Sunday, June 14, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com


Robert Kuttner: Left Out in Europe Top
The European left, such as it is, got clobbered in the recent elections for the European parliament. In the next parliament, center-right parties will have almost twice as many seats as social democrats. Of left parties, only the Greens gained slightly. Far-right nationalistic parties picked up strength. This should hardly come as a surprise. Over the past generation, especially in places like Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands, Europe's center-left has worked hard to neuter itself as an opposition force, rivaling free market parties in an embrace of high finance and heedless globalization. In the late 1990s and early in the present century, Gerhardt Schroeder of the Social Democrats, then the German Chancellor, was a leading sponsor of financial market liberalization. He also went to great lengths to weaken labor protections. His British counterpart, Britain's Tony Blair, went Schroeder one better in putting all of his economic eggs in the basket of Britain's financial elite. Blair intensified the financial policies of Tory Margaret Thatcher. As in the US, the seeds of the current financial collapse were sown under nominally left-of-center governments. The Italian left has vanished almost entirely. In France, factional and personal disputes have prevented the Socialist Party from offering a coherent alternative to President Nicolas Sarkozy, who offers a characteristically French, paradoxical combination of nationalism and social protection. For a generation, the European center-left has embraced essentially the same version of global laissez-faire and liberated finance as the center-right parties, tempered by only a marginally better version of the welfare state. The common formula is: liberalized capital markets; freer global trade; reduced protections for workers; flatter taxes. The very phrase, "center-left" is an emblem of the capitulation to global finance. Thus, leading moderately left parties have scant alternatives to offer voters at a time when free market capitalism has thoroughly disgraced itself. Alienated voters either stay home or vote for the far right. It's an old story--and given what we know of twentieth century European history, a terrifying one. The ideological lines are further blurred because the center-right also defends the welfare state. But everywhere, the cost of paying for the failures of capitalism is rising, leaving all of the mainstream parties with a fiscal crisis. Because of these costs, the welfare state in much of Europe has become a defensive fortress--a society of insiders and outsiders. The insiders are civil servants and a dwindling number of workers with secure jobs. The outsiders are increasing numbers young people, women, and immigrants, who cannot find good jobs and do not enjoy the full social protections. This bargain is not stable, either economically or politically. The short term winners are the center-right parties, which form the governing party in most of the nations of the European Union. But they hardly offer the voters much either. The leader of the British opposition, Tory David Cameron, hasn't a clue how to help Britain recover from economic collapse. But he is likely to win the next election. The ruling coalitions in France, Germany, and Italy are not delivering economic recovery. But absent a believable left, they will continue to govern. The EU, once a possible instrument of social democracy on one continent, itself has become something of a Trojan Horse. Its basic document, the Maastricht Treaty, makes free movement of capital, goods, services, and persons a core constitutional doctrine. Social protections are secondary. Thus, the European Court of Justice has recently issued rulings defending the rights of nations such as Poland, Estonia and Latvia, with lower social protections, to impose their standards on the core nations of the EU. German contractors can end-run Germany's good labor standards by hiring Polish sub-contractors. Construction and transport firms from the Baltics can undermine Sweden's system of collective bargaining. Hedge funds based in London can buy Scandinavian firms and erode the local social compact. This has become Europe's version of a race to the bottom. The politics of the EU compound the constitutional problem. The Commission of the EU, based in Brussels, could adopt stronger social defenses if it so chose. But center-right parties currently have a strong majority of governments of Europe's 27 member states. So policies to constrain the regime of global finance cannot win support. The British Labour government, nominally part of the center-left, invariably votes newer member states that have center-right governments, against anything that could be considered a restraint on free capital movements. The exceptions to this sorry picture are the Social Democratic parties of Scandinavia and to some extent of Spain. The Nordic Social Democrats have insisted on a social model that spends enough money to provide security combined with flexibility. Denmark supports liberal trade, but there are powerful quid pro quos. When a Danish worker changes jobs, it is usually to move to a better job, with the mobility subsidized by the state. There are hardly any low-wage workers in Denmark, and no welfare state of insiders and outsiders, except for some immigrant groups. And Denmark did not suffer a financial collapse because it did not abandon bank regulation. There are currently conservative governments in Stockholm and Copenhagen, but they don't dare tamper with the basic formula. The former Danish Social Democratic Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, is currently Europe's leading advocate of much tougher regulation of financial capital. Rasmussen might have been the next president of the Commission of the EU, had the left not been trounced. And so the vicious circle continues. The left offers little to voters, and the right keeps being elected. This is surely a moment for a compelling program to constrain capital in the broad public interest. Capitalism has demonstrated once again why it is not capable of being self-regulating. American progressives used to look longingly to Europe, with its stronger trade unions and its more comprehensive social protections. Those are still there, but unraveling under assault. What's missing on most of the continent is political leadership, vision, and nerve. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect www.prospect.org , a Senior Fellow at Demos, www.demos.org , and author of "Obama's Challenge" www.obamaschallenge.com . More on Germany
 
Dickipedia: Newt Gingrich Top
Newton "Newt" Leroy Gingrich (born June 17, 1943) is an American politician, author, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, 1994 Time magazine Person of the Year, college history professor, professional hypocrite, loudmouth, panderer, adulterer, and a dick. Gingrich's first name comes from an abbreviation of Newton and not from his parents naming him after a lizard. It is extremely unlikely that a man with such jowls could've ever been likened to a long, slender animal surviving on a healthy, high protein diet. Through such landmarks as the Contract with America and the subsequent Republican Revolution, Gingrich would follow the time-honored--if paradoxical--Republican Party tradition of somehow cementing a favorable legacy while almost never achieving an approval rating above 50%. Though Gingrich's career has been mostly comprised of attacks on other officials and a spotty ethical and moral record, he has maintained a prominent position in a faltering party searching for a clear leader who's not a complete embarrassment. A champion of Christian morality, Gingrich had three different wives over 35 years, though during that period, was only unmarried for a total of less than a year. Simple arithmetic suggests that either Gingrich is incredibly impulsive or his position on family values might include a bit more extramarital fucking than one might have originally thought. More on Dickipedia
 
Stewart Acuff: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR AMERICA Top
After trillions of dollars in federal spending to lift our economy out of the greatest economic crisis in 75 years, we now know that besides financial deregulation and insatiable greed, the biggest cause of our crisis is 30 years of stagnant and declining wages. We also know that we cannot get out of this economic mess without increasing consumer demand. Thirty years of stagnant and declining wages are the result of the systematic, intentional, strategic destruction of the freedom of American workers to form unions and bargain collectively. That is why we are working so hard to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. But, corporate America did not erase these freedoms by itself. Radical rightwing Republicans like those in Congress and the now disgraced Bush Administration did all they could to destroy collective bargaining. They removed millions of workers from coverage of any labor laws including graduate workers at universities, misnamed and ill-defined supervisors, some disabled workers, and others. But, it is in the federal government itself that the Bush Administration really concentrated on destroying collective bargaining. They destroyed collective bargaining for 160,000 workers at the Department of Homeland Security including 40,000 screeners in the Transportation Security Administration. They tried to destroy collective bargaining for almost a million workers in the Department of Defense. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and a coalition of AFL-CIO unions stopped the assault at the Department of Defense. And AFGE has waged a remarkable creative, strategic and energetic campaign to give TSA workers collective bargaining and organizing freedoms. In the absence of collective bargaining AFGE has organized a union of TSA workers to demand and campaign for collective bargaining rights. Now AFGE has introduced legislation called the Transportation Security Workforce Enhancement Act (HR 1881) to grant TSA workers the same collective bargaining rights and workforce protections as other federal workers and end TSA's flawed personnel rules that have denied their workers thousands of dollars in increased wages. It is critical that the Democratic Congress and the Obama Administration pass HR 1881 and reverse the Bush Administration's assault on collective bargaining in the federal workforce. It should be abundantly clear and obvious by now that unions and collective bargaining are not economic culprits but are essential to long term , sustainable economic well being. Collective bargaining is by far the best, more efficient and cost effective way to increase consumer demand by allowing workers to negotiate a fair share of the fruits of their work and productivity. Collective bargaining is the only way to build, expand, strengthen, and deepen the American middle class. The destruction of collective bargaining freedoms is the reason we all feel the squeeze on the middle class. And unions are the most effective counterweight to Corporate Power. The thirty years assault on workers and their unions are the major reason that Corporate Power is out of control in America. The cozy relationship between the Radical Rightwing Republican Party and Corporate Power brought us a war in Iraq and billions of dollars to Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation and KBR in sole source military contracts, a deregulated financial services sector, insatiable corporate greed, a corrupt you're on your own business and government ethos, the destruction of the notion of the common good, our deep, painful economic crisis, and the consequent loss of trillions of dollars of U.S. wealth. At least in part change we can believe in, means changing where the nation's wealth and bounty goes. As 1000 business owners have shown, everyone benefits when working families have more to spend.
 
Mark Blankenship: True Blood Sucker Punch: Episode One Top
Ed Note-- This blog contains spoilers Welcome to Sucker Punch , the only blog post that ranks the gaudiest moments on this week's episode of True Blood . Because come on, y'all... gaudiness is True Blood 's specialty. Yes, HBO's Southern Gothic vampire drama serves up a variety of delicious moments---ranging from steamy sex scenes to sensitive revelations to scary fights---but everything's infused with trashiness. People don't just die: They get their hearts ripped out. Characters don't just go to church: They join cults. Vampires don't just go to bars: They go to black-leather sin pits with names like Fangtasia. If the show were more over the top, it would under itself. And frankly, that's why I love it. The series, created by Six Feet Under and American Beauty 's Alan Ball, pulses with such reckless, lusty energy that I cannot wait for each new episode. Which brings me back to Sucker Punch: Instead of simply reviewing each week's installment, I'm going to tease out the moments that best embody True Blood' s tawdry heart. I hope you'll join me in my quest! I'm happy to say that "Nothing But the Blood," the first episode of season two, is just as florid as I'd hoped it would be. The first scene, for heaven's sake, reveals that the dead body in the back of Deputy Andy Bellefleur's car (discovered at the end of last season, you'll remember), belongs to Miss Jeanette, the voodoo priestess who drove demons from Tara and her mother. Except Miss Jeanette isn't just dead. Her heart has been torn from her body, and her face is frozen in a rictus scream on par with that girl in the opening scene of The Ring. It's a deeply disturbing image that also sets up a potentially season-long conflict between Tara and her mother. Now that Tara doesn't have faith in Miss Jeanette's healing powers and her mom still does, we can see battle lines getting drawn between them. Even though they love each other, it seems like they're pushing each other toward an ultimatum: Choose to see the world like I see it, or choose to live without me. It seems like Sookie and Jason are headed that way too, doesn't it? What with Sookie continuing her relationship with her vampire boyfriend Bill, and Jason clearly getting ready to go buck wild in this cultish, anti-vamp church of his. So long as they keep giving Jason reasons to take his clothes off, I'll be interested to see where this goes. Speaking of disrobing: Did you notice the scene where Ryan Kwanten (who plays Jason) reads a book about his new religion but forgets to put a shirt on? It's definitely on this week's Sucker Punch shortlist. Same deal for Bill and Sookie's fangy-bloody sex scene, though it's interesting how tangential both of the series' main characters feel in the season opener. Sure, Sookie discovers that Bill both killed her pedophile uncle and turned young Jessica into a vampire, but all gets forgiven in the aforementioned fang bang. They don't leave the episode with any pressing problems. You know who does, though? Lafayette. As I've written , he's just about my favorite character in the history of ever, and this week, he is involved in one of the most out there spectacles I can recall seeing on television. You see, Eric and the other meanie vampires aren't just imprisoning the humans who have displeased them (for burning their friends or, in Lafayette's case, selling V). No, they're chaining them to some kind of medieval wagon wheel beneath Fangtasia and forcing them to turn it. For no apparent reason. Maybe to spin a disco ball? Who knows? Lafayette makes the situation even more outre by keeping up his sass talk. Nelsan Ellis' reaction shots to a fellow prisoner are priceless. Even when Lafayette isn't talking, you can almost hear him say, "This redneck over here needs to shut his mouth before I get crazy." And yet he still doesn't deliver the Sucker Punch of the week! That's because Tara has been taken in by Maryann Forrester, a woman who clearly has some kind of connection to ancient Greek magic and who has six kinds of crazy lurking behind her eyes. Whenever Maryann's onscreen---whether she's telling off Tara's mother, or seducing a young Sam Merlotte in a flashback---she turns this episode awesomely nasty. Her best moment? Right after her cabana boy interrupts what would have been Tara and Eggs Benedict's first kiss. The servant brings them more towels, thus cooling their poolside flame, and a few seconds later, Maryann slaps him to the ground, screaming "Nobody needed more towels!" I guarantee you that right after she did that, drag queens across the land quivered with delight at hearing the latest thing they can holler from a cabaret stage. Maryann's rage is total, surprising, and ludicrous. Why does she want those two together? Why does she hate towels? We'll probably find out in a few weeks, but for now, we can thank her smackdown for giving us the season's first Sucker Punch of the Week. For more, join me at The Critical Condition
 
Craig Crawford: We Have No Standing to Complain About Election Fraud Top
Who are we to gripe about Iran's arguably rigged election? We most likely elected the wrong guy in 2000. If the Supreme Court had not hastily short-circuited the Florida recount, we might know for sure whether another tally could have confirmed what we now know to be true -- that most of the state's voters really intended to elect Al Gore . Or we might have seen some meaningful scrutiny of suspiciously late-arriving military overseas ballots that actually delivered George W. Bush's last-minute margin of victory. Under the circumstances we probably ought to leave the outrage about Iran's questionable balloting to nations with a better established record of putting the real winners in office. Craig blogs daily at craigcrawford.com on CQ Politics
 
Dr. Michael J. Breus: The Sounds and Sleeplessness in the ICU--Part II Top
Earlier this week I covered a new study that points to the disturbing effects (literally) of noise pollution in intensive care units. The second half of the article discussed several methods to reduce noise and their effectiveness.  Some of the methods examined in the study to reduce such noise included the following: Earplugs/earmuffs on patients (self-explanatory) Behavioral modifications: Enforcing stricter rules among hospital staff so they are more aware of how much noise they are making. This is the "tone it down!" strategy, which entails establishing set quiet times during which the ambient light is lowered, alarms are cut down in intensity, and phones, televisions, and radios are turned off  Sound masking: The use of white noise machines to neutralize certain noises. Acoustic absorption: The use of certain materials like foam to dampen noise levels. Not surprisingly, all four strategies to lower the noise proved effective. But surprisingly, sound masking beat out the sound-absorbing treatment. That's good news for people who want to take a study like this and apply it to their bedroom setting at home. Far from an ICU, yes, but the two places share much in common. It helps to think of your own bedroom as sanctuary for recovery much like an ICU. Applying these techniques at home can be equally as effective, if not more so since you're not simultaneously battling serious health challenges (hopefully!). While I don't expect you to install sound absorbers in your walls, the top three ideas are quite practical: Earplugs: these are inexpensive and available at most drug stores. I like the foam ones that expand in your ear canal. Behavioral modifications: evict the gadgets and machines from you room; if a television is a must, set boundaries so you're not letting it encroach on your bedtime turf. Have a "lights-off" time set (and don't fall asleep with the TV still on!-there are TV timers on most TVs today.) Sound masking: white noise machines can be incredibly powerful in axing out any background noise. Many clock-radios have built-in white noise makers, or you can try an oscillating fan. Some find the rhythmic beat of a fan to be very calming and "white-noise"-like. My hope is that hospitals heed the lessons from studies like this one, and learn how to minimize unnecessary noise to maximize the very purpose those facilities serve--to spur the healing process and foster recuperation. Which is exactly what your bedroom is supposed to do. The ICU is a special place. And so is your bedroom. Sweet Dreams, Michael J. Breus, PhD, FAASM The Sleep Doctor This sleep article is also available at Dr. Breus's official blog, The Insomnia Blog . More on Wellness
 
Naji Hamdan, US Citizen, Denies Terror Charges In UAE Court Top
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — A U.S. citizen of Lebanese origin denied terrorism-related charges against him in the United Arab Emirates supreme court on Sunday and said he confessed under pressure because he wanted the "beatings to stop." Naji Hamdan, a 43-year-old American of Lebanese origin, was charged with supporting terrorism, participating in the work of terrorist organizations, and being a member of a terrorist group. He denied all three charges during his first court appearance Sunday, 10 months after he was detained by UAE state security forces. U.S. civil rights organizations allege that Hamdan has been interrogated, detained and tried in the UAE at the request of the U.S. government. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit last year, suggesting that the U.S. ordered Hamdan's arrest, detention and prosecution because there isn't evidence to convict him under U.S. laws. They asked a federal judge to order the United States to rescind its request that the UAE pursue the case. The U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi declined to comment on Hamdan's case. On Sunday, Hamdan was brought into the Abu Dhabi court in a dark blue prison suit, shackled and chained to four other prisoners. The chains were removed before he walked in front of the four-judge panel. He told the presiding judge Khalifa al-Muhairi that he was not a terrorist and said he made a confession because he was being tortured. "I had to sign it because I wanted the beatings to stop," Hamdan replied. Hamdan moved to the United States as a college student and became a citizen. He ran a successful auto parts business in the Los Angeles area, where he was active in the Islamic community. "My brother is a religious person, but that does not make him a terrorist," said Hamdan's 38-year-old brother, Hossam, who flew from the U.S. on Saturday to attend the hearing. The FBI began questioning Naji Hamdan about whether he had terrorist ties in 1999. He decided to move his family back to the Middle East in 2006 after 20 years in the United States. He was kept under constant surveillance by the U.S. government, with the FBI detaining him at the airport on a return visit to the U.S. and flying agents to Abu Dhabi last summer to question him at the U.S. Embassy in the UAE capital. On August 27, 2008, three weeks after the embassy meeting, Hamdan was arrested at his home in the emirate of Ajman. He was kept in solitary confinement for three months, according a handwritten note from Hamdan obtained by The Associated Press. He said he was repeatedly questioned, with daily beatings, whipping of his feet, kicks to his abdomen, threats to his family and verbal abuse. He wrote in the note an American was present for at least some of the questioning. He advised him to do what he was told to avoid further pain. "We believe the UAE is acting on behest of the U.S. government," said Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney with the ACLU, representing Hamdan in his proceedings in the U.S. Arulanantham said the only evidence against Hamdan consists of "his confession, obtained when he was tortured in the UAE." Judge al-Muhairi scheduled the next hearing in the case for July 20. Hamdan's lawyer will present his defense and a verdict is expected soon after. Supreme court's rulings on state security crimes, such as terrorism, fraud and forgery, cannot be appealed.
 
Summer Slowdown: Without Signs Of Economic Growth, Stocks To Drift Top
NEW YORK — The summer slowdown is setting in on Wall Street. The stock market has been drifting, stalling a three-month rally, and analysts say investors need to see more concrete signs of economic growth before they'll take stocks higher. At the same time, concerns are growing over climbing interest rates, a falling dollar and rising commodity prices _ all factors that could inhibit recoveries for the market and the economy. But with trading entering a traditionally slow period, stocks' moves will likely be more sedate this week, especially in the absence of any economic reports. Analysts say that isn't necessarily a bad thing. "A sideways move in the market is actually a corrective move," said Keith Springer, president of Capital Financial Advisory Services in Sacramento, Calif. "You get rid of the overbought condition when you move sideways." Analysts have warned that the market may have rallied more than economic fundamentals warranted this spring, and that a significant pullback is in order given how far and how fast stocks rose. A gain of 40 percent _ like the one in the Standard & Poor's 500 index since early March _ usually takes years, not months. But while stocks are no longer barreling higher as they did in the early spring, they have yet to retreat meaningfully, and that's a sign of strength in the market. The major stock indexes moved little last week, rising less than 1 percent after big gains the week before. The S&P 500 index ended the week up 6 points, while the Dow Jones industrial average added 36 points and the Nasdaq composite index rose 9 points. The Dow, however, managed to show a gain for the year by the close of trading on Friday. "I'm inclined to take the market action the last two weeks as reasonably positive," said Uri Landesman, head of global growth strategies at ING Investment Management. Still, a pruning of 10 percent in the market is not out of the question, analysts said. "Unless we get some kind of clear picture of what the future has to bring and where growth is going to come from in the short term, I don't know that there are any acute drivers out there," said Kim Caughey, vice president and investment analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group in Pittsburgh. Among the biggest threats to the market's rally right now are concerns over rising interest rates and inflation _ worries that have grown as the dollar weakens against other currencies. The dollar has fallen steadily over the past three months partly because of the signs of economic improvement that sent investors in search of bigger returns in riskier assets like stocks and commodities. But concerns over the government's mounting debt load have further shakened the greenback and sent yields on Treasurys climbing. Investors are concerned about the huge inflow of government debt into the market, part of the Treasury's efforts to fund the country's stimulus programs. They're worried that an oversupply of U.S. debt will scare away buyers, who then won't need to buy dollars in order to purchase Treasurys. The big debt sales are also multiplying investors' concerns about inflation. There's a growing belief in the market that the Federal Reserve will make inflation fighting a priority and start raising interest rates again. That in turn, could stifle an economic recovery: Long-term bond yields are tied to mortgages and other consumer loans, which means borrowing costs are rising at a time when Americans are still under considerable financial stress. And a prolonged decline in the dollar would further erode the buying power of consumers. As a result, investors will stay focused on how much demand Treasury auctions garner in the coming weeks. This week, the Treasury will auction off 1, 3, and 6-month bills. Other important reports this week include the National Association of Home Builders housing market index for June, to be released Monday. The following day, the Commerce Department will issue a report on housing starts for May. The Conference Board releases its May index of leading indicators on Thursday. In addition to those reports, the Labor Department will release its producer price and consumer price indexes for May, while the Federal Reserve will release a report on industrial production.
 
George Schlatter: Should Letterman Be Fired for a Joke? Top
Here we go again! Now, the big story is "Should David Letterman be fired for a joke ?" Once again the comic is made out to be the enemy. Lenny Bruce was fired for jokes about religion, Tommy Smothers was fired for his political material, and Bill Maher lost his show for a single comment about suicide bombers. I left Laugh In when NBC was told by the Nixon administration that we could do no more political humor. After that Nixon called his pal writer Paul Keyes every Monday night to review the political content of the show. That was after John Mitchell threatened the networks with the loss of licenses over the political balance of what they broadcast. The political comics are feared and hated by the establishment who feel they must control what the comics say. No secret about the influence presidents had over Bob Hope material. Who paid for those overseas junkets? Bob Hope did jokes but always "President positive." Today's comics don't just do jokes, they often have bigger ideas and make more valuable observations on both sides of issues than our political leaders like Sarah Palin who would rather have endless fights with late night talk show hosts. But Dennis Miller, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael "WEENWER" Savage, Laura Ingraham, Anne Coulter and of course Bull Dog Sean Hannity all say outrageous and untrue things about the President. They say Obama is a liar, a socialist and communist, a Muslim and not even an American. And he took his wife out to dinner "on a date." Right on, no problem. Yuk yuk yuk. Once again the "Politicals" try to make the comic the enemy and to make morality the issue. Borat's bare bottom dominated the news for a week. And CBS is still being threatened with a half a million dollar fine for a 1.5 second wardrobe failure that threatened the morality of our youth by seeing Janet Jackson's little boob. For 1.5 seconds. And the " news? " programs ran that over and over as they attempted to "protect our young people." Sarah Palin did not just use her unwed teenage daughters' promiscuity and resulting pregnancy as political assets. She used her entire family as props to further a political agenda that I guess that they don't even believe in. Enough said about selling abstinence as her suggested method of birth control. Right . Sarah got knocked up at 42. Now Sarah is using her daughter's media visibility again for political purposes. This woman might have been our vice president and all she has talked about for a week is David Letterman's silly joke. Whether you agree or not, the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt used to fight for big ideas and causes they deemed important -- now if they're not fighting with each other and they're fighting with talk show hosts. Let's NOT fire DAVID LETTERMAN. Let's VOTE for him. More on David Letterman
 
Republicans Step Up Anti-Obama Talk Top
Republicans in Washington are offering up some of the strongest language yet in their efforts to distinguish themselves from the 5-month-old Obama administration's economic policies.
 
Robert Naiman: Based on Terror Free Tomorrow Poll, Ahmadinejad Victory Was Expected Top
Judging from commentary in the blogosphere, many Americans are already convinced by suggestions that have been carried in the media that the Presidential election in Iran was stolen. [Some press reports have been a bit more careful: the lead paragraph of the front page story in Sunday's New York Times says that "it is impossible to know for sure" if the result reflects the popular will.] But the evidence that has been presented so far that the election was stolen has not been convincing. Iran does not allow independent international election observers, and there is a scarcity of independent, systematic data. But shortly before the election, Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation published a poll that was financed by the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Based on this poll, the official result - a victory for Ahmadinejad in the first round - was entirely predictable. "Ahmadinejad Front Runner in Upcoming Presidential Elections," the poll reported. The poll was conducted between May 11 and May 20, and claimed a margin of error of 3.1%. Among its respondents, 34% said they would vote for incumbent President Ahmadinejad, 14% said they would vote for Mir Hussein Moussavi, 2% said they would vote for Mehdi Karroubi, and 1% said they would vote for Mohsen Rezai. Declared support for these four candidates represented 51% of the sample; 27% of the sample said they didn't know who they would vote for. [This accounts for 78% of the sample; the survey report doesn't explicitly characterize the other 22% of the sample, but presumably they were divided between those who did not intend to vote and those who refused to respond to the question. The survey reported that 89% of Iranians said they intended to vote.] If one merely extrapolated from the reported results - that is, if one assumed that the people who refused to respond or who didn't know voted for the four candidates in the same proportions as their counterparts who named candidates, the following result would have occurred on June 12: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 66.7% Mir Hussein Moussavi - 27.5% Mehdi Karroubi - 3.9% Mohsen Rezai - 2.0% The Iranian Interior Ministry said Saturday afternoon that Ahmadinejad received in the actual election 62.6% of the vote, with Moussavi receiving just under 34%, the Times reported. Now, of course it is reasonable to suppose that the opposition might well have taken a greater share of the previously undecided vote than the share of the decided vote that they already had. Indeed, the Terror Free Tomorrow poll reported : "A close examination of our survey results reveals that the race may actually be closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of those who state they don't know who they will vote for in the Presidential elections reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current system." So suppose that we allocate 60% of the 27% who told pollsters they didn't know to the two "reform" candidates, Moussavi and Karroubi; and 40% of the undecided vote to the two "conservative" candidates, Ahmadinejad and Rezai. And within each camp, suppose we allocate the votes according to the proportion of reform or conservative votes they had among those in the survey who named candidates. In that case, this would have been the result on June 12: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 57% Mir Hussein Moussavi - 36% Mehdi Karroubi - 5% Mohsen Rezai - 2% When you account for the scaling up of the numbers from the poll, these numbers differ from the Interior Ministry numbers by less than the poll's margin of error. The Terror Free Tomorrow poll had another important result. One of the arguments being made that there must certainly have been fraud is the claim that Ahmadinejad could not possibly have won the Azeri city of Tabriz, as was reported by the official results, since Mousavi, who is Azeri, is from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Juan Cole, for example, makes this argument . Here's what the Terror Free Tomorrow poll had to say about that: "Inside Iran, considerable attention has been given to Mr. Moussavi's Azeri background, emphasizing the appeal his Azeri identity may have for Azeri voters. The results of our survey indicate that only 16 percent of Azeri Iranians indicate they will vote for Mr. Moussavi. By contrast, 31 percent of the Azeris claim they will vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad." Thus, according to Terror Free Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad had a 2-1 lead among Azeris over Moussavi. It shouldn't be shocking to anyone who carefully follows U.S. news coverage of foreign countries - particularly "adversary" countries - that in the absence of good data, Western observers would come to the conclusion that Moussavi had majority support. There is an unavoidable tilt in the reporting of Western observers. The Iranians that Western observers talk to - like the Venezuelans and Bolivians that Western observers talk to - are a skewed sample of the population: disproportionately English-speaking, disproportionately well-off, disproportionately critical of their governments. That's why anecdotes and observations are no substitute for hard data. Of course, none of this proves that the election was clean and legitimate. But it does suggest that claims that it was "impossible" for Ahmadinejad to win a fair election should be treated with extreme skepticism. On the contrary, based on the Terror Free Tomorrow poll, not only was it plausible that Ahmadinejad would win - it was extremely likely. Certainly, Juan Cole is right when he says that regardless of the election result, the Obama Administration should press forward with its diplomatic engagement with Iran - as the Administration has promised to do. But we ought to reserve judgment on claims that the Iranian Presidential election was stolen until such claims are substantiated. More on Iran
 
Brian Ross: Death to.. well, "Death to..." Chants & Democracy in Despotic Domains Top
They were in the streets of Tehran shouting "Death to the coup d'état! Death to the dictator!" It was the angry backlash of the young, the optimistic, the moderate religious and secular political believers in something better for Iran. The government clearly and publicly humiliated them last week, with the sham election that offered the false laurel of change to millions of its citizens. The faux election, whose "results" were delivered in less than three hours in a country where it can take days to bring in election results from the outlying towns and villages. The government was wrong to toy with its citizens aspirations for more that way. Yet, for all their anger at the state, the Moussavi loyalists chanting in the streets of Tehran were equally wrong in their response. The mob cried coup! You cannot have a coup d'état in an election run by the state to benefit the status quo. There is not really a proper political term for what the ruling mullahs of Iran did to the people. It was more of a publicus simultas , a public humiliation, than a coup d'etat. The mob chanted "Death to the Dictator!" Whom, exactly, is that dictator? Surely no one was being brave enough to call out the rulers of Iran: The Ayatollah Khamenei and his council of clerics who are the real power of the state. "Death to the Puppet!" might be more accurate chant against the rule of Mr. Ahmadinejad. For all his blustering and heated rhetoric, he is more mouthy marionette than world leader. He does not wield power. He merely amplifies the policies and ideologies of the mullahs who pull his strings. Of course, shouting "Death to..." anyone really is the death of any pretensions of a crowd yearning for "democracy," as so many western journalists cliamed. Democrats do not go about the street sloganeering "Death to..." anybody. In a democracy we do not kill our opponents. We may let them shoot themselves in the foot, metaphorically. No need to kill John Kerry or John McCain. Losing politicians play their hand poorly and kill their career aspirations without a shot being fired. The "Death to [Insert Your Leader or Western State, Usually America, Here]" rhetoric is the standard-issue invocation of Middle-East peoples who have long histories of regime and religious leadership change through bloodshed, not the ballot box. It is a reflexive cry that must stop if the doorway to more peaceful change at the ballot box is to become possible. These people in the streets shouting "Death to..." do not put a kinder face on an Iran whose "revolution" has been marked with decades of images of such fists thrust angrily into the skies over Tehran, railing at enemies great and small, real and imagined. If the people of Iran really thirst for change, the first and most profound change will be when we hear calls for "Justice!" not "Death to..." echo from the streets of Tehran. Iranians overthrew the Shah only to replace the dictator with an equally despotic theocracy. Mr. Ahmadinejad can rail on about the evils of the Americans, or the Israelis, but he certainly has little to say about the thugs beating down civil protest in his own country over the decades, or the exodus of his own Diaspora of Iranian business might, culture and society which the "revolution" has driven to new homelands around the planet. How much could have a more tolerant Iran achieved with all of its best and brightest working and living side by side in their homeland? The revolution, like many revolutions, has had its costs, with true freedom for its people being chief amongst its major casualties of war. The theocracy always looks for an external boogeyman, be it Iraq or America, to help galvanize those who remain in country to rally towards the causes of the state's choosing. Now, decades later, comes the same push that we have seen in Russia, in China, and elsewhere for the revolution that allows more voices of a people to be heard. Usually these revolutions do not go so well. In a dark, poetic sort of way, the follow-up this week to the suppression of the remembrance of the 10th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in China was another the suppression of the human rights of a people by their government in Iran. Instead of answering the call of Moussavi loyalists for change and inclusion, the mullahs retreated to instilling fear in their base of the poor and ignorant, and using the considerable police powers of the state to silence protest and opposition to their policies. It is the charge of the state-run media and the various thought-police organs of government to try to continue to shape the world to fit the needs of the mullahs running the state. The brand of politics in Iran that its leading clerics conduct has been mistakenly called "Islamic Fundamentalism," but for many who know and love Islam, there is nothing fundamental about it. This is a Shia state, run by a centuries-old sect which venerates its connection to the direct descendants of the Profit and its interpretations of the faith largely through suffering and martydom. The problem is that the Iranian peoples are a diverse lot. They are not all Shia, and, even many Shia in that country do not all follow the dogmatic path taken by the political-religious leaders running modern Iran. That diversity has been honored internally quietly in the past, with well-camouflaged civil liberties as long as it does not interfere with the image of Iran as a political power for change of the Muslim world that the theocracy's ruling clerics want to project. An Iran that is trying to turn other countries in the Middle East into Shia revolutionary states that overthrow their Sunni kings, Sheiks and princes, does not want the warmer and more moderate face of a Mr. Moussavi in the presidency. He is not a holy warrior. He cannot inspire the faithful in other countries to rise up against their governments. The Iranian religious political council is really more of a ulema , a Shia high-council, trying to perpetuate their sect of the faith with a Supreme Imam that follows in the footsteps of the last direct Shia Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi. The Ayyatollah Khomeni, who led the original Iranian revolution, and authorized the taking of the American embassy, was seen as such a figure who galvanized the faithful across nations. If you are trying to get your head around this in more Western terms, it is not all that different than the papacy which wielded both spiritual and political power across the empires of kings and queens in Europe for centuries. The problem for the theocracy's aspirations for a Shia world order is that this is 2009, not 1109. Even though many of the kingdoms of the Middle East still politically resemble those nation-states of old, many of their subjects have cell phones and the Internet and know that there are places in the world where the embrace of the aspirations of the individual and group is done peacefully and cooperatively. Democracy and Shia theology which emphasizes strong top-down control are not political soul mates. Once armed with the knowledge of true democracy and freedom, other than killing everyone with an Internet connection, it is very hard to put that intellectual genie back in the bottle. This was meant to legitimize the edicts of the theocracy, not to open doors to greater freedom and tolerance. The campaign leading up to these elections was a whisper of limited freedom that grew into a chant then into a ballyhooed roar that somehow, in a country that has only known interchangeable forms of despotism, some form of republican democracy would prevail. Iranians took to the polls with the same psychoses that affect Powerball players and Las Vegas high rollers. They could win . Things could change. You cannot beat the house, though. What happens to the freedoms of the Iranian people, or their individual will, is of little consequence to men with more narrow interpretations of the quality of earthly life, whose dogma is focused upon larger, tradition-bound spiritual goals, steeped in centuries of suffering and martyrdom. An individual losing access to their Twitter during an election is not a concern for these leaders. It is not the puppet that needed changing, rather, the puppeteers. The ruling mullahs are quite content with their dogmatic pit bull Mr. Ahmaddinejad as the face and voice of their will in the world. More on Iranian Election
 
Tasha Gordon-Solmon: The Bachelorette: Marry Me Monday at Your Own Peril Top
Tomorrow's episode of The Bachelorette is extra special. And not just because it looks like Jillian might cry in every scene. ABC and Touchstone have teemed up (or rather, been teemed up by their parent company, Disney) to bring us an unprecedented event: Marry Me Monday. During the commercial breaks, real people will have the opportunity to propose to their girlfriends on television! (And the rest of us will be inspired to buy a ticket to see The Proposal in theaters now!) Yes, I know what you're thinking: how is this special? There are lots of shows devoted to the sole purpose of broadcasting real peoples' marriage proposals. (You can also spend hours perusing local-news proposals posted on youtube, like this delightfully awkward one. ) Marry Me Monday is different because the proposals take place during Bachelorette Time. And Bachelorette Time is a very special time for women. But it is also a very delicate time. So for those men out there, who are lucky enough to be part of this proposal extravaganza, I warn you: consider your timing wisely! 1. Don't do it directly after Michael, Ed or Tanner P have appeared on screen. Michael is more adorable than you, Ed is more perfect than you, and if it's Tanner P, she'll want to put the ring on her fourth toe. 2. Don't do it too early. Yes, your proposal is more important than a television show. But after she says yes, she's going to have to call her parents. And her parents will still be there after 10pm Eastern Standard Time. So don't force her to choose between finding out which bachelor has a girlfriend back home, and telling her parents she's engaged. It won't be pretty. 3. Don't do it at a point in the episode when Jillian is distraught. Your future fiancée will empathize with Jillian, so much so, she may adopt her feelings of anxiousness and insecurity and project them on to you. Trust me, you don't want your "Will you marry me?" to be answered with: "Are you here for the right reasons?" 4. Don't do it after a commercial for The Proposal In the movie, Sandra Bullock's character proposes to Ryan Reynolds' character in order to get a Green Card. Like I said, Bachelorette Time is a delicate time. Even if neither one of you is foreign; you don't want to give your girlfriend any inspiration to consider your motivations. You also don't want her to be thinking about Ryan Reynolds. 5. Propose as close to the Rose Ceremony as you can. The energy will be running high and the suspense will be at its peak. Your fiancée can also draw out the whole blissful-freaking-out thing for a few minutes while watching who gets the roses out of the corner of her eye. Finally, if you don't get to choose when your proposal is broadcast, I wouldn't risk letting it happen at the wrong time. Change the channel during the commercials, ask your girlfriend to make you a snack every ten minutes - do whatever it takes. Yes, you spent hours filling out that online application and being vetted by ABC and making your heartfelt video proposal. But better to play it safe than sorry. After you've watched the show, ride the warm fuzzy feelings it has awakened in your beloved, find a nice park bench or restaurant, and propose there. Or, if you have access to a helicopter or remote tropical island, those are the best places to nail down her affection. The Bachelorette can be a powerful treatise on the trials and tribulations of love, and you don't want that to work against you. Besides, if the show has taught us anything, it is that proposing on television does not guarantee a happy ending. For every Trista & Ryan, there is an Aaron & Helene, Andrew & Jen, Byron & Mary, Andy & Tessa, Meredith & Ian, Deanna & Jesse, Shayne & Matt, and Jason & Molly. And you don't want to be a Jason, trust me. PS-If there are any eligible bachelors out there are, thinking they just might want to marry me, disregard everything I just said. Even if we've never met, or if we have met and I don't like you; if you pop the question during The Bachelorette tomorrow, I will totally say yes! More on ABC
 

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