Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com


Administration Releases High-Speed Rail Funding Info, Edge To Midwest And California Top
CHICAGO — The Obama administration has released criteria for $8 billion in stimulus money for high-speed rail that appear to give front-runner status to projects in the Midwest and California. The 68-page guidelines released Wednesday by the Federal Railroad Administration are the starting shot in a race between states to build new or revamped networks. California's $45 billion plan calls for 800 miles of track for high-speed service. The new guidelines favor states that pushed through other revenue sources, and California voters last November approved nearly $10 billion in state bonds for high-speed rail. The guidelines also give an edge to states that have banded together. Eight Midwestern states joined forces to back a network with a Chicago hub.
 
Mike Elk: Union Busting Ended My Love Affair with a Beer Top
Over many years, I have developed an intimate relationship with the sweet, lager taste of Yuengling Black & Tan. After moving to the cutthroat world of Washington, D.C. politics, I found that Yuengling always comforted me with memories of my working class roots and the world of flannel hunting jackets, wedding receptions at union halls, 4th of July barbecues, and tailgate parties that represented my native Western Pennsylvania. I took pride in introducing my friends to this beauty of a beer--cheap, delicious, and made by union workers back home in Pennsylvania. Women had come and gone, dogs had died, but Yuengling had always been there for me - until now. This past weekend when I discovered that Yuengling had illegally busted their union, I was emotionally devastated. I had just bought a case of Yuengling earlier that same day and had it sitting at home in the refrigerator waiting for me. What would I do? I was broke and couldn't possibly afford to buy another case of beer, but at the same time I couldn't possibly enjoy drinking a Yuengling knowing what they had done to their workers. So instead, I found myself at home, watching a baseball game on a Saturday night, and enjoying a nice, cold glass of milk as I struggled to deal with how Yuengling had betrayed not only its workers, but me. Quickly I found my outrage shifting from beyond Yuengling to the lack of U.S. labor law protecting workers from such abusive, unfair practices. It turns out that the company had petitioned for a decertification election to kick the union out of the brewery when the contract of the union expired. Dick Yuengling, the owner of Yuengling Brewery, gathered all the workers and told them that "the writing was on the wall". He said that if they didn't vote to kick the union out, he would close the plant, and ship the work to a non-union facility in the South. The workers, scared of losing their job in a region with high unemployment, voted to ditch their union and save their jobs. While threatening to close a plant if a union wins such an election is highly illegal, the Yuengling Company has been able to get away with due to the weakness of U.S. labor law. According to a study recently released by Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University, employers threaten to close facilities in 57% of union elections if workers choose a union, despite the fact that this threat is carried out only 2% of the time. This is because under U.S. labor law the penalty for threatening to close plants or firing workers during a union election is that the boss merely has to post a piece of paper saying they broke the law. As one longtime union organizer once put it to me "If the penalty for robbing a bank was you had to post a piece of paper saying you robbed a bank, we'd all be bank robbers!" Under current U.S. Labor Law, employers can freely violate the law without serious penalty. As a result, workers are fired from their job in 34% of union elections and companies illegally threaten to close a facility in 57% of all union elections. In this economy, losing one's job is tantamount not just to losing more than just a job, but also to losing home to foreclosure and more gravely - one's health insurance. As a result of the ability of bosses to freely intimidate with such Gestapo-style tactics, 58% percent of workers indicate they would like to join a union, but only 8% of private sector employees are members of one out of the fear of what their bosses might do to them for trying to join a union. The Employee Free Choice Act would give U.S. labor law real teeth - leveling heavy fines against employees who unlawfully intimidate or threaten workers. The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers to join unions free of intimidation a process of majority sign where workers merely would have to get 50% of their co-workers to sign a card to be part of a union. Currently, The biggest obstacle to the passing the Employee Free Choice Act is quite ironically the very Senator who represents the workers at Yuengling Brewing - "Democrat" Arlen Specter. Quite ironically, Arlen Specter, who had in previous years voted for the Employee Free Choice Act, has fallen victim to the same type of corporate intimidation and flipped his position to being against the Employee Free Choice Act. Its time that Arlen Specter show solidarity with the 20,000 workers that are fired every year for attempting to join a union. Arlen Specter needs to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would protect the rights of workers to freely join unions that the overwhelming majority of his constituents favor especially the once unionized workers of a once dear friend - Yuengling.
 
Barbara Coombs Lee: AMA Opposition and the Path Ahead Top
Working for social change, we run a long race through a wood, dark and deep. The milestones tick by, yet still the path leads ahead into the thicket. We long to break into a clearing and see the finish line ahead. Over fifteen years ago I enlisted in the fight to secure our right to control the timing and manner of death should end-of-life suffering become unbearable. We have come far in those years. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the law should empower terminally-ill, competent patients to choose how they will end their lives. With the public on our side, we must overcome the resistance of a few powerful opponents. Conservative religious activists oppose us, as they stand in the way of other social change. They hold firm religious beliefs about life's end and seek to impose them on others through secular law. But they alone could not stop us if they were not joined by the American Medical Association. The AMA's outspoken opposition to aid in dying has been cited by the Supreme Court and influences lower courts, state medical societies, and most important, legislatures. Our society naturally defers to physicians in the matter of prescribing potent medicines. We have invested them as the keepers of, and expect them to manage, those medicines. Yet we chafe at our deference to the medical establishment when they withhold a vitally important choice from some patients. To ask, "why do our doctors oppose what the majority of Americans support?" misstates the question. The AMA claims to speak for doctors, and the media often echo that assertion, yet barely a quarter of the nation's physicians are AMA members. Many medical and public health organizations have policies that support aid in dying , including the American Medical Women's Association, the American Medical Student Association, the American College of Legal Medicine and the American Public Health Association. The Oregon experience has persuaded medical leaders throughout the nation that legalization of aid in dying improves end-of-life care rather than harms it. The majority of physicians see it as part of their role as reliever of suffering when a cure is not possible. The position of the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs however, remains a tired platitude, frozen in time for the last fourteen years: physician aid in dying "is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer." When pollsters ask individual doctors whether they would support legalized physician aid in dying, their answer is a resounding yes. A number of surveys show nearly two-thirds of doctors are supportive , close to the percentage of Americans in general. Even among those doctors who are members of the AMA, only one out of three opposes legalization. In fact a majority of physicians report they would want aid in dying available to them if they were faced with a terminal illness. Imposing a reverse golden rule, the AMA prevents doctors from helping others to choose what they would want for themselves. With so many doctors supporting it, who stands against empowering dying patients? Four hundred thirty physicians in the AMA House of Delegates craft its policy. Among those 430 physicians, opposition to end-of-life choice is strong and fierce. Why does the AMA leadership stand in the way of change? We can only speculate on their motive but it helps to ask what benefit the AMA sees in keeping it illegal. The answer lies in the fact that legalization empowers patients. It empowers them to discuss end-of-life treatment. Legal aid in dying gives qualified patients the power to ask their doctors about their options and to request a prescription for life-ending medication. If their doctor will not honor their choices, legalization gives patients the power to transfer their care to a doctor who will. It breaks the bonds that hold them hostage to the religious beliefs of their doctor. Patients however, do not gain power by taking it from physicians. In my experience, legalizing aid in dying is not a zero sum equation for doctors. It empowers both patients and their physicians to speak frankly, practice medicine safely and face inevitable sadness openly. Where physician aid in dying remains illegal, the AMA controls both doctors and their patients. Sadly, the AMA has long opposed progress in medical practice and treatment that empowers patients and removes physicians from the absolute center of the decision-making process. The AMA opposed all forms of medical insurance and delayed Medicare enactment for years with its vigorous opposition. It opposed birth control for women and the use of anesthesia during childbirth. Patients fought in court for informed consent, the right that guarantees they must understand treatments and alternatives before agreeing to them. As with these past struggles, advocates for empowering patients through aid in dying have faced opposition from the AMA and its affiliates that is vigorous and even ruthless. The California legislature debated a Death with Dignity bill in 2007. That bill would be the law today if it were not for the efforts of the California Medical Association, who deployed all their lobbying power in Sacramento to defeat it, twisting the arms of legislators in a raw display of political muscle. The AMA's opposition to patient empowerment is frustrating, even infuriating, but predictable. Gloria Steinem has famously said, "Power can be taken, but not given. The process of the taking is empowerment in itself." At Compassion and Choices we have learned over the years from countless patients facing the end of life, that by embracing that end and making active decisions they forcefully take that power unto themselves. In the same way, as advocates, we cannot expect a small yet potent group of AMA leaders to willingly grant us the change we seek. We must take it ourselves.
 
Rea Carey: Our Moral Imperative Top
" Equality is a moral imperative ." Those words could have come from that diverse and brave group who made their stand at the Stonewall Inn that Friday night in June 1969, a stand for dignity and equality. But they didn't. Or these words: We must "build an America that lives up to its founding promise." Again, words not from that night 40 years ago that gave rise to the modern lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement, but rather words from our president, Barack Obama. And that's why last week's Department of Justice brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was not merely disappointing, it was a public abrogation of the promise of equality the president himself embraced as a candidate. It was not just a step backward for this administration, it was a step backward for our country. To issue this morally indefensible brief days before the Stonewall anniversary was an insulting rejection of those who have dedicated their lives to encouraging our nation to live up to what it has always valued most, what it has represented to the world -- equality. And so now the LGBT community, on this 40th anniversary of the date when our community stood up and shouted "No!" is challenged to once again take a stand. Like so many others who believed our country could do better, could do more, the LGBT community worked for change. And now, we wonder if that change so many worked so hard for is going to include us in ways that fully reflect our lives. Our movement has come a long way, but the Justice Department's brief defending DOMA showed us that our country still has a long way to go. And while "LGBT issues" have come to be seen as four primary legislative priorities -- the overturning of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and DOMA, and the passage of hate crime legislation and an inclusive employment nondiscrimination act -- those bills will never reflect the full scope or complexity of the issues that concern our community. For some of us, our first priority may be protection from employment discrimination or the ability to freely serve in the military. But for others, our first concern may be protecting our families or health coverage for our partners. Or it is the threat of families being torn apart at our borders because one parent is not a child's biological parent or because of one partner's HIV status. That's why our work will always be broader than specific pieces of legislation; why it will always be about improving the lives of LGBT people, ending discrimination embedded in federal policies and ensuring that not a single one of us should live in fear of prosecution or persecution for who we are and whom we love. Why it will always be about "equality as a moral imperative." Now, we're not naive about the complexities of making federal policy. We know there are scores of key vacancies throughout the federal bureaucracy awaiting Senate confirmation. And yes, there is a lengthy list of big issues facing the nation and the world, and that lawmaking takes time. And those issues, like the economy and health care, also directly affect the lives of LGBT people. And that's why, as Congress considers the LGBT community's legislative priorities, we call on the administration to take the dozens of steps it can take on its own, right now, to start fulfilling its vision of change and equality. The president just announced he would extend some protections to same-sex couples if a partner is a federal employee. That's a first step. And there is more he can do: The administration can reverse the standing policy of the U.S. Census Bureau to manually un-marry any same-sex couple who lawfully states they are married on the 2010 census. The administration can better ensure the health and safety of youth by funding LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying, suicide prevention and runaway and homeless youth programs. The president can extend employment protections to federal employees based on gender identity. Through executive order or by other means, the president can ensure military service members are allowed to serve their country without fear of being discharged until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed. The administration can reverse the regulations that continue to throw roadblocks in the way of HIV-positive individuals who want to travel to this country. And these are just a few of the dozens of policies that the president can change with his directive -- and without congressional action -- that will have a positive impact on our health, our livelihoods and our families' safety. If there is to ever be equality, real equality, then this is the time for us to make a stand. We will work with this administration to create the change that will improve the lives of LGBT people. We will advocate, we will push, we will cajole -- and we won't walk away. Forty years after Stonewall, we will honor those who took a stand for dignity by continuing to fight for equality. After all, equality is a moral imperative.
 
Andrew Rosen: YouTube Diplomacy and Iran Top
In Iran, a religious revolution in decline is confronting a technological revolution in ascendancy. It is no secret that the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has progressively lost its direction since Iran's retreat from the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. Journalistic portraits of Iran often reflect a populace with a collective and public sense of defeat and disillusionment, who privately engage in and celebrate Western traditions and values. In the 21st century, Western values have become much more than the freedoms of wearing make-up or consuming alcohol behind closed doors. They are also the manifold and evolving freedoms created by the Internet, and more specifically, Web 2.0. The ascendant technological revolution which we are witnessing is fueled by a younger generation using Facebook, Twitter, SMS, MMS, YouTube, Demotix, and other Web 2.0 tools and services. They are communicating with each other and with strangers, collaborating on organizing protests, and sharing information worldwide. A multitude of unemployed and unhappy voices, once passive, are now active, animated, and eager for change. The Obama Administration both finds itself in the heart of, and on the sidelines of, this confrontation. Consequently, the Obama Administration has opted to tread carefully on the basis that it would "seem counterproductive to be seen as meddling." While the Iranian people "should be heard and respected," any official suggestion of US interference would be counterproductive at this time. At the same time, the Obama Administration's use and encouragement of Web 2.0 tools is more illustrative of their true intentions: they are decidedly on the side of this technological revolution, as this NYT article indicates . In the past three months, the Administration has begun to pursue "YouTube Diplomacy" and has appeared to lay down three cornerstones to commit its policy here. The first cornerstone was the launch of YouTube Diplomacy with the President's message on the Feast of Nawroz. The video stood in stark contrast to the Iranian leadership's labels of President Obama pursuing "imperialist business as usual." Because it was posted on YouTube, it became viral -- anyone, anywhere with access to the Web could view the video on YouTube, or any other site or blog where the video was embedded. Anyone could rate and comment on it, and they could actively share it via email or instant messenger. Additionally, because the video was downloadable, Iranians and citizens of other countries without access to the Internet were able to view the video via CD-ROM, Flash drive, or even videotape. The second cornerstone was the President's speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University last month. Once again, the speech may be found on YouTube, and with quotes like "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government," or the implicit description of Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust as "baseless, ignorant, and hateful," it seemed tailor-made to be cut into soundbites that could be recorded, shared, and discussed online in Iran. The third cornerstone is the encouragement of Web 2.0 communications between Iran and the West. The State Department's recent request to Twitter to postpone maintenance for the purpose of continuing communications with Iran, and other outreach by the State to Facebook and YouTube, have been additional, clear indications of where the Obama Administration's preferences lie. These three cornerstones are the foundation of a foreign policy built to surf the technological revolution that is occurring worldwide as it expands, using the language of XML across phones, laptops, and hand-held devices as its foundation. There are at least four important lessons which we already have learned from YouTube Diplomacy: Millions of connections can beat one message: President Ahmadinejad's narrow message of an evil West bent on destroying Iran is now being drowned out by millions of connections and correspondences between Iranians and the West. The Emperor Has No Clothes - The Iran vs. The World dichotomy seems to be dying, if not only the distorted, tightly-held view of a few. Growing rumors of the regime bussing in Hezbollah fighters to combat hundreds of thousands of Iranians protesting in a non-violent manner raises the question: which Iranians will answer President Ahmadinejad's call to fight for Iran against a West that seeks to help them? The Ayatollah is basically powerless against this technology: Block the Internet, cut out the computer, and a YouTube video will still circulate amongst citizens in other formats. Cut mobile telephone services, and a user will find a way to communicate via Twitter online. Block Internet access and users will find foreign-hosted proxy servers communicated via Twitter And more generally, technology adapts faster than a poor regime: Iran has an interesting cross-section of the highest Internet adoption in the Middle East, and one of the worst managed economies in the region. This technology is cheap and accessible, and its ease of use, adaptability, and variability allow it to spread quickly. The Iranian government simply does not have the resources to combat this technology as it evolves, or to defend itself against the thousands of individual hackers attacking its Internet from across the globe. At the same time, YouTube Diplomacy has volatile implications which should be of the highest concern to us. It has as much potential to do harm as it does to do good: We have no idea what will happen when YouTube diplomacy fails. Perhaps it will be like one diplomatic channel failing. On the other hand, the Cairo speech has been viewed over 500,000 times on YouTube. Arguably, that's 500,000 diplomatic channels - we have to wonder whether the failure of YouTube Diplomacy in one instance will have exponential ramifications. Similarly, we have no idea what happens when Web 2.0 confronts military power. It is still unclear, at this point in time, how the people empowered by the tools of Web 2.0 fare against the real-world threats of brute force, violence and death. People who use YouTube and Twitter are self-selecting. These Iranians are educated and web savvy. Ahmedinejad's supporters, for the most part, are not. That means that all the content we get on Twitter and in the photos coming out of Tehran have a particular viewpoint. We risk underestimating Ahmedinejad's support because we receive a very particular point of view. Adoption of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other Web 2.0 is evolving and growing: We still do not have an adequate contextual understanding of images, Tweets, videos, or communications via Facebook, or their implications. The reliability of information relayed via Web 2.0 is suspect: The anonymity that proxy servers provide are as problematic for confirming the reliability of photos, videos, and text as they are reliable for expediting these communications. We also cannot confirm always "what" these images, videos, and emails have described to have occurred. This technology revolution does not present a political alternative to the Vayelat-al-Faqih. Mousavi is an alternative to Ahmadinejad. He has not positioned himself as an alternative to Khameini. If the technology revolution in ascendancy wins out, can the US or the region handle a wide swath of instability cutting across an unstable Iraq, an unstable Iran, an unstable Afghanistan, and an unstable Pakistan? The Obama Administration continues to publicly suggest that it is gingerly toeing the developments in Iran, and seeks to offend no one. But it has demonstrated decidedly its belief in the transformative power of the Internet and the tools of Web 2.0, and sees an opportunity in Iran to put these tools to work. This is a risky bet: Twitter is less than 3 years old, YouTube is over 4 years old. Facebook is over 5 years old. These tools are new, are evolving rapidly, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. There are many legitimate questions as to whether the Administration should be attempting outside the US to duplicate the success it has had with Web 2.0 within the US, particularly in the most volatile region in the world. We should restrain our optimism for "change" as we watch, and participate, as these technologies confront the past in Iran. Andrew A. Rosen is the Principal and Founder of AAgave LLC, a strategic consultancy in digital media, and a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has worked in digital media at MTV Networks, on the foreign policy staffs for Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Robert Torricelli, and at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, a New York-based think tank. More on Twitter
 
David Harold Earls: Child Rapist Gets One Year In Plea Deal Top
OKLAHOMA CITY — A plea deal that sent an ex-convict accused of raping a 4-year-old girl to jail for only a year has prompted outrage across Oklahoma, where lawmakers are calling for the removal of the judge who approved the deal and the attorney general is investigating a new set of abuse allegations. Under the deal, David Harold Earls, 64, of the southeastern Oklahoma town of McAlester, pleaded no contest last month to first-degree rape and forcible sodomy. Normally, the rape charge carries a sentence of between five years to life in prison, but the deal he struck with prosecutors called for 19 years of his 20-year sentence to be suspended. Residents have since peppered the local newspaper with e-mails and letters questioning why the sentence wasn't harsher. "I think they should have dropped the hammer on him," said Chris Lenardo, 35, who works at a local barber shop in McAlester, a town of about 18,000 people about 120 miles southwest of Oklahoma City. "I'm still trying to figure out why he's only getting a year." Prosecutors said they only agreed to the plea bargain because the case rested largely on the testimony of the girl, now 5, who made contradictory statements during pretrial hearings. After initially testifying about the assault, she later said she couldn't remember the rape. At one point, the girl ran out of the room and down the hallway. The case has generated more outrage as new accusations have surfaced. After Earls entered his plea, an estranged relative came forward to make a new allegation of a past rape. Although the statute of limitations likely has expired, it's possible the allegations could be used in another case against Earls if another victim comes forward, Attorney General Drew Edmondson said. Edmondson said his office is looking at reviving a case against Earls involving the girl's brother. Those charges were dropped when the 5-year-old boy changed his story and said he couldn't recall the incident. Such problems involving testimony from children in criminal cases aren't unusual, said Barbara Bonner, director of the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. "Obviously, the criminal justice system wasn't set up to pit a 4- or 5-year-old child against an adult," Bonner said. "Particularly in cases of young children, they have very high levels of anxiety associated with the abuse. They'll do anything to avoid talking about it." Several state lawmakers want an investigation into the actions of Pittsburg County District Judge Thomas Bartheld, who signed off on the plea deal. The Oklahoma Legislature doesn't have the power to remove a judge, but lawmakers have introduced a resolution asking that a legal process be started in which a judge can be removed by a special state court. "My general concern is: Are the courts protecting the children?" said Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow. "You have a convicted felon you're looking at. You've got a (family member) that's come forward and said she was raped by him. You've got the public outcry." Bartheld did not return a telephone message left Tuesday at his office, but has previously said he followed the law. Earls previously served nearly 10 years in prison for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and was released in 2006. He was baby-sitting the two children while their mother worked a second job, but Miller said the relationship between Earls and the mother is unclear. A telephone message left Tuesday with Earls' attorney, Tim Mills, was not returned. He had previously told The Oklahoman newspaper he thought prosecutors didn't want to risk an acquittal. District Attorney Jim Bob Miller said Tuesday the plea deal was both necessary and accepted with the approval of the girl's family. A medical examination of the girl found evidence of a sexual assault, but no DNA evidence tying Earls to the crime. "If the little girl freezes on the stand, we literally have nothing," Miller said. "We don't have any doubt that he did this, but the problem was proving it in court." More on Crime
 
"Real Housewives Of New Jersey" Finale Sets Franchise Ratings Record Top
The "Real Housewives of New Jersey" (3.5 million viewers, 1.9 adults 18-49 rating) was the highest-rated season finale for the network's entire "Housewives" franchise to date.
 
Congress Reviewing Sammy Sosa's Sworn Testimony Following Steroid Use Report Top
WASHINGTON — A congressional committee will look into former baseball slugger Sammy Sosa's denial that he used illegal performance-enhancing drugs in light of a report that he tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug in 2003. The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York, says that the committee takes seriously suggestions that a witness had been misleading. Towns said in a statement Wednesday that he will determine the appropriate steps following a review of the matter. In 2005, Sosa told Congress that he had never taken illegal performance-enhancing drugs. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Sosa tested positive two years before his appearance at a House hearing. More on Sports
 
Alex Remington: Interview with Seth Gordon, Director of "King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters" Top
Seth Gordon is a young documentarian, director of "King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters," a very entertaining documentary about Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell, two men in pursuit of the all-time record for the original "Donkey Kong" arcarde game. It grossed less than $1 million in theaters, but achieved great prominence -- and a bit of controversy -- on the internet. I asked Gordon a few questions about his career thus far and what's coming next. Part of the film "King of Kong" is about how Steve Wiebe's life changed after being recognized as a world champion video gamer. How has your life changed since "King of Kong"? Kong has opened a remarkable number of doors in the film and entertainment business. We never expected that our little film made for nothing and with little more than the sweat and perseverance of a few of us would get any attention outside of the few and family and friends we could guilt into sitting through a screening at my apartment. You've directed feature-length and short films, documentary and fictional, and even an episode of Amy Poehler's new show "Parks and Recreation." Of all these formats, what do you prefer? Sorry to have such a safe answer, but each format has its advantages. I'd say Parks and Recreation was really fun to work on b/c of its talented cast and crew, and very rewarding because of the sheer volume of work they have to do in a week. There's a sort of zone you end up in when you are working that hard and that fast. It stands in direct contrast to the 18 months we spent on Kong, always watching, hoping reality would take the shape of a narrative. "King of Kong" was phenomenally well-received critically, but it grossed less than $1 million in theaters. "Four Christmases" was not critically well-received, but it grossed over $100 million. What do you take from your experience working on both films? That film critics have strongly held and carefully crafted opinions that have no relationship to what the populace at large wants to see, and that the marketing and messaging of a film including the 'P and A' budget is incredibly important to the way a film is received by the market. On "King of Kong," you are credited as cinematographer, editor, and director. (You also edited the great documentary "New York Doll" and were the cinematographer for the Dixie Chicks' "Shut Up & Sing.") How did you get into filmmaking? Do you like being an all-in-one kind of filmmaker? I discovered shooting and filmmaking around the time all of the software became affordable to anyone with a PC. There was never the guild-delineated sense of job specialization I've found in the formal film industry. Before moving to LA it hadn't occurred to me that you did anything other than all the jobs required to get a project finished. Who are some of your inspirations or influences as a moviemaker? Pennebaker, Errol Morris, Maysles Bros, are doc favorites. Other than the scripted "King of Kong" remake, what are you working on now? Several at several places. I hope one of them gets made. With the state of the economy I'm glad to have something to work on at all right now.
 
White Sox Top Cubs 4-1 On Strength Of Danks Pitching Top
CHICAGO — John Danks pitched seven shutout innings, Alexei Ramirez homered in the first and the White Sox played some NL-style baseball Wednesday to beat the Cubs 4-1. The White Sox, backed by a large and vocal following at Wrigley Field, now lead the spirited and closely contested interleague series that began in 1997, 34-33. Danks (5-5) worked out of some early jams in a meeting of crosstown rivals who've struggled offensively this season. In seven-plus innings, the lefty allowed five hits, walked none and struck out nine, while being charged with one run. He left after Aaron Miles doubled to lead off the eighth. White Sox's center fielder Brian Anderson then leaped in front of the ivy-covered wall to catch pinch-hitter Jake Fox's long drive. Miles took third on the play and scored on Alfonso Soriano's RBI grounder off reliever Scott Linebrink as the Cubs averted a shutout. Bobby Jenks pitched a perfect ninth for his 15th save in 17 chances. Leading 1-0, the White Sox added a run on Chris Getz's RBI triple in the second off a wild Ryan Dempster (4-4) and got a third run in the seventh on a squeeze bunt single from Scott Podsednik. In the eighth, a walk, hit-and-run single by Paul Konerko and a sacrifice fly by A.J. Pierzynski made it 4-0 when pinch-runner DeWayne Wise beat Soriano's throw to the plate. Ramirez lifted his sixth homer of the season into the basket in left field on a 1-2 pitch from Dempster in the first. Dempster, who walked six, was removed after issuing back-to-back free passes to Getz and Gordon Beckham in the seventh. After Danks swung away after showing bunt, reliever Angel Guzman made a nice stab of his grounder and threw to second to get Beckman, leaving runners at first and third. With Getz breaking for the plate, Podsednik delivered a perfect squeeze bunt between the mound and first and beat it out for a single to make it 3-0. The Cubs had several chances against Danks but couldn't convert. Derrek Lee singled leading off the second to extend his hitting streak to 14 games and Geovany Soto followed with a hard hopper off third baseman Beckham for an error, putting runners at first and second. Beckham then started an around-the-horn double play before Mike Fontenot grounded out. The Cubs had runners at the corners with no outs in the fourth, but when Anderson made a nice catch of Lee's sinking liner, Cubs' baserunner Ryan Theriot had already broken off third and couldn't get back in time to tag up. Danks then fanned Soto and got Reed Johnson on a fielder's choice grounder. NOTES: White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen laughed off a T-shirt with the phrase "Ozzie Mows Wrigley Field" and an image of him mowing the field with the scoreboard in the background. He even wore it in the clubhouse before the game. Guillen has been an outspoken critic of Wrigley Field.. ... The loss marked the 10th time in the last 26 games the Cubs have scored one run or less. They are 9-17 in that span. More on Sports
 
Henry Blodget: A Second Great Depression? Top
So far, the collapse of the world economy since April 2008 has actually been worse than the rate of collapse in the Great Depression. The main difference between now and then is that most economists expect the world economy to recover more quickly than it did in the 1930s. The cause for this optimism has been that the government policy response this time around has been much more aggressive. Most major countries have cut rates and ramped up spending to unprecedented levels, which some economists believe will stop the pain. Of course, other economists disagree. In fact, we're actually all now participating in a sort of lab experiment that will prove or disprove one of the major economic conclusions of the past 70 years: That the original Great Depression was not an inevitable outgrowth of the wild speculation of the 1920s but was caused by "policy errors" after the collapse. If the 1930s was the result of policy mistakes, we should come out of our current swoon relatively soon. It if wasn't, the new economic conclusion will be that there is simply no way to avoid economic catastrophes after a financial bubble the size of the one we just had. Professors Barry Eichengreen (Berkeley) and Kevin O'Rourke (Trinity) have produced a startling series of charts that compare the progress of this "Depression event", as they're calling it, with the Great Depression. Click through them here More on The Recession
 
Norb Vonnegut: Madoff: The Three Amigos Top
What do Bernie Madoff, Ahmed Ghailani, and a captured Somali pirate have in common? They're all locked in the same New York prison . It's too bad Ghailani, Guantanamo detainee and terror suspect with alleged links to Al Qaeda, is being held in isolation. I can't help but wonder about conversations during meal hours. Ghailani: I used to watch your boat, Bernie, from my cell window in Cuba. Somali Pirate: Yes, my friendster [sic]. Bernie knew better than to cruiser [sic] our waters. Arrrgh. Ghailani: My friend, Mr. Arrrgh, would have boarded Bull--that's some Leopard yacht, Bernie--taken it to the local chop shop and sold it off in little pieces. Ghailani and the Somali pirate lean closer and violate Madoff's body space. Their eyes gleam. The gold fillings of the pirate's teeth glisten under the bare prison light bulbs. He is the muscle in their partnership. Together, they are mesmerized by Madoff's wealth. Ghailani: Your boat would fund our operations for a long, long time. Somali Pirate: Yes. Fundster [sic] our operations. Madoff: You guys are so out of touch. Haven't you heard? The authorities seized Bull. I'm rotting here in sing-sing just like you. Ghailani: Of course, I'm out of touch. What do you expect? I've been staring at the ceilings in Guantanamo for the last few years. Somali Pirate: And my English is terri-table [sic]. Would you speak more slowly? And what's song-song [sic]? Ghailani: What'd you do, Bernie? Madoff: Ran a Ponzi scheme. Some say it was sixty-four billion. Others say it was sixty-five. What's one billion dollars among friends? Ghailani: Wait. You ran a sixty-four billion dollar fraud. Madoff: I don't mean to brag. Somali Pirate: What's a Ponzi skim [sic]? Ghailani: Sixty-four billion is more than all-star terrorists can destroy in five lifetimes. I'm not talking pikers. I'm talking Lex Luthor caliber." Somali Pirate: Arrrgh. Ghailani: Hey, how come you weren't down in Guantanamo? You destroyed enough wealth. Sixty-four billion dollars must count for something. Madoff: Well, here's the CNN version. The SEC didn't catch me for almost ten years after Harry Markopolis first sounded the alarm. And then, they caught me only because I confessed. The authorities started closing Guantanamo about the time I was caught. Somali Pirate: I understand "CNN." Ghailani: Did you hide among the caves of Afghanistan mountains? Madoff: No. On my yacht named, Bull. Remember, the one you saw from your cell? Ghailani: We could use a man like you. When are you getting out of here? Madoff: It may be a while. But maybe I can help your organization manage its money. You think your terrorist buddies can send their bank statements here? Ghailani: I suppose it's possible. Our communications aren't all that reliable these days. Madoff: Have you ever heard of a split-strike conversion strategy? It's all the rage. Somali Pirate: Arrrgh. That's it for another week in Acrimoney. Thanks for joining us. www.acrimoney.com
 
Tim McLoughlin: The Narrows: A Double Life in Brooklyn Top
There are stars, there are superstars, and then there are gods of the American mainstream consciousness. And among those gods are the big three, the icons of pop culture. You know who I mean. The trio that defined all that was hip for the second half of the twentieth century. I'm referring of course to Andy Warhol, Bruce Lee, and Don Knotts. And on June 19th of this year, when the motion picture The Narrows , based on my novel, Heart of the Old Country , opens at The Pavilion in Brooklyn, I will become a small footnote in their pantheon. The Narrows tells the story of a photography student (played by Kevin Zegers) from a tough neighborhood in Brooklyn who takes a job from the local mob boss in order to pay his college tuition. His double life becomes dangerous when the two worlds violently collide. The film also stars Vincent D'Onofrio, Sophia Bush and Eddie Cahill and is directed by Francois Velle. The Pavilion, known to Brooklynites of a certain age as the old Sanders, was where I first saw a movie in a real theater. It was 1964, and the movie was The Incredible Mr. Limpet , starring Don Knotts. I was six years old, and the size and majesty of the fifteen hundred-seat house was overwhelming. The film, with its live action to animation jumps, was ahead of its time, and the combination of cinema magic and cathedral-like ambiance cast a spell upon me for movies (and Don Knotts) that remains to this day. The Brooklyn we drove through back then from our apartment in Sunset Park to the theater, around the corner from my mother's family on Seventeenth Street, was a diorama of post-war, working class urban life. And it was on the verge of quick irrevocable change. Diane Arbus' photograph, Young Brooklyn Family Going for a Sunday Outing, was taken in 1966, and, haunting grotesquerie aside, if you showed it to anyone not familiar with the work they would date it at least a decade earlier. But Steeplechase, the last of the original Coney Island amusement parks, closed at the end of the season in 1964, and the following year the Beatles played Shea Stadium, an event that my parents were convinced signaled the apocalypse. White flight, Vietnam, and rock n' roll were now a part of the local bar room conversation. We still had a milkman and seltzer delivery guy, but bicycles and car hubcaps were also being stolen, and my mother worked with a woman who had a relative who'd been mugged. My parents fretted that it was becoming an out of control neighborhood in an out of control city in an out of control world. They were right of course, and they were wrong. As I prepare for the opening of The Narrows in the same theater where I saw my first movie, I chart the changes in Brooklyn, in New York, and in America, by the changes in that theater and the surrounding few blocks. I know, it's a lot of pressure to put on one 'hood, but Park Slope is tougher than it looks. When I was fifteen I saw Enter The Dragon there, on a double bill with one of the old Hammer horror flicks starring Christopher Lee. A year later I snuck in with a girlfriend to see the X-rated Andy Warhol's Frankenstein . The Sanders was past its prime by then, and many people thought Brooklyn was too. Around the time I got my driver's license and started working for the neighborhood car service, many of my friends and family were leaving for the tamer environs of the suburbs. When I drove for the car service I kept a notebook under the seat of my car and I'd scribble bits of dialogue or take notes about a particularly bizarre customer as soon as I'd drop the fare off. Years later, these formed the basis for the novel Heart of the Old Country . By the time the book was published in 2001, Brooklyn had changed yet again, dramatically, from the time of the experiences that shaped my story. And by the time The Narrows was filmed, well, you see where I'm going, the place had changed some more. So had I. I had unknowingly adapted my parent's fears to fit my environment as I entered middle age. They worried about crime and poverty, I sweated the twin evils of yuppies and hipster infestation, and the attendant pricing out of the working class. As the crusty middle-aged grump who never left town, it was easy to see all that was going wrong. But as I read each new draft of screenwriter Tatiana Blackington's script or toured my old haunts with Francois Velle, the director, I came to learn something that they seemed to already know: what had changed wasn't as important as what hadn't changed. That became the joyful revelation rediscovered every day in some small way on the set of the film. Demographics change, businesses change hands, ethnic shifts occur, but the vibe of Brooklyn is essentially the same. And though the movie differs from the book, as all movies based on novels must, the spirit of my Brooklyn is in the film. On the street corners where I hung out with Irish and Italian kids, trying desperately to look cool and pick up girls, today there are Asian and Arab teenagers, trying desperately to look cool and pick up girls. If the gift and the curse of America is that it makes us all Americans, then that is true tenfold of Brooklyn. On June 19th I'll be sitting in the same dark theater where I saw my first film. Where my parents saw the original Ocean's 11 . Where I saw the remake. Where I first encountered Don Knotts, Bruce Lee, and Andy Warhol. Different time. Different film. Same magic. My parents remained Brooklyn, and of the many things I'm grateful to them for, that decision is in the top three. Cinedigm's The Narrows opens nationwide June 19 and can be seen in New York at The Chelsea Clearview Cinema and The Pavillion, Brooklyn, as well as Grauman's Chinese 6 in Los Angeles. For further information please go to: wwwnarrowsthemovie.com .
 
Ali A. Rizvi: The One Thing 39 Million Iranians Decisively Voted For Top
There has never been any reliable polling data that has come out of Iran. Even when opinion polls have been conducted, restrictions on what the Iranian people can and cannot say have made it practically impossible to figure out what they really think. Are they more pro-theocracy or pro-secular? Pro-US or anti-US? Pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear? How do they really feel about the idea of an unelected Supreme Leader being the head of their national media networks? No one really knows for sure. But voter turnouts of over 85% cannot lie. Most Iranians knew that this election wasn't really going to change anything, thanks to the dictatorial leadership of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Still, out of 46.2 million eligible voters, a staggering 39 million came out to vote, making a strong, unequivocal statement: Iranians value democracy. A lot . At this point, the results of the election should be considered irrelevant. These protests -- of, by, and for the people -- are about a much bigger picture, shaped by history and rooted in the kind of idealism that hundreds of thousands of Iranians have decided is worth risking their lives to try and rejuvenate. This is the culmination of a powerful grassroots dynamic that has been bubbling for decades, and has finally boiled over. Since 1979, elections in Iran have never truly been elections, and democracy in Iran has never truly been democracy. Most Iranians know that the elected president has always had little power to influence anything of significance beyond economic policy. It is the Supreme Leader who commands the armed forces, drafts foreign policy and national security policy, runs all national media services like radio and television, acts as the supreme judiciary, selects candidates eligible to run for president through the Council of Guardians, and (as we all now know) certifies election results. This Supreme Leader is an unelected figure who operates under the Velayat-e-Faqih theory in Shia Islam, mandating guardianship of an Islamic jurist over a population. Since the revolution of 1979, only Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei have held this position. Even though Khomeini was a charismatic leader with widespread popularity and legitimacy, the selection of Khamenei as his successor was controversial, and thought by many members of Iran's clerical establishment to be politically motivated. According to Iran's Constitution at the time, the Supreme Leader had to be a marja'a , the highest rank in the Shia hierarchy of religious and spiritual scholarship. Only a marja'a was worthy of the title of Grand Ayatollah, and Khamenei wasn't quite there yet. So, three months before his death, Khomeini -- unsatisfied with the list of marja'as available to potentially succeed him -- revised the Constitution to allow for Khamenei to be eligible, and also promoted him to an Ayatollah virtually overnight from his more junior rank of Hojjat-ul-Islam . This wasn't the first time Khomeini had tweaked his own rules for Khamenei. Khomeini had initially expressed an opposition to having clerics in the office of President, but conveniently relaxed his opinion when Khamenei successfully ran for the position in 1981. He served until Khomeini's death in 1989, when, as per Khomeini's selection, he became Iran's second Supreme Leader. At the same time, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, another powerful founding father of the revolution, became President. Rafsanjani is a reformist who also ran in the 2005 election (losing to Ahmadinejad), and has conspicuously showed his support for the protesters over the last week. He has always been a vocal critic of Ahmadinejad, and one of Khamenei's fiercest rivals. Ahmadinejad, in turn, has always been an ardent supporter of the Supreme Leader, who Iran's powerful Assembly of Experts has the constitutional power to remove. And the chairman of the Assembly? Rafsanjani. So Khamenei has several good reasons to be worried. Because of the somewhat sketchy politics surrounding his selection as Supreme Leader in 1989, Khamenei has always had some rivals in Iran's clerical establishment. To add to that, the massive uprising against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can comfortably be looked at as an uprising against Khamenei, or maybe even against the whole idea of a Supreme Leader. Although calling this a revolution is a little premature, this is clearly the result of much more than a single election. This time, it's not just the people that are deeply divided; the rift within the clerical establishment has also been exposed, more prominently than ever, with the Supreme Leader himself now seriously vulnerable. The last time Iran had an election with an 80% turnout, Mohammad Khatami, a reformist candidate, won 70% of the vote. Shortly before he completed his two terms as president in 2005, he wrote a 47-page "letter for the future" expressing his frustration at the hard-line clerical establishment's obstruction of his attempts to reform Iran's theocracy, warning of the dangers of "religious despotism". The parliamentary election that year had demonstratively played that warning out. The Council of Guardians, headed and appointed by Khamenei, had barred over 8000 candidates , most of them moderate, many of them allies of Khatami, from running. (They still have the authority to do this.) Knowing that this would be a selection, not an election, many pro-reform voters stayed home, clearing the way for Ahmadinejad's subsequent 2005 victory. In the four years since, Khamenei strengthened the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, army, and secret police in unprecedented ways: members of the Revolutionary Guard held most of the top government posts , and consequently gained significant control over the economy, one of the few areas that the elected president once had some latitude with. Thus, Iranians watched their country go from a theocratic state to a virtual military dictatorship. They may have hoped that their votes would allow them to have some say in how their government should deal with at least some limited domestic issues like rising inflation and unemployment (estimated at close to 20%), but in the end, they knew it wouldn't really matter. Yet, they still came out and voted. Over 39 million of them. Over 85% of eligible voters. And now they are out on the streets, passionately expressing their will to express their will. Why? The answer has very little to do with either Ahmadinejad or Mousavi. The Iranian election of June 12, 2009 wasn't just a referendum on Iran's political process, but on democracy itself -- the real kind. More on Iranian Election
 
Reproductive Justice: Exposing Fake Women's Health Clinics: My Visit to a Local Crisis Pregnancy Center Top
By Myra Duran, a junior at UCLA and she is on the Executive Board of FMF affiliate Bruin Feminists for Equality. If you are a student, you probably see so-called crisis pregnancy center ads all the time on campus. They read something like, "SCARED? PREGNANT? NEED HELP? Call 1-800-HELP NOW for a FREE pregnancy test. WE CAN HELP YOU WITH YOUR OPTIONS." But the problem is -- these are false promises. I am a member of Bruin Feminists for Equality at UCLA. We joined the Feminist Majority Foundation's Campaign to Expose Fake Clinics this Spring. Like the Campaign, we have two goals: to warn women, especially students, about fake clinics in our community and to let the government know deception on the public dime has got to go. So-called crisis pregnancy crisis pregnancy centers lure women into their facilities with promises of free pregnancy tests and options counseling. But once inside, most provide women with false or misleading information about abortion, birth control, and sexually transmitted diseases. The real zinger is many of these CPCs receive our federal taxdollars to carry out their deception. Exposing Fake Women's Health Clinics from Stuart Productions on Vimeo . So, with my boyfriend in tow, I went to find out for myself what kind of information and options a local CPC really offered. By reading its mission statement alone, a woman might mistake the center I visited as being feminist: "empowerment" is the central theme. Their brochure claims to offer "pregnancy options counseling" as well as tests for STDs and other screenings. But as I learned firsthand, their talk about options? Not so much. The moment I walked in the door, I was hit with spa-like music and an offer of hot tea, which seemed designed to give me a false sense of comfort. The receptionist asked me to fill out paperwork and two things stood out: a question about my religious affiliation and about my partner's name and age. Another red flag was a disclaimer in very fine print about how most of their "staff" are volunteers and not certified health care professionals. After I completed the paperwork the receptionist transformed into my counselor. She led me to a white, isolated room (without my boyfriend) and asked if the Director of the clinic could sit in our conversation. I agreed. First, they asked me what I was going to do if I was pregnant. I replied, "I don't know." They said their facility does not recommend or perform pregnancy terminations. Quite suddenly I became keenly aware of a distinct pressure being placed on me by both women. It felt like a two-on-one tag team and I was their prey. The Director kept saying I was at the right place because other clinics do not provide the same "facts" that they do about abortion. She kept calling me "sweetie," as she told me abortion just complicates matters for women. She claimed abortion causes women psychological harm and she forcefully stated that abortion would not be the right choice for me. So much for options counseling. After the bombardment of questions, they asked for a sample of my urine -- in a Dixie cup (of all things!). Then, I was led to another room with what looked like an examination table. There a woman dressed in a white coat introduced herself. She did not identify herself as a doctor, nurse practitioner or nurse, but she certainly had the white coat. She asked me questions about my late period and if I was on birth control, but she never gave me any kind of a physical exam. Then, finally, she told me that I was not pregnant. My response was, "Well, if I'm not pregnant, can I get birth control to avoid situations like this?" She said, "We don't get funding for that." I then asked her for condoms, and she replied again, "We don't get funding for that." There was only one prevention method she mentioned: avoid having sex altogether. After this consultation, I was led back into the white, isolated room where I began. My initial 'counselor' greeted me with handfuls of abstinence-only education pamphlets. She then asked me if I felt "empowered" after this whole experience. I replied, "No," and left. But I am empowered by being a part of great group of active feminist students at UCLA and by participating in this pivotal national campaign to expose fake clinics. Students need to know CPCs target campus health centers to get referrals. Thankfully our UCLA health center does not refer students to CPCs. But a nearby campus, Santa Monica College, does refer students to a local CPC. In fact, according to our sister feminist club at SMC, their student health center even invited a local CPC to table at their campus health fair this Spring. No woman should be deceived into visiting one of these places unintentionally. So I am working on my campus to make sure women know where they can go to get comprehensive and un-biased reproductive health care and to warn them about fake clinics in our community. Policy makers need to understand how CPCs intimidate and misinform women. Over the past eight years, the federal government pumped millions of dollars into CPCs as part of various abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives. But funding for family planning has remained static or been decreased. President Obama seems interested in returning to evidence-based sexual health and pregnancy prevention programs. His 2010 budget proposes to eliminate most of the giant pots of federal money set aside for CPCs and failed abstinence only education programs. We must speak out now to end federal funding for these fake clinics. It is high time to end the dark ages of the Bush era. We can no longer afford to believe the sun revolves around the earth, the threat of global warming is a fiction, and that abstinence-only education and CPCs merit hard-earned tax dollars. So get involved and help expose fake clinics on your campus or in your community. Empowerment through action is a beautiful thing. For more information on the FMF's Choices Campus Leadership Program and the Campaign to Expose Fake Clinics, visit www.feministcampus.org . Originally published on RHrealitycheck.org.
 
Bill Maher: New Rule: Search and Annoy Top
New Rule: if you're excited about a new search engine, then the thing you should be searching for is a life... Check out Real Time with Bill Maher live Fridays at 10PM ET/PT - Only On HBO. More on Bill Maher
 
Tom Alderman: Baldacci, Coben and Connelly: The Boys of Summer's Audiobooks - Reviewed Top
The bright rays of the coming summer brings the bright stars of pop publishing, those big boys of thrills and mayhem whose glossy covers shine on supermarket, airport, book store shelves with their much hyped-up and hoped-for best-sellers. Among the male marquee names this year, Michael Connelly, Harlan Coben and David Baldacci all have titles with heavy print and internet promotions behind them. Is all the hype and expectations worth it? FIRST FAMILY , by David Baldacci Genre: White House Family Mystery 14.5 hrs - Unabridged Narrator: Ron McLarty Publisher: Hachette Audio COMMENT The First Family's past skullduggery puts the presidential re-election in jeopardy as former Secret Service agents Sean King and Michelle Maxwell are called in to find the First Lady's kidnapped niece. From this event, all things nefarious unfold. That's the 'A' story and if Baldacci had kept to that, First Family might compare favorably with the author's early Camel Club and King-Maxwell entertainments - but it doesn't. The 'B' story, involving Michelle's mother - takes the listener down a separate path that doesn't connect with the main story line and seems to only serve as a tightening connection between the two private-eye partners. It's not worth the distraction. Ron McLarty's considerable voice chops give the story a needed accelerant but it's not quite enough. BOTTOM LINE A dysfunctional First Family story probably worked better in an earlier time when a dysfunctional family was actually in the White House. The timing for this milieu may have passed its sell-by date. LONG LOST , by Harlan Coben Genre: Whodunit with Attitude Approx 9 Hrs - Unabridged Narrator: Steven Weber Publisher: Brilliance Audio COMMENT If you follow Coben's Myron Bolitar series on audio, the charm of this series is a lot about Myron's flip banter, irreverent attitude and self-deprecating humor, plus the off-beat characters surrounding the 6 foot, 4 inch, 220 pound, former pro basketball playing, chocolate Yoo Hoo-drinking, ex-FBI, now entertainment agent, who's always available to help women in distress. In this case, the disstress-ee is a former lover who's a suspect in her ex-husband's murder, in Paris, which adds a fast-paced international flavor to a story that includes danger from Islamic terrorists and help from a sympathetic Mossad agent. Also on-hand is Myron's personal back-up system - the ultra-rich, good-looking, misogynist and semi-sociopath Windsor Horne Lockwood, who's always on-call to protect Myron and kill only when someone deserves it. The Bolitar audiobook series is an prime example of how narration adds significant value to the printed book - and sometimes detracts from it. The first seven, or so, in the Bolitar series were voiced by Jonathan Marosz, who brought the right balance of charm and smart-ass to Myron's character. Harlan Coben tried his own narration for Promise Me and, wisely, never did it again. Veteran TV series actor Steven Weber adds appreciable worth by enlivening this material. BOTTOM LINE When it comes to whodunits with attitude, no one puts on a better show in audio better than Harlan Coben's Myron Bolitar with a Marosz or Weber, at the microphone. SCARECROW , by Michael Connelly Genre: Reporter-Solving Mystery Approx 11 hrs - Unabridged Narrator: Peter Giles Publisher: Hachette Audio COMMENT The prolific Michael Connelly, who plows the crab-grass area of L.A.'s criminal justice system, is back for the summer with a follow up to his 2002 hit, The Poet . This time, The Los Angeles Times cop-shop reporter Jack McEvoy is determined to score one last career-changing story before he's laid off. His paper, like many, is caught in the no-fly zone between print and the Internet. Scarecrow is an open mystery, so right off we're introduced to the cyber-psycho whose awesome Internet security skills allow him to manipulate and control the reporter's investigation. The idea of a formidable net-master villain is inviting - the better the villain, the better the story - but the result here is not fully realized as this perp ultimately fizzles, rather than pops out, as a worthy opponent. The real villain of the piece is the newspaper. Author Connelly, a former police reporter for the L.A.Times , uses Scarecrow to vent his ample frustration and disdain for the current state of the newspaper business and management. When Sam Zell, the real owner of the Times and Chicago Tribune , says his purchases were a big mistake, it tends to re-inforce Connelly's POV. Actor Peter Giles, Connelly's The Brass Verdict , narrator, adds his resonant vocal weight to the piece which might have helped if the story had the same entertaining heft. BOTTOM LINE For a peek into a daily newspaper's decline, Scarecrow has its moments. As an engaging, eleven-hour audiobook mystery, not so much.
 
Melody Moezzi: Shirin Ebadi for President Top
As the protests all over Iran continue, many Iranians are beginning to expand their hopes and aims beyond a potential Mousavi presidency. With growing comparisons between the current protests and those that ushered in the Islamic revolution, demonstrators are starting to realize that they too may be able to usher in an entirely new revolution, one that could topple the Islamic Republic and make way for a genuinely free secular democracy. This isn't to say that Iranians are looking for a new Shah. Corrupt monarchs are no more attractive, especially inside of Iran, than corrupt mullahs. Iran was no freer under the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, than it has been under the Supreme Leaders, Ayatullah Khomeini and his successor, Ayatullah Khamenei. Many Iranians, including myself, have great respect for Ayatullah Khomeini. What Khomeini accomplished in 1979 was nothing short of a miracle. It represented a demand for independent rule and a statement to the world that Iran was no longer going to be America's lapdog. The greatest flaw of the revolution, however, was its ultimate creation of a theocratic, allegedly Islamic, state. In a country where over 95% of the population is Muslim, the use of Islam to unite the people seemed to make a lot of sense in 1979. Not so much today. Countless Iranians who initially supported Khomeini's revolution did not anticipate that it would turn out the way it did. The Qur'an teaches that there should be "no compulsion in religion." Thus, many Iranians thought that Ayatullah Khomeini would follow this vital Islamic teaching and refuse to force religion onto the Iranian people by means of an actual theocracy. They were wrong. Not only did the regime impose its twisted and self-serving version of Islam onto the people, it tarnished the name of Islam by doing so. Much of Iran's very young historically Muslim population has turned its collective back on Islam entirely, having been largely misled to believe that the so-called Islamic Republic's interpretation of Islam was in any way an accurate one. Thus, a great deal of Iran's disillusioned youth is caught in an uncomfortable position: they aren't looking to go backwards and become the American puppet they were before the 1979 revolution (which occurred before many of them were born), nor are they looking to sit still and remain oppressed by a regime that fails to represent their views and interests. If current unrest inside of Iran is to in fact transform from merely a call for fair elections to a call for a new secular revolution, then we as Iranians will have get organized quickly and find a true inspirational figure among us. It took Ayatullah Khomeini to lead us away from imperialist rule and toward bona fide independence, and it will take an equally charismatic and rousing figure to lead us toward secular democracy. Mir Housain Mousavi, a soft-spoken architect and admitted supporter of the status quo, is not that figure. As an Iranian, I have given much thought to the matter of whether or not such a character exists, and I have come to the conclusion that she in fact does. The most viable figure to unite Iranians toward revolution may be Shirin Ebadi. As an attorney, a former judge, and the winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for her long and noble fight for democracy and human rights in Iran, Ebadi is in a unique position to lead. She is a beloved figure both inside of Iran and internationally for her brave work; she understands the incredibly complex and convoluted Iranian legal system, and she has a solid reputation for advocating freedom and equal rights for all Iranians. The fact that Ebadi is a woman, moreover, is not incidental. She is a living symbol of the potential power of one strong and feisty Iranian woman among many who have been silenced for far too long. If this new revolution is in fact to succeed on a large scale, Iranians will need someone like Ebadi to lead it. And I know of no other Iranian like Ebadi. She stands alone. Having publicly called for new elections, as opposed to a recount, I pray that Ebadi will attempt to run in any such election. Should the powers that be refuse to allow her to do so, as I suspect they would, I hope she responds by claiming her legitimate place as one of the great leaders of our new revolution. Ebadi has won far more than a Nobel Prize. She has won the respect of the entire global community and more importantly, the respect of the people of Iran more. If Iran is to embrace democracy, that process must occur from within. And were Ebadi to take on the current political system, we may just see the next miracle in modern Iranian history, one that Ayatullah Khomeini began, but one he certainly never foresaw. More on Ahmadinejad
 
Farai Chideya: Iran + Twitter = Trust, But Don't Verify Top
Okay, so I must admit to some confusion over what the heck we journalists are doing with the concept of verification in this new age of Twitter news. Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-Twitter. At this point in the insfosphere that would be like, say, being "anti-oxygen." You can choose that stance right now, but Twitter is the oxygen in social networking and information distribution online right now. Question though: how do we use it? I'll be real: have we lost our ever-loving minds trying to pretend we know what's going on in 140 words or less... especially when it comes to geopolitics...specifically Iran? Over the past couple days I have been following a couple people on Twitter who have been waist-deep in "retweeting" (i.e., re-broadcasting) information about the Iran rebellion. One of them is @GeniusBastard. (Despite my criticism-to-come of the journalistic vetting, I will say GB is top-notch and is working from a technology P.O.V. not journalistic verification P.O.V.) Anyway, @GeniusBastard was the first person in my Twitter circle that I saw re-tweeting the info from @StopAhmadi, which mixed live reports and calls for new internet proxies so that people could access the 'net despite government censorship. The problem was that over the next couple days, @StopAhmadi and the people who retweeted started asking people not to retweet the handles of real (i.e., non-government agent, non-impostor) protestors. So I asked this: @Geniusbastard who is keeping track of #iranelection Twitter usernames and how are folks supposed to know who to trust? He replied: @faraichideya Bottom line, at this point, stick with the sources you've had. We don't want to list the good ones because of Big Brother. And three hours ago, @StopAhmadi posted this: @StopAhmadi Going for "radio silence" now. Plz RT my previous news 'n watch 4 fake RT's #gr88 #iranelection Add to that the idea that you can pull a V for Vendetta stunt and have everyone pretend to be from Iran ("RT Iran: pls everyone change your location on tweeter to IRAN inc timezone GMT+3.30 hrs - #Iranelection"), and you have a big fat mess. So, how do you verify? Well... some people say, just... don't. It's a cul-de-sac you can go around again and again. I am not saying don't follow Twitter (again, that would be useless). I do want to follow Twitter, on #IranElections and all else. What I don't want to do is give up the idea of verifying information. And neither, apparently, does John Stewart. Check his brutal riff from The Daily Show on Wednesday. (I should make it clear that while he sticks the shiv in CNN this time, the infatuation with technology-at-all-journalistic-costs is a cross-cable network phenomenon. And I don't say that because I was just a guest on CNN on Wednesday, either. Tune in to Fox and MSNBC, both of which I've also been on in the past, and check it yourself. But first, enjoy the slice-n-dice mastery by J.S.) The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Irandecision 2009 - CNN's Unverified Material thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran ============= Farai Chideya has been a media practitioner, author, and critic for 20 years, working for places from Newsweek to CNN to NPR. She's the founder of PopandPolitics.com. Her most recent book is a popcult novel, "Kiss the Sky." More on Iranian Election
 
Greg Mitchell: Mia Farrow's Brother, a Suicide, Had Slammed Iraq War After Nephew Died Top
As reported here, and elsewhere, earlier today, the actress Mia Farrow's brother, Patrick Farrow, 66, was found dead in his sculptor studio in Vermont. It has now been declared a suicide by local authorities (due to a single gunshot to the head). His connection to a famous sister naturally drew headlines but his name rang a bell for me for another reason: I had written about him here last year following the death of his (and her) nephew in Iraq. Patrick Farrow quickly called President Bush a "war criminal." Here is how I wrote about it then: Sgt. Jason Dene, the nephew of actress and activist Mia Farrow, died in Iraq last week and his uncle blames the "war criminal" George W. Bush for the loss. Mia Farrow has written a sad tribute on her site but Dene's uncle, Patrick V. Farrow, took his anger to the Letters section of the Rutland (Vt.) Herald two days ago. Dene, in his mid-30s and married with children, is yet another in the growing list of "noncombat" fatalities in Iraq. I have studied these tragedies for almost five years (and written about them often here). In this case, medical complications appear to be at issue. Patrick Farrow, of Castleton, Vt., writes, "To date all the family has heard from the Army is that Jason variously died 'in his sleep' and 'in his bunk' and 'in his quarters' and my favorite 'sleep apnea complicated by smoking cigarettes,' in other words, natural causes." Whatever the cause, Patrick Farrow knows what really killed his nephew: "Because of the arrogant, corrupt lies of George W. Bush and his neo-con handlers my nephew is dead, and I am mad as hell...Jason Dene was not killed by enemy fire nor friendly fire but by Bush's brutal and cynical stop-loss program." Because of Bush's abusive stop-loss policy, Jason had been sent into an unwanted third tour of duty. He was a father of three and could not afford to lose his pension. Some "volunteer Army." During his three 15-month tours in Iraq, exposure to roadside bombs and other job-related injuries caused Jason to be hospitalized several times for concussion and internal bleeding and other injuries. Recently, Jason's condition was such that the Department of Defense flew him from Iraq to Dover Air Force Base for surgery. He was released from the hospital into the loving arms of the government who sent him directly back into Iraq. He was put on active duty while he was still on a liquid diet, unable to eat solid food because of a throat hemorrhage due to a botched surgery at a military hospital. After his second tour Jason returned home with severe mental and physical issues. He was certainly in no condition to be pressed into a third tour. He wanted out of the army. But Jason was a victim of the liar's back-door draft... Because of George Bush, the arrogant, the corrupt, the liar, the war criminal, my nephew is dead and my sister and the rest of my family are devastated. Mia Farrow had written: I don't know what Jason died for....This war is as incomprehensible as it is unacceptable. In a cloud of confusion, politicians, generals and ordinary people have come to see that it is a disaster. Exit plans are being discussed while Iraqi citizens and young Americans like our Jason are being killed. My sister is a nurse. For long years has lived in fear of the day when the two uniformed men came to her door to deliver the most terrible news a mother could hear. I hope I never see George W Bush. I could not shake his hand. He and his cabal have killed my beautiful nephew. . May God, if there is one, forgive them. I cannot....How many more must die before this atrocity is ended? Greg Mitchell's latest books are "Why Obama Won" and "So Wrong for So Long" (on Iraq and the media). He is editor of Editor & Publisher. More on Iraq
 
Billy Joel SPLITS With Katie Lee, Third Wife Top
Syndicated entertainment show 'Extra' has confirmed the rumors and reports Billy Joel and his wife Katie Lee are divorcing. They sent out a press release: BILLY JOEL AND KATIE LEE JOEL CALL IT QUITS (Los Angeles - June 17, 2009) - "Extra" has confirmed that Billy Joel and Katie Lee Joel have separated. A statement from both of their reps state: "After nearly five years of marriage Billy Joel & Katie Lee Joel have decided to separate. This decision is a result of much thoughtful consideration. Billy & Katie remain caring friends with admiration and respect for each other." For more on this story, log onto www.extratv.com.
 
Bob Cesca: 'My Face Was Ripped Off' and Other Arguments for a Public Option Top
The other day I was watching Hardball and Chris Matthews introduced one of his regular panels composed of that hairless former McCain staffer and the sad-eyed "Democratic strategist" Steve McMahon. Matthews ballyhooed that the panel would be debating healthcare and, remarkably, that McMahon has "clients involved in the healthcare debate." Clients in the healthcare debate, eh? Okay, that could mean anything. McMahon owns a media consulting firm and he used to work for Al Gore, Howard Dean and Senator Kennedy, so he could be one of us and therefore he might use this panel to debunk some of the ridiculous lies floating around the president's public option plan. He didn't. McMahon not only came out against passing a government-run public health insurance option, but claimed that the president should go for 80 votes in the Senate with a "compromise" healthcare bill. It gets worse. McMahon implied that the public option is a "controversial" idea from the left, so 80 votes and no public option, he claimed, would make "everyone happy." That's rich. Everyone happy, McMahon? More on "making everyone happy" presently, but first I want to address this line about how the public option is a controversial, left-wing measure. Naturally, the Republicans, along with private health insurers and the cowardly Blue Dogs agree with McMahon -- they want scare you and your representatives into believing that the public option is some sort of wicked controversial third rail. It'll be, as McMahon called it, "a great big fight" so it ought to be avoided. Ballsy! They're trying to pass this off as somehow a left-wing moonbat idea totally divorced from the mainstream. You know the trick: if they can marginalize it, they can kill it. But of course this "controversial left" meme is completely and totally a lie. Fact: The public option enjoys incontrovertible, super-majority support across all demographic sectors . How do we know this? A poll from Consumer Reports: ...66 percent of Americans support having the option of a public health insurance plan as part of health care reform. [...] A clear majority across all demographic sectors supported creating a public plan. I don't see a lot of gray area in the words "a clear majority across all demographic sectors." But wait. There's more. Lake Research: 73% of voters want everyone to have a choice of private health insurance or a public health insurance plan while only 15% want everyone to have private insurance. [...] What's more, the preference for a choice of a public or private plan appeals to everyone -- Republicans (63%), Democrats (77%) and Independents (79%). 63 percent. Of Republicans . Support the public option. IEEEE! Avoid! Avoid! Do I need to go on? The Kaiser Family Foundation: ...about two-thirds (67%) of U.S. residents "strongly" or "somewhat" favor establishing a public health insurance option "similar to Medicare," with about 80% of Democrats, 60% of independents and 49% of Republicans in favor of such a plan. 67 percent. Tell me again how this is a controversial, far-left idea. McMahon. And finally, a poll from and outfit called EBRI on support (or not) for the public option: • Strongly support--53 percent • Somewhat support--30 percent • Somewhat oppose--5 percent • Strongly oppose--9 percent Altogether, 83 percent favor the public option and 14 percent are opposed. Controversial! Now, you might be asking, What the hell is EBRI? Briefly, it's a conservative non-profit organization called the Employee Benefit Research Institute, and according to their website , this particular poll was paid for by such far-left moonbat groups as: ... AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin. In other words, it would've been in the best interest of some of these corporations to show very little support for the public option, but their actual survey results show exactly the opposite and, in fact, their numbers outpace the more Democratic-leaning Lake Research poll. (To be fair, it's also worth mentioning one outlier poll. Conservative Rasmussen shows Americans evenly divided on the public option.) As for making everyone happy, McMahon and others are trying to tell us that we'll all be thrilled with 80 votes but no public option. Maybe his clients, whoever they are, will be happy with 80 votes, but not real people who have been long enduring real-life health insurance nightmares. Last week, readers wrote to me with numerous heart-wrenching stories detailing a wide array of health insurance horror stories and insider shenanigans. An executive director for a very profitable HMO who was attempting to emphasize "quality of care" told me about an angry memo he received from a regional manager scolding him with the mandate: "Only a naive or novice manager would put quality of care as their first priority." Profit, naturally, is king. And the following note was easily the most shocking. If you happen to be Stephen Colbert, stop reading now. I received an email from a California woman named Allena Hansen who was mauled by a bear . I repeat, she was mauled by a bear . And her insurance carrier dodged and refused to pay for the requisite medical care: Last summer, while working on my ranch in the Southern Sierra mountains, I was attacked and badly mauled by a predatory black bear. Although my face was ripped off, and I was blinded, I was able to make my way back to my vehicle and drive myself down a rutted mountain road to a fire station for help. From there I was airlifted to UCLA Medical Center where a team of nearly a hundred people put me back together in a grueling seven-hour emergency surgery. That was the easy part. Although I've maintained a private individual health insurance policy with Blue Cross of California for thirty (30) years, they have, at every turn of my ordeal, tried to waffle, obfuscate, or outright deny me benefits for medical care. ( continued here ) Everyone will be happy with 80 votes and no public option, McMahon? Who, exactly? Despite the evidence, your elected representatives -- irrespective of party or ideology -- are crumbling and hedging and capitulating on this thing. And why? It can't be polls or lack of popular support. So we can only gather that anyone who is trying to tell you that the public option is unpopular, controversial, fringe or out-of-touch is either lying, bought off by the healthcare lobby, a spineless capitulator, or all three. Passing healthcare reform with a public option is an easily winnable fight, yet too many Democrats on the hill are taking a dive, and too many Americans are falling for the same lies. Don't let them get away with it this time. Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go! More on Chris Matthews
 
Lakers Parade Live: Just How Much Did It All Cost? Top
Reports surfaced that a Lakers parade would cost $1 million, a stat later revised to $2 million. The city and team agreed to split the amount, but people are still asking a big question; How can the city justify taking on a frivolous expenditure when the budget is a wreck and employees face layoffs and mandatory furloughs?
 
Gervais, Morgan, Maher To Headline New York Comedy Festival Top
NEW YORK -- Ricky Gervais (Ger-VASE') Tracy Morgan and Bill Maher (MAR') will headline the sixth annual New York Comedy Festival. Organizers announced Wednesday that Gervais and Morgan will perform at Carnegie Hall and Maher will play Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center. Specific dates for the performances weren't announced; the festival will be held Nov. 4-8. Gervais said that it was an honor to headline the festival and to play Carnegie Hall, which he noted was near his apartment. Said Gervais: "I can walk to work. I won't walk, obviously. I'll take a limo. But I could walk if I had to." More performers will later be announced for the festival, which expects to showcase more than 150 comedians. ___ On the Net: http://www.nycomedyfestival.com More on Bill Maher
 
HuffPost Readers: Send Us Your Giving Stories Top
As Arianna wrote in her post announcing the launch of All For Good , the White House is issuing a national call for service. In troubling times, it's important for us to come together and lend a hand to our community. In the hopes of inspiring people to serve, we want to hear your stories of service to your community. Whether big or small, what have you done to make a difference? Please send photos of yourself in action. We'll feature your photos alongside the best stories in the days and weeks to come. Submit your stories in the form below by Friday, June 19th to be included in the first story about people doing good, for all. Please send your photos directly to submissions+goodforall@huffingtonpost.com Loading... More on Photo Galleries
 
Max Stier: Rankings Offer Congress Insider View of Federal Agencies Top
As part of its oversight responsibilities, Congress constantly calls senior administration officials to Capitol Hill where they offer well-guarded and carefully crafted answers about conditions at their agencies. If our legislative leaders really want a clearer picture of what's going on within the executive branch, they would be wise to listen closely to the opinions of the most authoritative voices on the topic - government employees. The recently released 2009 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings provide this kind of unvarnished insight -- offering an important measure of agency management and leadership, and providing an alert system for signs of trouble and dysfunction. There is nothing more powerful than what employees have to say about their workplaces. When agencies are badly managed and workers are unhappy, a low level of engagement and poor performance often follow, and the public suffers. The 2009 rankings, developed from the Office of Personnel Management's 2008 survey of 212,000 federal employees at 278 large and small agencies and agency subcomponents, suggest that some of the country's most challenging issues are being handled by organizations held in low esteem by their own workers. The red flag is waving, and Congress should pay attention. Take the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that manages the government's health insurance programs for the elderly and the poor as well as the State Children's Health Insurance Program. As the Congress confronts the healthcare crisis and Medicare's serious financial difficulties, we will need both smart policies and a CMS that functions at a very high level. Yet there are strong indications that CMS has serious internal problems that should be addressed. Part of the Department of Health and Human Services, CMS ranked a dismal 202 out of 216 agency subcomponents in the 2009 Best Places survey. Employees gave CMS low marks for leadership, strategic management, training opportunities, teamwork and matching worker skills with the mission, all ominous signals that something is amiss. Attention also should be directed to the Department of Education. President Obama has ambitious goals for improving the nation's education system, calling it a prerequisite for the country to compete in the global economy. Unfortunately, the department ranked 27th out of the government's 30 largest organizations, with the Office of Postsecondary Education listed in 216th place - dead last among agency subcomponents. The department's Federal Student Aid program, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education were all straddling the bottom rung - not an encouraging sign. We know from recent history, whether it was the Federal Emergency Management Agency's inept response to Hurricane Katrina or the newly disclosed financial regulatory failures of the Securities and Exchange Commission, that government performance matters. Had Congress focused on the results of the 2003 Best Places survey, it would have found that FEMA was last in the employee rankings. That was two years before Katrina, but few noticed. FEMA this year improved its score from 2007, but still has one of the lowest ratings. The latest survey put the troubled SEC in 11th place out of 30 large agencies, but its overall score fell nearly eight percent from 2007 when it ranked third. Clearly employees were expressing unhappiness, and recent disclosures about the lax regulation of Wall Street may explain why. The president came to office this year promising to make government work and to restore the prestige of the civil service. Last month, Office and Management Budget Director Peter Orszag pledged to keep tabs on agencies that performed poorly in the Best Places survey, and said he will be looking for those with low scores to "develop a game plan to improve performance." These administration's pronouncements are quite encouraging, and Congress should be equally committed to using the data as a way to look below the surface and make sure problems are uncovered before they reach a crisis stage. Congress also should work with the Office of Personnel Management and OMB to make certain the data is collected annually instead of every two years so that timely information is available. The Best Places rankings do not provide all of the answers behind agency performance, but they do offer guidance on what questions to ask. Most importantly, they provide early warning signals that can enhance congressional scrutiny and head off serious breakdowns before they occur. Max Stier is president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings can be found at bestplacestowork.org.
 
Cute/Ridiculous Animal Thing Of The Day: Baby Pandas Wrestling (VIDEO) Top
The only thing cuter than a baby panda is baby pandas playing with other baby pandas. It might take you a minute to digest this, but you should take that time to do so, as this is an important axiom. WATCH FOR PROOF: See more funny videos and Cute Animals Videos at Today's Big Thing . More on Cute Animal Videos
 
Laurence Leamer: The Alchemy of the Impossible Top
At its highest level, politics is not the art of the possible. It is the alchemy that turns the impossible into the possible. If you've ever seen or experienced that transcendent level of politics, it changes you forever. I saw and felt that late yesterday sitting in my living room watching Rep. Nita Lowey and returned volunteer and journalist Maureen Orth talking with Chris Matthews on Hardball. Most people watching had no idea what an incredible moment this was. But I knew, and as I watched with tears in my eyes, my love of my country and my faith in democracy had never been so intense and profound. For the past few months, I have been involved with a small band of sisters and brothers leading tens of thousands in one of the most inspiring political dramas of our time. We are mainly among the 195,000 returned Peace Corps volunteers, and we have been working ceaselessly to see that President Obama keeps his campaign pledge to double the size of the Peace Corps and to build a bold new Obama Peace Corps. For reasons I will never understand the president has walked away from his fervent pledge, and in his administration's budget given the agency $373 million, enough for neither reform nor growth. That has only vitalized us. We have been pushing for the $450 million that would allow this magnificent journey to an enlarged, emboldened agency to begin, sending volunteers to the remote island of Indonesia, and one hopes back to the villages of India where once volunteers trod the pathways. We have been pushing for the $450 million that would permit the agency to reform, to build innovative new programs that help the peoples of the world in crucial new ways with technology, health and education. Of course, this is impossible. Obama is a popular president and who would stand up against his budget? We're asking for an enormous increase when nobody is getting anything like that. As for many of the hapless bureaucrats in the Peace Corps office, they don't want money that would force them to change and to work late. Led by Rajeev Goyal, the National Coordinator of http://www.morepeacecorps.org , we have set out to create such pressure that the Peace Corps will get the money that is so desperately needed to help to change our world. We are employing neither money nor professional lobbyists only the glorious freedom of our democracy, citizens petitioning their elected officials. As Chairwoman of the House State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Lowey oversees the $49 billion Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that contains money for the Peace Corps. With one word she has the power to give the Peace Corps $450 million but to do so she must cut funds for something else. It's an enormous thing to ask her to add $77 million to the Peace Corps budget. Enormous. Last week we gave Lowey a professional printed book titled We Implore You, Chairwoman Lowey containing letters to the New York representative from Peace Corps volunteers and others. We worked to get scores of her constituents to call her. We pleaded for important figures to talk to the elected official and make the case for the $450 million. We created extraordinary pressure but that by itself would not have achieved our goal. It was the force of so many people across America that allowed two members of the House, Sam Farr and Betty McCollum, to attempt to turn our earnest entreaties into legislation. Farr and McCollum used every bit of clout and capital they had. Farr's legislative aide, Marc Hanson, a returned volunteer, worked endlessly. I'd get emails from him at 11 at night. McCollum's chief of staff, Bill Harper, another RPCV, worked just as hard. There is a Republican on this list too, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk. Kirk has served in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Bosnia. He is an articulate supporter of an expanded Peace Corps, and one of the most thoughtful members of the House. You and I will never know all the machinations and entreaties, all the phone calls and negotiations. They have done their work magnificently. They are the true heroes of this drama. And so yesterday afternoon on Hardball, Lowey said that the Peace Corps would get the full $450 million. There then for a precious moment was the alchemy of the impossible transformed into the possible. This morning in the markup of the bill, Lowey kept her word and she too deserves great credit for political courage. This was done in a tiny room in the Capitol, and I could not get in. But former Senator Harris Wofford has privileges and he was there. "Before Lowey started the meeting I thanked her warmly and she enthusiastically talked about her support of the Peace Corps over the years," Wofford emailed me. "Then in the markup she made the case for the $450 million on the way to doubling the PC; the ranking Republican member Kay Granger of Texas graciously supported the whole bill and included endorsement of the funds for the Peace Corps and senior Republican Rep. from Calif., Jerry Lewis spoke about his long support and how once he invited PC Director Loret Miller Ruppe to bring him a plan to double the Peace Corps. It was a love fest meeting." It was not only a love fest by a bi-partisan love fest. Soon the battle moves to the Senate with an enlarged, inspired, impassioned movement that will fight even harder to hold onto this amount, seeking not just more money but true reform, and a Peace Corps worthy of our age. Last Saturday we had a rally at Freedom Plaza two blocks from the White House. Afterwards, we marched to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue led by Tim Shriver, the son of the Peace Corps founder, and we stood and we shouted. One day Obama will hear us, and when he does, he will thank us for being true to his vision. More on House Of Representatives
 
Obama's Finacial Reforms: 5 Things You Need To Know (SLIDESHOW) Top
President Barack Obama announced sweeping new reforms for the financial industry today. The announcement had long-been anticipated by Wall Street and Capitol Hill, but the details are still quite up in the air. That said, we've compiled five key things you need to know about Obama's plans for Wall Street. Check out our story on the Obama administration's proposed reforms, or view the SLIDE SHOW below: Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter ! More on Photo Galleries
 
Paul Blumenthal: Is Ensign's Sex Scandal More Than a Sex Scandal? Top
Crossposted at The Sunlight Foundation blog . Yesterday, Sen. John Ensign admitted to an affair with a campaign staffer who was also the wife of Ensign's administrative assistant. The couple ensnared in this torrid love triangle is Douglas Hampton, the administrative assistant, and Cynthia Hampton, an employee of Ensign's 2008 campaign and his Battle Born PAC. We know that Ensign revealed the affair because Douglas Hampton essentially blackmailed the senator. But, were the Hampton's receiving excessive pay from Ensign during the affair period? Politico looked at the official office payments to Douglas Hampton and found some numbers that look a bit... odd: Douglas Hampton was paid about $101,000 in 2008 and $144,000 in 2007 as Ensign's administrative assistant. But a financial disclosure form he filed in 2007 and 2008 - required for senior congressional staffers - showed only checking and savings account worth a maximum $30,000 combined. A review of public records shows that the Hamptons in 2006 took out a $1.2 million mortgage on their Las Vegas home, at an interest rate of 8 percent. Now, you might immediately think that $144,000 for an administrative assistant is an absurd amount, but administrative assistant is often synonymous with chief of staff on the Hill. However, if you look to the reporting period of 4/1/2008 to 5/1/08: Hampton was paid approximately $20,000 over this one month period. At the same time, Ensign hired a chief of staff, John Lopez, ostensibly to replace Hampton. If we are to assume that Hampton's annual salary is around $144,000 -- the cap on staffer salaries is around $160,000 -- then the $20,000 for one month ($240,000 in a year) would be far higher than his normal rate of pay. Over the four months of 2008 Hampton received $101,000, far more than his rate of pay for all of 2007. There are a few points to be made here: 1) Staff salary reporting is often not aligned with the dates shown. If you look at Legistorm, you will see dates aligned with amounts. This is often not accurate, or includes bonuses with attribution. 2) Hampton could have collected his vacation pay, sick leave and a bonus at his termination, which would make his salary appear inflated. 3) Hampton could have stayed on to train Lopez in his new job. This would explain the overlap of two employees holding the same job. (More: While writing this post, Politico released another report showing that the son of Douglas and Cynthia Hampton was on the payroll of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) while Ensign headed the organization. Also, this post about whether the Hampton's were pushed to extort Ensign due to a subprime mortgage on their house is worth a look too.) Since these questions are integral to whether Hampton was received extra pay while Ensign was sleeping with his wife, there are important disclosure problems that need to be addressed. They are: The Senate does not disclose their office expenditures online in any format at all. The House is planning on disclosing online in August. The Senate has no plans. We could use better staff salary expenditure information so that the pay doesn't look so confusing. Sorry Hill staffers, I know you hate it, but you work for the government. Why is it that Senate campaigns do not disclose expenditures? Yet another failure due to the lack of electronic filing in the Senate. Due to the lack of electronic filing we can't -- easily -- find the precise amounts paid to Cynthia Hampton through Ensign's campaign committee, only his PAC. More on Transparency
 
Colorado Bear Happily Invades Home, Eats Dog Food, Herbs Top
GRANBY, Colo. — A western Colorado woman said a "very graceful, very calm" bear crawled into her house through a pet door, ate a bowl of dog food, uprooted some herbs in pots and then left after about 10 minutes. Brenda Freeman said the encounter occurred Saturday at her and her husband's home. Freeman said they spotted the bear in their mudroom after their 120-pound dog let out a combination bark and growl. They closed the door from the mudroom to the kitchen, then watched through a window as the bear explored the room and chowed down. Division of Wildlife spokesman Randy Hampton said bears normally eat berries this time of year, but a wet spring has kept bushes flowering longer instead of producing fruit. ___ Information from: Steamboat Pilot & Today, http://steamboatpilot.com/ More on Animals
 

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment