Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com


A. Siegel: Washington Post Promotes Debunked Deception re Hummers vs Prius ... Top
Yes, letters to the editor matter. And, yes, they merit fact-checking. And, yes, that fact-checking should actually be well-done. Having had letters to the editor published in The Washington Post , my experience with the fact-checking process left me impressed ... and exhausted. Every point was questioned and challenged, with substantive backing required from the editor before it went into print. Watching the Post editorial page's (mis)handling of George Will's Will-ful deception re energy and climate issues, a question emerges: Is it only those who are operating in reality when it comes to climate and energy issues who are seriously challenged to support there assertions? Yesterday's Post had a deceptive, half-truthful letter to the editor entitled The Not-So-Quite-Green Toyota Prius which included this statement: CNW Marketing rates cars on the combined energy needed "to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage." A Prius costs $2.87 per lifetime mile. By comparison, an H3 Hummer costs $2.07 per lifetime mile. What is the half-truth? That there is such a CMS discussion. (And, I guess, that there is such a thing as a Hummer and a Prius.) After that, truth is left behind. As Joe Romm accurately described it , I am mocking this report because it is the most contrived and mistake-filled study I have ever seen -- by far (and that's saying a lot since I worked for the federal government for five years). I am not certain there is an accurate calculation in the entire report. This 450-page "study" was debunked by the Pacific Institute and by Rocky Mountain Institute (see, as well, Slate and this fun Sierra Club discussion ). It is not hard to find the idiocies in the study (reading Romm brings them out well). These include: Making an assumption that Hummers last 379,000 miles, Prius only 109,000. Thus, not just in weight, it takes three Prius to make one Hummer for CMS to arrive at their skewed results. [NOTE: Even when RMI skewed their analysis, using all of CMS's absurdities, the Prius still ended up with a lower energy life-cycle than a Hummer.] A Prius, which gets in the range of 45 miles per gallon, has a fuel cost of 7.5 cents per mile. The Hummer, at less than 15 mpg, has a fuel cost of 18.7 cents per mile. Do the math. Are you confused? Unlike every serious study of automotive life-cycle energy costs and inputs, which put 70-90 percent of the total energy energy use is in the operating life (e.g, mainly burning gasoline), this "study" places the vast majority in the construction and recycling. The calculations border on insanity. See that price. If we accept that Prius cost per mile, it would cost the owner (and society) $287,000 for a Prius to drive 100,000 miles. Anyone else ready to ask: WTF? Does anyone suspect that The Washington Post editorial board has the sensibility to be embarassed by publishing this absurd letter citing such a deceptive and deceitful marketing "study"? As Romm finished his discussion of this study back in 2007 : As for CNW, the only explanation I can come up for this absurdity piled on top of absurdity is that the marketing firm is putting on an elaborate hoax, seeing how many reputable news organizations repeat these laughable numbers without bothering to check the original study to see that they have no basis whatsoever in fact. After all, no one could believe all this. Could they? Well, evidently Washington Post "fact checkers" are perfectly satisfied publishing this drivel. After all, George Will-full Deceit Will cited the study in his call for people to Use a Hummer to Crush a Prius . More on Wash Post
 
Obama Hosts ABC News At The White House For Health Care Forum (VIDEO) Top
President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face. The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News' special on health care reform, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson. Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance. Read the full story here . -OR- Watch the ABC-anchored forum with Obama at the White House below. More on Barack Obama
 
Timothy Greenfield-Sanders: Lou Reed: An Original Portrait Top
American treasure Lou Reed did a flawless set last night at The Whitney Museum. He told me, "It''s always fun to play a museum. When I was with Andy Warhol, we played hundreds of them". Lou's set included, "Dirty Boulevard", "Romeo Had Juliet", "Guilty", "Who Am I", "Ecstasy" and "Power of the Heart." Check out www.loureed.com . It's also always fun to visit a museum. The Whitney has up at the moment work from the collection. Jacob Lawrence, Georgia O'Keeffe, Willem de Kooning, Ed Ruscha and Jasper Johns, to name a few. Some Claes Oldenberg "Happenings" films, and a Photoconceptualism show with some great Bruce Naumans. Also, an interesting project from Persol , the wonderful Italian sunglass makers. Marcello Mastroianni, Yves Montand and Marilyn Monroe wore them. Very cool all around.
 
Sleepwalker Stabbed By Girlfriend Top
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A sleepwalking episode led to a stabbing. The Kansas City Star reported on its Web site Wednesday that the 24-year-old victim suffered a stab wound to his face and shoulder. Police said the victim's girlfriend awoke around 1:30 a.m. Wednesday to find her boyfriend urinating in the closet. He was intoxicated when he arrived at his apartment several hours earlier. Police said the man had a history of sleepwalking and ignored his girlfriend's repeated efforts to wake him up. He pushed her out of the way as he walked toward the kitchen, and she reportedly became scared that he might hit her. Police said she grabbed a knife and held it up as he approached. He sustained injuries that are believed to be non-life threatening. ___ Information from: The Kansas City Star, http://www.kcstar.com
 
Peter Scheer: Why China's leaders need to worry about recent events in Iran: Twitter trumps the Great Firewall Top
By Peter Scheer As Iran has its Tianenman moment, no other government is watching events there with more anxiety than China--and with good reason. Both Iran and China are modernizing autocracies committed by a combination of ideology and fear to maintaining control over their peoples' access to information. And, to a remarkable degree, they have been successful in doing so. Until now. Iran's lesson for China's leaders is that the technologies of censorship, despite their increasing sophistication, may not be sufficient to prevent determined citizens from using technologies of communication to organize dissent and political opposition on a mass scale. Twitter trumps China's "Great Firewall." For the elites in China's national government, this development must be highly disconcerting. China has embraced the internet as essential to the country's rapid economic development. With nearly 300 million persons connected to the web, China has already surpassed the United States as the world's biggest internet market. But China has gambled that it can have it both ways: it can achieve the high growth rates that a wired economy makes possible, and it can do so without putting at risk the government's monopoly on political power. Despite the conventional wisdom that the internet is beyond the control of any government, China's leaders have placed their faith in technology to maintain their power and to protect against the democratizing "excesses" of the internet. The technology of censorship has included the ability to: * block access to foreign websites containing content deemed objectionable; * monitor domestic websites, search engines, blogs and social networks, and to coerce them into submission to self-censorship;and * engage in wholesale eavesdropping on data communications (email, phone, Skype calls, text, etc.) for hints of views deemed subversive. By design, this system of censorship is imperfect. Chinese citizens who speak foreign languages, and those who go to the trouble to use proxy servers and other devices for bypassing the government firewall, are connected to the outside world via the internet (albeit at sometimes painfully slow speeds). But this is a very small number, relatively speaking. China's censorship strategy focuses, rather, on channels of communication--among its citizens and between them and the outside world--that pose a threat of dissent going "viral." China understands the potentially awesome power of an amateur video depicting a lone student standing his ground against a tank, or the beating of a Tibetan monk, or the violent suppression of peaceful protesters by police. It is for this reason that access to YouTube is subject to frequent blocking in China, as are Flickr, Hotmail, Blogspot, Live, Wordpress and social networking sites, among many others both inside and outside the firewall . The experience of Iran, which employs censoring technologies very similar to China's, is that, in times of domestic crisis, these technologies may not work as advertised. Twitter and Facebook, which many users in Iran access by cell phone over communications pathways different than the internet, managed to escape early efforts by Iranian authorities to shut down access. Words and images on these services galvanized opposition, served as communication tools for organizing the expanding street protests, and provided a window through which the outside world could witness the crackdown. Chinese authorities should be worried about their own vulnerability. Although they will diagnose and fix the glitches that allowed Twitter and Facebook to escape blocking by Iranian censors, there will be other glitches, different and unpredictable glitches, in the event of popular unrest in China. And even a small glitch will be exploited by legions of hackers and cybersleuths, both in China and in western countries, determined to circumvent the firewall for millions of Chinese citizens. This is the necessary context for viewing China's recent, and rather bizarre, directive to computer manufacturers, issued without notice or consideration of alternatives, mandating installation of government-approved anti-pornography software on all new PCs sold in China. The mandated software (the "Green Dam," produced by a Chinese company), which can be adapted to screen out officially disapproved ideas as well as X-rated images, is a new instrument of control in China's ever-expanding system of censorship. In addition to restricting the internet sites that its citizens may see, China can use the Green Dam software to control the computers with which its people view the internet. Although the software project was presumably in the works before the disputed election in Iran, the urgency surrounding the directive (which applies to all PCs sold in China after July 1) and the government's inflexibility (refusing to allow the use of alternate programs that cause fewer technical problems while meeting the government's pornography-screening specifications) can best be explained by China's anxiety over events in Iran. China's leaders should worry about the limits on their capacity to preempt challenges to the government's control of political power. Censorship technology will not insulate the current regime from demands for change. In the end, China must transition--peacefully, one hopes--to a world in which its people are given a choice about how to be governed, and by whom. --- Peter Scheer is executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC), which has petitioned the office of the US Trade Representative in Washington, DC, to challenge China's internet censorship before the WTO. CFAC contends China's censorship system is an unlawful trade barrier. More on Iranian Election
 
Dan Frommer: The Life And Awesomeness Of Steve Jobs Top
Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs is back in Cupertino -- for good, we hope -- after a six-month medical leave. A Memphis hospital confirmed Tuesday -- with Steve's blessing -- that Jobs received a liver transplant , and that he's "now recovering well and has an excellent prognosis." Click here to scroll through the life and awesomeness of Steve Jobs → That's great news, and we hope it marks the beginning of another long chapter of Steve's life at Apple, the computer company he cofounded decades ago, rescued from near-disaster in the 90s, and has turned into a consumer electronics juggernaut this decade, changing the music and mobile industries forever . Important: While this could read like an obituary, thankfully it isn't -- just an appreciation of a guy who has accomplished more in one lifetime than most people would in 20. And he ain't done yet. Click here to scroll through the life and awesomeness of Steve Jobs → More on Apple
 
Jenny Sanford Launched Husband's Career Top
COLUMBIA, S.C. — When South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford cheated on his wife, he also betrayed his top political adviser. First lady Jenny Sanford told the world in a statement Wednesday that she had sent her husband packing nearly 15 years after she launched his political career. Mark Sanford apologized to her and their four sons at a tearful press conference where he admitted a yearlong affair with a friend in Argentina whom he had visited on a secret trip. His wife said in her own statement later that she kicked him out of the house two weeks ago and asked him not to speak to her while she tried to come to grips with his infidelity. It was an abrupt and stunning _ even if temporary _ split for a couple who helped shape the state's political landscape. During Mark Sanford's first gubernatorial campaign in 2002, Jenny ran the show from the basement of their Sullivans Island beach house while he fretted as the wind blew his charts off of tripods during outdoor press conferences. They are more thrifty than glamorous: She shops at Wal-Mart and he's been known to wear a frayed blue blazer. She's reserved; he's mildly harried and sometimes stumbles over words. She stays mostly out of the spotlight; he doesn't much like the crowds it brings, slipping unnoticed into some of the state's biggest GOP gatherings. Jenny Sanford is a millionaire whose family fortune comes from the Skil Corp. power tool company. Through her husband's three U.S. House campaigns and first race for governor, she helped him pull a wagon he and the boys built on parade routes across the state. Their sons had mostly outgrown it by the time Mark Sanford ran for a second and final term in as governor in 2006, and Jenny Sanford let him hire a professional consultant, although she still called most of the shots. Since Mark Sanford first took office in 2003, Jenny has been a regular at morning meetings with top staff. Observers noted she hasn't been seen as much lately, but it was clear from Wednesday's developments that she has been managing her side of the house. "When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage," she said in a release. "We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago." She said she loves him and has tried to be the best wife she can during nearly 20 years of marriage. Both started their careers on Wall Street, where Jenny Sanford was a vice president in mergers and acquisitions at Lazard Freres for six years. Mark Sanford set out to work at Goldman Sachs after earning a masters of business administration from the University of Virginia, but he didn't much like it. They met in the Hamptons, got hitched, and headed South, where Mark Sanford first got into real estate and then politics. He describes himself as libertarian-leaning Republican. In Congress, where he started in 1995, he was an outspoken Social Security reformer, a position that made him the lone "no" vote on a handful of bills and regularly had him bucking House GOP leadership. But he also built a legend and friendships. He was known for returning his housing allowance and sleeping on a futon in his House office. His 2002 election to the state's top post was heralded as South Carolina Republicans' first chance to hold both the Legislature and governor's office, but GOP leaders say it's been a far-from-productive tenure. He has railed against the Republican-dominated Legislature, never more so than this year, as he tried to thwart efforts to take federal stimulus money for schools. He built a national reputation among fiscal conservatives, prompting talk of a possible 2012 presidential bid, but his position angered many at home. He sued the legislature and lost, a battle that left him drained and complaining that the state's highest court was too beholden to legislators and governors were powerless. Jenny Sanford appeared to tire of politics earlier, as the 2006 campaign wound down. She dampened talk that Sanford would run for president by saying it was time for him to focus on family. Mark Sanford said he wants to reconcile with his wife. His spokesman said he has no plans to resign. And Jenny Sanford said Wednesday the couple still has a shot regardless of what happens to her husband's political career. "I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage," she said.
 
Michael Seitzman: The Argentine Affair: The Movie Top
Okay, here's the pitch: A Republican Governor from South Carolina disappears. For days. Nobody notices at first. When they start to ask questions, journalists are surprised to find that the Gov's wife doesn't seem upset and his staffers are oddly calm. Police aren't even called in. The FBI isn't informed. WTF, right? Didn't I tell you this would be a big movie?! Well, after four days, his staff tells us he's off hiking the Appalachian Trail. Naturally. He loves the outdoors. Makes perfect sense that the Governor of South Carolina would inexplicably disappear, skip Father's Day with his kids, and go on a hike in the woods by himself! By this point, the audience knows that this wasn't just a hike. Something is very, very wrong. Maybe he was kidnapped? Blackmailed? Drugs? Sex trade? The audience is on the edge of their seats! Just wait for the big reveal! So, next thing that happens is that the Gov's car is spotted at the airport! Oh, man. This is getting serious. Eventually, a reporter sees him at the airport... on his way back from Buenos Aires! How great is that? This is like a Bourne movie, right?! The Governor was in Argen-frikin'-tina, baby! Can you say "Big Tentpole Movie?!" Okay, now we're ready for the Big Reveal! Here it comes! Get ready! Hold onto your ass... HE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR! (sound of crickets) You're passing? Are you crazy? What's not original? Did I mention Argentina?! Do you know how many Evita jokes we're going to tell! Okay, wait. I have another idea. A reality show starring Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Foley, John Ensign, and Ted Haggard. They're all stuck in the jungle together, eating bugs and wiping their asses with palm leaves. The host is Rush Limbaugh. It's called.... More on Argentina
 
Patricia Handschiegel: The New Power Girls: Video Series Episode 4 - How to Turn What You Love Into A Business With Celebrity TV Personality Sal Morgan Top
Let's face it. Most people would dream for the chance to be on the red carpet at any star-studded event. Now imagine if it were a part of your business. That's the life TV personality and entrepreneur Sal Morgan leads in Los Angeles. She mixes with stars on red carpets from the Oscars to the Golden Globes, is constantly in demand at high profile gifting suites, and showered with schwag at incredible events. Growing up, she wanted to work in Hollywood, and that's exactly what she did. Power Girls know what they want and aren't afraid to get it. As Australia's number one celebrity journalist, Morgan's successfully turned a love for tinseltown into a bonafide business career. Living in Australia, she had her sights on the goal of becoming a leading correspondent but jobs were scarce with Hollywood nearly halfway around the globe. Rather than giving up on her dream, she gave up a cushy job in her home country for a new life in Los Angeles. Today she holds a top perch on the entertainment scene interviewing big time stars like Kanye West, Sandra Bullock and Britney Spears. This week, fellow entrepreneur and New Power Girls co-creator Meghan Cleary and I sat down with the entertainment industry sensation to find out her three top tips for turning what you love into a business. Shot at the gorgeous Oceana hotel in Santa Monica, CA (with gifts from Alltop.com, Bliss, Cosabella, Sortingwithstyle.com and John Kelly chocolates), we asked the big question: How she did it. Check out the interview and Morgan's top tips for turning what you love into a business. Share what's worked for YOU in making the shift. Enter to win the NPG video series gift bag. The New Power Girls how-to video series will be published every Wednesday for the next six weeks and includes great women entrepreneurs like Paige Adams-Geller of Paige Premium Denim, author and writer/director Andrea Buchanan and more. Be sure to check back! Special thanks to Oceana Santa Monica, Bliss, Cosabella, Alltop.com, John Kelly Chocolates, Shoe Therapy: What Your Shoes Say About You, and Sortingwithstyle.com for supporting The New Power Girls! More on Britney Spears
 
Breckin Meyer Responds To Perez Hilton (VIDEO) Top
By now most of you have seen Perez Hilton's crazypants home video in which he over-annunciates every syllable and curses Will.I.Am over what seems to be a grown-up version of having your lunch money stolen. Well, Breckin Meyer and Funny or Die decided to team up and make an homage to Perez by having the young actor Chris Crocker his way into Zac Efron's heart. It's weird. WATCH: Breckin Meyer Responds to Perez Hilton - watch more funny videos More on Funny Or Die
 
Chris Weigant: The Media's Double Standard On Showing Neda's Death Top
The American media has an enormous double standard on portrayals of violence on our television screens. It can be succinctly summed up as: real-world violence is obscured or (even worse) turned into a cartoon, but fictional violence is shown in stunningly full-color and high-definition clinical graphic detail -- for our entertainment. This disconnect is infantile. It is a form of censorship that the American public, for the most part, isn't even really aware of. But sometimes, as in the footage of the death of Neda from Iran, the disconnect itself is glaringly apparent. When violence happens in the real world, the news is supposed to cover it. But often (as in recent airline and train tragedies) there is no film of the actual accident. So the guys in the tech back room whip up a cartoon, or "animation" of what they think might have happened. Since there is no actual knowledge or footage, this leaves them free (to be blunt) to "make stuff up." We all remember seeing the cartoon plane in the cartoon rainstorm from last week, in a "simulation" of what "may have happened." A harder call for the news media is when there is actual footage of violence. There is a complex decision-making process which is followed in these cases. The first question is "does it show an American?" If an American is shown being killed on screen (which rarely happens), it is almost always pixelated. American dead bodies and body parts are either not shown at all, or pixelated as well. Dead bodies or deaths of foreigners get more leeway. Sometimes they're shown, sometimes not, and they can even be shown without pixelization (as long as there are no loose body parts, which seem to be completely banned). Blood on the streets is acceptible when it came from foreigners, but usually not from Americans. When the footage of a young woman on the streets of Tehran who had just been shot and died on camera hit the airwaves, the American media (at least the parts that I saw, admittedly a subset of the whole) did a curious thing. The clip was rolled, and at the beginning (when Neda's face wasn't bloody), they showed the whole thing without pixels. But then as blood began flowing on her face, the face was suddenly pixelated out. And her actual death was not shown, as most media froze the picture before this happened. But there was a problem with the storyline here, because the still image of her bloody face had been turned into a powerful protest poster, very reminiscent of the Obama campaign poster. So the news media all showed the poster. With the same image of a bloody face that they had just pixelated out. This, as I said before, is juvenile. It is editorial hair-splitting. Either show us the video uncensored, or don't show the poster. You can't really have this one both ways. The American public can either handle this image or we can't. Decide, and be consistent. Now, some of the problem when showing Americans on television comes down to privacy and lawsuits. No parent wants to see their son or daughter die on screen in a foreign war -- and especially not before they have been officially informed of the death by the military. And in our lawsuit-happy culture, editors are afraid of massive lawsuits if they don't err on the side of caution (this is likely why foreigners' deaths are more acceptible on screen, because there is less chance they'll sue, but I have to admit that is mere supposition on my part). And, some would say, part of it is common decency when editors have footage of atrocities like an American hostage being beheaded, or those bodies dangling from a bridge in Iraq. But I still have to say, in the culture we have today, the double standard is kind of ridiculous. Turn on your television during just about any hour of primetime during the week, and you can see -- in full graphic detail -- autopsies, dead bodies, how those bodies got dead (with "bullet cam" animations following the slow-motion path of the bullet into the body, complete with the destruction to the body which results), violent murders, violent deaths, violence, bodies, violence, and more violence. Forensic shows are quite popular, which show -- in full high definition color -- bodies which have been burnt, drowned, dismembered, skeletonized, and just about every other thing you can image a poor body going through. And even a few you never could have imagined on your own, for good measure. Now, I'm not some sort of prude. If it's OK with America to show these things on primetime television, when all the children ("Won't someone think of the children!!") are watching, that's OK with me. Images which weren't even allowed in R-rated movies when I grew up (even the horror movies) are now apparently just fine to watch while eating dinner. As I said, that's OK with me. If I don't want to watch it, I will change the channel or turn off the idiot box and read a book. But with such lax standards for primetime, why is the news so timid? At the same time entertainment (fictional) shows have seemingly thrown out the decency standards, the news media picked up those standards and started applying them to reality. In other words, it didn't always used to be this way. If you don't believe me, seek out pretty much any representative video from the Vietnam War from the staid and "decent" news programs of the day. If you've never seen such footage, it will shock you. War is ugly. People die. In gruesome and painful ways. There are dead bodies, and injured soldiers, and wounded people screaming, and blood and violence. That's what war is. Bombs cause an awful lot of destruction, as well as the hundred other ways we've developed to kill each other. And it's not just wars, either. People die, and the news media hasn't always been so squeamish about showing it. Of course, they didn't have the technology back then to make a little cartoon to show what happened (which is now used for, among other things, natural disasters, transportation disasters, crimes, and war). Maybe it's just me, but I'm always offended when people's deaths are cartoon-ized. Whether a plane went down, or two trains smacked into each other, or a building collapses, or a firefight in a war, I am seriously offended when they turn it into a scene from a video game. To me, it cheapens it. And I've never been involved, or even know anyone involved, in any of the incidents, so it's not personal with me. To me, it just cheapens the deaths of hundreds of people falling from the sky in a plane when the media makes it into a Bugs Bunny cartoon, that's all. And when there is video available of a death, whether it is of a young woman shot by her government's security services or any other tragedy, I really think the news media either needs to show it, or censor the thing entirely. Pixelizing a face is trying to have it both ways. It's like a nudity-free burlesque show as opposed to a strip show. The peek-a-boo nature of showing it with pixelated bits is pathetic. Either this sort of thing is acceptible for the public to see (as it clearly is, from the primetime lineup of the same networks who censor real-life violence), or it is not. Having it both ways merely treats the public as children. And that's not what the news is supposed to be about, at least in my book.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Press Freedom
 
University Of Illinois Increasing Tuition At All Campuses Top
(AP) The University of Illinois has raised tuition for freshman starting next fall by about 2.6 percent on each of its three campuses. University trustees' three-member executive committee voted at a meeting Wednesday to increase in-state tuition at the school's flagship campus in Urbana-Champaign to $9,484 a year. Tuition will increase to $8,342 a year at the Chicago campus and $7,402.50 a year at the Springfield campus. Under Illinois law, incoming freshmen will pay those rates for the next four years. Rates for current students won't increase. The committee decided against a 4 percent increase that had been recommended by university administrators. "In my discussion with state legislators about operating funds for 2009-10, I said we would do our best to minimize as much as possible this year's tuition increase for students and their families," university President B. Joseph White said in a news release. "The more modest tuition increase for 2009-10 will help us maintain academic excellence and increase financial aid." Including housing costs and fees, incoming freshmen in Urbana-Champaign will spend $20,094 a year starting next fall. The total annual cost will be $20,324 in Chicago and $18,215 in Springfield. The university has attributed annual increases in tuition in recent years to decreases in state funding and increases in salaries and other expenses. Wednesday's meeting, held via teleconference and attended by a number of trustees who are not part of the executive committee, included lengthy discussion about tuition. Trustee David Dorris, who isn't part of the committee, said the university is not solving its financial problems by raising tuition, just saddling students with greater debts. Student trustees Elias Pittos of the Chicago campus and D. Craig McFarland from the Springfield campus said they opposed any increase. Many other public universities in the state have already increased tuition for next year. Eastern Illinois in Charleston raised in-state tuition by 9.6 percent to $7,710 a year, following a 12 percent increase last year. Western Illinois raised in-state tuition for incoming freshmen by 7.2 percent to $6,778 a year. And Southern Illinois University increased tuition by 4.5 percent to $7,290 a year at its Carbondale campus and 6 percent to $6,201 at the Edwardsville campus. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Nancy Lublin: What the Service Movement Can Learn From Tehran Top
Today was the last day of the National Conference on Volunteerism and Service. Nearly 4,000 people attended the gathering in San Francisco, including First Lady Michelle Obama, Governor Schwarzenegger, and other notables. At the same time, thousands of young people across the globe were taking to the streets, organized via Twitter, in the name of social change and democracy in Iran. The comparison is telling. When a bunch of young people climbed on the Berlin wall and tore it down, it wasn't a community service project. The young people who protested the Vietnam War weren't tallying their community service hours. Think about the actions of the Civil Rights workers who marched, lobbied, and sat at restricted lunch counters--and all the ACT UP and Queer Nation activists who held kiss-ins in the 90s or the equality activists who took to the streets in California recently. And the list goes on... Change has always come as a result of young people taking action. People rocking change--because injustice stares them in the face and they just have to do something about it. Call it a reaction. An action. A movement. A force. But is it "service"? There are lots of good things out there under the auspice of "service"--like the millions who serve our country as part of the military. And then there's the 180 days of required "service" handed down to Chris Brown this week. I wonder, will traditional "community service" orgs have a long life cycle? In the age of Twitter and Facebook, do we need conferences to exchange best practices? Will we need organizations or will we simply have movements? I.e. Tehran. One thing I know to be true: the not for profit sector needs to evolve. Quickly. For example, the conference did have two bright spots. One was a panel called "Service 3.0: Converting Online Interest to Offline Activism," with Volunteer Match , Do Something.org , and others. The second bright spot was Arianna Huffington announcing the launch of All For Good.org . While this new platform isn't perfect it's a step in the right direction. If you want to reach a tech savvy generation you need a new model of communication. I'm hoping that next year the entire conference just takes place by video on YouTube. Maybe then I'll attend. More on Twitter
 
Libya's Qaddafi Gave Condi Rice $212,000 In Gifts, Including A Diamond Ring Top
Scroll down for the State Department report In its final months in office, the Bush administration made out pretty well in odd and exotic gifts from foreign leaders - including diamond jewelery, a taxidermied lion, and Israeli bike shorts. One of the most generous gift-givers was Libya's Moamar Qaddafi, who seemed particularly grateful for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Tripoli last year, giving her gifts with a total value of $212,225, including a diamond ring and a locket with his own picture inside, according to a newly-released State Department report. The gifts sometimes show familiarity with the interests of the receiver. President George W. Bush, for example, a known biker, received mountain bikes from two leaders (Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Janez Jansa of Slovenia) while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave Bush the aforementioned shorts, decorated with Bush's name and Israeli flags. Often, however, the gifts were symbolic, if opulent, of the donor nation. Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, of Thailand gave the President a series of books, including the title, "Glorious Celebrations of the Reign: Celebrations of the 60th Anniversary of His Majesty the King's Accession to the Throne." The lion came from Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete. There are strict rules about the acceptance of gifts by public officials but when it comes to foreign leaders, diplomatic concerns take priority. For each of the gifts, the reasons cited for the acceptance of the gift was listed as "non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government." By law, officials are required to turn such gifts over to the U.S. government, even the brown leather Hermes saddle given to President Bush by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. You can read the entire report here: 2009-15022_PI -
 
Matthew Filipowicz: Mark Sanford: The Musical -- Don't Cry For Me Right Wing Media Top
As you most likely have heard, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has reappeared after being "missing" for several days. And his return did not disappoint. Not only did Sanford admit that he was secretly in Argentina, and that he has been cheating on his wife with a woman from Argentina , he did it in song! Take a look. I wonder if Sanford will sing another song about using taxpayer money to fly to see his mistress ? Especially after trying to refuse federal funds to help the unemployed? Perhaps a toe-tapper about when he demanded Bill Clinton's resignation for his affair? Also, a good deal of commentators, including Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh, have been commending Sanford for not forcing his wife to stand next to him at the press conference. Are we sure he didn't ask? She did kick him out two weeks ago. Isn't it just as likely that he asked and she said no? And if she did, good for her. Rush, clearly heartbroken, also said Sanford could've been the GOP's JFK . If you say so, Rush. One things for sure, Mark Sanford's song and dance routine is just getting started. More on Argentina
 

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