Thursday, May 14, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi: Shameful Plight of the Middle East's Christians Top
"You have heard it said of old, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, do not resist the evil person. If he strikes you on the left, turn to him the right." Perhaps nothing sums up the travails of the Christian community in Iraq and throughout the Middle East better than this statement by Jesus in the Bible. Since the American occupation of Iraq in 2003 a wave of unprecedented cross-sect terror has been ignited, with Sunni and Shia groups in a race to exterminate each other. Because of the horrific violence, the number of Christians in Iraq has decreased from 800,000 in 2003 to roughly 500,000 now, as the community continues to emigrate in search of peace. And it is not only in Iraq that the plight of the Christians of the Middle East is so dire. Across the region they are either under-represented in legislatures and in government, or looked upon as outsiders. In Egypt, for example, the Coptic Christians comprise up 15 million of the population, depending on the source of your information, yet they hold no significant posts as heads of universities or governors of major cities, and have, at most, two ministerial positions at any given time. As the political Islamisation of Middle Eastern states continues, so does the marginalisation of the native Christian communities. Not long ago it was not uncommon, when reading the credits to Egyptian movies, to see a variety of Christian Arab names. In fact, the most famous Arab movie and my late father's favourite, Doaa el Karawan ( The Nightingale's Prayer ) was financed and produced by Henry Barakat in 1959; but those days are gone. In Lebanon, the Christian majority has shrunk to a minority in the past 50 years because of falling birth rates and migration. The ceremonial position of a Christian President, a direct result of the French occupation constitution, has been compromised by outside powers and recently was left vacant for several months. In Jordan, Marwan Muasher, the former deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and the most senior Christian member of the government in half a century, was more or less ousted to please the influential Islamic Brotherhood. The Muslim monarchies of the Gulf put the Middle Eastern states of Egypt, Sudan, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Israel and Jordan (where Christianity was born) to shame in 2005 when Alice Simaan, a Christian member of the Bahraini parliament representing the kingdom's 1,000 strong community, chaired a parliamentary session for the first time in the region's history. When the veteran Israeli-Arab Christian parliamentarian Azmi Bishara was accused of treason by the Israeli authorities in 2007, he sought refuge in Qatar, a Muslim Gulf monarchy with no native Christian community, rather than Egypt or Jordan. In the UAE, the Arab Christian community has contributed substantially to the country's development; the founder of the American University of Dubai, the representative of the UAE in the International Advertisers Association and senior advisers to the rulers hail from this successful community. Kuwait made a Christian citizen from its 200-strong minority ambassador to Japan in the 1990s, and the Kuwaiti pastor Emmanuel al Ghareeb heads the state-sanctioned Church of Kuwait. Paradoxically, it is common to find Arab Christians proportionally enjoying more economic and social success in the Muslim Arab countries of the Gulf than in the lands that gave birth to Christianity. Last week the Chaldean Archbishop Louis Sako of Iraq cautioned that his community is facing extinction because of the horrendous crimes of the terrorists and thugs who target the largely apolitical and passive community, believing it to be wealthy. Christians are kidnapped and held for ransom, and in many cases are murdered in cold blood, as in the case of the late Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, Paul Rahho; and the Iraqi government stands idle. Arab Christians of all denominations should not only be protected, like all minorities, but also encouraged to flourish as they have in the Gulf. They must be allowed to exercise full control over their communities and interests in their own countries as they are an integral part of the mosaic that makes up the Middle East. The Muslim majority ought to put themselves in the place of their Christian Arab brothers and sisters and give them the same rights that they would be demanding had Muslims been the minority instead. No community today is so targeted by violent thugs for no reason other than sheer bigotry as are the Christians of Iraq. They have had their churches bombed and their priests kidnapped and murdered and yet they persevere with dignity and passive resistance. The Christian community in Iraq do not take to armed conflict and violence against the criminals who want to drive them out because they have kept in mind the words of Mahatma Gandhi, inspired by the teachings of a sage who preached 2,000 years ago in the Holy Lands: "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." This article was first published in The National newspaper on October 18th 2008. More on Religion
 
Avigdor Lieberman's Party Seeking To Ban 'Nakba' Commemorations Top
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's party wants to ban Israeli Arabs from marking the anniversary of the Nakba, or the Catastrophe in 1948, when 700,000 Arabs lost their homes in the war that created Israel. More on Israel
 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Washington Times Fanned Stereotypes with Obama Daughter's Picture Top
The Washington Times quickly yanked the picture of Malia and Sasha Obama juxtaposed with the screaming headline "36 Chicago area kids killed sets record." Times editor John Solomon blamed it on a computer auto file error. No word from Editor Solomon who or what programmed the computer, and no formal apology either for the slander. No matter, the Times blunder(?)dumped back on the table the sensitive, troubling, and polarizing issue of and racial stereotyping. And that's the issue of the blanket typecasting of young blacks, as crime and violence prone no matter who they are. The plague of gang killing and violence and murders in Chicago that stirred the Obama-murder connection has stirred even more vivid, and lurid images of young blacks as lawbreakers. The relentless media and public tagging of young black males as gangsters hasn't helped matters. When some young blacks turn to gangs, guns and drugs, and terrorize their communities, much of the press busily titillates the public with inexhaustible features on the "crime prone," "crack plagued," "blood stained streets" of the ghetto. TV action news crews routinely stalk black neighborhoods filming busts for the nightly news. The explosion of gangster rap and the spate of Hollywood ghetto films convinced many Americans that the gang lifestyle is the black lifestyle. They had ghastly visions of the hordes of gang members heading for their neighborhoods next. The overwhelming majority of the victims of gang attacks are blacks, and the violence almost is exclusively confined to battles over drugs and turf control in poor urban neighborhoods. But with public panic over gangs, and with few accurate numbers on just how many urban youth are actually gang members, some police and city officials play fast and loose with the numbers. In Los Angeles, police claim that more than 700 gangs with 40,000 members ply the streets of the city committing murder and mayhem. Police and city officials have tossed similar colossal figures on gang affiliation around in other big cities, Chicago included. The Washington Times juxtaposition of the Obama girls with crime and violence, no matter how fleeting, was just another in the long litany of sorry examples of how crime and violence are inextricably woven in the brain cells of far too many with blacks. That is even blacks named Malia and sasha Obama. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com
 
Steve Clemons: The New Evita? Obama's Political Outreach by Lottery Top
When I first saw how the Obama campaign team was taking the Joe Trippi-fashioned IT architecture of political outreach a few notches higher, I was really pleased. I saw that Obama was building a much larger political pie of constituents engaged in American politics and policy and that sensible progressives were going to own a larger chunk of it. To some degree, what Joe Rospars -- of course along with David Axelrod and David Plouffe -- did is to do the internet based version of the 20th century social network machine that Ralph Reed built out in the form of the Christian Coalition . I remember being quite impressed that in late 2007, one could already see Barack Obama's web-based political muscles in action by looking at Facebook and many other social network sites oriented to different ethnic-American communities. On Facebook, Obama had then about 80,000 Facebookitizens linking to his " fan page " (compared to 6,271,125 today). Hillary Clinton had roughly 40,000 fans -- but led him in all the polls. John Edwards had 20,000. On the Republican side of the ledger, John McCain had about 20,000 fans; Mitt Romney was at 15,000; Huckabee at 10,000. Somewhat as a standout in the Republican field, Ron Paul had 22,000 fans -- and later, Paul really built out his internet-based network. The trends were clear way back then on Facebook. And what this internet based outreach in a lot of different mediums has created is the reality that Barack Obama -- and really the entire Democratic political machine -- can now chase the $5.00 donor at a scale that is effective and nearly cost-free, whereas just a few years ago, chasing the $5.00 donor was practically impossible. But what has come along with this new Obama-driven network is the constant spam of the $5.00 request -- promising dinner with the Obamas, or a seat at a major speech by the President, or a grin-and-grip photo op with the President -- if that person's donation is selected among the millions of other donors to receive the reward of Barack Obama's personal attention and smile. This is the Evita approach to politics . The winners of the lottery will have fortune rain down upon them. Evita. Evita . Today, I received the note from Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) promising Obama-time for a select few picked from those who kick in five bucks to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Evita. Evita. Evita. Senator Menendez writes: Dear Steve, Meet President Obama! Contribute $5 today and be automatically entered to win! [Click here.] This June, the DSCC is holding a dinner to celebrate the promise of Barack Obama's new presidency and recommit ourselves to giving him an overwhelming Senate majority. It's going to be a one-of-a-kind event for Democrats everywhere. You've been a huge part of our success over the last two election cycles, and I want to make sure you're a part of this historic night. If you make a contribution to the DSCC today, you will be automatically entered into a contest that could win you and a guest a trip to Washington (airfare and hotel included) for our special dinner with President Obama. You'll even get your photo taken with the President to commemorate what promises to be an extraordinary night. Click here to make a contribution of $5 or more to the DSCC, and you will automatically be entered to win dinner and a photo with President Obama. For each additional contribution, you will get another chance to win. When you make a contribution today, you're not only earning a chance to win, you're also helping the DSCC give President Obama everything he needs to pass his visionary agenda for change - an expanded Senate majority that can't be blocked by Republican filibusters. Senate Republicans have made it plain that they will force us to find 60 votes for each and every aspect of our agenda. They'll do everything in their power to obstruct, delay, and deny the change we desperately need. That's why expanding our majority in 2010 is so critical. That's why we urgently need your help to build the foundation for victory. Click here to make a contribution right now, and you'll be automatically entered to win. Dinner and a photo with President Obama is a memory that will last a lifetime. Finally, I know it's said a lot, but it's the truth. We cannot succeed without you. Thank you for all your support. Sincerely, Bob Menendez I may be overstating things here because of my own bias against lotteries -- which I have always felt in the state level education sham were more like extra taxes imposed on the poor to support institutions catering largely to the children of folks who didn't buy lottery tickets. But at some point, someone is going to say we've reached a point of diminishing returns on the asks for $5.00 -- and need to do something different and less Evita-ish with this amazing new network of outreach and political mobilization that the Obama team has constructed. -- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note More on Barack Obama
 
House Passes $97 Billion War Funding Bill Despite Dem Concerns Top
WASHINGTON — The House has approved $97 billion for military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure also would pay for anti-flu programs and for additional cargo planes the Pentagon doesn't want. The 368-60 vote on Thursday reflects bipartisan support for troops in harm's way overseas. But there's growing skepticism among President Barack Obama's liberal allies in the Democratic Party over his decision to escalate Pentagon operations in Afghanistan amid worsening conditions there. Obama requested $85 billion for the two wars, but lawmakers added almost $12 billion for additional procurement of military weapons and equipment, foreign aid, and other programs. Across Capitol Hill, a key Senate panel approved companion legislation for a vote by the full Senate next week. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) _ Despite Democrats' rising anxiety about Afghanistan, Congress is quickly advancing President Barack Obama's $85 billion request for war spending and foreign aid efforts there and in Iraq. The House moved Thursday toward passing the measure, which would push the total provided by Congress for the wars above $900 billion, while a key Senate committee took up a companion bill that sticks closely to Obama's war request and also provides $50 million to the Pentagon to begin the promised closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The issue of closing Guantanamo is addressed in the House measure as well _ not with funding but with a promise that detainees from the prison would not be released on U.S. soil. A new provision, however, anticipates some of the 241 detainees at Guantanamo would be transferred to the United States to stand trial or serve their sentences. A separate conflict over the war-funding measure concerns whether it should provide a $108 billion U.S. contribution to the International Monetary Fund as part of an expanded $500 billion IMF loan fund, a cornerstone of last month's Group of 20 nations summit in London to assist poor countries struggling through the global economic downturn. Obama officially requested the IMF funding late Tuesday, and the request was immediately incorporated by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Democrat, into the $91.5 billion war legislation. The IMF funds are estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers about $5 billion since the government is issued interest-bearing assets in return for the contribution. As for the military spending, during the Bush administration many Democrats stressed their opposition to the war in Iraq while supporting efforts against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But an increasing number of party liberals are skeptical of success in Afghanistan. Chief among them is Rep. David Obey, a Democrat and author of the House legislation as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but for now he is giving Obama a chance to demonstrate greater progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Rep. Jim McGovern, a Democrat, is opposing the infusion of war funds. He is not impressed with Obama's plans on Afghanistan. "Sometimes great presidents make mistakes, and sometimes great presidents make even great mistakes. I hope that doesn't happen here," McGovern said. "As the mission has grown bigger, the policy has grown even more vague." Both the House and Senate measures largely follow Obama's military request for the wars. But the House version adds $11.8 billion, including almost $4 billion for new weapons and military equipment such as cargo planes, mine-resistant vehicles, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker armored vehicles. The measure also adds $2.2 billion to Obama's request for foreign aid _ much of which appears to be designed to get around spending limits for 2010. The Senate measure includes Obama's $1.5 billion emergency request to fight a potential flu pandemic, while the House would add about $500 million to the request _ even as the recent swine flu scare appears to be abating. On Guantanamo, the Senate measure includes $50 million to begin closing the prison but directs that it cannot be used to transfer any of the detainees into the United States. The House bill, which does not include such money, sets a policy forbidding release of Guantanamo detainees within the United States. It would allow them to be shipped to the U.S. to stand trial or to serve their sentences.
 
Gaza Reconstruction Aid Remains Undelivered Despite Billions Promised Top
Four months on from the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, Palestinians have seen little of the money pledged for reconstruction. More on Israel
 
Jay Leno's Final "Tonight Show" Guest To Be Conan O'Brien Top
LOS ANGELES — In a neat bit of promotion, Jay Leno's last guest on the "Tonight" show will be the man who's taking over for him _ Conan O'Brien. James Taylor will perform on Leno's May 29 finale, the late-night host told a teleconference Thursday. And surprises are in store, he said. "I have something really unusual and different planned, something really out of left field that we're going to end on. It's something really personal," Leno said, and has to do with the show and its staff. "I think it will make people smile," he added. Taylor was a sentimental choice: Leno said that when he left his native Boston for his comedy career, the pop star's music was playing on the radio. Leno joked that his last show will look back at his 17 years on "Tonight" because that's "easier than writing new stuff." O'Brien, who turned NBC's "Late Night" over to Jimmy Fallon in March, becomes "Tonight" host on June 1. Next fall, Leno will begin a daily 10 p.m. EDT show on NBC. The big names making the cut for Leno's final week of "Tonight" include Mel Gibson, Prince and Billy Crystal _ who was Leno's first guest when he took the show over from Johnny Carson in 1992. The handover to O'Brien represents a peaceful transition of power, unlike when Leno and David Letterman jockeyed to succeed Carson. Leno lauded O'Brien as a friend and a host who "always has material," which Leno called the key to success. He lamented the scarcity of TV comedy. "When I was a kid, God, there was comedy all over TV and it was fun to watch," he said, including Carol Burnett's variety show and sitcoms. His said his prime-time show, which is still being developed, will offer viewers an alternative to the many crime dramas airing. NBC's research shows people want more laughs and, as importantly, advertisers are on board, he said. Known as a workaholic, Leno said he never considered taking a post-"Tonight" break. "I'm half-Scottish and we die in the mine. We like to work," he said, noting he doesn't go on vacations and, except for two sick days last month, has never missed a "Tonight" taping. ___ On the Net: http://www.nbc.com More on Jay Leno
 
Specter Raises EFCA Hopes: "Prospects Are Pretty Good" Top
WASHINGTON — Sen. Arlen Specter said Thursday the "prospects are pretty good" for a compromise on legislation making it easier for workers to form unions. Specter had come out against the bill in March, disappointing labor leaders. They had hoped he would be the crucial 60th vote needed to overcome an expected GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act. The Pennsylvania senator has since switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, and he said he's been meeting with labor leaders and fellow senators in hopes of coming up with a compromise he could support. President Barack Obama said on Thursday that he hoped a compromise could be worked out. "How do we make it easier for people who want to form a union to at least get a vote and have an even playing field?" Obama said in response to a question during a town hall meeting in Rio Rancho, N.M. "How do we do that, but at the same time get enough votes to pass the bill? That's what we're working on right now." Specter wouldn't elaborate on the negotiations about the legislation, but said he is "hard at work trying to find some way to find an answer." The bill is a top priority of labor groups. It would allow a majority of employees at a work site to form a union by signing cards and take away the right of employers to demand secret ballot elections. It would impose stiffer penalties on employers that threaten workers who try to organize unions and provides for government arbitration if management and workers cannot agree on a first contract within 120 days after workers decide to unionize. Specter had said he opposed the "card check" and arbitration provisions of the bill. But he does support other union-friendly alternatives such as speeding up the election process and giving unions more access to campaign at work sites. Specter has shifted positions at a time he is facing political pressures. Specter faces the prospect of a primary challenge from Rep. Joe Sestak, and pro-union groups have placed intense pressure on him to support the bill as a condition of their support. Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, a lead sponsor of the bill, has been working for weeks to hammer out a compromise. He said this week he hoped to reach an agreement by next month. Randel Johnson, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's vice president on labor issues, said business leaders are against negotiating from the card check bill as a starting point "because it's too radical of a place to start." "These negotiators have it backwards," Johnson said. "The Senate should begin with true oversight hearings on the National Labor Relations Act, figure out what the problems are if any, then move to legislation." More on Arlen Specter
 
NBA Player Darius Miles Charged With Pot Possession After Illinois Traffic Stop Top
FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, Ill. (AP) -- Professional basketball player Darius Miles is free on bond after being accused in Illinois of possessing marijuana police say they found after a traffic stop. Police in the St. Louis suburb of Fairview Heights say the 27-year-old Miles was alone in his 1996 Chevrolet Impala when they pulled him over Wednesday night for allegedly failing to use a turn signal. Police ticketed him for driving with a suspended license. When the car was towed off, police say a search of it uncovered a misdemeanor amount of marijuana in a bag. Miles closed out last season with the NBA's Memphis Grizzlies, where he averaged 3.5 points over 35 games. A message was left by The Associated with a woman who answered a Belleville phone's home listed under Miles' name. -ASSOCIATED PRESS More on Sports
 
Spain's Move To Fully Legalize Abortion Presents Clash With Spanish Catholic Church Top
The new proposal, which would women to seek a termination within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy without having to give a reason, has set the Socialist government on a collision course with Spain's Catholic Church. More on Europe
 
Rev. Lennox Yearwood: "There is Nothing to Fear but Staying Silent" Top
May 15th marks the seventh anniversary of the first Civil Rights law enacted in the 21st Century, the Notification of Federal Employees Anti discrimination and Retaliation (NoFEAR) Act. Seven years ago both houses of Congress unanimously passed legislation that sought to insure that institutional crimes are punished, and equally important, that whistleblowers who report them are protected. This action confirmed the jury finding in Coleman-Adebayo v. Browner, a case brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. There is still work to be done though, and this anniversary serves as a call to again pick up the cause. During this time of national reflection, as we recover from a severe hangover from the Bush administration, we must ask ourselves: "What it is that makes America exceptional?" At a time when so much in America seems to have gone so wrong, from banking fraud and the fraudulent "intelligence" that manufactured an illegal war, to the systematic use of torture that shattered our moral standing, we must reclaim the high ground and stand for something again. To do so requires reasserting our values humanely and honestly, in spite of the tendency to revert back to post-9/11 prejudices of the unknown and the fear of speaking out. Suppose, for example, that during the last 10 years Treasury Department underlings felt secure enough in their federal protections to have stepped forward and revealed the massive fraud in the housing market and insurance industry. Imagine if when the Bush administration presented falsified "evidence" to justify war, sources within the intelligence community had come foreword to reveal the lie. Consider if, instead of prosecuting a few "bad apples" when a military whistleblower revealed US atrocities at Abu Ghraib , others within the military, horrified by the orders to torture flowing down from the White House, had confidence their whistleblowing would have been protected if they reported those crimes. In 2001, Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo came forward about EPA crimes believing, correctly, that the 1964 Civil Rights Act had long ago guaranteed no American would ever be treated as a 2nd class citizen again. That took courage. In fact, Rev. Walter Fauntroy who represented Washington, D.C., for 20 years in Congress and was a trusted aid to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. calls Dr. Coleman-Adebayo, "the Rosa Parks" of the 21st century. It took courage for Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee to take on her own party's attempts to sanitize the investigation of what was happening on its watch. It took courage for the old guard of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Congressmen John Conyers, Danny Davis, and James Clyburn to stand with Jackson Lee. Perhaps most significantly it took a white Midwestern republican, from a conservative mostly rural white state, to look at a black woman's persecution inside the Federal government and see his own humanity. It was Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin who championed the NoFEAR bill and steered it through the house. Another white male Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, hardly a bastion of the black civil rights movement, took Dr. Coleman-Adebayo's cause up as his own. Ironically Marsha Coleman-Adebayo was fired from EPA in retaliation, at the very end of George W. Bush's second term. So a whistleblower case that began during a democratic presidency, surviving two republican terms, has now come full circle to a sitting civil rights president, who is also a democrat and rather popular. Marsha is once again working Capitol Hill to see if there is any remaining will in Congress, to pass NoFEAR II legislation, after the Bush presidency's eight-year vivisection of the Constitution and good government. The U.S. Government Accountability Office says NoFear II and its tougher language than the original bill is needed to grant protection her, and the pitiful few left in government with the courage to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse. With that protection in place, perhaps America can lessen the likelihood of future financial meltdowns, terrifying forays into the dark side of tyranny, and the loss of the First Amendment's most important function: speaking freely even if it means speaking out. As a civil rights giant from another era used to say, "one can always dream." More on Civil Rights
 
Why Do You Keeping Having That Same Scary Dream? Top
Many people experience recurring dreams throughout their lives, often rehashing the same subjects, facing off against a familiar figure, or running from a chronic concern. And as it turns out, they won't go away until we wake up to the lessons they're trying to teach us. More on The Inner Life
 
Naomi Klein: The Cure for Layoffs: Fire the Boss! Top
In 2004, we made a documentary called The Take about Argentina's movement of worker-run businesses. In the wake of the country's dramatic economic collapse in 2001, thousands of workers walked into their shuttered factories and put them back into production as worker cooperatives. Abandoned by bosses and politicians, they regained unpaid wages and severance while re-claiming their jobs in the process. As we toured Europe and North America with the film, every Q&A ended up with the question, "that's all very well in Argentina, but could that ever happen here?" Well, with the world economy now looking remarkably like Argentina's in 2001 (and for many of the same reasons) there is a new wave of direct action among workers in rich countries. Co-ops are once again emerging as a practical alternative to more lay-offs. Workers in the U.S. and Europe are beginning to ask the same questions as their Latin American counterparts: Why do we have to get fired? Why can't we fire the boss? Why is the bank allowed to drive our company under while getting billions of dollars of our money? Tomorrow night (May 15) at Cooper Union in New York City, we're taking part in a panel that looks at this phenomenon, called Fire the Boss: The Worker Control Solution from Buenos Aires to Chicago . We'll be joined by people from the movement in Argentina as well as workers from the famous Republic Windows and Doors struggle in Chicago. It's a great way to hear directly from those who are trying to rebuild the economy from the ground up, and who need meaningful support from the public, as well as policy makers at all levels of government. For those who can't make it out to Cooper Union, here's a quick round up of recent developments in the world of worker control. Argentina : In Argentina, the direct inspiration for many current worker actions, there have been more takeovers in the last 4 months than the previous 4 years. One example : - Arrufat, a chocolate maker with a 50 year history, was abruptly closed late last year. 30 employees occupied the plant, and despite a huge utility debt left by the former owners, have been producing chocolates by the light of day, using generators. With a loan of less than $5,000 from the The Working World, a capital fund/NGO started by a fan of The Take , they were able to produce 17,000 Easter eggs for their biggest weekend of the year. They made a profit of $75,000, taking home $1,000 each and saving the rest for future production. UK : - Visteon is an auto parts manufacturer that was spun off from Ford in 2000. Hundreds of workers were given 6 minutes notice that their workplaces were closing. 200 workers in Belfast staged a sit-in on the roof of their factory, another 200 in Enfield followed suit the next day. Over the next few weeks, Visteon increased the severance package to up to 10 times their initial offer, but the company is refusing to put the money in the workers' bank accounts until they leave the plants, and they are refusing to leave until they see the money. - A factory where workers make legendary Waterford Crystal was occupied for 7 weeks earlier this year when parent company Waterford Wedgewood went into receivership after being taken over by a US private equity firm. The US company has now put 10 million Euros in a severance fund, and negotiations are ongoing to keep some of the jobs. Canada : As the Big Three automakers collapse, there have been 4 occupations by Canadian Auto Workers so far this year. In each case, factories were closing and workers were not getting compensation that was owed to them. They occupied the factories to stop the machines from being removed, using that as leverage to force the companies back to the table - precisely the same dynamic that worker takeovers in Argentina have followed. France : In France, there's been a new wave of "Bossnappings" this year, in which angry employees have detained their bosses in factories that are facing closure. Companies targeted so far include Caterpillar, 3M, Sony, and Hewlett Packard. The 3M executive was brought a meal of moules et frites during his overnight ordeal. A comedy hit in France this spring was a movie called "Louise-Michel," in which a group of women workers hires a hitman to kill their boss after he shuts down their factory with no warning. A French union official said in March, "those who sow misery reap fury. The violence is done by those who cut jobs, not by those who try to defend them." And this week, 1,000 Steelworkers disrupted the annual shareholders meeting of ArcelorMittal, the world's largest steel company. They stormed the company's headquarters in Luxembourg, smashing gates, breaking windows, and fighting with police. Poland : Also this week, in Southern Poland, at the largest coal coking producer in Europe, thousands of workers bricked up the entrance to the company's headquarters, protesting wage cuts. US : And then there's the famous Republic Windows and Doors story: 260 workers occupied their plant for 6 world-shaking days in Chicago last December. With a savvy campaign against the company's biggest creditor, Bank of America ("You got bailed out, we got sold out!") and massive international solidarity, they won the severance they were owed. And more - the plant is re-opening under new ownership, making energy-efficient windows with all the workers hired back at their old wages. And this week, Chicago is making it a trend. Hartmarx is 122-year old company that makes business suits, including the navy blue number that Barack Obama wore on election night, and his inaugural tuxedo and topcoat. The business is in bankruptcy. Its biggest creditor is Wells Fargo, recipient of 25 billion public dollars in bailout money. While there are 2 offers on the table to buy the company and keep it operating, Wells Fargo wants to liquidate it. On Monday, 650 workers voted to occupy their Chicago factory if the bank goes ahead with liquidation. To be continued... More on Bankruptcy
 
Palestinians Mark 'Nakba' 61st Anniversary Top
Thousands of Palestinians have marked the 61st anniversary of the "Nakba" or "catastrophe," in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced following the creation of Israel. More on Israel
 
NY Pension Scandal: Carlyle Group To Pay $20M Top
NEW YORK — The Carlyle Group, one of the nation's largest private equity funds, has agreed to pay $20 million and make other reforms to resolve its role in an influence-peddling scandal at New York's public pension fund. The settlement will bring an end to the possibility that the company, its executives or employees would face charges in the case, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said. Under the deal announced Wednesday, Carlyle would effectively ban its employees from making campaign contributions to public officials who have sway over pension fund investment decisions. The company also reiterated its previous pledges to stop hiring politically connected middlemen to help land government pension fund business. Cuomo said the rules would limit the possibility that corrupt officials overseeing government investment funds would try to shake down the company for money in exchange for business. "It ends pay to play. It bans the selling of access. It puts the political power brokers out of business," he said. Carlyle was one of several firms whose conduct was questioned during a two-year investigation of investment decisions at New York's public employee retirement fund during the tenure of former state Comptroller Alan Hevesi. Hevesi's longtime political consultant, Hank Morris, was indicted in March along with the pension fund's former chief investment officer, David Loglisci, on charges they demanded huge kickbacks from companies that wanted access to pension fund investment dollars. Carlyle paid $13 million to Morris for his help in influencing the fund, which ultimately invested more than $730 million dollars with the company. Carlyle has consistently denied any criminal wrongdoing or knowledge of any inappropriate dealings between Morris and pension fund officials. It released a statement Thursday saying it had been "victimized by Hank Morris's alleged web of deceit." The company said it intends to sue Morris and a company he was formerly affiliated with for $15 million "for the harm their wrongful actions have caused Carlyle." The firm said it had agreed to abide by a code of conduct, advocated by Cuomo, that would "usher in a new era of transparency and accountability into the pension fund investment process" and "set a new standard for ethics in the industry." The investigation has so far led to criminal charges against six people, including the former head of New York's defunct Liberal Party and several politically connected financial executives who did business with the pension fund. Morris and Loglisci have pleaded not guilty. Morris' attorney, William Schwartz, was involved in an unrelated trial Thursday and not immediately available to comment. Hevesi has not been charged and has denied any wrongdoing. Cuomo's investigation has expanded into several other states where Morris did business with government investment funds, including California and New Mexico. Carlyle paid Morris $150,000 for his help lobbying for a $20 million investment from New Mexico's state investment council. The Carlyle Group, which is based in Washington, D.C., and manages $85 billion in assets invested in a wide range of industries, has long been known for its ties to powerful politicians. Former Secretary of State James Baker was a senior counselor and investor in the company. Its advisers have included former President George H.W. Bush and former British prime minister John Major.
 
Six Tips To Increase Your Creativity Top
DEO, one of the planet's most innovative design firms, has brought us the Apple mouse, the first laptop computer, and the Palm V. The team's legendary creative process was once showcased on Nightline when they dreamed up an entirely new high-tech shopping cart, going from idea to working model in five days. IDEO's general manager (and brother of the company founder) Tom Kelley explains how the rest of us can apply the firm's creativity-generating techniques to get unstuck. More on The Inner Life
 
Ellie Drake: Social Networking with a Purpose: Introducing BraveHeartWomen.com Top
Close your eyes. Imagine that women from all around the world are coming together to be inspired and to take action. I know, you know, that women can bring amazing changes to their families, their communities, their countries, to the world. And yet, all too often, this doesn't happen. Over time, we lose faith in our inner voice (or maybe never developed it in the first place). We stop believing in the power within us. It can't be emphasized enough in order to transform the world, women must first find their personal voices and inner power. Only then will we have the strength and ability to make an impact on our communities and the world. We're launching a new online community that's been two years in the making. This site, www.BraveheartWomen.com , brings together women from all around the world to share and receive inspiration. Through conversation, compassion, and community, BraveHeart Women empowers women of all ages to discover their own voices, expand their potential, and be the change they want for themselves, their family, community, and the world. Our community fosters personal growth (and global change) by first teaching women to raise their self-esteem, grow on a professional level, and enhance their personal prosperity. Let me tell you how I got to this place. I was born in Tehran. I grew up during the Iran-Iraq war, where nighttime bombings, warning sirens, underground bomb shelters, and rockets were all common fixtures in our daily lives. As early as five, I did what many growing up in such an environment do: "I dreamed of coming to America." And one day after high school, my parents sat me down and told me we were emigrating to America. It was the best day of my life, and I have never looked back. Through these experiences, I understand the power of hope, dreams, and inspiration. So, what is BraveHeart? It's quite simple. A BraveHeart woman is brave, but does everything with heart. She takes action, but not in an aggressive way or not in a way that doesn't feel right. In short, she is inspiration in action. And that's where the site/community comes in. We've built a platform that lets women come together to share and receive inspiration -- to become, declare, and celebrate that they are BraveHeart. The site is equally for those women who are already brave in their personal and professional lives and want to lend inspiration, as well as for those who are ready to begin this journey -- ready to take action and receive inspiration. BraveHeart Women does not focus on fashion, the latest celebrity gossip, or even complaining about the status quo. Instead, the site is for women with a conscious view to connect and communicate in meaningful forums, blogs, and groups. Each BraveHeart woman can introduce and express herself through profile pages and the ever-popular status updates. She can host personal blogs, upload photos for the entire community or specific groups to see, participate in discussion forums, and form smaller communities within BraveHeart women based on shared interests, causes, or geographic areas. In addition to these social networking features, BraveHeart women can find inspiration and knowledge through BraveHeart TV, an online video channel. Programming ranges from an intimate conversation with Dr. Maya Angelou to discussions with noted psychotherapists on love and intimacy, emotional freedom, and more. The site and our mission have already gathered strong endorsements from women leaders and celebrities. Maya Angelou, Mariel Hemingway, Leeza Gibbons, Susan Anton, Morgan Fairchild, and others have all declared themselves to be BraveHeart women. Consider the site Facebook meets YouTube, meets inspiration. Whatever it is, it's social networking with a purpose, and we're excited to see just what can happen when inspired, like-minded women from around the world come together.
 
Billy Parish: Rethinking the Rules of Engagement Top
In last week's New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a fascinating article, "How David Beats Goliath: When Underdogs Break The Rules." In his patented style Gladwell weaves together story after story of underdogs who defied convention to defeat much stronger opponents. From the Biblical story of David defeating Goliath, to a junior league basketball team of twelve year-old girls, to the armies of George Washington, Gladwell offers us examples of how an underdog is only an underdog when he plays by his opponent's rules. He also offers the research of Ivan Arreguín-Toft, a political scientist who analyzed every war fought over the last two hundred years between strong and weak combatants. The Goliaths, he found, won in 71.5 percent of the cases. That is a remarkable fact. Arreguín-Toft was analyzing conflicts in which one side was at least ten times as powerful--in terms of armed might and population--as its opponent, and even in those lopsided contests the underdog won almost a third of the time...What happened, Arreguín-Toft wondered, when the underdogs likewise acknowledged their weakness and chose an unconventional strategy? He went back and re-analyzed his data. In those cases, David's winning percentage went from 28.5 to 63.6. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath's rules, they win..." What an intriguing piece of data. Gladwell's article got me thinking about the movement to build a clean energy economy and what we can do to turn the tables and put the odds in our favor. By most measures, we face an indomitable opponent. We seek to transition the economy off of fossil fuels, which represent the core business of the largest industry in the history of human civilization. In just the first three months of 2009, these companies spent $79 million lobbying Congress versus $4.6 million by our side--a 16:1 ratio--and a Common Cause study released yesterday shows that members of the critical Energy and Commerce Committee (where the climate and energy bill is currently being watered down) received an average of $107,230 from the energy sector in the last election. 16 to 1. 16 to 1. Those are tough numbers. I wonder what would happen if we acknowledged our weaknesses and adopted an unconventional strategy. After reading The New Yorker article, I see four principles of a winning underdog strategy that we can apply to the climate movement: 1. Make it a battle of wills, not a battle of skills 2. Empower people to think and act in real time 3. Attack your opponent where they are weak 4. Defy social convention (and be ready to do what is socially horrifying) Below the fold, I give my take on what some of the implications of these principles are for our movement's strategy. 1. Make it a battle of wills, not a battle of skills. The first thing we must do is change it from a contest about ability, to a contest about effort. If it's about the ability to pay for more advertising, to pay for more lobbyists, or to control the price of a gallon of gasoline, we will lose. Major environmental groups have invested far too heavily in Washington DC for the past twenty years instead of building our base of grassroots leaders across the country, which has only begun to change in the past few years. We must resist the temptation to staff up inside the Beltway again and remember where the battle can be fought and won. The passion for building a clean energy economy among ordinary Americans is our greatest strength and we need to build on that strength by expanding our grassroots movement to pass strong legislation and get the US to take a positive role in the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen. We need an all out effort from people who care about the future of this country - young people creating viral videos, grandmothers hosting salons in their living rooms, and families showing up to rallies. If we make this about who has more heart, we will win. 2. Empower people to think and act in real time. One of the advantages of being being a grassroots, decentralized movement is that we can operate in real time. We don't need to wait for a CEO or Board of Directors to issue a statement. We don't need to need to convene our leadership to make a decision. Our strength is our diversity, independence, and knowledge of the terrain. Our people know their local schools and communities and can fight the fight on the ground if we give them the tools and information. By using technology from blogs to iPhone apps to Twitter we can give our supporters the ability to counteract a much larger, stronger foe. The Exxons and OPECs aren't equipped for this kind of contest. We should learn from the Obama campaign, which empowered local leaders with the tools to be constantly organizing, both online and, more importantly, offline. We will win if operate in real time. 3. Attack where they are weak. This might seem obvious, but time and again underdogs fail to identify where their opponents are most vulnerable to attack. While cheap fossil fuels have spurred tremendous growth over the last two hundred years, the dirty little secret is that the era of cheap oil is over. It takes more energy to pump less barrels of oil out of the ground and that trend will only continue. Job growth in the fossil fuel industry has stalled. For every $1 million we invest in coal and oil, only five new jobs are created. Yet, when we invest the same amount in clean energy, seventeen new jobs are created. The future of the American economy is clean energy, creating millions of green jobs that can't be shipped over seas. We've tried their way and it has led us right into a recession, two wars without end, and an uncertain future for our children. Strong climate legislation is the first step towards turning things around. Good legislation leads to more investment, which creates new jobs, now and in the long-term, and improves our national security. We need to position big oil and coal as a dead-end opposition, and win the public pr battle about how we can create new, good clean energy jobs. 4. Defy social convention (and be ready to do what is socially horrifying). I believe we are making tremendous progress toward strong climate change legislation, but we need to do more. We campaign, sign petitions, lobby congress, and raise awareness. All of that is necessary and important. But to really succeed, we need to go the extra mile. To do the unexpected and raise some eyebrows, while staying true to our values and principles. When Rosa Parks refused to move from her seat in 1955, she defied convention and the black community of Montgomery, AL followed through by doing what was "horrifying" and boycotting the public bus system. We increase our chances of winning, if we don't play by Goliath's rules. What will it take? Hunger strikes and fossil fuel infrastructure disruption ? A March on Washington? A bus boycott? Remember how arresting the images of millions of New Yorkers biking and walking to work in 2005 was? We did that because we had no other choice and in freezing cold weather. Could we do it again this fall for a higher purpose? Maybe. Or maybe there is a better way... Bottom line is that in many ways we still seem to be fighting this battle on our opposition's terms, and right now it looks like we're losing. We need to rethink the rules of engagement. A conversation is happening across the movement about how to do just that. What do you think we should do? This entry is cross-posted at Grist.org More on Energy
 
Four Tips To Keep Your Food Cravings at Bay Top
Even with a solid plan like Feel Great Weight in your corner, you're going to face a few challenges along the way--"like red velvet cake," agrees AJ Cook, who freely admits to longing for the sweet treat. Just follow this expert weight-loss advice, and you (and AJ) will be able to catapult over any food yen. More on Wellness
 
Short Sales: Treasury Announces New Programs For Distressed Homeowners Top
The Treasury Department on Thursday announced two new programs to help distressed homeowners avoid foreclosure. One program will provide incentives for lenders to modify mortgage terms, and the other will streamline the short sale process, in which a lender agrees to a sale for less than the value of the homeowners' mortgage. "Today we are announcing a new program component to help homeowners obtain modifications in areas suffering from home price declines," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in a statement . "If a modification is not possible, we are also announcing steps to encourage the quick private sale or voluntary transfer of property, which will save homeowners money and protect their financial future. These are critical steps in stemming the foreclosure crisis and stabilizing the housing market, both of which are critical to our economic recovery." Foreclosure Alternatives, one of the new programs under the administration's Making Home Affordable effort, will make the short sale process easier for a borrower who is eligible for a Home Affordable Modification but who "does not qualify for a modification or cannot maintain payments during the trial period or modification," according to the Treasury. A short sale is a homeowner's last resort before foreclosure if a loan modification is out of reach. Short sales are less damaging to homeowners' credit and are less costly both for borrowers and lenders -- one study found that loan losses average 19 percent with short sales, compared with 40 percent with foreclosures. But more than three-quarters of short sale deals fall apart, mostly because lenders drag their feet after receiving offers. And as those properties languish vacant on the market, they drag down property values for entire neighborhoods . The real estate industry hailed the Treasury's announcement. "Obviously we're excited about it," said Mike Ryan, senior vice president of global real estate company Re/Max, in an interview with the Huffington Post. "We had meetings this past week with FHFA and Fannie Mae staff and we provided them with information that's very much parallel with what we're reading today. We're very excited that there's a focus in the administration on short sales." Earlier this year, Re/Max began offering courses to give agents expert certification in the short sale process. "In the last 60 days we've registered over 5000 people" as certified distressed property experts, Ryan said. "We've been doing everything we can to spread the word about short sales and we're really happy to see now that somebody's taking notice." If a short sale doesn't go through, the next step for an eligible borrower is to hand over the keys to the bank in a process known as deed-in-lieu. Under the new program, mortgage servicers "may receive incentive compensation of up to$1,000 for successful completion of a short sale or DIL," and "[b]orrowers may receive incentive compensation of up to $1,500 to assist with relocation expenses." Another part of Foreclosure Alternatives will encourage holders of second mortgages to agree to short sales by offering "$1 for every $2 paid by the investors, up to a total contribution of $1,000" from the government. The other program announced Thursday, Home Price Decline Protection Incentives, is designed to "address investor concerns that recent home price declines may persist," according to the Treasury. "Together the incentive payments on all modified homes will help cover the incremental collateral loss on those modifications that do not succeed. HPDP payments will be linked to the rate of recent home price decline in a local housing market, as well as the average cost of a home in that market." The new programs will provide needed boost for Making Home Affordable, which so far has only helped 55,000 modify their loans, the New York Times reported on Thursday. There were 342,000 foreclosure filings in the last month alone. Last week the Huffington Post asked readers to tell us about their frustrations with the short sale process. We received dozens of responses, which we plan to share in future stories. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Rabbi David Saperstein: Public Education: DC Vouchers Program Isn't the Answer Top
The promise of a better education at private schools to escape "failing" and "unsafe" public schools is often touted by voucher advocates as an option that all families should have. Indeed, this rallying cry was front and center when the Washington D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), a pilot school vouchers program, was established five years ago, and continues as supporters fight to reauthorize the program today. Public school advocates have consistently raised concerns about the constitutional and policy validity of the program and now, with five years of experience, we also know that it hasn't improved the education of students who are most in need. The OSP is due to expire this year; it must not be allowed to continue. President Obama has rightly pledged to eliminate ineffective federal programs; the D.C. OSP is a prime example. Studies conducted by the Department of Education, the latest released just last month, have found that while some students showed modest improvements in reading, the students that this program was created to help, those from "schools in need of improvement," showed "no statistically significant impact on math achievement" or in reading after attending private schools. The OSP also dilutes funding for education in D.C. public schools. When the OSP was created, the federal government also allocated $20 million to improve the D.C. public schools and $20 million to expand public charter schools - which together serve 72,000 kids. In the FY 2009 budget , $14 million was spent to better the education of the 1,700 students getting vouchers. Fuzzy math indeed. A former OSP student who testified on behalf of the voucher program at the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on Wednesday noted the importance of the "moral and character education" she received at Archbishop Carroll, the private Catholic high school she attended through the OSP. Yet while all American religious groups value religious and moral education and recognize the positive role parochial school play for many children it is wrong for Americans of varied religious faith (and no religious faith) to be forced to see their tax dollars spent by the government on someone else's religious education. It's also wrong for taxpayers' money to be used to discriminate. Voucher money goes to private organizations without holding them to crucial civil rights laws. With your money, private schools can decide to hire employees based on religion, or refuse admission to a student because of her gender. Jefferson had a good point when he said that requiring people to see their money used to propagate opinions they don't believe was "sinful and tyrannical." The reality is, of course, messy. Public schools continue to be plagued by problems and 1,700 students currently participate in the voucher program. President Obama had these students' best interests in mind when he proposed extended funding for the program to keep them in their current schools. However, we wish the responsibility to serve these kids had been assumed by Washington Scholarship Fund that administers the program and whose coffers have increased substantially from private donations throughout over the past five years, in addition to the other private D.C. scholarship programs available. The focus now must be on preventing voucher enthusiasts in Congress from further extending this failed program beyond the President's compromise, or, worse, a complete authorization of a D.C. school voucher program. At this week's Senate hearing on the DC voucher program, OSP voucher recipient Ronald Hollassie remarked that D.C. public schools did not get bad over night, and will not improve over night. He's exactly right. But it's clear that diverting money from public schools to private, and serving the select few over the many is not the way to level a direly lopsided playing field. Taxpayer dollars should go where they are needed most: to improve public education for all of our nation's children. Rabbi David Saperstein the director and counsel of the Religion Action Center of Reform Judaism and an expert in church-state law.
 
Miss California USA Carrie Prejean To Guest Host "Fox & Friends" Top
Miss California and Miss USA runner-up, Carrie Prejean, tossed around in the battle over gay marriage, will be a one-day guest host for Fox News Channel's popular morning show Fox & Friends, Whispers learns. She will host the 6 a.m.-to-7 a.m. slot on May 27, filling in for Gretchen Carlson--the 1989 Miss America--who will be off that day. More on Miss California
 
Yoani Sanchez: Looking Behind the Stage Set of Cuba's Potemkin's Schools Top
At a school in Cerro, several foreign visitors were coming to donate notebooks and pencils. Two days beforehand the teacher sat the hardest-working students in the front row and asked them to ask their parents for ornamental plants. The director explained in the morning assembly that while the distinguished guests were with them they couldn't run during recess nor would they allow the sale of candy near the main entrance. That Wednesday when the delegation arrived at the educational institution, they served chicken for lunch and the classroom televisions didn't show the usual Mexican soap operas, only tele-classes. The fifth grade teacher avoided the red lycra she prefers and came dressed in a warm jacket she'd normally wear to weddings or funerals. Even the young student teacher was different in that she didn't demand that the children, like every other day, give her a share of the snacks they brought from home. The visit seemed to be going well; the school supplies had been delivered and the modern cars parked outside would soon carry off the smiling group of outsiders. But something unexpected happened: one of the guests broke the predetermined protocol and asked to use the bathroom. The seams of the hasty "cosmetic surgery" that had been applied to the school were evident in that unhealthy space of a few square meters. The months it had gone without cleaning, the clogged sinks, the absence of doors between one stall and another, showed up the farce of normality they'd tried to hard to present. The spontaneous guest left the bathroom with his face flushed and went without speaking to the exit. After seeing the machinery behind the stage he understood that instead of paper and colored pencils, the next time they should bring disinfectants, cleaning cloths and pay for the services of a plumber. Yoani's blog, Generation Y , can be read here in English translation. More on Cuba
 
Margaret Ruth: Intuitive Tools: Reading the Tea Leaves Top
One of the most challenging intuition tools for beginners is that of tasseomancy , or divining through tea leaves. The trick to reading tea leaves is to use plenty of imagination and intuition. The trick to writing an article about tea leaves is to resist -- with all one's psychic might -- using phrases such as: "get to the bottom of.." and " leaf that alone..." All in all, difficult for everyone involved. Students of my Psychic Experiential classes usually struggle to discern symbols and patterns from among the scattered, wet leaves. Our adult brains seem to have lost the ability to freely and wildly imagine what the shapes might mean. Logical training insists we see things exactly and this inhibits our ability to read some traditional divination methods like tea leaves. My own approach is to treat tea leaves like a Rorschach inkblot test: squint my eyes and pretend I am seeing symbols. I have had good results with this approach. Here are some basic hints and instructions for this fun pastime; maybe you will find a hidden talent for this type of divination. Select a white, bowl-like teacup and a saucer. Brew loose, high quality tea leaves in a pot with a wide spout. Pour, making sure there are plenty of leaves in the cup, and drink the tea while considering your question until a small amount of liquid remains. Swirl the liquid quickly for approximately three times. Make sure the tea leaves are carried to the rim of the cup without spilling. Put the saucer over the top. Invert the cup into the saucer and allow liquid to drain away. Pick up the cup and softly focus on the patterns formed by the leaves. Let your imagination guide you in locating images and symbols on the various parts of the cup. If you see a pattern and don't know the meaning, try letting your intuitive inner voice relay a message. Look at symbols and the position on the cup for possible interpretation. Most important of all, maintain a good sense of fun. The minute reading tea leaves seems like work, you will be blocking your intuition, so relax and enjoy. If nothing else, you have had a nice cup of tea. Positions on the cup: Handle: questioner/home Left of Handle: past Right of Handle: future Opposite Handle: outsiders Near Rim: immediate future Base: far future Some basic symbols: Anchor security Arrow news Broom clearing up Egg something new Eye watch Heart love Horn abundance Horseshoe good luck Knife broken friendship Ring proposal Scissors separation Ship journey Star success Sun happiness Tree improvements Comments, questions and ideas are welcome and encouraged. Contact Margaret Ruth at mr@margaretruth.com, go to her Facebook page, or www.margaretruth.com
 
Prosecutors To Question Rove In Criminal Probe Of U.S. Attorney Firings Top
Former top White House official Karl Rove will be interviewed tomorrow as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration, according to two sources familiar with the appointment. Rove has remained in the news as a commentator and political analyst since departing the White House. In an essay in today's Wall Street Journal, he criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), arguing that she may have misled the public about her knowledge of detainee interrogation tactics that critics assert are torture. More on Karl Rove
 
Jim Hightower: Populism Is Not A Style Top
Gosh, everyone's a populist now: the corporate-funded teabag rallies, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck -- pretty much anyone or any group claiming to speak for the people and doing it in a mavericky, mad-as-hell fashion is labeled "populist" by the media. But wait -- those people are to populism what near beer is to beer, only not as close. Time for a reality check. Populism is not a style, it's a people's rebellion against the iron grip that big corporations have on our country -- including our economy, government, media, and environment. It is unabashedly a class movement. Try to squeeze Lord Limbaugh into that philosophical suit of clothes! Populists have always been out to challenge the orthodoxy of the corporate order and to empower workaday Americans so they can control their own economic and political destinies. This approach distinguishes the movement from classic liberalism, which seeks to live in harmony with concentrated corporate power by trying to regulate excesses. We're seeing liberalism at work today in Washington's Wall Street bailout. Both parties tell us that AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and the rest are "too big to fail," so taxpayers simply "must" rescue them to save the system. Populists, on the other hand, note that it is this very system that has caused the failure -- so structural reform is required. Let's reorganize the failed giants by ousting their top execs, splitting the behemoths into their component parts (banking, investment, and insurance), and reducing them to decentralized, manageable-sized financial institutions. A movement American populism has a phenomenal history that has largely been hidden from our people. The Powers That Be are not keen to promote the story of a mass movement that did -- and still could -- challenge the corporate structure. Thus, the rich history of this grassroots force tends to be ignored entirely or trivialized as a bunch of rubes who had some arcane quibble involving the free coinage of silver. In fact, this was a serious, thoughtful, determined effort by hundreds of thousands of common folks to do something uncommon: organize themselves so -- collectively and cooperatively -- they could remake both commerce and government to serve the common good rather than the selfish interests of the barons of industry and finance. The populists were guided by a sophisticated network of big thinkers, organizers, and communicators who had a thorough grasp of exactly how the system worked and why. Most significantly, they were problem solvers -- their aim was not protest, but to provide real mechanisms that could decentralize and democratize power in our country. The movement was able to rally a huge following of hard-scrabble farmers and put-upon workers because it did not pussyfoot around. Its leaders dared to go right at the core problem of an overreaching corporate state controlled by robber barons. "Wall Street owns the country," declared Mary Ellen Lease in 1890. A powerhouse orator who took to the stump and wowed crowds at a time women were not even allowed to vote, Lease laid out a blunt message: "Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags... The people are at bay, let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us beware." These farmers and laborers were largely impoverished and powerless, yet even the smallest dog can lift its leg on the tallest building. So, after all sorts of starts-and-stops, populists found five ways to organize the movement and make their mark. ECONOMIC. In 1877 before populism even had a name, it had a mission, which was to do something -- anything -- about the spreading economic plight of farmers all over the country. They faced rampant gouging by bankers, crop-lien merchants, commodity combines, railroad monopolies, and others. Government was worse than unresponsive: it sided with the gougers. An economic alternative was needed, and it came out of Texas. Known as the Farmers Alliance, it created a network of cooperative enterprises that could both buy supplies for farmers in bulk and pool their crops to sell in bulk, bypassing the monopolists, getting better prices, and giving farmers a modicum of control over their destinies. It was an idea that worked. Alliances were soon being formed throughout the South, the Plains states, the upper Midwest, and all across the West, bringing more than a million farmers into a common economy. This was a vast, multi-sectional structure of radical economic reform, creating a new possibility that its leaders called a "cooperative commonwealth." CULTURAL. The Alliance created the means for ordinary people to learn what a democratic culture really is and to implement a vision of an alternative way to live. These were working-class families who'd been treated as nobodies by the influentials who ran things, But - whoa! - now these outcasts were running something, and they mattered, both individually and as a group. It was transformative for them. Lawrence Goodwyn, author of Democratic Promise, the definitive book on the populist phenomenon, sees the cultural awakening as they key triumph of the Alliance: "[The cooperative experience] imparted a sense of self-worth to individual people and provided them with the instruments of self-education about the world they lived in. The movement gave them hope -- a shared hope -- that they were not impersonal victims of a gigantic industrial engine ruled by others but that they were, instead, people who could perform specific political acts of self-determination. MEDIA. To stay connected and provide a steady flow of energy, the movement relied on a concerted program of communication. This required the Alliance to create its own media - over a thousand populist magazines, newspapers, books, and hundreds of poems flowed from the movement. The communication lynchpin, however, was the Alliance Lecture Bureau, a stable of trained, articulate speakers - 40,000 strong! - who regularly traversed the country from New York to California, bringing information, insight, and inspiration to all corners of Populist Nation. COALITIONS. Though it created serious tensions in various Alliance chapters, the movement kept trying to broaden its base by joining hands with other groups that were also confronting corporate power. Early on, its leaders reached out to the emerging labor movement, even supporting strikes by the Knights of Labor. This stand was a defining moment for the Alliance, for it heralded the co-op movement's shift into a more radical political phase. An even tougher match-up for the leadership was with black farmers, who had organized their own Colored Farmers National Alliance with about a million members. Aside from the obvious barrier that entrenched racism presented to this possible coalition, there was such a strong feeling of a shared fight that real and successful efforts were made together. "They are in the ditch just like we are," a white leader pointed out. The eminent historian C. Vann Woodward has said flatly that, "Never before or since have the two races in the South come so close together as they did during Populist struggles." The Alliance also included what was, at the time, a remarkable number of women activists. They made up roughly one-quarter of the membership and held many key posts. POLITICS. By the mid-1880s, the Alliance reached a point where it had to abandon its original stance of non-partisanship and start flexing its political muscle. The big commodity brokers and railroad barons were brutalizing the co-ops with monopoly tactics, and bankers were squeezing the Alliance's marketing co-ops by refusing to provide loans. The major political parties, which were in harness to these moneyed interests, offered no relief. Finally, Alliance delegates met in Omaha on July 4, 1892, to found the People's Party of America, proudly branding themselves "The Populists."Now they could run their own people for offices up and down the ballot, campaigning on a broad platform to counter the "corporations, national banks, rings, trusts... and the oppression of usurers" in order to advance the common interests of "plain people." The party put forth an amazingly progressive agenda: The first party to call for women's suffrage. An eight-hour day for labor, plus wage protections. The abolition of the standing army of mercenaries, known as the "Pinkerton system," which violently suppressed union organizers. The direct election by the people of U.S. Senators (who were chosen by state legislatures at the time). A graduated income tax. Legislation by popular initiative and referendum. Public ownership of railroads, telephones, and telegraphs. No subsidy for private corporations for any purpose. Prohibition of speculation on foreign ownership of our public lands and natural resources. A free ballot and fair count in all elections. Civil-service laws to prevent the politicalization of government employees. Pensions for veterans. Measures to break the corrupting power of corporate lobbyists. What happened Ultimately, the Populists were undone, not by their boldness, but by leaders who urged them to compromise and merge their aspirations into the Democratic Party. In the presidential election of 1896, the People's Party nominated Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, whose "cross of gold" campaign focused on the "free silver" issue, avoiding the much more appealing structural radicalism of Populism. Outspent five to one, Bryan lost the race to William McKinley, the Republican who was financed and owned by Wall Street. The People's Party, having surrendered its independence and soul at a time the Alliance was being gutted by the money interests and the press, lost favor with its own faithful - and withered into a parody itself. The party was killed off, but not the Populist spirit. Persevering in separate political forms, the constituent components of populism -- including unionists, suffragists, anti-trusters, socialists, cooperatives, and rural organizers -- continued the struggle against America's economic and political aristocracy. Indeed, populists defined the content of national politics for the first third of the 20th century, forcing the Democratic Party to adopt populist positions, spawning the Progressive Party, elevating two Roosevelts to the presidency, and enacting major chunks of the agenda first drawn up by the People's Party. Though the Powers That Be don't want us connecting with this stunning "Populist Moment" in our democratic history, a majority of folks today hold within them the live spark of populism -- which is an innate distrust of corporate tycoons and Wall Street titans and an instinct to rebel against them. The moment can come again. As Goodwyn tells us, "the triumph of Populism... was the belief in the possibility it injected into American political consciousness.
 
Matthew Filipowicz: Obama To Offer Blindfolds And Ear Plugs To All Americans Top
As you may have heard, President Barack Obama has gone back on his promise and will now attempt to block the release a large batch of photos depicting torture and prisoner abuse that was due to be released as a result of a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit by the ACLU . However, it now appears that the President has come to the realization that no matter how hard he tries to ignore and cover up the crimes of the Bush administration, it will continue to be a political liability for him and his agenda. That's why the President has announced that a special "Care Package" will be sent to every American citizen. The package will be full of products designed to help them ignore the horrible things their government did in their name. Take a look. As you can see, the care package has all the bases covered. A patriotic blindfold and earplugs so you won't have to see or hear anything, and sleeping pills so you can shut your eyes and dream of an America where no man is above the law. And before anyone fires back with the Obama is "doing it for the troops" argument, just remember, that in the same speech where he announced his reversal, he used the now proven Bush/Cheney falsehood, that the torture in the photos was a result of a "small group of individuals". He (Obama) said the photos had already served their purpose in investigations of "a small number of individuals." Those cases were all concluded by 2004, and the president said "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken." Actually, no. It wasn't a small group of individuals. The individuals involved have not all been identified. And appropriate action sure as hell has not been taken. It was not ok when Republicans blamed a " few bad apples " for their war crimes. And how dare Obama continue that same disingenuous argument? What these specific photos prove is that torture was not a scattered, rare occurrence. It was top-down policy from the highest levels of the Bush Administration. You can't support the troops and throw them under the bus in the same speech. Not to mention the fact that is was the actual torture that endangers our troops. That makes it more likely that they will be tortured. That makes it less likely that an enemy will peacefully surrender to our troops out of fear of what will happen to them once they are in our custody. The fact that we treated our prisoners humanely saved more American lives than can we could ever possibly count. And until we take off our blindfolds, until we truly hold accountable those who authorized these heinous acts, until we come clean and show the world and ourselves that this is not, in fact, who we are... we will continue to endanger not only ourselves, but our troops. Also, feel free to follow me on Twitter if you're someone who does that sort of thing. More on Barack Obama
 
Dr. Soram Khalsa: What You Can Do About The Vitamin D Epidemic Top
There are two serious vitamin D health epidemics in America today; one is the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency and the other is the epidemic of ignorance about vitamin D deficiency. As a board certified internist, I have chosen, for the last 30 years, to take a personalized approach in my practice of integrative medicine. I have worked with literally hundreds of herbs, vitamins and dietary supplements, to help my patients, often when drugs did not work. In all this time, I have not seen one nutritional supplement that has the power to affect human health as much as vitamin D. This is because Vitamin D is not actually a vitamin - it is a hormone that has the ability to interact and affect more than 2,000 genes in the body. It is for this reason that vitamin D deficiency has been linked with many of the diseases of modern society. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with 17 types of cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, autoimmune disease, chronic pain, osteoporosis, asthma, and most recently with autism. Over my 30 years of practicing medicine, countless times I have had to deliver or discuss with a patient their sad and possibly terminal diagnosis. Diseases like cancer and heart disease are at best life altering, and most times life threatening. When I have this kind of difficult conversation with a patient, I often reflect that if their vitamin D level had been normal for the previous many years, maybe they would never have developed this disease. This understanding has fueled my passion about vitamin D and inspired me to write my book, The Vitamin D Revolution . In the hope of preventing unnecessary suffering and loss of life, I want to spread the word about the importance of taking this supplement every day. I recommend that all otherwise healthy adults take 2,000 IU if vitamin D daily. Worldwide, it is estimated that the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency affects one billion people. In America, medical journal articles estimate that 30-50% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D. I question whether this number is really too low, as in my practice in sunny Southern California, 90% of my new patients have a vitamin D deficiency when they start with me. As part of my campaign to correct vitamin D deficiency, and in collaboration with Hay House publishing, I have released an easily affordable and attainable at-home vitamin D testing kit package . Ideally, your health care provider is your partner in exploring your vitamin D status, but patients usually do not want to visit their doctor just to ask for a vitamin D level, and many doctors are not yet up to date on the importance of vitamin D. If you use the at-home test kit and your blood level of vitamin D is low, I would encourage you to discuss this information with your physician. I have provided a special section in my book showing how I treat the various vitamin D levels that can help facilitate the discussion that you have with your doctor. Although the majority of the health food store vitamin D supplements are very reputable, there are still some companies out there that are not so reliable. A consumer often cannot tell the difference between the two, and for that reason I have worked closely with a supplement manufacturer that normally makes products only for physicians' offices. Through our partnership, we have been able to make pharmaceutical quality vitamin D , with guaranteed potency, available at supermarket prices. Over the weeks ahead, I plan to blog on the Huffington Post about the many aspects of vitamin D and its association with the chronic diseases of modern society. I invite your comments and your questions either here or on my vitamin D blog . There you can also watch my interview with Joel Roberts about my vitamin D project. More on Wellness
 
Grande Lum: Tear Down the Walls By Becoming More Comfortable First Top
Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less. - Marie Curie Walk into tense situation as relaxed and comfortable as you can. Consider a person afraid of water -- a common fear. You can teach that person technique all day, but the person's absolute dread of drowning totally blocks them from proper arm and leg motions. If a person is panicked, he is unable to learn. However, if the person alters his relationship with the water, then slowly enjoying standing in the water, progressing to putting his head under the water and enjoys himself, then he changes his state of mind and body so that he can then learn quickly and effectively. Eventually he can go into deep water, go scuba diving, because the water has become fun and relaxing. If you are having problems interacting with someone else, one of the underlying reasons may be that you are anxious. Remember the terror of interviewing for a first job that you really wanted? A first date? In those situations, sometimes we learn the hard way. But consider something you found enjoyable. Was it easier to get better, because you wanted to do more of it? Anxiety and discomfort can flip quickly into anger and defensiveness. This is especially true when the other person pushes your buttons. When you have a higher degree of comfort, ease and rapport follow. When you have discomfort, treat it as a learning opportunity. Maybe you begin to recognize how uncomfortable you are with people in authority positions. Maybe you discover you are uncomfortable with a person from a background you have never spent any time around. The less you go into denial and accept discomfort as expected, the easier it will then be to relax. Begin by accepting anxiety rather than denying its existence. Be aware of tension in your body. After acknowledging the discomfort, release it. Like swimming, not everything comes from working harder. If something is enjoyable and easy, you want more of it. Relax around the person with whom you are working things out. My next post will build on this idea by focusing on making the other person comfortable so that person can release their hostility. To learn more about the importance of communication skills particularly in negotiation and conflict resolution, read about the solutions, results and publications Grande Lum has created at Accordence, Inc. For further discussion, contact Grande at grandelum@accordence.com More on Relationships
 
Aram Roston: Who Protected Allen Stanford? Top
Why wasn't R. Allen Stanford aggressively investigated until this year, in spite of years of red flags? There's been some speculation that he was a protected government informer. The DEA agent who handled him talked exclusively to GQ magazine for my story on Stanford for the June issue. Former agent David Tinsley told me Stanford willingly turned over the funds of a dead drug kingpin, and volunteered to help more. Tinsley thought his bank would be a gold mine of money laundering information. It is an intriguing tidbit and an unusual story for a banker like Stanford. But that was back in 1999. Or was Stanford's operation cushioned by his political access? Why would he need the DEA if he had friends at the highest levels of the US government. Stanford claimed to me in an interview for the GQ story that he'd met the president in Crawford with a large group of business people. He told me there were congressmen he could still reach by phone if he wanted to. Stanford gave to both Democrats and Republicans on a massive scale: he told me he wanted them to know what Stanford Financial was. Now they are surely trying to forget, though. Stanford still has not been indicted, although he certainly expects to be. The Texan's gorgeous young "chief investment officer" was just indicted on charges of trying to obstruct the SEC investigation this year.
 
Penny Herscher: Women need to support women at work Top
Gender stereotypes already make it hard enough for women in the workplace but in tough times how women treat other women matters even more. Today women make up 50% of managers in companies, but only 15% of executive officers. It's still rare to find women in any executive positions except media, marketing and HR and it's almost unheard of in technology. There was a period with no women CEOs in the top 150 technology companies before Carol Bartz took over Yahoo - and this for an industry that sells to as many women as men now. Women in senior management are rare at most companies. Their behavior as leaders is scrutinized and it often feels like a no win - we are either too aggressive (feedback I've had) or too timid - held to standards most men are simply not held to. I know that's not going to change any time soon so as leaders we have suck it up, be ourselves, lead and find and empower other leaders in the organization. But how women behave towards each other often reflects whether they think other women around them help or hurt their chances for advancement. The New York Times recently wrote about women bullying other women at work - reporting that 40% of bullies in the workplace are women - with all the examples being women bullying other women. This behavior does not make sense. What other minority would do that to each other? The question is - do you believe being in the minority as a woman is an advantage or a disadvantage? I've seen the best, and the worst, watching women in engineering companies where they are very much in the minority: - Women who think that more women in the workplace would be a good thing tend to support other women. They'll actively coach, form support and mentoring groups and recommend other women for projects and advancement. This happens when they themselves are not threatened by female competition. - Women who like being special in a group, being the exception, will consciously, or unconsciously sabotage other women because they don't want to share attention. They like being different and see other women as competition - professionally or socially. If you are experiencing sabotage or bullying from other women you can change the culture of the group you are in. One way to do this is to get the women in your organization together to acknowledge that you are a group, you are within the same culture, dealing with same stereotype and subtle discrimination issues. You can bring in a speaker to name the elephant in the room and catalyze the discussion -- bring in a dynamic speaker from the outside or a senior woman from your organization. Talk about how much effective the workplace is, and everyone's opportunity is, if you help each other develop your careers. Getting the discussion out in the open will raise awareness and a sense of responsibility in most people to help each other - I've seen it work. Women are also rare in the corporate board room - less than 16% of Fortune 500 board members are women. I sit on two public boards and yes, I am the only woman on the board in both cases. When it comes to the substance of the job this is irrelevant - but when I was invited to a working group of women who sit on public boards I was delighted to meet 25 other women who, like me, are in the minority. We discuss substantive issues about being on public company boards and the changing corporate governance challenges; we don't talk about being women, but even so it is encouraging to look across the room and see so many smart, powerful women navigating the same choppy waters. Clearly I am not advocating unfairly advancing someone based on gender - promotions need to be earned on merit no matter what. But I am advocating paying attention to how you can help other women in your organization thrive - and putting a stop to sabotage.
 
Pakistani Women Protest Taliban But Support Islamic Law (VIDEO) Top
Evelyn Messinger | Link TV - Global Pulse In February, the now-famous video of a young woman being flogged by Taliban brought women in cities across Pakistan into the streets in protest. Soon after, Islamic law (Sharia) was imposed in Pakistan's Swat Valley. Last week, as President Zardari met with Obama and the Pakistani army bombed Taliban strongholds in the Northwest, another front was taking shape: a civil society movement of Pakistani women protesting "Talibanization." More and more they are taking to the streets, as in this march in Karachi. These middle and upper-class women of Pakistan's bustling cities, long accustomed to their secularized freedoms, have much to fear. But is it Sharia? Ashfaq Yusufzai an Inter Press Service correspondent, reports that Muslim Khan, the Taliban's spokesperson in Swat, said, 'Female education is against Islam. They (women and girls) are required to sit at home and not venture out.' Yusufzai notes that, 'a total 188 girls' schools and 97 boys' schools were destroyed by Taliban since late 2007.' As a journalist working in international television news, I've been tracking how the world covers women and Sharia. Pakistan has a robust and independent-minded commercial media sector, and the issue is being hotly debated in print and on television. American network news, and news channels around the world, have also covered Pakistani women protesting, but from very different angles. These differences in coverage are juxtaposed in this episode of Global Pulse, a report I produce for Link TV that compares and contrasts coverage on a single story from broadcasters around the world, called Pakistan: Women vs Taliban . Watch: While interviewing the young woman activist who speaks in the video, Amna Hamid, our editorial team learned that many Pakistani women have a nuanced perspective, seeing Islamic law not as the source of oppression, although often serving as an excuse for it. Amna says that her mother "of course" supports Sharia, but that when it comes to the Taliban, "the kind of Islam they are imposing...is alien to our culture." Clearly, for these women "Sharia" and "Talibanization" are not seen as one in the same, as they frequently are in the West, and in Western media. In a paper she presented recently, Asifa Quraishi, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin and a well-known expert on women and Islamic law, expresses her frustration with the western perspective saying, "...we [Muslim women] are a topic of feminist attention because Islam itself is considered to be a primary problem standing in the way of feminist work." There are as many Sharias as there are nations who follow it in some form. Lynn Welchman, director of the U.K.'s Centre for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, told The Guardian newspaper that "Over 50 countries are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, and you can expect there will be some form of compliance with Sharia -- either in people's personal lives or enforced through the courts by the state. A lot of states in the Middle East are taking more elements of Sharia into their state laws.' But why has this brutal form of Sharia come to Pakistan? A New York Times report describes swaths of Pakistan where people live as near-serfs in feudal political fiefdoms, where power is concentrated in a few hands and judicial corruption is rampant. The Al Jazeera report we excerpted in Global Pulse illustrates how, in such an unjust system, villagers can be grateful to the Taliban's for their swift dispensing of justice, vicious though it may be. The Global Pulse episode also has a clip from this day-time talk show on Saama TV (in Urdu), a multi-city TV network in Pakistan. A woman interviewer locks horns with a woman politician who defends the Taliban. The contrast between the thoroughly modern interviewer lobbing angry questions, answered by a veiled and smooth-talking politician, is striking. According to a 2005 study by UNESCO, only 28% of Pakistani women are literate, a low number compared to most Islamic countries -- and perhaps, a factor that makes Pakistani women vulnerable to manipulation by those with something to gain from kowtowing to the Taliban. I asked Souheila Aljadda, a fellow producer at Link TV who has written about Muslim woman for USA Today and other publications, what Americans need to know about the difference between Sharia and Talibanization. "Most Muslims would say that what the Taliban is implementing is not Sharia law," she said. "Sharia does not regulate a woman to stay in her home, or force women to remain uneducated." She suggested that women in tribal cultures might seek Sharia, perceiving it as more just than traditional laws that are often extremely biased against women. "Many Muslim women see Sharia as the ideal," she added, "because of Islam's history of social justice." If women in the west want to help the women of Pakistan, perhaps the first order of business is to understand that decrying "Sharia" rather than "Talibanization" could be leading in exactly the wrong direction. Evelyn Messinger is an international television news and documentary producer. Her work has aired on PBS, CBS News, the BBC, French television and others. As Electronic Media Director for the Soros Foundation, she worked in the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, and as co-founder of the international media rights NGO Internews Network, she worked with independent media in Bosnia, Russia and the former Soviet Union. She is currently the producer of Global Pulse on Link TV. More on Pakistan
 
Carolynn Carreño: Am Food. Will Not Travel Top
Today's NYTimes story, When Local Makes it Big , is a great story that shows just how removed Americans are from their food. I mean really, if anyone out there truly believes that because Frito-Lay shows them a farmer on television (sadly most people have never seen a farmer!) that Lay's cares about farmers, or about local, or even about potatoes, then they are stupid. Or at the very least, very naive. Lay's cares about sales, and to that end, Lay's cares about buzzwords, and that is what "local," has become. A primer -- to the extent that local is important, here are some reasons why: Food that is sold and/or consumed near where it is grown, is food that does not have to travel, and according to Michael Pollan's epic story, Farmer in Chief , our traveling food is the second biggest use of fossil fuel in this country. Food grown locally is presumably -- unless you live in the Central Valley or Salinas some other agribiz hub -- grown on an independent, family-owned farm. And since America was a nation founded on agriculture, it would be nice if they did not go extinct. Food that did not travel, that was grown on family farms, is likely to taste better than food grown on an agribiz farms because they grow heirloom (old and old-fashioned) varieties. That is, varieties that existed before companies came along and started modifying seeds so that the food grown from them would last longer, be cheaper to grow, and travel better. And also because the farmers priorities have to do with how the food tastes, not how it holds up on a train, plane, or in an automobile. So... back to those potatoes. Back to Lay's. I did a story several years ago for Saveur where I went to Aroostook County, the northernmost county, Maine. Its a potato farming community smack in the middle of nowhere. There was one farmer there, Jim Gerritsen, who was a back-to-the-lander growing boutique potatoes with cool names you've never heard like Corola and Rose Finn at his Wood Prairie Farm . (For a look at Gerritsen and a Maine potato culture, click here .) Over four days, Jim was the only farmer I met who talked potatoes -- or whose family grew potatoes you could eat. The others grew what are called "chipping potatoes," which went by less charming names like (I'm making this up but you'll get the idea) FL-123 -- the FL standing for "frito lay", the rest is a number because the potato was developed in a lab, and labs like to number things. I'm as big a fan of Frito's corn chips as anyone. They rank right up there with Oreo's in terms of pleasures I should feel guilty about but don't. Still, I do not eat them because they are local (that is idiotic) and won't, no matter how many supposed farmers they put on television. These misleading ads -- and Frito-Lay is just one example -- are more important than people realize. Because their very existence implies that the companies behind them know the importance of family farms and farmers and "local." And yet they are using that in a way that is fundamentally deceptive. It's called lying. All the more reason to shop at your local farmers market, where you will deal with actual people, like Jim Gerritsen, who know their potatoes by names, not numbers. And who really and truly (and I know this might sound corny) care. More on Food
 
Howard Gleckman: How Is Obama Going to Pay for Health Reform? Top
Covering the uninsured may turn out to be the easy part. Paying for it will be the real challenge. The numbers don't lie. The health reform plan President Obama laid out on the campaign stump would cost as much as $1.6 trillion over 10 years, according to my colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. While no one knows what sort of reform Congress will cook up over the next months, it is a good bet the price will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. And even these days, that is still a lot of money. Yesterday, trade groups representing doctors, insurance companies, drug and device manufacturers, and health care workers all said they'd do their part to reduce the growth of medical spending over the next decade by $2 trillion. The White House thinks half of that would benefit government. So even if this shaky coalition makes a good faith effort to control costs, and even if they produced their promised savings, Obama would still need to come up with another half-a-trillion dollars from somewhere. Of course, in the real world, these cost savings will turn out to be chimerical at best. So where will the money come from to expand government coverage? Higher taxes, of course. But whose? In his budget, Obama proposed a $600 billion reserve fund to help pay for expanded public coverage. But the fund's centerpiece -- the cap on deductions for charitable gifts, mortgage interest and the like -- is a non-starter on Capitol Hill. Just days after the White House first floated the idea, administration aides were backing away. The cap, which would generate about $266 billion over 10 years, was still in the formal budget Obama released yesterday, but it is on life support. That leaves a handful of other ideas that are at least as controversial. Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus (D-MT) seems willing to curb the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance. Nearly every economist agrees that it makes no sense for some workers to get tax-free employer-sponsored insurance, while those whose employers don't provide coverage must buy their own without a tax break. But House Democrats and many unions oppose any change in the tax exclusion, and many business executives are terrified of the idea. The Administration flips and flops -- sometimes at the same time. For instance, on May 6, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the House Ways Means Committee that the White House is "willing to look at all serious discussions of the issue" even though she added that it has "the huge potential of destabilizing the private insurance market." Got it. On its own, Congress won't address the cost issue. It will either not pay at all for huge chunks of reform, or will end up making only incremental changes to the health system. If the President wants more than that, he'll have to take the lead when it comes to paying the bill. More on Barack Obama
 
Habitat For Humanity Gets $100 Million Gift Top
ATLANTA — The housing market may be sputtering, but Habitat for Humanity International is getting a $100 million gift from an Atlanta developer who said his work has offered him a look at the struggle of poor people to find decent housing. The nonprofit group announced Thursday it received the largest individual contribution in its history, an offering that will help Habitat build 60,000 homes around the globe. It's one of the largest gifts in recent years to a group devoted to social services, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. A center official called it "remarkable" _ especially in the midst of a gloomy economy. The donation comes from J. Ronald Terwilliger of Atlanta, a former chief executive of housing developer Trammell Crow Residential Co. and a longtime member of Habitat's board of directors. Terwilliger said through his work with Habitat and in the private sector he's witnessed the depths of poverty, seeing people living in cardboard shacks and unspeakable filth, as well as the struggle for middle-class families to find affordable housing. "People need a decent, safe, clean residence where they can get a good night's sleep and families can be together," he said. "If they have that as an anchor, they have a way to send their kids off to school regularly and a better chance those children will be healthy." The donation comes at a difficult time for the Americus, Ga.-based organization, which like other nonprofit groups has struggled with increasing demand and slowing donations amid the economic downturn. "This is a chance to have a really deep impact," said Jonathan Reckford, Habitat's chief executive. "It's an unprecedented commitment that sets a new bar for what's possible, and it encourages other people to give." Habitat will use $30 million to fund an endowment that will make yearly grants to help build more houses. The remaining $70 million will set up a micro-finance fund to help low-income families around the world repair and improve their housing. Dwight Burlingame, the Center on Philanthropy's associate executive director, said charitable contributions that top $50 million tend to go to foundations, universities, hospitals and medical research. Gifts of that size to social services groups like Habitat, he said, are rare. "This is really quite exceptional," Burlingame said. "And it's especially exceptional in this economy." The micro-finance fund will be the first of its kind for Habitat. Reckford said it will provide loans ranging from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars to some of the world's neediest. Terwilliger, who graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, became Trammell Crow's chief executive in 1986 and has long contributed to affordable housing projects. He also owns Atlanta's WNBA franchise, the Atlanta Dream. He joined Habitat's board of directors in 2000 and was elected chairman in 2007. After stepping down as Trammell Crow's chief executive last year he devoted more time to traveling the world to witness Habitat's work. He remains the company's chairman. He called it a "moral imperative" to offer families more access to decent, affordable homes. And the short-term loan program he is helping to fund will make a lasting impression on the housing market by helping thousands of needy families, he said. "We can provide additional solutions to families that need to build an extra room, that need to renovate their home," he said. "It helps us leverage our dollars to impact as many families as possible." He also hopes his contribution will send a message to other philanthropists to step up their giving despite the troubled economy. "My attitude is, for those of us who are fortunate enough to have made enough money that we don't feel we have to leave it all to our family, then we ought to give it back." ___ On the Net: http://www.habitat.org More on Housing Crisis
 
Newt Gingrich Threatens To Sue Twitter Top
Twitter. Everybody talks about it, but no one seems to want to do anything about it. Until today, anyways! In case you haven't heard, Newt Gingrich, along with RNC Chair also-ran Saul Anuzis, is thinking about suing Twitter. This would, indeed, be a BOLD NEW IDEA for the GOP to pursue. And that's This Day In Pointlessness! All right, so you probably deserve a fuller explanation. Here's the issue. There is a Twitter account in the name of EFCANow that has, as you might imagine, been blasting out tweets in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act. Recently that twitterer has started adding the handles of Gingrich and Anuzis to his posts, in an attempt to argue directly with their twitter followers, and perhaps win converts. Here is a representative example: As The Hill reports : Twitter allows users to tag messages with the @ symbol followed by another account name, associating the message with the other account and subsequently reaching subscribers to the other account's news feed. In linking to feeds controlled by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who boasts more than 238,000 followers, and former Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis, who has 8,000 followers of his own, the pro-EFCA group's message reached those who follow two anti-EFCA activists. Some of Anuzis's followers have been duped into signing the petition, Anuzis told The Hill on Monday. The misleading campaign first showed up on Saturday, when EFCANow posted to its Twitter account: "Join @newtgingrich @sanuzis in signing the EFCA Freedom Not Fear petition," followed by a website. Since Saturday, nearly a dozen entries into the group's Twitter feed mention Gingrich, the general chairman of American Solutions, and Anuzis, who heads American Solutions' anti-EFCA campaign. Basically, in Gingrich's opinion, the inclusion of his Twitter handle in these posts essentially misrepresent his position on EFCA. So he's considering legal action! Naturally, this makes me wonder: since opponents of EFCA consistently misrepresent the law by suggesting that it would ban union elections by secret ballot outright, should they be filing lawsuits of their own? Kate Thomas, blogging for the Service Employees International Union, jokes that Gingrich, in threatening legal action, is setting a new standard for unreasonableness : But even Kanye West doesn't threaten legal action about being impersonated on Twitter, instead choosing to express his rage to the world with an all-caps rant on his blog (the all-caps lets readers know that Kanye means business). Exactly why is Kanye SO ANGRY about this twitterjacking? Because he feels the constant Tweets appearing to come from him via @kanyewest lower his 'coolness quotient' and make it seem like he has nothing better to do all day than...Tweet: I'M TOO BUSY ACTUALLY BUSY BEING CREATIVE MOST OF THE TIME AND IF I'M NOT AND I'M JUST LAYING ON A BEACH I WOULDN'T TELL THE WORLD. EVERYTHING THAT TWITTER OFFERS I NEED LESS OF. For some reason, however, Newt and Saul can't seem to shake this one off--they're even more pissed than Kanye. Who would've thought two politicians could become so enraged over the use of an "@" sign...This may end up redefining what we classify as a "frivolous lawsuit." SEIU spokesperson Christy Setzer adds, "We stand with Twitterers everywhere when we say, thank you Newt, for sparing us a Kanye West-like all-caps rant on first contract arbitration." For my part, I thought this would be a perfect time to test Gingrich's resolve in pursuing this sort of litigation: [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Twitter
 
'Angels & Demons' Actor: Dan Brown 'A Terribly Bad Writer' Top
STOCKHOLM — Actor Stellan Skarsgard says he's no big fan of Dan Brown's writing and accepted a role in "Angels & Demons" only after reading the script based on Brown's book. "I think Dan Brown is a terribly bad writer, but he has cliffhangers after every chapter which makes you continue reading," Skarsgard told Swedish broadcaster SVT. "It's like eating peanuts at a bar. You don't like them, but you keep on eating them anyway," he said. The Swedish actor, who plays the head of the Pope's Swiss guard in the movie, said director Ron Howard's script was significantly different from the book. Tom Hanks returns in the lead role as Harvard professor Robert Langdon in "Angels & Demons," a sequel to the "The Da Vinci Code" _ also based on Brown's novel with the same name. It will be shown around the world starting Friday. "Angels & Demons" is better than the first film, Skarsgard said in the interview aired late Wednesday, because "the story is more simple and straightforward but just as dramatic."
 
James Carroll: Cheer, Cheer for Old Notre Dame Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com A War of Words That Folds Neatly into the New Century's War of Weapons President Obama goes to Notre Dame University this Sunday to deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree, the ninth U.S. president to be so honored. The event has stirred up a hornet's nest of conservative Catholics, with more than 40 bishops objecting, and hundreds of thousands of Catholics signing petitions in protest. In the words of South Bend's Bishop John M. D'Arcy, the complaint boils down to President Obama's "long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred." Notre Dame, the bishop charged, has chosen "prestige over truth." Not even most Catholics agree with such criticism. A recent Pew poll, for instance, shows that 50% of Catholics support Notre Dame's decision to honor Obama; little more than one-quarter oppose. It is, after all, possible to acknowledge the subtle complexities of "life" questions -- When actually does human life begin? How is stem cell research to be ethically carried out? -- and even to suggest that they are more complex than most Catholic bishops think, without thereby "refusing to hold human life as sacred." For many outside the ranks of conservative religious belief, this dispute may seem arcane indeed. Since it's more than likely that the anti-Obama complainers were once John McCain supporters, many observers see the Notre Dame flap as little more than mischief by Republicans who still deplore the Democratic victory in November. Given the ways in which the dispute can be reduced to the merely parochial, why should Americans care? Medievalism in Our Future? In fact, the crucial question that underlies the flap at Notre Dame has enormous importance for the unfolding twenty-first century: Will Roman Catholicism, with its global reach, including more than a billion people crossing every boundary of race, class, education, geography, and culture, be swept into the rising tide of religious fundamentalism? Those Catholics who regard a moderate progressive like Barack Obama as the enemy -- despite the fact that his already unfolding social and health programs, including support for impoverished women, will do more to reduce the number of abortions in America than the glibly pro-life George W. Bush ever did -- have so purged ethical thought of any capacity to draw meaningful distinctions as to reduce religious faith to blind irrationality. They have so embraced a spirit of sectarian intolerance as to undercut the Church's traditional catholicity, adding fuel to the spreading fire of religious contempt for those who depart from rigidly defined orthodoxies. They are resurrecting the lost cause of religion's war against modernity -- a war of words that folds neatly into the new century's war of weapons. If the Catholic reactionaries succeed in dominating their church, a heretofore unfundamentalist tradition, what would follow? The triumph of a strain of contemporary Roman Catholicism that rejects pluralism, feminism, clerical reform, religious self-criticism, historically-minded theology, and the scientific method as applied to sacred texts would only exacerbate alarming trends in world Christianity as a whole, and at the worst of times. This may especially be so in the nations of the southern hemisphere where Catholicism sees its future. It's there that proselytizing evangelical belief, Protestant and Catholic both, is spreading rapidly. Between 1985 and 2001, for example, Catholic membership increased in Africa by 87%, in Europe by 1%. In their shared determination to restore the medieval European Catholicism into which they were born, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI became inadvertent avatars of the new Catholic fundamentalism, a fact reflected in the character of the bishops they appointed to run the Church, so many of whom now find President Obama to be a threat to virtue. The great question now is whether this defensive, pre-Enlightenment view of the faith will maintain a permanent grip on the Catholic imagination. John Paul II and Benedict XVI may be self-described apostles of peace, yet if this narrow aspect of their legacy takes hold, they will have helped to undermine global peace, not through political intention, but deeply felt religious conviction. Something to Cheer No one can today doubt that the phenomenon of "fundamentalism" is having an extraordinary impact on our world. But what precisely is it? Some fundamentalists pursue openly political agendas in, for instance, Northern Ireland, Israel, and Iran. Some like Latin American Pentecostals are apolitical. In war zones like Sudan, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Sri Lanka, fundamentalism is energizing conflict. Most notably, after the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in 2003, the insurgent groups there jelled around fundamentalist religion, and their co-extremists are now carrying the fight, terrifyingly, in the direction of the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan. Catholic fundamentalists in the U.S. are far from being terrorists, but an exclusionary, intolerant, militant true belief is on display this week in their rallying to denounce President Obama in Indiana. Obviously, these manifestations are so varied as to resist being defined by one word in the singular, which is why scholars of religion prefer to speak of "fundamentalisms." But they all do have something in common, and it is dangerous. The impulse toward fundamentalism may begin with fine intentions: the wish to affirm basic values and sources of meaning which seem threatened. Rejecting any secular claims to replace the sacred as the chief source of meaning, all fundamentalisms are skeptical of Enlightenment values, even as the Enlightenment project has developed its own mechanisms of self-criticism. But the discontents of modernity are only the beginning of the problem. Now "old time religion" of whatever stripe faces a plethora of threats: new technologies, a shaken world economy, rampant individualism, diversity, pluralism, mobility -- all that makes for twenty-first century life. The shock of the unprecedented can involve not only difficulty, but disaster. And fundamentalisms will especially thrive wherever there is violent conflict, and wherever there is stark poverty. This is so simply because these religiously absolute movements promise meaning where there is no meaning. For all these reasons, fundamentalisms are everywhere. In contemporary Roman Catholicism, whose deep traditions include the very intellectual innovations that gave rise to modernity -- Copernicus, after all, was a priest -- Catholic fundamentalists are more likely to be called "traditionalists." They are galvanized now around the moral complexities of "life," at a time when the very meaning of human reproduction is being upended by technical innovation, and once-unthinkable medical and genetic breakthroughs are transforming the meaning of death as well. Like other fundamentalists, they are attuned to the dark consequences of the Enlightenment assumptions implied in such developments, from the Pandora's Box opened by science unconnected to morality to the grotesque inequities that follow from industrialization and, more recently, globalization. Where others celebrate new information technologies, traditionalists, even while using those technologies, warn of the coarsening of culture, the destruction of privacy, and, especially, threats to the family. In nothing more than its emphasis on a rigorous and comprehensive sexual ethic -- anti-feminist, radically pro-life, contemptuous of homosexuality -- does this brand of Catholicism echo a broader fundamentalism. In the immediate aftermath of the liberalizing Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Catholic traditionalists, with their attachment to the Latin Mass, fiddle-back vestments, clerical supremacy, and the entire culture of the Counter-Reformation, were rebels. That was why the anti-Council sect, the Lefebrites, including the notorious Holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson, was excommunicated in 1988. Today, as indicated by Pope Benedict's lifting of that excommunication, the Vatican is the sponsor of such anti-liberal rebels. Instead of reading the Bible uncritically, as Protestant fundamentalists do, Catholic traditionalists read Papal statements that way. To affirm the eternal validity of prior Papal statements, as in the case of the on-going Papal condemnation of "artificial birth control," traditionalists willingly sacrifice common sense and honesty. If the Catholic Church is as opposed to abortion as it claims, why has it not embraced the single most effective means of reducing abortion rates, which is birth control? The answer, alas, is evident: the overriding issue for Catholic fundamentalists is not sexual morality, or even "life," but papal authority. As Protestant fundamentalists effectively make an idol of biblical texts, Catholic fundamentalists, in obedience to the Vatican, make an idol of the papacy. When it comes to Notre Dame, ironically, American Catholic fundamentalists, including the bishops leading the charge against Obama's appearance, are not going to be backed up by the Vatican. In Rome, a tradition of realpolitik tempers the fundamentalist urge of the current establishment. The highest Church authorities have long been accustomed to putting issues of theological purity second to the exigencies of state power. So, no insults of the American president will be coming from the Vatican this weekend, and its silence on the Notre Dame controversy will speak more clearly than any official statement on the subject might. Indeed, the long history of Roman Catholicism, where Puritanism has steadily lost out to robust earthiness, and doctrinal rigidity has regularly bent before the pressures of lived experience, is itself reason to think that Notre Dame University has found the truest Catholic response to the world's present moment: its brave decision to honor President Barack Obama. James Carroll is a scholar-in-residence at Suffolk University, columnist for the Boston Globe, and author of the bestselling Constantine's Sword . His most recent book is Practicing Catholic , from which this essay draws.
 
Ali Wentworth: How Watergate Turned Me Funny Top
NEW YORK — Ali Wentworth is practically Washington royalty. Her father was a Washington Post reporter, her mom was Nancy's Reagan's White House social secretary and she's married to politico-turned ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos. So what's she doing on a TV sit-com? Wentworth grew up during the Watergate years, which were "not a lot of yucks," she says: Her phones were tapped and her parents were "stressed out all the time," and she couldn't wait to leave DC and get into drama school. She's getting plenty of "yucks" in her unscripted comedy "Head Case." She plays Dr. Elizabeth Goode on the Starz series, an "unhinged shrink" with real celebrities on the couch _ like Jerry Seinfeld. Beside Seinfeld, those seeking therapy this season include "Desperate Housewives" creator and star Marc Cherry and James Denton, and fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi. "Head Case" airs on the Starz cable network Fridays, 10 p.m. EDT. Wentworth is the daughter of Eric Wentworth and Mabel Cabot who, as Mabel H. Brandon, was the former first lady's social secretary in the 1980s.
 
Karen Bass: Challenges and Lessons From a Year as Speaker Top
Challenges and Lessons From a Year as Speaker This week I mark the one-year anniversary of being sworn in as Speaker of the California State Assembly. And what a year it has been. Clearly, the overwhelming challenge in the past year has been to keep California going in the face of the brutal national and international economic recession. The Bush White House looking the other way while Wall Street gambled with the future helped put the national economy into a tailspin. That compounded other factors.We have a revenue system in California designed for the 1930s that makes us especially vulnerable to downturns. We have voter approved initiatives that carve out increasingly large sections of the budget. We have a corrections system that has seen a fivefold increase in funding since 1994. And we have a governor who, as soon as he took office, blew a six billion hole in the budget by slashing the state's Vehicle License Fee. If you take out voter initiatives and court decisions California's spending is actually under inflation and population growth. But it is true there have been times the governor and legislature have appropriated one-time money for ongoing programs and that has also been a factor in where we are today. In the crisis budget we adopted in February to try and fill what had been an $18 billion hole, we had to make deep cuts in programs Democrats cared about. That's on top of about $12 billion in cuts we'd already made over the past few years. Because we had picked up four new Democratic Assemblymembers in the November election--the biggest Democratic pickup in the Assembly since Watergate-- we only had to convince three Republicans that new taxes had to be included along with those cuts. The final product was by no means a budget to celebrate. It was a true compromise in that no one was happy. But it had to be done. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg and I were able to block some of the most draconian cuts, particularly to education and services for the poor. And we stopped wholesale rollback of labor and environmental protections that had nothing to do with the budget. But those victories may not hold. Today Governor Schwarzenegger will unveil the annual May Revision of the budget. This year instead of one revision he is doing two--one outlining his budget proposals if the propositions on California's May 19 ballot pass and one outlining his budget proposals if the propositions fail. One of the big lessons I've seen over the past year has been how much the budget process is harmed because of the state's 2/3 unusual vote requirement. California is one of only three states in the nation that requires a 2/3 vote to raise revenues and pass a budget. Those handcuffs have to be removed. When the people of California elect a majority of legislators from a political party they are saying they want that party to lead. The majority should be able to act and then deal with the consequences. If the people don't like it, then the majority won't be the majority anymore. That's accountability. That's responsibility. Another, and even more disturbing lesson from the budget is the power that talk radio and rightwing blogs have developed in some sections of the capitol. Last week it was announced Mike Villines, the Assembly Republican leader who supported revenues and helped make sure California didn't go over a cliff in February, is being replaced. He faced unrelenting attacks from bloggers and radio hosts who said they wanted his head on a spike. Ratings driven entertainment shouldn't be shaping public policy in California. It may be a game to them - and good money for their stations--it may even be fun for some of their listeners - but when legislators or elected officials take it seriously and jump accordingly- then the consequences are too high for the people of California. Even with the recession continuing to take our main attention, there are still some areas where I hope we can make good progress in Sacramento this year: continuing to maximize federal stimulus dollars...promoting green jobs, businesses and buildings--including the State Capitol... increasing renewable energy sources....improving the outcomes for foster kids and helping high school students succeed in college, career and community service. We'll have to be creative and try to do more with less, but I am pleased with the opportunities for potential advancement in these areas. As part of marking my official anniversary on Wednesday I was joined by several members of the Assembly in helping out at Loaves and Fishes, a Sacramento shelter that provides housing and food for the homeless. Then, incoming Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee and I presented a check to the California Employment Development Department representing Assembly budget cuts that will now help unemployed Californians access their benefits. These events were definitely another reminder that California is indeed facing challenging times--but also that we have faced tough times before and come through them together.
 
Pam Spaulding: Why President Obama Hurts His Own Cause By Not Addressing Homophobia in the Black Community Top
Over the last few days we have seen the White House struggle to answer questions about the failed discriminatory policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, as well as respond intelligently to the recent positive domino effect of marriage equality occurring in states -- moves that affirm those governments realize separate is not equal. Candidate Obama decided to regress his political position from supporting full marriage equality to a "God is in the mix" conflation of religious and civil marriage when he ran for president. What was seen as a political necessity/reality at the time has wreaked havoc on the PR front of late, but it has also allowed the anti-gay establishment to cite his opposition to marriage equality over and over again . The old unintended consequences -- at our expense. Marc Fisher in the WaPo takes the position that yes, polls like Obama and fellow equality regression-sufferer Marion Barry, who are indeed using the LGBT community as a political football. In 1996, Barack Obama responded to a Chicago newspaper's questions about the issue with these words: " I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages ." Obama has characteristically reached out to the center, writing in his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope : "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided . . . and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history." Yeah, that's his political escape hatch -- that he will have some "moment of clarity" sometime in the future, a political revelation (guided by polls, of course), that separate is not equal. Fisher offers this rationale for both Marion Barry's opposition to marriage recognition in DC and Obama's absurd position on equality: Barry's claim to be "a moral politician" was catnip to the late-night TV comics. But he has positioned himself of late as the voice of pre-gentrification D.C. -- older black residents who feel that their city has been taken over by newcomers, especially affluent young whites. Add the faceoff between Barry and Mayor Adrian Fenty -- whose deepest support comes from exactly those newcomers -- and you have a compelling political rationale for Barry's flip. The president's position is also rooted in electoral concerns, including the simple desire to be true to a campaign stance that helped him demonstrate that he is not a knee-jerk liberal. Just as Obama's selection of evangelical minister Rick Warren to deliver the prayer at his inauguration raised the hackles of many liberal and gay supporters, the president's stand on same-sex marriage sends a message of moderation to religious voters, even as he assures gays that he supports them on civil unions and repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In other words, Obama and Barry don't want to challenge religious voters (or rather anti-gay religious voters, since there are those of faith who support equality, but they are always rendered invisible in these discussions) on their ignorance about the difference between religious and civil marriage. Politicians such as Obama and Barry won't hesitate to go where the people are when the time is right. But on difficult and divisive issues, they're happier to hold back until the people have spoken. Call it timidity, call it craven, but it's how things work. It's all about politics, friends, and LGBTs are still the field hands, not players in the Big House. There is no LBJ with political courage to look to on these issues, and Fisher gives them the classic out. But I want to return to the subject of black homophobia, and the impact of President Obama's decision to purposefully confuse the issue, despite being a Constitutional scholar. One of the readers at Pam's House Blend points to a great post on Jack and Jill Politics, Gay Marriage and the Black Community . Barack Obama showed courage in addressing homophobia in the black community during the campaign , but he has now left LGBTs, particularly black LGBTs, twisting in the wind to battle the ignorance he affirms. (It should be noted that LGBT POC are also frequently left twisting in the wind by the larger -- read: white-dominated -- LGBT community and leadership, that is loathe to address the racial discord that inhibits progress.) Craig Hickman delivered a personal, powerful essay that intelligently gets to the heart of why civil marriage equality is necessary and important for the black community to support. It's the kind of message that leads and challenges, rather than follows, on this issue. It's something the President has abandoned since taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A snippet: For me, civil rights is civil rights is civil rights. Equal protection under the law is equal protection under the law. In employment. In housing. In public accommodations. In adoption. In civil marriage. Either we all have it or we don't. When a person has no recourse to force an undertaker to come and take a corpse out of their home because the survivor is not legally considered the next of kin despite their thirty-year relationship and the dead person's next of kin is thousands of miles away and, because of Alzheimer's, doesn't even remember who the dead person is anymore, but she is the only person alive who, by state law, can force the undertaker to remove the corpse from their house; when you wrap your mind around all of the practical and emotional turmoil that results in this situation because of this discrimination, I would argue strongly that that certificate of marriage is way more than just a piece of paper. This is but one example. It's not a hypothetical, either. I could provide many others, several much more devastating. A marriage certificate is akin to an adoption decree and an altered birth certificate: it creates a legal familial relationship . Adoption and civil marriage are the only two ways the state allows unrelated people to create a legal family unit in this country. Both are established by a certificate -- a piece of paper filed with the office of vital statistics -- which protects that family unit against all sorts of madness and bullshit from other parties. As Black people whose ancestors' families were ripped apart by the institution of slavery, how can we stand in opposition to the creation of a family unit and the safety and security , emotional and otherwise, that ensue for all of its members? Tell me, Black people. How ? This seems so simple to understand, so rational, right? You should see some of the comments that erupted in the thread at JJP. It shows you how difficult it is to penetrate 1) homophobia based on religious convictions and very selective readings of the Bible tossed casually out there as moral certainty while ignoring passages that condemn their own behavior; and 2) the odd zero-sum game that civil rights for LGBTs somehow diminishes rights granted to blacks as a result of the struggle of that civil rights movement. The fact that the two movements aren't wholly equivalent yet both have merit and seems to escape some commentators. Here's one: Craig, I am sorry my friend you are off base. It seems that from your background you are fighting not for gay people but against a so-called establishment you never fit into being black, adopted, gay. Not to insult but you are a misfit and like all misfits you want the world to validate your abnormalities . You want acceptance and validation from the society that rejects you. My friend you will never convince the majority of people that the lifestyle you live is anything but unnatural.The majority of us know gay people and have no problem with them. Most care not about this issue. This is a gay militant extremist equal to the KKK in White America that is trying to force this down the public's throat . I want to ask you some very serious questions. First of all, you are going to have violence soon, as sure as I am sitting here, if you keep pushing this on the Black community in the name of civil rights. That being said, do you think we should let men marry their daughters? Women marry their sons? There are people who believe that should be legal. What about a man marrying 5 wives? Or a woman with 5 husbands? Society has a right to regulate morals and behavior when it is just. Laws against interracial marriage were unjust, because they were created by racist not from any religious belief system so stop comparing the two please. This is clearly an attempt to not only compare interracial marriage with gay marriage but to also trivialize the 400 years of pain of people who were forced into bondage. No one is forcing gays into bondage this is something they want not need.To suggest basic rights as a human being to a lifestyle shows you have bought the racist on the left's cool aid. They also think black people need them to lord over. Note that this commenter has bought the whole bag of goods that the white, anti-gay establishment has been shilling in the community for some time now. Where is our counter message? Oh, that's right, the first black President believes (in public) that "God is in the mix," and that separate is equal . So that gives these commentators license to continue spewing this nonsense. There's no leadership coming from the White House to counter the issue of black homophobia that he called out so clearly in the past . From his speech delivered at the house of worship where Dr. Martin Luther King preached, Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta in January 2008: And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them . Where is this Barack Obama? Will he continue with his silence, allowing ignorance to continue to divide us? People at JJP are clearly seeking answers in their dialogue with one another, but they clearly want and need leadership on this issue to have their back, against a religious community that is red alert anti-gay. I feel you Craig on the "family unit" standpoint, but how would you respond to those citizens who argue, "I don't want my children 'exposed' to homosexuality. I don't ever want to have that conversation with my child." So from their vantage point, their fighting to protect their "family unit", family values, etc. These people have internalized gay marriage as the greatest threat to their family units (greater than any economic calamity or terrorism). They could give less than a fuck about the "Rights of Kin" or what happens at the funeral home with gay lovers. They are fighting to perpetuate their bloodlines through the traditional definition of marriage: a man and a woman. But contrary to popular belief in the LGBT community, there is reasoned, honest support out there and allies that should be cultivated. It's why we need more cross-cultural dialogue, rather than retreating to corners of silence and comfort. This is an issue that has bothered me over the last few months, especially after the race baiting that went on after Prop. 8 in California. However, over the last few weeks, two different storylines have moved me to tears. I watched three parents on Oprah who buried their little boys because of sexual orientation bullying. We have made homosexuality so taboo and disgraceful that these beautiful little boys would rather be dead than be taunted with a gay "slur". It occurred to me that those of us who have been silent on this issue have somehow fed into this notion and that was devastating. The second was watching the happiness on the faces of same sex couples with the decisions in Iowa and Maine on gay marriage. Why should they have to fight to be seen as equals? Why should they have to convince people that they deserve the same rights that many of us take for granted and enter into legal marriages for a variety or reasons, many of them silly and many doomed to fail . Why should their rights be decided by ballot initiatives? The sad reality is that if black equality of the 1960's was decided by the opinions of everyday God fearing, church going Americans, we'd still be eating at segregated lunch counters and riding on the back of the bus. Please stop using religion to cover your bigotry as I can assure you that since the advent of the slave trade, people have used those same arguments to defend the systematic racism, rape, and genocide of black people . Great post, Craig. Marriage is a civil contract, as evidenced by the piece of paper given to the couple by the religious official who performs the ceremony and the words spoken, "By the power vested in me by the State of ___..." We still have separation of church and state in this country, although you wouldn't know it by some of the laws being passed. And although I am a white, straight woman, I am always saddened and confused when I hear AAs say that gay marriage is not a civil right or that gay rights do not equate to civil rights. As the mother of a gay son, you cannot tell me when he is denied the very same rights my straight son has, that is not about equality and civil rights. I will fight to my dying breath for those rights for my son and his partner and for all LGBT people in this county and everywhere I can. [and note this response] Neither of your sons are denied any rights. You have one son who chooses not to marry the opposite gender and thus he is denying himself 'rights' because he is not engaging in marriage in the way society has deemed in it's best interest. Societal interest when it comes to marriage is not about the individual rather, the state of matrimony itself, is set up to circumscribe individual pursuit of happiness, thus the incentives/benefits given to those individuals who choose to enter in the state of matrimony where they lose individual rights under the law when it comes to property. The problem here is that 'gay folks and their advocates' think marriage is about the individual and it is not . Now the adoption of particular language of Civil Rights and the co-opting of African-American culture to promote Marriage Equality (and Feminism too for that matter) bothers me because it's white people (men mostly) using it while ignoring the contributions of AAs who may also be LGBT - and that REALLY bothers me . I'd like to see more AA LGBTs step forward in leadership
 
McCain Backs Obama Detainee Photo Decision Top
Senator John McCain on Thursday welcomed President Obama's decision to oppose the release of photographs documenting prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States military personnel, even as criticism continued from groups of the left. "We are still in a war," said Senator McCain, the Arizona Republican who is a member of the Armed Services Committee. "The publication of those photographs would have given help to the enemy in the psychological side of the war we are in. I applaud the president's decision." More on Barack Obama
 
Matt Coles: Mormons and Knights and Understanding Proposition 8 Top
For their support of Proposition 8, the Mormon Church and the Knights of Columbus have been subjected to harsh criticism. They insist the criticism is unfair. All they did, they say, was exercise their democratic right to cast their vote on whether same-sex couples should be able to marry. That response suggests the Mormons and the Knights don't grasp what Proposition 8 did. They speak as though Prop 8 were a simple vote on whether to support or oppose marriage for same-sex couples. But Proposition 8 didn't pass a law about marriage or repeal one; it changed the state constitution to say that a right available to everyone else would not be available to same-sex couples. The difference between passing a law and changing the constitution is no technicality. If majority rule is the first premise of the American system, the second premise is that the rights of a minority can't be taken away by majority rule. It was to make sure that minority rights didn't depend on the forbearance of the majority that we added a Bill of Rights to the federal constitution. And it was to make sure that the promises contained in the Bill of Rights were real that we early accepted the idea that while it was for Congress to decide what laws to pass, it would be for the Courts to decide if those laws were fair and equal. On the unusual occasions when the Courts strike down laws, they typically save us from the kind of excess that makes us all ashamed later -- laws that put people in jail for opposing a war or laws that segregated schools. Sometimes the Courts don't save us from our excesses and we later wish they had--think of laws that forced Japanese Americans into internment camps. The California Constitution uses the same institutional balancing that the U.S. Constitution does: the legislature decides what laws to pass and the Courts have the last word on whether they are fair and equal. Proposition 8 threw out that balance. Its purpose was to set aside a Court decision enforcing the constitution and to have the views of a majority trump the rights of a minority instead. Under the U.S. Constitution, a Court decision can be changed by changing the constitution. But that can't be done by a simple majority vote. Two-thirds of each house of Congress has to agree, and then three-quarters of the state legislatures have to consent. Overthrowing a Court decision on basic rights is difficult. But it has to be if that second premise of our system--that the rights of a minority can't be taken away by a majority vote--is to mean much. The California Constitution says that while minor changes can be made by a simple majority, major change--a revision--must be approved by two-thirds of each house of the legislature and then by the voters. The lawsuit attacking Proposition 8 says that taking away the basic rights of a minority is such a drastic step, it has to be a major change--a revision. Those who drafted Proposition 8 complain that it would be difficult to get two -thirds of the legislature to agree. But it is supposed to be difficult. Otherwise, the promise of a right would be only as good as the forbearance of the majority, exactly what the framers of the American constitutional system worked to avoid. Perhaps the Mormons and the Knights would understand why Proposition 8 was deeply wrong by considering another initiative. If an initiative were proposed to give the expansive protection the California Constitution gives freedom of religion--greater than the federal constitution--to all faiths except Mormonism and Catholicism, would the Mormons and the Knights see this as just a fair part of ordinary political discourse? This is nothing more than what Proposition 8 did. There have been times in our history when large majorities would gladly have taken rights away from Mormons and Catholics. There still may be places with majorities ready to do that. I hope that if anyone ever proposes such a thing, the Courts will rise to the task of protecting minority rights and strike it down. Just as I hope they will rise to the job now, and strike down Prop 8. If the Mormons and Knights understood what Proposition 8 really did, they'd join us in asking the Court to strike it. More on Gay Marriage
 
Dr. Jon LaPook: What Happened to My Waistline? Top
Dr. Jon LaPook Discusses the Metabolic and Hormonal Changes of Menopause As menopause approaches, hormonal and metabolic changes combine to alter a woman's appearance. For example, falling estrogen levels contribute to a loss of elasticity in various parts of the body. Nora Ephron perfectly describes the phenomenon in her book, I Feel Bad About My Neck: And Other Thoughts On Being a Woman : "According to my dermatologist, the neck starts to go at forty-three, and that's that. You can put makeup on your face and concealer under your eyes and dye on your hair, you can shoot collagen and Botox and Restylane into your wrinkles and creases, but short of surgery, there's not a damn thing you can do about a neck. The neck is a dead giveaway. Our faces are lies and our necks are the truth. You have to cut open a redwood tree to see how old it is, but you wouldn't have to if it had a neck." To the dismay of many of my patients, the waist is also directly affected by the chemical changes that occur during menopause. In today's CBS Doc Dot Com, Dr. Rebecca Booth and Dr. Lori Warren -- gynecologists with expertise in hormonal changes -- join forces with trainer Carol Clements to explain the chemical basis of the increased belly fat that tends to occur with menopause and to give down to earth, nitty-gritty advice about how women can maintain -- or recover -- a trim waistline as their hormones take a dive. And just for inspiration and fun, we filmed the segment in a beautiful dance studio at Ballet Hispanico in New York City with a backdrop of world-class dancers. For an in-depth look at the subject, I highly recommend Dr. Booth's book, "The Venus Week: Discover the Powerful Secret of your Cycle ... at Any Age."
 
Aaron Contorer: America's Newest State Holds America's Newest Election Top
For too long we have tolerated the idea that elections should be difficult. If you think voting is inconvenient, too bad for you, say pundits. And if elections are expensive and a logistical nightmare to run, oh well, at least there aren't too many of them. America's newest state, our southernmost state, has a different idea. Right now, as you read this article on the Internet, citizens of Honolulu are voting in America's first all-digital online and telephone election. Residents of neighborhoods with contested board seats received pass-codes in the mail, along with a Web address and a phone number allowing them to vote at any time, day or night, from anywhere in the world. While I typed that paragraph, two people just voted. They may have just gotten home from work, or they may be at school, in the library, or even overseas. Someone else will vote at 3:00 am in his pajamas. And all of their votes are being secured using military-grade encryption technology: faster, more reliable, and more secure than if they had voted on paper. At Honolulu Hale (City Hall) last week, I met a blind Hawaiian woman very interested in her neighborhood board. This month, for the first time ever, she will be able to vote in privacy: a telephone system, not her relative or neighbor, will record her vote and read it back without bias, without disclosure, and without fear of dishonesty. For the first time, she receives her Constitutional right to a private ballot. I have had the privilege to help build some pretty interesting technology products, including MSN and Windows, but none of them has ever excited me like this. We've used the best technology in this country to increase access to shopping and checking accounts. Now it's time to get serious: we are increasing access to democracy, to the vote. At dinner recently, a prominent Hawaiian legislator, sad about fading industries, told me that all America has left to export is our values. I love our values too, but had to protest: our technology industry remains one of our country's brightest stars. I am so proud, I told him, so delighted, to play a small part in the bringing together of election science and digital technology -- to protect and advance our finest value, democracy. In this case the technology manufacturer, a California company called Everyone Counts (where I am Chief of Products and Partnerships), isn't just advancing the art of government. It's also saving taxpayers money, enfranchising voters with disabilities and soldiers overseas, and making life easier for hard-working citizens who may not have time between work and family to go to a polling place but who care deeply about their communities. What better use of technology? Who would see democracy stuck in the past, a relic of the age before secure encryption, before cash machines, indeed before telephones? Who would continue our present system in which less than one third of soldiers overseas can successfully vote? Who would leave secure digital communication to the military, while subjecting our democracy to the insecurities of a cardboard box full of papers in someone's trunk? The introduction of technology to any process is scary. But the time has come. We have been banking online and shopping online for over a decade, and conducting important business by phone for a century. Digital technology, while no panacea, is the best method ever invented for securely delivering information and decisions. The people of Honolulu, capital of our newest state, have shown true American leadership in pioneering the all-digital online and telephone election. I am deeply grateful to be a part of this project. It had to happen, and it is happening. We will all look back at this event in Hawaii as the most obvious, most natural, least revolutionary, yet most necessary step for American democracy, this blossoming springtime of 2009. Aaron Contorer is Chief of Products and Partnerships at Everyone Counts, Inc. More on Voting Problems
 
North Dakota Passes Troubling New Abortion Laws Top
Yesterday, North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven signed two anti-abortion bills into law. The first, House Bill 1371, requires doctors to show an ultrasound to a pregnant woman before she is allowed to go through with the procedure. Infantilizing towards the woman? Sure. Assuming that a woman doesn't have long conversations and ambivalent thoughts about making this hard decision? This is nothing new. However, according to LifeNews.com, there's an even more troubling bill, HB 1445, that's made its way through. "The other measure requires the lone abortion center in the state to tell women considering an abortion that it will destroy the life of an unborn child, a unique human being."
 
Anti-Ahmadinejad Campaign Mantra: "Death To Potatoes" Top
"Death to potatoes" ("marg bar sibzamini" in Farsi) has been adopted as a mantra by anti-Ahmadinejad campaigners in Iran's forthcoming presidential ­election. Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister who has positioned himself to woo the reformist vote, chanted the slogan this week at a rally in Yasouj in central Iran. More on Iran
 
Limbaugh: Pelosi Is Facing Her Own Waterboarding Top
One thing to note about the ongoing saga about the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation techniques: it has removed any stigma from making jokes about torture. On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh became the latest to take advantage, saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- facing questions about how deeply she was briefed on detainee treatment -- was "fighting for her political career today in Washington." "She is being waterboarded," said the radio talk show host. "Finding out what it's like. Drip. Drip. Drip." The clip, pulled by the folks at Media Matters, is not the first instance of Limbaugh using brash language to discuss his political opponents. Nowadays, however, to do such seems somewhat less jarring. After all, just this past week, Wanda Sykes said she wished kidney disease on Limbaugh. A few days later former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura -- in the process of decrying torture -- said that he could get Dick Cheney to confess to the Sharon Tate murders if he had one hour and a waterboard.
 
Kathleen Wells: Congressman Jim Moran on Torture and Accountability Top
After my interview with Congresswoman Diane Watson, I felt compelled to follow the Guantanamo torture theme. Jim Moran (D), a 10-term Congressman representing Virginia's 8th Congressional District, accompanied Congresswoman Watson on one of her trips to Guantanamo. The Congressman generously took time out of his busy schedule to grant me the following interview: Kathleen Wells: First, I'd like to know when did you and Congresswoman Diane Watson visit Guantanamo Bay? Congressman Moran: Well, I accompanied her in April. I've gone two or three times, but at least one of those trips was with Diane. And I think both of us are glad that we went. But in terms of informing us as to the conditions in which the prisoners are kept, I think it was only marginally informative. We didn't get a chance to get near the prisoners, let alone talk with them. And Guantanamo was set up to be a bit of a dog and pony show for the visitors, certainly. They have more visitors than they have prisoners. They are very adept at trying to communicate a message -- public relations. Kathleen Wells: Were you able to witness interrogation procedures of the detainees? Congressman Moran: Not at all. They had no interest in showing us the way in which they (detainees) were interrogated. They showed us videos, but the videos weren't necessarily representative. Kathleen Wells: So, what are your thoughts about that; being in the Congress and not being informed or having any access to the methods used when detainees are interrogated? Congressman Moran: Well, I wasn't surprised. But bear in mind, this was during the Cheney-Bush Administration. They had no intention of informing the Congress about anything. And for six years of that time, the Congress had no interest in learning anything. They were simply a rubber stamp. So the fact that we weren't given the respect of seeing any actual interrogations or having any communication with the prisoners was certainly consistent with the way in which Congress had been treated by the Cheney-Bush Administration. Kathleen Wells: Congresswoman Watson indicated to me that the interrogators were private contractors. Would you agree with that characterization? Congressman Moran: Some were. But that was largely in the beginning. I think the majority are government employees; in fact, military personnel. They do contract with some psychologists and other interrogators, but that's more the exception than the rule. Kathleen Wells: Do you think those that violated the Geneva agreement, those that condoned torture, should be prosecuted? Congressman Moran: I do. Because it's not about what we have done in the past, it's about what we will do in the future. And if we want to avoid these kinds of illegal and unconstitutional, harmful actions, people need to be held accountable. Now from a political standpoint, it isn't a pleasant thing to do. It's a loser politically, except for a relatively small portion of the people who want to go through all that. Kathleen Wells: What do you mean, "it is a loser politically?" Congressman Moran: I think the Obama Administration understands that this will ignite the right wing. It will be more fodder for the hate radio networks. And it will distract people from their very full agenda of healthcare reform, cleaner environment through cap-and-trade, things like that. Those are very high priorities. It is not the priority of the Obama Administration, I know, to bring these people to justice. They are in charge now. These people are past, history. But I do think there is a responsibility, at least on the part of the Congress, many of whom stood by and let it happen, to bring these people down to justice so that it won't happen again. Kathleen Wells: So, when you say, "part of the Congress, who stood by and let this stuff happen," are you saying that there is some accountability actually in the Congress? Congressman Moran: I don't think there is much accountability in terms of actually knowing what was happening and not doing the right thing. But the culpability is in not figuring out what was taking place. The reality is the people who would have done anything about it were in the minority. It wasn't until the Democrats were elected to the majority of the Congress in 2006 that (there) would have been any opportunity to change any of this policy. But clearly there were some people, primarily those working with the White House and in the Republican Party, who did have some idea of what was going on and sanctioned it. I don't think it is likely that they will be held accountable because they didn't write the memos. They simply, at most, looked the other way. Kathleen Wells: And we know that Gonzales and Bybee did write the memos, so...? Congressman Moran: Yes, Bybee seems to be culpable. Gonzales clearly knew what was going on. John Yoo appears to be one of the apologists for unconstitutional actions. So, those people who wrote the justification for doing things that were in violation of the Geneva accords, I think, should be held accountable. Kathleen Wells: So, is there anything else you'd like to address? Congressman Moran: I know we all feel a temptation to move on and to leave this wretched eight years behind us and just kind of label it the worse administration in American history. But unless we know the full extent of their actions and unless we undo the damage, we are basically sending a message to future generations that this kind of stuff should be tolerated. And I think that's the wrong message. Future generations ought to be able to read a history book and be at least maybe saddened by what happened over the last eight years. But they should at least be heartened by the fact that this generation, my generation, saw fit to hold people accountable and to put research into what took place, so that we will never go through the same kind of national nightmare where our reputation aboard is torn asunder and we've lost thousands of lives in a war that should have never been fought and we destroyed the economy and undermined our own values and principles that define who we are as a nation. It's serious enough that there needs to be some accountability. And I think the Congress is the best place for that to occur. It doesn't mean we can't do other things while we are holding people accountable. The judiciary can look into this stuff. They can ask the (current) administration to release what's appropriate. And we can continue to move forward in terms of healthcare, infrastructure, investment and recovery from this deep recession. Kathleen Wells: And do you feel that Congress is moving forward in investigating the wrongdoings of the last administration? Congressman Moran: I think there is reluctance on the part of the legislative and executive branch. I can understand that reluctance. I sympathize with it from a purely expedient standpoint. I think you'd much rather move forward and let history take its toll on people who got in this mess. But my own personal feeling, for whatever it's worth, (is) there does need to be some formal accountability process that takes place. Those who are culpable need to be judged by their peers and I think we need to put in place some kinds of structures to ensure that we never repeat our mistakes. Kathleen Wells: If the American people put pressure on politicians to hold an investigation, to hold those responsible, that may have some influence on Congress, right? Congressman Moran: Well, that's the way the system is supposed to work. We represent the people. The legislative branch doesn't necessarily act on its own initiative. We are there to represent the will of the American people. And once that will is determined, the executive branch's role is to carry out the laws as representative of the will of the people. So, basically, the executive branch's judgment is much more constrained than Congress. Their job is to carry out the laws that we make. Our job is to inform and be responsive to the will of the people. And then, hopefully, the media acts in a responsible enough role that the will of the people represents an informed judgment. Kathleen Wells: Tell me how do you feel that the Obama Administration is different from the Bush Administration? Congressman Moran: Well, the Obama Administration wants to do the right thing for America. I think there is a much better appreciation of who we are as people. People calling the shots in the Bush Administration suffered from deep male anxiety, constantly trying to prove themselves. What's probably reflective of that is none of them were willing to serve in the military. They were cheerleader types still looking to prove themselves. And, of course, they used that military to try and do so. The Obama Administration handles things very differently. He is intellectually secure and is not afraid to listen to other opinions. And he has the courage of his convictions. To get back to your original question, Guantanamo is such a case study on how not do things. Here you've brought in 772 people, without any clear idea what you are going to do with them, without any basis upon which to hold them and, yet, deciding to hold them indefinitely; mischaracterizing them as the worse of the worse, when only five percent had been involved in any hostile action against the United States. Here were 772 young men. You had an opportunity to expose them to all of the world's great literature. We have it all translated from the Library of Congress into Farsi or whatever language they understood. We could have given them the best literature ever in the world and enabled them to read that. Just as in the movie, "The Reader." Once the female prison guard was able to read and understand she was able to empathize. Once anyone learns to read, then they enhance their ability to empathize. We had an ability to teach these young, impressionable men what it is that we, as a nation, stand for. Over a five-year period, they could have become people who could have served as our allies on this war against ignorant, violent extremism, which is orthodoxy. We blew that chance. We kept them in a little cell. We only gave them the Koran to read. We know that our philosophy is far superior to this kind of medieval orthodoxy that they were taught. We did everything possible to radicalize them -- to the torturing, to the confinement, to only allowing them to read, one religious doctrine, the Koran, without the benefit of enlightened interpretation. Kathleen Wells: And why was that? Why did that happen? Congressman Moran: Because that's who Cheney and Bush and the people they hired were all about. Even the torture issue. I'll give you an example and, again, I'm digressing here. During World War II, we captured a number of Nazi officers and put them in a camp in Virginia. They needed people who spoke German and who they could trust and they brought in dozens of German Jewish men who had every reason to hate their captors. Instead they befriended them. They got to know them and they elicited more information than any interrogation camp in the history of interrogation. History is replete with those examples. We don't take the Chinese Communist manual on how to elicit false confessions as the manual we apply. What you do is understand them, try to work with them to gain their confidence and you get the maximum amount of information. We didn't do that. We didn't try to understand them. We didn't try to work with them. We treated them like animals. And what information we got from the torture was not helpful. And I think that the reason why we did that is because of the very limited psyche, imaginations of the people who were in leadership. They were people who were not intellectually or emotionally secure. They were trying to prove themselves. They spent eight years trying to prove what tough guys they were. Cheney at one point said, "We don't negotiate, we dominate." It wasn't him dominating. He was trying to use these young military men to overcome his own insecurities, apparently. So, for eight years, this administration conducted itself in the most counter-productive way imaginable and we are left with a whole lot of damage. Basically, we are left with a manual on how not to do things. Well, I think we need to make that clear this is the wrong way. This is not who we are as a nation. And by exposing the people who made those decisions and the people who gave them the legal underpinning to act in illegal, let alone ineffective ways and that we show that we fully understand that. And that this is not reflective of who America is and America is much greater than this and that's the point of reviewing all of this and making clear that these people who acted in this way were not acting true to America's values. More on Guantánamo Bay
 
Fernando Henrique Cardoso: It Doesn't Get Bigger Than This Top
The world economy, the future of the financial system, the rebuilding of a nation's infrastructure. Nothing small, it seems, gets done in Washington these days. But the recent meeting of 17 major economies, hosted by the State Department, produced the start of real progress on perhaps the biggest challenge yet. Climate change. This is a challenge that requires imagination, political will and the vision to champion generations to come while meeting the urgent needs of today. Climate change is a global issue that intertwines the lush rainforests of Brazil, the gleaming American automobile and the roaring factories of China. The solutions will require seismic shifts in the way we use and consume energy, the launch of entirely new economic sectors, and a strong hand of assistance to those that are already suffering the impacts of a changing climate. And it will demand all of these actions from the world's major economies, acting together. When, a cynic might ask, was the last time world leaders showed that kind of vision? Not as long ago as you might think. In 1992 the world's leaders met at the "Earth Summit" in Rio, Brazil, to shape the future of our planet. Then, the threat posed by climate change appeared far more distant than it does today. Yet, to the surprise of many, the community of nations shaped the world's first international climate agreement -- the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change -- agreeing to act to prevent dangerous changes to the Earth's climate. And the United States, led by the first President Bush, signed and ratified that Convention. For the past seventeen years the science of climate change has become ever sharper, and the impacts have been felt sooner and more powerfully than we had anticipated. The Earth's drylands have doubled in size, ice sheets are retreating, storms are more severe and floods more extreme. Many of the world's major economies have responded. Brazil has set ambitious goals to reduce deforestation, and is pushing forward with renewable energy. Mexico and South Korea are adopting emissions targets. The European Union has run a successful cap and trade system for several years. China is engaged on what President Obama has rightly called "the world's most ambitious energy efficiency program." Perhaps most importantly, the United States, so long the hold-out, is now preparing ambitious legislation to tackle emissions. Both the Obama Administration and Congress have laid out visions for an ambitious U.S. climate policy, and for vigorous re-engagement with international partners. Matching words with action, they approved $112 billion in green stimulus spending to shift the U.S. economy on to a low carbon path. President Obama's stated objective in convening the Major Economies Forum was to "facilitate a candid dialogue among key developed and developing countries" aimed at producing "a successful outcome at the [December] UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen." The first part of this agenda, the meeting certainly achieved. Goodwill lacking in the tense UN climate negotiating sessions marked the two days of discussion, and by all accounts there was candid discussion on how all major economies, including China, India and Brazil, can take clear and robust actions to support energy security and sustainable development. Whether the MEF process meets its larger objective of providing the political leadership to forge a new global climate treaty in December remains to be seen. There are formidable obstacles to overcome -- not least a chasm of disagreement on nations' greenhouse gas reduction targets. Bringing together the leading greenhouse gas emitters in Washington only started the work of bridging this chasm. To be effective, the Major Economies Forum must build on the goodwill generated to produce substantive outcomes at future meetings, culminating in a summit of presidents and prime ministers in July. These outcomes must then be fed into the UN negotiating process, shaking up the existing entrenched positions. The world has forged a seminal agreement once before on climate, in Rio. We can -- and must -- do it again in December in Copenhagen. Fernando Henrique Cardoso is the former president of Brazil. Jonathan Lash is President of the World Resources Institute. More on Brazil
 
To Disclose Or Not Disclose: Obama's Decision On Detainee Photos Analysed Top
In case you were wondering, I am of the opinion that President Barack Obama's decision to not release those detainee abuse photos is a mistake. The decision cuts against the value of transparency that this White House continually asserts as a governing priority. It is a pure and simple contradiction. But, more to the point, "transparency" is more than a value, or a goal one seeks to attain. More and more, "transparency" is an inevitability. We live in an age where the available technology and the incentive to push information out into the public sphere have become so dramatically advanced and accelerated that it's no longer possible to imagine that stuff is just going to disappear without a trace. In fact, the probabilities have shifted, rather decidedly, in the direction of exposure and disclosure. So, the Obama administration can either have a hand in steering that disclosure, or they can be caught with their pants down, the choice is theirs. Similarly, I find the whole argument that keeping these pictures under wraps will prevent the inflammation of anti-American violence and thus protect our troops to be a bit of a canard. I mean, that these images exist is an open secret. That they depict detainee abuse is widely known. Are we to believe that it will be the photographic composition that will set people off? The photographers' use of color and light? This strikes me as, well... idiotic. Sarabeth of 1115.org isolates the specific strain of idiocy, here : As long as the photos are not released, everything is hunky dory. Knowing that hundreds of these photographs exist, knowing that the President of the United States regards them as dangerously inflammatory -- so much so that he is willing to back out of a previously executed agreement (see below) -- that doesn't count. As long as the photographs are not seen , they don't count. I mean, President Obama is basically saying -- out loud , mind you -- "Hoo boy! The stuff that's in these photos! It's pretty bad!" So, the cat of inflammation has, I believe, vacated the bag of uncertainty . BUT! Since I'm only going to get emails on the awesome THIRD DIMENSIONAL CHESS that's behind this decision, I'll go ahead and present that argument, for your digestion and/or dissection. And, to be certain, I think that John Cook of Gawker prosecutes it quite well , arguing that the release of the photos is inevitable, so Obama may as well be seen as supporting the troops: First off, Obama did not actually decide not to release the photos, despite the way his reversal has been characterized. The decision isn't his to make. The Pentagon is currently compelled by a court order [pdf] to turn 22 photos over to the ACLU, which sued the government under the Freedom of Information Act for their release in 2003. The Pentagon lost in district court and lost again on appeal; earlier this year Pentagon lawyers decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court and struck a deal with the ACLU. The government has no say at this point in whether or not those photos get released -- either the FOIA compels their release or it doesn't, and it's up to a court to decide that question. All Obama did yesterday was authorize the Pentagon to ask the Supreme Court to take the case. The Court might take the case or it might not. And if it does, it will almost certainly uphold the decisions of the district and appeals courts and order the photos to be released. [...] It's almost unthinkable that the Supreme Court, if it takes the Pentagon's appeal, will side with the government. Doing so would open a massive hole in the FOIA that Congress clearly didn't intend, and constitute a mammoth act of "legislating from the bench." It would mean that any federal law enforcement agency could keep a lid on any documents that could conceivably make someone, somewhere angry enough to hurt someone else. Any evidence of military or police misconduct would be off the table--what if someone gets mad about it and attacks a cop or a soldier? Want to FOIA FBI documents about investigations into AIG -- well, what if they make people mad at AIG executives? The government's legal argument is laughable -- it was, the appeals court judges noted in their opinion, tossed in as an afterthought in the government's district court brief -- and Obama surely knows it. And since the Pentagon already agreed to release the photos before Obama's reversal, it's not in a terribly strong position to argue that the threat from anger in the Arab world is very substantial -- if these photos will actually put soldiers' lives in real danger, then why did you agree to release them before all your legal options were exhausted? By trying to take that argument to the Supreme Court, all Obama is doing is delaying the photos' release and earning points as a moderate and loyal Commander in Chief. He knows that the photos will come out before his next election, and any lingering anger from his supporters will have long since dissipated. So there you have it. Some wish -- no must -- make their disgust at this abuse perfectly clear. Others are here for chess . Is the U.S.? If so, why foul the atmosphere? UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman points out the flaw that will ensure Obama loses this game : Does President Obama really want to make this argument for why he's flip-flopping on the release of the torture photographs: I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib ... I haven't seen the photographs, of course, but this can't possibly be true. If the photos are "not particularly sensational," then they wouldn't, as Obama went on to say, "further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." How can unsensational photographs put troops in danger? Furthermore, at some point, the photos are going to come out -- whether in the near future, as the ACLU is going to press its Freedom of Information Act request, or decades from now, when the time limit on their classification expires. When they're released, will Obama really want to stand by describing their contents as "not particularly sensational"? And if these photos truly are "not particularly sensational," Obama is just going to look dotty for not having simply released them. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Transparency
 
Jeff Walser, FDIC Economist, Charged Attempted Bank Robbery Top
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — An economist on leave from the federal agency that insures bank deposits has been charged with the April 11 attempted robbery of a Kansas City-area bank. Jeff Walser said he had a bomb in his briefcase and demanded money at the Bank of America branch in Independence, but did not take $41,000 brought to him by an employee, according to an indictment filed Tuesday. Walser, 51, surrendered to police and was being held in federal custody, the U.S. attorney's office said. Walser told police that he has health problems and was "alone, discouraged and tired of working" and that his plan was to be arrested and not tell police he required thrice-weekly dialysis treatments to survive. "I wanted to be arrested and I wanted to die," he is quoted as saying. "But after my arrest, I did not have the will to kill myself." Walser worked for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s Kansas City office and was on leave at the time of the robbery, agency spokesman Andrew Gray said. Messages left Thursday for Walser's public defender were not immediately returned. ___ Information from: The Kansas City Star, http://www.kcstar.com
 
Madoff Money Recovered: Trustee Gets About $1 Billion, Expects More For Clients Soon Top
About $1 billion has been recovered to pay back the defrauded customers of swindler Bernard Madoff, but settlements in the coming weeks will boost the number significantly, the trustee winding down the Madoff firm said on Thursday. Trustee Irving Picard told reporters on a conference call that he has filed lawsuits to recover $10.1 billion in assets from Wall Street's biggest investment fraud. More on Bernard Madoff
 
Keith Olbermann Had "Meltdown," Took Three Days Off After Fight With Rachel Maddow Over Ben Affleck: Report Top
If you regularly tune in to Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, you may remember that Olbermann was mysteriously absent from the show for three days at the end of April. But Olbermann didn't just "have the night off," as David Shuster, his fill-in, said on the air three evenings in a row. According to a source inside MSNBC, it was a bizarre temper tantrum on Olbermann's part that led him to storm off the set in protest. Even stranger: The drama was all Ben Affleck's fault. More on Rachel Maddow
 
Swine Flu Not Man Made: WHO Top
There is no evidence to support a theory that the new influenza A(H1N1) virus was created in a laboratory, a World Health Organisation official said Thursday. More on Health
 
Somali President Ahmed Enacts Islamic Sharia Law; Insurgency Continues Top
As Islamist insurgents continued an assault on government forces in Mogadishu, President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed signed a bill late Wednesday enacting Islamic Sharia law in the country. More on Somalia
 
Sgt. John M. Russell's Victims' Bodies Sent Home Top
The paths that brought six men together in a Baghdad military clinic traced across the globe, from South America to rural Missouri, from the islands of Alaska to deepest Antarctica, before intersecting in a tragic shooting spree. Authorities say Sgt. John M. Russell, who was nearing the end of his third tour in Iraq, was deeply angry at the military when he walked into the combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty on Monday and opened fire. Two of the men who died devoted their careers to helping men like Russell: soldiers suffering from the stress of combat and repeated deployments to dangerous overseas war zones. Keith Springle, a Navy commander who grew up swimming and fishing off the North Carolina coast, was in Iraq because it was his duty as a military clinical social worker. Dr. Matthew Houseal, a psychiatrist and major in the Army Reserve, was there because he felt he needed to be. The three other victims were Russell's comrades. Soldiers like the Maryland rebel who liked tinkering with guns and despised "pencil pushers." A Peru native who, whether walking the streets of New Jersey or the dirt roads of Iraq, was a magnet for candy-seeking kids. And the shy video gamer from Missouri whose refusal to back down probably cost him his life. Killed were Springle, 52, from Beaufort, N.C.; Houseal, 54, of Amarillo, Texas; Army Sgt. Christian E. Bueno-Galdos, 25, of Paterson, N.J.; Spc. Jacob D. Barton, 20, of Lenox, Mo.; and Pfc. Michael E. Yates Jr., 19, of Federalsburg, Md., who had met Russell shortly before the shootings. The remains of Houseal, Yates and Bueno-Galdos were brought to Dover Air Force Base Wednesday night with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, attending. The three transfer containers were lowered down on a lift from a 747 commercial airplane, and six military personnel carried them onto a white truck. The families chose not to give interviews. Family and teachers said Jacob Barton was a quiet student who loved graphic novels and science fiction. Growing up with his grandmother in the house, he sometimes had trouble relating to kids his own age. "His grandmother was foremost on his mind at all times," said Rod Waldrip, Barton's high school English teacher at Rolla High School, where Barton graduated last year. "He sometimes wouldn't do after-school activities because he had to see if she was OK." Barton's older sister had been in the Army, and by graduation he'd already made up his mind to follow her. The grandmother he rushed home to see, Rose Coleman, said he was adjusting to life in the Army and that he "seemed to like it." Although he was reserved, he wasn't afraid. Waldrip remembers seeing Barton come to the rescue of somebody who was getting bullied. "He wouldn't say much unless there was some injustice being done, and then he would speak up." Coleman said the Army told the family that Barton died trying to shield another man from the shooting. "And he tried to talk the guy with the gun to put his gun down," she said. Springle, whose first assignment with the Navy was in the Aleutian Islands off Alaska, wanted to be make sure mental health issues faced by soldiers and their families were treated properly, said Staff Sgt. Robert Mullis from the 1451st Transportation Company of the N.C. National Guard, who was part of a civilian outreach program with Springle. "He saw it as preventive maintenance," Mullis said. "They've just been through some tough experiences. He was reaching out trying to try and stop a big beast before it got started." Springle grew up in the little fishing village of Lewiston, N.C., just east of Beaufort. Cousin Alton Dudley said the pair were a kind of saltwater Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. "It was a carefree life," said Dudley, a fishing boat captain who was nine years older than Springle. "I am sure that he joined the Navy so that he could be at sea or close to it." All who knew him talked about Springle's sense of humor and upbeat attitude. But Springle _ whose son and son-in-law have each done a tour in Iraq _ took the issue of combat stress very seriously. His work on the homefront with the Citizen-Soldier Support Program was a labor of love. "This was volunteer work," said Bob Goodale, director of behavioral mental health for the program. "He was doing this because it was the right thing to do _ training civilian providers so they were better equipped to serve the families and the service members." Houseal was under no obligation to go to Iraq, but he was already something of an adventurer. In 1991, the University of Michigan graduate was a physician at the Amundsen-Scott Station near the South Pole in a climate research project, said Mike O'Neill, the group's electronics technician. "He came in at the last minute not knowing anybody," O'Neill said. "That's one of the reasons I really respected him." Houseal was inquisitive, always checking on people at the station, even if it meant braving temperatures that dropped to minus-107 degrees that year. The Amarillo man had worked for a dozen years at the Texas Panhandle Mental Health and Mental Retardation clinic, said executive director Bud Schertler. He left Texas for Iraq in late January and was assigned to the 55th Medical Company in Indianapolis, which ran the clinic where the shootings occurred. Bueno-Galdos couldn't wait to serve his adopted country and did so exceptionally, earning three Army Commendation Medals. He was 7 when his family emigrated from Mollendo, Peru. The youngest of four children, he became a U.S. citizen in high school and joined the Army as soon as he graduated. Back home in Paterson, he never made a trip to the corner bodega without a group of neighborhood children tailing him, knowing he would buy them candy or soda, his family recalled. It was the same in Iraq, where he was on his second tour. On Mother's Day, Eugenia Gardos made a small shrine to her recently deceased mother, placing her photograph on a small glass table surrounded by silk roses, a rosary necklace, votives and a prayer card of Senor de los Milagros _ patron saint of Peru. The next day, she added a photo of her son Christian to the memorial. "We want people to know we're proud of our son's Army, but if my son had died in war we would be able to handle that," said his father, Carlos Bueno. "But not to die in this manner." Yates displayed zeal for serving in the Army, but perhaps not his locale, as evidenced by his MySpace page. His profile lists his location as "(expletive), Iraq." For his education, he listed his major as "KILLING F...ERS" and his minor as "SHOOTING THEM IN THE FACE." Under clubs, he declared himself a member of "THE US ARMY THE BEST ORGINIZATION." Yates' mother, Shawna Machlinski, said her son joined the Army not out of a sense of duty, but because he didn't see many other options. Besides, his stepfather and two stepbrothers were military men. "Michael was a hands-on person who didn't like book work," she said. "He liked putting guns together ... He just wanted to do something that he thought he would be good at, and he always liked guns and that kind of stuff." So two years ago, he got his GED and signed up. Alexis Mister, 18, of Seaford, Del., and the mother of Michael Yates' son Kamren, said he was an extremely caring father. "He was always was concerned with Kamren so much," she said. "He loved him." Mister said Yates came home in April for the boy's first birthday party and doted on his son by buying him a four-wheeler. "It's absolutely devastating," Mister said, choking up during a telephone interview discussing Yates' death. "My son doesn't have a father anymore." Yates' mother said that April trip left him anxious. He wasn't home long enough, but he'd still been away from "my military family" too long. Once back in Iraq, his mother said he began to think about things he wished he'd done while visiting Maryland. When the strong emotions began surfacing, she said, he was transferred to headquarters company "so he could stay out of combat." "He didn't like headquarters at all," said Machlinski. "He said they're stupid pencil pushers." Despite the stigma, Yates volunteered to go to the stress clinic. "I need help dealing with this," he told his mom. Yates had been at the clinic nearly a week when he told his mother he bumped into Russell. Yates told her Russell seemed like a nice enough guy. But after three tours, he clearly hated the Army. "Man, this guy's got issues," she remembers him telling her. Russell, 44, who just shy of finishing his third tour, told his family that the clinic was hurting more than helping. Now, he is facing charges of murder and aggravated assault. As angry as Machlinski is at Russell for taking her boy, she's angrier at the military. "My heart goes out to him, too," she said of Russell. "Someone should have helped this sergeant way before he got this bad. I would rather have my son doing his job in combat, I would rather him have been blown up by a bomb ... than be shot by friendly fire." ___ Breed reported from Raleigh, N.C. Contributing to this report were Associated Press Writers Maria Sudekum Fisher in Kansas City, Mo.; Samantha Henry in Paterson, N.J.; Kevin Maurer in Wilmington, N.C.; Brian Witte in Seaford, Del.; Betsy Blaney in Lubbock, Texas; and Linda Franklin and Regina L. Burns in Dallas. (This version CORRECTS that Keith Springle was a military clinical social worker, not a psychologist.)
 
EU To Combat Latin American Drug Trade Top
The European Union has agreed to expand its effort in combating drug trafficking and violence in Central and South America, reports AFP. The region is a major center for drug transit and desperately needs help combating the growing business of selling and consumption. "The EU has expressed solidarity and a readiness to help tackle the security situation" in the region, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, told reporters. European ministers discussed issues ranging from crime to development cooperation with counterparts from Mexico, Chile, Central American countries associated in the System for the Central American Integration (SICA) and South America's MERCOSUR. The EU feels the need to lend a hand in fighting the problem as most of the drugs that end up in Europe come from Latin America, explains Czech news service's Cesky Noviny. Nicaraguan State Secretary Valdrak Jaetschke Whitaker told journalists today that Central America was not a direct producer of drugs, but it was a transit area between drug producers and their consumers from the EU and the USA. The EU-Mexico Joint Council mentioned fight against narcotics and organised crime in a joint communique that stressed strategic partnership in many areas. Mexico and the EU consider fight against transnational organised criminal activities in all their forms a fundamental priority, the statement says. This decision by the EU comes in the midst of the new US drug czar Gil Kerlikowske banishing the idea of a "war on drugs." In constrast to the EU, it Kerlikowske is ready to approch the country's drug problem with a more moderate approach, dealing with the problem as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice, as the Wall Street Journal reports . In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country." Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on European Union
 

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)