Monday, June 15, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com


Chris Weigant: An Ad Script For Teddy Kennedy On Healthcare Reform Top
In the debate about healthcare reform, why are the loudest voices in the room the ones who seemingly are against all reform? Where are the champions of the progressive ideas? I've asked this question ( at great length ) before, and while President Obama has started to (half-heartedly) speak up for "the public option," so far nobody else seems to be defending the idea at all. To say this is a disappointment is an understatement. Part of the problem is that the senator all Democrats are deferring to on the issue is Teddy Kennedy. Who has his own problems with healthcare right now, which precludes his being a leading and forceful voice to the public on the issue. Or does it? That thought prompted me to write the following television ad script for Kennedy's staff to consider. Now, I fully admit that the language could be changed slightly to highlight different facets of the very complex problem healthcare reform presents, but I think the basic idea is a good one. See if you agree.   [ Fade-in to Senator Edward Kennedy lying in a hospital bed. Various high-tech machines surround him, but are muted, with no "beep beep" noises to distract. ] KENNEDY: "Hello. I'm Senator Edward Kennedy, and I'd like to talk to you about an issue I've been championing for 40 years in Washington: healthcare reform." [ Camera switches angles to more close-up shot ] KENNEDY: "A lot of people are saying a lot of things right now about the different ideas for healthcare reform that are currently being discussed in Congress. Some of these, frankly, are just untrue -- which is why I felt it was necessary to speak to you today." [ Scene changes to show various newspaper headlines showing worst of critics' quotes about "government-run healthcare." ] KENNEDY: "The first principle we started with is that any American who likes the healthcare they have now will not have to change it . If you like your plan, you do nothing, and you keep your plan and your doctor. Don't believe anybody who tells you different." [ Scene shows some stock footage of overwhelmed emergency room -- either a series of still shots, or show in slow motion. ] KENNEDY: "But, sadly, not everyone in America is happy with their healthcare, and not everyone has access to affordable healthcare -- which leads many to do without it because they can't afford it." [ Still shot of a gavel and a judge's hand. ] KENNEDY: "And some who thought they had good health insurance have still wound up going bankrupt because they got sick -- after spending their life's savings on medical bills the insurance company bureaucrats wouldn't pay for." [ Back to Kennedy, medium-shot showing hospital bed again. ] KENNEDY: "We think that's wrong, and that's what President Obama and Democrats are trying to change. But everything we have suggested so far has been attacked by people who simply can't see that there even is a problem with our healthcare system. Most Americans don't need to be told that a problem exists -- because almost everyone has a family member or a friend with a horror story about how expensive healthcare has become." [ Scenes of angry Republican leadership faces, in still black-and-white shots. ] KENNEDY: "But still, some are trying to scare you by saying that Democrats want the government to radically 'take over' healthcare -- which is just not true . The federal government is already in the healthcare business, and serves millions through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. None of these are perfect, but then private insurance isn't perfect either." [ Back to Kennedy's face, close-up. ] KENNEDY: "Which is why we want to offer Americans a public option to compete with the private health insurance industry. Nobody would be forced to try this, which is why it is called an 'option.' But we believe giving Americans this freedom to choose a public option is important. Republicans want to deny you this option. We think you're smart enough to decide for yourself whether it would work for you or not." [ Headlines from the 1960s and 1930s ripping into Medicare, Medicaid, etc. ] KENNEDY: "You know, every time healthcare reform is brought up, the naysayers always predict the death of the private insurance industry. They said this when Democrats passed Medicare, and they said it when Democrats passed Medicaid. But neither one killed private insurance, and the public option we are proposing now will not kill private health insurance either. The people who predicted doom for the insurance industry were wrong back then, and they are wrong now." [ Return to medium-shot of Kennedy. ] KENNEDY: "All we want to do is add some competition to bring the price of health insurance down for everyone. This competition will force insurance companies to rein in their out-of-control cost hikes. I'm not sure why Republicans are against the idea of the free marketplace, or why they're so scared of a government-run program out-competing the private industry, because they've been saying for years that nothing the government does is as efficient or as good as what private industry can do." [ Kennedy, close-up of face. ] KENNEDY: "What we want is not a 'takeover' of healthcare by the government, what we want is to give Americans the choice -- in the form of a public option -- of a different way of delivering healthcare. If you don't like that option, nobody is going to force you to sign up for it. If you try it and don't like it, nobody is going to force you to stay in it. If you like your healthcare as it is, you won't have to do anything. But some may think the public option makes sense for them. Which is all we're trying to do -- to give them that choice." [ Kennedy, long shot showing whole hospital bed and equipment. ] KENNEDY: "Don't deny Americans this choice, that is all we are asking. Even if you decide it's not for you, don't deny your neighbor the choice -- which may mean the difference between no healthcare and having healthcare. I ask you to write or call your representatives in Congress, and ask them to support the public option for real healthcare reform. "Thank you." OK, it's a bit long, even for a 60-second ad. It could be tightened up. Or perhaps spit into a few different ads which address different angles. And, yes, it is manipulative to show Kennedy in a hospital bed. And perhaps the word "Republican" could be changed to "reform opponents" or something, in a more bipartisan spirit. But sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt. And Kennedy, if he weren't in the midst of his own battle against illness right now, would assumably be all over the place speaking in a loud voice about what the Democrats were for. Nobody has stepped into the void Kennedy's health problems have caused (Senator Chris Dodd seems to be trying, but hasn't really been vocal enough yet). And, like Obama, Kennedy enjoys both name recognition and high approval ratings all over the country. So, what do you think? If you think the idea has merit, let Kennedy's staff know . Personally, I think it's time for a strong voice for the public option, even if it comes from a hospital bed.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Barack Obama
 
Youth Radio -- Youth Media International: What's So Wrong With Overachievement? Top
Originally published on Youthradio.org , the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe. By: Erin Bilir I guess you could say I'm that teenager. You know, the one who's overambitious, over stimulated, and overworked. I get straight A's, I participate in extracurricular activities, and I hold myself to a high standard in everything I do. If you were to travel down the halls of my high school, you'd find it brimming with lovesick young couples, making out, holding hands, and engaging in other, even more embarrassing public displays of affection. And then you'd find me, curled up in a locker bank poring over a copy of "The Sound and The Fury." What most people tend not to understand, is I am engaging in a subtler form of PDA. To me, my love of learning is really no different than the feeling other teens have for a certain sport, art form, or high school sweetheart. So why is it that while others are applauded for following their hearts and pursuing their passions I find myself condemned...stigmatized. Many adults in my life, even my parents and some of my teachers, say the same thing: "Slow down...life isn't all about getting an A." I know they all care about me, but still, some of them would love nothing more than to see me fail. Not because they're cruel or anything, but because they want to me to know that "life will go on." They wish I'd go to parties, jump up and down at concerts, exchange text messages, and meet up with girlfriends at the Starbucks to talk about Zac Efron. If I were messing up and testing my boundaries and authority, I guess I'd seem more normal. But I have a big goal. And it's not about making money, or having a big important title, or getting into a specific college. My dream, my most secret hope, is to be someone extraordinary, someone who has actually done something of importance for this world. It's a little embarrassing, but I have a poster of Mohandas Gandhi hanging on my wall. Every morning when I wake up, before I go to take that test or to hand in that essay, I see that picture and I remember why I'm getting up in the first place. Come to think of it, couldn't Gandhi be considered a bit of an overachiever himself? Youth Radio/Youth Media International (YMI) is youth-driven converged media production company that delivers the best youth news, culture and undiscovered talent to a cross section of audiences. To read more youth news from around the globe and explore high quality audio and video features, visit Youthradio.org
 
World Naked Bike Ride Rolls Through Chicago (VIDEO, NSFW) Top
The sixth annual World Naked Bike Ride took place Saturday night, with hundreds of Chicago cyclists, skateboarders and roller skaters streaking through the city in various degrees of undress to raise awareness of global oil dependency. The three-hour ride started near Oprah's Harpo studios and wove its way east through downtown, north up Michigan Avenue to Belmont, west until Ashland then south again toward the start. Metromix has a safe-for-work slideshow of the event. Some racier, not-safe-for-work slideshows here and here . Watch video of the naked mass cruising Michigan Avenue, via Timeout Chicago : The scene at Belmont: Here's video posted by the organizers: Last year the ride drew an estimated 1,700 participants. There has been no official word yet on how many participated this year. More on Video
 
Hank Greenberg Plundered AIG Retirement Program Of Billions Of Dollars, Says AIG Lawyer Top
NEW YORK — The former top executive of American International Group Inc. plundered an AIG retirement program of billions of dollars because he was angry at being forced out of the company, a lawyer for AIG told jurors Monday at the start of a civil trial. Attorney Theodore Wells told the jury in Manhattan that former AIG Chief Executive Officer Maurice "Hank" Greenberg improperly took $4.3 billion in stock from the company in 2005, after he was ousted by the company amid investigations of accounting irregularities. "Hank Greenberg was mad. He was angry," Wells said in U.S. District Court of the emotional state of the man who, over a 35-year-career, built AIG from a small company into the world's largest insurance provider. He said the saga is a story of "anger, betrayal and cover-up." Wells said that Greenberg, within weeks of being forced out in mid-2005, gave the go-ahead for tens of millions shares to be sold from a trust fund. The fund was set up decades ago to provide incentive bonuses to a select group of AIG management and highly compensated employees that they would receive upon their retirement. Wells showed the jury several clips of Greenberg speaking on videotape about the responsibilities of the trust fund. He called it Greenberg's "videotaped confession." Wells asked the jury to award AIG $4.276 billion and 185 million AIG shares. Greenberg, 84, has contended through his lawyers that he had the right to sell the shares because they were owned by Starr International, a privately held company he controlled. Greenberg's lawyer, David Boies, told the jury in his opening statement the shares sold by his client did not belong to AIG. "I disagree with a great many things that Mr. Wells said," Boies told the jury. He said a study of the documents in the case would prove that the shares sold by Greenberg did not belong to AIG. "Look in this case not to what people said after this lawsuit started," Boies said. "Look to what they said and did and wrote before the lawsuit started." Starr International was named after Cornelius Vander Starr, who created a worldwide network of insurance companies in the early 1900s. AIG maintains that Starr and Greenberg, his protege and successor, decided in the late 1960s to organize the various companies under one holding company, AIG. Starr International remained a private company and its shareholders decided in 1970 that the amount that its shares of AIG were worth above book value of about $110 million should be used to compensate AIG employees, AIG has said. The embattled insurer is trying to reclaim the money from Starr it says was wrongly pocketed through stock sales by Greenberg. The trial relates to events that occurred long before AIG found itself under attack earlier this year over its bonus program. The company was roundly criticized after it accepted $182 billion in federal aid and then paid out $165 million in bonuses to employees, including traders in the financial products unit that nearly caused the company to collapse. Before the jury was chosen Monday, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said evidence in the trial could not include information about the government bailout. He also said the entire trial will last no longer than a month. Witnesses begin testifying Tuesday; Greenberg is among one of several witnesses expected to take the stand this week. The trial features two legal heavyweights. Boies argued on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court during the disputed presidential vote in 2000. Wells was on the team of defense lawyers in 2007 for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about his role in leaking the name of a CIA operative to a reporter.
 
Craig Newmark: allforgood.org at the craigslist foundation volunteer boot camp Top
Hey, I just found out that a session for AllForGood.org will be at the craigslist foundation volunteer boot camp this weekend. It'll be led by Jonathan Greenblatt, who chairs Our Good Works, which the newly-formed nonprofit which governs AllForGood.org . The All For Good session will cover topics such as such as fundraising, future technology, advocacy and lobbying, community building, marketing and messaging, strategic planning, and measuring success and impact.  The workshop on All for Good titled "Smarter Service in a Web 2.0 World" will share how organizations can use All for Good to help distribute volunteer opportunities across the Web and on social networks. Come join Arianna Huffington, Randi Zuckerberg, Jonathan Greenblatt, Ami Dar, Rich Harwood, Shirley Sagawa, and others (me too!) as tickets are still available for the 6th Annual Craigslist Foundation volunteer Boot Camp this Saturday at UC Berkeley.
 
Maria Eitel: World Economic Forum: Progress across Africa Depends on Girls Top
I mentioned last week that girls would be front and center at the World Economic Forum on Africa's session entitled The Girl Effect in Africa. By all accounts, it was an amazing session. The Nike Foundation's Managing Director, Lisa MacCallum, served as moderator and shared this report: For those not familiar with the World Economic Forum on Africa, this is one of the Forum's five regional annual meetings. As much as Davos is about theory, the regional meetings are about practice. Following on the success of the Girl Effect on Development earlier this year, the Forum wanted to use the Africa meeting to shine a spotlight on what's working in the region and to discuss what needs to be done. And let's face it; a lot needs to be done. More than 75% of HIV positive youth in Africa are girls. Millions are out of school, facing early marriage, early childbirth and virtually no access to economic opportunity. In a nutshell, it's socially tragic and economically unsustainable. That's what we came to Cape Town to talk about. But Thursday's session was the good news. It means action is being taken and very influential people are talking about it on the world stage. Before I get into the details, I do have to share one amazing thing that happened. Two minutes before we started, I found out that Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum, wanted to introduce the session. How big a deal is this? Well, of all the sessions in Cape Town, this was the only one he introduced. He spoke of the importance of public private partnerships in realizing the girl effect, as well as the Forum's commitment to it. He closed by saying the Girl Effect in Africa is one of the most important sessions on this year's program. In other words, if you consider it in the context of the economic crisis, the girl effect is a hugely important thing to be talking about. Beyond the unexpected opening, one of the most exciting things about today's session was the participation of an 18-year-old girl from Zimbabwe named Zillah Muponda. Zillah joined the session as a panelist, giving a face to the girl effect and speaking passionately about her personal experiences as a girl in Africa today. As a young activist, Zillah is working to change the state of girls' lives. She has started an organization to get girls in school and to improve the quality of their education in rural communities. She raises funds for school fees to get both girls and boys into school. Zillah went on to say there's no point in providing access to education if nothing is taught - teachers were not showing up to teach. So she also provides teachers with food and cooking oil provided by corporate sponsors to make sure they show up. Not bad for a girl who's still in high school herself. Overall, there were a few key themes panelists addressed: 1. Investing in girls as smarter economics The girl effect provides exponential returns. It's grounded in all of the research that tells us when resources are put in the hands of a girl, she will produce more with it and invest more of it into the health and education of her family and community. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director of the World Bank said, "If it's smart to invest in women, then it's smarter to catch adolescent girls upstream and invest in their skills and their education because the returns are even higher. For every extra year of secondary schooling for girls, their wages increase by 10 to 20 percent, significantly higher than the same years of schooling for boys." Colin Coleman, the CEO of Goldman Sachs South Africa commented on some research his company had carried out regarding the impact of girls' education on income. He said, "The direct and indirect effects of gender inequality in education may have reduced potential annualized per capita income growth by .5 to .9 percent in much of Sub-Saharan Africa." Fortunately, he summed up nicely for those of us who don't run investment banks: "In Africa this means that actual income growth was only half of its potential." It comes down to massive potential lost for an entire continent because girls haven't had the chance to participate. 2. Economic solutions are often masked by culture Culture was a theme that emerged again and again. Zillah reflected on her own experience and said, "The problem in rural areas is that there's an issue that people cling to culture a lot, so you find that girls have no place within families and their voice is never heard." Richard Harvey, Chair and Former Chief Executive Officer of Aviva (the UK-based insurance company) referred to "a bit of research from McKinsey years ago and it said that the single factor that makes the most difference in turning around a business is the change in the culture. If we're going to turn around this business, which is developing Africa, then the culture which is keeping the girls out of the system is going to have to change." Cultural and social norms can be deeply embedded, but many times it comes right back down to economics at the household level. For a family in poverty, it's assumed that girls have less economic potential than boys. When you're desperately poor, this assumption can be a powerful driver of decision making. It means that a girl might seem more valuable as a child bride and mother than an educated citizen. 3. It's urgent - we can't wait. We must reach girls before they are 12 Puberty changes everything for girls in developing countries. That's when her education, and consequently her health and safety, no longer have value. If we can't reach her by 12, we're no longer investing in prevention, we're investing in treatment. Graça Machel, Founder and President of the Foundation for Community Development put it this way: "In our families, when a boy and a girl are born, there's a sort of hierarchy in terms of value. A boy we value more and a girl we value less. From the beginning, investments are made in a boy because he is more valuable. It happens in families, it happens in our government." At the Nike Foundation we talk a fair amount about how families make difficult decisions that result in undervaluing their girls based on perceived necessity, so I was particularly interested when Richard argued that girls were actually overvalued. When speaking of pulling a young girl of 10 out of school, he said, "[Families] possibly overvalued the contribution the girl could make in a short-term and the needs for that girl to stay at home to look after the other siblings and take care of the cattle... that's a short-term mistake but a heck of an easy one to make, if you're facing that kind of poverty." It all comes down to one big idea: access to economic opportunity. Colin is very involved in 10,000 Women, a management and professional development program for women in developing countries. I asked him what that meant for girls. He said, "If you are honest about this, if you're going to educate girls and not provide them with a window to their own business and professional development, you're sending a signal that is precisely opposite of the signal you want to send and it's a blockage. This is about creating open access for girls to visualize their professional advancement." 4. Girls won't count until we count them...specifically It gets back to D'Israeli's maxim - "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." What I heard is that the numbers don't tell the story. Just because an indicator might be improving for a country overall, it could actually be getting worse in communities or whole regions. Ngozi weighed in with a call for accountability from the top, and also noted that there's an opportunity to use the data and indicators to make countries compete. She said that setting indicators showing what countries are doing, and not doing, for girls and women can be extremely powerful. Donald Kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank, had this to say, "On the issue of statistics, the picture is not good. The numbers are big numbers, aggregate numbers. They don't tell us the magnitude of what's happening to girls." I was thrilled when both Ngozi and Donald referenced new work their organizations are developing to disaggregate data and better count girls. 5. A little bit of support is not enough Complacency is an issue. It's easy, the panelists noted, to be satisfied with a small program or two or to consider increases of girls in primary school a success when they are not continuing on to secondary school. According to Graça Machel, "The question is why girls are under-resourced. You don't invest so much, but you get happy that you are doing. You don't challenge yourself to say 'I have to have 100% of girls in school, I have to have 100% of girls succeed. When we do a little bit, it's like we say 'it's done.' We have to challenge that mentality." When she made this statement you could actually feel a shift in the room. There was an aha moment where you could see the panelists and audience alike really starting to think through whether they are doing enough. It wasn't long before Donald said "We're doing quite a lot, but not enough for girls." Richard also closed by reminding us of something everyone can do: advocate for girls. "How do you get the message out there? I would say every damn way you can. ..Just think about how the hell you get the message out there and then get on and make it happen." It was an exciting and provocative discussion. Given the topic, it was fitting that Zillah got the chance to close the conversation. She was in quite esteemed company, but I doubt anyone could have challenged these leaders in the same way she did: "I'm going to chase after every single person [in this room] that said they would pursue my objective. I promise I will do that because I'm really keen to see the change. Remember that I'm just one girl in Zimbabwe who's making this change. If you invested in even five girls in your countries, or even in my country, just imagine for yourselves the change you could make." Before we wrapped, we had the chance to open up to Q&A. It was a bit unique in that there was a severe shortage of questions. This doesn't mean people didn't raise their hands. Plenty did, but the interest - passion actually - had more to do with commenting about the session, sharing how they are investing in the girl effect or serving up their own call to action. To redirect that energy back toward the panel, I'd ever so politely say, "And now if we could hear from someone who has a question" and, again, the next person would comment but not query. I was relieved when a gentleman announced right up front that he had a question. He then spoke about his personal observations of the girl effect and asked the panel "what do you think about what I just said?" I realized afterward that this was a reflection of people clamoring for a platform to talk about girls. It was encouraging to see that as a result of the panel discussion, we had: 1. A corporate board member calling on boards to be accountable for investments in girls, 2. an executive demanding that existing corporate resources be reallocated, 3. a family foundation leader stating that each and every individual has a responsibility, 4. the head of an NGO telling a story to demonstrate that change really can happen. Keep in mind that the Girl Effect in Africa wasn't just the only session in the program about girls. In looking through the program, it was actually the only session that even mentioned girls. That having been said, there was a young man in the audience who didn't get a chance to ask his question. Mohammed Barry, one of the British Council's Global Changemakers, was kind enough to share this after the session: "There's outrage over rape in South Africa and most of these girls who are raped either end up HIV-positive or having children out of wedlock. 2010 is coming next year and I didn't see any strategies for preventing this in the country. What are the government and others doing?" So with that, I'll turn it over to the readers. What are we going to do about this? He raises an excellent point. As South Africa plans for World Cup 2010 and the influx of fans that will come with that - will the girls of South Africa be safe and free to celebrate with everyone else? What can we do about this? Mohammed and I are looking forward to your comments. And in case you're wondering, yes, I thanked him for asking an actual question. More on Africa
 
Senator Richard Lugar Gives Obama An 'A' For Foreign Policy Top
WASHINGTON - President Obama merits an "A" so far in his approach to American foreign policy, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said Monday. But he cautioned that tone alone doesn't solve deep and complex world problems.
 
Credit Card Defaults Rise To Record In May Top
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. credit card defaults rose to record highs in May, with a steep deterioration of Bank of America Corp's lending portfolio, in another sign that consumers remain under severe stress.
 
John Milewski: Who Watches the Watchmen? Top
While it's impossible to draw a direct connection between an act of insanity like this past week's murder at the Holocaust Museum and the hysterical rantings of media viruses like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Beck, a quick tour around the op-ed circuit and the blogosphere indicates that there is significant concern about what might be incited or encouraged by such exploitative and irresponsible media. Through what seems like a 24/7 cacophony of bluster, we hear claims and charges from ratings-driven, facts-challenged "journalists and commentators" that sound like discarded plots from the X-Files . And the problem in not only prevalent in the world of cable bloviators and wacko authors. Other somewhat respectable media outlets continue to fuel fires of unreasoned conspiracy thinking, such as the recent Washington Times piece that suggests the President, "not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself." As if a religious affiliation other than, Christian, would indicate some sort of threat or wrong doing. Not to mention the fact that there has never been any credible evidence presented supporting the claims that President Obama is hiding something about his religious affiliation. But another article that chronicles the latest round of crazy rantings and borderline calls for violence is not why I'm writing. Instead, I'd like to address the question of accountability and responsibility at the top. A quick search around the Internet will uncover endless amounts of criticism of the aforementioned peddlers of potentially dangerous pablum such as Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh. And there's a special place in Internet Hell for Ann Coulter. Her critics are legion. But the group that continues to get a free pass is those in charge... the semi-invisible suits that provide the megaphones and reap the profits when these intellectual snake oil salesmen peddle their nonsense in pursuit of ratings and sales. In other words, "who watches the watchmen?" Attacking Sean Hannity while ignoring management and ownership is the media equivalent of blaming the grunts at Abu Ghraib while ignoring the generals at the Pentagon. Enough about Sean Hannity's seemingly purposeful distortions. How about a little more focus on those that provide Hannity with a forum and legitimize his style of broadcasting (I'm really not sure what to call it, so "broadcasting" will do.) I also want to make clear that this is not an assault on "right wing media." I don't come to this an an ideologue. If there is equivalency on the left, that should be challenged and criticized with equal vigor. The recent examples speak to who is in power and who is in the role of challenging that power. And challenging power is a critically important function in a vibrant democracy. We need Republicans and others to propose alternatives to Obama's ideas and policy initiatives. But Ann Coulter's latest scream for attention is not the equivalent of the loyal opposition. The former serves the greater good. The later, at best, serves Ann Coulter's self promotion. At worst it promotes anger, distorts reality, and flirts with inciting violence. I am also not making a case for restricting free speech. To the contrary, I'm pretty much a purist in that regard. But I know from first hand experience that ownership and management matter more than the latest flavor of the month/year/decade with access to the airwaves. I spent 20 years on the air on C-SPAN and about 5 years on an independently owned radio station affiliated with NBC before that. I wouldn't have spent 5 minutes on either if I ever said anything remotely like the things routinely offered by those that seek ratings by tapping the related veins of anger and irrational thinking. We had standards that were promoted and enforced by management. There was a sense of accountability and responsibility to the public that eclipsed our own parochial economic interests. My bosses didn't hide behind on-air lightning rods. They were involved and accountable. Rush Limbaugh is a one man media empire in many ways, but without management at individual stations around the country signing the syndication agreements that distribute his program, he wouldn't be the force he is today. So Rush becomes the focal point of anger and frustration among those that yearn for more mature and responsible opposition party commentary. It's even suggested that his rantings may incite the type of violence we've seen recently with the shooting at the Holocaust Museum and the murder of Dr. George Tiller (who according to Bill O'Reilly was referred to as, "Tiller the Baby Killer"). Meanwhile, unnamed and in many cases unknown executives rake in the bucks by shoveling this bile onto the airwaves. We keep blaming the front men for our degraded and degrading public discourse, but what about their enablers? More on Fox News
 
Jane Hamsher: A Movement to Make Obama Bring an End to War Top
In 2007, 82 Democratic members of Congress signed a pledge. They would never again vote to fund the war in Iraq without plans for troop withdrawal. Republican critics accused them of demagoguing the war. Of using our soldiers as a political pawns, of not meaning what they said. Those who signed that pledge need to cast their vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Act on Tuesday and prove them wrong. We may agree or disagree about what needs to be done in Iraq, but a promise is a promise. Anti-war activists have supported these members of Congress because of that 2007 pledge. They knocked on doors and distributed leaflets and donated to their campaigns. They and marched side by side with them as they sought to bring an end to the war that still lingers in Iraq and escalates in Afghanistan, as the new film Rethink Afghanistan documents. When Barack Obama declared his presidential candidacy, he said "Start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future." But Obama's 2008 victory was only half the battle for those who want to bring an end the war. Obama was once asked about how he planned to solve the Israeli/Palistinian conflict. He responded by telling a story about Franklin Roosevelt who, when asked if he could address the plight of African Americans, said: You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit....But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it. It's the president's job to make the best decisions he can and keep the country governable at the same time. When it comes to highly divisive issues like the war, he's got to consider many factors -- including the pressures that the military and the CIA bring to bear on the situation. It's the public's job to create the political space for him to move in. For those who supported his candidacy because we wanted to bring an end to the war, it means we have to answer his call to go out and "make him do it." We're working with state blogs from across the country to sound the call to action: Square State (Colorado) Turn Maine Blue (Maine) Michigan Liberal (Michigan) Burnt Orange Report (Texas) Green Mountain Daily (Vermont) Not Larry Sabato (Virginia) My Left Nutmeg (Connecticut) Blue Mass Group (Massachusetts) Calitics (California) The Albany Project (New York) Blog for Arizona (Arizona) There is a movement growing now to create the climate for change to occur. If progressives will stand together, we can have a real voice in working with President Obama to shape our nation's future.
 
Geri Spieler: What Does An Extremist Look Like? Top
Is an extremist tall, short, young, old, thin, fat? Would you know if the person standing next to you was about to pull out a gun and shoot? Scary thought, isn't it? Think about the pressure our protective and security agencies have been under since President Obama took office? Yet, will all this pressure, we---and our agencies--must be sure we are not creating a net that catches more people, but not more threats. Protective agencies are charged with creating "assessments" -- descriptions--of what constitutes a threat to our safety. These agencies include the Pentagon's National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security which oversees the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Air Marshals and The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Recently there is new controversy regarding who is a threat? A threat was easier to define in 1975 when the profile of someone likely to take a shot at the president was defined by the Secret Service as someone, "to be male, between the ages of 20 and 40, of slight build, born overseas, unemployed, a loner, and someone who suffered from delusions of grandeur or persecution." When Sara Jane Moore took her shot at President Gerald Ford, the Secret Service was not looking for "...a female, in her mid-40s, of stocky build, born in the United States, employed full-time as an accountant, had been married and had a son, and had no history of delusions at the time she shot at Ford." No one wants another "Sara Jane Moore" incident, of course. Yet, we still have a lot to learn. We must constantly analyze new and different approaches and profiles without the danger of lumping and clumping people into roles and ideologies. The latest description of a right-wing extremist or white supremacist casts an even wider definition of a threat. Those affected by the economic downturn, disaffected military veterans, racist factions and feelings of governmental oppression. Would Moore or Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme fit the definition of a white-wing extremist? How Sara Jane slipped through the scrutiny of Secret Service Agents is still being studied by agents today, 34 years later. Consider that Moore's rationale fits into what we would call a right-wing extremist. She believed that the U.S. government was oppressive and, "She hoped to trigger the kind of chaos that could have started the upheaval of change." She surrounded herself with like-minded thinkers whose fear of the federal government was real to them and they only way to change it was through violence. In her statement before Judge Samuel Conti, she said a federal agent bragged about his abilities in the area of anonymous letter writing and other forms of character assassination. She said the federal agent told her the government needed to gain control over the citizenry. "You don't seem to realize that this is a war," he told her. Then we have another example of 88-year-old white supremacist James von Brunn who strolled into the National Holocaust Museum and shot an African American security guard and anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder went into a church slaughtered a family physician. Which of these people fit neatly into the threat assessment? We are racing to quickly redefine just what a "threat" looks like. Tools, creativity and a willingness to look beyond the obvious are necessary to protect our elected officials and us as well. Yet, our agencies can be thrown into a "them and us" scenario if they are not careful. All the signs were there for the Secret Service, FBI and San Francisco Police to retain Sara Jane Moore, yet no one believed a white, 45 year-old mother could possibly pose a threat to anyone or try to assassinate a U.S. president? Even though this 40-something woman admitted to carrying a gun and called to say she wanted to check presidential security no one stopped her. Does this mean we round up all mid-forties women in the crowd? Where do we go from here? The Technology Gap Technology has played a big role in protecting elected officials in terms of communicating with other agencies--that is if they will talk to each other? Technology is only a tool, not the key, to the solution to identifying a threat while still protecting our right to privacy. Technology also works to make the job harder as the tools can work against agencies in the same way: communicating locations, messages back and forth about preparing for an assassination attempt or other terrorist event. If we are going to match the skill and speed of the computer wizards, we need to have the same toys and the same weapons necessary to play in the game. Unfortunately, it appears our primary presidential protective agency, the Secret Service, is not up to speed. It does not have the sophisticated systems to track record and monitor what is riding on the Internet. So, it has asked for a $34 million to help upgrade its systems. Without it not only will the Secret Service not be able to keep up with the hackers and other threats, it will not be able to communicate with the White House! Apparently the agency flunked an NSA security audit last year that was intended to detect intrusions and vulnerabilities. How can we fight back? We are the government and we are here to Network The Secret Service may be your friend on MySpace. We could be networking with the federal government? I wonder what the Secret Service profile looks like on a social network? Supposedly a surveillance system on social networks can penetrate organizing groups forming "nodes" in the network and then remove them. Kind of like cutting out a cancer cell before it gets too big. If there is suspicion that a "node" user poses a threat, the Secret Service will, "track information from phone call records such as those in the NSA call database. The information will be extracted such as personal interests, friendships & affiliations, wants, beliefs, thoughts, and activities." Bingo, now you have the information needed to build an assessment? Who poses a real threat and who doesn't? Will we ever recognize a Sara Jane Moore in the future? A savvy white supremacist may avoid all technology and "go retro" by using snail mail and we miss by looking the other way. When Bush was president, anyone disagreeing with the government was unpatriotic, yet now, agreeing with the government makes one a Socialist. It is not going to be easy for the agencies within the DHS to sort it all out and find those who truly pose a threat and not just a loud mouth. It is going to take some very skilled and nuanced agents to design the process both ways. Geri Spieler is the author of, Taking Aim At The President , published by Palgrave Macmillan January, 2009
 
Quinn's Tough Budget Talk: $9.2B Would Be Cut, Lawmakers Must Come Back To Springfield And 'Confront Reality' Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn says lawmakers should pack their bags and get ready to be back in Springfield next week. Quinn said Monday they need to return to the state Capitol to "confront reality." Quinn plans to talk to the state's top four legislative leaders about this return to the Capitol when they meet on Wednesday. Lawmakers went home from their spring session without passing a budget that fully funds state government. Quinn wants them to pass an income tax increase to avoid deep cuts in human services. The Democratic governor won't say how long he expects lawmakers to remain on the job, but he said they have other unfinished issues to deal with besides the budget. Quinn's office, meanwhile, is warning that it would have to slash spending by $9.2 billion under a budget proposed by Illinois lawmakers. Most of the cuts would fall on services that state government provides through local groups, from medicine for senior citizens to foster care for abused children. The estimate released Monday is the administration's most detailed analysis of the spending plan that legislators approved after failing to agree on new sources of revenue. Illinois government faces a massive deficit. Quinn proposed closing that gap with a combination of spending cuts, budget maneuvers and tax increases. Lawmakers wouldn't agree to most of his ideas and instead passed a budget that doesn't cover the cost of providing many government services. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Virginia M. Moncrieff: She's baaaack! Imelda Marcos gets $310m jewels returned. Top
Remember when we just couldn't get enough of Imelda Marcos? The woman who put shoe obsession on the global watch-list long before Carrie Bradshaw was even conceived, was the epitome of despotic greed, proudly showing off her walk-in wardrobe of 3000 pairs of shoes and obliviously parading her jewels and riches around. And then of course, she insisted on singing love songs in public to her despicable husband and that was almost too much. Looking at garish, tasteless shoes was one thing, having our eardrums assaulted was quite another. One of her most famous quotes could not have been made up: "Filipinos want beauty. I have to look beautiful so that the poor Filipinos will have a star to look at from their slums." Poor Imelda. She was once considered one of the world's wealthiest women, but now she says she's penniless. Last week she complained about having to use some of her husband's war pension to fly from Manila to Singapore for an eye check up. "And I have not touched it, because it is my proof that he was a soldier and a national hero and the most decorated Filipino in World War II. This is an injustice. Please, have mercy," she added. (Here it might be appropriate to point out that Ferdy's war record is under dispute and the right to all the medals he awarded himself is generally regarded with a cocked eyebrow). The Philippines government continues to prosecute a staggering array of graft cases against the Marcos family, 23 years after Ferdinand were defeated in one of the first 'people power' movements. They are alleged to still have over $10 billion in "ill gotten" assets. "Justice delayed is justice denied. What is my crime? Why is it that until now I'm still being prosecuted? Is this really how the justice system works in this country?" Mrs Marcos recently said in a statement released to the media. But on Monday (15 June) Imelda had a small victory in Manila. $310 million worth of jewellery seized by an anti-graft agency in 1990 was ordered to be returned to her. "Many of those jewellery pieces were intended for religious images, like tiaras for the Blessed Virgin Mary." Mrs Marcos claimed. Newsweek recently nominated Imelda Marcos as one of history's greediest people (she was on the list with Bernie Madoff, and egded out other 3rd world dictators. No mean feat for the woman with expensive feet). Being Imelda she revelled in the honor. "For me, greedy is giving. I was First Lady for 20 years. You have to be greedy first to give to all. It is natural." But the question remains. Where are all those shoes? Mrs Marcos has said she is determined to have them returned to her. Personally, I would not like to see any of the shoes I owned in 1986 ever again. I doubt they would even qualify as vintage kitsch. But Imelda continues to fight for what she says is rightfully hers - the loot acquired from her husband's twenty one years of pillaging the Philippines. More on Sex and the City
 
Pictures Of On-Duty Cops Posing With Women Outside Clubs Leaked To Fox Top
The photos are from a frustrated club worker who says some officers have been slow to respond to his calls and he believes these pictures show why.
 
Jim Selman: No Regrets, Let's Clean Up the Mess Together Top
The Wall Street Journal last week had an article on the new theme of the annual commencement speech celebrity sweepstakes: " We are really, really sorry. " On campus after campus, speakers of the Boomer generation were apologizing to the twenty-something generation (I don't remember the nomenclature for this batch of graduates) for the self-centered and often greedy abuses of the "me" generation. This old theme had the ring of a "mea culpa" without showing much of an agenda for doing much about anything--coming across more like a challenge to the young to not make our mistakes. Some of the youthful attendees rightfully asked, "Why don't you clean up the mess you made?" I vaguely recall saying that to my own children not so long ago. One of the themes of the Eldering Institute and my Serene Ambition blog is that we should "clean up the mess before we die"--whether we made the mess or not. I am not a fan of the blame game. In fact, I think doing Monday morning autopsies of the world's intractable problems is not only unproductive, but it also distracts us from focusing on creating real solutions and breakthroughs. While we can "own" the fact that many (if not most) of the social, economic and environmental breakdowns have appeared on our watch, they are far too complex to lay at the feet of a single generation of Americans. We could just as easily focus on the positive change that has appeared in this same time frame: from civil rights, the personal computer and the Internet to unprecedented global awareness and cooperation to address age-old plagues of poverty, ignorance and, more recently, corruption and religious intolerance. Whether we are winning these wars is another question, but it is the "Boomers" who have been leading the charge. If someone invited me to speak, the commencement speech I would make would go something like this: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am addressing you as ladies and gentlemen because you have emerged from the chrysalis of youth into the full bloom of adulthood. You are no longer boys and girls or "young people"--although you are certainly younger than me. You are an adult in every sense of the word. You can never be any more "adult" than you are today. I am going to spare you the usual inspirational "challenges" expected on these occasions. You probably know them better than I do. I am also going to forgo any pretense that I, or people of my generation, have any idea of what is in store for you. Whatever value our experience and perspective may have, it is not in predicting what will happen in a world that is changing faster than we can think about, disseminate and digest. Our traditional models for anticipating and predicting the future are no longer adequate as a basis for decision-making and planning. Uncertainty is now a constant and will probably continue to be a fact-of-life for the rest of our lives. What I propose is an idea I call "Eldering." Now why would I want to speak with a group of people just finishing their formal undergraduate education about something that sounds like a topic for "old" people? My notion of "Eldering" isn't just for people who are "old." It is for young people as well. Eldering, as I see it, is about multigenerational dialogue and collaboration to create our common future -- a future that is sane, that works for all of us, and that leaves the world in better shape than we found it. So why use an unfamiliar word like Eldering? First of all, familiar words can often be misunderstood and your generation and my generation don't see things the same way. Your "world" is literally a very different "world" than mine. What is obvious to you is not so obvious to me ... and what is obvious to me is not so obvious to you. Human beings always relate to and interact with the world that occurs for them (not some independently verifiable objective "reality"). Our worlds are 'disclosed' to us by a variety of factors, including our culture, our traditions, our education, our practices, the times in which we live, and so on. The technical term for this difference in how the world occurs for each of us is "disclosive space." An accountant lives in a different disclosive space than an engineer. People from an Hispanic culture live in a different disclosive space than people from a British culture. I suggest that your generation and my generation live in radically different disclosive spaces. A second reason for using the unfamiliar term of Eldering is that I don't want to talk about the relationship between our generations like two ends of a spectrum--with "elders" at one end and "youth" at the other. I want to emphasize that whatever wisdom each of us brings to this relationship is only valuable if we are able to use it in action. In fact, my definition of Eldering IS "wisdom in action! " I challenge you to leave behind your common sense notions about what is possible when we work together to solve intractable problems and create unprecedented futures. We human beings often behave and act in ways that are not necessarily consistent with what we think, what we want, or what we know is in our own best interests. Many of our actions are knowingly self-destructive -- and we keep repeating them expecting different results. What possible explanation can we have for this seeming insanity? One explanation is that we aren't always in charge of our own actions. Often we are just "doing something" for no clear reason, even though our behavior seems irrational (and even a bit "crazy"). So if we aren't in control of our own actions and behavior, then why are we doing what we do? I think the answer lies in our "disclosive space." The possibilities available to us, our choices, and our actions all correlate to how the world occurs for us (not to the "way it is"). Let me clarify. When something appears to be a threat, you will act in the same way you behave when facing that kind of threat -- always. It doesn't mean we all respond the same way to that particular danger. Depending upon the context in which the threat occurs and each person's commitments and competencies, individuals may see it an opportunity for positive action or as something to run away from or to become resigned about. For example, when I look at the responses of people like President Obama and Van Jones to the recession, I am encouraged to see that their "disclosive space" -- their worldview -- includes a shift in our economy to green jobs. The worldviews of our two generations are both equally valid. They are simply our assessments of "the way it is" and what is and is not possible. Neither of our assessments are "the truth." And neither are "false." Understanding this doesn't make understanding each other's perspective any easier. I have experience and perspective that you don't have, just as you have experience and perspective that I don't have. I may never understand the appeal in having tattoos or spending large amounts of time in virtual space. You may never understand the kind of "faith" many of my peers have in public institutions. If we are going to work together, we need to be able to accept and appreciate each other's viewpoint. More importantly, we need to appreciate and value that they are just different --not better--and that we don't have to agree or even understand each other on every point. The objective of Eldering (or any dialogue for that matter) is not to win an argument or pound our differences into some kind of 'sameness'. We are always both 'right' from our respective points of view. And we need our different views to create anything new. Innovation happens at the intersection of at least two different disclosive spaces. When different worldviews come together, they can give rise to something that has never existed before. Without that intersection, we wouldn't have Cirque de Soleil's combination of circus and theater, bioengineering's mashup of biology and technology, YouTube's consumer video on the Internet. We wouldn't even have American democracy (the heart of which is the intersection of the Magna Carta and the American Revolution). Let's transform our conventional wisdom about age as something that segments and divides us socially, politically, economically and spiritually. Let's create a shared disclosive space that can restore our sense of community, unite us in a common vision, and open up the possibility of creating a future together at the intersection of "older" and "younger"--a future that works for all of us and for many generations to come. © 2009 Jim Selman. All rights reserved.
 
Iran Election, Uprising Tracked On Twitter As Government Censors Media Top
CAIRO — An opposition activist spreads word of an upcoming protest in the streets of Tehran. Another posts pictures of clashes between demonstrators and police. As Iran's government cracks down on traditional media after the country's disputed presidential election, tech-savvy Iranians have turned to the microblogging site Twitter. It's use to organize and send pictures and messages to the outside world _ in real time as events unfolded _ was a powerful example of how such tools can overcome government attempts at censorship. "When I'm not connected to Twitter it means that I'm disconnected from the world because the state TV doesn't report many things!" wrote one Twitter user who identifies himself as "hamednz" and communicated with The Associated Press through e-mail. His profile says he lives in Rasht, a city to the north of Tehran near the Caspian Sea. Like all the Twitter users in Iran who agreed to be interviewed for this story, hamednz did not want his identity revealed for fear of retribution from government authorities. In Iran, as in many still-developing countries, Internet usage is mostly still a phenomenon of the affluent, the youth and city-dwellers _ meaning Twitter and other networks are used mostly by the young and liberal _ and may overemphasize their numbers while ignoring more-conservative political sentiments among the non-connected. Twitter co-founder Biz Stone acknowledged the limited group of users in Iran, who don't necessarily represent the mainstream. "Because Twitter is still a nascent service the sentiment is likely narrow," Stone said in an e-mail Monday to The Associated Press. "However, we noticed people creating accounts during the riots presumably because they heard Twitter was the most efficient way to discover and share what was happening in the moment," Stone wrote. Supporters of reformist challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi are more likely to use Twitter and Facebook. Poorer, less-educated voters have flocked to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iranians must outsmart government blocking to use Twitter, on which users post messages limited to 140 characters called "tweets." Twitter and other social-networking sites remained blocked Monday in Iran. Users must go to other sites that post tweets for them and allow them to read tweets from others. Facebook was used to organize people before the election, but it was also blocked after the vote. On Monday, the site was replaced with a message that said the page was blocked under a filtering policy. "Since the election, we have heard reports that users in Iran are having difficulties accessing Facebook," said Barry Schnitt, Facebook spokesman. "This is disappointing, especially at a time when Iranians are turning to the Internet as a source of information about the recent election." Cell phone service, which had been down in the capital since Saturday, was restored Sunday, but Iranians still could not send text messages from their mobile phones. Text messages are another way to tweet. Judging by tweets since Friday's election _ the censorship didn't even slow some of them down. Many then tweet to share their tactics. "The fact that the government is not able to stop all of the information is really key," said Robin Gross, executive director of IP Justice, a San Francisco-based digital rights group. "They can only sort of censor in a patchwork way, and censorship by its nature has to be all or nothing." Twitter has been used as an organizing tool to tell people about upcoming events such as this tweet Monday from a user identified as "alirezasha:" "today, 4pm a CALM protest with Karoubi and Mousavi/confirmed by Karoubi's campaign manager and VP." Other users post pictures of protests or what appears to be government authorities chasing and beating protesters. One Twitter user who identified himself only as Mohsen, speaking to the AP from Tehran, said while he's been using Twitter for about two years, he's intensified his "tweets" over the last few days. He said he sends alerts about "what I see in the streets, about police hitting people, and people who are not police who are hitting Mir Hossein supporters," he said. "These are frames of horror and hate. I think one of the strategies the authorities are doing is stopping news and information, and I use whatever I can to stop them from doing that." On Monday, the Twitter site showed topics that were getting the most attention, including "IranElection," "Mousavi" and "Tehran." In one 10-minute period, 12 users who identified themselves as being within 50 miles of Tehran posted Tweets. Some media such as The Associated Press and others often monitor sites such as Twitter, looking for news tips and to assess the general mood. Even Ashton Kutcher, one of Twitter's biggest fans, has weighed in on the elections. He tweeted: "I think that truely (sic) the only people that can change things in Iran are the Iranians themselves and they seem to be speaking their minds now." Twitter has played a role in other world political events. This April, protesters of parliamentary elections in Moldova used Twitter and the Internet when mobile phones and cable news television stations went down. They rallied as many as 10,000 people to one demonstration. Earlier this month, government censors in China shut down Twitter as well as other social networking and image-sharing Web sites as part of their attempt to block out news about the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. But some experts warn of overestimating Twitter's role. Censorship adds another layer of technology that people have to overcome. For people following events in Iran from abroad on Twitter, it's easy to think that everyone is an outraged Mousavi supporter. "If you follow Twitter you will think that Tehran is going through another .... revolution," said Hossam el-Hamalawy, an Egyptian blogger and activist who often uses Twitter. "And that's not the case." Even Mohsen, who uses Twitter from Iran, said Twitter is seen by many Iranians as a professional tool for journalists and bloggers. Gaurav Mishra, the 2008-09 Yahoo Fellow at Georgetown University, said he hasn't seen any evidence in past events such as the Moldova elections that Twitter was the dominant way people are organizing. "It's sometimes difficult to differentiate the hype from the media," he said. "Just because people are tweeting about something doesn't mean that there's actually coordination involved." ___ Associated Press writers contributing to this report include: Sarah El Deeb in Cairo; Anna Johnson in Tehran and Barbara Ortutay and Nick Jesdanun in New York. More on Iranian Election
 
Pavel Somov, Ph.D.: Caviar in the Backseat Top
There is an intriguing interplay between the setting of the meal and our willingness to enjoy it. One dish, when served in an upscale restaurant, will command far more attention than it will when you have it as a leftover for lunch the following day. A banal slice of baguette dipped into olive oil will evoke more enthusiasm at a restaurant table than it will at the kitchen countertop. Should high dollar caviar be served in the backseat of a car? Heavens no, you might exclaim at the notion of wasting a delicatessen on such a prosaic setting. Note that anyone presenting such an objection is likely to sincerely believe that you will simply not be able to appreciate the delicacy unless your elbows are stationed on a heavily starched linen cloth and your waiter has an endearing foreign accent. But why the heck not?! Why should the physical coordinates of our eating be a factor in our eating experience? Why should we knowingly allow our unconscious to be charmed by the smoke and mirrors of interior design sophistication when it has nothing to do with the interior of our mouths? I concede that while the setting of a meal is not an ingredient of a dish, it certainly can be an ingredient of an eating experience. The sophistication of an eating establishment creates an expectation of quality. This expectation heightens awareness. This heightened awareness becomes a platform for mindful eating. And mindful eating is the best chef. But is it not an insult to our mind that for us to enjoy half-way decent food we have to be primed to expect it to be great?! Is this not a measure of our experiential impotence that we have to rely on presentation to attend to what is already present?! Rebel against the set-up of the setting, against the setting up of expectations. Rebel against the elegance and eloquence of these Pavlovian bells and whistles that have conditioned us to expect more out of less. If you can't enjoy caviar or some other exquisite gourmet item in the backseat of your car, throw it away because you can't enjoy it anywhere. If the backseat of your Ford Taurus is good enough to make love, why is it not good enough to make love to a $250 Fritz Knipschildt dark chocolate truffle?! So, what am I proposing here? If you are going to eat well-heeled food... try eating it in the comfort of your flip-flops. Why? To minimize the distraction of the setting and to allow yourself maximum mindfulness to appreciate the exotic taste. Pavel Somov, Ph.D., author of "Eating the Moment: 141 Mindful Practices to Overcome Overeating One Meal at a Time" (New Harbinger, 2008) www.eatingthemoment.com
 
Ryan Blitstein: A Little Progress at the Chicago Media Future Conference Top
I spent most of Saturday at the Chicago Media Future Conference . Quick summary: I learned a few things, the conference had some shortcomings, and overall it was definitely worth my time. Kudos to the organizers, who clearly learned a lot from the Chicago Journalism Town Hall in February. Big differences between that event (which did a fantastic job of starting the local conversation about these issues but not much else) and the one this weekend: organizers didn't assume that they could solve the problems of the entire journalism industry in a three-hour event they focused the discussion to be (relatively) specific they didn't deign to claim that they had The Answer they invited panelists who actually knew what they were talking about they gave attendees much more of a chance to talk to each other before, during and after the event they left a lot of time for Q&A they seemed *very* open to constructive criticism. In that spirit, here is some constructive criticism. Next time . . . Find moderators who know what they're talking about and make sure they have a plan for how to lead the discussion. In the first panel, "How do people consume the news, and what do they do with it?" Dan Sinker (a good guy whose journalism I really respect) missed an amazing opportunity to talk about how people are consuming news, what readership studies tell us, how social media is impacting consumption, how to deal with the digital divide. Instead, he largely rehashed the Town Hall in February, and, frankly, seemed to be winging it. It's 2009, and the people in the room are relatively sophisticated -- don't waste their time asking five people to define "what news is." And don't let a few people dominate a panel -- Hilary Sizemore might've had some interesting things to say, but Sinker barely called on her. Barbara Iverson organized the event, and she has been examining the convergence of journalism and technology for a long time. But if someone doesn't know what "the long tail" means, she shouldn't be moderating a discussion of media business models. For those who weren't there or haven't listened online, Newser CEO Patrick Spain was basically saying, "Look, Windy Citizen is a cool idea, you'll be able to make a little bit of money, but you'll never be successful as a business unless you have a network of Windy Citizens." (For example, Oklahoma Cityzen, Asheville Citizen, etc.) And that's what The Long Tail is -- a company making money by going after several niche markets/products at once (for example, Netflix making money by renting lots of obscure documentaries, not huge blockbusters). Iverson essentially said that Patrick Spain could be wrong, because Windy Citizen and The Beachwood Reporter are going after the long tail. But they're not long tail companies at all: What Brad Flora (full disclosure: he's a collaborator and friend) and Steve Rhodes were saying is, "We can do it on our own, and we think we can make reasonable money at it. Maybe not hundreds of millions of dollars, but enough to live on." And Spain was critical of that business model. Because Iverson didn't understand his argument well enough, she didn't ask tough questions of Flora (or any of the panelists). I love the Citizen, but I have some questions about the long-term viability of a single-site business model that doesn't focus on something ultra-lucrative like sports, finance or porn. Iverson didn't seem to know what to ask, and didn't know how to push the panelists to productively argue with each other. Invite panelists who can speak to the topic at hand. In general, the panelists were insightful and appropriate, especially Gordon and Spain. Best insight: Gordon's claim that every technology is always used to the fullest extent possible to connect people. For instance, the telephone, which might have been used to replace the phonograph (concerts-by-phone), instead came to largely replace mailed letters. I doubt the idea was extemporaneous, but it was really interesting -- it sounded like the basis of an article or book chapter, feel free to send me a link if it exists. Not everyone was right for their panel, though. Amanda Maurer, a social media producer at the Chicago Tribune , said a few interesting things, and clearly knows the digital media world well. But someone who finished J-school a year ago, works at a newspaper that launched its social media initiative five years too late, and sits near the bottom of the organizational totem pole isn't going to be able to talk about how social media fits into the larger distribution and financial strategy at the Tribune , which is really the only reason to have someone from the Tribune on the panel. (Or maybe she was -- Sinker didn't ask about this.) I like Steve Rhodes, he's a good guy and an unbelievable media critic, and he did make some interesting (and funny) points. But he didn't need to be on that panel. The guy admits that he doesn't focus as much as he should on advertising or business as he should. Why have him on a business panel? He and Andrew Huff (who has not much to say about journalism but a ton to say about the media business) should've swapped panels. Be specific. The most interesting stuff was the detailed stuff. The Spain vs. Flora/Rhodes discussion was fantastic. And I liked real discussions of real CPM ad rates, or the ideal number of tags, or the fact that the real problem is a distribution problem, not a content problem (with a few ideas on how to fix it). But there wasn't enough of that sort of conversation, especially during the first panel. Look, I know there's only so much you can do in three hours, and there were some people there who didn't know the difference between search engine optimization and search engine marketing. I'd much rather have some depth and insights on a handful of topics than a broad-brush panel that tells me very little that I don't already know. The first panel can pretty much be summed up with what Everyblock 's Dan O'Neill said (this quote isn't quite accurate, but it's close): "It's literally impossible for answering the question 'What happened?' to not be valuable." Everyone was basically like, "don't worry, there will be new models and it'll all be fine." And my thoughts were, "Yeah, I feel the same way. Your job as a panelist is to tell me about them." Which they didn't. Sinker failed to challenge the panelists the way you'd expect an experienced reporter would. What models? Which technologies? What is working? How? Would you please defend that massively Pollyanna-ish generalization? It's too bad Sinker kept things so vague, because Gordon is clearly so insightful (on this topic and tons of others), and each of the panelists had a lot more to say on specifics within their domain area. Don't just slap up a twitter feed on a giant screen and then call it a day. Having a twitter feed on the background screen was a cool idea but largely distracted from the panel. It might've worked better if there more informed/critical Twitter-ers in the room, instead of ridiculous off-topic posts like, "Has anyone ever figured out how best to address one of the basic bits of journalism that we're abandoning: the Obituary?" (Answer: Yes, a lot of people. Google "online memorial sites.") All criticism aside, the conference was a huge leap forward from other events I've attended on the same topic, and I'm looking forward to more. How's this for an endorsement: I may collaborate with them in the coming months on an event.
 
Taylor Asen: Shielding Physicians from Malpractice Suits Is the Wrong Tactic Top
I was shocked to open the New York Times this morning to find that President Obama is considering adding a provision to the health care bill shielding physicians from lawsuits at the expense of innocent victims. According to the Times , Obama sees tort reform as a "credibility builder"--as if it is impossible to appear credible about fixing healthcare without tort reform. In advocating for a measure to reduce the number of med mal suits, Obama is playing into the myth perpetuated by insurance companies that there are a deluge of so-called frivolous lawsuits. Medical malpractice insurance accounts for a very small sliver of total healthcare costs, and there is no nationwide lawsuit "crisis." In many states, it is harder to bring malpractice cases than ever before. As University of Pennsylvania law professor Tom Baker points out in The Medical Malpractice Myth , the real "crisis" is not the cost of malpractice lawsuits, but the cost of malpractice. Studies--even when conducted by physicians--have shown time and again that there is an alarmingly high rate of malpractice in the United States. One well-known report by the Institute of Medicine on the National Academy of Science noted that 100,000 Americans die each year from medical malpractice. 100,000! According to Mr. Baker, more people die from medical mistakes than die from auto and workplace accidents combined. We know for a fact that there are far many more instances of serious medical malpractice than malpractice suits. In other words, there are not enough malpractice suits. This may be surprising to some, but isn't to those of us who have worked at personal injury firms. During my year at a prominent personal injury firm in New York City, I was shocked by the serious malpractice cases we were forced to turn down, simply because state laws have made it economically infeasible for lawyers to take all but the lowest risk, highest paying suits. (People are always surprised to learn how few malpractice suits there actually are in America; as Tom Baker mentions in his book, there are only 400 med mal suits filed annually in the entire state of Connecticut.) When a person is injured by malpractice, someone has to pay--the only question is who. If during a delivery a physician makes a decision that flies in the face of well known medical principles and a child is born with cerebral palsy, there is nothing we as a society can do to "reign in" the costs of that accident. But by limiting those parents' right to a day in court, we are shifting the burden of those costs from the doctor's insurance company onto the parents--or, in many cases, onto state Medicaid programs. Saving money for doctors and insurance companies at the expense of innocent people is not a change I care to believe in. Sometimes bad things just happen, and we all agree that there is a certain amount of risk involved with going under the knife. Not every bad outcome in the operating room is someone's fault. But often, someone is to blame, and when that is the case, that person must be held accountable. That's personal responsibility, an idea that is at the very core of the American way of life. It would be one thing if the American Medical Association agreed to support a public plan if and only if the president inserted some sort of tort reform into the bill. That would be bad (very bad, in my opinion), but at least it would be understandable . After all, those of us who voted for Obama knew that we were signing up for a consensus building executive. But why is a Democratic president with a majority in both houses bending over to appease an organization that is never going to come over to support a good healthcare bill? Didn't he learn anything from the House Republicans behavior after Obama gave so much on the stimulus bill? No matter what Obama gives, he is going to be accused by Republicans and right-leaning interest groups of touting a partisan bill. If they are going to call him partisan, why not act partisan and give us a good bill? Taylor Asen is a legal assistant at the law firm Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. He's attending Yale University Law School in the fall.
 
Bob Geldof: Let Us See If Italy Keeps Faith With the World's Poor Top
Yesterday in London I helped the ONE campaign launch their 4th annual "DATA Report" . The report is an exercise in accountability. It charts a course from past development aid promises to present delivery. In 2005, the G8 made a series of historic promises to Africa that, if achieved would improve health, access education, reduce poverty and increase prosperity. The headlines of these promises were to double aid to Africa by 2010, to improve its quality, to reform the trade system to make it easier for Africans to export to our markets, and to cancel debts that were preventing African governments from investing in their people. All this was promised on the basis of a deal with the African states in exchange for measurable indices of good governance and tighter economic achievement. Let me contextualize this report and this event. The panel consisted of Arunmah Oteh and Dr. Francois Ndayishimiye from two of the great world development and health institutions, The African Development Bank and The Global Fund for Aids, Malaria and TB. Also present was that "turbulent priest", that little giant Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the greatest and bravest moral arbiter of our time. Then came our greatest industrialist, our Carnegie, our Rockefeller -- Bill Gates. And finally the inevitable Irish pop singer, no not the very famous short one -- the other somewhat less famous tall one. Me. When Tutu speaks one listens. He talks of the idealistic imperative we have to other human beings. He asks what obligations do we have as a society to those we will never know or never see? He asked the audience to imagine just one person on the brink of death because of AIDS. He asked us to put a face on that person of someone we know. Then he said imagine only one month later going back to that person and seeing them begin the long agonizing haul to Life again. This is the Lazarus-like miracle of Anti-Retroviral drugs. Now imagine that person and then times it by 3 million... because that's how many people in Africa are today, this minute, receiving free AIDS treatment because of effective aid. A mere 6 years ago only 50,000 had to pay the pittance they had for whatever drugs were available. Those, the majority, with no money, simply died, leaving both the very old and the very young as orphans. Tutu's point is that humans are not only extraordinary creatures but that Aid, that beautiful instrument of humanity, is a working miracle in itself. And, why would the person who is the driver of modern technology and therefore the modern economy devote the rest of his life and his fortune to fulfilling that obligation? Because Bill Gates is an empiricist and the condition of poverty, or at least many aspects of it, is empirical. It can be measured. And it can be removed. And in not removing it we are not only abandoning our societal obligation, we are also being criminally economically self-defeating. Poverty must go. Without removing it, we will not have a stable world. The global financial architecture collapsed and now must be rebuilt. One of the reasons this was a failure of the system rather than simply within it was because 50% of the planet, those who live on less than $2 per day, were excluded from it. You cannot live on less than $2 a day. What is more, by excluding them from the world economy, we excluded their creativity, their dynamism, their intellect, their ideas and their productivity. We did great damage to ourselves in doing so. We mustn't make the same mistake again as we rebuild a newer world economy. We must include the peripheral peoples in the marginal economies, we must include Africa and Africans if only so that they can buy our stuff and we can buy theirs. And then, as happens anywhere else, the aid question disappears.. We are not there yet. So, for now, aid stabilizes the poor of this world at a base level. It manages sometimes to get to some people so that they get to stay alive with a little bit of food, so they get to stay alive with a little bit of medicine, and so they get a little bit of education. Then with a coherent state they can begin to get going. And to help with that, we look primarily to the G7 -- the world's richest economies, the countries of plenty. So, how are they doing? The United States, Canada and Japan are meeting or beating modest targets. This group includes last year's G8 hosts and next year's G8 host. Though their targets were less ambitious than those of the European members of the G8, they have legitimacy because they are meeting them. The UK and Germany made very ambitious promises and have made great strides towards meeting those promises. Though they are both currently a bit behind in their progress, both Gordon Brown of Labour and David Cameron of the Conservatives in the UK have said they are committed to meeting this promise and have budgeted for the committed aid increases. This in a time of domestic hardship is politically brave and indeed honorable but it is also good, sound political sense. Germany has made budget provisions for continued significant and laudable increases, but will unfortunately probably just fall short of their target. Despite some key investments from France in global health programs, France has made little progress towards its ambitious promise. This is pathetic given France's economic, cultural and historic links with Africa. Indeed it is so pathetic Germany has overtaken France in its economic co-operation with Africa for the first time ever. And then there's Italy, this year's G8 host. Last year's host kept their promise; next year's host has kept theirs. But Italy has only done 3% of what Prime Minister Berlusconi personally and nationally promised in 2005. I'll repeat that figure of craven dishonesty -- 3%! So it is quite proper to ask -- what legitimacy does Italy have to run the G8 this year? How can you possibly trust a government that promises something, does nothing and expects to the lead the world's biggest economies? Especially when this promise was a solemn one between the rich and the poor. Between the powerful and the weak. Surely a test of power is how it cares for the frail. A measure of strength is how it safeguards the weak. In these tests Italy has failed. On debt cancellation, the G8 are largely making good, thus enabling 34 million children to go to school for the first time ever. That's 34 million new brains actively engaged with our world. However the current financial crisis may give rise to a newer debt problem. This needs to be avoided. Of course everyone knows that it is only through trade that economies can thrive and give a life to its people. The good economy and the good society go side by side. But on their commitment "to make trade work for Africa," they are an utter failure. Though African exports have increased in recent years, it is not because of policy changes by the G8, but because of spikes in commodity prices including oil and food. Africa still only accounts for 3.5% of global trade, the smallest share of any region in the world. And yet the African economy is the 10th largest in the world. It is bigger than Brazil or India or Mexico or Russia. Indeed the only emerging economy greater than Africa's is China. Of course because its Africa nobody knows this or thinks about it. Nuts. This group was not assembled yesterday because some (Irish) pop stars decided aid is cool. But it is. Cool Aid. We were together because there is a profound logic and a compelling imperative about meeting these G8 commitments. Unless we bring the marginal peoples and their economies into the core of the world economy, into the center of the decision making process, whatever new system we build out of the ashes of this failed one will once again be asymmetric. Top heavy. Unstable. And therefore it will fall again. And people everywhere will hurt again. And some will topple from survival to non-existence because when the rich become less rich the poor become even poorer. That is why our firm focus must turn to Italy over the next few weeks. Prime Minister Berlusconi will visit President Obama shortly. The US has kept faith with the African poor. The President must as a matter of urgency ask precisely why the US and all of Italy's G8 partners (with the inglorious exception La France Perfide) should keep to its solemn binding word and Italy need not? Is there some special circumstance? Are they or are they not in the top rank of economies? If they are -- pay up your membership fee. If not -- get out. Let the Italian Prime Minister come up with a plan but lets see his signature on the check before we believe him again. Let us watch to see if the Italian Prime Minister understands his global responsibility. Let us see if Italy keeps faith with the world's poor. More on Silvio Berlusconi
 
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band at Bonnaroo (Slideshow) Top
Photographs by Maryelle St. Clare for the Huffington Post
 
Sasha Abramsky: Breadline USA Part Two Top
A new movie hit theaters this past weekend: Food, Inc . Want to know why so much of the food we eat is so bad for us, who benefits from industrial agriculture and who suffers, this is the movie to watch. For people concerned about what goes into their daily meals, and how they can carve out more healthy niches in era in which processed foods, and vast-scale farming seem all-triumphant, this is the ideal companion flick to Michael Pollan's book The Omnivore's Dilemma . For decades we've let industrial agriculture and its first cousin - the all-in-one supermarket -- reshape our dining habits, our snacking habits, our food shopping methods, and our spending priorities. We've gotten used to only having to spend five-to-ten percent of our income on food; we've gotten accustomed to being able to buy whatever kinds of food we want, whenever we want it, without regard for limitations imposed by weather or season. We've accepted the notion that we can grow more and more, using fertilizer-intense techniques, genetically engineered crops and so on. And, if we thought about these changes at all, we tended to assume they were all cost-free. In the last few years, however, food-poisoning and contamination scares have rocked the industry; the public has gotten uneasy about shoddy labeling and the prevalence of genetically modified foods within our food system; and books such as Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation as well as Pollan's book have educated us about the collateral damage inflicted by our current model. The Omnivore's Dilemma expresses this angst about food production systems wonderfully. But to my mind it misses half of the dilemma; it's not just about what sorts of food to put in one's body. The more basic dilemma for America's millions of working poor families, and the one that I chronicle in my book Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It , is simply how to buy enough food. In an era in which over thirty million Americans are surviving on food stamps, millions more are poor enough for food stamps but not enrolled, and millions more still are deemed not poor enough for government aid but are today surviving only on the largesse of food bank and food pantry charity, that is the central nutritional challenge that can no longer be ignored. Until that problem's tackled, inevitably people are going to seek out cheap, high-calorie foods, be they junk or fast food, genetically modified, or simply disguised, processed, corn products. And that's going to keep the downward spiral going. While researching my book and interviewing people around the country about their experiences with hunger, or what the government somewhat euphemistically terms "low food security," I spent two months living on the budget of a median-income McDonalds' worker. My intent was to get a better feel for how people toward the bottom of the economic pyramid make do food-wise, to really understand what compromises they have to make (pay for medicine, or buy food for the kids, skip a utility bill or end up on the food pantry line toward the end of the pay cycle, and so on) and what anxieties they have to cope with on a daily basis. A McDonalds' median-income worker last year was making $8.23 per hour, considerably above the federal minimum wage. In other words, that worker should have been able to survive with little difficulty. But that wasn't what I found. When basic bills are taken care of (rent for a cheap one-bedroom or studio apartment say, car payments, unavoidable medical bills), that worker ends up with only about the same to spend on food each week as someone on food stamps. If one or two things go wrong (gas prices rise sharply, a prescription has to be filled, a car tire blows out and needs to be replaced), very quickly that worker finds himself with less disposable income for food than does someone on food stamps. Not surprisingly, often-times they go for the cheapest, most filling food, which usually means either junk food or fast food. They run up credit card debts just to avoid going hungry. And, eventually, they either start skipping meals or falling back on food pantries to tide them over those last few days of the pay cycle when the fridge is bare and the next pay check is not yet due. While on my budget, I allowed myself access to a very good, and cheap, farmers' market outside town one week, and then denied myself that access the week following. When I drove out to the farmers' market, for eleven dollars and change I got enough fresh fruit and vegetables to last me a week. But that involved me a) having a car, and b) having money for gas to drive out to the market and enough time to do so. In other words, it was a food-shopping choice that few poor people in reality have. And so, the week following I tweaked my conditions, assumed I could only buy food at stores I could walk to or quickly take public transport to, and then, for the sake of argument also assumed I was living in an impoverished neighborhood without decent supermarkets. All these are conditions that generally hold for large swathes of America's poor and near-poor today. At the corner store I ended up in, the first thing I found was that there was almost no fresh produce. Instead of fresh fruit, I had to get cans; instead of fresh vegetables, again, I could either buy cans or, in the case of potatoes, an instant-mash mix. The second thing I found was that to buy the equivalent processed and canned supplies that I'd gotten fresh from the farmers' market, I had to spend nearly twenty dollars. Which brings me back to the "how to feed oneself" version of the omnivore's dilemma. Being poor in twenty first century America makes you more likely to have very little choice but to eat badly, and more likely to have to pay through the nose for the privilege of eating badly. That's a crazy, unsustainable, reality, but it's one faced by tens of millions of people around the country these days. I'm glad a slew of movies and books are shining a spotlight on all the hidden corners and crevices of our out-of-control food production system. Now let's also shine that light on poverty and the interconnected conditions that have driven so many onto breadlines and into that murky world of euphemisms politely referred to as "low food security." More on Poverty
 
Inside Ivana Trump's Townhouse: "In Each Of My Homes I Have A Leopard Room" Top
"In each of my homes I have a leopard room," says Trump, 60, relaxing with her Yorkshire Terrier, Tiger, in the sitting room of her Upper East Side townhouse. "I don't know why, but I do. It's like my lounge next to the dressing rooms."
 
Letterman Apologizes To Palin: "I Told A Joke That Was Beyond Flawed" Top
David Letterman apologized to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on Monday night's show, saying he takes "full responsibility" for a "beyond flawed" joke in which he had quipped that Palin's daughter had been "knocked up" by Yankee slugger Alex Rodriguez. Just after his monologue, Letterman sat behind his desk and apologized to Palin's two daughters, Bristol and Willow, Palin and her family and "everybody else who was outraged by the joke." Letterman continued, "I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception." Despite the apology, Palin supporters tell the Los Angeles Times that they still plan to hold a protest rally today outside the Ed Sullivan Theatre in New York City, where Letterman tapes his show. Similar to his assertion last week that he would never joke about the rape or sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl (Willow's age), Letterman insisted that he confused Willow with her 18-year-old sister Bristol, who had a child out of wedlock last year. "I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Guiliani," he said. "I should have made the joke about Rudy." Palin did several on-air interviews last week, repudiating Letterman's explanation of the jokes. Newsday reports that Letterman made the decision to apologize on his own, with no pressure from his bosses at CBS. Below is a transcript of Letterman's comments obtained by TV Week : "All right, here - I've been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week - it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don't know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There's no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can't be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They're angry at me because they said, 'How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?' And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the Governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani...And I really should have made the joke about Rudy..." (audience applauds) "But I didn't, and now people are getting angry and they're saying, 'Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who's completely innocent, minding her own business,' and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she's now at the ball game and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I'm wondering, 'Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?' I've never made jokes like this as long as we've been on the air, 30 long years, and you can't really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself. "And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer 'Newshour' - this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, 'Oh, boy, now I'm beginning to understand what the problem is here. It's the perception rather than the intent.' It doesn't make any difference what my intent was, it's the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it's not a very good joke. And I'm certainly - " (audience applause) "- thank you. Well, my responsibility - I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It's not your fault that it was misunderstood, it's my fault. That it was misunderstood." (audience applauds) "Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I'm sorry about it and I'll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much." (audience applause)
 
Geert Wilders: Israel Is No Friend Of The EU Top
Basking in the glow of his spectacular election showing in last week's European Union (EU) vote, Geert Wilders, the head of the Dutch Freedom Party, told The Jerusalem Post in an exclusive interview on Friday that the EU is "one-sided and always against Israel," adding that "nothing will happen" if Israel "depends on the Europeans" to stop Iran's genocidal threats against the Jewish state. More on Israel
 
Marjorie Cohn: Agent Orange Continues to Poison Vietnam Top
From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. military sprayed Vietnam with Agent Orange, which contained large quantities of Dioxin, in order to defoliate the trees for military objectives. Dioxin is one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man. It has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen (causes cancer) and by the American Academy of Medicine as a teratogen (causes birth defects). Between 2.5 and 4.8 million people were exposed to Agent Orange. 1.4 billion hectares of land and forest -- approximately 12 percent of the land area of Vietnam -- were sprayed. The Vietnamese who were exposed to the chemical have suffered from cancer, liver damage, pulmonary and heart diseases, defects to reproductive capacity, and skin and nervous disorders. Children and grandchildren of those exposed have severe physical deformities, mental and physical disabilities, diseases, and shortened life spans. The forests and jungles in large parts of southern Vietnam have been devastated and denuded. They may never grow back and if they do, it will take 50 to 200 years to regenerate. Animals that inhabited the forests and jungles have become extinct, disrupting the communities that depended on them. The rivers and underground water in some areas have also been contaminated. Erosion and desertification will change the environment, contributing to the warming of the planet and dislocation of crop and animal life. The U.S. government and the chemical companies knew that Agent Orange, when produced rapidly at high temperatures, would contain large quantities of Dioxin. Nevertheless, the chemical companies continued to produce it in this manner. The U.S. government and the chemical companies also knew that the Bionetics Study, commissioned by the government in 1963, showed that even low levels of Dioxin produced significant deformities in unborn offspring of laboratory animals. But they suppressed that study and continued to spray Vietnam with Agent Orange. It wasn't until the study was leaked in 1969 that the spraying of Agent Orange was discontinued. U.S. soldiers who served in Vietnam have experienced similar illnesses. After they sued the chemical companies, including Dow and Monsanto, that manufactured and sold Agent Orange to the government, the case settled out of court for $180 million which gave few plaintiffs more than a few thousand dollars each. Later, the U.S. veterans won a legislative victory for compensation for exposure to Agent Orange. They receive $1.52 billion per year in benefits. But when the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange sued the chemical companies in federal court, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that Agent Orange did not constitute a poison weapon prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1907. Weinstein had reportedly told the chemical companies when they settled the U.S. veterans' suit that their liability was over and he was making good on his promise. His dismissal was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The chemical companies admitted in their filing in the Supreme Court that the harm alleged by the victims was foreseeable although not intended. How can something that is foreseeable be unintended? On May 15 and 16 of this year, the International Peoples' Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange convened in Paris and heard testimony from 27 victims, witnesses and scientific experts. Seven people from three continents served as judges of the Tribunal, which was sponsored by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL). Testimony given by the witnesses showed the following: Mai Giang Vu, a member of the Army of South Vietnam, carried barrels of the chemicals on his back. His two sons could not walk or function normally, their limbs gradually "curled up" and they could only crawl. They died at the ages of 23 and 25. Pham The Minh, whose parents also served in the South Vietnamese Army, showed the Tribunal his severely deformed, crooked, skinny legs; he has great difficulty walking, as well as digestive and pulmonary diseases. To Nga Tran is a French Vietnamese who worked as a journalist during the spraying. Her daughter weighed 6.6 pounds at the age of three months. Her skin began shredding and she could not bear to have skin contact or simple demonstrations of love. She died at 17 months, weighing 6.6 pounds. Ms. To described a woman who gave birth to a "ball" with no human form. Many children are born without brains; others make inhuman sounds. Rosemarie Hohn Mizo is the widow of George Mizo, who served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam in 1967. He slept on contaminated ground and consumed food and drink that were also contaminated. George refused to serve after he was wounded for the third time; he was court-martialed and sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge. George helped found the Friendship Village where Vietnamese victims live in a supportive environment. He died from conditions related to his exposure to Agent Orange. Georges Doussin, co-founder of the Friendship Village, visited a dormitory where he saw 50 highly deformed "monsters," who produced inhuman sounds. One man whose parent had been exposed to Agent Orange had four toes on each foot. Doussin said Agent Orange creates "total anarchy in evolution." Dr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong, from Tu Du Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), sees many children born without arms and/or legs, without heads or faces, and without a brain chamber. According to the World Health Organization, only 1 - 4 parts per trillion (PPT) of Dioxin in breast milk can cause severe deformities in fetuses and even death. But up to 1450 PPT are found in maternal milk in Vietnam. Dr. Jeanne Stellman, who wrote the seminal article about Agent Orange in the magazine Nature, testified that "this is the largest unstudied environmental disaster in the world (except for natural disasters)." Dr. Jean Grassman, from Brooklyn College at City University of New York, testified that Dioxin is a potent cellular disregulator which alters a variety of pathways to disrupt many systems. Children, she said, are very sensitive to Dioxin; the intrauterine or post natal exposure to Dioxin may result in altered immune, neurobehavioral, and hormonal functioning. Women pass their exposure to their children both in utero and through the excretion of Dioxin in breast milk. Many ecosystems have been destroyed and Dioxin continues to poison Vietnam, especially in the several "hot spots." Chemist Dr. Pierre Vermeulin testified that it was estimated that $1 billion would be required to restore one hectare of land in Vietnam. The cost of caring for the victims, many of whom need 24-hour care, is enormous. In 1973, President Richard Nixon promised $3.25 billion in reconstruction aid to Vietnam "without any preconditions." That aid was never granted. There are only 11 Friendship Villages in Vietnam; 1000 are needed to care for the child victims of Agent Orange. Last week, the Bureau of the IADL, meeting in Hanoi, presented President Nguyen Minh Triet of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam with the final decision of the Tribunal. The judges found the U.S. government and the chemical companies guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ecocide during the illegal U.S. war of aggression in Vietnam. We recommended that the Agent Orange Commission be established in Vietnam to assess the damages suffered by the people and destruction of the environment, and that the U.S. government and the chemical companies provide compensation for the damage and destruction. I told the President that it always struck me that even as U.S. bombs were dropping on the people of Vietnam, they always distinguished between the American government and the American people. The President responded, "We fought the forces of aggression but we always reserved our love for the people of America . . . because we knew they always supported us." An estimated 3 million Vietnamese people were killed in the war, which also claimed 58,000 American lives. For many other Vietnamese and U.S. veterans and their families, the war continues to take its toll. Several treaties the United States has ratified require an effective remedy for violations of human rights. It is time to make good on Nixon's promise and remedy the terrible wrong the U.S. government perpetrated on the people of Vietnam. Congress must pass legislation to compensate the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange as it did for the U.S. Vietnam veteran victims. Our government must know that it cannot continue to use weapons that target and harm civilians. Indeed, the U.S. military is using depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will poison those countries for incalculable decades. Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild, served as a judge on the International Peoples' Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange. She is a member of the Bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. More on Vietnam
 
MSNBC Upset Uighurs Enjoying Themselves After Gitmo Release (VIDEO) Top
You know, I've wracked my memory and have largely been able to come up with one significant example of MSNBC's dayside coverage devoting any real depth of discussion to the saga of the Uighurs -- those seventeen Chinese Muslims who have been imprisoned at GITMO despite having done nothing wrong -- besides maybe the typical talking head battles over the politics of the matter. Yes, these men had found themselves in a Kafkaesque plight -- cleared of wrongdoing, but with no welcome haven other than prison -- but even so, LET'S GET SERIOUS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY! Well, finally, the island nations of Palau and Bermuda have agreed to take the Uighurs off of our hands (What's with terrorist suspects and islands ? Does the NSA think they cannot travel over water, like ghosts in Noel Coward plays?), and suddenly, MSNBC's on-air talent have all sorts of pointed opinions about the matter! Tamron Hall set up a segment on the Uighurs like so: HALL: But first from Gitmo to Bermuda, should former detainees, the ones you're looking at there, be living what seems to be a pretty good life on one of the most beautiful islands some say in the world? What? Are we seriously asking these questions now? They are former detainees, right? Are we begrudging people who are no longer detainees the chance to live "pretty good lives" on "beautiful islands," now? The segment that followed also bizarre, with Hall asking some strange questions about why the images of the newly released Uighurs enjoying themselves in Bermuda weren't "controlled better, even if they have the rights to start their lives anew?" Well, why weren't there adequate controls to ensure that their previous life was not interrupted? Hall goes on to worry about the jobs that these four Uighurs will take away from four people from Bermuda. Really? Is that a pressing consideration? I don't understand the newsgathering priorities here! [WATCH] Earlier in the afternoon, Andrea Mitchell, while speaking with Jane Harman, seemed to be similarly confused by the whole concept of people no longer being in jail: MITCHELL: Let me talk about Guantanamo: you raised the point about the murky legal situation, one upshot of that is that we've got four Uighurs who are Muslim minority from China who are now basically getting ice cream and lolling about on the white sand beaches of Bermuda. It's sort of incongruous! To see these four men in their polo shirts, from Guantanamo, eating ice cream in Bermuda...I mean, look at that picture! I'm not sure you can see it, but one of the Uighurs is swimming in the ocean. The first time, we're told, that they had ever been to the ocean. Is this a good outcome? I mean, LOOK AT THOSE GUYS IN THEIR POLO SHIRTS! SWIMMING? GETTING ICE CREAM? How can they straight up loll around on the sand like that? Can anyone explain this? Hey, you know what else is "sort of incongruous?" A detainee policy that in no way, shape, or form resembles the principles enshrined in the Constitution of the United States! [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Video
 
Dennis Ross To Move To NSC: U.S. Officials Top
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's pointman on Iran is moving from the State Department to the White House to better coordinate inter-agency policy on the Persian Gulf region, U.S. officials said Monday. Dennis Ross, who is in charge of formulating President Barack Obama's outreach to Iran as special adviser for the Gulf and Southwest Asia, will take a similar position at the National Security Council, the officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the switch have not yet been finalized. The White House and State Department declined to comment on the matter but denied an Israeli newspaper report that Ross was being removed from his job. Ross worked on the Middle East peace process for the administrations of former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. More on Israel
 
Davyde Wachell: Khaste Nabahsheen (Don't Be Tired) Top
Filmmaking with the Youth of Tehran in the Lead-Up to the Election We are screaming down Islamic Republic Boulevard at three in the morning in Ismael's car. We have just come from Shabdul Azim Mosque and he is happy to be showing North Americans his beloved Tehran. His sullen friend Reza tells me how difficult the government is in Iran, but Ismael wants to give a different perspective. He asks if we like Persian music. "Hatman," we say, "of course." He cranks up the radio as we zip past towering murals of mullahs and martyrs. Suddenly, he stops the car at the intersection of Valiasr and Jomhuri. He gets out, and begins to dance around. Two weeks later Tehran's youth would jubilantly parade through the same interscection in support of the "Green Wave." We came to Tehran with the hopes of making a film in two months. We had nothing: no contacts, no money, just a few family friends. After a desperate few weeks, we met Khani, our line producer, who not only helped us complete the film but introduced us to many young, spirited Tehranis. In the moments of work and laughter with them it felt like Iran was a free country. In our first days of casting we met a 75-year-old dervish who asked incredulously, "Why have you come here to make a film? Imagination is illegal, creativity is illegal, life here is illegal." We didn't have an answer. Instead we relied on the enthusiasm of Khani's crew who were glad to see a film being made about their country which didn't portray them as political fetish objects, or third world ragamuffins. Our crew consisted of people from all over the town; North and South, secular and religious. Khani prayed five times a day, but being a Western philosophy major he was eager to discuss Foucault and Heidegger. Mohamad played in a rock band, and Cyrus was an up and coming director who focused on female protagonists. Our pre-conceptions were constantly being shattered by their complexity and we were consistently humbled by their kindness. Our first morning on set, we sat cross legged around a stack of Barbari bread and some fresh Panir cheese. The camera assistant mentioned the upcoming election. Everyone began to speak in a hushed voice. Kaveh and Mohamad said they won't be voting because they think it will be business as usual in the Islamic Republic. Cyrus and Ali argued passionately that if there is enough people who vote there could be change. Everybody was checking over their shoulder suspiciously to see if we were being watched, even though we were safe within the walls of a closed estate. Later that evening we are working at our friend Rostam's. He tells us we should take a break. We sit down for a cup of tea and eat goje sabz (sour green plums). Rostam is studying for his masters in psychology. He asks if we are familiar with the classic psychological defense mechanisms. We say yes. He asks us to name a few. We rattle them off: denial, rationalization, identification and repression. "We know all about them here," he says with a pitch black grin, "my particular mechanism is rationalization, although repression is very popular." We laugh as he looks out the window towards the city. His smile quickly fades and he says, "I hope one day I can help everyday people as a therapist, they sure need it." On the last day of the shoot we stare at Leyla in the make-up mirror. We are negotiating how much hair and neck she can show in our film. We pull the headscarf back, and she pulls it the other way. Then she insists that she has to wear a turtle neck. Sara says, "But this scene is set in summer time. Leyla replies, "you don't wanna risk it. Sara, honey, you are finally getting a taste of how Bad-Bakt (unlucky) we are in this society." Leyla will later tell us that she was pulled out of the film business by her father, who made her stay at home because he didn't think the arts were a fitting profession. She tells us she hopes she can see the finished film in Tehran one day. After the film is done, Khani, our line-producer, drives up the winding roads of North Tehran past mansions with beautiful hidden gardens. He says without a trace of resentment, "The film is done, and you'll soon go back to America. We'll just be a memory. Enjoy the freedom you have. Just forget about us here because we don't stand a chance". We wanted to eat his despair. Sara said, "No, it will change, it can't stay like this forever." Khani replied without thinking, still looking forward, "It will never change." We continue on to a lookout point at the top of a mountain. We step out and look over the beautiful and weeping Tehran skyline. Although he says nothing, we know he is proud of his city and proud to be Iranian. This morning we woke to images of familiar streets filled with familiar youth refusing to accept their government's blithe denial of their will. Something had happened since we left. The Cyrusess had convinced the Kavehs that voting mattered, and that change in Iran was possible. Through text messages, social networks and word of mouth the young people of Iran decided they were deserving of the dignity of an elected government. To our young friends in Iran: the world has seen your courage and stamina in your struggle for freedom. To Khani, we want you to know that we will not forget about you, and you've proven today that you do stand a chance. Khaste Nabahsheen (don't be tired). More on Iran
 
Megan Fox In London: Backless Wonder (PHOTOS) Top
Megan Fox continues to dazzle as she's globetrotting around the world for the "Transformers" sequel. Monday in London Fox wore a floor-length black gown cut low and laced up the back. Despite the back it was more conservative than her premiere ensemble Sunday in Paris , a crimson dress slit up the leg with a side cutout and no bra. She's also livened up the premieres in Korea and Japan . PHOTOS: Having her hair tended to before the red carpet: Follow HuffPo Entertainment On Twitter! More on Celebrity Skin
 
Obama Booed By Some Doctors At AMA Speech Top
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama isn't used to hearing boos. For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system. The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority _ limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases. But what could they expect? If Obama announced support for malpractice limits, that would set trial lawyers and unions _ major supporters of Democratic candidates _ on the attack. Not to mention consumer groups. Every other group in the health care debate has a wish list and a top priority. Insurers don't want competition from the government. Employers don't want to be told they have to offer medical coverage to their workers. Hospitals want to stave off Medicare cuts. Drug companies want to charge what the market will bear. Obama can't give all of them what they want. Instead, he's got to figure what's just enough to keep as many groups as possible on board _ without alienating others. It's a fine line for him _ and sometimes for them. "It's a coalition issue," said Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, an expert on public opinion and the politics of health care. "No major group is able by itself to sink health reform. But if numbers of them come together for different reasons, it could really hurt the direction the president wants to go in." The doctors were only Obama's first house call. He'll be making his case to the other groups _ and to the nation at large _ in an increasingly energetic campaign to get a bill passed by the end of his first year in office. AMA insiders shouldn't have been surprised by Obama's upfront refusal to consider malpractice caps. The group couldn't get that idea passed by a Republican Congress and president a few years ago. Some states have such curbs, but anyone who can count votes knows the chances for national limits are slim to none with Democrats in charge of Congress. Instead, Obama left the door open to some kind of compromise on malpractice. The president said he's willing to explore alternatives to taking doctors to court. In the past, he supported special programs in which hospitals and doctors are encouraged to admit mistakes, correct them and offer compensation. Studies have shown the approach can work, because doctors' refusal to acknowledge mistakes is one reason many families file suit. Doctors have special reasons to be wary of the president's plans to overhaul the health care system. Not long ago, doctors' decisions were rarely questioned. Now they are being blamed for a big part of the wasteful spending in the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system. Studies have shown that as much as 30 cents of the U.S. health care dollar may be going for tests and procedures that are of little or no value to patients. The Obama administration has cited such findings as evidence that the system is broken. Since doctors are the ones responsible for ordering tests and procedures, health care costs cannot be brought under control unless they change their decision-making habits. "Change is scary," said Dartmouth University's Dr. Elliott Fisher, a doctor turned costs researcher. "I think there is a fear of loss of autonomy, that someone is going to tell you what to do." Fisher collaborated on research that showed wild differences in health care spending around the country _ and no signs of better health in the high-cost areas. But Obama did not blame the doctors. Instead, he tried to woo them, much as he has done with recalcitrant foreign leaders. "It's the equivalent of international diplomacy. He's got to make them feel like it's possible to have dialogue about what the future looks like," said Blendon. "I think he's starting out with the AMA, but before the summer's over he's going to reach out to a lot of the other groups." Obama assured the doctors that his plan would provide them with objective information on what treatments work best, with new computerized tools to better manage their patient case loads, and with support for harried solo practitioners to form networks. He promised that Washington would not dictate clinical decisions. And he asked the doctors to imagine a world in which nearly every patient has insurance coverage and they can devote their full attention to the practice of medicine. "You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers," Obama said. "You entered this profession to be healers _ and that's what our health care system should let you be." That line got him an ovation. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE _ Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar reports on health care policy for The Associated Press.
 
Usher's Estranged Wife Bites Back: Was 'Faithful And Loving' During Marriage Top
ATLANTA — A lawyer who's opposed rapper T.I. and boxer Evander Holyfield in child-support cases is representing R&B singer Usher's wife in their split. Usher filed for divorce on Friday from Tameka Foster Raymond after less than two years of marriage. The singer whose real name is Usher Raymond IV has two sons with Foster Raymond. Sports and entertainment family lawyer Randy Kessler said Monday his 38-year-old was a "faithful wife and loving mother." He declined to comment on the singer's conduct during the marriage. The singer wed his former stylist in a glitzy ceremony in August 2007. Kessler also represented rapper Mack 10 in his divorce from R&B singer T-Boz of TLC.
 
Craig Dubow, Gannett CEO, Taking Temporary Medical Leave Top
McLEAN, Va. — Craig Dubow, the CEO of the largest U.S. newspaper publisher, is taking a temporary medical leave of absence, Gannett Co. said Monday. Gannett, which publishes USA Today, said Dubow is taking time off following back surgery. Dubow, 54, also serves as the company's chairman and president. Gracia C. Martore, executive vice president and chief financial officer, will serve as the company's principal executive officer until Dubow is able to return to work, Gannett said. In a memo to staff, Dubow said his surgery Monday was successful. "This was major surgery, with all its potential for complications, but it is not rare," he wrote. "I have a great medical team and I hope to make a full recovery. My doctors have predicted I will need about a 4-month leave, but the exact length is unknown at this time. The company's shares fell 12 cents, or 2.8 percent, to close at $4.10.
 

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