor photos surfacing of him lip-to-lip with another dude or dressed in drag -- get in the way of his dream (as the superb EW cover story points out this week). With Lambert seemingly heading into the finale (Simon Cowell just told Oprah he's going to win it all), it's time for the Mt. Carmel High School grad to shock the world again and head into the show's ninth inning with some Rollie Fingers-groomed peachfuzz. If he does so, Lambert would become the first AI contestant in history to sport a mustache. More importantly, he'd help usher in a new legion of push broom supporters -- something that Brad Pitt's "Inglorious" mustache has surprisingly not been able to accomplish. There are several ways Lambert can fashion his facial fuzz. Since he's very creative, a Dali-styled mustache could add more character to his face and draw attention away from his emo-hipster look -- which would definitely be a good thing. A better look for Lambert could be a John Waters pencil-thin mustache, which would especially match up with his slicked-back look from Motown week. Speaking of which, the contestant could try on a Smokey Robinson-esque stache circa "We Are the World" and see if the porn-push broom works for him. That said, it's highly doubtful it would since he'd likely lose some of those screaming teen fans. The bottom line is this -- Lambert has shocked judges each week with his strong rearrangements of songs, wailing vocals and fashion sense. He even won over Slash, and that's not easy. Just ask Axl. A mustache seems the next logical step for Lambert on his amazing road to victory. Nothing can bring shock and awe to Paula Abdul's face more than a Snoop Dog-sized mustache under Lambert's nose. Well, that's probably not true but still...there's no mistaking the power of the mustache. If you'd like to support the cause, visit here . As we wind down on another "American Idol" season -- arguably it's strongest in years -- let's hope Lambert makes another "Idol" first by sporting a stache on the biggest stage in the world. After all, a mustache is always molten lava hot, never karaoke, and always -- as Paula might say -- "brilliant." More on American Idol
 
Stefan Aschan: Recovering From Exercise with Food? Top
"I am not going to eat again until lunch" is the comment I hear from clients who work out at 6:00 am and the next workout is planned for the following morning. Yet, many are too tired and don't replenish their energy after the workout. Delayed onset muscle soreness occurs about 12 to 24 hours after an intense workout, especially after unfamiliar exercises. An important thought to keep in mind is that without remediation, those muscles won't respond as well during your next workout. Start with a meal after your workout to recover from exercise. John Ivy, the chairman at the department of Kinesiology and health education at the University of Texas in Austin, pioneer of research into exercise recovery, explains that exercise makes your muscles responsive to insulin, and therefore increases glycogen muscle uptake. More fuel can be absorbed from the blood stream. One might think then, that preemptive carbohydrate intake is not the most efficient way to stock muscles with fuel as it was done in the early 90's. Mr. Ivy showed that that your body is primed by the exercise to help itself replenish lost fuel. This lasts only for about 30 to 40 minutes after a workout he says. Hence, preceding carbohydrate loading does not help your body to take advantage of this insulin response. Drinking or eating carbohydrates immediately after a strenuous workout is therefore essential to restoring the glycogen you've burned. Combine the carbohydrates with protein; it helps even more then just carbohydrates alone. This can be done simply with a smoothie made with yogurt. Don't wait after a workout to eat. To help your muscles recover and be ready for your next productive workout, implement the strategy of eating protein and carbohydrates after your workout. And don't forget, carbohydrates are found in vegetables as well. Kind regards, Stefan Stefan Aschan is a leading expert on lifestyle, health and fitness who has helped more than 30,000 people get fit through advice on nutrition, fitness and lifestyle changes. For your free "How to live 100 years in perfect health" report and the must read "updates and solution" newsletter on how to have 10 times more success, stay on top of your goals, and accomplish the change of body and appearance, go here .
 
Henry Aaron: Health Care Reform: Beware of Interest Groups Bearing Gifts Top
A Rip van Winkle who dozed off in 1977 and awoke to read today's newspapers might feel he had not missed a thing. Then, as today, leading members of the health care industry were promising voluntarily to rein in the growth of health care spending. The industry promised parsimony to avoid legislation that might regulate their incomes. Recalling that episode--and what happened in its aftermath--may dampen the frisson of naive excitement rippling through the punditocracy over the seeming willingness of recipients of health care spending to cut their own incomes. Back in the mid 1970s, as today, health care spending was outpacing income growth--by 3.2 percentage points in 1976. General inflation was high and rising. Health care spending had risen to a then-unthinkable 8 percent of gross domestic product. Controlling hospital spending, nearly half of personal health care spending, seemed a good way to cope with general inflation. And, so, the just-inaugurated President Carter in April 1977 proposed a program of mandatory hospital cost containment. The proposal immediately encountered stiff political headwinds, but received active consideration throughout 1977 from four Congressional committees. Then, at year end, several groups including the American Medical Association, Blue-Cross/Blue-Shield, the Health Insurance Association, and the Health Industry Manufacturers Association announced a 'voluntary effort' to, among other things, lower the growth of hospital spending--by 2 percentage points in the next two years and by 1½ percentage points after that. They also promised to boost hospital productivity and to improve the review of the appropriateness of hospital admissions. How was this all to be done? Well, they didn't really say. It was voluntary, you see. However vague the voluntary effort may have been, one thing was clear. It put the Carter administration' hospital cost control plan into the political equivalent of a persistent vegetative state. Some further hearings were held in 1978. By year end, the Carter administration was asking the nation's hospitals voluntarily to limit the growth of spending in 1979. In 1979, the House of Representatives effectively killed the cost control effort by approving a substitute plan with no mandatory limits. Instead, it called for a national commission to--you guessed it--study the problem of rising spending. This history seems as if it was torn from today's headlines. The signers of today's promise include the American Medical Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, and the American Hospital Association. They promise to lower the growth of health care spending by 1½ percentage points a year. And the way they propose to do that is to 'develop consensus proposals...through changes made in all sectors of the health system." And, they assure us, they are "committed to taking action in public-private partnerships." Well, maybe. But one should remember what happened during and after the earlier 'voluntary effort.' In 1977 and 1978, when hospital cost control was under consideration, health care spending barely exceeded the growth of GDP. All participants in the voluntary effort wanted to keep the government out of their hair. They succeeded politically. But they failed to slow health care spending--in the next seven years, health care spending outpaced income growth by 3.2 percentage points, the same as in 1976. If we are to learn from history, rather than simply repeat it, there are some simple but vitally important lessons. The first is to welcome the stated willingness of representatives of the health care industry to tackle rising health care spending. Even if cooperation is partly a ploy to minimize federal regulation of their business, it reflects a demonstrable fact--the open and inclusive way the Obama administration is pursuing health system reform is bearing fruit. Unlike the Clinton administration, which hatched its plan with little input from private interests nor members of Congress, the Obama team has made the development of legislation the responsibility of the people who will have to vote on it--the legislators. It has reached out to private groups. And in so doing, it has made the sort of take-no-prisoners attitude that doomed the Clinton plan simply unacceptable. The second lesson is that willingness to talk about cost control is not enough. The representatives of hospitals, insurers, and drug companies have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the private interests of their members and shareholders. The public interest in creating incentives that will guide individuals to demand and businesses to provide health care to all Americans in an efficient way belongs to elected officials. No voluntary effort can do that job. Henry J. Aaron is the Bruce and Virginia MacLaury Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and was a senior official at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the Carter administration. More on Health
 
Battery Charges Against Ex-Cook County GOP Chair's Wife Dropped Top
A domestic battery complaint filed against the wife of former Cook County Republican Party boss Gary Skoien was dismissed today when he didn't show up in court to testify against her.
 
Rep. Patrick Kennedy: True Pandemic Preparedness: Health Care Reform Now Top
The recent outbreak of the swine flu serves as a stark reminder about the need for comprehensive health care reform in this country. Every citizen in this country should have access to affordable, high quality health care. Given the recent economic downturn, the group of nearly 46 million Americans without health insurance has grown by perhaps as many as 4 million. This population, and the larger group with under-insurance in our country, are highly susceptible to any pandemic outbreak. They are less likely to receive early preventative care, early diagnosis, early treatment, and due to financial fears, are less likely to take sick time from work. Not only is such a large group of Americans without the resources to combat a threat such as a pandemic flu for their own health safety, but having such a large group of people without access to proper care dramatically increases the risk of transmission to the rest of the population. The realities of biology will not let us separate into "us" versus "them" categories. I am pleased that the Administration has recognized the importance of supporting our public health system. The President and Congress have recently made strong investments in Community Health Centers, and as we move forward we need to ensure that we continue to give our states the funds they need to support their public health efforts. Our pubic health system serves as the front-line of preventive care, and serves as important safety net for those who need it. The Swine Flu is just one more example of why it is important to maintain such infrastructure. When I attended the President's White House Conference on Health Care Reform, I emphasized the necessity of prevention and holistic care as the cornerstones of meaningful and sustainable health care reform. I emphasized the need to shift our health care system from the current "sick-care" system to one that is patient-centered, collaborative, and focused on prevention. This means a re-incentivizing of the current payment system, an investment in proven public health strategies aimed at disease prevention, and a complete shift of the current paradigm so we treat each patient's whole body, recognizing that the health of the mind is not separate of the health of the body. I am enthusiastic about the point in history where we now stand, with the Administration and Congress both dedicated to enacting meaningful health care reform, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this goal. As too many Americans already know, there is no time to waste. More on Health
 
Rich Norwegian Fined $109,000 For Drunk Driving Top
OSLO — A rich Norwegian has been ordered to pay a 700,000 kroner ($109,000) fine after driving his car 400 yards while drunk. Police stopped the 49-year-old man in October near the airport for southern Norway's Kristiansand. Tests showed he had a blood alcohol content of .188 percent. Norway's maximum is .02 percent. The man pleaded guilty in court on Tuesday. Norwegian courts set drunken driving fines based on income and personal wealth. Tuesday's ruling said the man's income is 751,769 kroner ($117,000) and personal wealth is 228 million kroner ($36.6 million). It also revoked his license for two years and three months.
 
Charlene Marshall Complained About Brooke Astor's Longevity Top
"[Astor] is killing him. She's f----- killing him," Charlene Marshall said in September 2001 of the possibility of her mother-in-law outliving her husband Anthony Marshall.
 
Cindi Canary: Lobbying Belongs on the Reform Agenda Top
Several of the elaborate schemes that drove the impeachment of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the criminal conviction of former Gov. George Ryan were assisted by powerful lobbyists, who enjoyed extraordinary access to the state's chief executives. Lobbyists close to Blagojevich allegedly shook down industry groups and state contractors for campaign contributions. Lobbyists close to Ryan extorted millions of dollars from vendors by threatening to separate them from lucrative state contracts. These recent events suggest that the standards for honorable and legitimate lobbying are in peril. If Illinois ever hopes to sanitize itself from the stench of political corruption, it must expose lobbying to the light of day and demand higher ethical conduct from state lobbyists. Perhaps this point is best illustrated by a brief history of recent lobbying misconduct. By all accounts, Lawrence Warner and Donald Udstuen could serve as the poster children for lobbying reform. After Ryan's election as Secretary of State in 1990, Warner launched a lobbying career to capitalize on his friendship with Ryan. Warner enlisted the help of Udstuen, a lobbyist for the Illinois State Medical Society. Over the next eight years Warner, Udstuen and Ryan engaged in various conspiracies to extort payments from vendors. Millions of dollars in kickbacks were collected from vehicle sticker makers, computer services contracts, facility leasing contracts and photocopier leasing deals. Warner was eventually slapped with a 41-month prison sentence. Udstuen was given an eight-month sentence after cooperating with federal prosecutors. Prosecutors are currently examining the conduct of lobbyists close to former Gov. Blagojevich. Lobbyist John Wyma never held a title within state government, but he was clearly one of the governor's closest advisers. Wyma immediately registered as a state lobbyist after serving as Blagojevich's political director during the 2002 election. He quickly amassed an impressive stable of clients, including AT&T Inc., Exelon Corp., Kraft Foods, Northern Trust Corp., Unisys Corp., Lehman Brothers Inc., Provena Health Care, Phillip Morris USA and the Chicago Transit Authority. While Illinois does not require lobbyists to disclose the financial terms of their client relationships, federal records reveal that the Lehman relationship was particularly lucrative. According to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Lehman paid Wyma $550,000 over two and a half years for procuring public finance business. Wyma's efforts proved beneficial to Lehman, which helped Illinois float more than $2.1 billion in revenue bonds during Wyma's service period. Wyma was a key operative in the so-called "Blagojevich Enterprise." The federal indictment alleged Wyma played a role in the pay-to-play demands placed on the chief executive officer of Children's Memorial Hospital and an investment management firm seeking business with the Illinois Teachers' Retirement System. The indictment also alleged that Wyma participated in the governor's attempted extortion of a highway contractor seeking work under a $1.8 billion Illinois Tollway project. Lobbyist Alonzo "Lon" Monk, Blagojevich's former chief of staff, also assisted in the ousted governor's criminal schemes, according to the indictment. Monk is heard in taped phone conversations discussing a campaign contribution from the owner of two Illinois horse racing tracks. At the time of the conversation, a bill benefiting the horse racing industry was awaiting Blagojevich's endorsement. Monk acknowledged squeezing the industry official for a substantial campaign contribution before the effective date of new restrictions on campaign donations. The federal indictment also describes potentially criminal conduct by Robert Kjellander, who was a lobbyist for Bear Stearns & Co. in 2003 when Illinois was refinancing $10 billion in pension obligation bonds. While Kjellander has not been charged with wrongdoing, the indictment describes a kickback scheme in which Blagojevich, Monk and other insiders allegedly directed the bond deal to Bear Stearns because its lobbyist agreed to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to the conspirators from the fee he would collect. Kjellander reportedly collected $809,000 through the pension deal. It is unclear what statutory structure could have prevented these lobbyists from their roles in these alleged conspiracies. But fundamental weaknesses in Illinois' lobbying statute certainly prevented wider public awareness of their activities. Moreover, Illinois' weak lobbying infrastructure nurtured their arrogance and emboldened their corrupt schemes. While the Illinois Reform Commission recommends a ban on campaign contributions from lobbyists, the more vexing problem involves the profound cloak of secrecy beneath which Illinois lobbyists operate. The Lobbyist Registration Act requires the state's 2,100 lobbyists to register annually, disclose the names of clients and provide brief lists of expenses. But Illinois' lobbyists disclose little beyond these minimal requirements. Indeed, the Center for Public Integrity has ranked Illinois 45th in an evaluation of registration, spending, transparency and enforcement requirements in state lobbying statutes. By way of comparison, Wisconsin requires biannual reporting of all expenditures on lobbying activities including: payments to contract lobbyists; compensation and fringe benefits paid to in-house lobbyists; travel and living expenses; and purchases of research, printing, advertising and other services. Even Cook County and the City of Chicago require greater disclosure, including billings, from lobbyists than does the State of Illinois. We recommend more thorough reporting requirements for Illinois lobbyists. Organizations lobbying state government should be required to disclose their expenses for lobbying. More thorough disclosures of the state officials and agencies contacted should also be implemented. In addition, we favor a "cooling off" period between the date a government employee leaves public service and his or her lobbying former colleagues. Finally, we would suggest that the Secretary of State be given broader authorities to enforce the state's lobbying laws. Illinois must take steps to aggressively monitor the activities of political insiders. As recent history suggests, lobbyists with close personal relationships with elected leaders were all too willing to engineer and oil the dubious schemes that came to define the Ryan and Blagojevich administrations. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Ronald J. Colombo: A Crisis of Character Top
"Character is destiny," remarked the Greek philosopher Heraclitus in the 6th Century B.C. This observation applies as much to nations as it does to individuals. And our current economic woes are, in large part, the repercussions of a national crisis of character. Free markets, in order to function well, depend upon the virtue of their participants. The distrust engendered by vice raises wasteful transaction and monitoring costs to levels that can paralyze the marketplace. Moreover, vice leads to the phenomenon of "putting profits before people." This can be manifested in a variety of ways: by taking imprudent and excessive risks with other people's money; by selling products and services that harm consumers, families, and society; and by engaging in outright fraud. Today, of course, we are suffering from all of the above. Adam Smith, recognized as the grandfather of the modern market economy, understood the link between markets and morality. Contrary to his common portrayal, he did not believe that a successful economy could arise from the raw, unbridled pursuit of self-interest. Himself a moral philosopher, he maintained that self-interest could fuel a successful economy only if it were narrowed by the constraints of traditional morality. Today, we are witnessing what happens when these constraints are relaxed. But we have witnessed this before. Absent from the many comparisons made between our current recession and the Great Depression has been an examination of the moral disintegration that preceded each. The stock market crash of 1929, and the ensuing Depression, was precipitated by the "roaring '20s." That prosperous decade was marked by materialism and licentiousness. It seems as though the moral laxity of the cabaret and the bedroom were not so restricted, but rather extended to a certain moral laxity within the corporation and the boardroom as well. For the investigations that followed the Crash of '29 uncovered rampant corruption among America's boards and bankers. Heraclitus would not have been surprised. Nor would have America's founding fathers. For they shared the perennial understanding that immorality and vice can rarely be compartmentalized. Hollywood's representations of honorable prostitutes and noble gangsters notwithstanding, most people who embrace vice in one area of their lives are likely to embrace it in other areas as well. A spouse who cannot be trusted probably makes for a director who cannot be trusted. And although few seem to be making this connection today, it was not lost upon politicians and policymakers at the time of the Great Depression. In his 1932 presidential campaign, Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked Wall Street's "unscrupulous moneychangers" who knew "only the rules of a generation of self-seekers." He pledged to "restore [the] temple to the ancient truths," including "honesty," "honor," "the sacredness of obligations," "faithful protection," and "unselfish performance." Shortly after his inauguration, he went to work on the "moral reform of Wall Street," seeking to restore "traditional standards of right and wrong." Baldwin B. Bane, Chief of the Securities Division of the Federal Trade Commission at the time, stated that the securities legislation passed by Congress in 1933 and 1934 was based on a "moral ideal" -- the realization that the nation's economic ills were due to "the weakening of [America's] moral fibre" and "easy temporizing with traditional and tried standards of right and wrong." Joseph P. Kennedy, the first Chairman of the SEC, said that the SEC's most important objective was "spiritual," and that it sought "to prevent vice" in the securities industry. John Burns, the first General Counsel of the SEC, proclaimed that the "failure of morals and religion to put a bridle to the acquisitive motive[s] of business ... made the intervention of the law inevitable." As with the 1929 crash and the Great Depression, today's financial meltdown has been preceded by a certain relaxation of traditional values. Generations reared upon the amoral precept that "if it feels good, do it" now lead many of our banks and businesses. Applied to economic matters, this precept yields the governing philosophy of many corporate enterprises: "if it's profitable, do it." This suggests that our $1 trillion "stimulus" package is but a mere pain-reliever: at best a balm of temporary effectiveness that addresses the symptoms of our present ills, and not their cause. It also calls into question the competing proposals for regulatory reform that have dominated our national discourse. Some propose that the solution to our current predicament lies in greater regulation and more scrupulous governmental oversight. Others advance the argument that regulation has been part of the problem, and propose market-based curatives. Despite their merits, both sets of proposals miss the mark. Both can promise only limited success. And this is because a problem that is fundamentally moral in nature counsels in favor of a solution that is fundamentally moral in nature. What would such a solution look like? Unfortunately, since morality and virtue are developed over time, via repeated decisions to choose what is right and to forego what is wrong, there is no quick fix to our present problems. Moreover, law can do very little to make people virtuous. Indeed, "coerced virtue" is oxymoronic. But law can help foster an environment in which virtue can be developed and exerted more readily. We would do well to reconsider our abandonment of "values" education in primary and secondary schools, and should bolster the ethics training of M.B.A. and J.D. candidates in business and law schools. Corporate and securities law could be revised to enhance disclosure of, and shareholder input on, issues of moral concern. Directors and officers could be empowered and encouraged to take moral considerations into greater account, and unshackled from the constraint to operate their corporations with an unwavering focus on maximization of shareholder value. By providing instruction on basic moral principles, by sensitizing market participants to the moral implications of their choices, and by creating more opportunities where moral choice can be exercised, the law can play an important role in helping individuals grow in virtue. Some, of course, will argue that it's too difficult to cultivate virtue. Simpler and more effective, they will suggest, would be more corporate regulation, stricter enforcement of antifraud legislation, and heavier penalties heaped upon wrongdoers. Such suggestions are certainly worth considering. But even under the best of laws, our resources and ability to prevent and detect wrongdoing will always be limited. Moreover, law's reach is itself quite limited: for regulation has an unfortunate tendency of preventing only a repeat of yesterday's wrongdoing; it oftentimes does little to forestall the wrongdoing of tomorrow. And this is inevitable, given the creativity and persistence of wrongdoers. We need and can enjoy better protection from future corporate corruption, fraud, and the general dereliction of duty that lies at the heart of the economic calamities we are now facing. This protection lies not simply in a fine-tuning, an overhaul, or even a paring of our regulatory regime. It lies in a more virtuous markeplace. We ought to think seriously about ways in which to bring this about. For when no one is looking , and when no can catch us, or when there is no law to hold us accountable, or no other means of chastisement, the only thing that compels us to do what is right is virtue. More on Economy
 
Seedbomb: Raining Trees From The Skies Top
The seeds are housed inside capsules made of artificial soil: they provide nourishment and moisture to the seed. As the sapling matures, the capsule degrades leaving only the new plant. The concept is inspired by the legend of American pilot Lieutenant Gale S. Halverson's and his Operation Gum Drop (it probably wasn't called that). After World War II, he started airdropping small handkerchief parachutes of candy for children in Germany.
 
Pepe Escobar: Blue Gold, Turkmen Bashes, and Asian Grids Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Pipelineistan in Conflict As Barack Obama heads into his second hundred days in office, let's head for the big picture ourselves, the ultimate global plot line, the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order. In its first hundred days, the Obama presidency introduced us to a brand new acronym, OCO for Overseas Contingency Operations, formerly known as GWOT (as in Global War on Terror). Use either name, or anything else you want, and what you're really talking about is what's happening on the immense energy battlefield that extends from Iran to the Pacific Ocean. It's there that the Liquid War for the control of Eurasia takes place. Yep, it all comes down to black gold and "blue gold" (natural gas), hydrocarbon wealth beyond compare, and so it's time to trek back to that ever-flowing wonderland -- Pipelineistan. It's time to dust off the acronyms, especially the SCO or Shanghai Cooperative Organization, the Asian response to NATO, and learn a few new ones like IPI and TAPI. Above all, it's time to check out the most recent moves on the giant chessboard of Eurasia, where Washington wants to be a crucial, if not dominant, player. We've already seen Pipelineistan wars in Kosovo and Georgia, and we've followed Washington's favorite pipeline, the BTC, which was supposed to tilt the flow of energy westward, sending oil coursing past both Iran and Russia. Things didn't quite turn out that way, but we've got to move on, the New Great Game never stops. Now, it's time to grasp just what the Asian Energy Security Grid is all about, visit a surreal natural gas republic, and understand why that Grid is so deeply implicated in the Af-Pak war. Every time I've visited Iran, energy analysts stress the total "interdependence of Asia and Persian Gulf geo-ecopolitics." What they mean is the ultimate importance to various great and regional powers of Asian integration via a sprawling mass of energy pipelines that will someday, somehow, link the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, South Asia, Russia, and China. The major Iranian card in the Asian integration game is the gigantic South Pars natural gas field (which Iran shares with Qatar). It is estimated to hold at least 9% of the world's proven natural gas reserves. As much as Washington may live in perpetual denial, Russia and Iran together control roughly 20% of the world's oil reserves and nearly 50% of its gas reserves. Think about that for a moment. It's little wonder that, for the leadership of both countries as well as China's, the idea of Asian integration, of the Grid, is sacrosanct. If it ever gets built, a major node on that Grid will surely be the prospective $7.6 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, also known as the "peace pipeline." After years of wrangling, a nearly miraculous agreement for its construction was initialed in 2008. At least in this rare case, both Pakistan and India stood shoulder to shoulder in rejecting relentless pressure from the Bush administration to scotch the deal. It couldn't be otherwise. Pakistan, after all, is an energy-poor, desperate customer of the Grid. One year ago, in a speech at Beijing's Tsinghua University, then-President Pervez Musharraf did everything but drop to his knees and beg China to dump money into pipelines linking the Persian Gulf and Pakistan with China's Far West. If this were to happen, it might help transform Pakistan from a near-failed state into a mighty "energy corridor" to the Middle East. If you think of a pipeline as an umbilical cord, it goes without saying that IPI, far more than any form of U.S. aid (or outright interference), would go the extra mile in stabilizing the Pak half of Obama's Af-Pak theater of operations, and even possibly relieve it of its India obsession. If Pakistan's fate is in question, Iran's is another matter. Though currently only holding "observer" status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), sooner or later it will inevitably become a full member and so enjoy NATO-style, an-attack-on-one-of-us-is-an-attack-on-all-of-us protection. Imagine, then, the cataclysmic consequences of an Israeli preemptive strike (backed by Washington or not) on Iran's nuclear facilities. The SCO will tackle this knotty issue at its next summit in June, in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Iran's relations with both Russia and China are swell -- and will remain so no matter who is elected the new Iranian president next month. China desperately needs Iranian oil and gas, has already clinched a $100 billion gas "deal of the century" with the Iranians, and has loads of weapons and cheap consumer goods to sell. No less close to Iran, Russia wants to sell them even more weapons, as well as nuclear energy technology. And then, moving ever eastward on the great Grid, there's Turkmenistan, lodged deep in Central Asia, which, unlike Iran, you may never have heard a thing about. Let's correct that now. Gurbanguly Is the Man Alas, the sun-king of Turkmenistan, the wily, wacky Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Nyazov, "the father of all Turkmen" (descendants of a formidable race of nomadic horseback warriors who used to attack Silk Road caravans) is now dead. But far from forgotten. The Chinese were huge fans of the Turkmenbashi. And the joy was mutual. One key reason the Central Asians love to do business with China is that the Middle Kingdom, unlike both Russia and the United States, carries little modern imperial baggage. And of course, China will never carp about human rights or foment a color-coded revolution of any sort. The Chinese are already moving to successfully lobby the new Turkmen president, the spectacularly named Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, to speed up the construction of the Mother of All Pipelines. This Turkmen-Kazakh-China Pipelineistan corridor from eastern Turkmenistan to China's Guangdong province will be the longest and most expensive pipeline in the world, 7,000 kilometers of steel pipe at a staggering cost of $26 billion. When China signed the agreement to build it in 2007, they made sure to add a clever little geopolitical kicker. The agreement explicitly states that "Chinese interests" will not be "threatened from [Turkmenistan's] territory by third parties." In translation: no Pentagon bases allowed in that country. China's deft energy diplomacy game plan in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia is a pure winner. In the case of Turkmenistan, lucrative deals are offered and partnerships with Russia are encouraged to boost Turkmen gas production. There are to be no Russian-Chinese antagonisms, as befits the main partners in the SCO, because the Asian Energy Security Grid story is really and truly about them. By the way, elsewhere on the Grid, those two countries recently agreed to extend the East Siberian-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline to China by the end of 2010. After all, energy-ravenous China badly needs not just Turkmen gas, but Russia's liquefied natural gas (LNG). With energy prices low and the global economy melting down, times are sure to be tough for the Kremlin through at least 2010, but this won't derail its push to forge a Central Asian energy club within the SCO. Think of all this as essentially an energy entente cordiale with China. Russian Deputy Industry and Energy Minister Ivan Materov has been among those insistently swearing that this will not someday lead to a "gas OPEC" within the SCO. It remains to be seen how the Obama national security team decides to counteract the successful Russian strategy of undermining by all possible means a U.S.-promoted East-West Caspian Sea energy corridor, while solidifying a Russian-controlled Pipelineistan stretching from Kazakhstan to Greece that will monopolize the flow of energy to Western Europe. The Real Afghan War In the ever-shifting New Great Game in Eurasia, a key question -- why Afghanistan matters -- is simply not part of the discussion in the United States. (Hint: It has nothing to do with the liberation of Afghan women.) In part, this is because the idea that energy and Afghanistan might have anything in common is verboten . And yet, rest assured, nothing of significance takes place in Eurasia without an energy angle. In the case of Afghanistan, keep in mind that Central and South Asia have been considered by American strategists crucial places to plant the flag; and once the Soviet Union collapsed, control of the energy-rich former Soviet republics in the region was quickly seen as essential to future U.S. global power. It would be there, as they imagined it, that the U.S. Empire of Bases would intersect crucially with Pipelineistan in a way that would leave both Russia and China on the defensive. Think of Afghanistan, then, as an overlooked subplot in the ongoing Liquid War. After all, an overarching goal of U.S. foreign policy since President Richard Nixon's era in the early 1970s has been to split Russia and China. The leadership of the SCO has been focused on this since the U.S. Congress passed the Silk Road Strategy Act five days before beginning the bombing of Serbia in March 1999. That act clearly identified American geo-strategic interests from the Black Sea to western China with building a mosaic of American protectorates in Central Asia and militarizing the Eurasian energy corridor. Afghanistan, as it happens, sits conveniently at the crossroads of any new Silk Road linking the Caucasus to western China, and four nuclear powers (China, Russia, Pakistan, and India) lurk in the vicinity. "Losing" Afghanistan and its key network of U.S. military bases would, from the Pentagon's point of view, be a disaster, and though it may be a secondary matter in the New Great Game of the moment, it's worth remembering that the country itself is a lot more than the towering mountains of the Hindu Kush and immense deserts: it's believed to be rich in unexplored deposits of natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chrome, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, and iron ore, as well as precious and semiprecious stones. And there's something highly toxic to be added to this already lethal mix: don't forget the narco-dollar angle -- the fact that the global heroin cartels that feast on Afghanistan only work with U.S. dollars, not euros. For the SCO, the top security threat in Afghanistan isn't the Taliban, but the drug business. Russia's anti-drug czar Viktor Ivanov routinely blasts the disaster that passes for a U.S./NATO anti-drug war there, stressing that Afghan heroin now kills 30,000 Russians annually, twice as many as were killed during the decade-long U.S.-supported anti-Soviet Afghan jihad of the 1980s. And then, of course, there are those competing pipelines that, if ever built, either would or wouldn't exclude Iran and Russia from the action to their south. In April 2008, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India actually signed an agreement to build a long-dreamt-about $7.6 billion (and counting) pipeline, whose acronym TAPI combines the first letters of their names and would also someday deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India without the involvement of either Iran or Russia. It would cut right through the heart of Western Afghanistan, in Herat, and head south across lightly populated Nimruz and Helmand provinces, where the Taliban, various Pashtun guerrillas and assorted highway robbers now merrily run rings around U.S. and NATO forces and where -- surprise! -- the U.S. is now building in Dasht-e-Margo ("the Desert of Death") a new mega-base to host President Obama's surge troops. TAPI's rival is the already mentioned IPI, also theoretically underway and widely derided by Heritage Foundation types in the U.S., who regularly launch blasts of angry prose at the nefarious idea of India and Pakistan importing gas from "evil" Iran. Theoretically, TAPI's construction will start in 2010 and the gas would begin flowing by 2015. (Don't hold your breath.) Embattled Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who can hardly secure a few square blocks of central Kabul, even with the help of international forces, nonetheless offered assurances last year that he would not only rid his country of millions of land mines along TAPI's route, but somehow get rid of the Taliban in the bargain. Should there be investors (nursed by Afghan opium dreams) delirious enough to sink their money into such a pipeline -- and that's a monumental if -- Afghanistan would collect only $160 million a year in transit fees, a mere bagatelle even if it does represent a big chunk of the embattled Karzai's current annual revenue. Count on one thing though, if it ever happened, the Taliban and assorted warlords/highway robbers would be sure to get a cut of the action. A Clinton-Bush-Obama Great Game TAPI's roller-coaster history actually begins in the mid-1990s, the Clinton era, when the Taliban were dined (but not wined) by the California-based energy company Unocal and the Clinton machine. In 1995, Unocal first came up with the pipeline idea, even then a product of Washington's fatal urge to bypass both Iran and Russia. Next, Unocal talked to the Turkmenbashi, then to the Taliban, and so launched a classic New Great Game gambit that has yet to end and without which you can't understand the Afghan war Obama has inherited. A Taliban delegation, thanks to Unocal, enjoyed Houston's hospitality in early 1997 and then Washington's in December of that year. When it came to energy negotiations, the Taliban's leadership was anything but medieval. They were tough bargainers, also cannily courting the Argentinean private oil company Bridas, which had secured the right to explore and exploit oil reserves in eastern Turkmenistan. In August 1997, financially unstable Bridas sold 60% of its stock to Amoco, which merged the next year with British Petroleum. A key Amoco consultant happened to be that ubiquitous Eurasian player, former national security advisor Zbig Brzezinski, while another such luminary, Henry Kissinger, just happened to be a consultant for Unocal. BP-Amoco, already developing the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, now became the major player in what had already been dubbed the Trans-Afghan Pipeline or TAP. Inevitably, Unocal and BP-Amoco went to war and let the lawyers settle things in a Texas court, where, in October 1998 as the Clinton years drew to an end, BP-Amoco seemed to emerge with the upper hand. Under newly elected president George W. Bush, however, Unocal snuck back into the game and, as early as January 2001, was cozying up to the Taliban yet again, this time supported by a star-studded governmental cast of characters, including Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage, himself a former Unocal lobbyist. The Taliban were duly invited back to Washington in March 2001 via Rahmatullah Hashimi, a top aide to "The Shadow," the movement's leader Mullah Omar. Negotiations eventually broke down because of those pesky transit fees the Taliban demanded. Beware the Empire's fury. At a Group of Eight summit meeting in Genoa in July 2001, Western diplomats indicated that the Bush administration had decided to take the Taliban down before year's end. (Pakistani diplomats in Islamabad would later confirm this to me.) The attacks of September 11, 2001 just slightly accelerated the schedule. Nicknamed "the kebab seller" in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, a former
 
Pepe Escobar: Blue Gold, Turkmen Bashes, and Asian Grids Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Pipelineistan in Conflict As Barack Obama heads into his second hundred days in office, let's head for the big picture ourselves, the ultimate global plot line, the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order. In its first hundred days, the Obama presidency introduced us to a brand new acronym, OCO for Overseas Contingency Operations, formerly known as GWOT (as in Global War on Terror). Use either name, or anything else you want, and what you're really talking about is what's happening on the immense energy battlefield that extends from Iran to the Pacific Ocean. It's there that the Liquid War for the control of Eurasia takes place. Yep, it all comes down to black gold and "blue gold" (natural gas), hydrocarbon wealth beyond compare, and so it's time to trek back to that ever-flowing wonderland -- Pipelineistan. It's time to dust off the acronyms, especially the SCO or Shanghai Cooperative Organization, the Asian response to NATO, and learn a few new ones like IPI and TAPI. Above all, it's time to check out the most recent moves on the giant chessboard of Eurasia, where Washington wants to be a crucial, if not dominant, player. We've already seen Pipelineistan wars in Kosovo and Georgia, and we've followed Washington's favorite pipeline, the BTC, which was supposed to tilt the flow of energy westward, sending oil coursing past both Iran and Russia. Things didn't quite turn out that way, but we've got to move on, the New Great Game never stops. Now, it's time to grasp just what the Asian Energy Security Grid is all about, visit a surreal natural gas republic, and understand why that Grid is so deeply implicated in the Af-Pak war. Every time I've visited Iran, energy analysts stress the total "interdependence of Asia and Persian Gulf geo-ecopolitics." What they mean is the ultimate importance to various great and regional powers of Asian integration via a sprawling mass of energy pipelines that will someday, somehow, link the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, South Asia, Russia, and China. The major Iranian card in the Asian integration game is the gigantic South Pars natural gas field (which Iran shares with Qatar). It is estimated to hold at least 9% of the world's proven natural gas reserves. As much as Washington may live in perpetual denial, Russia and Iran together control roughly 20% of the world's oil reserves and nearly 50% of its gas reserves. Think about that for a moment. It's little wonder that, for the leadership of both countries as well as China's, the idea of Asian integration, of the Grid, is sacrosanct. If it ever gets built, a major node on that Grid will surely be the prospective $7.6 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, also known as the "peace pipeline." After years of wrangling, a nearly miraculous agreement for its construction was initialed in 2008. At least in this rare case, both Pakistan and India stood shoulder to shoulder in rejecting relentless pressure from the Bush administration to scotch the deal. It couldn't be otherwise. Pakistan, after all, is an energy-poor, desperate customer of the Grid. One year ago, in a speech at Beijing's Tsinghua University, then-President Pervez Musharraf did everything but drop to his knees and beg China to dump money into pipelines linking the Persian Gulf and Pakistan with China's Far West. If this were to happen, it might help transform Pakistan from a near-failed state into a mighty "energy corridor" to the Middle East. If you think of a pipeline as an umbilical cord, it goes without saying that IPI, far more than any form of U.S. aid (or outright interference), would go the extra mile in stabilizing the Pak half of Obama's Af-Pak theater of operations, and even possibly relieve it of its India obsession. If Pakistan's fate is in question, Iran's is another matter. Though currently only holding "observer" status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), sooner or later it will inevitably become a full member and so enjoy NATO-style, an-attack-on-one-of-us-is-an-attack-on-all-of-us protection. Imagine, then, the cataclysmic consequences of an Israeli preemptive strike (backed by Washington or not) on Iran's nuclear facilities. The SCO will tackle this knotty issue at its next summit in June, in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Iran's relations with both Russia and China are swell -- and will remain so no matter who is elected the new Iranian president next month. China desperately needs Iranian oil and gas, has already clinched a $100 billion gas "deal of the century" with the Iranians, and has loads of weapons and cheap consumer goods to sell. No less close to Iran, Russia wants to sell them even more weapons, as well as nuclear energy technology. And then, moving ever eastward on the great Grid, there's Turkmenistan, lodged deep in Central Asia, which, unlike Iran, you may never have heard a thing about. Let's correct that now. Gurbanguly Is the Man Alas, the sun-king of Turkmenistan, the wily, wacky Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Nyazov, "the father of all Turkmen" (descendants of a formidable race of nomadic horseback warriors who used to attack Silk Road caravans) is now dead. But far from forgotten. The Chinese were huge fans of the Turkmenbashi. And the joy was mutual. One key reason the Central Asians love to do business with China is that the Middle Kingdom, unlike both Russia and the United States, carries little modern imperial baggage. And of course, China will never carp about human rights or foment a color-coded revolution of any sort. The Chinese are already moving to successfully lobby the new Turkmen president, the spectacularly named Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, to speed up the construction of the Mother of All Pipelines. This Turkmen-Kazakh-China Pipelineistan corridor from eastern Turkmenistan to China's Guangdong province will be the longest and most expensive pipeline in the world, 7,000 kilometers of steel pipe at a staggering cost of $26 billion. When China signed the agreement to build it in 2007, they made sure to add a clever little geopolitical kicker. The agreement explicitly states that "Chinese interests" will not be "threatened from [Turkmenistan's] territory by third parties." In translation: no Pentagon bases allowed in that country. China's deft energy diplomacy game plan in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia is a pure winner. In the case of Turkmenistan, lucrative deals are offered and partnerships with Russia are encouraged to boost Turkmen gas production. There are to be no Russian-Chinese antagonisms, as befits the main partners in the SCO, because the Asian Energy Security Grid story is really and truly about them. By the way, elsewhere on the Grid, those two countries recently agreed to extend the East Siberian-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline to China by the end of 2010. After all, energy-ravenous China badly needs not just Turkmen gas, but Russia's liquefied natural gas (LNG). With energy prices low and the global economy melting down, times are sure to be tough for the Kremlin through at least 2010, but this won't derail its push to forge a Central Asian energy club within the SCO. Think of all this as essentially an energy entente cordiale with China. Russian Deputy Industry and Energy Minister Ivan Materov has been among those insistently swearing that this will not someday lead to a "gas OPEC" within the SCO. It remains to be seen how the Obama national security team decides to counteract the successful Russian strategy of undermining by all possible means a U.S.-promoted East-West Caspian Sea energy corridor, while solidifying a Russian-controlled Pipelineistan stretching from Kazakhstan to Greece that will monopolize the flow of energy to Western Europe. The Real Afghan War In the ever-shifting New Great Game in Eurasia, a key question -- why Afghanistan matters -- is simply not part of the discussion in the United States. (Hint: It has nothing to do with the liberation of Afghan women.) In part, this is because the idea that energy and Afghanistan might have anything in common is verboten . And yet, rest assured, nothing of significance takes place in Eurasia without an energy angle. In the case of Afghanistan, keep in mind that Central and South Asia have been considered by American strategists crucial places to plant the flag; and once the Soviet Union collapsed, control of the energy-rich former Soviet republics in the region was quickly seen as essential to future U.S. global power. It would be there, as they imagined it, that the U.S. Empire of Bases would intersect crucially with Pipelineistan in a way that would leave both Russia and China on the defensive. Think of Afghanistan, then, as an overlooked subplot in the ongoing Liquid War. After all, an overarching goal of U.S. foreign policy since President Richard Nixon's era in the early 1970s has been to split Russia and China. The leadership of the SCO has been focused on this since the U.S. Congress passed the Silk Road Strategy Act five days before beginning the bombing of Serbia in March 1999. That act clearly identified American geo-strategic interests from the Black Sea to western China with building a mosaic of American protectorates in Central Asia and militarizing the Eurasian energy corridor. Afghanistan, as it happens, sits conveniently at the crossroads of any new Silk Road linking the Caucasus to western China, and four nuclear powers (China, Russia, Pakistan, and India) lurk in the vicinity. "Losing" Afghanistan and its key network of U.S. military bases would, from the Pentagon's point of view, be a disaster, and though it may be a secondary matter in the New Great Game of the moment, it's worth remembering that the country itself is a lot more than the towering mountains of the Hindu Kush and immense deserts: it's believed to be rich in unexplored deposits of natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chrome, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, and iron ore, as well as precious and semiprecious stones. And there's something highly toxic to be added to this already lethal mix: don't forget the narco-dollar angle -- the fact that the global heroin cartels that feast on Afghanistan only work with U.S. dollars, not euros. For the SCO, the top security threat in Afghanistan isn't the Taliban, but the drug business. Russia's anti-drug czar Viktor Ivanov routinely blasts the disaster that passes for a U.S./NATO anti-drug war there, stressing that Afghan heroin now kills 30,000 Russians annually, twice as many as were killed during the decade-long U.S.-supported anti-Soviet Afghan jihad of the 1980s. And then, of course, there are those competing pipelines that, if ever built, either would or wouldn't exclude Iran and Russia from the action to their south. In April 2008, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India actually signed an agreement to build a long-dreamt-about $7.6 billion (and counting) pipeline, whose acronym TAPI combines the first letters of their names and would also someday deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India without the involvement of either Iran or Russia. It would cut right through the heart of Western Afghanistan, in Herat, and head south across lightly populated Nimruz and Helmand provinces, where the Taliban, various Pashtun guerrillas and assorted highway robbers now merrily run rings around U.S. and NATO forces and where -- surprise! -- the U.S. is now building in Dasht-e-Margo ("the Desert of Death") a new mega-base to host President Obama's surge troops. TAPI's rival is the already mentioned IPI, also theoretically underway and widely derided by Heritage Foundation types in the U.S., who regularly launch blasts of angry prose at the nefarious idea of India and Pakistan importing gas from "evil" Iran. Theoretically, TAPI's construction will start in 2010 and the gas would begin flowing by 2015. (Don't hold your breath.) Embattled Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who can hardly secure a few square blocks of central Kabul, even with the help of international forces, nonetheless offered assurances last year that he would not only rid his country of millions of land mines along TAPI's route, but somehow get rid of the Taliban in the bargain. Should there be investors (nursed by Afghan opium dreams) delirious enough to sink their money into such a pipeline -- and that's a monumental if -- Afghanistan would collect only $160 million a year in transit fees, a mere bagatelle even if it does represent a big chunk of the embattled Karzai's current annual revenue. Count on one thing though, if it ever happened, the Taliban and assorted warlords/highway robbers would be sure to get a cut of the action. A Clinton-Bush-Obama Great Game TAPI's roller-coaster history actually begins in the mid-1990s, the Clinton era, when the Taliban were dined (but not wined) by the California-based energy company Unocal and the Clinton machine. In 1995, Unocal first came up with the pipeline idea, even then a product of Washington's fatal urge to bypass both Iran and Russia. Next, Unocal talked to the Turkmenbashi, then to the Taliban, and so launched a classic New Great Game gambit that has yet to end and without which you can't understand the Afghan war Obama has inherited. A Taliban delegation, thanks to Unocal, enjoyed Houston's hospitality in early 1997 and then Washington's in December of that year. When it came to energy negotiations, the Taliban's leadership was anything but medieval. They were tough bargainers, also cannily courting the Argentinean private oil company Bridas, which had secured the right to explore and exploit oil reserves in eastern Turkmenistan. In August 1997, financially unstable Bridas sold 60% of its stock to Amoco, which merged the next year with British Petroleum. A key Amoco consultant happened to be that ubiquitous Eurasian player, former national security advisor Zbig Brzezinski, while another such luminary, Henry Kissinger, just happened to be a consultant for Unocal. BP-Amoco, already developing the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, now became the major player in what had already been dubbed the Trans-Afghan Pipeline or TAP. Inevitably, Unocal and BP-Amoco went to war and let the lawyers settle things in a Texas court, where, in October 1998 as the Clinton years drew to an end, BP-Amoco seemed to emerge with the upper hand. Under newly elected president George W. Bush, however, Unocal snuck back into the game and, as early as January 2001, was cozying up to the Taliban yet again, this time supported by a star-studded governmental cast of characters, including Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage, himself a former Unocal lobbyist. The Taliban were duly invited back to Washington in March 2001 via Rahmatullah Hashimi, a top aide to "The Shadow," the movement's leader Mullah Omar. Negotiations eventually broke down because of those pesky transit fees the Taliban demanded. Beware the Empire's fury. At a Group of Eight summit meeting in Genoa in July 2001, Western diplomats indicated that the Bush administration had decided to take the Taliban down before year's end. (Pakistani diplomats in Islamabad would later confirm this to me.) The attacks of September 11, 2001 just slightly accelerated the schedule. Nicknamed "the kebab seller" in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, a former
 
Many Mexican Swine Flu Cases Had No Fever: NYT Top
Many people suffering from swine influenza, even those who are severely ill, do not have fever, an odd feature of the new virus that could increase the difficulty of controlling the epidemic, said a leading American infectious disease expert who examined cases in Mexico last week. More on Mexico
 
Phil Bronstein: Miss CA Keeps Crown -- and a More Honest "Gay" Record Than Obama and Crist? Top
Carrie Prejean didn't lie to beauty pageant officials even though she'd appeared semi-nude in photos a few years back, so let's just get off that high Godiva horse right now. Here's the thing: Since the old pictures were of her real breasts, she never actually exposed the new breasts she's now using for contests. Those were the old, God-given breasts, see? So, technically speaking, the world has never actually gotten a look at her current breasts. No exposure, no violation of pageant rules. Case closed. I may not know this for a true fact because I'm not canonballing into the NSFW cesspool of sin and traceability that would be required to actually look at the photos closely. I'll take Trump's word for it that they're "lovely." But that's my theory and this is a blog and I'm sticking to it like adhesive. Also, while we may be slicing the silicone a little thin, this kind of parsing was used by Bill Clinton in his Lewinsky defense. If it's good enough for presidents, it should be OK for Ms. Prejean. And that goes for public toplessness and personal beliefs about same-sex marriage, both of which she shares with Barack Obama. Only, unlike the President and his continuation to date of the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy in the US military, the beauty queen is not firing anyone for being gay. In fact I think she said during the Miss USA contest that she respected gayness. Apparently the military is about to can Dan Choi , a gay armed services Arab linguist -- aren't we looking for more of those, at least the Arab linguist part? -- under the existing rules. He must have told someone. Still, particularly after today's heroic, from-the-heart press conference with Donald Trump , Carrie Prejean is the one who's way out there, even further out than Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who's just been outed by the controversial documentary , "Outrage." Mr. Crist announced today he's running for a senate seat from Florida without so much as a nod or wink to the "Outrage" claims about him and other allegedly closeted gay politicians who support anti-gay legislation. In fact the only player in this expanding drama who's gotten really spanked so far is NPR , which removed from its review of the documentary the names of the politicians featured. "Enabling homophobia" charged Pam's House Blend blog. More digitally relevant may be NPR's impression that standing on the principle of respect for the privacy of public figures except in cases where publishing such information is "compelling" is becoming just a quaint notion in the ubiquitous information world where any peeping Tom(asina) can get private data and all phones make their owners potential paparazzi. Blend in Donald Trump, who said he'd invite pageant judge Perez Hilton back next year even after keeping Ms. Prejean on her pedestal in the face of her claims that Mr. Hilton was unfairly biased and voted accordingly, and you have a big, entertaining cultural train wreck deep in the chemical folds of some enhanced cleavage. The only full on winner here is Mr. Trump, for whom "pageant" is a life-encompassing verb, who can't possibly get out enough and who loves the spotlight more than a summer bug. More on Miss California
 
Suz Redfearn: Ape Sh*t Top
You might want to sit and think a minute before taking your kid to see gorillas and the like. Look what happened when I recently took my 2.75-year old to the Great Ape House at the National Zoo in DC. After a few innocent moments watching a mom gorilla carry around her four-month-old baby gorilla and sit in a big canvas swing ignoring us, a large male entered our field of view. He sat down, his back against an ersatz tree. Then, feeling relaxed I guess, he proceeded to take a large dump, catch it in his hand, raise it to his face and sit nonchalantly feasting on it for a good four to five minutes. Just munching away at it bite by bite as if he were working on nothing more unusual than a granny smith. It was a pivotal moment. Pre-gorilla poo eating, I'd been able to protect little Eve from the dark and perplexing side of life. But post poo-eating, everything had changed. Eve looked up at me, clearly struggling with what was now suddenly an even more confounding universe. The few societal constructs of which she was aware were giving way -- I could see it in her eyes. " We don't eat poop...?" she said. It was a statement, but also a question. All of this in the middle of potty training, no less. "No -- we don't," I uttered. But that's all I could really muster, so floored was I by how scrambled her brain must be. Exposed to coprophagia , and so young! The first time I ever even conceptualized something eating its own poop, I was 35 and visiting the house of some pals who had a chocolate lab that seemed confused about things. But maybe I don't get out much. Eve stared at the crap-consumption for longer than I would have liked. But so did I. And I learned on the spot that I'm not one of those moms who hurries her kids away from virtual car wrecks, but instead stands there taking snapshots, craning her neck and crowding people to get a better view. "You don't really want pictures of that ," admonished a teenage boy I had unintentionally nudged aside. "Sure I do! Are you kidding?" I told him. "When am I ever going to see this again?" He moved away from me. Eve couldn't look away either. I suppose she was modeling my behavior. Better that than modeling the gorilla's behavior. Apes, orangutans and chimps. Half the time when one visits their enclosures one finds them acting like so many drunk rugby players -- eating crap, throwing crap, smearing crap on the glass, pooping from 50 feet up in trees, running around all willy nilly, playing with their genitals and of course copulating all over the place. And yet, we are powerless to say, "Well, I never! " and then scurry out to see the zebras. We must stop and stare agog. Perhaps it's because gorillas are so close to us genetically; 98 percent of their DNA is the same as ours. They are of us, in us, and vise versa. I guess the turd-eating is part of that 2 percent differential. But why? Why do they do it? Lisa Stevens, curator of the National Zoo's Great Ape House and Giant Pandas Exhibit, explained to me that sometimes the weather can bring it on. The day Eve and I went, it was gray and cool, threatening to rain. Bingo. "Often, in the wild, they'll do it on rainy days, when, like us, they're hesitant to do a lot of moving from their night nest to seek food," Stevens said. Yeah, but that's when I just order pizza or Thai, I told her. She scolded me for making the comparison. Then she moved on. Poo-eating could also have something to do with the gorilla's diet and digestion, she said. They are vegetarians. Possibly, all the mulberry and maple branches that are hidden all around for them (called 'browse'), along with leaf-eater biscuits , don't fully digest the first time around and gorillas, god bless 'em, are just trying to get another crack at it. Either that, or they're just bored. "It can be an I-just-want-to-snack-on-something thing," adds Stevens. Yeah, but poop? Poop as a snack? Stevens said the zoo community really doesn't know why it happens; no extensive studies exist. But she pointed out that crap-eating is very common among mammals. Take, for instance, the rabbit, who must eat its own dung to obtain certain minerals or it will develop deficiencies and die. Nature, she is cruel to the rabbit. So, why don't we do it? It might have something to do with the meat in our diets -- re-eating that and all its attendant bacteria could make us sick. Also at play: deeply ingrained ideas about how to stay alive. "Ultimately, we are highly cognitive and highly social apes, and our social rules have predominated in terms of what's expected and what's not with regard to our bodily functions," Stevens said. "We are the most populous primate and we live in very congested and highly densely populated areas. A lot of our customs about urine and feces are about sanitation and are very important for us in terms of our survivability." So, if I lived out in the country and was a vegetarian, it'd be fine? I might develop a taste for it? I didn't ask. Speaking of urine, Eve and I didn't see this -- and that is our loss -- but Stevens said that great apes (that includes gorillas, orangutans, chimps and gibbons) also drink their own liquid output. But how, when, as Eve and I did see, they just pee on the concrete and it runs in rivulets all over the place? Stevens said that if a great ape feels like it, he or she will grab whatever bowl-like container is around - a helmet, a cup - and catch it in there, then drink. Sometimes they just fashion a bowl out of their hairy hands to facilitate their thirst-quenching. This would have been another head turner for sure, but not as big a shock, as people have been drinking urine for millennia. Not me, ok? Not me. But people. Great apes are social creatures. Just as we like viewing their lives in action, they dig watching us, said Stevens. When the Ape House has to close from time to time, the gorillas seem different, Stevens said -- like they might miss us. But luckily for them, when the Ape House is open and they've had enough of us pointing and milling about in our ugly tennis shoes, there are private areas to which they can escape. This reduces the paparazzi effect for them, and any resultant Lindsay Lohan/Sean Penn behavior. The gorillas, Stevens said, are far more low-key and reserved than their Great Ape brethren; not too much of what they are doing behind the thick glass is for our entertainment. But the orangutans? They are another story. Take regurgitation and re-ingestion. It's just what it sounds like, and orangutans are fans of it. It has never been observed in the wild; it's a zoo-life-only phenomenon. Stevens says it's likely done to get a rise out of onlookers. "They will regurgitate onto the glass and lick it with great relish because they get all this attention," she said. In case you were wondering, they prefer to do this with sweet items like fruit. The one thing gorillas do seem to do largely for our edification is 'paint.' Translation: smear crap on the glass. "If we laugh and interact with them at the glass, reacting more strongly for behaviors we consider inappropriate, that reinforces them to do it," Stevens explained. And sex? Yes. If you've seen sex at the zoo, it was likely orangutans getting it on. Says Stevens, they are sexually precocious, and don't wait for the female to ovulate (like gorillas do), but instead do it almost daily, all month long, in various creative positions. In the wild, they are solitary creatures. When a male encounters a female, more often than not, he forces sex on her. There's lots of orangutan rape going on. Chimps? They're hyper-sexual too. Humans and their reactions to the apes are not of interest to Stevens, except for when it comes to sex. "It's rather amusing to me to watch visitors react. There are parents who use it as an educational opportunity, and then parents who move their child quickly away." She wishes she could tell the latter group to stay away from the tortoise area, where there's even more banging going on. Our day at the zoo was edifying, to be sure. Eve is not likely to forget it. In fact, I know she won't because it comes up now about twice a week. And at some some really unfortunate times. Last weekend, the proprietor of our local sushi place came over to ask how the toro was, and Eve told him, apropos of nothing, "I saw a gorilla eat poop! At the zoo!" "Did you tell him, 'No, no, no!'?" Chef Tao asked, laughing uncomfortably. I wanted to jump in with, "No because, you see, the gorilla may be reabsorbing fibrous materials..." but I instead elected to just sit quietly and turn red. More on Sex
 
Patricia DeGennaro: The Surreal Value of A Casualty of War: How Much is a Human Life Worth? Top
Every military commander has echoed the words of US defense secretary Gates, the current wars "can not be won militarily." The solution, they say, is political and will take a massive civilian and diplomatic effort. Yet, the US keeps raising the military stakes and strikes, particularly in Afghanistan. In April alone the US military reportedly dropped 438 bombs in Afghanistan. Munitions dropped in Afghanistan have risen 1,100 percent. US Air Force data shows that from 2004 to 2007 tonnage figures jumped from 163 tons to 1,956 tons. According to the United Nations, bombs have killed over 2000 Afghan civilians in 2008, up 40% from 2007. Overall the number of direct civilian casualties from this war is somewhere between four and eight thousand. Iraqis have lost over 100,000 of their own in that war. The most recent US bombardment of targets in eastern Afghanistan killed approximately 150 civilians huddled in homes trying to escape the torrent. "The Taliban were using civilians as human shields," was the military's excuse and the news media supported this by questioning how many women and children were slain in the tragedy. The number has yet to be confirmed, they said. "It's really hard to tell how many there were," said one correspondent. No kidding, after a few multi-ton bombs, the parts are definitely going to be greater than the whole. Talk about loosing hearts and minds. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said, "We regret any -- even one -- innocent [Afghan] civilian casualty." The new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai during the Afghanistan-Pakistan Summit that was taking place in Washington the day after the airstrikes. Despite the "mea culpas," bombs continue to drop and innocent family members continue to be maimed or annihilated. As the war moves toward Pakistan, Drones or unmanned planes bombarded 50 "supporters" of Al Qaeda there. The problem is that over 700 civilians were killed in the crossfire. They too were in the middle of targeted Al Qaeda assassinations. At this rate the military has an 8% chance of killing the right people. Definitely better than playing the lottery, but the lotto does not produce more enemies nor does it create a people who are traumatized, bereaved, angry, or seeking revenge. Leads one to question if the military does a cost-benefit-analysis on civilian deaths verses wiping out Al Qaeda, Taliban or other 'bad guys' in the field. How many dead residents are worth it? The whole thing brings back memories of that Ford Pinto case where Lee Iacocca figured that it would be cheaper to let people burn to death than pay extra to fix a faulty gas tank. In his estimate, he would have had to spend $87.5 billion more to save people from going up, literally, in an excruciating cloud of smoke. Ford calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death and there would only be about 180 of them. (Makes one wonder how some people can look in the mirror let alone sleep at night). In war, the stakes are much higher, but apparently the value of life seems to be worth much less. In 1970, an innocent victim of bad engineering was worth $200,000. In 2009, a victim in Afghanistan is worth $1,000 to $2,000. No one even bothered to recognize the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. No matter how you slice it, this type of valueless ethic system seems ambiguous, insensitive and overwhelmingly surreal. In all cases, it is extremely doubtful that anyone is truly comforted by the fact that they will get financially compensated for the loss of a family member -- husband, wife, sibling or child -- especially when it can be avoided. For the past year the President of Afghanistan has consistently urged troops, as Gen. James Jones, US national security adviser, says, "to make sure that civilians aren't unnecessarily killed or wounded." Gen. David Petraeus echoed this by saying that U.S. commanders need to "do the right thing." That right thing should be to stop the escalation of this war and start putting a peace process with civilian leadership in place. Until that happens the battle will always remain in the forefront while the millions displaced and killed will continued to be devalued and labeled nothing more than "casualties of war." Many of which could and should be prevented. More on Afghanistan
 
Mary Ann Wolf: Budget Cuts Threaten Innovation in the Classroom Top
Technology has changed our lives dramatically in the last 15 years. In what other place do you go today where it looks almost exactly like what it did when you were a kid? A grocery store, the airport, a gym, doctors' offices, or even a museum? It is not a stretch to say that technology has transformed the way people live and work, yet our nations' schools look and function almost as they did when you or your parents were kids. President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, are on the right track. Their rhetoric emphasizes a critical need to change systems dramatically and to re-create the teaching profession to benefit students. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT) Program was provided a healthy shot in the arm which led many people to believe that this Administration understood the importance of investing in technology in our education system as an economic engine for our nation. Yet, the Administration's 2010 budget sends a very different message by cutting the educational technology funding for FY2010, this gives the perception that the quick infusion of cash in the stimulus for technology is going to transform learning. The EETT program provides leadership regarding technology's role in school reform. The 62 percent cut from the current funding level leads to a real problem that needs to be addressed by Congress. Last week, we joined our colleagues, thousands of school leaders and innovative companies, in releasing a statement that we are hopeful will encourage people to take notice. "The Obama Administration has highlighted the nation's need to advance rigorous college‐and career‐ready standards and high‐quality assessments; P-20 data systems that foster continuous improvement; reforms that enhance teacher effectiveness; and effective interventions that improve student performance and increase classroom engagement. This CANNOT be done without leadership and expertise in technology." Investing in technology pays off big - corporations all around the world know this. And, research shows that when teachers are treated like professionals and provided with technology tools, training, and instructional support from school leaders - achievement soars, teachers stay in the profession longer, parents get more involved, and students' willingness to learn as a means to a better future becomes clearer. Both teachers and students gain confidence with the use of technology and collaborative learning as a result. In an elementary school, the cost of implementing a modern 21st Century Learning environment is $12,000 per classroom (based on a 25 student classroom). Do the math - when you spread that investment over the course of a child's time in elementary school (6 years) you can see that the cost is $80 per year, per student. Don't do it for the children, do it for the economy! We know this approach works to increase graduation rates in high school, and builds the skills necessary to thrive in college. We also know that schools can look systemically to save administrative costs through better uses of technology, not to mention the skyrocketing costs of recruiting and re-training teachers who leave the profession after only three years and better preparing our students leads to higher paying jobs which contribute to the nation's economic success. We understand that the Administration and Congress need to balance their resources and make tough decisions, however, we also believe now is not the time to pull back on the support of technology in the classroom. We see so often that technology is the catalyst for making the changes necessary in the classroom, but without the leadership and expertise of instructional technology professionals to guide school systems technology investments, we are in jeopardy of under-delivering in terms of teacher retention, student achievement, and the U.S.'s ability to compete in the global marketplace. More on Technology
 
William Pomerantz: NASA's Exploration Overhaul Top
NASA released the President's FY2010 NASA Budget Request late last week, complete with a live webcast and a flurry of tweets from the agency's many official Twitter accounts. Always a topic of interest among space enthusiasts, this year's budget request is being observed particularly closely by a broadening audience of space entrepreneurs and investors to see what clues it might provide to some large question marks looming over the agency. NASA's entire exploration agenda has come into question in the media recently. President Obama has not yet named a replacement for former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, taken by some as a sign of the White House's lack of interest in the agency. In recent days, rumors have begun to swirl that the agency's goals for the next decade--establishing human outposts on the Moon and building the capacity for eventual trips to Mars--may be partially or even completely overhauled. These flames were fanned by the recent Congressional testimony of acting agency head Chris Scolese , who indicated that NASA was still not fixed on its lunar plans, and by a recent decrease in the number of crew to be carried by Orion, NASA's next generation space capsule. That news was all capped by an additional announcement on Thursday that the White House is commissioning an independent review of NASA's human space flight activities, headed by Norm Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin. The bulk of the speculation to date has dealt with the fate of the Ares family of rockets . Almost from the moment that the preliminary Ares designs were announced, Ares has been the target of skepticism and critique from many in the aerospace community. Chief among the complaints were those that indicated that the development of a new rocket fleet might be wholly unnecessary. Specifically, one camp have argued that NASA could achieve its goals by launching Orion atop any of a number of existing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, such as the Atlas and Delta rockets designed decades ago by Lockheed Martin and Boeing under contracts with the DoD. A competing camp argues that NASA could achieve more for even less money by relying on an emerging fleet of privately funded vehicles developed by companies like Orbital Sciences and Elon Musk's SpaceX . The fact that these private companies are in the discussion at all largely stems from an innovative NASA program called COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Services. Announced in 2006, COTS was NASA's biggest step to date in proactively engaging emerging private rocket fleets, providing a total of around $500 million to two firms who could develop rockets and capsules capable of carrying cargo to the International Space Station. Uniquely---at least by civil aerospace standards--the COTS awards assumed that the companies would match's NASA's funding with private investment, and also provided NASA with several jump-off points where contracts could be terminated and payments stopped if the contractors were not up to spec. COTS has been proceeding relatively smoothly; enough so that NASA moved forward with Commercial Cargo Resupply Service contracts, setting aside nearly two billion dollars for flight demonstrations. Lately, a new segment of COTS that covers the development of vehicles that carry human crews has been discussed. A document submitted to Congress by NASA in late April indicates that as much as $150 million may be set added to the COTS program, with some chunk of it, potentially $80 million, used to seed the development of the crew-carrying systems. And so, aerospace entrepreneurs and investors will join the legions of traditional space enthusiasts in watching the news out of NASA Headquarters with great interest. Last week's budget request provided a few clues, but the results of the just-announced blue ribbon panel and the eventually nomination of a new NASA Administrator will provide great insight into the future of America's civil space exploration program. Large sums of money could potentially swing between the Ares development team, existing EELV operators, and a new class of emerging entrepreneurial firms, with the potential of billions of dollars in business being reassigned. Both NASA's ultimate destination and the rockets they use to get there may hang in the balance.
 
Amy Tara Koch: Flex Your Inner Fashion Editor: Rework Last Season's Wardrobe Into Of-The-Moment Looks Top
The Dow may be in the dumps but your yen for of-the-moment style is still flying high. Forget investing the paltry remains of your 401K in designer duds. The trick to staying chic on a shoestring budget? Super-accessorizing like a fashion editor. Newsflash: The perfectly manicured goddesses who helm elite fashion glossies have a secret. They may look like they are sporting brand spanking new ready-to-wear ensembles day in and day out. The truth? These ladies are mix masters of the highest order. They invest in just a handful of fabulous basics and super-accessorize the LBDs, black trousers, sheath dress, dark skinny jeans and tunic and neutral empire waist dress into dozens of jaw dropping looks. By layering basic garments with up-to-the-minute accent pieces -- the colorful drippy scarf, the statement necklace, the vintage coin belt, the gumball sized agate earrings -- fashion folk can effectively camouflage the fact that the same few garments are being "rotated" week after week. So, instead of panicking at your inability to restock your closet, simply employ editor's sartorial sleight of hand (aka "garment rotation") and freshen up last season's ensembles with bad ass baubles. Five Easy Ways To "Superaccessorize" Last Season's Wardrobe Into Of-The-Moment Looks 1. Raid Granny's Closet: Vintage accessories contain inherent wow factor. Sporting a fabulous obsidian brooch from Belarus or an eye catching jangle of old school pendants adds panache and an invaluable OMG quotient (could that be Victorian Mourning jewelry???) to basics. Don't break the bank on chicifying accents. My advice? Simply treat your granny's closet (or the madcap Auntie Mame in your familia) like your own personal Saks Fifth Avenue. Look For: chunky beaded necklaces, blinged out Studio 54 cuffs, quirky straw totes, reptilian clutches, knuckle duster cocktail rings, shawls in wacky ethnic prints, sequined lame or sequined purses and tops and as many belts (chain, coin, fringe) that can be stuffed into your overnight bag. Juxtaposing vintage accessories with basic silhouettes a If you should face resistance, be prepared to barter Friday night suppers in exchange for luxe loot. 2. Buy a Dangly Scarf: The dangly scarf is an excellent style element to build up basics and inject sportiness into a look. MAJOR POINT: There is a huge difference between the square shaped scarves that Auntie Ruth knots waspily under her sweater set and the cool, skinny Stevie Nicks style scarf dripping sensuously from inside a knit or shrunken spring jacket. Look For: Pieces that liven of blah basics: Thin, vertical scarves in bold colors or groovy graphics or rocker-chic scarves adorned with skulls and crossbones and/or trendy hippie symbols. 3. Stack Cuffs and Bangles: A dash of Dynasty style flash in the form of layered gold is a dramatic way to amp up simple silhouettes. Whether you are wearing a t-shirt or evening gown, a cuff on each wrist is supremely glamorous and instantly updates a look. Look For: Enamel cuffs, candy colored Hermes bangles, dramatic Bollywood bangles, faux gem encrusted cuffs (think Kenneth Jay Lane) and Bakelite bangles. 4. Add a Statement Necklace: Statement jewelry is what brings an outfit to life. Whether its rough hewn hunks of rock crystal or an assemblage of clam shells culled from Portugal, oversized jewelry takes cojones to wear and never fails to spark a conversation. Look For: Artsy fartsy ethnically beaded necklaces, long layered necklaces of semi-precious stones, vintage pendants and cameos, chain link necklaces in gold or silver and lariats. 5. Sport Gladiator Sandals: The clunky Jesus sandal has been reworked and appliquéd into the seasons must-have footwear. The sleek, wraps -around-the ankle leather shoe has a casually glam St. Barths vibe that works with jeans, peasant skirts and cocktail frocks. Look For: Simple leather flats with metallic straps or a high chunky heel with simple gold detailing. More on Fashion
 
Arlen Specter To Talk At "Anti-Islamist" Event Top
Next week, a coalition of conservative legal groups will host a "Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam," a conference on how "Islamist lawfare" is imperiling free speech in America. Confirmed speakers include neoconservative foreign policy guru Frank Gaffney, lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy (who turned down an invitation to a White House counterterrorism conference to protest administration policy), Islam critic David Pipes, and... Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who will give the opening speech. More on Arlen Specter
 
Michael Giltz: Cannes 2009 Preview: Things Are Looking "Up?" Top
As I write this, only 14 hours remain before the opening of the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, the greatest and certainly most prestigious film festival in the world. Will they be ready in time? Usually that question is reserved for the filmmakers, some of whom race against the clock to get their films finished in time to screen for the world's critics. This year, Quentin Tarantino is reportedly racing against the clock to get his WW II action film Inglorious Basterds done in time for its Wednesday May 20 screening. ( Unlike the Pope, I'm not afraid to tell you that the bad guys are the Nazis.) But when I ask, "Will they be ready in time?" I'm not talking about the movies. I'm talking about the festival. I've been coming to Cannes for ten years and I've never seen so much work waiting to be done. Employees are scurrying about, lumber and other material is scattered everywhere, and booths in the market down in the basement of the Palais are still being built. Perhaps the festival was feeling just as tentative as the media, which is coming in force (it seems) but held off on making its decisions until the last minute. Perhaps watching their industry implode has the world's newspapers a little on edge. I'll be covering the festival every day for Huffington Post, with a mix of reviews and interviews and quotes from press conferences and maybe even a little video if I can figure out my Flip Video recorder while I'm here. Hollywood turned Cannes into a launching pad for its summer and fall blockbusters over the past decade with everything from Shrek to The Lord of the Rings to The Da Vinci Code using Cannes to capture the world's attention. But that's not happening this year. Hollywood is not out in force and big parties and big billboards along the Croissette promoting current and upcoming movies are conspicuously absent. So Jerry Seinfeld may not be tumbling off a building in a bee costume to promote his first animated film like he did last year but film lovers needn't despair. While starlets may be in short supply, the number of promising films from major talent is exceptionally strong. On paper, this looks like the most tantalizing fest in years. Here are some of the potential highlights: PIXAR'S REVENGE -- Pixar was dissed by Wall Street recently, which keeps waiting for the animation geniuses there to stumble so they can say I told you so. Now comes Up , Pixar's first 3-D film. Because it focuses on an old man, Wall Street assumes the movie wil be uncommercial. (Don't they realize that -- to kids -- everyone over 10 is an old fogey?) But Wednesday at 10 am, the film will screen for the press and we'll find out if Pixar has continued the longest streak of critical and commercial hits in Hollywood history. Hollywood Reporter certainly thinks so. ANG LEE'S THREESOME -- Taking Woodstock is the third gay-themed film from one of my favorite directors. His breakout was the gentle comedy The Wedding Banquet. And of course Lee delivered the groundbreaking Brokeback Mountain, the best film about shepherds ever made. Now comes the true story of a closeted young Jewish man (Demetri Martin) who is helping his parents with their fading Catskills hotel when Woodstock comes to town and literally turns his world upside down. ANTICHRIST -- The title alone lets you know that Lars Von Trier is having fun. One of the most unconventional filmmakers in the world (his most recent films did away with sets), Von Trier is sure to confound everyone and please no one completely. Or at least he hopes so. AUSSIE HOPE -- Australians are high on Samson and Delilah , one of the most acclaimed dramas to come out of Oz in years. It seems likely to introduce the world to a major new talent -- Warwick Thornton -- and be talked about for the rest of the year. KICKING NAZI ASS -- Tarantino is apparently NOT doing a remake of classic B movie Inglorious Basterds but merely using the great title and a very loose approximation of the premise -- a Dirty Dozen-style team behind Nazi lines -- to deliver a WW II flick about a team of Jews who gang up on the Nazis. Another film at the fest does the same for the French. The Army Of Crime tells the true story of the Manouchians, members of the French Resistance who launched dozens of effective raids against the Nazis until they were hunted down and executed en masse. If the stills of the film are any guide, they were all young and quite handsome. I could go on for ages; there are that many promising films. So here are some questions: Will Jane Campion recapture her mojo with Bright Star, the story of poet John Keats? What will Heath Ledger's final film appearance be like? A capper worthy of following his brilliant turn in The Dark Knight? Or will Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus be more of a footnote to his career? Can Sam Raimi get down and dirty with horror film Drag Me To Hell after three blockbuster (and big budget) movies starring Spidey? Does Johnnie To deserve the hype he's received from Cannes and Tarantino-like film buffs? I haven't been overwhelmed (or even whelmed) yet but now he's in Competition with Vengeance . Will China's censors regret setting loose director Lou Ye? His Summer Palace told an erotic love story with June 4 as the backdrop. He was banned from film-making for five years but is back already with Spring Fever, an even naughtier film. I still haven't mentioned Almodovar, Ken Loach, Alain Resnais, the gay Orthodox Jewish love story, a Palestinian perspective on the the last six decades with Israel, Ingmar Bergman's home movies, a restoration of Visconti's Senso , Francis Ford Coppola's Competition-rejected lowfi movie Tetro , a free screening on the beach of Laurence of Arabia and a lot more. Keep coming back for regular updates. And as the imposter pretending to be author JT LeRoy (who didn't really exist) shouted out before a screening of a film, "Viva la cinema!" from Cannes.
 
Candace Straight: Note to the GOP: Stop Shunning Social Inclusivity Top
In politics you have two options: win elections and control the agenda or lose elections and cede the agenda. At a time when the federal government is making some of the most important decisions our nation has ever faced, GOP leaders have not been able to come up with a real strategy that can motivate its moderate base -- the real majority -- needed to elect more leaders and enable a more balanced Republican representation in Congress. Much hay has been made that the defection of Senator Arlen Specter was about winning -- and it was -- but he was also following 240,000 of his constituents who switched parties last year. The vast majority of these voters were pro-choice, fiscally conservative, socially inclusive Republicans who believed the Party had become too focused on an extreme social policy, and had strayed too far from its tenets of limited government. The GOP leadership's response to Senator Specter was similar to this past election, when the Party lost the White House and both houses of Congress: reinforce its "conservatism." The election proved that their new kind of "conservatism," one which promotes big government intrusion, no longer wins. And yet, bolstering it continues to be the GOP leadership strategy for success? Earlier this month, the GOP leadership announced the National Council for a New America -- a softer, gentler GOP that wants to hear new ideas and bring in coalitions of voters. However, the group's leading spokespeople are all white, socially conservative men. These are not the faces of "new ideas" that will help draw in a more diverse voting base. The Republican leadership must look to see who in their Party is winning -- both elections and new voters. Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine both won their last elections with 61% and 72% of the voter respectively. Representatives Lynn Jenkins of Kansas and Leonard Lance of New Jersey are two freshman members of Congress -- people who won in one of the most dismal election cycles for the GOP. Though they may not agree with every moderate voter, or even each other on every issue, these leaders govern with the big-tent, limited-government ideals in mind. And they win. Exit polling from the last election showed that the GOP lost in just about every demographic except for older white voters, predominantly in the South. Dig a little deeper and the numbers tell a much more dire story for the GOP. The Democratic base is growing while the proportion of swing and Republican voters is on the decline. In 2008, the Democratic base was 41% of the overall vote versus just 27% for the GOP. To compound this problem, the Democratic Party is capturing new voters: 54% percent of the under thirty vote in the last election. Further, polling released this week revealed that nearly 60% of independent women, one of the largest and fastest growing voting blocs, identify with the Democratic party versus just 35% for the GOP. These are gaps that cannot be ignored. The majority of Republican voters care about jobs, having a government that does not waste their money and keeping their families safe. The GOP continually gives them more rhetoric banning abortion and stopping gay marriage. The disconnect between the leadership and the base is so wide that any effort to keep centrist, women and younger voters in the party is becoming impossible. The GOP can only regain its political power by winning elections. And the Republicans who are being elected are doing so by embracing the real Republican majority. The party must follow their lead and create an incentive for fiscally conservative, socially inclusive elected leaders to stay Republican. More on GOP
 
Pakistan Taliban Stronghold Raid Kills 750 Militants, Leaves 800,000 Homeless Top
MARDAN, Pakistan — Helicopters dropped Pakistani commandos into a Taliban stronghold in the Swat Valley on Tuesday, pressing ahead with an offensive the army said had killed more than 750 militants and driven around 800,000 people from their homes. Despite claims of success in an operation that began after heavy U.S. pressure, the army said it had yet to start operations in the region's main town of Swat, where witnesses say Taliban insurgents are in control and preparing for what could be bloody door-to-door fighting. Farther south, a suspected U.S. missile attack flattened a house and killed at least eight people in another militant bastion near the Afghan border, officials said, in the latest in a series of attacks that have strained U.S. and Pakistani ties. Choppers placed troops on "search and destroy" missions in the remote Piochar area in the upper reaches of the Swat Valley, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said. Officials have identified Piochar as the rear-base of an estimated 4,000 Taliban militants. It is seen as a possible hiding place of Swat Taliban chief Maulana Fazlullah. Abbas said the army had yet to begin the "hardcore urban fight", but Interior Minister Rehman Malik expressed optimism the battle might prove short. "The way they (militants) are being beaten, the way their recruits are fleeing, and the way the Pakistan army is using its strategy, God willing the operation will be completed very soon," he said. Pakistani authorities launched a full-scale assault on Swat and surrounding districts last week after the Taliban pushed out from the valley on the back of a now-defunct peace deal and extended their control to areas just 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the capital, Islamabad. It has been praised by American officials, who had been insisting Islamabad must eliminate safe havens used by militants to undermine the pro-Western governments in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistani army said Tuesday that troops backed by artillery and airstrikes had killed 751 militants in Swat and neighboring districts so far. It was unclear how it calculated that figure, which couldn't be independently verified. Abbas said the army lost 29 soldiers and had no reports of civilian casualties. Accounts from refugees fleeing the fighting suggest there has been significant loss of innocent life. The offensive has also unleashed a tide of refugees, whose plight could sap public support for the kind of sustained action against an increasingly interlinked array of Islamist extremists that the cash-strapped country's Western backers want to see. An army officer said Tuesday that the total number displaced in the northwest _ including some half-million who fled a separate offensive in the Bajur border region last year _ had risen to 1.3 million. The U.N. has registered 501,000 refugees from the latest fighting. About 73,000 are living in hot, tented camps established just south of the war zone. Officials acknowledge that many more have taken refuge with relatives without registering with the authorities. An Associated Press reporter who visited three camps over the last two days found them hot and dusty, but provided with food, shelter and basic medical facilities available. Officials acknowledge that many more have taken refuge with relatives without registering with the authorities. The missile strike destroyed a house in Sara Khora, a village in the South Waziristan tribal region, Pakistani security officials said. The identities of those killed were not immediately known. Two security officials, citing initial intelligence reports, said eight people died. They said agents on the ground were still trying to discover the identities of the victims. The officials asked for anonymity because they are not authorized to speak openly to the media. Yar Mohammad, a resident of the area, told The Associated Press by telephone that he had seen Taliban militants removing bodies from the building and taking them away in vehicles. Over the past year, the U.S. has carried out dozens of missile strikes on al-Qaida and Taliban targets in the border area, where American officials say al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden is likely hiding. Pakistani leaders publicly oppose the tactic, saying it fuels anti-American sentiment and makes it easier for extremists to recruit. U.S. officials say the strikes, apparently carried out by CIA drones, have killed a string of al-Qaida operatives and minimized civilian casualties. ___ Associated Press writers Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan and Munir Ahmad in Islamabad contributed to this report. More on Pakistan
 
New Virginia GOP Chair Has History Of Controversial Anti-Cantor Ads Top
The appointment of the new chair of the Republican Party in Virginia has opened up old political war wounds that involve shady third party attacks, streaks of anti-Semitism and the early electoral career of now House Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Earlier this month, the Virginia GOP chose Pat Mullins to take over the spot of Jeff Frederick, the controversial former chairman who was fired recently after months of internal strife. Frederick had refused to coordinate efforts with John McCain's presidential campaign, raised a furor by comparing Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden, and inadvertantly spoiled an attempt to flip a Democratic state senator by leaking it on Twitter. But Mullins may not be the type of harmonious choice the VA GOP was seeking. The Charlottesville Daily Progress reports that the new chair was one of a handful of Republicans who formed the group Faith and Family Alliance back in 2000. That 527 organization was responsible for mailing out blistering attack ads against one Eric Cantor during his successful run for Congress. The spot was, according to observers, rife with religious and cultural undertones, accusing Cantor of not paying taxes despite being a "millionaire lawyer." Prof. Larry Sabato, Virginia's political guru, described it to the Daily Progress as "a despicable, underground campaign that was unquestionably anti-Semitic." Cantor's former foes also share a wealth of ties to current GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell. Faith and Family Alliance chief Tim Phillips is a former McDonnell adviser. Another co-founder, Philip Cox, current works as McDonnell's campaign manager and actually left the Alliance in 2000 to work against Cantor's congressional campaign. And the person tasked with being the Faith and Family Alliance's president, Robin Vanderwall, ran McDonnell's 1999 campaign for the House of Delegates. The Daily Progress has the rest of the goods , including disavowals from all the key players about knowledge of the anti-Cantor ad campaign. The blame, they insist, lies with Vanderwall, who is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting sex from a minor on the Internet. Cantor, meanwhile, seems willing to let bygones be bygones in an email to the paper. "Pat is a friend," he writes, "who I know will energize our party and grassroots." And yet, the article still provides important insights. McDonnell and Cantor are now arguably the two most powerful Republican figures in the state. And the appointment of Mullins as GOP chairman (which almost certainly came with McDonnell's blessing) could spark discussion of a rift at the top of the state party. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Paula Forman and Jeff Johnson: Why Can't They Be Like We Were Top
We were on the phone the other day chatting about this and that and we got to complaining about the "strange " manners and mores of younger workers: The kid who turned down the chance to go to a new business pitch to attend a distant cousin's wedding; or the young man who inquired about paternity leave in his interview; or the college senior who listed "beer" as a hobby on his resume; or the brand new employee who took three sick days in the first two weeks and then sent out a company wide e-mail announcing his vacation schedule. We wondered if we were getting fussy--or maybe something more interesting was happening. Jeff: When we were kids we were very motivated. As garden-variety ad execs we wanted to be VPs; then we wanted to be Senior VP's--after that Exec VPs and then we simply had to be President. A new business pitch was a shot at promotion and glory--not to be passed up for anything! None of this was casual. Boomers were very motivated. Paula : The women--my generation of do-it-all-have-it-all women--were very focused. We had to be. We cheered each other on and cried about the dominance of the Boy's Club. Jeff : But everyone wanted the corner office and the personal assistant and the bigger paycheck. And if I remember correctly, when you were made President, I quit so I could be President somewhere else. Paula : You're kidding ... that's why you quit? We women hardly broke stride even as we had our kids often rising at five in the morning to do our home chores, dress the kids and still hit the office at a decent time. We raced the clock all day long packing more than was humanly reasonable into every workweek while trying to keep our priorities--and our faculties--intact. And it was great, great fun. Jeff : We still love the war stories: six ... new biz pitches in a single month--all in different cities. "It's Wednesday so this must be Evansville." Paula : But even during those heady days I do remember how shocked I was that the young women who worked for me ... didn't want to be me! Like the Meryl Streep character in The Devil Wears Prada I was certain they were mistaken and would change their mind..."Don't be silly" Miranda said, "Who wouldn't want to be us?" It turns out they really did mean it. They didn't want to be us. Gen X and Gen Y have voted with their feet. Many corporate women seek jobs and careers that allow them the flexibility to work from home if their family needs require it and men, too, seek careers that allow for greater balance in their lives than their dads ever considered. Flatter structures in most companies permit greater access to senior management resulting in increased visibility and sensitivity to the needs of junior employees. And the ubiquity of the virtual office has changed the dynamics of the workday forever. Smart employers seduce their Gen X/ Gen Y workers with flexible hours and support that ranges from offices that are open 24/7 to free food and childcare. The sense of entitlement that Boomers expressed in social movements like civil rights, gay rights and women's rights is, for their children, a more universal search for emancipation. The imperative for equality has evolved to an insistence on personal freedom. Maybe the sons and daughters of Boomers learned more from them than was apparent earlier on. The search for control over one's life is a human theme, not a generational one. Where Boomers expressed the impulse for life control by gaining access to power in politics and in corporate life, succeeding generations did so by creating new options--especially in the workplace--that made a broad array of choices more accessible. It could be that Boomers who are now struggling with the dislocations of lost savings and lost jobs might have something to learn from their kids. Those who have been laid off during this recession and have been looking fruitlessly to find new jobs of the same description might look at the path their children chose as they tried to balance career goals with life goals. Our kids were inventive: they created options that allowed them to pursue multiple goals simultaneously--maybe we can too. As we look at our reduced 401K's, it might be helpful to talk to younger folks, many of whom have pulled way back from the consumerism of their parents. They seem to intuitively understand what we Boomers sometimes have trouble with: It's not how much money you think you need; it's what can you do with the money you have. Perhaps the themes of making choices and taking control of one's life are a Boomer legacy. But the form that subsequent generations have given to their own search is quite different and may provide some helpful and hopeful models to Boomers who are looking to reset their priorities and their own options for the decades ahead.
 
Lawrence Levi: Get on the Breadline! Top
Like too many other Americans, I recently lost my job. Knowing that I was far from alone in my anxiety-provoking situation helped a bit, as did receiving my first unemployment check. But aside from glimpses in news articles and the occasional outreach project , it seemed that the individual stories of these thousands upon thousands of suddenly jobless people just weren't being told. So a few weeks ago my friend David Kamp and I started up The Breadline , a website devoted to telling the tales of the unemployed -- in their own words. It's a place for fun commiseration, or, as we like to call it, "A blog of reduced circumstances and gallows humor." Through our Breadline Questionnaire , people from all across the country have told us how their lives have changed. A former marketing-communications chief in Minneapolis said, "My first job every day is to not fall into despair." A onetime historian for a public agency in Portland, Orgeon, said, "After years of working my ass off, I'm frankly kind of enjoying the time off, and I'm staying busy with volunteer projects." A laid-off pilot in Honolulu wrote, "I needed to start all over again and put together a résumé, which I haven't needed to do for thirty years." A onetime IT executive in Charleston, South Carolina, who lost his job more than a year ago said, "My wife and I joke that once we have watched every syndicated rerun of Law & Order, our lives will lose the only purpose or meaning it currently has." To explain what motivates her to get up in the morning, a former health-care administrator in Providence, Rhode Island, replied, "Not much! Coffee? Laundry? The need to pee?" If you're unemployed, get on the Breadline! And if you're employed, count your blessings--and send your jobless friends our way. More on The Recession
 
Roger Clemens Steroids: BREAKS SILENCE, Denies Use Again Top
NEW YORK — Roger Clemens tried the silent treatment for more than a year and saw where that got him. With many fans believing allegations that the seven-time Cy Young Award winner used performance-enhancing drugs, he's now attempting a different strategy. Clemens hired a firm that guides high-profile figures through public relations crises, and Tuesday he broke his silence with a radio appearance. Clemens again denied that former personal trainer Brian McNamee injected him with performance-enhancing drugs in a phone interview on ESPN's "Mike & Mike in the Morning." "He's never injected me with HGH or steroids," Clemens said of McNamee's assertions to baseball investigator George Mitchell. About three weeks ago, Clemens met in Houston with representatives from Washington-based Levick Strategic Communications. Levick senior vice president Gene Grabowski said Clemens was referred by his lawyers and agents. "Because of the litigation, he felt obligated on advice of counsel not to speak," Grabowski said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "What he learned in that year was that by not speaking no one was going to tell his story." Recalled Clemens, "They came in and said, 'You need to get your story out about all this garbage that is being said.'" Clemens said he chose to speak out Tuesday because it was the release date of a book about his alleged drug use. "It's important for me to do that," he said. "I've seen excerpts of the book and they're completely false. ... You know, guys, it's piling on. It's hurtful at times. But I'm moving on." Clemens appeared on CBS' "60 Minutes" in January 2008, then held a news conference the next day. But he had stayed quiet since testifying before Congress the following month. While "American Icon: The Fall of Roger Clemens and the Rise of Steroids in America's Pastime" was officially released Tuesday, its revelations were not new to the public. The book, by four New York Daily News reporters, recaps previous reports in the newspaper. It had been available to reviewers and had excerpts published before Tuesday. Clemens is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Washington that is trying to determine whether he lied when he told a congressional committee that he had not used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Clemens said he had not been summoned to testify before the grand jury. He also has sued McNamee for defamation. While not mentioning McNamee by name, Clemens said Tuesday that "you've got somebody that's out there that is really just crawling up your back to make a buck." "This, in my view, is going to backfire, because he's publicly now poking a stick in Congress' eye," McNamee's lead lawyer, Richard Emery, told the AP in a phone interview. "And, to me, all that's going to do is vitalize the prosecutors going forward. Nobody, for a minute, thinks he's not a liar just because he's talking." Clemens said he had given a DNA sample to federal investigators but that syringes provided by McNamee would not link him to performance-enhancing drug use. "It's impossible because he's never given me any," Clemens said. Clemens' radio appearance returns him to the spotlight as other stars had replaced him as the most visible reminders of baseball's drug scandal. Alex Rodriguez admitted before the season that he had used steroids, and Manny Ramirez was suspended last week for violating MLB's drug policy. Clemens said he had not followed either situation closely. The Ramirez case proved "the testing program we have set up in Major League Baseball is great," he said. Clemens said he was sad to hear about Rodriguez. "I wish him the best, tell him to move forward, continue to do what he's doing," he said. Grabowski said Clemens would decide whether he wanted to do any more interviews after he returns from an upcoming vacation. Clemens repeated his much-lampooned use of the word "misremembers" about friend and former teammate Andy Pettitte's statement that Clemens told him he used HGH. He said he has spoken to Pettitte a few times, but not about the drug allegations. Clemens said it would have been "suicidal" for him to use steroids because of a history of heart problems in his family. "Everywhere I've gone and gotten the opportunity to speak to young kids or college kids, I take a lot of pride in telling those boys to get after it and do things the right way and take care of your body, because I know how I did it; I know how hard I worked," Clemens said. "For some of that to come in question, of course it's hurtful. But it's not going to break my spirit." ___ AP Sports Writer Howard Fendrich in Washington contributed to this report. More on Sports
 
Howard Dean Switches Position On Gay Marriage Top
Former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean discussed his evolution on gay marriage Tuesday, telling ABC News' "Top Line" that he would have signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Vermont if he had still been governor. The bill became law on April 7 when the state's Democratic Legislature overrode the veto of Republican Gov. Jim Douglas. More on Gay Marriage
 
Tyler Frost SUSPENDED Over PROM Attendence Top
FINDLAY, Ohio — A northwest Ohio teenager has been suspended by his Christian school because he attended another high school's prom. Officials at Heritage Christian School in Findlay had warned 17-year-old Tyler Frost that he would be suspended and prohibited from attending graduation if he went to the public school dance over the weekend with his girlfriend. Frost says he didn't think going to the dance was wrong even though his fundamentalist Baptist school Ohio forbids dancing, rock music and hand-holding. Frost didn't go to school Monday. Instead, he and his girlfriend are heading to New York for a Tuesday morning TV interview. The teen says he's now getting Facebook and e-mail messages from around the world. ___ Information from: The Courier, http://www.thecourier.com
 

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)