Monday, June 15, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Daniel Levy: BIBI'S BABY STEP; WHAT NEXT AFTER NETANYAHU'S SPEECH by Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah Top
"One giant leap for Benjamin Netanyahu, but just one small step for Middle East peace." That was how commentators in both of Israel's leading dailies, Yehidot Ahronot and Ma'ariv, chose to describe the Prime Minister's address yesterday. One thing can definitely be concluded from the speech, Ben Rhodes has not been on loan from the White House and stationed in Jerusalem for the last week. It was a poor speech stylistically. Even the historical and biblical quotes were of the predictable and plodding kind, it lacked grandeur or any sense of occasion. More importantly, it was also a mean-spirited, often petty and parochial speech in its substance, "a speech without a gram of nobility," as commentator Ofer Shelach wrote in Ma'ariv. Israel has just lived through two prime ministers who made significant journeys from their right-wing roots and even if neither entered the promised land of peace, both made gestures in that direction. Ariel Sharon acknowledged the occupation as did his successor Ehud Olmert, who went much further in recognizing a Palestinian narrative and displaying some empathy to, for instance, the Palestinian refugees. Judging from the Bar-Ilan University speech, Benjamin Netanyahu has barely set out on that journey. For him, there was no occupation, talk of Judea of Samaria but no West Bank, and there was no sense of humanity in his approach to the Palestinians. Although they are his neighbors and even 20% of his own citizenry, their world would seem to be totally alien to him. He called, for instance, on the Arab world to develop together joint tourist sites, such as, "around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem," with no apparent appreciation for the irony of referring to walls in this context. Netanyahu, perhaps understandably, spoke to a lowest common denominator - Jewish Israeli consensus, and his right wing coalition was sleeping easy last night. And yet, he uttered those two magic words, Palestinian state. The list of conditionalities surrounding the establishment of that state may have been so extensive as to drain the very idea of statehood of any meaning but still, he said it. The Obama administration had asked for two things: on a settlement freeze they received a blunt 'No'; on Palestinian statehood, it was a highly conditioned 'Yes, but...'. As Israel TV and Ma'ariv analyst Ben Caspit put it, "welcome Mr. Prime Minister to the 20th century. The problem is that we're already in the 21st." So what happens next? What are the consequences of this speech and what can be done in its wake? Here are five suggestions, most of them for the Obama administration but a thought also on the Palestinian response. First, as the White House Press Secretary immediately did, pocket that Palestinian statehood commitment. However minor it may seem, however wrapped in negatives, it is something to build on. It is also clearly something that cannot be left to the parties themselves to translate into a workable plan for actually realizing a two-state reality. That will be a job for the US and its international and regional allies. Second, treat the Israeli Prime Minister's emphasis on security issues and conditionalities as an invitation. Once he got past the historical lecture, Benjamin Netanyahu actually laid out some reasonable concerns with regard to the security arrangements and guarantees that a peace agreement would have to address. Netanyahu spent three paragraphs outlining the demilitarization, monitoring, air-space requirements, and other security factors weighing on his mind, and Netanyahu made a direct plea, "today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States for what is critical to the security of Israel." The Obama administration should respond and present a detailed plan for answering Israel's legitimate security concerns in the context of a two-state solution. There will of course be a parallel ask of Israel from its "friends in the international community led by the United States" - end the occupation, agree to a border based on the '67 lines with only minor reciprocal modifications, including arrangements for Jerusalem, and for the refugees, and for real Palestinian sovereignty. Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday opened the door for this kind of an arrangement. He also notably did not mention the effort of American General Keith Dayton or the Palestinian Security Forces. The message is clear. Security will have to be an internationally-led effort and capacity-building in the Palestinian security sector should from now on be treated as something that is perhaps useful but of a secondary order of magnitude. Third, the Obama administration and the Quartet must push back in response to Netanyahu's settlement freeze rejectionism. Netanyahu promised there would be no new settlements or additional land confiscations but there would be a normal life, which is referred to in the technical jargon as "natural growth". The settler leadership understood this ruse for what it is, and when Israel Channel One cut from the speech to settler leaders in Ma'aleh Adumim, they were celebrating. "We do not need new land or new settlements," said local mayor Benny Kasriel, former head of the settlers' council, "just to keep building." One can see his point. The West Bank settler population has increased from 111,000 to over 290,000 since the Oslo process began in 1993 (the number reaches almost 500,000 including East Jerusalem). The vast majority of that was under the rubric of natural growth, and there are vast expanses of land annexed to settlement municipalities awaiting construction. The Obama administration needs to stick to its principle of a total freeze, whether in public or private conversation, and as former ambassador Daniel Kurtzer in Sunday's Washington Post, there are no previous understandings on this matter between Washington and Jerusalem (and supposed friends of Israel, like Elliott Abrams, are a danger to Israel and to the America-Israel relationship when they claim otherwise). There can be only one place for a discussion of the future of settlements and that is delineating a permanent status border between Israel and Palestine. Fourth, Netanyahu's speech should provide a spur for Palestinian national reconciliation and unity (though we doubt this will be the case). The disappointing PA response, while understandable, was somewhat beside the point. The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza have heard an Israeli national narrative and position. Adhering to Palestinian divisions, and a strategy exclusively based on negotiations has even less logic or credibility as of yesterday. The Palestinians will need to find a way to sufficiently unify their own national narrative. Simultaneously they need to develop a common position on negotiations in parallel with a willingness to use nonviolent struggle in opposing the continued occupation (as President Obama hinted at in his Cairo speech ). Finally, the Obama administration should interpret both the venue of Netanyahu's speech (the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies) and his repeated reference to Begin-Sadat as a subliminal message. Benjamin Netanyahu is asking to go down in history as a historical leader of Israel just as Menachim Begin did, and this time by securing a comprehensive peace and final borders with all of Israel's neighbors, including the Palestinians (Menachem Begin settled for just Egypt). Begin never thought he would withdraw from all of the Sinai and evacuate the settlements there, but with American guidance, it happened and has vitally served Israel's interests. After only one month of American complaint regarding settlements, Netanyahu has already said the magic words - Palestinian state. Now at the Begin-Sadat Center he was signaling that he wants to be carried further, all the way in fact, and his non-mention of the Golan Heights was another hint that it's a comprehensive peace he wants America to lead him to... well, maybe not. But we prefer this interpretation to all of the alternatives.
 
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Says He Lied To CIA Under Torture Top
Reporting from Washington -- Accused Sept. 11 organizer Khalid Shaikh Mohammed told U.S. military officials that he gave false information to the CIA even after undergoing punishing bouts of interrogation, according to documents made public Monday. His claim will probably intensify the debate over the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh techniques to gain information from terrorism suspects.
 
Iran Election Live-Blogging (Monday June 15) Top
9:21 PM ET -- Carrying the wounded. Two videos of what appear to be the same event -- a bloodied, unconscious young man being carried through the throngs: 9:09 PM ET -- Any American Idol connections to the Iran election? We might be able to get Larry King to cover it. Thank you, thank you, for your updates on Iran. I'm not ordinarily a big fan of Huff Post, but you're doing the American people a REAL service right now with your updates. Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic also doing a great job. Twitter is my #1 source. It says it all. SHAME SHAME SHAME on the Cable news stations. (I work for one of them, sigh) Larry King is discussing American Idol tonight. FUCK OFF I can't even begin to tell you how outraged I am by the lack of coverage in our media. We just DON'T GET IT Matthew 30, NYC 8:33 PM ET -- Surrounded. More video from Monday's march, this one emailed over by Alex: 8:30 PM ET -- A testy moment. From today's U.S. State Department press briefing . "I haven't used that word, 'condemn,'" he told the State Department press corps. "We need to see how things unfold." "You need to see more heads cracked in the middle of the street?" Fox News' James Rosen shot back. "We need a deeper assessment of what's going on," Kelly said. 8:23 PM ET -- The latest from Iran on Twitter. Great site that shows you which Iranians' Twitter accounts have updated within the last hour . 8:22 PM ET -- One person = one broadcaster. The latest from the Mousavi campaign's official Twitter account: "We have no national press coverage in Iran, everyone should help spread Mousavi's message. One Person = One Broadcaster ." 7:42 PM ET -- Something you can do. How to set up a proxy so Iranian web users can get around the censors. 7:04 PM ET -- Video of Obama. Full transcript here . AP write-up: President Barack Obama on Monday said Iranian voters have a right to feel their ballots mattered and urged the investigation into vote-rigging allegations to go forward without additional violence. Obama said reports of violence that followed Iranian elections trouble him and all Americans. He said peaceful dissent should never be subject to violence that followed weekend elections that gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term. "It would be wrong for me to be silent on what we've seen on the television the last few days," Obama told reporters at the White House. Obama said he had no way of knowing the results were valid -- he said the United States had no election monitors in the country -- but it was important that the voters' choices be respected. 7:00 PM ET -- Victory: Twitter to delay maintenance work. Here's the full statement: A critical network upgrade must be performed to ensure continued operation of Twitter. In coordination with Twitter, our network host had planned this upgrade for tonight. However, our network partners at NTT America recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran. Tonight's planned maintenance has been rescheduled to tomorrow between 2-3p PST (1:30a in Iran). Our partners are taking a huge risk not just for Twitter but also the other services they support worldwide -- we commend them for being flexible in what is essentially an inflexible situation. We chose NTT America Enterprise Hosting Services early last year specifically because of their impeccable history of reliability and global perspective. Today's decision and actions continue to prove why NTT America is such a powerful partner for Twitter. 6:47 PM ET -- Obama: "Deeply troubled." My own transcript (rough) of President Obama just now. It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of iran, which sometimes -- the United States can be a handy political football, or discussions with the United States [can be]. Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence i have seen on television. I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent, all of those are universal values, and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, they are rightfully troubled. He said more, will have soon. 6:37 PM ET -- AP talks to Iranians about their use of Twitter. One Twitter user who identified himself only as Mohsen, speaking to the AP from Tehran, said while he's been using Twitter for about two years, he's intensified his "tweets" over the last few days. He said he sends alerts about "what I see in the streets, about police hitting people, and people who are not police who are hitting Mir Hossein supporters," he said. "These are frames of horror and hate. I think one of the strategies the authorities are doing is stopping news and information, and I use whatever I can to stop them from doing that ." Still waiting on details about Obama's remarks. 6:15 PM ET -- Obama: 'It would be wrong to stay silent.' # Reuters: Obama says he's deeply troubled by the post-election violence in Iran1 minute ago from BNO Headquarters # AP: Obama says it's up to Iran to determine its own leaders. More from CNN: Obama say he's "troubled by the situation in iran, it would be wrong to stay silent..." Still waiting for transcript and video. His remarks came at the end of an Oval Office meeting with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi. 6:10 PM ET -- Climbing the Freedom Tower. Literally. A demonstrator climbs the Freedom Tower in Tehran, Iran today, as protesters continued to demonstrate against contested election results. (AP) 6:06 PM ET -- Follow the developments in Iran like a CIA analyst. This isn't what you think -- and I meant to post it earlier. Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic has some smart thoughts on getting the most out of (and avoiding the pitfalls of) the flood of human intelligence we're getting out of Iran right now. 5:50 PM ET -- The Twitter blackout. As noted below, Iranians are encouraging others to help convince Twitter to cancel its planned maintenance tonight. Twitter is the main social network still accessible within Iran, and it's amazing to think of the bonds that have been made using that technology along over the last few days. Indeed, I'm sure I'm not the only who's concerned right now about the anonymous Iranian student -- @ Change_for_Iran -- who has been tweeting almost non-stop the past several days. He's been off the grid for 12 hours how, his last message sent as he was leaving for the huge rally at Azadi Square: "it's worth taking the risk, we're going. I won't be able to update until I'm back. again thanks for your kind support and wish us luck." Hope he's doing okay. The Twitter protest hashtags: # TwitterStayUp & NoMaintenance 5:41 PM ET -- How Iranians outwit the net censors. Informative article from the New York Times, published back in April. 5:36 PM ET -- A female shot as well? That appears to be the case from this footage, passed on by readers Salim and Arno: 5:22 PM ET -- Rick Sanchez defends CNN's Iran coverage. Sent in by reader Jon: 5:06 PM ET -- Twitter going dark now ? Reader Kevin emails over an important point: "I think one thing that we can do right now is to get Twitter to cancel it's 90 minute maintenance at 9:45 PDT . This is 9:15-10:45 AM in Iran. If they must do it, they should do it around 4 AM Iran time. While it may be inconvenient for us, it would be helpful to them." Here here. If you're on Twitter, make your feelings known. The hashtag, via reader John, is # nomaintenance . This is a good time to encourage folks to join the "Spotlight on Iran" project that HuffPost's citizen journalism unit Eyes&Ears is running. I get the sense, from my emails alone, that many of you have caught the citizen reporting bug. This is a great outlet for it . 5:04 PM ET -- Cantor attacks Obama over Iran. A top House Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor, released a statement reading in part: The Administration's silence in the face of Iran's brutal suppression of democratic rights represents a step backwards for homegrown democracy in the Middle East. President Obama must take a strong public position in the face of violence and human rights abuses. We have a moral responsibility to lead the world in opposition to Iran's extreme response to peaceful protests. Steve Benen picks it apart here . 5:00 PM ET -- Video of paramilitaries firing on crowd. Britain's Channel 4 captures incredible footage (thanks to Adam and Salim for sending): 4:14 PM ET -- 'Follow their lead.' News has slowed from Iran as we enter the late evening. But Americans are still debating how best to support the reformists. Spencer Ackerman's advice : It's emotionally unsatisfying not to proclaim unequivocal support for the protesters. But the truer measure of support, as Trita Parsi told me, is to follow their lead. Moussavi, for instance, has not issued any statement about what he wants the international community to do. If the protesters begin calling for a more direct American response, then that really will have to compel the administration to reconsider its position. But until then, with so many lives at stake, the administration can't afford to take a stance just because it makes Americans feel just and righteous. 3:39 PM ET -- Five miles long. "The crowd - many wearing the trademark green color of Mousavi's campaign - was more than five miles (nine kilometers) long , and based on previous demonstrations in the square and surrounding streets, its size was estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands." 3:36 PM ET -- Power-sharing agreement? In a WashingtonPost.com chat , Michelle Moghtader of the National Iranian American Council writes, "One theory I heard is that Mousavi isn't suicidal. Meaning, he wants some sort of power or position in the government. And he's asking his people to continue protesting until an agreement is made. This would give people
 
Bill Maher Tells Olbermann Why He's Criticizing Obama Top
Scroll down for video Bill Maher appeared on "Countdown" on Monday night to discuss his disappointment with President Obama, asserting that if Obama doesn't act boldly on health care reform and other progressive issues, the Democrats could lose the midterm elections in 2010. He was critical of Obama's speech to the American Medical Association today, since they're a lobbying group that he claims has obstructed previous efforts at health care reform. "When I heard the president get that round of applause at the AMA today, that's when I knew we were in trouble." Maher said that his editorial criticizing Obama on "Real Time With Bill Maher" on Friday night was greeted with cheers, which surprised him since his "very liberal Southern California audience" usually boos when he goes after the president. "They're getting to the point where they're saying 'Yeah, we still like Obama. He's our guy. We're glad he's our president. But where's the beef?" And it's easy to make speeches. What's hard to do is stand up to corporations. Corporations and their incredible strength are what have ruined this country so far. And this president we thought might be the one to stand up to them. I'm losing hope. I still have audacity but my hope is fading." Maher repeated his concerns that Obama was "caving in to corporations and lobbyists. The track record so far is not good," slamming the president for "not putting it on the line and standing up to the energy companies, the health care industry, the banks." The lack of initiative could cause political harm, warned Maher. "If he doesn't act boldly, then he's probably going to lose the midterm elections. If he can't shove some progressive legislation down their throats now, I don't know when it's going to happen." As he did on Friday night, Maher said that Obama could use a little of Bush's decisiveness - without the misguided policies. "When he wanted to get something done, he got it done... If Bush could go to war in Iraq when nobody was thinking about it, how come this president can't get through something like health care reform in a way that the people really want when people are actually for it." Watch the video: More on Video
 
Ripley's Is Running Out Of Oddities: Believe It Or Not Top
After 34 years of labor, Scott Weaver, a 49-year-old manager in the produce department of Lucky Supermarket in Rohnert Park, Calif., finished the model of San Francisco he had constructed entirely of toothpicks.
 
Yoani Sanchez: A Window Into the Cuban Blogosphere: Reinaldo Escobar On Barack Obama Top
With this post I am inaugurating a weekly feature called, "Window into the Cuban Blogosphere," with entries from other Cuban bloggers who write from the Island. The diverse views and opinions of these bloggers will help Huffington Post readers understand the real Cuba, hidden behind the triumphalism and stereotypes of the official media and tourist propaganda. I open my window for all those who have managed, with each post, to make a crack in the wall of control. An uncomfortable garment By Reinaldo Escobar. Cubans have read with optimism Barack Obama's speech in Cairo where he focused on the new American philosophy of international politics. The center of gravity of that philosophy seems to be the tendency not to be a prisoner of the past and to focus more on what unites us than on what divides us, with the objective of finding a common space in which to live and work together in peace. The American president used this constructive thinking to illuminate current conflicts of critical importance, particularly with regards to ethnic or religious differences. On the theme of democracy, Obama said, "No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other." He then elaborated on the basic ingredients of a democratic government adding, "And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people." He was not explicit, however, about how his country would act towards those governments it does not welcome. Clearly (and as he should) Obama outlines an international policy in accord with the interests of his country, understanding that among those interests global peace predominates. He stayed away from concerns stemming from the collection of nations grouped under the banner of Marxist-Leninist ideology. The socialist camp, the Warsaw Pact, no longer exists and the conflict between capitalism and the communist system, which seemed so often to be the most antagonistic conflict of all times and one which could only be solved by the disappearance of one of the contenders, has ceased to be a first order concern for the United States. The case of Cuba remains as a remnant of the Cold War. No one here uses the old language of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," and even in his speech for the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution Raul Castro omitted any allusion to Marxist ideology or remembered to comment on its role in building socialism. At the same time, he has made no public renunciation of those postulates, which end with the desired purpose of sweeping capitalism from the face of the earth. The common ground that might be of interest to both the governments of Cuba and the United States is reduced to the problems of migration, the fight against drug trafficking, and collaboration in the event of national disasters. The recent rudeness from the Cuban government about the possibility of joining the OAS shows how far we are from regional integration. Maybe that's why we can't get the garment that was exhibited on the catwalks of Cairo. Because for the Cuban government, which continues to measure its relations with its northern neighbor by our differences, the cycle of suspicion and discord shows no sign of coming to an end. Nor is there any sign of even wanting to turn the page on a history whose principal source of glory is in the chapters on confrontation. We are prisoners of the past because only it legitimizes our rulers' permanence in power. Reinaldo Escobar has been an independent journalist since 1989, when he was fired from the daily newspaper Juventud Rebelde , for "denying the work of the Revolutionary program, exalting in the contradictions between the younger generation and those who held leadership positions in the country, and using ambiguous terminology that gave [his] articles a double meaning." Escobar, born in 1947, received his degree in Journalism from the University of Havana in 1971. He can be reached at: reinaldoescobar@desdecuba.com His blog, Desde Aqui (From Here), is available in English Translation here . More on Barack Obama
 
Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Is Katherine Harris in Tehran? Top
The bloodshed and civil disorder in the streets of Tehran -- unseen since the 1979 revolution that overthrew Shah Reza Pahlavi -- constitutes an appropriate civil rebuke to Iran's ruling mullahs, who badly miscalculated how unpopular their brutish President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad really is among wide swaths of Iran's population. In just 4 years, through international isolation and rampant corruption, Ahmadinejad has brought Iran's economy to the brink of collapse. And while Iranians yearn for an end to their isolation and resent Ahmadenijad's global juvenile delinquency, what has driven hundreds of thousands to the polls and subsequently into the streets is the boiling resentment against Ahmadinejad's overzealous religious brown-shirt goon squads and his utter indifference to Iran's middle-class economic suffering. Iranian reporters based in the Persian Gulf with whom I have been communicating are actually shocked that the regime (which has so many secret policemen) could have been so tone deaf as to allegedly attempt to rig this presidential election leaving behind so so many telltale muddy footprints to be contested by anyone who has a fundamental understanding of Iran's jury-rigged electoral system. An election that by all accounts brought out a unprecedented protest vote directly against Ahmadinejad and indirectly, against the Supreme Leader himself. It's as if Florida's 2000 election fraud maven -- Katherine Harris -- was up to her old tricks, this time as a hired gun in Tehran. For weeks, it was increasingly clear from the electoral fervor that Iranians who had sat out the last election were determined not to commit the same mistake again. The spike in voter turnout among younger, more educated and more affluent Iranians who sat out the election in 2005 suggests that the election had to have been far closer than the comical vote count breathlessly issued by the Ayatollahs' hand-picked vote counters less than 30 minutes after the polls closed. Did "Supreme Vote Counter" Ali Khamenei actually believe that the voting had to be extended by hours because so many Iranians were driven to express their joyous approval of his hand-picked protege and his bankrupt policies? While there were no independent international observers to monitor the polls, local polling reports from many Iranian cities where challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi was known to be widely popular point to the strong possibility of a manipulated count. Indeed, Ahmadinejad's Interior Ministry cronies put out voting totals suggesting that their leader overwhelmingly won in Mousavi strongholds, i.e. he piled up huge margins in urban as well as rural areas and allegedly won in Mousavi's home city and home province. Now, we're talking about Ahmadenijad beating a very, very popular opponent on his own turf. Its akin to asserting that "W" beat Gore in New York City and every other metropolitan area in the east and west coasts. And the way the result was announced was unprecedented. Usually, in all previous elections, the vote came in and was announced province by province. This time, as if on cue from a higher hand, the results came in blocks of millions of votes -- in percentages of the vote in a country where there are no network predictions as soon as the polls close. Votes are hand counted, yet the results were announced in unison as if someone gave the signal to issue the results simultaneously. It is all very, very suspicious, to say the least! The fate of the Ayatollah's Shiite paradise may be hanging in the balance. The next few days will determine whether Khomenei can quell the civil disorder. But do not underestimate the determination of Ahmadinejad and his legions of blindly loyal Revolutionary Guards to use the very violence in the streets of Tehran against Iran's citizens that the Shah himself refused to use against his people in 1979, which ultimately led to his downfall and exile. Just like the Chinese at Tiananmen, the Iranian theocracy has no qualms throwing thousands in Evan -- Iran's notorious prison of torture or killing them. And tonight, Ahmadinejad's police did just that -- fire upon and kill protesters. In what likely will be a vain attempt to separate himself from the street commotion, Ayatollah Khomenei stated today that he has ordered the Guardian Council to conduct an "investigation" into Mousavi's assertion that the election was fraudulent. A report is supposed to be issued in 10 days. That has the malodorous odor of a Florida recount! Unlike his predecessor Jimmy Carter, who grossly miscalculated what the Iranian Revolution would mean to American interests in the Middle East, President Obama's measured statements this evening expressing empathy for the protesters while steering clear of giving any ammunition to Ahmadenijad against the U.S. struck the right measured and sophisticated balance. But this balancing act is going to be hard to maintain if the violence in Tehran's streets sharply escalates. Yet anything more than what Obama stated this evening would clearly risk transforming the situation into an anti-American clarion call by the Ayatollah's henchclerics, and that must be avoided at all costs given the stakes for Obama's policy of engaging Iran. The whole world is watching, because even if Ahmadinejad is able to cling to power, the rioting has shaken Iran's clerical establishment to the core. The consequences may not be seen for weeks, or even months, but for once there is little doubt that Ayatollah Khamenei is the one not sleeping well at night while Ahmadinejad plots his next repressive moves against Iran's protesters. More on Barack Obama
 
Pentagon Debates Whether To Squelch Report On Afghan Attack Top
WASHINGTON -- Defense Department officials are debating whether to ignore an earlier promise and squelch the release of an investigation into a U.S. airstrike last month, out of fear that its findings would further enrage the Afghan public, Pentagon officials told McClatchy Monday.
 
Pregnant Inmates Shackled During Pregnancy Want Class Action Lawsuit Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- Simone Jackson considered her seventh pregnancy a joy - until she was arrested for robbery in November 2007 and forced to deliver her child while shackled to a hospital bed. Jackson, 40, is among four former Cook County Jail inmates suing the sheriff's department, claiming the practice of restraining women in labor violates Illinois law and the U.S. Constitution. Attorneys Tom Morrissey and Ken Flaxman asked a judge Monday to allow the decision in the first lawsuit to decide the fate of the rest. The class-action motion will be heard by a Cook County judge June 22. Class action status also would allow women who have given birth at the jail since Dec. 4, 2006, to join the suit. Jackson claims her right wrist and right ankle were chained to her hospital bed throughout childbirth. "I thought, 'I'm in slavery,'" she said during a news conference Monday. Danielle Bryant, 30, said she was also shackled to her bed during labor. But, doctors demanded the shackles be removed when it was time for her to push. Five minutes after the baby was born, the shackles were returned. Bryant, arrested for theft in August 2008, said she had heard the stories from other residents of the Mom's Program, a Cook County program for low security-risk pregnant women. She thought the officers would remove the shackles when she began contracting. "But they never came," she said. Women in the Mom's Program are no longer shackled. But, the estimated 30 to 40 women in the general jail population still are, Morrissey said. Sheriff's department spokesman Steve Patterson has said deputies have followed department policy, which conforms to state law. Jackson said following policy doesn't make the deputies' actions right. "I feel they knew it was ethically wrong, but because of protocol, nobody wants to step up," she said. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Chris Weigant: An Ad Script For Teddy Kennedy On Healthcare Reform Top
In the debate about healthcare reform, why are the loudest voices in the room the ones who seemingly are against all reform? Where are the champions of the progressive ideas? I've asked this question ( at great length ) before, and while President Obama has started to (half-heartedly) speak up for "the public option," so far nobody else seems to be defending the idea at all. To say this is a disappointment is an understatement. Part of the problem is that the senator all Democrats are deferring to on the issue is Teddy Kennedy. Who has his own problems with healthcare right now, which precludes his being a leading and forceful voice to the public on the issue. Or does it? That thought prompted me to write the following television ad script for Kennedy's staff to consider. Now, I fully admit that the language could be changed slightly to highlight different facets of the very complex problem healthcare reform presents, but I think the basic idea is a good one. See if you agree.   [ Fade-in to Senator Edward Kennedy lying in a hospital bed. Various high-tech machines surround him, but are muted, with no "beep beep" noises to distract. ] KENNEDY: "Hello. I'm Senator Edward Kennedy, and I'd like to talk to you about an issue I've been championing for 40 years in Washington: healthcare reform." [ Camera switches angles to more close-up shot ] KENNEDY: "A lot of people are saying a lot of things right now about the different ideas for healthcare reform that are currently being discussed in Congress. Some of these, frankly, are just untrue -- which is why I felt it was necessary to speak to you today." [ Scene changes to show various newspaper headlines showing worst of critics' quotes about "government-run healthcare." ] KENNEDY: "The first principle we started with is that any American who likes the healthcare they have now will not have to change it . If you like your plan, you do nothing, and you keep your plan and your doctor. Don't believe anybody who tells you different." [ Scene shows some stock footage of overwhelmed emergency room -- either a series of still shots, or show in slow motion. ] KENNEDY: "But, sadly, not everyone in America is happy with their healthcare, and not everyone has access to affordable healthcare -- which leads many to do without it because they can't afford it." [ Still shot of a gavel and a judge's hand. ] KENNEDY: "And some who thought they had good health insurance have still wound up going bankrupt because they got sick -- after spending their life's savings on medical bills the insurance company bureaucrats wouldn't pay for." [ Back to Kennedy, medium-shot showing hospital bed again. ] KENNEDY: "We think that's wrong, and that's what President Obama and Democrats are trying to change. But everything we have suggested so far has been attacked by people who simply can't see that there even is a problem with our healthcare system. Most Americans don't need to be told that a problem exists -- because almost everyone has a family member or a friend with a horror story about how expensive healthcare has become." [ Scenes of angry Republican leadership faces, in still black-and-white shots. ] KENNEDY: "But still, some are trying to scare you by saying that Democrats want the government to radically 'take over' healthcare -- which is just not true . The federal government is already in the healthcare business, and serves millions through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. None of these are perfect, but then private insurance isn't perfect either." [ Back to Kennedy's face, close-up. ] KENNEDY: "Which is why we want to offer Americans a public option to compete with the private health insurance industry. Nobody would be forced to try this, which is why it is called an 'option.' But we believe giving Americans this freedom to choose a public option is important. Republicans want to deny you this option. We think you're smart enough to decide for yourself whether it would work for you or not." [ Headlines from the 1960s and 1930s ripping into Medicare, Medicaid, etc. ] KENNEDY: "You know, every time healthcare reform is brought up, the naysayers always predict the death of the private insurance industry. They said this when Democrats passed Medicare, and they said it when Democrats passed Medicaid. But neither one killed private insurance, and the public option we are proposing now will not kill private health insurance either. The people who predicted doom for the insurance industry were wrong back then, and they are wrong now." [ Return to medium-shot of Kennedy. ] KENNEDY: "All we want to do is add some competition to bring the price of health insurance down for everyone. This competition will force insurance companies to rein in their out-of-control cost hikes. I'm not sure why Republicans are against the idea of the free marketplace, or why they're so scared of a government-run program out-competing the private industry, because they've been saying for years that nothing the government does is as efficient or as good as what private industry can do." [ Kennedy, close-up of face. ] KENNEDY: "What we want is not a 'takeover' of healthcare by the government, what we want is to give Americans the choice -- in the form of a public option -- of a different way of delivering healthcare. If you don't like that option, nobody is going to force you to sign up for it. If you try it and don't like it, nobody is going to force you to stay in it. If you like your healthcare as it is, you won't have to do anything. But some may think the public option makes sense for them. Which is all we're trying to do -- to give them that choice." [ Kennedy, long shot showing whole hospital bed and equipment. ] KENNEDY: "Don't deny Americans this choice, that is all we are asking. Even if you decide it's not for you, don't deny your neighbor the choice -- which may mean the difference between no healthcare and having healthcare. I ask you to write or call your representatives in Congress, and ask them to support the public option for real healthcare reform. "Thank you." OK, it's a bit long, even for a 60-second ad. It could be tightened up. Or perhaps spit into a few different ads which address different angles. And, yes, it is manipulative to show Kennedy in a hospital bed. And perhaps the word "Republican" could be changed to "reform opponents" or something, in a more bipartisan spirit. But sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt. And Kennedy, if he weren't in the midst of his own battle against illness right now, would assumably be all over the place speaking in a loud voice about what the Democrats were for. Nobody has stepped into the void Kennedy's health problems have caused (Senator Chris Dodd seems to be trying, but hasn't really been vocal enough yet). And, like Obama, Kennedy enjoys both name recognition and high approval ratings all over the country. So, what do you think? If you think the idea has merit, let Kennedy's staff know . Personally, I think it's time for a strong voice for the public option, even if it comes from a hospital bed.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Barack Obama
 
Youth Radio -- Youth Media International: What's So Wrong With Overachievement? Top
Originally published on Youthradio.org , the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe. By: Erin Bilir I guess you could say I'm that teenager. You know, the one who's overambitious, over stimulated, and overworked. I get straight A's, I participate in extracurricular activities, and I hold myself to a high standard in everything I do. If you were to travel down the halls of my high school, you'd find it brimming with lovesick young couples, making out, holding hands, and engaging in other, even more embarrassing public displays of affection. And then you'd find me, curled up in a locker bank poring over a copy of "The Sound and The Fury." What most people tend not to understand, is I am engaging in a subtler form of PDA. To me, my love of learning is really no different than the feeling other teens have for a certain sport, art form, or high school sweetheart. So why is it that while others are applauded for following their hearts and pursuing their passions I find myself condemned...stigmatized. Many adults in my life, even my parents and some of my teachers, say the same thing: "Slow down...life isn't all about getting an A." I know they all care about me, but still, some of them would love nothing more than to see me fail. Not because they're cruel or anything, but because they want to me to know that "life will go on." They wish I'd go to parties, jump up and down at concerts, exchange text messages, and meet up with girlfriends at the Starbucks to talk about Zac Efron. If I were messing up and testing my boundaries and authority, I guess I'd seem more normal. But I have a big goal. And it's not about making money, or having a big important title, or getting into a specific college. My dream, my most secret hope, is to be someone extraordinary, someone who has actually done something of importance for this world. It's a little embarrassing, but I have a poster of Mohandas Gandhi hanging on my wall. Every morning when I wake up, before I go to take that test or to hand in that essay, I see that picture and I remember why I'm getting up in the first place. Come to think of it, couldn't Gandhi be considered a bit of an overachiever himself? Youth Radio/Youth Media International (YMI) is youth-driven converged media production company that delivers the best youth news, culture and undiscovered talent to a cross section of audiences. To read more youth news from around the globe and explore high quality audio and video features, visit Youthradio.org
 
World Naked Bike Ride Rolls Through Chicago (VIDEO, NSFW) Top
The sixth annual World Naked Bike Ride took place Saturday night, with hundreds of Chicago cyclists, skateboarders and roller skaters streaking through the city in various degrees of undress to raise awareness of global oil dependency. The three-hour ride started near Oprah's Harpo studios and wove its way east through downtown, north up Michigan Avenue to Belmont, west until Ashland then south again toward the start. Metromix has a safe-for-work slideshow of the event. Some racier, not-safe-for-work slideshows here and here . Watch video of the naked mass cruising Michigan Avenue, via Timeout Chicago : The scene at Belmont: Here's video posted by the organizers: Last year the ride drew an estimated 1,700 participants. There has been no official word yet on how many participated this year. More on Video
 
Hank Greenberg Plundered AIG Retirement Program Of Billions Of Dollars, Says AIG Lawyer Top
NEW YORK — The former top executive of American International Group Inc. plundered an AIG retirement program of billions of dollars because he was angry at being forced out of the company, a lawyer for AIG told jurors Monday at the start of a civil trial. Attorney Theodore Wells told the jury in Manhattan that former AIG Chief Executive Officer Maurice "Hank" Greenberg improperly took $4.3 billion in stock from the company in 2005, after he was ousted by the company amid investigations of accounting irregularities. "Hank Greenberg was mad. He was angry," Wells said in U.S. District Court of the emotional state of the man who, over a 35-year-career, built AIG from a small company into the world's largest insurance provider. He said the saga is a story of "anger, betrayal and cover-up." Wells said that Greenberg, within weeks of being forced out in mid-2005, gave the go-ahead for tens of millions shares to be sold from a trust fund. The fund was set up decades ago to provide incentive bonuses to a select group of AIG management and highly compensated employees that they would receive upon their retirement. Wells showed the jury several clips of Greenberg speaking on videotape about the responsibilities of the trust fund. He called it Greenberg's "videotaped confession." Wells asked the jury to award AIG $4.276 billion and 185 million AIG shares. Greenberg, 84, has contended through his lawyers that he had the right to sell the shares because they were owned by Starr International, a privately held company he controlled. Greenberg's lawyer, David Boies, told the jury in his opening statement the shares sold by his client did not belong to AIG. "I disagree with a great many things that Mr. Wells said," Boies told the jury. He said a study of the documents in the case would prove that the shares sold by Greenberg did not belong to AIG. "Look in this case not to what people said after this lawsuit started," Boies said. "Look to what they said and did and wrote before the lawsuit started." Starr International was named after Cornelius Vander Starr, who created a worldwide network of insurance companies in the early 1900s. AIG maintains that Starr and Greenberg, his protege and successor, decided in the late 1960s to organize the various companies under one holding company, AIG. Starr International remained a private company and its shareholders decided in 1970 that the amount that its shares of AIG were worth above book value of about $110 million should be used to compensate AIG employees, AIG has said. The embattled insurer is trying to reclaim the money from Starr it says was wrongly pocketed through stock sales by Greenberg. The trial relates to events that occurred long before AIG found itself under attack earlier this year over its bonus program. The company was roundly criticized after it accepted $182 billion in federal aid and then paid out $165 million in bonuses to employees, including traders in the financial products unit that nearly caused the company to collapse. Before the jury was chosen Monday, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said evidence in the trial could not include information about the government bailout. He also said the entire trial will last no longer than a month. Witnesses begin testifying Tuesday; Greenberg is among one of several witnesses expected to take the stand this week. The trial features two legal heavyweights. Boies argued on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court during the disputed presidential vote in 2000. Wells was on the team of defense lawyers in 2007 for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about his role in leaking the name of a CIA operative to a reporter.
 
Phish at Bonnaroo (Slideshow) Top
Photographs by Maryelle St. Clare for the Huffington Post
 
Craig Newmark: allforgood.org at the craigslist foundation volunteer boot camp Top
Hey, I just found out that a session for AllForGood.org will be at the craigslist foundation volunteer boot camp this weekend. It'll be led by Jonathan Greenblatt, who chairs Our Good Works, which the newly-formed nonprofit which governs AllForGood.org . The All For Good session will cover topics such as such as fundraising, future technology, advocacy and lobbying, community building, marketing and messaging, strategic planning, and measuring success and impact.  The workshop on All for Good titled "Smarter Service in a Web 2.0 World" will share how organizations can use All for Good to help distribute volunteer opportunities across the Web and on social networks. Come join Arianna Huffington, Randi Zuckerberg, Jonathan Greenblatt, Ami Dar, Rich Harwood, Shirley Sagawa, and others (me too!) as tickets are still available for the 6th Annual Craigslist Foundation volunteer Boot Camp this Saturday at UC Berkeley.
 
Maria Eitel: World Economic Forum: Progress across Africa Depends on Girls Top
I mentioned last week that girls would be front and center at the World Economic Forum on Africa's session entitled The Girl Effect in Africa. By all accounts, it was an amazing session. The Nike Foundation's Managing Director, Lisa MacCallum, served as moderator and shared this report: For those not familiar with the World Economic Forum on Africa, this is one of the Forum's five regional annual meetings. As much as Davos is about theory, the regional meetings are about practice. Following on the success of the Girl Effect on Development earlier this year, the Forum wanted to use the Africa meeting to shine a spotlight on what's working in the region and to discuss what needs to be done. And let's face it; a lot needs to be done. More than 75% of HIV positive youth in Africa are girls. Millions are out of school, facing early marriage, early childbirth and virtually no access to economic opportunity. In a nutshell, it's socially tragic and economically unsustainable. That's what we came to Cape Town to talk about. But Thursday's session was the good news. It means action is being taken and very influential people are talking about it on the world stage. Before I get into the details, I do have to share one amazing thing that happened. Two minutes before we started, I found out that Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum, wanted to introduce the session. How big a deal is this? Well, of all the sessions in Cape Town, this was the only one he introduced. He spoke of the importance of public private partnerships in realizing the girl effect, as well as the Forum's commitment to it. He closed by saying the Girl Effect in Africa is one of the most important sessions on this year's program. In other words, if you consider it in the context of the economic crisis, the girl effect is a hugely important thing to be talking about. Beyond the unexpected opening, one of the most exciting things about today's session was the participation of an 18-year-old girl from Zimbabwe named Zillah Muponda. Zillah joined the session as a panelist, giving a face to the girl effect and speaking passionately about her personal experiences as a girl in Africa today. As a young activist, Zillah is working to change the state of girls' lives. She has started an organization to get girls in school and to improve the quality of their education in rural communities. She raises funds for school fees to get both girls and boys into school. Zillah went on to say there's no point in providing access to education if nothing is taught - teachers were not showing up to teach. So she also provides teachers with food and cooking oil provided by corporate sponsors to make sure they show up. Not bad for a girl who's still in high school herself. Overall, there were a few key themes panelists addressed: 1. Investing in girls as smarter economics The girl effect provides exponential returns. It's grounded in all of the research that tells us when resources are put in the hands of a girl, she will produce more with it and invest more of it into the health and education of her family and community. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director of the World Bank said, "If it's smart to invest in women, then it's smarter to catch adolescent girls upstream and invest in their skills and their education because the returns are even higher. For every extra year of secondary schooling for girls, their wages increase by 10 to 20 percent, significantly higher than the same years of schooling for boys." Colin Coleman, the CEO of Goldman Sachs South Africa commented on some research his company had carried out regarding the impact of girls' education on income. He said, "The direct and indirect effects of gender inequality in education may have reduced potential annualized per capita income growth by .5 to .9 percent in much of Sub-Saharan Africa." Fortunately, he summed up nicely for those of us who don't run investment banks: "In Africa this means that actual income growth was only half of its potential." It comes down to massive potential lost for an entire continent because girls haven't had the chance to participate. 2. Economic solutions are often masked by culture Culture was a theme that emerged again and again. Zillah reflected on her own experience and said, "The problem in rural areas is that there's an issue that people cling to culture a lot, so you find that girls have no place within families and their voice is never heard." Richard Harvey, Chair and Former Chief Executive Officer of Aviva (the UK-based insurance company) referred to "a bit of research from McKinsey years ago and it said that the single factor that makes the most difference in turning around a business is the change in the culture. If we're going to turn around this business, which is developing Africa, then the culture which is keeping the girls out of the system is going to have to change." Cultural and social norms can be deeply embedded, but many times it comes right back down to economics at the household level. For a family in poverty, it's assumed that girls have less economic potential than boys. When you're desperately poor, this assumption can be a powerful driver of decision making. It means that a girl might seem more valuable as a child bride and mother than an educated citizen. 3. It's urgent - we can't wait. We must reach girls before they are 12 Puberty changes everything for girls in developing countries. That's when her education, and consequently her health and safety, no longer have value. If we can't reach her by 12, we're no longer investing in prevention, we're investing in treatment. Graça Machel, Founder and President of the Foundation for Community Development put it this way: "In our families, when a boy and a girl are born, there's a sort of hierarchy in terms of value. A boy we value more and a girl we value less. From the beginning, investments are made in a boy because he is more valuable. It happens in families, it happens in our government." At the Nike Foundation we talk a fair amount about how families make difficult decisions that result in undervaluing their girls based on perceived necessity, so I was particularly interested when Richard argued that girls were actually overvalued. When speaking of pulling a young girl of 10 out of school, he said, "[Families] possibly overvalued the contribution the girl could make in a short-term and the needs for that girl to stay at home to look after the other siblings and take care of the cattle... that's a short-term mistake but a heck of an easy one to make, if you're facing that kind of poverty." It all comes down to one big idea: access to economic opportunity. Colin is very involved in 10,000 Women, a management and professional development program for women in developing countries. I asked him what that meant for girls. He said, "If you are honest about this, if you're going to educate girls and not provide them with a window to their own business and professional development, you're sending a signal that is precisely opposite of the signal you want to send and it's a blockage. This is about creating open access for girls to visualize their professional advancement." 4. Girls won't count until we count them...specifically It gets back to D'Israeli's maxim - "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." What I heard is that the numbers don't tell the story. Just because an indicator might be improving for a country overall, it could actually be getting worse in communities or whole regions. Ngozi weighed in with a call for accountability from the top, and also noted that there's an opportunity to use the data and indicators to make countries compete. She said that setting indicators showing what countries are doing, and not doing, for girls and women can be extremely powerful. Donald Kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank, had this to say, "On the issue of statistics, the picture is not good. The numbers are big numbers, aggregate numbers. They don't tell us the magnitude of what's happening to girls." I was thrilled when both Ngozi and Donald referenced new work their organizations are developing to disaggregate data and better count girls. 5. A little bit of support is not enough Complacency is an issue. It's easy, the panelists noted, to be satisfied with a small program or two or to consider increases of girls in primary school a success when they are not continuing on to secondary school. According to Graça Machel, "The question is why girls are under-resourced. You don't invest so much, but you get happy that you are doing. You don't challenge yourself to say 'I have to have 100% of girls in school, I have to have 100% of girls succeed. When we do a little bit, it's like we say 'it's done.' We have to challenge that mentality." When she made this statement you could actually feel a shift in the room. There was an aha moment where you could see the panelists and audience alike really starting to think through whether they are doing enough. It wasn't long before Donald said "We're doing quite a lot, but not enough for girls." Richard also closed by reminding us of something everyone can do: advocate for girls. "How do you get the message out there? I would say every damn way you can. ..Just think about how the hell you get the message out there and then get on and make it happen." It was an exciting and provocative discussion. Given the topic, it was fitting that Zillah got the chance to close the conversation. She was in quite esteemed company, but I doubt anyone could have challenged these leaders in the same way she did: "I'm going to chase after every single person [in this room] that said they would pursue my objective. I promise I will do that because I'm really keen to see the change. Remember that I'm just one girl in Zimbabwe who's making this change. If you invested in even five girls in your countries, or even in my country, just imagine for yourselves the change you could make." Before we wrapped, we had the chance to open up to Q&A. It was a bit unique in that there was a severe shortage of questions. This doesn't mean people didn't raise their hands. Plenty did, but the interest - passion actually - had more to do with commenting about the session, sharing how they are investing in the girl effect or serving up their own call to action. To redirect that energy back toward the panel, I'd ever so politely say, "And now if we could hear from someone who has a question" and, again, the next person would comment but not query. I was relieved when a gentleman announced right up front that he had a question. He then spoke about his personal observations of the girl effect and asked the panel "what do you think about what I just said?" I realized afterward that this was a reflection of people clamoring for a platform to talk about girls. It was encouraging to see that as a result of the panel discussion, we had: 1. A corporate board member calling on boards to be accountable for investments in girls, 2. an executive demanding that existing corporate resources be reallocated, 3. a family foundation leader stating that each and every individual has a responsibility, 4. the head of an NGO telling a story to demonstrate that change really can happen. Keep in mind that the Girl Effect in Africa wasn't just the only session in the program about girls. In looking through the program, it was actually the only session that even mentioned girls. That having been said, there was a young man in the audience who didn't get a chance to ask his question. Mohammed Barry, one of the British Council's Global Changemakers, was kind enough to share this after the session: "There's outrage over rape in South Africa and most of these girls who are raped either end up HIV-positive or having children out of wedlock. 2010 is coming next year and I didn't see any strategies for preventing this in the country. What are the government and others doing?" So with that, I'll turn it over to the readers. What are we going to do about this? He raises an excellent point. As South Africa plans for World Cup 2010 and the influx of fans that will come with that - will the girls of South Africa be safe and free to celebrate with everyone else? What can we do about this? Mohammed and I are looking forward to your comments. And in case you're wondering, yes, I thanked him for asking an actual question. More on Africa
 
Senator Richard Lugar Gives Obama An 'A' For Foreign Policy Top
WASHINGTON - President Obama merits an "A" so far in his approach to American foreign policy, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said Monday. But he cautioned that tone alone doesn't solve deep and complex world problems.
 
Credit Card Defaults Rise To Record In May Top
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. credit card defaults rose to record highs in May, with a steep deterioration of Bank of America Corp's lending portfolio, in another sign that consumers remain under severe stress.
 
John Milewski: Who Watches the Watchmen? Top
While it's impossible to draw a direct connection between an act of insanity like this past week's murder at the Holocaust Museum and the hysterical rantings of media viruses like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Beck, a quick tour around the op-ed circuit and the blogosphere indicates that there is significant concern about what might be incited or encouraged by such exploitative and irresponsible media. Through what seems like a 24/7 cacophony of bluster, we hear claims and charges from ratings-driven, facts-challenged "journalists and commentators" that sound like discarded plots from the X-Files . And the problem in not only prevalent in the world of cable bloviators and wacko authors. Other somewhat respectable media outlets continue to fuel fires of unreasoned conspiracy thinking, such as the recent Washington Times piece that suggests the President, "not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself." As if a religious affiliation other than, Christian, would indicate some sort of threat or wrong doing. Not to mention the fact that there has never been any credible evidence presented supporting the claims that President Obama is hiding something about his religious affiliation. But another article that chronicles the latest round of crazy rantings and borderline calls for violence is not why I'm writing. Instead, I'd like to address the question of accountability and responsibility at the top. A quick search around the Internet will uncover endless amounts of criticism of the aforementioned peddlers of potentially dangerous pablum such as Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh. And there's a special place in Internet Hell for Ann Coulter. Her critics are legion. But the group that continues to get a free pass is those in charge... the semi-invisible suits that provide the megaphones and reap the profits when these intellectual snake oil salesmen peddle their nonsense in pursuit of ratings and sales. In other words, "who watches the watchmen?" Attacking Sean Hannity while ignoring management and ownership is the media equivalent of blaming the grunts at Abu Ghraib while ignoring the generals at the Pentagon. Enough about Sean Hannity's seemingly purposeful distortions. How about a little more focus on those that provide Hannity with a forum and legitimize his style of broadcasting (I'm really not sure what to call it, so "broadcasting" will do.) I also want to make clear that this is not an assault on "right wing media." I don't come to this an an ideologue. If there is equivalency on the left, that should be challenged and criticized with equal vigor. The recent examples speak to who is in power and who is in the role of challenging that power. And challenging power is a critically important function in a vibrant democracy. We need Republicans and others to propose alternatives to Obama's ideas and policy initiatives. But Ann Coulter's latest scream for attention is not the equivalent of the loyal opposition. The former serves the greater good. The later, at best, serves Ann Coulter's self promotion. At worst it promotes anger, distorts reality, and flirts with inciting violence. I am also not making a case for restricting free speech. To the contrary, I'm pretty much a purist in that regard. But I know from first hand experience that ownership and management matter more than the latest flavor of the month/year/decade with access to the airwaves. I spent 20 years on the air on C-SPAN and about 5 years on an independently owned radio station affiliated with NBC before that. I wouldn't have spent 5 minutes on either if I ever said anything remotely like the things routinely offered by those that seek ratings by tapping the related veins of anger and irrational thinking. We had standards that were promoted and enforced by management. There was a sense of accountability and responsibility to the public that eclipsed our own parochial economic interests. My bosses didn't hide behind on-air lightning rods. They were involved and accountable. Rush Limbaugh is a one man media empire in many ways, but without management at individual stations around the country signing the syndication agreements that distribute his program, he wouldn't be the force he is today. So Rush becomes the focal point of anger and frustration among those that yearn for more mature and responsible opposition party commentary. It's even suggested that his rantings may incite the type of violence we've seen recently with the shooting at the Holocaust Museum and the murder of Dr. George Tiller (who according to Bill O'Reilly was referred to as, "Tiller the Baby Killer"). Meanwhile, unnamed and in many cases unknown executives rake in the bucks by shoveling this bile onto the airwaves. We keep blaming the front men for our degraded and degrading public discourse, but what about their enablers? More on Fox News
 
Jane Hamsher: A Movement to Make Obama Bring an End to War Top
In 2007, 82 Democratic members of Congress signed a pledge. They would never again vote to fund the war in Iraq without plans for troop withdrawal. Republican critics accused them of demagoguing the war. Of using our soldiers as a political pawns, of not meaning what they said. Those who signed that pledge need to cast their vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Act on Tuesday and prove them wrong. We may agree or disagree about what needs to be done in Iraq, but a promise is a promise. Anti-war activists have supported these members of Congress because of that 2007 pledge. They knocked on doors and distributed leaflets and donated to their campaigns. They and marched side by side with them as they sought to bring an end to the war that still lingers in Iraq and escalates in Afghanistan, as the new film Rethink Afghanistan documents. When Barack Obama declared his presidential candidacy, he said "Start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future." But Obama's 2008 victory was only half the battle for those who want to bring an end the war. Obama was once asked about how he planned to solve the Israeli/Palistinian conflict. He responded by telling a story about Franklin Roosevelt who, when asked if he could address the plight of African Americans, said: You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit....But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it. It's the president's job to make the best decisions he can and keep the country governable at the same time. When it comes to highly divisive issues like the war, he's got to consider many factors -- including the pressures that the military and the CIA bring to bear on the situation. It's the public's job to create the political space for him to move in. For those who supported his candidacy because we wanted to bring an end to the war, it means we have to answer his call to go out and "make him do it." We're working with state blogs from across the country to sound the call to action: Square State (Colorado) Turn Maine Blue (Maine) Michigan Liberal (Michigan) Burnt Orange Report (Texas) Green Mountain Daily (Vermont) Not Larry Sabato (Virginia) My Left Nutmeg (Connecticut) Blue Mass Group (Massachusetts) Calitics (California) The Albany Project (New York) Blog for Arizona (Arizona) There is a movement growing now to create the climate for change to occur. If progressives will stand together, we can have a real voice in working with President Obama to shape our nation's future.
 
Geri Spieler: What Does An Extremist Look Like? Top
Is an extremist tall, short, young, old, thin, fat? Would you know if the person standing next to you was about to pull out a gun and shoot? Scary thought, isn't it? Think about the pressure our protective and security agencies have been under since President Obama took office? Yet, will all this pressure, we---and our agencies--must be sure we are not creating a net that catches more people, but not more threats. Protective agencies are charged with creating "assessments" -- descriptions--of what constitutes a threat to our safety. These agencies include the Pentagon's National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security which oversees the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Air Marshals and The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Recently there is new controversy regarding who is a threat? A threat was easier to define in 1975 when the profile of someone likely to take a shot at the president was defined by the Secret Service as someone, "to be male, between the ages of 20 and 40, of slight build, born overseas, unemployed, a loner, and someone who suffered from delusions of grandeur or persecution." When Sara Jane Moore took her shot at President Gerald Ford, the Secret Service was not looking for "...a female, in her mid-40s, of stocky build, born in the United States, employed full-time as an accountant, had been married and had a son, and had no history of delusions at the time she shot at Ford." No one wants another "Sara Jane Moore" incident, of course. Yet, we still have a lot to learn. We must constantly analyze new and different approaches and profiles without the danger of lumping and clumping people into roles and ideologies. The latest description of a right-wing extremist or white supremacist casts an even wider definition of a threat. Those affected by the economic downturn, disaffected military veterans, racist factions and feelings of governmental oppression. Would Moore or Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme fit the definition of a white-wing extremist? How Sara Jane slipped through the scrutiny of Secret Service Agents is still being studied by agents today, 34 years later. Consider that Moore's rationale fits into what we would call a right-wing extremist. She believed that the U.S. government was oppressive and, "She hoped to trigger the kind of chaos that could have started the upheaval of change." She surrounded herself with like-minded thinkers whose fear of the federal government was real to them and they only way to change it was through violence. In her statement before Judge Samuel Conti, she said a federal agent bragged about his abilities in the area of anonymous letter writing and other forms of character assassination. She said the federal agent told her the government needed to gain control over the citizenry. "You don't seem to realize that this is a war," he told her. Then we have another example of 88-year-old white supremacist James von Brunn who strolled into the National Holocaust Museum and shot an African American security guard and anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder went into a church slaughtered a family physician. Which of these people fit neatly into the threat assessment? We are racing to quickly redefine just what a "threat" looks like. Tools, creativity and a willingness to look beyond the obvious are necessary to protect our elected officials and us as well. Yet, our agencies can be thrown into a "them and us" scenario if they are not careful. All the signs were there for the Secret Service, FBI and San Francisco Police to retain Sara Jane Moore, yet no one believed a white, 45 year-old mother could possibly pose a threat to anyone or try to assassinate a U.S. president? Even though this 40-something woman admitted to carrying a gun and called to say she wanted to check presidential security no one stopped her. Does this mean we round up all mid-forties women in the crowd? Where do we go from here? The Technology Gap Technology has played a big role in protecting elected officials in terms of communicating with other agencies--that is if they will talk to each other? Technology is only a tool, not the key, to the solution to identifying a threat while still protecting our right to privacy. Technology also works to make the job harder as the tools can work against agencies in the same way: communicating locations, messages back and forth about preparing for an assassination attempt or other terrorist event. If we are going to match the skill and speed of the computer wizards, we need to have the same toys and the same weapons necessary to play in the game. Unfortunately, it appears our primary presidential protective agency, the Secret Service, is not up to speed. It does not have the sophisticated systems to track record and monitor what is riding on the Internet. So, it has asked for a $34 million to help upgrade its systems. Without it not only will the Secret Service not be able to keep up with the hackers and other threats, it will not be able to communicate with the White House! Apparently the agency flunked an NSA security audit last year that was intended to detect intrusions and vulnerabilities. How can we fight back? We are the government and we are here to Network The Secret Service may be your friend on MySpace. We could be networking with the federal government? I wonder what the Secret Service profile looks like on a social network? Supposedly a surveillance system on social networks can penetrate organizing groups forming "nodes" in the network and then remove them. Kind of like cutting out a cancer cell before it gets too big. If there is suspicion that a "node" user poses a threat, the Secret Service will, "track information from phone call records such as those in the NSA call database. The information will be extracted such as personal interests, friendships & affiliations, wants, beliefs, thoughts, and activities." Bingo, now you have the information needed to build an assessment? Who poses a real threat and who doesn't? Will we ever recognize a Sara Jane Moore in the future? A savvy white supremacist may avoid all technology and "go retro" by using snail mail and we miss by looking the other way. When Bush was president, anyone disagreeing with the government was unpatriotic, yet now, agreeing with the government makes one a Socialist. It is not going to be easy for the agencies within the DHS to sort it all out and find those who truly pose a threat and not just a loud mouth. It is going to take some very skilled and nuanced agents to design the process both ways. Geri Spieler is the author of, Taking Aim At The President , published by Palgrave Macmillan January, 2009
 
Quinn's Tough Budget Talk: $9.2B Would Be Cut, Lawmakers Must Come Back To Springfield And 'Confront Reality' Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn says lawmakers should pack their bags and get ready to be back in Springfield next week. Quinn said Monday they need to return to the state Capitol to "confront reality." Quinn plans to talk to the state's top four legislative leaders about this return to the Capitol when they meet on Wednesday. Lawmakers went home from their spring session without passing a budget that fully funds state government. Quinn wants them to pass an income tax increase to avoid deep cuts in human services. The Democratic governor won't say how long he expects lawmakers to remain on the job, but he said they have other unfinished issues to deal with besides the budget. Quinn's office, meanwhile, is warning that it would have to slash spending by $9.2 billion under a budget proposed by Illinois lawmakers. Most of the cuts would fall on services that state government provides through local groups, from medicine for senior citizens to foster care for abused children. The estimate released Monday is the administration's most detailed analysis of the spending plan that legislators approved after failing to agree on new sources of revenue. Illinois government faces a massive deficit. Quinn proposed closing that gap with a combination of spending cuts, budget maneuvers and tax increases. Lawmakers wouldn't agree to most of his ideas and instead passed a budget that doesn't cover the cost of providing many government services. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 

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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)