Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com


Carol Felsenthal: Obama Girls' Godmother Among Members Of Prestigious White House Commission Top
As Lynn Sweet Sun-Times blog , the list is out of the 28 members of the President's Commission on White House Fellows is out. Among the Chicago names are Facing History guru Judy Wise, the founder of the group's Chicago office, formerly its executive director, an early supporter of Barack Obama, and a member of his National Finance Committee (and a close friend of mine) and Bryan Traubert, an ophthalmologist, member of many nonprofit boards, and husband of Obama campaign finance chairman Penny Pritzker. Another Chicago name on the list, Eleanor Kaye Wilson, caught my eye. When I was writing a profile of Michelle for Chicago magazine , I tried but failed to land an interview with Ms. Wilson, known affectionately by the Obamas as "Mama Kaye." Ms. Kaye's bio on the White House press release describes her as an educator whose work has included stints at DePaul University's School for New Learning and at the Chicago City Colleges system, "where she developed ... a welfare-to-work education and training program for General Assistance participants." Ms. Wilson, who lives in Olympia Fields, is the Obama girls' godmother as well as a friend and contemporary of Michelle's mother, Marian Robinson. Yvonne Davila, a friend of Michelle's since their days working in City Hall, told me that when Michelle and Barack were on the campaign trail, the Obama girls would often stay with with Mama Kaye, whom she describes as "the Martha Stewart of our group. ... She does foods that are amazing. She also does arts and crafts and it's such a great [treat] for our kids to go over there." I posted earlier about Cindy Moelis , another Chicago name--one of Michelle's closest Chicago girlfriends since their days together working for Mayor Richard M. Daley--whom Obama previously named as director of the Fellows program. She and her husband, Bob, named counsel to the transportation department, are in the midst of moving their family from Chicago to Washington. The commission is loaded with big names: former Senator Tom Daschle, slated to be HHS secretary and health czar but forced to drop out over a controversy involving unpaid taxes, Maya Soetoro-Ng, the President's half sister, Tom Brokaw, Vartan Gregorian, a former president of Brown University, Ruth J. Simmons, the current president of Brown University, and Laurence Tribe, an influential professor at Harvard Law School. More on Barack Obama
 
Judith Blau: Exceptionalism is Wearing Thin Top
In an article published in the Chicago Journal of International Law http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/157-un/26883.html , Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, writes: "Washington pretends to join the international human rights system, but it refuses to permit this system to improve the rights of US citizens" He explains that when the US occasionally does ratify a treaty, it adds that the treaty is not-self-executing without special legislation, and then Justice Department lawyers state that US law already protects Americans and special legislation is therefore unnecessary. Treaties are posted on the page of the Human Rights Council . First to note, there are only 15 "core" human rights treaties that are in force. In the case of 7, the US has neither ratified nor signed them. In the case of 3, the US has signed, without ratifying, them. These include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In the case of 5, the US has ratified them, but declared them to be "not-self-executing." These include the Convention against Torture (CAT) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). . This arrogance fuels distrust and apprehension around the world. Recently the Obama Administration further antagonized the international human rights community when it decided to sit out the World Conference against Racism, held in April 2009. Earlier, in April 2007, a US delegation presented a self-serving, self-congratulatory report to the CERD review committee .Many US human rights organizations challenged the US report, and the Human Rights Network facilitated the preparation of 28 Shadow Reports , which included critical reports on forms of structural racism in the US. Famously, John Adams stated that the US is not a nation of human beings ("men"), but a nation of laws, and the Framers further insisted that the US Constitution is the established, superior law of the land, and therefore that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret it, more or less shielded from popular opinion and changing circumstances. This presumes that Americans have all the rights they could possibly want or use, and these are spelled out as civil & political rights in the Constitution. This brings us full circle. An explanation for why the US Congress never ratifies human rights treaties is identical to the reason for why it never amends the Constitution to include human rights. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed in 1948, human rights made their dramatic appearance on the world stage beginning in the 1980s. . Many countries wrote or revised their constitutions to include, for example, language rights (e.g., South Africa), women's rights (most constitutions), cultural rights (e.g., Poland), health care (e.g., Finland), the right to work (e.g., Denmark); protection of domestic workers (e.g., Brazil); and rights of indigenous people (e.g., Paraguay). Critics say that since no country strictly adheres to its constitutionally-mandated human rights provisions there is no point in adopting them. That misses the point. Such provisions embody principles, are broad agreements that include government as well as citizens and businesses; set constrains on government and economic elites; and engender processes that enliven and engage civil society, The same can be said for human rights treaties. Most countries have ratified a majority of them, except for very recent ones (such as the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). The one for which there is near consensus is the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Only two countries have not ratified it - the United States and Somalia. While Somalia might be given some slack for lack of a stable government, there is no excuse that the US has not joined the 191 countries that have ratified it. In the last few years Americans have initiated many national discussions that center on human rights, such as a living wage, universal health care, food security, and the rights of gays and lesbians. Therefore, its time to link these discussions to human rights treaties and to the US Constitution. Thomas Paine would surely approve. So would Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who in 1944 proposed an economic bill of right s, and so would Martin Luther King, Jr. who in 1967 linked the civil rights campaign with a campaign for economic rights, and human rights, generally. And, so would Eleanor Roosevelt, who played a leading role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 
Pamela Gerloff: What If Released Inmates Stopped Committing Crimes?: Prison Reform that's Already Working--Like Nothing You've Seen Before Top
Last week, Senator Jim Webb posted a column discussing the need to reform our criminal justice system . To help Senator Webb find a bipartisan solution to fixing our broken system, I'd like to suggest a relatively simple, practical, and actually cost-saving way to begin: Start by changing our lock-up facilities into places that actually cause inmates to change their behavior--so that when they leave them they never go back. Instead, they become positively-functioning members of their local communities. Sound impossible? Well, what if I told you it's already happening? And it's been happening in some communities for the past decade. What if you knew that there is a tried, researched, and proven solution to inmate recidivism? (the rate at which inmates return to incarceration facilities once they've been released) What if you knew that this solution is easily replicated in any jail or prison, while also customized for each facility? What if you knew that it dramatically reduces costs; improves public safety; makes life easier, safer, and far less stressful for correctional officers and staff; and has been shown to reduce inmate recidivism rates from above 50% to around 5%. (Yes, you read that correctly. That's about 5 out of a hundred released inmates repeating crimes and returning to jail vs. the more than 50 out of a hundred that usually repeat the cycle.) What if you knew that this correctional solution, when implemented, has reduced inmate violence in jail to zero incidents? (Yes, zero.) What if you knew that this solution makes sense to conservatives and liberals alike--because it positively affects everyone, including police and other law enforcement agencies, corrections staff, inmates and their families, local communities, society at large, and government and administrative budgets? What if you knew all that? Would you take a few minutes out of your life to check it out on the Internet, and then pass on the info to others for possible implementation in their community? Or to legislators who have the power to make a difference for the public safety and well being of the nation? Here's what the solution is: It's called the Community Model in Corrections and it's based on the concept of dignity--dignity for all, including correctional officers, administrators, other staff, and inmates. The Community Model ( www.communitymodel.org ) is the brainchild of Morgan Moss and Penny Patton of the Center for Therapeutic Justice. It aims to help inmates change themselves by changing the culture of incarceration to one of respect and dignity for everyone. The model's remarkable success is due, in large part, to the fact that it works entirely within the existing structure of correctional institutions. It supports existing institutional rules and regulations, so it actually makes corrections officials' jobs easier, not harder. It is not only a first-rate inmate rehabilitation program but also an effective facility management system. In the Community Model, inmates volunteer to participate, which means they choose to live as a community with other inmate volunteers in a designated section of the jail. Together, they take responsibility for managing their unit, maintaining high security standards, developing themselves emotionally and psychologically, changing inappropriate behavior, and becoming able to function responsibly and appropriately within a community. Eighty-five percent of inmates are eligible for the program. In facilities where the program is currently operative, there is a waiting list to participate. Dr. Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus at Stanford University, creator of the now-classic Stanford Prison Experiment , and author of The Lucifer Effect, in 1971 made a horrifying discovery. He conducted a psychological experiment in which college students were placed in the roles of prison guards and inmates. The experiment, planned to last two weeks, was halted after only six days because participant behavior quickly grew dysfunctional and abusive. The research revealed that the culture of prison exerts an effect so powerful that it can dramatically alter the behavior of otherwise normally functioning individuals. We can conclude that a primary reason the Community Model works so well is that it changes the culture of incarceration, through its model of self-governance within a context of mutual respect and dignity, into a culture that exerts a positive influence on all involved. Dr. Zimbardo observes: "Of all the programs designed to enable prisoners to gain dignity and a sense of purpose while incarcerated, and prepare them to become effectively functioning citizens when released so that they are not recidivists, I know of none that do these jobs better than the Community Model in Corrections developed by the Center for Therapeutic Justice. It should be a central part of every correctional institution." So...if you knew about a cost-saving, easy-to-implement program that could provide practical, fast, and powerful prison reform, the likes of which we've never even dared to imagine, what do you suppose you would do? Would you ask your senators and congressional representatives to watch a 5- or 20-minute video about it? How about your local sheriff, county jail administrator, or newspaper? Would you post a link to the videos on your Facebook page? Would you twitter a bit to your friends? Let's do it, folks--because we have nothing to lose; and by reducing repeat crime, we have a whole lot to gain. Watch the 5-minute video here : Watch the 20-minute version here . Watch both! www.communitymodel.org Pamela Gerloff is co-author, with Robert W. Fuller, of Dignity for All: How to Create a World without Rankism (Berrett-Koehler Publishing, 2008). She can be reached at gerloff@dignityforall.org . More on Crime
 
Bill Sweetland: Education in Chicago: Wringing The Passion Out Of Higher Learning Top
Two weeks ago, in the June 2 issue of the Chicago Tribune , Barbara Brotman had some excellent things to say about parental gratitude towards superior teachers of their children. In her essay, Brotman told us that this is the time of year to thank your child's teacher, formally, in a letter. Brotman re-states many neglected truths. One is that an extraordinary teacher is just that: rare, very likely un-appreciated, and, I would add, certainly overworked and underpaid. The second truth: The born teacher can change the lives of some students. Third truth: the great teacher is a performance artist, an astute psychologist and, yes, a disciplinarian who expects and gets the best from all her pupils. As good as her essay is, she goes astray occasionally. She writes, "When it comes to relationships with teachers, it [elementary, middle, and high school] is a time like no other. Your children will have teachers in college. But at that point, students' minds are more formed and the interactions less intense." Brotman could hardly be more mistaken. The force, the intensity of a sudden and unexpected intellectual passion in college must be experienced to be believed. It overwhelms like a natural catastrophe. I went through this ordeal, and I can tell you that the callow hypocrite and brown-noser I played to perfection through high school would have been incapable of feeling anything remotely like the emotions that possessed me when my intellectual hero at the University of Oregon departed for his native Ireland at the end of my junior year. A true intellectual passion for a subject, or an intense feeling of love, admiration and reverence for the teacher of it, is as rare as passion-love between two people. Perhaps rarer. And Brotman is also wildly wrong that intellectual passions are more common in elementary, middle school and high school than in college. In fact, she's got it backwards. In the lower schools, to stimulate a real intellectual fever-fit, you need the very thing you don't have, namely, a lengthy preliminary intellectual training and some adult experience of life. The only thing that will produce intellectual passion in high school is a long, intense schooling in a true intellectual discipline. But this is the very thing that American high schools lack. We pick and shop among Great Books . In high school, we "redact," we excerpt, we read academic essays or "studies" about the classic work, we read two or three of Shakespeare's thirty-odd plays, one or two of Emerson's essays, half a dozen of Emily Dickinson's short poems. It's shopping lite, in a stultifying confusion of "curricula." Yes, Brotman has discovered the fact that college no longer provokes these mysterious awakenings of mind and spirit. But her idea that such epiphanies belong to childhood or adolescence rather than first maturity is simply nonsense. I grant Brotman that the anticipation and drama of going away to college has disappeared. When I went to the University of Oregon in the fall of l962, I was excited, agitated, apprehensive. I was going into the great world for the first time. I was going to be addressed by refined, mysterious, magisterial, demanding adult minds as "Mr. Sweetland"! Could this actually be happening? Nowadays the blase 18-year-old matriculant is already conferring with an advisor about his or her study-abroad year in Istanbul by the end of fall quarter in the freshman year. We resort to these pathetic stop-gaps to keep up a simulacrum of interest in the whole tedious processing and churning out of undergraduates. Here is the unacknowledged truth of undergraduate life in 2009: Everyone, students included, feels alienated and bored by what we have made our universities. College no longer supplies the Great Intellectual Adventure. Sixty years of half-hearted, reluctant teaching carried out as an onerous duty by research-besotted specialist professors have killed the very idea of the college. We no longer go away to college to be shocked and swept off our feet, in Daniel Boorstin 's superb phrase, "by wonders undreamt of."
 
Las Vegas Review-Journal Ordered To Identify Web Commenters Top
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A Las Vegas newspaper says it has been served a federal grand jury subpoena seeking information about readers who posted comments on the paper's Web site. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Tuesday that its editor, Thomas Mitchell, plans to fight the request, which the newspaper received after reporting on a federal tax fraud case against business owner Robert Kahre. The subpoena seeks the identities and personal information about people who posted comments on the story. The newspaper said prosecutors told the judge in the case that some comments hinted at acts of violence and the subpoena was issued out of concern for jurors' safety. Mitchell said anonymous speech is "a fundamental and historic part of this country." The newspaper would consider cooperating if specific crimes or real threats were presented, he said. The newspaper said the subpoena bears the name of U.S. Assistant District Attorney J. Gregory Damm, a lawyer on the Justice Department team that is prosecuting Kahre and others on charges including income tax evasion, fraud and criminal conspiracy. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and the subpoena is not a public record. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney for Nevada declined to comment. The newspaper said it received the subpoena June 2, a week after its story describing the government's case against Kahre, a Las Vegas construction company executive accused of paying contractors with gold and silver U.S. coins based on the precious metal value of the coins but using the much lower face value of the coins for tax purposes. Kahre and the other defendants have pleaded not guilty. The story drew nearly 175 online comments by Monday night, most in support of Kahre and critical of the government and jurors and attorneys in the case. One commentator said: "The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him. They should be hung along with the feds." Another called Damm a "socialist, fascist Mormon" and a "Nazi moron." The comments are written under pseudonyms. Along with the real names of people who posted comments, the subpoena asks the newspaper for the writers' gender, birth date, physical address, telephone number, Internet service provider, IP address and credit card numbers. After a 2003 raid on Kahre's business, Kahre and several of his workers sued Damm, two Internal Revenue Service agents and others who were involved. That civil matter is pending. In 2007, Kahre sued Damm and agents of the FBI and IRS, alleging criminal behavior. U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra dismissed the complaint in December, and Kahre appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Two years ago, Damm prosecuted a similar tax case against nine defendants, including Kahre. The trial ended with no convictions and four acquittals. Five defendants were partially acquitted, and two of them were dropped from the indictment that generated the current case.
 
Newsweek: Will Housing Prices Ever Recover? Top
The financial media are desperate to find good news in the troubled finance and housing sectors, the very industries that got us into this mess. This quest for green shoots is frequently comical. Today, the Wall Street Journalfeatured a piece about new jobs in the financial services industry. Why, JPMorgan hired 950 new loan counselors, and a former Morgan Stanley guy found a job with an asset-management company! But given that financial services firms have shed 600,000 jobs since December 2006, that hardly seems like a triumph. More on Personal Finance
 
Steven Weber: A Nanny State of Mind Top
While liberals may rightly bristle at a cranky, diaper-wearing right-winger who wails about a "nanny state" whenever health care, social security, food stamps, welfare or affirmative action come up (or really anything involving so-called progressive social programs, i.e., "big government") those liberal, progressive minds which of late have been chastising President Obama for what they see as a lead-footed response to certain issues are being the thumb-sucking brats their attackers accuse them of being. Their expectations for this president far exceed the reality of a person, even one as capable as Obama, to govern expediently. In the growing chorus of left-wing Obama critics who feel the president is not doing enough, along with many Americans who were, in some cases, only supporters of Obama once Hillary had dropped out of contention and who decry the president's sketchy support on the issue of gay marriage, his enlistment of the very individuals who were complicit in the economic meltdown and who he now entrusts to fix it, the waffling on Guantanamo (to name a few of the more glaring items), there is an expectation for him to fix what was so obviously, so callously broken right away; to keep the promises he made, posthaste. But while the "critirati" (catchy, huh?) who ride Obama, now that the coital post-election glow has faded, are rightful to keep his feet to the fire after years of being marginalized by neocons and wingnuts, they are laboring under the delusion that the promised change is an easy one to achieve, as easy to fix as it was to ruin. In truth, change on the required, massive scale requires nothing short of an actual, total revolution. Not merely an implied revolt vis-á-vis electing a dynamic activist president of color and background and intelligence, whose abilities stand in stark contrast to, in some cases, his woefully inadequate predecessors; nor obviously a violent "take to the streets!!" revolution with rakes and pitchforks. Rather, a revolutionary approach to how this county is run and who runs it. We're talking a civil revolution. In the current manner our country is managed, for Obama to keep his promises he would have to employ socio-political alchemy, turning our rusty, corrupt, antiquated system into a shiny, efficient, people-friendly machine. But alchemy is the stuff of lore. The reality is that Obama is the first in a succession of leaders who must begin a governmental renovation, supported by the nation's citizens who uniformly reject the old, broken-down, corrupt formula. Things are evolving and will continue to do so. But evolution is slow and to attack the main agent of change himself is self-defeating to the point of handing control back to the ones who created chaos in the first place. It cannot be achieved by one leader. It has to be achieved in concert with those he leads. There is little question that Obama has accomplished or at the very least genuinely sought to accomplish more in his first six months in office than most presidents do in their entire terms, certainly compared to his many inferior forerunners. And while some of his liberal critics may roll their eyes at the "he inherited the enormous mess made by Bush" argument, having heard it all before, to discount that salient fact merely because of the boredom of enduring the sluggish-at-best legislative process is nothing less than childish impatience bordering on ignorance. What is glaringly evident, despite his positive performance, is the terminally entrenched system of corporate controlled government, gummed up and bogged down by an impenetrable web of promises, threats, swaps, obfuscation, deals and behavior which is otherwise described more simply as "Washington". Anyone participating in that morass must game the system to survive. Hell, game the people. That's the way it's gone and that's the way it goes. But it is changing. Our material obsessed culture has all but removed the concept of patience and reflection from the equation. Immediate results are not possible in all situations. The business of national socio-political change will take much time. But dreamers, even liberal ones, need to wake up. We finally have a leader who is able to fulfill the promise of this country and the promises of freedom and liberty to its citizens. It starts with raising national awareness and starting national dialogues. Both are in motion. Next is action. But to assume that Obama and a few others will instantly right all the wrongs which have plagued this nation for decades is the same as assuming daddy will fix everything while baby wails. For change to occur, people have to give nanny a hand. And grow up.
 
Chris Weigant: Gays To Obama: "If Not Now, When?" Top
My first choice of a headline for today's column was "Obama's Gay Honeymoon Over," but then I thought better of it. President Obama is currently trying to placate a group of supporters who are not in a mood to be impressed right now with mere incrementalism. Gay rights supporters, quite rightly, are now asking Obama point-blank: "When are you going to make good on all those promises you made to us on the campaign trail? How long are we supposed to wait?" Barack Obama, while campaigning, made some pretty concrete promises to this group. Lane Hudson of the Huffington Post digs out Obama's own words to gay rights activists, which show how specific Obama was in saying what he would do. Obama was for repealing the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in the military, and (in his own words) promised to: "use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." That was then. This is now, and some gay rights leaders are expressing their anger that Obama has done virtually none of that, and that Obama is even moving backwards on some of their issues (like using offensive language to defend DOMA in court). This is on top of a mixed bag of symbolic outreach both to gay rights groups (for photo-ops, such as including a gay group in the Inaugural Parade, or the White House Easter Egg Roll) and those against gay rights (Rick Warren speaking at the Inauguration itself). But all of a sudden, not just a photo-op, but an actual fundraiser is in jeopardy. The Democratic National Committee scheduled a fundraiser (during Gay Pride Month) for next week. And after the latest disappointment from Obama (the brief filed in the DOMA case), people are apparently deciding that now isn't really the time they feel like writing checks for the party cause. Because of this impending snub, President Obama decided it was time to act. So today he rolled out a very lukewarm expansion of benefits to gay federal employees. This was seen as pretty insulting to some, which is why this issue will likely even more contentious in the next week (leading up to the fundraiser). John Aravosis, writing in Salon , sums this attitude up nicely: Tonight, President Fierce will try to make amends by signing either a memorandum, a directive or an executive order, directing some federal agencies, but not others, to provide some benefits, but not others, to some gay federal employees, but not others, at some undisclosed time in the future. (And the benefits may reportedly go away when Obama leaves office.) First problem, federal agencies already have the right to provide these benefits to gay employees -- and several, including at least one DOD agency, do. Second problem, the administration can't tell us exactly which benefits they're talking about and for which employees. That's because this was all hastily thrown together after the incestuous and pedophilic gays nearly brought down a Democratic National Committee gay pride fundraiser scheduled for next week. A gay blogger got hold of the event's guest list and published it, and once D.C.'s gay paper, the Washington Blade , announced that it would be staking out the entrance to the event with camera and video, the $1,000 a head attendees started dropping like flies. In other words, the only reason we're getting anything: The gay ATM ran dry. They've got a point. Nobody likes feeling used, or feeling like they're just getting lip service when they were promised real change. Obama, of course, is walking a tightrope here. He definitely learned from Bill Clinton the mistake of doing anything on a contentious issues like this too early (in fact, it was the same issue, which is how we got DADT in the first place). But that excuse has pretty much reached its expiration date for Obama. Because the political reality is that -- especially for contentious issues -- there is a very small window for presidents to get things done. This is conventional wisdom in Washington, and although it may not be one hundred percent true, there a lot of truth to it. Presidents get one year, basically, to get anything done. Because next year is midterm election season. With every member of the House and a third of the Senate up for re-election, politicians become timid about handing their opponents issues to beat them up with in television ads. In other words, not much gets done. And certainly not a lot of "hot button" issues will be tackled. The year after this, presidents start their own re-election campaigning. If they have gone against odds and picked up seats in Congress, then they may have a second shot at big issues. But usually midterms offer a mixed result at best, and at worst a loss of seats in one or both houses. Meaning most presidents start looking to the middle of the road at this point. And the fourth year of a first-term presidency is campaign fever, where not much gets done at all due to everyone playing politics all the time. In other words, while things can get done in the final three years of a presidency, it's rare -- usually change (especially when it's a big change) happens during the first year of a presidency. And Obama is approaching the halfway point to his first year. John Aravosis makes this point much more succinctly : When, Mr. President, will be a good time to set my people free? When will the leader of the free world get a breather, a presidential timeout as it were? (And I thought this was the administration that could walk and chew gum at the same time.) Are we really to believe that 2010, a congressional election year, will be any more timely than today? Or 2011, the beginning of the presidential primaries? Or 2012, with a congressional and presidential election? There is quite literally no time like the present. Gay rights is not the only issue on which Obama's voice has been conspicuous in its absence. There are other groups in the Democratic base that are beginning to wonder the same thing: "When, exactly, can we expect to see that change you promised us?" And while it is true that Obama has had a lot on his plate so far, and has dealt with (and is dealing with) gargantuan issues that have been festering for years, these issue-advocacy groups know that the more time that goes by without presidential action (or even public support) for their issues, the less likely it is that anything is going to get done on them. This frustration is natural, and at some point in the first months of a president's first term, the honeymoon with the public usually comes to an end. But Obama is a victim of his own oratory power. People really did believe all that change he was selling. And, while the gay rights issue is currently boiling over in public, it is not the only issue on which people are beginning to wonder when all that change is going to appear. As more and more groups start asking "If not now, when?" Obama is going to have to start actually delivering more of that change we can believe in, or else we're all going to stop believing... and more importantly (to the political classes) -- stop donating.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Barack Obama
 
Cecile Brossard Murdered Edouard Stern: Woman Found Guilty In Sex-Games Murder Of French Tycoon Top
GENEVA — A Swiss jury convicted the former mistress of one of France's richest men of murder Wednesday after she admitted killing him during an argument over $1 million as he was dressed in a latex suit and tied up in a chair during their sex game. Cecile Brossard testified that she had loved Edouard Stern and thought the banker would help her become financially independent and marry her, but that she became enraged during their final night together when he suggested she was a $1 million prostitute. That prompted her to shoot her 50-year-old lover in the head, then three more times after he managed to get out of the chair and fell to the floor of his penthouse apartment in Geneva, according to prosecutor Daniel Zappelli. "I am not a thief. I am not poisonous," Brossard, 40, told the court. "I am just desperately in love with a man and I will be forever." The Frenchwoman turned to Stern's former wife, Beatrice David-Weill, and his children and asked their forgiveness. The 12-member jury at Geneva's Court of Assizes found Brossard guilty of murdering the banker at his home in 2005. The crime is punishable by up to 20 years in prison, and she is expected to be sentenced Thursday. Stern's bullet-ridden body found in his apartment in February 2005, wearing the head-to-toe latex suit, authorities said. Brossard was arrested two weeks later and admitted shooting the banker. Brossard said Stern deposited the $1 million he had promised in a special account for her, but that the two quarreled over control of the money. The former mistress denied that she killed him over the money, which she said she only wanted as proof of his love for her. But the $1 million and the promise of marriage went hand in hand, she said, adding that the love story was shattered when Stern blocked the bank account and she understood he would not marry her. She felt humiliated and used, she said. During their last evening together, they had sex games, with Stern wearing his latex suit and tied up on a chair in a submissive position, she recounted. When he told her, "One million for a whore, that's expensive," she said she lost control. That "made everything explode, my head, heart and mind," Brossard said. "Like a robot I went to get the gun in the drawer." Brossard's lawyer Alec Reymond pleaded that it was a crime of passion, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. But Prosecutor Zappelli said Brossard knew exactly what she was doing. "Edouard Stern was not killed because of sex, although we talked a lot about it in this trial," he told the court Tuesday. "Neither was he killed out of love, but out of hate. In the end, the money was the reason for his death." After the crime, prosecutors said, Brossard removed incriminating evidence, flew to Australia and lied to her friends on the phone. Stern had a long background in investment banking, working for his family firm Banque Stern from the age of 22 and forcing his father out of the company two years later _ with the help of two uncles. Estimates of his wealth varied, but he was said to have been worth several hundred million dollars. He sold the family business in 1985, but stayed on as chairman until 1998. He also was once in line to succeed his father-in-law, Michel David-Weill, as head of the investment bank Lazard LLC, but left the company in 1997 after they argued. He then moved to Geneva and set up his own investment fund, Investments Real Returns SA. _____ Associated Press writer Nathalie Ogi contributed.
 
Vatican Rejects Conservative Group's Ordinations Top
VATICAN CITY — Priest ordinations planned by an ultraconservative group won't be legitimate even though Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunications of the organization's leaders, the Vatican said Wednesday. The Vatican issued a statement reiterating that the schismatic Society of St. Pius X still has no status within the Catholic church and that its clergymen do not legitimately exercise any ministry. The Vatican in 1988 excommunicated the society's four bishops after they were consecrated without papal consent by the late traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre founded the society in 1969, opposed to the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council and especially its outreach to Jews and other religions. Benedict in January lifted the bishops' excommunications in a bid to bring the dissidents back into the church. But the move sparked outrage among Jews and Catholics since one of the prelates, Bishop Richard Williamson, had denied the Holocaust. Benedict subsequently made a rare acknowledgment of a Vatican mistake, saying in a March letter to Catholic bishops worldwide that he was unaware of Williamson's positions when he lifted the excommunications. In the letter, Benedict noted that the society had no legal status within the church and that its priests didn't legitimately exercise any ministry. The Vatican reiterated those points Wednesday in response to the society's announcement earlier this month that it planned to ordain three priests and three deacons on June 27 at a seminary in southern Germany. Any ordinations by the group "must be considered illegitimate," the Vatican said. German bishops had urged the Vatican to intervene against what they called a provocation prior to difficult reconciliation talks between the two sides. The church considers the society's ordinations are "valid but illicit." They are valid because Lefebvre was a validly ordained bishop in the Catholic Church, and thus could validly ordain others. But because Lefebvre was suspended in 1976, he had no authority from the pope to consecrate bishops, meaning their consecrations were illicit, or illegal in the church's eyes. Subsequent ordinations the group carries out are similarly considered "valid but illicit." Wednesday's Vatican statement also said the pope would take another step to absorb the Vatican office that has handled the Lefebvre case, the Pontifical "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The commission, charged with healing the schism with the society, has been at the center of the criticism on how the case was handled since it apparently never knew about Williamson's views, which had been published in the mainstream media. The Congregation will now oversee planned theological talks with the society in hopes of reabsorbing it into the church. In an interview with Swedish TV broadcast shortly before the lifting of the excommunication, Williamson denied that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. He said about 200,000 or 300,000 were murdered and none were gassed. He later apologized for the "hurt" caused by his remarks, but he didn't recant them. More on Christianity
 
Karl Frisch: A Top Ten List for Letterman's Conservative Critics Top
Follow Karl on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email. He doesn't host his own syndicated talk radio show. That isn't his chair behind the desk of a cable-news program. You won't find his byline on the op-ed pages, discussing the ins and outs of President Obama's latest policy proposal. He's a gap-toothed, late night comedian, and he's in justifiably hot water with conservatives for making some pretty vile jokes. Earlier this month on CBS' Late Show, host David Letterman took aim at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's recent trip to New York City, offering up some off-color and patently sexist quips. During his opening monologue, Letterman said , "One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game. During the 7th inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." Then, later in the same broadcast, while presenting No. 2 on his famed Top Ten list, this time of "Highlights of Sarah Palin's Trip to New York," Letterman said the former Republican vice presidential nominee had "bought makeup at Bloomingdale's to update her 'slutty flight attendant' look." Letterman did the right thing in apologizing twice for his tasteless attempts at humor, finally noting that the intention of his jokes was meaningless when considering the way any rational-thinking person would perceive his jokes. Ultimately, though, it is Letterman's future conduct that will determine the sincerity of his contrition. Still, the right's fury rages on. It is hard, however, to take conservatives seriously when one considers that each and every day, real players in the rudderless conservative movement -- powerful talk-radio hosts, cable-news hosts, pundits, columnists, and bloggers -- throw aside the reasonable boundaries of a civil political discourse by using wickedly divisive, cruelly insensitive, intentionally misleading, and downright hateful rhetoric. And the response from their followers? Hardly a peep. Rank hypocrisy is nothing new for right-wingers -- or politics in general, for that matter -- but in a selfless attempt to help them avoid the "hypocrite" label this time around, I humbly present a Top Ten list of "Right-Wingers From Whom Conservatives Should Be Demanding Apologies." 10) Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, for falsely claiming a hate-crimes bill that adds gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans to the list of protected groups would also protect those who commit incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, and a host of other perversions. 9) Fox News' Sean Hannity, for hosting "Internet journalist" Andy Martin, who once called a judge a "crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race." 8) Syndicated radio host Neal Boortz, for describing welfare recipients as "human parasitic garbage lining up to get their applications to loot." 7) Fox News conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Glenn Beck, for describing Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as, "Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You're empathetic. ... You're in!" 6) MSNBC's resident cranky uncle, Pat Buchanan, for saying prior to Sotomayor's selection that he wanted Obama to pick a Supreme Court justice "who has real stature, impresses people" but thinking instead that Obama would pick "a minority, a woman and/or a Hispanic." 5) Syndicated radio host Jim Quinn, for repeatedly calling NOW the "National Organization of Whores." 4) Cincinnati-based radio host Bill Cunningham, for alleging that "Obama wants to gas the Jews." 3) Michael Savage (née Weiner), the third-highest-rated radio host in America, for saying "Obama hates" and "is raping America." 2) Fox News' irrepressible mega-star Bill O'Reilly, for repeatedly quacking that the legalization of gay marriage could lead to folks marrying ducks. And No. 1, the conservative movement's de facto leader, Rush Limbaugh, for saying of Obama, "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black." In all honesty, the list could have included dozens of other media conservatives, with comments and actions numbering in the hundreds. At the end of the day, expecting consistency from a movement motivated primarily by divisiveness and fearmongering is perhaps a bit much to ask. It's sad that the righteous complaints over Letterman's ill-conceived jokes are undermined by the right's inability to hold their own ilk accountable. We should all be concerned about the level of sexism, racism, homophobia, and bigotry in general found in today's media landscape -- regardless of the offending party. Unfortunately, much like the iconic gap between Letterman's front teeth, so too is there a gaping hole in the credibility of his conservative critics, however justified their claims may be. Karl Frisch is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America , a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair , a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email. More on David Letterman
 
Frank Schaeffer: Maher vs. Obama -- Score One For the President Top
Bill Maher has decided to straighten out President Obama regarding health care, and the economy. I know no more about those subjects than anyone else, but one way we judge what people say is by looking at what they have said about subjects we do know something about. I learned quite a bit about Maher by watching his movie Religulous and listening to his commentaries on religion since then. That is something I know about. As I explore in my chapter on Maher in my forthcoming book, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism), Maher's "critique" of religion is a unique study in ignorance. I presume Maher knows about as much about health care and economics as about religion. As readers of my books and blogs know I'm one of the harshest critics of American religion, given that I was raised by an evangelical leader, became one myself and quit. I think evangelical American religion is a threat to our democracy. That said, Maher doesn't get religion. Maher's Religulous , provided the atheist version of a church-going experience. In a series of interviews, Maher set up pastors, evangelists, political leaders, and assorted other flakes and actors (these last at a religious theme park) to look their worst. Maher's questions were those one might expect from a literal-minded, dim-witted ten-year-old stuck in Sunday school who was trying to annoy his teacher into throwing him out. The questions ranged from "How can you believe in a talking snake?" to "How could Jonah have lived in a fish?" to "How can God hear the prayers of everyone at once?" (To which one answer might be, if Google can do it, why not God?) When approaching the biblical narrative through his handpicked interviewees (and how he edited their comments), Maher didn't seem to "get" allegory, let alone literary imagination or the results of religious faith in ordinary people's lives. For instance he seemed to think that religion, and Christianity in particular, is only about literal belief in the various biblical stories. It's not. It never has been. Yes, there have been literalistic fundamentalists shaping religion through a hard-edged fundamentalist "thread" running through Jewish and Christian history. Yes, many Christians following this literal-minded thread have done terrible things. Yes, the Jewish and Christian faiths are full of such people today. What Maher ignored is that there has been a parallel tradition, another thread, running alongside the literalistic tendency he caricatures. And here's the irony -- given today's topic -- President Obama is himself a great example of the more enlightened thread of faith. To ignore the open and questioning tradition and to dwell only on the fundamentalist thread is disingenuous, or in Maher's case more likely simply ignorant. It's as if Maher had made a documentary on medicine and concentrated solely on the experiments done on duped prisoners and so forth, while ignoring Jonas Salk and his discovery of polio vaccine or the early African American leaders in nursing, such as the outstanding Mary Eliza Mahoney, who was the first black professional nurse in America. Maher seemed unaware that there are intelligent contemporaries of his who are deeply religious and who have spent lifetimes thinking about faith in God in ways that are far from the absolutist verities of (mostly) North American evangelical/fundamentalism Maher set up to knock down. For instance, Maher ignored the late John Updike. (Updike was alive and well when the movie was being made.) Maher might also have interviewed then Senator, now President, Obama. Had Maher interviewed Obama, he could have asked him about Obama's 2006 lecture on religion and public policy, delivered at the "Call to Renewal" event sponsored by the evangelical Sojourners group. On that occasion, Obama described his faith. He also talked about how faith should or should not impact policy making. Obama castigated the elements of the secular community (people just like Maher) for being short-sighted in their anti-religious views. As Obama said: At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word 'Christian' describes one's political opponents, not people of faith... I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household... It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma... That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans... It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values. And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse..." Maher's attempt to put religious belief in its place only reinforces the fact that for most people, one belief system is always replaced by another. In an act of unintended self-parody at the end of his movie, Maher preaches a fiery sermon against religion, even begging moderate religious believers to abandon their faiths and convert to his point of view. Like some old-time evangelist, Maher wants to save us from his version of hell via his version of a born-again experience. It's Maher's way or the Apocalypse. Where have I heard that before? It turns out Maher is just another fundamentalist sure he has all the answers. Maher is as unthinkingly pro-atheist as he is ant-religious. In 2008 Maher asked Richard Dawkins -- who Maher worships -- about Dawkins' book The God Delusion . Dawkins said little about the book's content but exclaimed, "It's sold a million and a half copies!" Then Maher, like an enthusiastic puppy scampering around a big dog, yelped, "And now it's in paperback it will be even more available!" Maher paused to take a breath then added, "I'm your biggest fan!" Then Dawkins (slipping into his rock star/guru mode) explained that he has so many fans because "I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats." Prompted by Maher, Dawkins also explained one of his other big ideas. "There is a scale of One to Seven of atheism," said Dawkins, "but I'm only a Six on my scale." Dawkins laid out the details of the Atheism Sincerity Scale. "A One is a complete believer in God and a Seven is a total disbeliever." Something was bothering Maher, and he asked, "Why are you only a Six? Why aren't you a Seven?" Dawkins didn't miss a beat; "As a scientist I can't definitely commit to anything, including that there are no fairies!" Big laugh and cheers from both Maher and his audience. I think I actually heard Maher squeal. The intellectually rigorous Dawkins/Maher exchange put me in mind of one of my favorite scenes in This is Spinal Tap that also had to do with numbers, dumb interviewers and pompous Englishmen. Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten? Nigel Tufnel: Exactly. Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder? Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where? Marty DiBergi: I don't know. Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly! What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven? Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly! One louder! With critics like Maher (and the Republicans) President Obama needs no friends. I trust the president will remain as fortunate in his detractors throughout his presidency. He looks, sounds -- and is -- way ahead of them all. Frank Schaeffer is the author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back and the forthcoming Patience With God: Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion (Or Atheism) More on Bill Maher
 
8-Year-Old Boy Dies From Swine Flu, Total Illinois Deaths At 8 Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- An 8-year-old suburban Chicago boy and two Chicago adults have died after falling ill with swine flu, bringing the state's total fatality toll from the illness to eight. The virus is continuing to spread, unlike seasonal influenza, which normally has tapered off by late spring, health officials said. The 8-year-old, a resident of Oak Forest, died June 13, one day after he was admitted to a hospital. He had no other known health problems, Cook County health officials said. Two Chicago residents, a 26-year-old woman and a 52-year-old man, died last week, said Chicago Department of Public Health spokesman Tim Hadac. The woman died June 9 after being in a hospital in Chicago for a week. The man had other health problems and died on June 11 after being admitted to a hospital on May 30. It's unclear whether the boy was the first child to die of the virus in Illinois because Cook County health officials wouldn't release the age of a female who died in May. In all the other cases, the victims were adults, ranging in age from 20 to 74. Illinois has had nearly 2,000 confirmed swine flu cases in 22 counties. Stephen Martin Jr., chief operating officer of the Cook County health department, urged people to wash their hands, cover their mouths when they cough and stay home when they're sick. "This tragic death underscores the need for people to remain vigilant in preventing the spread of illness," said Martin, referring to the child. -ASSOCIATED PRESS More on Swine Flu
 
Gas Prices Rise For 50 Days In A Row Top
Consumers get squeezed as pump prices rise for 50 days in a row. Prices now average at least $2.50 a gallon in 49 states. More on Gas & Oil
 
Louise Marie Roth: Address Medical Liability With Science, not Caps: "Standard of Care" is not the Same as Evidence-Based Medicine Top
On June 15, the New York Times described how Obama is open to reining in medical suits by trying to reduce malpractice suits. There are some fundamental issues that need to be on the table when thinking about this issue -- the most important being that the "standard of care" is not necessarily evidence-based. There are also far more medical errors than there are malpractice suits, and the few frivolous suits that exist rarely make it to settlement, let alone court. I am currently exploring the effects of malpractice on maternity care, and will address these issues below. The AMA and doctors are in favor of protecting doctors from malpractice lawsuits, and they have good reason: medical liability insurance premiums are absurdly expensive, especially in some states (e.g. Florida). Practitioners must then pass along the costs to consumers, leading to inflation of health care costs. However, premiums are not based entirely on the risk of being sued: liability insurers invest the premiums and then must increase their rates when their return on investments decline (as would be happening now in the recession). They also raise their rates when they don't face competition, and some states have only one or two liability insurers. So liability insurance isn't in sync with actual malpractice activity. Using the National Practitioners Data Bank, I have found that obstetric malpractice suits have fluctuated over the years 1991-2004 rather than increasing over time. (See graph below.) This is not what one would expect based on the increased fear of litigation that doctors express. In fact, many doctors practice in fear of litigation, and some have argued that this leads to "defensive medicine": medical practices designed to avert the future possibility of malpractice suits, rather than to benefit the patient. This drives up the cost of health care, because payers end up paying for unnecessary procedures. But again, their fear is out of proportion to the actual risk: the risks of lawsuits have not increased, and the average awards in medical malpractice suits have increased only slightly (adjusted for inflation). On the other hand, negligent medical errors are far more common than people in favor of capping damages want to acknowledge. In the Harvard Malpractice Study, Dr. David Studdert led a team of eight researchers from Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Harvard Risk Management Foundation. The study used a conservative methodology to determine whether or not negligence occurred in 31,000 medical records, dating from the mid-1980s. Practicing doctors and nurses evaluated the cases, and the study made a finding of negligence only if two doctors, working independently, separately reached that conclusion. The study found that doctors were injuring 1 out of every 25 patients, and only 4% of these injured patients sued. So the actual rate of negligent medical error is much higher than the litigation system suggests. Also, fewer than 10% of cases were "frivolous," meaning that no negligent medical error occurred, and the courts efficiently threw them out. Only 6 cases where researchers couldn't detect injury received even token compensation. This issue of medical error is already part of the argument against reform: many who are against caps on damages point to the high rate of error and its impact on patients and their families. But the missing piece that no one on either side of this debate seems to talk about is that the "standard of care" is part of the problem. The New York Times article suggests that President Obama is "open to offering some liability protection to doctors who follow standard guidelines for medical practice." But standard guidelines are often not based on the best scientific evidence, and this is especially true in the case of obstetrics. Evidence-based medicine suggests that optimal management of birth involves minimal interventions, and yet the standard of care involves high rates of induction of labor, often using drugs like Cytotec that are contra-indicated for this purpose (see here and here on the dangers of this drug), artificial stimulation of labor, amniotomy, confinement to bed, restriction of food and drink, non-physiologic positions for pushing, and very high rates of cesarean section (currently about 1/3 of births nationwide). This is the "standard of care" but is not evidence-based -- there is a large body of scientific research that finds that all of these practices are harmful and lead to unnecessary and preventable instances of fetal distress, cesarean section, and maternal mortality and morbidity. Moreover, there is some evidence that doctors do more interventions and more cesareans as a defensive practice, because it fits the standard of care and despite the fact that it goes against the scientific evidence. So offering protection to doctors who follow standard guidelines for medical practice will not reduce medical errors and preventable injuries, at least not in obstetrics. In order to do that, President Obama's health care reform should think about offering liability protection to doctors who practice evidence-based medicine. To let the "standard of care" continue to rule is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse.
 
David Horton: Get yourself a gun Top
Whenever the madness of massive gun ownership is challenged you can bet one of the first responses will be "How dare you libruls try to stop us enjoying the healthy and natural sport of hunting with our children", or words to that effect. But this is one of those many issues on which I find it hard to empathize with my conservative fellow human beings. I can't imagine ever training a gun on an animal peacefully going about its business, getting on with its life, and then squeezing the trigger and blowing its brains out or bursting its heart, blood spattered over the great outdoors. This is at its most obscene in the practice of "internet hunting" where you can do the same thing from the comfort of your home at the click of a mouse button. But it has no less horror for coming at the end of a long healthy hike through the woods with your oldest son clutching his first hunting rifle and chatting happily about the meaning of life. How does it enter the soul, this comfortable, but triumphant, death-dealing? How do hunters get away with the euphemism that slaughter of other living beings is not only "sport", but an essential part of being human, and not to be restricted in any way? At least some of the blame goes to the religious ideology that trumpets human dominion over all living things. If we have some kind of supreme authority over the world, then, rather like a prison guard and his inmates, we can do anything we like to that world. Animals, in this view, live only so long as we choose to allow them to do so. They have no right to life of their own, all of their rights are given by us and can be instantly revoked at a whim. But there is even more to it I think. Even if you believe that your imaginary friend made you a lord of the universe, it still remains that pressing that trigger, shooting that crossbow, ending that life, requires a complete absence of empathy with another living being. Requires that you not even consider the pain and then oblivion of the animal itself, or the pain and grief of the family and other group members left behind. And such lack of empathy can only come, surely, if you recognize no kinship between yourself and that wolf, that moose, that seal, that duck, that gorilla, that kangaroo. Recognize no shared emotions, feelings, ideas, sensations; no commonality of life. And for that to be true you must, surely, see yourself as having been created separately. For even the most cursory knowledge of evolution would make you unable to pull that trigger on creatures who, being your relatives, have so much in common with you. Is the "intelligent design" movement just an alibi for killing? Plenty of empathy, though not for hunters, at The Watermelon Blog .
 
Brad Balfour: Israeli Director Eran Riklis Offers A Humanizing View of Palestinians in Lemon Tree Top
When veteran Israeli director Eran Riklis made The Syrian Bride several years ago--a film focused almost entirely on the Druze community in Israel, with few minor Jewish characters--he joined the burgeoning community of Israeli filmmakers whose work is both markedly Israeli but also tinged with an international or European feel. Though clearly situated in their country of origin, their films are made for audiences who don't look at cinema so much as propaganda but as a forces for critical thinking. In the Lemon Tree, Riklis provides if not a critical voice then an empathetic one--one that often gets overlooked when the political discourse gets overheated. Now that Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made, for him, something of an about-face, offering a truncated version of the two-state solution, the release of a film that presents a humanizing sympathetic, view of Palestinans, resonates in a more powerful way than ever before. Based on a true story, Palestinian widow Salma (Hiam Abbass) defends her lemon tree field when a new Israeli Defense Minister moves next door to her and threatens to have her grove torn down. Living there for decades on the green line, the border between Israel and the West Bank, Salma has endured tragedy and loneliness when he moves into his house opposite her comforting trees. The Israeli security forces declare her grove a threat to the Minister's safety and orders it uprooted. In horror and defiance, Salma enlists an initially reluctant young Palestinian lawyer, Ziad Daud (Ali Suliman), to fight for her trees--and they go all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court. In addition, despite differences and borders, Salma and the Defense minister's wife Mira--while trapped in her new home and unhappy life--develop an invisible bond. Along the way, forbidden ties also grow between Salma and Ziad at great risk to both of them. Her legal and personal journey throws Salma into the dark, complex, sometimes funny, chaos of the struggle between the Israelis and Palestinians. Q; In both this and The Syrian Bride, you not only challenge certain preconceptions of Israelis, but you also challenge preconceptions of Palestinian or Arabic scenarios; you really like to get yourself into trouble. ER: I change my address every [film]... And my name [laughs]. Q; You're of Ashkenazi [European Jewish] descent but Israeli-born? ER: I'm Israeli-born. But I'm no martyr, not at all--though I fear nothing. In the end, it's only a film, for chrissake! I mean, I know you can be burned for it, but... Q; Your co-writer Suha Arraf, the writer on The Syrian Bride, is Palestinian, right? ER: From Israel. Q: It would be interesting to sit in on your writing sessions. ER: That's funny, because we both believe there are no taboos. You can touch anything. When people come to me and say that wouldn't happen in a certain society, obviously I check it, because if there's a degree of truth that this or that would never happen, fine. But even then, you can always be controversial. And it's funny, because when I look at both films, I don't see anything controversial about them. But obviously it's all in the eye of the beholder. As far as it being legitimate for me, as an Israeli, to go into the Palestinian society, I have the right as a filmmaker, as long as I respect the truth and am honest about it. Truth and honesty are probably a guiding light for me, and if I use them correctly, these words, then I'm fine. Q; You worked with Suha on The Syrian Bride --was there a difference this time around or did she take a similar approach? ER: We got to know each other much better. Basically we had a very good relationship during The Syrian Bride and we developed it in Lemon Tree. Now there's a kind of mutual understanding. Of course, I'm the director, so I can always take care of the material any way I want. But when you're co-writing, it's a matter of chemistry. It gets better with age--that's the only answer I can give. Q; Some directors like to work with the same people. How did you and Hiam--who also had a big part in The Syrian Bride --shape the characters to make sure there wasn't a trace of one slipping over to the other? ER: The definition of the character in Lemon Tree is totally different from that in Syrian Bride. First of all, the Salma character carries this film on her shoulders, so it was really a wider spectrum of emotions and psychological depth [for Hiam to handle]. Beyond that, the challenge for both her and me was to really overcome the stereotype of a Palestinian peasant, a simple woman, a poor woman struggling against a system--and as I speak, I think "Oh my God, that sounds terrible." But with Hiam and the way we approached the writing, we said "OK, she is a peasant, she's not educated. But she has this inner energy which keeps her alive all these years as a widow, which keeps her open to the option of having a second love in her life, however controversial, and she has this strength to actually go all the way to the Supreme Court." So already we're talking about a different perception of a Palestinian woman. I guess what Hiam brings to that is the fact that on one hand, she was born in a small village in Israel and grew up there; on the other hand, she's spent 22 years now in France, so she's actually Parisian [as much as she's a Palestinian]. She's a very European, sophisticated lady. I think that kind of tension and that kind of balance creates a different kind of character and solves the problem in a way. I never had an issue of, "Is this close to what she did in The Syrian Bride or not?" Q; You hear about the Palestinians' feelings of futility. Yet Salma resolves to fight this in the court, where it would seem impossible to win. You had to make that work and make it plausible that she would go so far as to believe she could go forward. You talk about fighting the system and taking it to the court, and having to make it seem convincing. ER: Because we're all sophisticated and naïve at the same time; that applies to Salma as well. Basically, on one hand, at night when she sits in bed on her own and she says, "Why am I doing this?" the answer is probably, "I'm stupid." On the other hand, "Maybe I'm not. Maybe there is a chance." And I think you always have to have this notion that things could be different. Maybe for you it's like the lottery in a way. Maybe I'll win, even though the chances are... When you think about the Israeli legal system, it's not obvious that they're going to come up with this decision. You never know, because it is a legal system that works. So, of course, like any legal system anywhere in the world--nobody can convince me otherwise--it's always affected by politicians, politics, the mood in the street, the security situation, all that. And yet, there's always a judge who would say "I don't care. This woman has her rights, I'm going to grant her her rights." It's a little bit like Suliman's decision in a way, which obviously is not very good for Salma. And yet the trees are still rooted in the ground, so there is something symbolically which gives a kind of future for her, and for her trees. Q: In this country, widows are free to have another relationship again and even marry. Even though the Palestinians are supposed to be secular--it was hard for her to consider marrying again. ER: It's not about religion. She can get married, it's not an official issue. The thing is that the family of the dead husband would expect to take care of that. It's almost like, you can marry again, but you you have to marry one of the brothers, or somebody close to the family or a friend of the family. Certainly you can't go and marry a younger guy and he's much younger than her. In the script, Ziad was described as in his early 40s, which was not that controversial. Then when I met Ali in the audition--I already knew him because he had a small role in The Syrian Bride --he was so charming, that I said "OK! He's the guy. But how do I justify this relationship?" I had huge fights with Suha, because she said it would never work in a Palestinian society. I said "Give me a break! It works everywhere!" You know, societies are societies, but things that happen behind closed doors--you never know. And I thought it added a great layer of tension, because of the fact is she's under scrutiny all the time anyway. She's under a microscope all the time and here is this young guy--on one hand, he's the only one helping her. He's the only one doing something for her for no money, or for minimal money. And on the other hand, he is really a kind of no-go in a way, and yet she fights for him. But also, to a certain degree, it's a doomed love affair anyway, so the chances of it really happening are probably slim. Q: The movie is not a comedy, but you show these humorous sides. Of course, the defense minister is one of the characters you're really parodying... Did you have certain people in mind that you were referencing? ER: The current prime minister was a good model for me. And Ehud Barak, who is now defense minister [and was a Prime Minister], was a good model [as well]. All these generals are good example, in terms of, they're always pompous and with "Security Security" [on their minds]. But they can joke around, have kids, are married, and are also people. I really tried to treat the minister like I treated all the other characters, and in that sense, I love him. He's intelligent, but he's also insensitive--who isn't? Q; He was the perfect parody of an Israeli politician. ER: I think so. Yet, when you see him at the end of the film sitting there on his own in his empty house, you feel for him. Basically, he blew it. He could have just opened his eyes a little bit and changed this whole story, just like that. Like his wife says, he says, "What do you want from me? I can't change history." But in fact, he could have! At least, in this particular case. Q; The Syrian Bride really isn't so much about a place. This movie is all about a place. Was that an additional challenge--to getting locations visually--or could you have found this in any number of places? ER: No. In fact, it was very tricky. Getting the lighting right, and the trees right, and the lemons right, it's like a nightmare. Even the two houses at the grove were shot in two different places. We had to be very clever about [it]. You see Salma walk out of her house, and then a month later, I was shooting her arriving at the minister's house, so it was quite tricky film-wise. But I think it looks really good in that sense. Q; So why did you decide on a lemon grove rather than what would immediately be assumed, some kind of olive grove. ER: That's the answer. When I thought about olive trees, I said "No. I cannot see olive trees." The lemons have everything for me. They're fresh, sweet and sour, they have all the elements that you want. Visually they're beautiful. And I felt using olive trees was just overused symbolism that you can't get away with. Q; Was there any symbolism intended--the lemons for Palestinians, [olives] for Jews... ER: Not really. It's corny, because the first thing I wrote was Lemon Tree and I quoted the song, you know, the American song... Q; I couldn't get the damn song out of my head! ER: It's funny, because most people in Israel don't know the song. But for me, [those were] the first lines I wrote. "Lemon tree... lemon tree so pretty." So, I just found it a little fresher than any other symbol you could use. Certainly olive trees are really overused--you see them on the news all the time. Q; Didn't you want to make an Arabic/Middle Eastern version of that song...? ER: There it was in the opening titles! Q; In writing a screenplay, are you thinking about the music? ER: Well, like a lot of filmmakers I'm a frustrated musician. Seriously. I wanted to be a musician. I learned a lot of instruments... I don't play anything now. My son is a jazz pianist who's actually studying here in New York at the New School. At least, when you think of classical music, making a film is a little bit like composing a classical piece of music. And certainly the performance of a film is almost like the performance of a symphonic orchestra, in terms of all the elements coming together to crystallize into one beautiful thing. But it's not something I follow. It's just intuitively--it happens because I connect well with music. I love music. And it's true that when I look at all my films, there was always some kind of musical link. In most of them, at least. Q; Is this simply a David & Goliath story--"Salma's last person who would challenge the system... Can she succeed?" If you ultimately had to sum up this film, how would you do it? ER: It's a Mediterranean Erin Brockovich. I guess David and Goliath is probably a good example too. Even though I really don't care for the headlines, I want to go beyond them. It's really about the small details that make up this very simple story. Because in the end it's a very simple story. It's lemons, two women, and a problem. [to read the complete interview go to: wwwfilmfanwriter.blogspot.com
 
Hadi Ghaemi: Fears of a "Tehran Tiananmen" Growing As Iran Crisis Deepens Top
The post-election unrest and turbulence now sweeping Iran, following the presidential election of last Friday, did not figure into anyone's analysis and calculations. It took everyone by surprise, but so have the most momentous events of contemporary Iranian history. The 1979 Revolution was not on anyone's radar screens either until it was well underway. The root cause of such singular and unanticipated upheavals lies in the way fundamental tensions in Iran simmer for a long time below the surface and then suddenly explode into the fore. What is happening in these days is a reflection of two such long-running tensions. One is the differences within the ruling elite that have mushroomed into what appears to be a full-scale confrontation over the recent election results. The other underlying tension, which is unfolding daily in huge protests across the country, comes from the deep dissatisfaction of much of the population with social and political restrictions imposed on them by the state, coupled with failing economic policies. Let us not confuse these two trends. One is a political catfight within the regime, and the other is an outburst of popular demands for greater civil liberties and basic freedoms, and for effective economic policies. The former is serving as a vehicle for the latter. The huge participation of the electorate in Friday's election, over eighty percent, included many who had never before participated in the political process, but saw this as a unique opportunity to bring about positive change. The disillusionment caused by the strongly contested election result quickly translated to an outpouring of protests on the streets because many people felt their sense of honor and integrity has been insulted beyond limit. Meanwhile the political catfight continues to develop without any clear winner emerging. On one side of the equation are Ahmadinejad's government, the Revolutionary Guards commanders, and the Office of the Leader. The Leader, Ayatollah Khamanei, has clearly come out in support of this faction, although historically he had implied he acts only as an arbitrator of power, and is above factionalism. But this time his sympathies are squarely placed behind this camp, at least up to this point. It is of the utmost importance that none of the Grand Ayatollahs and clerics in Qom has come forward to endorse the election results or congratulate Ahmadinejad. The core political conflict appears to be expressing itself in a fissure between Ayatollah Khamanei and the rest of the traditional clerical establishment in Qom. Khamanei's legitimacy base lies in an assembly of such clerics, known as Assembly of Experts, who have blessed his position as the Leader. Now this legitimacy is under question. Rumors circulating in Tehran tell of attempts by Hashemi Rafsanjani, a supporter of the opposition candidate Moussavi and head of the Assembly of Experts, to convene a meeting and challenge Khamanei. With such a complex landscape and fast-moving developments on the ground, what should the international community's response be? Iran is situated in an already volatile region with most of its neighbors, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, undergoing their own crisis of historical proportions. The last thing we should encourage is the destabilization of Iran and having it join this pack of explosive and barely functioning states. The Iranian government's violent response to peaceful public protests should be harshly condemned around the world, but that is not to say we should take political sides. The political outcome must be determined within Iran and by Iranians. As long as the political dispute remains unresolved, foreign governments should withhold recognition of Ahmadinejad's government. But the government's actions in confronting its own people should be of concern to all of us. Iran must be told that its further reliance on violence, curtailment of civil liberties and basic freedoms, widespread arbitrary detentions and disappearances will not earn it public peace or international legitimacy. That message should be delivered by United Nations officials, particularly the Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay. Iran is closed to independent human rights observers including those of the UN. The government is rapidly moving to shut down communication channels amongst Iranians and with the outside world. There are serious fears of a "Tehran Tiananmen" in the coming days. The High Commissioner should move rapidly to send an envoy to Iran to prevent an all-out closure that could lead to serious violence and attacks on protestors undertaken with total impunity. There have already been at least a dozen fatalities due to government forces opening fire. The situation is tense and our responsibility is to ensure that it does not become more violent and unstable. The presence of UN envoys in Tehran and major cities would inhibit the government to contemplate resolving the conflict through the use of force; it would promote accountability and respect for international standards. President Obama is correct to stay that the US should not become part of the political fight in Iran. Ahmadinejad's government could eagerly use statements of support for the political opposition as a license to portray the conflict as instigated from abroad and justify its harsh measures. The US should not fall into that trap. At the same time, this is not the time to leave Iranian people on their own. The focus on Iran, now more than ever before, should be on human rights issues: restoration of civil liberties, release of political prisoners, withdrawal of police and Special Guards from the streets. If there are concerted and unified voices from the international community on this front, it will make a difference. It must be made clear, that voices from the international community are not aimed at picking a political favorite, but rather making sure that the political crisis is resolved in an environment free of violence and threats and coupled with respect for the Iranian people's fundamental rights. The Iranian people, particularly the energetic youth who represent seventy percent of the population, has made it abundantly clear they are not interested in revolutionary upheaval and violent change. For the past month, both before and after elections, the world has witnessed their peaceful rallies, numbering in the hundreds of thousands of participants. They are doing their best to convince the powers to be that peaceful change is unavoidable and urgent. They are doing their best to prevent chaos and violence from engulfing their country, while insisting on standing up for their rights. Let's do our best to support them, in ways that do not harm their ultimate goal of non-violent change. Hadi Ghaemi is the Director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (www.iranhumanrights.org ) More on Ahmadinejad
 
Waylon Lewis: My interview with Michael Pollan re: how to communicate "green" to the masses, why he eats meat, GMOs, cancer, diet, Swine Flu, Michelle Obama's organic garden. Top
A few weeks back I got to interview one of my idols (as I mention in the first moments of the interview)-- Michael Pollan . Michael, along with Alice Waters and a few thousand farmers and farmers' markets, has led a growing movement to reclaim our food from the growing danger of agribusiness. It's simple, really: eat food, not too much, mostly plants as Pollan puts it in his N.Y. Times best-selling books Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food. Cook more. Buy less processed food (food with less than five ingredients). Even if your idea of being a foodie is, like me, putting together some organic veggie nachos, you'll dig how eloquently, warmly and straightforwardly Michael Pollan communicates to the masses . For while I, and many others, struggle to express our eco-vangelism, Pollan is (in my view, along with Malcolm Gladwell, Elizabeth Kolbert, and Bill McKibben) a consummate writer. Without further adieu, here's part I of II: To come: Michael Pollan discusses how we can inspire the Obama Administration to effect real change in a speech to an exclusive gathering of Natural Biz Tycoons in Boulder, Colorado. With thanks to our sponsor Gaiam , and Naturally Boulder for hosting, Sylvia Tawse of Fresh Ideas Group for connecting Mr. Pollan and I, to Deb Fryer of Lila Films for filming at last moment and Alex King of Mito Media for his creative, stylish editing as always. More on Food
 
Howard Glaser: Is the Financial and Mortgage Industry Smart Enough to Recognize the Lifeline Obama Has Thrown It? Top
Normally dour Larry Kudlow had a funny, telling line on CNBC yesterday. Responding to news that a bankers association had put out an economic forecast calling for recovery in the 3rd quarter, Kudlow dryly noted that if the forecast was accurate, "the banks will be right about one thing in a row." The financial services sector has been jaw droppingly wrong on many things during the course of the financial crisis -- especially, to Alan Greenspan's infamous " shocked disbelief ," when their own self interest was at stake. If the banks and financial services industry oppose the Obama financial overhaul , the track record will remain untouched. The reflexive reaction of the industry to push back against any regulatory action is in full force ( see this foaming at the mouth reaction ). But a closer look at the Obama plan reveals that the proposed overhaul is, by and large, in the best interests not only of consumers of financial products, but the financial companies themselves, their shareholders, and investors. 1. Confidence Is King: Recovery of the financial markets has been prolonged by a failure of confidence among investors and consumers. The mortgage markets remain shut down, absent an on-going huge transfusion of capital by the federal government. Trust in the ratings agencies has evaporated. We should take it as a sign when Chinese students laugh down the US Treasury Secretary's assertion that assets held by American institutions are safe -- they are the next generation of international investor. Meanwhile, consumer lack of faith in banks is at an all time low, with a recent survey finding only 9% of US and UK borrowers expressing confidence in financial institutions. How Obama Plan Addresses: The Obama Plan lays out a series of steps designed to restore investor and consumer confidence. The securitization process -- which went seriously awry with the off-loading of risks of garbage products -- gets rebooted. For the first time, loan level data must be disclosed to ratings agencies and investors -- not only at the issuance of the security, but on an on-going basis so that investors can track the actual performance of the underlying loans (a process known as surveillance, pioneered by companies like Clayton Holdings ). Ratings agencies will be subject to tighter conflict of interest rules and improvements to the integrity of the ratings process. On the consumer side, the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency would mark the separation of consumer protection from safety and soundness banking regulation. Consumer protection has typically been on the backburner of the banking agencies, as evidenced by the Fed's after-the-fact discovery of a subprime problem. If an enhanced consumer protection regime is the price of regaining borrower trust, it will be worth it for the struggling financial industry. 2. Standardization and Uniformity: The financial services industry is notoriously subject to inconsistent and conflicting regulatory requirements from a number of agencies. For example, the rules governing mortgage closing are administered by HUD and the Fed (Truth in Lending Act, and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) and have resulted in a situation that benefits neither lenders nor borrowers, as HUD Secretary Donovan recently noted . The cost and burden of compliance of these conflicting requirements is enormous. How Obama Plan Addresses: The plan would integrate regulation for the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HEOPA), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). By creating a "one stop shop" for mortgage and finance regulation, the CFPA can help bring coherence and rationality to a regulatory system that today is fragmented and difficult to comply with. 3. A Level Playing Field for All Financial Players: The fragmentation of regulatory authority in today's system sometimes creates competitive disadvantages for financial industry participants. Identical products may be subject to different regulatory requirements, depending on who regulates the lender, leading to confusion for consumers and unfairness for lenders. How Obama Plan Addresses: The plan would "ensure that banks, nonbanks, and independent mortgage brokers all play by the same rules", with a mandate for the CFPA to "write rules across bank and nonbank firms for a level playing field". We can't remember a prior instance of the federal government paying heed to a "level playing field" for the financial services industry. 4. Plain Vanilla Rules for Plain Vanilla Products: One of the absurdities of today's system of regulation is that the level of disclosure and restriction is the same for a relatively simple financial product like a conforming 30 year fixed loan as it is for an "exotic" product. That traditional system serves neither borrowers -- who can be inundated with voluminous but not necessarily meaningful disclosures for simple products, while not getting enough transparency on complex financial products-- nor lenders, who bear the costs and burdens the system. How the Obama Plan Addresses: Obama economic advisor Michael Barr pioneered the application of "behavioral regulation" to mortgage and consumer finance lending. Many of Barr's concepts have found their way into the Obama plan. The CFPA would have authority to define standards for "plain vanilla" products that are simple and have straightforward pricing -- significantly easing disclosure standards for the vast majority of products. Lenders could offer more complex products, but the disclosure would be commensurate with the complexity -- a novel approach that stands to benefit lenders and consumers. 5. Obama Plan is A Politically Moderate Approach: The Obama plan is far from the radical restructuring of markets or imposition of "command and control" regulation that many in the finance industry feared. If anything, the plan is notable for what it does NOT do: The plan does not revamp the credit rating agency business model (i.e. to an investor pay model) Does not create a "super regulator" for systemic risk Mutual fund regulation stays at SEC, not the new consumer agency The plan does not create federal insurance regulation The plan does not attempt an overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Generally, the plan is more "course correction" than a top-to-bottom shakeup of financial markets. The plan is not without cost and not without flaws -- it will and should be refined and improved during the legislative debate to come. But the overall proposal is helpful to the stability of financial services industry and the confidence of investors and borrowers -- without turning the banking and financial world upside down. The question is, does the industry know a good deal when it sees one? ****************************************************************************************************************************************** This commentary solely reflects the views of The Glaser Group, a financial services and mortgage industry consulting firm. More on Alan Greenspan
 
Customers Continue Shopping As Store Clerk Murdered In Broad Daylight (WATCH SURVEILLANCE VIDEO) Top
Gary police have released the surveillance video of a deadly robbery in the hopes that it will lead to clues in the murder of 26-year-old convenience store clerk Gurjeet Singh, the Tribune reports . Singh was shot to death Sunday during a brazen daylight robbery. CBS 2 had reported that customers continued to shop and neglected to call 911 after the shooting. Gary Police Commander Anthony Titus called "the fact that people went in and out of the store and didn't call police" the worst part of the surveillance footage. "There is a man laying there. Nobody thinks to dial 911 or check to see if he's OK or anything," Titus told CBS 2 . Watch the surveillance footage:   More on Video
 
Barbara Coombs Lee: AMA Opposition and the Path Ahead Top
Working for social change, we run a long race through a wood, dark and deep. The milestones tick by, yet still the path leads ahead into the thicket. We long to break into a clearing and see the finish line ahead. Over fifteen years ago I enlisted in the fight to secure our right to control the timing and manner of death should end-of-life suffering become unbearable. We have come far in those years. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the law should empower terminally-ill, competent patients to choose how they will end their lives. With the public on our side, we must overcome the resistance of a few powerful opponents. Conservative religious activists oppose us, as they stand in the way of other social change. They hold firm religious beliefs about life's end and seek to impose them on others through secular law. But they alone could not stop us if they were not joined by the American Medical Association. The AMA's outspoken opposition to aid in dying has been cited by the Supreme Court and influences lower courts, state medical societies, and most important, legislatures. Our society naturally defers to physicians in the matter of prescribing potent medicines. We have invested them as the keepers of, and expect them to manage, those medicines. Yet we chafe at our deference to the medical establishment when they withhold a vitally important choice from some patients. To ask, "Why do our doctors oppose what the majority of Americans support?" misstates the question. The AMA claims to speak for doctors, and the media often echo that assertion, yet barely a quarter of the nation's physicians are AMA members. Many medical and public health organizations have policies that support aid in dying , including the American Medical Women's Association, the American Medical Student Association, the American College of Legal Medicine and the American Public Health Association. The Oregon experience has persuaded medical leaders throughout the nation that legalization of aid in dying improves end-of-life care rather than harms it. The majority of physicians see it as part of their role as reliever of suffering when a cure is not possible. The position of the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs however, remains a tired platitude, frozen in time for the last fourteen years: physician aid in dying "is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer." When pollsters ask individual doctors whether they would support legalized physician aid in dying, their answer is a resounding yes. A number of surveys show nearly two-thirds of doctors are supportive , close to the percentage of Americans in general. Even among those doctors who are members of the AMA, only one out of three opposes legalization. In fact a majority of physicians report they would want aid in dying available to them if they were faced with a terminal illness. Imposing a reverse golden rule, the AMA prevents doctors from helping others to choose what they would want for themselves. With so many doctors supporting it, who stands against empowering dying patients? Four hundred thirty physicians in the AMA House of Delegates who craft its policy. Among those 430 physicians, opposition to end-of-life choice is strong and fierce. Why does the AMA leadership stand in the way of change? We can only speculate on their motive but it helps to ask what benefit the AMA sees in keeping it illegal. The answer lies in the fact that legalization empowers patients. It empowers them to discuss end-of-life treatment. Legal aid in dying gives qualified patients the power to ask their doctors about their options and to request a prescription for life-ending medication. If their doctor will not honor their choices, legalization gives patients the power to transfer their care to a doctor who will. It breaks the bonds that hold them hostage to the religious beliefs of their doctor. Patients however, do not gain power by taking it from physicians. In my experience, legalizing aid in dying is not a zero sum equation for doctors. It empowers both patients and their physicians to speak frankly, practice medicine safely and face inevitable sadness openly. Where physician aid in dying remains illegal, the AMA controls both doctors and their patients. Sadly, the AMA has long opposed progress in medical practice and treatment that empowers patients and removes physicians from the absolute center of the decision-making process. The AMA opposed all forms of medical insurance and delayed Medicare enactment for years with its vigorous opposition. It opposed birth control for women and the use of anesthesia during childbirth. Patients fought in court for informed consent, the right that guarantees they must understand treatments and alternatives before agreeing to them. As with these past struggles, advocates for empowering patients through aid in dying have faced opposition from the AMA and its affiliates that is vigorous and even ruthless. The California legislature debated a Death with Dignity bill in 2007. That bill would be the law today if it were not for the efforts of the California Medical Association, who deployed all their lobbying power in Sacramento to defeat it, twisting the arms of legislators in a raw display of political muscle. The AMA's opposition to patient empowerment is frustrating, even infuriating, but predictable. Gloria Steinem has famously said, "Power can be taken, but not given. The process of the taking is empowerment in itself." At Compassion and Choices we have learned over the years from countless patients facing the end of life, that by embracing that end and making active decisions they forcefully take that power unto themselves. In the same way, as advocates, we cannot expect a small yet potent group of AMA leaders to willingly grant us the change we seek. We must take it ourselves.
 

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