Friday, May 29, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

ZP Heller: Ex-Interrogators Are Mad as Hell About Torture, and They're Not Gonna Take Cheney Anymore Top
More and more former interrogators and counterinsurgency experts are using Dick Cheney's recent ubiquity to expose his iniquity regarding the torture and abuse of detainees. Earlier this week, I wrote about Major Matthew Alexander , the former Senior Interrogator who conducted over 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised 1,000 more. Alexander relied upon conventional means of interrogation, and his efforts led to the capture and killing of al-Qaeda leader Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi. Yet Alexander also witnessed the perilous consequences of Cheney's torture policy. In an exclusive interview with Brave New Foundation, Alexander said, "At the prison where I conducted interrogations, we heard day in and day out foreign fighters who had been captured state that the number one reason they had come to fight in Iraq was because of torture and abuse, what had happened at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib." Today, MoveOn.org and VoteVets.org joined the growing movement to amplify the testimonies of former interrogators and reveal the repercussions of treating prisoners inhumanely. Their joint campaign features a video with Jay Bagwell, an Afghanistan veteran and counterintelligence agent, who reaffirmed Alexander's assessment of Cheney's torture policy. According to Bagwell, "Torture puts our troops in danger, torture makes our troops less safe, torture creates terrorists. It's used so widely as a propaganda tool now in Afghanistan. All too often, detainees have pamphlets on them, depicting what happened at Guantanamo." Thanks to Alexander, Bagwell, and other former interrogators who have come forward, it's now abundantly clear that the Bush administration's highly controversial, unlawful methods of extracting information were both unsuccessful (read TIME's recent article " After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? ") and counterproductive. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib now stand as evidence of the Bush administration's criminality and morally bankrupt behavior, and they have become recruiting tools for insurgents and terrorists to attack American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MoveOn/VoteVets video comes in conjunction with a petition urging Congress to support Obama's decision to shut down Gitmo once and for all. Honestly, this campaign couldn't have come soon enough. Last week, the Senate rejected Obama's call for funds to close Gitmo. And while Obama kicked off his administration by announcing plans to shutter Gitmo and release the Justice Dept's torture memos, as Jonathan Schell explains at the The Nation , Obama has since: hampered the formation of an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's use of torture; reversed courses on the release of Pentagon photos documenting abuse; supported the continuance of the Bush administration's unconstitutional military commissions; and backed the indefinite detention of detainees. That's why it's encouraging to see MoveOn throw their weight behind this issue right now, particularly since the video focused on a vet from Afghanistan. "The most powerful grassroots organization in the peace movement" took a lot of heat from activist Tom Hayden recently for largely failing to criticize the Obama administration's plans for military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hayden's absolutely right in that we need MoveOn to play a more active role in shaping public discourse about the long war and torture. Rather than allow the Obama administration to buckle under right-wing pressure and fearmongering in the wake of Cheney's "Torture Tour," we have to encourage both the President and Congress to close Gitmo, restore America's reputation, and bring guilty members of the Bush administration to justice. More on Barack Obama
 
Dan Gould: Urban Mini Golf Opens In Brooklyn Vacant Lot Top
This article originally appeared on PSFK.com . An urban mini-golf course will be opening up in Brooklyn this summer, starting on June 6th. "The Putting Lot" will be installed inside a formerly trash-filled vacant lot within the transitional neighborhood of Bushwick. Each of the nine holes of the course are being created by separate teams of artists and architects who will bring imaginative designs to the project. The goal of The Putting Lot (besides fun) is to explore ideas of urban sustainability and community by using abandoned spaces in fresh ways. The Putting Lot team explains their vision: Unused, underutilized, and otherwise empty spaces are abundant in the industrial area around The Putting Lot. Commercial parking and industrial storage influence the streetscape. However, like many other areas in the city, this area of Bushwick is rapidly changing. The conversion of factories into lofts has brought a new residential population to the area. Art galleries, restaurants, and coffee shops have already begun to appear, indicating that the neighborhood is at a transitional point in its development. The use of empty spaces will play a critical role in the evolution of this neighborhood. Taking advantage of this moment of fluctuation, The Putting Lot explores the possibility of an alternate use for these empty spaces. Visitors of The Putting Lot will be able to enjoy the nine-hole miniature golf course, get a bite to eat at the snack shack, or simply spend time in the public seating area. Recreation will be the first priority, but visitors will also be able to experience putt putt as a means for embodying and moving through art and ideas. To read more, please visit PSFK.com .
 
Holly Cara Price: Rubbernecking: The Fashion Show, Week Four Top
We're a month in to TFS , and this episode is cleverly titled The Shoe Must Go On . The only thing is, with the plot, the camera angles, and just about everything except for the way they structure the end sequence (runway, judging, winner named, losers called on carpet, final loser kicked off) it still looks rather like a knockoff, darling, of Project Runway (which is due back on TV in August). Hosts Isaac Mizrahi and Kelly Rowland are the Klum and Gunn of this op, only Rowland is not even close to either and I'm still wondering who she replaced that they originally went for. Isaac doesn't disappoint in the drama department, however, his affectations are almost worth watching the show for ( hooray, hooray and of course calling everyone darling ). Last week the challenge winner was Andrew (in real life an underwear designer), and Daniella - the bitchy but very bright and consistently creative 22 year old - made it her business to tell the judges that his design had been her idea. This week, the designers find that they are suddenly free to compete as individuals again and not in teams as they have been. Which begs the conclusion that some people who were relying on others for good ideas might fall by the wayside. Indeed... The show begins with the Harpers Bazaar Mini-Challenge , which is introduced thus; Isaac whips the cover off of a table covered with women's shoes saying: "the secret ingredient - shoes!" all Iron Chef -style. Long story short, topknot Johnny wins this challenge (and he's outdone even Merlin 's outfit today, wearing a brown shift over black tights accented by a black bowler hat). Off they go to the elimination challenge, which is to take place at an undisclosed location on 57th St. and 5th Ave. Oh Lord! It's Bergdorf 's! Everyone has a sort of out-of-body experience at being in this Temple of Fashion. The designers are let loose in Bergdorf's formidable shoe department and told to pick a pair of shoes that they can design an outfit around. And it's off to the fabric store and then to the workroom. Reco snatches up a fetching pair of latticed Yves Saint Laurent boots. Angel is given a pair of red white and blue Stella McCartney's because nothing really catches her eye. There is some really fine dialogue on this show sometimes and this week Reco , the willowy tall queer from Chattanooga, mutters "it's so substitute schoolteacher" about Andrew 's design when Isaac and Kelly come in to make their rounds a la Tim Gunn . They repair to the hallway for a bitch session and share their thoughts. Kelly thinks Lidia 's going to be the big surprise tonight, whereas Isaac says he would so wear Daniella 's dress if she just finishes it beautifully. Meanwhile, the line of the show goes to Daniella , who tells Reco , "Confidence is the new black." Reco counters, "yes it is - you should get some." Which is funny considering she's one of the most self-confident contestants on the show, and with good reason. Prior to the runway show, Reco finishes early and swans off to take a nap on the couch, all smug-like. Let's say he's not winning any popularity contests among his fellow competitors. The three best designs are those by Reco , Daniella , and Angel . The two worst are Lidia 's and Andrew 's. As the panel sits in judgment on the two worst dresses, Isaac and George Malkemus , President of Manolo Blahnik USA and guest judge, have a mini-spat about Andrew 's dress which is just plain boring but nicely made. George doesn't think it's all that bad. Isaac snaps, "this isn't the salesman show, it's the fashion show." Meow! Lidia , who apparently quit her job to compete on the show, says she didn't have enough time to make her dress as what she envisioned. One audience member likened it to the Nightmare Before Christmas bride. They decide to send Andrew home, though, for his lack of interesting ideas. Lidia , although George calls her dress a monstrosity of a coffin cover, is hanging by a thread but still in the game. See you next week, darlings . The Fashion Show is seen on Bravo Thursday nights at 10PM.
 
Geri Spieler: Sara Jane Moore's Interview Fall Out Top
Tell me how you really feel about it? Seriously, though, reading through the strong reactions and comments regarding Sara Jane Moore's interview on the Today Show are not really surprising given the lack of knowledge about the times and San Francisco in the 1970's. If one were to casually glance at a short cast of characters from the 1970's, one would truly appreciate Sara Jane's chameleon ability to charm everyone she met. She was brilliant at gathering data, sourcing details of events and gaining trust. Her story against the backdrop of 1970's San Francisco is critical to our understanding dangers we don't even see. Many are flummoxed at her release, shocked at what some see as a lack of remorse, and a few say that her appearance is an "irrelevant" issue. Is the act to attempt to assassinate a President irrelevant especially when the threat comes packaged in the guise of a nice, middle-class housewife and mother? If you were standing on that sidewalk next to Sara Jane Moore when she was 45 years old, would you have expected her to pull a gun from her purse, aim and pull the trigger at the head of the U.S. President? The fact that she missed does not diminish the act. She still meant to kill him. Gerald Ford would tell you the same thing he told me in 2003: "There is no difference in the act of assassination whether the person succeeded not. The intent to kill is the same." There was nothing irrelevant about San Francisco in 1975--and Sara Jane Moore was in the middle of it all So many unanswered questions: Huffington Post readers wondered what Sara Jane meant when she when she said the radical leftist groups pushed her to the edge? • What groups? o Viet Nam Vets Against the War? New World Liberation Front? Prairie Fire Organizing Committee? Socialist Workers Party? United Prisoners Union--or wait, Tribal Thumb. • Who was she involved with and why were they pushing her to knock off Ford? o The local FBI recruited Sara Jane to be a card-carrying informant and gained her entre into the most well known and obscure political groups in the city. • Were they after Ford or was he just a symbol? o It was never about Ford • She said if she didn't kill him, others would? Who were those other potential assassins? o After multiple "outings" of Sara Jane's involvement in the radical political movement and her days as a "Double Agent," she found shelter in one of the most dangerous and violent organizations in San Francisco at the time. U.S. Attorney, F. Steele Langford, was quoted in the New York Times during Moore's hearing. He said in that interview that had there been a trial, others would have been accused of conspiracy to kill the president. Bottom Line: We have much to learn from Sara Jane Moore. She slipped through the threat assessment definition of a potential assassin at the time. Not the Secret Service, FBI or SFPD caught on to the sweet, clever, well spoken person you saw on television. She hasn't changed. The question we need to learn from her, is have we changed? Will we know better next time? Geri Spieler is the author of, "Taking Aim At The President," Palgrave Macmillan More on Today Show
 
Jane Minogue: Omnigamy, anyone? Top
Evan Wolfson, the civil rights attorney and advocate, has said, "The right wing would love nothing more than for us to spend all of our airtime discussing distractions such as polygamy, bestiality and other - from their point of view - doomsday scenarios rather than engage the public about committed same-sex couples being discriminated against." There's truth to that. And look at the mess we have now with certain citizens denied the right to marry. Different states have different rules, which do not go across state lines. In California, some 18,000 same-sex couples are married and now, with Prop 8 upheld, other same-sex couples cannot marry. Oy. Let's take care of this first, please. However, having people understand that marriage is an ever-changing arrangement to meet individual, social, cultural, and religious needs does open the door to other ways for us to love, bond, procreate, and raise the next generation. Will the next big controversy be about bestiality? Oh, come on (see one of my earlier posts ). Most societies have always had laws against it, animals can't give consent, and most of us don't work and live around livestock. Our horses and cattle - not to mention our Great Danes -- are pretty safe from that discourse. Will the next big controversy be about polygamy? We've had that discussion before. Once upon a time in America in the nineteenth century, particularly when Utah wanted to join the union, the big controversy around marriage involved polygamy. In 1862, the Congress under Abraham Lincoln enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act that made polygamy illegal throughout the U.S. and its territories. The 1878 Supreme Court decision of Reynolds v the United States said that plural marriage was not protected by the Constitution, as the laws would not interfere with religious beliefs but do govern actions. In 1890, the Church of Latter Day Saints prohibited the practice of polygamy. Of course, having had the discussion before doesn't exclude it from being discussed again. Where is marriage in the U.S. now in the first decade of the 21st century? If one looks at marriage flat on without a moral or idealist squint, as do the social historians Stephanie Coontz , Andrew J. Cherlin , Paul R. Amato , Alan Booth , David R Johnson , and Stacy J. Rogers , to name a few, one sees a diverse set of practices. With a divorce rate around 50% and out-of-wedlock births somewhere around 40% (these involve cohabiting couples more often than the single-mother scenario usually mentioned in the media), obviously the 1950s ideal of breadwinner husband + homemaker wife + 3.2 kids is not the paradigm. We embrace more options. Cherlin sees us having numerous partnerships, involving nonmarital cohabitation, marriage with or without children, divorce, and re-cohabitation and remarriage with or without children and step-children. Some of us are serial monogamists, some are polyamorous, and some never marry at all. Our focus since the '60s and '70s has been towards individual growth and expression. We want marriages that fulfill our needs - and, if they don't, we want the opportunity to divorce and re-partner. (Americans always have divorced more than Europeans by large percentages.) We have gone - or are going, as it is a process -- from the institutional marriage to the companionate marriage to the individualistic marriage. That is, in institutional marriage, people marry for economic and religious reasons. In the companionate marriage, people marry for love and friendship. In the individualistic marriage, we look for a mate to meet economic, sexual, and emotional needs as we grow in our own ways. And with women in the work force, with property rights, with no-fault divorce, and with custody rights (in previous centuries the courts favored children going to the father), it would be an unlikely trend for women, except those with particular religious beliefs, to give up those rights in favor of a patriarchal polygamous union. Does that mean we're heading towards sci-fi pods of twosomes and threesomes and groupsomes à la Samuel Delaney's Triton ? Are we heading towards omnigamy? I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future of marriage in America, but omnigamy will probably remain part of science fiction - for now. As a medievalist, as someone who studies the history and literature of the past, I can say that the definition of marriage always changes. Germanic and Celtic societies - as did ancient Hebrew societies -- allowed polygamy, although it was usually practiced only by the wealthy. Charlemagne touted the Christian principles of marriage (one man + one woman, which was a Roman paradigm) and divorce. However, he personally had many concubines by whom he had children as well as marriages that ended in repudiation or death. Some priests and even popes in the first millennium were married. It took several centuries for the church to enforce rules against such unions. Marriage did not become a sacrament in the Catholic Church until the twelfth century, far later than baptism or the eucharist. That is to say, marriage is always being debated and is always in flux; the door is open. More on Gay Marriage
 
Lorna Sass: Farmer Heroes Top
cross-posted from LornaSassAtLarge Wednesday night I saw a fine documentary called FRESH in which farmers using brilliantly conceived, sustainable growing methods were celebrated for the heroes they are. The film, directed with great sensitivity by Anna Joanes, portrays the palpable joy of farmers like Joel Salatin in rural Virginia and Will Allen in urban Milwaukee who are finding ways to farm that create high-quality food profitably and chemical free. It was thrilling to have Salatin, Allen, chef Dan Barber of Blue Hill , and nutritionist/organic gardener/author Joan Gussow emerge after the screening to take questions. The film and panelists received a standing ovation. It was a thrilling moment, full of hope that we are on the cusp of great and long overdue change in American agriculture. (For more details on the growing grassroots movement towards sustainable farming, a great site to visit is eatwellguide . I subscribe to their informative blog The Green Fork on an RSS feed.) Before viewing the happy pigs, cows, chickens, and sprightly salad greens of these two featured farmers, I had to close my eyes during those moments when the devastating conditions of factory farming were screened. A few times in the film, we witness a vacant look in the eyes of an average-Joe farming couple caught up in a nasty procedure that "grows" chickens inhumanely. During the interview, two beloved poodles cuddle on their laps, a visual that brilliantly captures the irony and tragedy of an animal-raising system that splits human psyches asunder. On my recent trip to Utah, I met a farmer hero like Salatin and Allen by a combination of chance and determination. Despite the magnificent scenery all around us, The Sweetie and I were beginning to languish about the fourth day into the trip. Looking forward to eating well prepared, real food means a great deal to both of us, and we were having a rough time finding anything healthy to put on our plates. There were overweight people and fast-food restaurants all around us, and we'd run out of the wholegrain bread I'd brought along for breakfast... So when we were served a complimentary appetizer of fresh, lightly pickled vegetables at a delightful restaurant called Cafe Diablo in the tiny town of Torrey, we immediately asked their source and were told about Randy Remsley's Mesa Farm Market Bakery and Cafe in nearby Caineville. In addition to wanting to see those veggies at their source, it so happened that Randys' farm was right on scenic route 24. So the next day, we headed for his place and traveled for what seemed like hours through variably gorgeous and desolate landscapes before suddenly out of nowhere there appeared this shack on the right side of the road: It was about 4 p.m. and the place looked very closed, but I spotted a silver-haired man at the back and decided to knock on the front door. Someone opened the door and there was Randy, who turned out to be the farmer and just about everything else at the moment. Once inside, the place looked pretty barren of veggies and sandwiches, so we asked for some iced coffee. Randy said he thought that could be done and proceeded to grind some fair-trade beans and make us a fresh batch, which proved to be the best coffee we had on the trip. Once revived, I spotted some freshly baked loaves and was thrilled to learn that some were made of wholegrain flour. Good, that would be breakfast and maybe part of the lunch for the next few days. Randy had already delivered his organic salad greens and other vegetables to Cafe Diablo and another terrific restaurant called Hell's Backbone Grill in Boulder (yes, there is a Boulder, Utah), so we couldn't buy any of those, but we had a chance to chat as we sipped the fresh brew. "How did you end up farming on this desolate stretch of road?" I asked. Randy was hiking through the Caineville area, spotted the land, and knew it was going to be his job to farm there. "We are farming in the heart of the Caineville Badlands," he explained to us (and in further detail on his beautiful web site ). "These badlands are some of the 'baddest' badlands in North America. Yet we grow what we believe to be some of the most heavenly tasting organic fruits and vegetables on the planet." Through hard work, creative genius, and a belief in his mission to provide high quality food to those who can't otherwise get it, Randy and his co-workers have developed a method of farming sustainably in the Utah desert at the same time as he improves the soil in these badlands. He uses a type of drip irrigation developed in Israel and maintains a herd of goats to do the weeding. The goats digest the weeds, and drop their fertilizing pellets onto the soil. Little by little he's developing a small artisanal cheese business based on the goat milk. On his 50 acres, he also has an acre of fruit trees. In the middle of it is a chicken coop. As explained by Randy, the 50 or so chickens eat garden waste, bugs, weeds, and fallen fruit. They provide eggs as well as nitrogen-rich fertilizer. When he makes deliveries of bread and vegetables to the restaurants he serves, he collects their waste vegetable oil and turns it into biodiesel, then uses the biofuel to run the pumps and tractor. It's a circular system like the ones described by Salatin and Allen. Nothing is wasted, the soil becomes richer in nutrients each year, and people get to eat the healthiest food they've ever tasted. Meeting Randy was a highlight of our trip to Utah. We came away knowing we'd met someone who was doing the work that he loved and was meant to do, and we were the richer for the experience. As for me, it's been a long time since I've had any living heroes and I feel very lucky to have met three of them in the space of one week. More on Green Living
 
Art Brodsky: Obama's CyberSecurity Speech Shows He Gets The Open Web Top
It is truly remarkable that we have a president of the United States who used the word, "phishing," and didn't mean going out to the creek on the ranch and throwing a line in the water. He used it in the proper way for that spelling, referring to online scammers soliciting information from unwary Internet users. Even beyond the news value of President Obama's speech today (May 29) on cybersecurity speech the change in zeitgeist is stunning. We haven't seen such a tech-savvy group of public officials since the Clinton years, and even then it was largely Vice President Al Gore and his staff who were driving the tech policy for (still) tech illiterate Bill Clinton in the early days of the development of the online world - that virtual stimulus project then known as the Information Superhighway. And beyond even the phishing and the worms and the botnets and malware references, Obama's speech encapsulated the duality of the Internet. Like any technology, it can be harnessed for good, or for evil. As Obama put it: "It's the great irony of our Information Age -- the very technologies that empower us to create and to build also empower those who would disrupt and destroy. And this paradox -- seen and unseen -- is something that we experience every day." In order to fulfill the promise of economic development and combat the threat to that development, Obama outlined a comprehensive cybersecurity approach. Despite the gravity of the situation, Obama defended and made clear his position on keeping the Internet free: "Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be -- open and free." The White House's 60-day review of cybersecurity recognizes the complexity of issues, by including not only a commitment to Net Neutrality, but also to civil liberties and privacy. This speech was the second time in recent days that a top Administration official (and really, you can't top the president), came out for an open Internet. In his report to Congress, Bringing Broadband to Rural America: Report on a Rural Broadband Strategy," Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps made the same point: "The value of open networks is not a novel concept, but the Commission must act to ensure that the genius of the open Internet is not lost." Copps, too, cited the importance of an open Internet to economic development While it's great to see the Administration out front on protections of a free and nondiscriminatory Internet, it's also not clear at this time if anyone is listening, or preparing to follow the Administration's lead. Some Democratic legislators are sympathetic to an open and neutral Internet, but aren't particularly eager to take on the political fight necessary to get it done. Perhaps if the issue were viewed not only in the non-discrimination sense, but also in terms of increasing competition to benefit consumers, a little more will might be found. Some in the Media Mogul camp as well appear to be a tad oblivious of the Administration's goals. Or, if not oblivious, they don't particularly care. Zillion TV, the mystery company of Silicon Valley is one candidate. The company claims to provide a better TV watching service, having made deals with Sony, Warner Brothers, NBC/Universal and Disney. On its web site , the company claims: "Without getting too technical, we work with your Internet service provider to make sure you can get the richest, creamiest programs playing right on your TV." It won't disclose which Internet Service Providers are part of this arrangement, or where it's available but the Web site says the service is "rolling out across the U.S." Also on the attention-deficit list is Time Warner. The company tried, unsuccessfully, to push through the North Carolina legislature a bill to hamper municipalities which were fed up with the service they were getting from commercial companies and wanted to offer their own. Instead, the company resorted to that old hack, the Terms of Service. (Hat Tip to Stop the Cap! for catching this one.) Under the new TOS , the non-guaranteed throughput rate "may be affected by Network Management Tools, the prioritization of TWC commercial subscriber traffic and network control information, and necessary bandwidth overhead used for protocol and network information." Part of that commercial traffic is Time Warner's own digital phone service, which is separate from the normal Internet service that would carry, say, a competitor like Vonage of Skype. In the TOS: " HSD (High Speed Data) Service does not include other services managed by TWC and delivered over TWC's shared infrastructure, including Video Service and Digital Phone Service." Comcast got into trouble by throttling the service of selected protocols, like BitTorrent. In its new TOS, Time Warner Cable (TWC) claims the same privileges: "TWC may use Network Management Tools as it determines appropriate and/or that it may use technical means, including but not limited to suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of my HSD Service, to ensure compliance with its Terms of Use and to ensure that its service operates efficiently." Even though the company said publicly it was abandoning its attempt to meter and to cap usage, its small, small print lays the foundation for the return of the caps: "If the level or tier of HSD Service to which I subscribe has a specified limit on the amount of bytes that I can use in a given billing cycle, I also agree that TWC may use technical means, including but not limited to suspending or reducing the speed of my HSD Service, to ensure compliance with these limits, and that TWC or ISP may move me to a higher tier of HSD Service (which may result in higher monthly charges) or impose other charges and fees if my use exceeds these limits." Administration support for an open, non-discriminatory and competitive Internet is wonderful. It will be even more wonderful when the Administration goes phishing for some Congressional support for that Internet. More on Barack Obama
 
GOP Hispanic Strategists Stunned, Outraged By Sotomayor Attacks Top
Top-ranking Republican strategists who specialize in Hispanic outreach say they are outraged, disturbed and concerned by the type of reception Barack Obama's pick for the Supreme Court has received from conservative activists. In the days since the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, several prominent conservative voices have leveled unusually blunt attacks at her resume. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and radio host Rush Limbaugh both insisted that the court of appeals judge was a racist for saying that her Hispanic background allowed her to come to better judicial decisions. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, on Friday, called Sotomayor a member of the "Latino KKK." The rhetoric has been enough to make Republican strategists in heavily Latino states cringe -- concerned that such slights could cement Democrats advantages among a growing and increasingly influential political constituency. "Of course this disturbs me," said Lionel Sosa, one of the more influential Hispanic media advisers in the GOP. "I'm not surprised at Rush Limbaugh but I'm very surprised at Speaker Gingrich because he is one of the key people who knows the importance of the Latino vote to the Republican Party. He must realize how his rhetoric, if it does influence any Hispanics, how damaging it could be. This [confirmation] is something that is going to happen anyway. For a senator to have strong opposition to her, they are either not aware of the impact Latinos will have on the next election or they don't care." Sosa certainly knows what makes the Hispanic voter tick. He has helped with or worked on seven Republican presidential campaigns since 1980, including John McCain's and both of George W. Bush's. He was joined in his lament by several other Hispanic strategists who spoke to the Huffington Post. Even those Republican Hispanics who have served in government said they were deeply worried about the Sotomayor pushback, though they cautioned that it was coming almost entirely from outside the party establishment. "In the real world, absolutely this rhetoric matters," said former Rep. Henry Bonilla of Texas. "And that's why I think, thus far, the key leadership in Washington has been very cautious and thoughtful in their responses, and I hope that will continue... At the end of the day, people will see [these remarks] for what they are. And realize that this is nothing new coming from various opinionated people on the conservative side. It is nothing different than what comes from the liberal side." As for Tancredo specifically, Bonilla called his remarks "outrageous." Perhaps, he added, it was a good thing because "credibility goes down the drain when you hear something like that." Certainly, both he and Sosa acknowledge, taking on the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee by calling her a racist was not helpful for the GOP's already frayed roots within that community. And while the confirmation battle will likely cool down in the weeks ahead, some GOP advisers who specialize on the Hispanic vote said the blowback from the early salvos could continue to be felt for elections to come. "I think this is going to have a long-term effect," said Frank Guerra, a GOP strategist who has worked on Rick Perry's gubernatorial campaign in Texas and Jeb Bush's in Florida - both heavily Hispanic states. "For the most part in politics, what gets said meets the immediate need but doesn't address the long-term issues. And some of this dialogue is going to really hurt Republicans in their efforts to attract and keep Hispanic voters... This absolutely matters to the community. This is a watershed moment. It is a first. A Hispanic woman on the Court." Arguing that about a quarter of the Hispanic vote usually remains undecided going into an election, Guerra concluded that the remarks of Gingrich, Limbaugh and others would help push a portion of that percentage more firmly Democratic. Democrats gleefully agreed, noting in part that the issue would be exacerbated by a Hispanic media that tends to cover political news in larger chunks than its American counterpart. "This is the worst of all worlds because these are the kind of comments and quotes that rip through popular culture," said prominent Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "And people don't realize that media outlets like Telemundo still have a lot more news content then some of the networks like CNN. And so they have longer forums where these things are commented on by pundits and observers. It will be repeated even more because Sotomayor is obviously a huge news item in Latino press. So I think these kinds of comments that people think are isolated and embarrassing actually could have a real impact culturally. And I always think pop culture has a greater impact that policy or politics." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Bad Bank Loans Hit Record High Top
Overall loan quality at American banks is the worst in at least a quarter century, and the quality of loans is deteriorating at the fastest pace ever, according to statistics released this week by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
 
White House: Sotomayor Used Poor Choice Of Words Top
WASHINGTON — In a bit damage control, the White House on Friday said Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor acknowledges she chose her words poorly by saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a "better" conclusion than a white male judge. "I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word," presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. The quote in question from Sotomayor has emerged as a rallying call for conservative critics who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender. That debate is likely to play a central role in her Senate confirmation process. The new episode also underscores the scrutiny that Sotomayor's words will receive _ and how the White House will respond to try to stay on message. The comment came in a lecture, titled "A Latina Judge's Voice," that Sotomayor gave in 2001 at the law school of the University of California, Berkeley. She said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." That came in the context of her saying that "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Since Tuesday, when President Barack Obama announced Sotomayor's nomination, the White House had answered questions about Sotomayor's comment by telling reporters to read the speech and not dwell on one sentence. That changed on Friday, when Gibbs was asked about it again. The White House clearly had a new message. "I've not talked specifically with her about this, but I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor," Gibbs said at the end of his daily briefing. "She was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging, that your personal experiences have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases, that your experiences affect your understanding," Gibbs said. "I think we agree with all that." Asked how he knew Sotomayor wished she would have chosen a different word, Gibbs said he learned that from talking to people who talked to her. Sotomayor appears headed for confirmation, needing a majority vote in a Senate, where Democrats have 59 votes. But beyond the final vote, White House officials are pushing for a smooth confirmation, not one that bogs down them or their nominee. Plus, Obama wants a strong win, not a slim one. More than one line in the 2001 speech has helped drive the debate over Sotomayor's judgment. She also said, for example: "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." "My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas in which I am unfamiliar," she said. "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." In announcing Sotomayor, Obama said he wanted a judge who would "approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice." But he also called her life experience essential, saying she had an understanding of "how ordinary people live." More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Louis Belanger: Restoring dignity to Zimbabwe Top
See below a blog by my colleague Nicole Johnston on the difficulties and challenges that average Zimbabweans face, especially the elderly. Nicole is a native of Zimbabwe herself. **************** "I am actually seeing myself as a human being again." When I heard these words at a food distribution point in Bulawayo's Mzilikazi township yesterday, I was jolted as I understood for the first time the impact that Zimbabwe's economic crisis has had on human dignity. While there is much talk about physical suffering like hunger and illness, we often overlook the psychological impact, particularly on the elderly and people with disabilities. The source of this revelation was 80 year old Evelyne Mandizvidza, as she queued for her monthly food basket at a Joint Initiative for Urban Zimbabwe project run by Oxfam's partner organisation Lead Trust. " Before I joined this scheme last November there were times when I had no food at all for days. Then I would just boil water and drink it while it was warm to fill my stomach. My skin was hanging off me." She now receives a monthly assistance package that includes maize meal, corn soya blend, cooking oil, peanut butter, soap and cotton wool. " Before, we didn't have soap for a long time so I was just removing sweat with water instead of washing properly." The cotton wool included in the relief packages is a boon for younger women who have had to face the indignity of coping with menstruation without sanitary towels. And while there is a sense of cautious optimism among most people about the government of national unity, the most vulnerable Zimbabweans are not yet experiencing any benefits. For them the bickering about the appointment of ambassadors and control of ministries is academic: day-to-day survival continues to be the issue. - Sindire Jiri, 84, waiting in line to collect his food rations - The "dollarization" of the economy - which has seen foreign currencies replace the Zim dollar - has helped to curb inflation and shelves in shops are now full. But for people who have no access to currency particularly orphans, the elderly and people with disabilities, this has actually made life harder. " Things are now available in shops but the problem is in getting cash to buy those things ," explained Mandizvidza. "At my age it is impossible to get a job and earn cash, and I don't have anything to sell." Even those in formal employment such as civil servants are only earning a $100 a month allowance - not a lot in an economy where a newspaper costs $2 and a loaf of bread $1. For the elderly their precarious situation has been exacerbated by the fact that pensions have not been paid out since December. Many have joined the urban gardening project run by the Joint Initiative which provides seeds, watering cans and training, allowing people to grow vegetables and fruit in their backyards. Mpanywa Siwela (83) is a member of the food committee in Mzilikazi, growing carrots, garlic and spinach in his yard. He exchanges gardening tips with Mandizvidza, his wizened face wrinkling even further in consternation as he tells her "I need something to spray those red spiders that are attacking my tomatoes." The success of his crop is not just a matter of pride - it is also about putting food on the table. But there are things he can't grow and can't afford to buy: "I can't tell you when I last drank tea..." he says longingly. "But where can we old people get rands or dollars?" The lucky few have cash remittances sent home from relatives working abroad, but in a country in which HIV/Aids has decimated the economically active population and where unemployment stands at 90%, they are not in the majority. - 62 year old Eugenia Chahurara - Sixty six year old Christopher Ndabambe has signed up for the pilot cash transfer project, an offshoot of the food distribution programme. Admire Chinjekure of the Lead Trust explains that the cash transfer project in which participants are given $25 a month aims to allow people to access hard currency: "Some people prefer to get the cash so they can pay their rent or for medical services. Some reinvest the money - for instance they buy firewood which they sell." "I have diabetes, high blood pressure and a heart problem," says Ndabambe. "Dollarization is good because it means there are drugs available now, but it is quite difficult for me if I can't get currency. We need a better health system and to be able to get drugs from our hospitals. I opted out of the food programme and joined the cash transfer project so I can buy my medicines." Ndabambe is regularly forced to make a choice between buying food and buying medicine. "I have to go into town to buy my heart tablets and that costs a lot of money for transport. So then I can only buy a one-week supply. If there is anything left over I buy some food". It's a choice no one should have to make. For more information on Oxfam's work click here More on Zimbabwe
 
Stewart Acuff: New Tactics Emerge in Campaign to Pass the Employee Free Choice Act Top
The AFL-CIO has again intensified its national grassroots campaign to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, adopting tactics and new strategies more familiar in social movements than in traditional legislative fights. Unlike almost all recent legislative fights, the AFL-CIO has greatly relied on real, very close to the ground grassroots and rank-and-file activity to generate personal communication with policy makers - phone calls, handwritten letters, face-to-face meetings. But in this Memorial Day recess, the AFL-CIO has turned up the intensity with tactics developed in other nonviolent social movements - most notably the modern southern civil rights movement. As I write this, activists in Missoula, Montana are on a 24-hour vigil bearing witness to the need for Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester to actively support and vote for the Employee Free Choice Act. In Louisiana and Arkansas - Baton Rouge and Little Rock - hundreds of activists marched to demand their senators and House members support the Employee Free Choice Act. Those marches included African-American and white clergy, community activists, civil rights leaders, environmentalists, students, Democratic Party leaders, and of course union leaders and rank-and-file activists. The AFL-CIO held five vigils in Arkansas and three vigils in Indiana, military veterans in Alaska calling for Senator Murkowski's support, a rally and candlelight vigil in Maine. Altogether, the AFL-CIO organized 200 public events this recess week. On Thursday night at 6:00 PM we concluded a 26-hour vigil in Little Rock. The vigil began Wednesday at 4:00 PM with 50 AFL-CIO activists and allies delivering 2,000 handwritten letters to the Little Rock office of Senator Blanche Lincoln. The letters included 300 from small business owners. We continued the vigil with a prayer, Bible reading and testimony service at First Presbyterian Church in Little Rock. We then settled in for the night with union activists, young Democrats, community organizers and faith leaders. The day and night vigil taken directly from the civil rights movement turned up our campaign intensity and urgency and passion. And it allowed us to reflect more deeply on the absolute necessity to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. At 4:00 PM on Thursday afternoon, we moved the vigil back to Senator Lincoln's office to begin a march to the Arkansas State Capitol. The rally to end the vigil at the Capitol was opened by an Episcopal priest, closed by an African-American minister, emceed by a leader from the Steelworkers, featured a leader from the NEA, two student activists, legendary ACORN leader Johnnie Pugh, a very passionate small business owner, a worker from the United Food and Commercial Workers who had been an anti-union activist but after enjoying the benefits of collective bargaining and union representation is now an outspoken union activist and advocate. I keynoted the Little Rock statehouse rally after which we all enjoyed the southern progressive rally picnic of fried chicken and biscuits.
 
James Zogby: High Expectations for Obama's Speech in Egypt Top
Following on the heels of his meetings with a number of Middle East leaders, President Barack Obama travels next week to Egypt where, on June 4th, he will deliver a much anticipated speech to the Muslim world. Already the topic of great speculation, there are several elements that should be considered by both The President and his audience in anticipation of his remarks. First, expectations for the speech are high, and not without justification. Throughout his short, but extraordinary, career Obama has displayed a penchant for taking on big issues with big speeches. He rebounded from a defeat during the Presidential primaries with a remarkable speech in New Hampshire that helped to define and infuse new hope into his campaign. When confronted with a media assault over his pastor's intemperate words, that threatened to derail his campaign, Obama responded with an inspiring speech on race, so insightful and eloquent that it will be quoted for generations. As President, he has also taken on serious challenges with major speeches. His remarks before a joint session of Congress provided the new President the opportunity to lay out his plans to respond to the growing economic crisis. More recently, Obama travelled to Notre Dame University, the nation's premiere Catholic university, to appeal for greater civility and understanding in addressing the controversial issues of abortion and stem cell research. And when opponents persisted in deriding his decisions to ban the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, he confronted his critics directly in a speech delivered from the National Archives. With the original US Constitution and Bill of Rights as a backdrop, Obama made clear that his decisions to stop torture and indefinite imprisonment without judicial recourse were grounded in core American values derived from our Constitution. With this background, it is reasonable for many across the Arab world to assume that Obama is coming to Cairo to deliver a "big speech." He has, after all, been planning and talking about this for over a year, since he first announced during the campaign his intention to travel abroad to speak directly to the Muslim world. And since he is going to Cairo, at the heart of the Arab world, it is also reasonable that there are high expectations that the President will speak about the core Arab concern--the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not in passing. The regional context demands much more. This introduces a second set of factors that need be considered. President Obama's election created hope among many Arabs and Muslims, but not all. A recent poll we, at Zogby International, conducted in six Arab countries shows that in Morocco, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Obama is viewed quite favorably, and there is appreciation for early steps he has taken to restore America's image and rebuild US-Arab relations. But in Egypt and Jordan, deep skepticism remains. Therefore, when the President travels to Egypt, it is important to recognize that he will face a nation hardened in its negative view of the US and its role in the region, and unconvinced that this or any American President can or will change policy. Most Egyptians still view the US unfavorably. Three-quarters give President Obama a negative job rating for his first three months in office, and the same percentage say that they do not believe that he will be "evenhanded in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict"--the issue which almost 6 in 10 Egyptians say is the most critical challenge facing their region. All this points to the steep hill which President Obama must climb as he struggles to convince a weary Egyptian and Arab public that he is committed to changing direction in the wake of failed US leadership that preceded his ascent to the Oval Office. While he might have faced a more supportive audience in the United Arab Emirates or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is Egypt where attitudes toward America are harshest that Obama faces his greatest challenge, and it is here that the US President has chosen to deliver his speech. It is Egypt that is allied with the US, shares borders with Israel and has signed peace agreements with that state. It is in Egypt that public opinion has been the most soured by Israeli behavior (especially in the wake of the Gaza wars of 2006 and 2009), is least convinced of the prospects that a just peace can be established and of the ability of the US to be evenhanded. All this being said, it is precisely because of the persistence of these strong negative attitudes that Obama's decision to go to Egypt was the right choice. It is there that the US President must convince skeptical Arabs that the change he promised is real. Given Egypt's sheer size and the importance of its role in the region, if President Obama can't sell his message there it may not have its desired impact anywhere. What emerges from these considerations is the fact that despite the many domestic challenges facing this new President, he is determined to confront, head-on, a major foreign policy issue and to do so, as he did at Notre Dame, directly and dramatically. And he has chosen to do this where the audience may be the hardest to convince and where the change he has promised is most urgently sought. This is why expectations are high and dare not be let down. This speech must be more than banal clichés ("we are not at war with Muslims") or a repetition of hollow visions. It must be bigger, more consequential and more substantial. It is a tall order, but given Obama's modus operandi, I'm counting on him to prove me right. More on Barack Obama
 
Jason Saltoun-Ebin: Newly Online Memos Reveal that President Reagan Ordered Strikes Against Iran If Hostages Were Killed Top
President Reagan ordered strikes against Iran if any of the American hostages held by the terrorist group Hezbollah were killed. The order, made during a January 18th, 1985 meeting of the National Security Planning Group, came on the heels of a threat by the terrorists to "try the American hostages as spies and then give them the punishment they deserve." The document is posted online for the first time at the newly created website, www.thereaganfiles.com, where many other recently released National Security Council and National Security Planning Group meetings from the Reagan Administration are also posted. Hundreds of other Reagan Administration documents are also posted at www.thereaganfiles.com , including documents that President Obama ordered released on April 13th, 2009 that former President Bush had been withholding since 2001. Hezbollah, at the time of the January 18th, 1985, NSPG meeting, was believed to be holding at least five American hostages, including Beirut CIA Station Chief William Buckley. The proposed targets for an Iranian strike are still classified. Security of Defense Weinberger tells President Reagan in the January 18th meeting that the strike is designed to be carried out at night, "but could also be flown as daylight strikes." The meeting minutes then read: VP Bush : I think the American people would be very supportive. Sec. Shultz : We actually need to prepare several strategies: a public strategy, a Hill strategy, and a strategy to use with our friends and allies. We will draft something on each of these and have it on the shelf in case we need it. Poindexter : I believe that covers the agenda. I recommend we adjourn. We've now agreed that if the hostages are harmed (one line redacted). Pres. Reagan : (Snapping fingers) Like that. Poindexter : Don't you think we should reconvene the NSPG to make the final decision? Pres. Reagan : Only if it doesn't delay the strikes. In summary then, if any hostage is harmed, we will (three lines redacted). President Reagan wrote in his diary that night: "Settled an action we'll take immediately against Iran if the Hisballah terrorists carry out their threat to punish as spies the 5 Americans they are holding in Lebanon. It's time to serve notice we won't hold still for their barbarism." Newly released documents also show that a secret Hostage Locating Task Force was set up in February 1986 and that Oliver North was running the operation. A month later, another recently released document shows that Secretary Weinberger and Secretary Shultz sent President Reagan a joint memo recommending another strong warning to Iran to prevent any harm to the American hostages. Weinberger and Shultz wrote on February 21, 1985: "The present new threat of execution most likely applies to hostage William Buckley. To take every step possible to avert its being carried out, and in light of our intention to retaliate should any of the hostages be harmed, we believe that a repeated warning of unmistakable clarity to the Iranians is called for." "Although our message and intent is unequivocal, we do not want to suggest to you that our response would be automatic. As we move to retaliate, we would need to consider carefully the timing, mode and location of our specific retaliatory act to ensure that our interests are best protected, and of course we await your decision." The letter to Iran is still classified. Buckley is thought to have died from an pneumonia, in June 1985, though Hezbollah would announce in October 1985 that they executed him. Buckley's remains were returned in 1991. President Reagan, of course, didn't bomb Iran even though hostages were killed in April 1986. The killings were apparently in retaliation for American strikes against Libya. According to another recently released document, the meeting minutes from a March 30th, 1984, meeting of the NSPG, by 1984 President Reagan was already contemplating bombing Iran. "If there are terrorist attacks," Reagan asked during the top-secret meeting, "what will be our targets in Iran?" The response is still classified. In the same meeting, White House National Security Adviser McFarlane asks if the United States could "live without Kuwait." Secretary of State Shultz argues: "We should almost seek an opportunity to do something against terrorism. We need to send a signal that we can do something about terrorism. We need to look for an opportunity, especially against Libya." The conversation then continues: Pres. Reagan : We can't afford another Beirut (referring to the1983 bombing of the American barracks killing 241 Americans), but, most likely there will be another terrorist attack. Do we have enough forces in the Gulf to respond even if we don't get access? What if we bombed east of Basrah? Sec. Shultz : That would be a different matter, to openly go into the war on the side of Iraq. Gen. Gabriel (JCS) : Our forces are ready, CENTCOM has plans but they all need access. Pres. Reagan : Are we certain that we will have a command structure that can carry out the mission without a lot of red tape? Ed Meese : We haven't talked to Congress yet. Sec. Shultz : We are already talking about War Powers. Rumsfeld : Remember, oil is not the most important thing - the most important thing is to prevent Soviet involvement in the Gulf. In 1984, Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East. He was at today's meeting to brief the President after returning from a tour of the area. During the meeting, according to the recently released meeting minutes, he tells President Reagan: "The United States is ill equipped to deal with these (terrorist) threats...These (Middle Eastern) countries have an inflated view of American capabilities ... We are not very capable unless we plan, exercise, think about it, and have public support...These countries expect us to be effective, but we can't be effective unless we have planned it with their cooperation ...We must not look ineffective and uncoordinated ...There is a tendency to over estimate our commitment and what we can do. If a balloon goes up, our military will spend 90% of its effort in self-defense." Rumsfeld ends his briefing: "As President Reagan has said before, if you want to kill a snake you go for the head. We need to change governments in the countries that practice state-sponsored terrorism." It took almost twenty-years, but Rumsfeld finally found a president in George W. Bush willing to go along with his changing governments ideology. With the increasing likelihood that Iran is now developing nuclear weapons and Hezbollah stronger now than in the 1980's, chances are President Obama, like President Reagan, is going to have make tough choices about Iran. More on Iran
 
Georgianne Nienaber: UN: Arms from Sudan Add to Congo Humanitarian Disaster Top
On May 18 Turkish diplomat Baki I`lkin sent the Interim Report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the United Nations Security Council. I`lkin's cover letter sounded hopeful, but resigned. "I would appreciate it if the present letter, together with its enclosure, were brought to the attention of the members of the Council and issued as a document of the Council," he wrote. International media has yet to review or investigate this report despite the fact that what is left of the world's "free" press has been consistently manipulated by special interests, including the US State Department. Without some digging on the part of journalists, I`lkin's important report, along with the truth and incinerated Congolese children, might well become buried. Image: Luofu Burial Copyright ©HRW Diplomat Baki I`lkin's group arrived in Kinshasa DRC on March 20, 2009 and spent five weeks in the field before it issued a report detailing the spectacular failure of the joint Rwandan/Congolese military operation, Umoja Wetu. The Congolese (FARDC) and Rwandan (RDF) initiative was ostensibly advanced to eliminate the Rwandan Hutu militias (FDLR) and remnants of the genocidaires who were responsible for up to one million deaths in Rwanda in 1994. This theater of operation took place against a backdrop that included 1.2 million refugees in Congolese IDP camps. An additional 250,000 have been displaced since operation Umoja Wetu began, and there have been untold rapes, burnings, murders, pillaging and tortures against innocent civilians in the interim. Umoja Wetu began days after the ouster of CNDP (Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple) rebel General Laurent Nkunda and his betrayal by his former ally Rwanda. Forces loyal to Laurent Nkunda have consistently maintained that the Congolese government has used the FDLR as a kind of "allied-force" in its battles against Nkunda, who was gaining territory and presented a real threat not only to the Government of Joseph Kabila, but also to Rwanda's Tutsi President Paul Kagame. Kagame found himself facing competition from a charismatic Congolese Tutsi rebel leader whom he once supported, but who now was reaping territory and a popularity that could become problematic. Rwanda is a country the size of the state of Maryland with no resources. At stake: Congo's mines (gold, cassiterite), forestry, real estate, and control over a country that could be the breadbasket of the region if given the leadership and opportunity to do so. It should not go unnoticed that the United States and the European Union have strategic interests in the minerals of this region and the United States has a new $80 million dollar embassy in Kigali. Joint military operations were conducted in January 2009 within the framework of a secret agreement between Kagame and Kabila. It can be demonstrated that the United States was the prime mover and shaker behind this agreement, which resulted in a humanitarian crisis that is almost beyond imagination. The drumbeat against the CNDP and Nkunda and other central African rebel leaders has existed since at least 2004 and is easily reviewed. The failure of media to scrutinize reports coming out of the State Department, and the media's tendency to accept statements from diplomats at face value can be construed as contributing to the continuing bloodshed in Congo's wars. The total death toll is six million and counting. Operation Umoja Wetu was a dismal failure, and the United States was solidly behind it. The public record supports this. Umoja Wetu: A Catastrophic Failure and Arms from Sudan Excerpt from the May "Special Rappateur" UN report: During Umoja Wetu, the FARDC-RDF (Congolese/Rwandan) alliance was able to push back FDLR (Rwandan rebels) from some of its key locations, but the military operation suffered from a short time span, logistical bottlenecks and the reported embezzlement of operational funds, and failed to break the FDLR command and control apparatus, which remains intact. Since the withdrawal of RDF (Rwandan military), FDLR has counterattacked in various locations across North and South Kivu, resulting in increased civilian casualties. Delays in the disbursement of FARDC (Congolese army) salaries have also exacerbated indiscipline within the newly integrated FARDC units, resulting in ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by FARDC, including looting and attacks on the civilian population. Image: CNDP territory before Umoja Wetu Copyright © G. Nienaber Human Rights Watch and other groups have been screaming about the military failure and its impact upon the civilian population of eastern Congo for months. The 27 page Interim Report supports what HRW, OXFAM , CNDP remnants, humanitarians, informants, and others have been saying. The report also details something new and worrisome-- massive airlifts of arms and ammunitions to the Congolese military (FARDC) through Khartoum, Sudan. The Group of Experts has obtained information to the effect that arms and ammunition were transported to FARDC from the Sudan in December 2008 and February 2009. The military equipment was loaded at Khartoum International Airport on to a Boeing 707 aircraft registered in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that had been requisitioned by the Ministry of Defense of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in September 2008. Flights of the aircraft occurred on 4 and 5 December 2008, and on 12 and 14 February 2009. The Group has submitted a request to the Permanent Mission of the Sudan for further clarification. The Group is concerned that continued violations of paragraph 5 of resolution 1807 (2008) could further hinder mechanisms to promote effective stockpile management by FARDC. The Group is looking into further violations and will report to the Committee in due course. This is a stunning report, especially given the tremendous US presence in Sudan, a United Nations base at Khartoum, and the appointment of a State Department Special Advisor for Conflict Resolution, Tim Shortley. Shortley has worked hand in hand with Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer in Congo, Uganda, and as Director of Sudan Programs at the State Department. Frazer is the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the George W. Bush administration and joined the faculty at Carnegie Mellon University in January 2009. The Special Rappateur deserves an international response, through the United Nations Security Council, regarding this arms shipment. He has asked for serial numbers, identification numbers, and marking codes. It is hard to imagine that the recent airlifts of munitions from Sudan to Congo could have gone unnoticed by the State Department and its agents, given our intense military and espionage presence in the region. The panel of UN experts deserves media support for their request regarding manufacturing and serial numbers on the munitions and arms that were smuggled into DRC in December 2008 and February 2009. These munitions, which packed a Boeing 707 on at least four separate flights, will be used by the Kabila government against civilians. The track record has been demonstrated. Image: Where is MONUC in all of this? Copyright © HRW US State Department Dictates Policy through Frazer and Shortley Shortley's imprint is all over Central Africa, including a stint at USAID, the Defense Department, and in 2007 a "special appointment" by the State Department as "Senior Advisor on Conflict in Africa". As more and more information comes in, it seems that there has been a pattern of disinformation at best and outright lying at worst on the part of the State Department in order to manipulate impressions on what is truth in eastern Congo. The initial focus of Mr. Shortley's work was conflict resolution in northern Uganda. A recent Newsweek story mentions Shortley and his close ties to Secretary Frazer. Newsweek reports it was Frazer who suggested assassination as a possible solution to problems with rebel leaders in Uganda. Kony's (rebel leader in Uganda) interest rose visibly when the Bush administration sent a young American, Tim Shortley, to push for a comprehensive agreement. Frazer-who says she never thought Kony was serious about peace, especially not after the ICC (International Criminal Court), issued its arrest warrant for him in 2005-nevertheless urged Shortley to "go out there and do more, do everything you can to get this guy to sign." The United States contributed more than $10 million to underwrite the process. The United Nations had passed a resolution conveying "deep concern" about the LRA, and was pushing hard for an end to the conflict. Museveni (President of Uganda) even sent Kony's own mother to meet with her son in the bush and beg him to surrender. But behind the scenes, Frazer was getting frustrated. At one point she quietly asked Museveni, "Why don't you just ambush Kony when he's in one of these meetings? " "We don't ambush people," Museveni told her. "If we're in the bush and somebody's back is turned, before we strike, we'll cough." Frazer had also been committed to neutralizing CNDP rebel leader Laurent Nkunda since at least 2007, according to reports we have been receiving from CNDP factions still loyal to Nkunda. Frazer's public statements corroborate these accusations by CNDP officers who were advisors to Nkunda before his detention by Rwandan authorities in January 2009. From CNDP contact: Just to let you know that Mrs. Jendayi Frazer with his (sic) Special envoy for US Department Mr. Tim Shortley who is now in Sudan, were working for KABILA, because always when Tim was coming with Kabila's proposals after convincing him that he will oblige us to adhere to his proposals and when we refused, he always says that the USA is going to take strong measures against us, just trying to exercise a kind of terrorism. Jendayi was supporting Kabila too much and was against us. And you know how Government proposals are regarding to the revolutionaries. So, the question arises: How involved was the United States State Department in the destabilization of the Kivu provinces in eastern DRC? Did our State Department officials become "terrorists" in the eyes of a revolutionary movement in Congo? The United States has supported rebel armies before, especially if it served our interests. What exactly happened behind the scenes that journalists have not explored? Human Rights Watch was severely critical of the aftermath of the 2006 voting process. The 96-page report , "We Will Crush You," documents the Kabila government's use of violence and intimidation to eliminate political opponents. Human Rights Watch found that Kabila "set the tone and direction by giving orders to 'crush' or 'neutralize' the 'enemies of democracy,' implying it was acceptable to use unlawful force against them. This report focuses on some of the most violent episodes of political repression in Kinshasa and the western province of Bas Congo during the two years following the 2006 elections. The brutal and repressive tactics used by President Kabila and his advisors are emblematic of the resort to violence to stifle opponents. During our research, Human Rights Watch received reports of other incidents of repression, often smaller in scale and sometimes less violent, that are not included here. The violence in eastern Congo, where the Kabila government is in a military confrontation with an insurgency led by former general Laurent Nkunda, has been documented in other Human Rights Watch reports. The government's lack of popularity in western Congo, and the fear of losing power through a military overthrow, have dominated policy discussions amongst Kabila and his advisors in their first two years of administration. According to many military and intelligence officials and others close to Kabila who were interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Kabila set the tone and direction of the repression. In giving orders, he spoke of "crushing" or "neutralizing" the "enemies of democracy," "terrorists," and "savages," implying it was acceptable to use unlawful force against them. It would not be long before Secretary Frazer would appropriate Kabila's term "Crush" to describe United States policy with regard to "rebel" movements which did not serve its own interests in Africa. Tripartite Commission Sets the Tone and Frazer Coins "Negative Forces" In October 2007, Jendayi E. Frazer, then Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, addressed the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs. Frazer crowed to Chairman Russ Feingold that she had "a good story to tell." She spoke of "Negative Forces" (Nkunda and the FDLR) and "reliable partners" (Rwanda), and introduced her "newly-appointed Senior Advisor for Conflict Resolution, Timothy Shortley," who "will work to makes sure US views are "taken into account." At this point in time, Shortley was working on the Juba peace initiative in Uganda. In addition, Shortley would be her new point man in Congo. According to reliable testimony from Congo and the CNDP, Shortley wasted no time in making certain that US views were taken into account and threatened Tutsi rebel leader Laurent Nkunda if Nkunda would not voluntarily go into exile. Frazer to Feingold: In order to respond to the current humanitarian and security crisis in eastern Congo, I directed Mr. Shortley to take the lead in expanding and intensifying implementation of our strategy to resolve the crisis in North Kivu. He has met with government officials, UN Organization Mission to DRC (MONUC) political and military leadership, and European partners in the Congo, New York and Washington. This training will underpin diplomatic efforts in the east to neutralize renegade military units and foreign armed groups. He will continue on to Rwanda to discuss efforts to neutralize the ex-FAR and Interahamwe There was no denying who the "negative forces" were in Frazer's eyes. They would be "eliminated." Tim Shortley is now in Sudan, the source of the arms shipments to Joseph Kabila in Congo. The US State Department was compelled to put out the following press release after the Sudanese press reported that Shortly was allegedly meeting recently with rebel factions in Sudan: Tim Shortley is the Director of the Sudan Programs Group in the Bureau of African Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. News reports of why he is in Khartoum are false. His primary purpose for visiting Khartoum (following his attendance at the African Union Summit) is to meet with officials of the Government of National Unity and various Non-Governmental Organizations to discuss the situation in Darfur and the implementation of the
 
Gregg Easterbrook: What Is The "National Origin" of Apple Pie? Top
Sonia Sotomayor's public statements are, like those of all recent Supreme Court nominees of both parties, being subjected to absurd hyper-scrutiny. But one statement by Sotomayor is deeply vexing, that her "national origins" impact her judging. Her national origin is American! News accounts and cable-news shouting are depicting Sotomayor as some kind of exotic species, especially "from" Puerto Rico. Judge Sotomayor speaks of herself in these terms. But she's "from Puerto Rico" in the same sense we are all "from the Olduvai Gorge." Sotomayor was born in New York City, which means she was born a U.S. citizen. She was raised in New York City. Her parents were from Puerto Rico, but she has never lived there. For that matter, her parents were American citizens. Her national origin is American! Some of the galimatias regarding Sotomayor's identity has to do with lack of understanding of Puerto Rico's confused legal status. But how can we speak of Sotomayor as anything other than a red-white-and-blue American? Why does she speak of herself in any other way? Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, to parents descended from Slovakians. It would be absurd if Roberts suggested his "national origin" was Slovakian or that this gave him any special status; his national origin is American. Justice Samuel Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey, to parents descended from Italians. He sometimes talks about his Italian ancestry, but it would be absurd if Alito suggested his "national origin" was Italian or that this gave him any special status; his national origin is American. Sotomayor goes further and refers to her parents, who moved to the Bronx from Puerto Rico, as "immigrants." Puerto Rico is part of the United States! Quick version of Puerto Rico's confused legal status: it is a self-governing colony most of whose residents are U.S. citizens who have no vote for president or representation in Congress, but also don't pay federal income taxes. Anyone born in Puerto Rico since 1941 has been a United States citizen at birth; most people born on the island between 1899 and 1940 received naturalized citizenship. You can't "emigrate" from Puerto Rico to New York, though you can move between the two places. It reflects ignorance when people make comments along the lines of "too many Puerto Ricans are being allowed into this country" -- there's even a line close to that in "West Side Story!" -- since most residents of Puerto Rico hold U.S. passports, coming and going within the nation as they please. Maybe having Sotomayor on the Supreme Court will cause the United States and Puerto Rico finally to resolve the nutty relationship they have had since 1898. I'd say give the island a star and make it a state. Its situation regarding the mainland does not seem materially different from the situation between Hawaii and the mainland when Hawaii won its star. Statehood has been a huge boon for Hawaii, and likely would be a boon for Puerto Rico. Many residents oppose Puerto Rican statehood either because they want an independent nation, or because they want to retain most of the privileges of U.S. citizenship but not pay income taxes. Whatever the outcome of the island's status dispute, it is ridiculous for commentators to treat Sotomayor, or Sotomayor to treat herself, as a quasi-foreigner. And this is skipping the excruciating contretemps about whether she would be the Court's first Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo's ancestors were from Portugal, which is Iberian but not Spanish-speaking) or whether she is Hispanic (this word's only clearly agreed meaning is "someone born in Spain" -- the Census Bureau has been arguing for decades about what "Hispanic" means) or whether she is Latina. Factually she is the later, in that word's meaning of "descended from Spanish-speakers." But that meaning is so mild it hardly carries any weight -- a person descended from German-speakers would be laughed at for claiming special status as a Germana. Anyway why are we fussing with all these hollow contentions of identity politics, and why is she? The Senate should weigh her candidacy simply as that of an American jurist. Here is the 2001 speech in which Sotomayor suggests she possesses some kind of non-American "national origin" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=print, and also in which she makes the dubious assertion that a Latina woman is better than a white male. Setting aside that it's perfectly possible to be Latina ("descended from Spanish-speakers") and white -- an example of why such identity labels are loopy, and "American" is always preferable -- the speech is learned, candid, engaging and well worth reading. Possible Supreme Court picks should be encouraged to set forth their philosophies in thoughtful speeches and writing, rather than hooted down by the political shout-show circuit for any comment beyond admiration for Thomas Jefferson. Nasty hyper-reaction to judicial statements only results in possible Supreme Court nominees who never say anything in public except empty blandishments. How is the public served by that?
 
Jenna Busch: A Video Review of Up Top
It seems like Pixar just can't fail. Up is released May 29th and it's bound to be a hit. It rips your heart out, stomps on it, and then makes you laugh so hard your eyeliner will run. It easily grabbed a place in my top 10. The marketing department might have a hard time expressing what this film is about though. Old guy in a house with balloons, little kid on the porch, a dog who talks and a giant bird named Kevin...I know it sounds confusing, but trust us. See it. And bring tissues. You've been warned. My good buddy from Latino Review , George Roush and I did a video review of Up at the dog park in Griffith Park. Check it out below.
 
Norman Lear: An American Heartbreak Top
Tom Brokaw famously called my generation the greatest. I'll accept the title for those of us still around, but only for the years preceding 1945. I'm not so sure we weren't too content with ourselves post-World War II. We began to believe our press as it were -- something to the effect that we were God's gift to the planet, other nations and all its peoples. The gratitude for the civil rights and liberties so hard won gave way and and "More!" became our need and, over time, our obsession. I don't mean to do a treatise here. I'd just put down the morning papers and can't stop thinking about what's going on with our car companies, and it just about breaks the heart of this member of Brokaw's Greatest Generation. I would have no way of overstating how deep and profound was our love for the American motor car and what a significant part it played in the now tossed around phrase, "The American Dream," then an all but holy right of passage. American families were told in hushed tones by banks and mortgage and insurance companies, that this was "The second most important check you will ever write," the first being for a home, of course. And that is what American families felt as they waxed and polished and hosed down their vehicles on the weekends of their long romance with the American Motor Car. I spoke of this to President George H.W. Bush in 1989 when I was asked if I had anything to suggest to him as he assumed the presidency. When I say today's news just about breaks the heart of this member of my generation, this video might help the understanding of that:
 
Jay Leno Says Goodbye To "The Tonight Show" After 17 Years Top
BURBANK, Calif. — It took a radio disc jockey to remind Jay Leno where he'll stand in "Tonight Show" history when he walks off the stage for the last time Friday. Leno was at the wheel of one of his famous vintage cars when he heard the DJ conduct a pop quiz: Who's the second-longest-running host of "Tonight," after Johnny Carson? "The guy on the radio actually got it before I did," Leno said Thursday, smiling. "It just sort of made me laugh. I went, 'Oh, that's pretty good.'" Maybe even better than good? "I come from 'pretty good,'" replied Leno, unfailingly modest in interviews. "If somebody wants to say even better, that's great." He will have posted an impressive 17 years as "Tonight" host, but well short of Carson's three decades that ended with his retirement in May 1992. Leno debuted as "Tonight" host a few days later. He leaves the show atop the late-night ratings, his run abbreviated by NBC's decision five years ago to create a succession plan that gives "Tonight" to Conan O'Brien. On the eve of his final two shows, Leno strikes an unsentimental tone. But he knows what he's leaving behind as he moves to a new, untested 10 p.m. EDT daily prime-time show for NBC this fall. "Will I miss it? Yes, terribly. It's the most wonderful job ever in show business," he said of "Tonight," which started in 1954 with Steve Allen as host. Unlike the solitary road life of a typical standup comedian, telling jokes to an audience of maybe 100 or so, Leno said, he had the chance to make millions of viewers laugh _ and then go home each night to his wife. In a conference room at NBC's studio, a bulletin board typically filled with lists of guests and comedy bits for upcoming shows is nearly bare, down to the final two shows. "Prince," read one red card for Thursday, when the pop star was set to appear. Prince's baby-blue Bentley was parked in the studio lot, near the backstage entrance and next to one of Leno's prized vehicles, an eye-catching red pickup truck. In the lunch room, the staff raided boxes of snack cakes, topped by a sign indicating they were compliments of Lyle Lovett, a guest earlier this week. On Thursday's show, Billy Crystal, Leno's first "Tonight" guest 17 years ago, returned to salute him with a musical medley akin to Crystal's Oscar ceremony opening numbers. "Mustangs and Mazdas and shiny Mercedes, Model T Fords that he steals from old ladies," sang Crystal, to the tune of "My Favorite Things." Starting Monday, at a newly built studio at nearby Universal City, O'Brien will be the man in charge of "Tonight." Leno declined to give advice to O'Brien, whom he called "a terrific guy" and a friend. "He'll bring his sensibility" to the show, Leno said. Over the years, the two have called to commiserate privately after a "dreadful" guest visited "Tonight" or O'Brien's "Late Night," Leno said. "Hopefully, we'll continue to do that," he said. After all, the two are enjoying an amicable transition. "That's what's great about these American democracy things. We can peacefully hand over talk shows without looting and rioting," Leno joked. This summer, he'll continue doing his standup appearances that filled his weekends during his "Tonight" reign. More importantly, he'll get ready for the new show that, he acknowledges, will face stiff competition in prime-time. "It'll be really tricky. But we'll just do the best we can," Leno said. ___ NBC is owned by General Electric Co. ___ On the Net: http://www.nbc.com More on Jay Leno
 
Sally Duros: State of Pay: A Chicago News-Blog Suspense Story Top
Veteran journalists I know really enjoyed seeing themselves played by Russell Crowe in the recent film State of Play . Handsome, disheveled, world weary and all-knowing, worn down by the events he views and records, Cal is still honest to a fault. Me, I am not as veteran as most -- so my favorite was the set design of Crowe's apartment. He had way too many refrigerator magnets on his fridge. That's where I am at. These days, it's best to decorate the fridge, rather than open it. The shelves aren't bare exactly, but they're not stocked either. I'd have to say that's due to the current "State of Pay" in the journalism field. As new and unexpected methods of news delivery reveal themselves, systems of vetting and hierarchy will develop, and established journalism will find itself embedded somewhere in this news delivery ecosystem developed by Steven Berlin Johnson, one of the founders of Outsidein . Our emerging newsrooms will be staffed in part by a generation of newshounds -- yes, journalists -- who've taken on the task of news delivery through the Web on their own. You can learn more about this world of independent news bloggers at The Chicago Media Future Conference, a free afternoon event Saturday, June 13, put together by Scott Smith, a senior editor at Playboy.com, and fellow co-conspirators, Barb Iverson , teacher of all things digital and journalistic at Columbia College, and Mike Fourcher, founder of Purely Political Consulting. Meawhile, read on. I talked to a sampling of these entrepreneurs and here's their review of the current "State of Pay" in Chicago. The Beachwood Reporter Steve Rhodes "We just added a fantasy sports columnist," says Steve Rhodes, editor and publisher of the Beachwood, "in addition to a new horse-racing correspondent and auto-racing correspondent." "We just posted another YouTube parody song, Wee Love Q by Green Bay Bill, Tom LaTourette and Joe Dillo. It has already been played on the radio." This follows a notable success. The Society of Professional Journalists in April honored a joint investigation by Chicago Talks and The Beachwood Reporter with the SPJ's 2008 national award for online investigative reporting by an independent media outlet. The Better Government Association assisted with the investigation into the activities of Chicago City Council committees. "The award was nice because it is the second year in the row that we have won while working with (Journalism Professor) Suzanne McBride's class," Rhodes says. "If Beachwood can do this without any money at all, with just a little bit of money we could compete with the legacy media," Rhodes says. "It's not like the newspapers are the only ones who can do it." Named after Rhodes favorite Wicker Park bar, The Beachwood Reporter is unique among Chicago's news blogs. Searing political commentary is Rhodes' signature and the rest of the coverage -- on music, TV, politics, sports, books and People, Places and Things -- shimmers with humor and creativity. Joining a stable of 20 contributors associated with The Beachwood are new columnists Dan O'Shea on fantasy sports, Thomas Chambers on horse racing and Carely Lundin on auto racing. Each and every one is a volunteer. Recently, Rhodes says, one feature is soaring in popularity: Ferdy On Films, a member site of the Beachwood Media Company, is getting 40,000 unique views per month. Windy Citizen Brad Flora "WindyCitizen's front page is a snapshot of what is new and most interesting in Chicago right now," says Brad Flora, editor and publisher. "It will all be local and it will all be interesting." Flora was one vocal guy at the Chicago Journalism Townhall in February. We won't repeat what he said, but it was passionate and angry. He's calmed down since then, and focusing on the business side of his site. "We are very similar to a Digg or a Reddit," Flora says. "It's a people-powered editorial approach to pulling together the news of the day." As a crowd-powered front page for Chicago, on any given day Windy Citizen will feature local blogging, video, photos, news reporting that contributors have brought to the site. Flora says Windy Citizen has 42 blogs in its network, who are compensated by enhanced visibility. But none of them are PR writers, he said. It's a central place where links can be shared and content can be voted up and down. "The stuff that gets the most votes floats to the front page using an algorithm," Flora says. He's currently running a fundraising drive and he's making some money. But the general state of money things? "It's been paying my rent and Ramen noodle bill," Flora says. New Communities Patrick Barry "We have some fermenting going on here and pretty soon the cork's going to pop," said Patrick Barry, an editor and writer at NewCommunities.org . "I hope that when the cork does pop it will unleash a bubbly cascade of champagne." Barry works with Gordon Walek to put out a suite of news sites that report on Chicago neighborhoods at Newcommunities.org. Recently Walek and Barry launched NeighborhoodSportsChicago.org . They pulled everything together -- reporting, writing and graphic design -- and published it in 11 days. "It was our latest experiment in trying to create new avenues for underreported stories," Barry says. "We got decent traffic during that week." Built almost five years ago, New Communities sheds light on media-neglected Chicago neighborhoods and the organizing and economic growth going on in those places. It's the kind of coverage that was the bread and butter of Chicago's newsrooms in the days when newspapers were more prone to report on stories relevant to the entire demographics of a city instead of the top 50 percent income demographic. The sites have sustained funding from the MacArthur Foundation, so unlike the editors of many news sites, NewCommunities editors and writers get paid for their original reporting. But still, since they are a nonprofit, their search for operational revenue is never-ending. "I don't want to simply pass on something from somebody else," Barry says. "I want to create original content that is not provided anywhere else and provide some insight into why it deserves to be up there." "That takes work," Barry says. "I think people really have very little understanding of what goes into putting out news. The layers and layers of editing, reporting, graphic support and now technology support." Barry says NewCommunities coverage brings alive the language of community development in a powerful way. "It's allowed people to understand what community development means," Barry says. "We just showed them by running stories and photos. You can touch and feel it a lot more rather than some theoretical presentation of comprehensive community development theory." Barry says the sites have been successful because of the vacuum they're filling. "The search engines saw the stuff immediately," he says. And once they started publishing the sites, the neighborhoods got involved and started building their own grassroots sites. "They realized that they could have their own voice," Barry says. Gapers Block Andrew Huff "We are soldiering on," said Andrew Huff, editor and publisher of Gapers Block, a Chicago-centric Web publication providing information on news and events around town. "We are looking for some new contributors in art. Our editors get a small stipend as an indication that we do want to try and pay everybody. Chicago's network of news bloggers is "definitely collaborative, and extremely supportive, but unfortunately that doesn't translate into financial success," said Huff, who launched Gapers Block six years ago. And that's what's holding everybody back. "I believe that the future of journalism is a whole bunch of little sites," he said. "The newspaper isn't being destroyed. It's being exploded." And everybody is flying out and doing their own thing -- pay be damned. "In the past, newsrooms were considered to be almost a community utility," Huff says. "But since investors started expecting ever-increasing returns, the money equation for newsrooms hasn't made sense." In the old days it was a stable profit, not an ever-increasing profit. "I don't think money people know how to make money with news," Huff said. What does that mean for Huff who writer for business blogs to make ends meet? "If I left, the site would die," he said. Community Media Workshop Gordon Mayer Thom Clark and his Community Media Workshop are making a list and checking it twice to understand what is happening in Chicago's online news streams as part of a Chicago Community Trust project. "One of the things that we are doing is building a list," says Gordon Mayer, vice president. "We know how to do directories." "We found 70-80 solid online news sites. There are a couple of questions about what does and doesn't fit into this category. That's what's going to be in the report," Mayer says. "It's basically impossible for a single organization to come up with an authoritative list." Mayers says that In looking at newspapers, "what really shifted was their mission of who they delivered information to. The audience shifted from everybody in Chicago to an audience that was more monied." And the Internet is clobbering newspapers because of it, Mayers says. The Community Media Workshop's portal opens into a plethora of channels aimed at assisting nonprofit communicators and others who want to connect with the legacy broadcast and newspaper press. Its NewsTips service offers insight into the kinds of stories nonprofits are seeking to place in the press. The CMW is doing the report for the Chicago Community Trust and planning to build its own newsroom, Mayer says. CMW's annual conference June 9-11, Making Media Connections this year on June 11 includes a session on social media and the news that's free. But if you want to attend anything else at the conference the cost is $95 for the half-day workshops and $190 for full-day workshops.
 
Mauricio Funes' Son's Killer Jailed For 17 Years Top
PARIS — The killer of the son of El Salvador's president-elect has been sentenced by a Paris court to 16 years in prison. Mohamed Amor admitted stabbing Alejandro Funes in the temple with an awl during a fight in 2007 on a pedestrian bridge near Paris' Louvre Museum. The 32-year-old had asked for forgiveness from Funes' family. President-elect Mauricio Funes is to take office next week. He told the court Thursday that he sent his son to study in France to escape the gang violence that is rampant in his Central American homeland. The Paris court also Friday sentenced Aboussama Chaffouk to one year behind bars for taking part in the fight. More on Crime
 
Michelle Larcher de Brito: The Shrieking Tennis Player At The French Open (VIDEO) Top
You may not have heard her name yet, but she's certainly drumming up conversation at the French Open even though she just lost in the third round. However, Portugal's Michelle Larcher de Brito isn't gaining fame for her tennis skills. Rather, it's her incessant shrieking on the court that's getting her a lot of talk. On Friday she was booed by French fans at Roland Garros stadium after almost shunning a handshake when she lost to their home player Aravane Rezai. Rezai had also interrupted the game at one point to complain about de Brito's screams. Listen to de Brito's playing "sounds" in this video from another tournament. More on Sports
 
How Vermont And Gainesville Could Revolutionize US Energy Top
H. 446 is the first legislation calling for a full system of advanced renewable tariffs in the US to pass the legislature and become law. The bill includes changes to Vermont's Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development Program (SPEED) that would implement a pilot feed-in tariff policy. Vermont's action follows closely on that of the Ontario provincial legislature's groundbreaking Green Energy Act and with several states considering similar legislation, the Green Mountain state could be the tipping point for a rapid succession of feed-in tariff policies across the continent. More on Green Energy
 

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)