Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Saudi Arabian Dog Found In California Top
CARLSBAD, Calif. — A "sweetheart" of a dog now in a California shelter may be really, really far from home. His microchip says the knee-high, light tan Saluki came from Saudi Arabia. The neutered male dog brought to a Carlsbad animal shelter last week has an implanted microchip that was sold to the U.S. Military Training Mission, headquartered in Riyadh, said Lt. Dan DeSousa of San Diego County's Animal Services Department. The dog was found June 15 near Escondido, about 30 miles north of San Diego. DeSousa said he believes someone in the military owns the dog and likely brought him from overseas. But they haven't been able to track down the owner, even after speaking with veterinarians who work with the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia. "In our hearts and minds, we know this dog belongs to someone in the military. For all they've done for us, it is only fair we try to get the dog reunited," DeSousa said. DeSousa said he doesn't know the dog's name but he wears a tag that reads "Pet Rejuvenizer." Plenty of people have said they would take him but authorities hope the real owner will come forward. "There's a lot of unanswered questions, and dogs can't talk, so we're kind of restricted as to what information we can get out of him," DeSousa said, chuckling. "We're trying to put the word out. He is a sweetheart of a dog." More on Animals
 
Obama To Throw Out First Pitch At All-Star Game Top
President Obama will throw out the first pitch at this year's Major League Baseball All-Star Game on July 14 in St. Louis. He will be only the fourth president to throw out the ball in the game - "joining John F. Kennedy (1962), Richard Nixon ('70) and Gerald Ford ('76 and '78), reports MLB.com. In a statement, MLB Commissioner Allan H. (Bud) Selig said : "The central theme of the 2009 All-Star Game is community service, celebrating the extraordinary work being done by ordinary people. We are thrilled that we can come together with President Obama, who has encouraged a renewed spirit of national service, and illustrate a call to action in our communities. President Obama will continue a great tradition that joins our nation's leader and the national pastime."
 
Virginia M. Moncrieff: A Woman Candidate Stands in Afghanistan Top
Of all the things I might like to do in the second half of 2009, standing in the Afghanistan Presidential elections and taking on the Taliban, rampant corruption and the world's biggest drug cartels would be pretty low on my list. But then, I could never figure out why Benazir Bhutto had such a death wish either. Forty candidates have now been confirmed for the election, which will be held on August 20. The official campaign period began this week with press conferences, posters and undeliverable promises littering the country. I have discussed the front running candidates before - but recent International Republican Institute polling indicates that 31% of Afghans intend to vote for Hamid Karzai - leaving him a long way in front of Dr Ashraf Ghani - a favorite with middle class liberal Afghans. (See my previous post on Dr Ghani here ). One of the bravest candidates is Shahla Atta, a 47 year old university graduate who is currently an MP for Kabul. While sharing with other candidates an almost identical shopping list of election promises - judicious use foreign aid, compulsory basic education, defeat of the Taliban, justice and rule of law, economic accountability, corruption busting - Ms Atta distinguishes herself by her courage alone. One of only two female candidates - the other if Frozan Fana - she has no chance of success. (A 2004 female Presidential candidate attracted 1.1% of the vote). In a country where little girls are attacked with acid for going to school, she has a very good chance of inspiring hatred and a notion of revenge that might end in her being killed. That's a high price to pay for standing in an election you have no chance of winning. "The people have tested men, but they did not get anything. Now, why not see what a woman can do? I know I can do it, I am strong," she said recently. Ms Atta's campaign posters feature assassinated President Sardar Mohammad Daud Khan whose policies Ms Atta says she will emulate. (SDK was an anti-fundematelaist reformer, who nevertheless ran a repressive regime. He was assassinated in 1978). Candidates who throw their hat in the ring with little chance of success, are regarded warily in Afghanistan, where the tall poppy syndrome (excuse the pun) is alive and well. People who seem to be seeking fame through the ballot box are called gomnaam , a dismissive term which broadly translated means "unimportant". Why anyone would wish to be gomnaam and an assassination target at the same time - as Ms Shahla Atta surely is in the eyes of many Afghans - may confuse those who don't live in a basket case. But perhaps, like suicide bombers, those Presidential candidates believe that really, nothing more can be lost and that to go in - and out - fighting is the only option left. More on Afghanistan
 
Cheney Book Deal: Gets $2 Million For Memoir Top
As widely expected, Vice President Dick Cheney has signed a deal with an imprint of Simon & Schuster to write a memoir about his life in politics and his service in four presidential administrations More on Dick Cheney
 
James Moore: A Part of Their Rage Belongs to Us Top
The genteel interview of the former empress of Iran conducted by MSNBC Tuesday is a vital example of how American political sensibilities are dangerously lacking context. We watch on the web and television as Iranians die in the street demanding proof of a democratic election and we are mostly amazed at their courage. MSNBC, seeking insight on Iran's raging electorate, turns, foolishly, to a woman whose husband was a brutal dictator and, almost certainly, as oppressive as Iran's current president. Farah Pahlavi, who was married to the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, told MSNBC's Kari Huus that she was hoping the uprising would happen "in spite of the dictatorship of the theocracy." Regardless of the nature of the current Iranian government, dictatorship is a precise description of the regime maintained by her late husband. Shah Pahlavi, as even casual students of history are aware, was an American puppet placed in power by a coup, which had been orchestrated by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr, the grandson of the former president. When the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was nationalized in 1951 by Iran's democratically elected President Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, U.S. and British intelligence services set in motion a plan to install the Shah and overthrow the man who had been voted into office. The historical rationalization was that Communism was afoot in that part of the world and the West was worried that the Iranian communist party might take control of Iran's vast natural resources and assist the U.S.S.R. The truth was the U.S. and Britain wanted Iran's cheap energy and the Shah turned into a cozy lap dog that bought American weapons with his country's billions while providing the oil needed by the West. The Shah ran a frightful government. He established SAVAK, a secret police service that was actually trained at an American university. SAVAK tortured and killed thousands of Iranians over the course of Shah Pahlavi's rule. Dissent was brutally crushed. Empress Pahlavi, almost pathetically, tried to describe her husband as a man "who didn't want to keep his throne over the bloodshed of his people." This, obviously, is utter nonsense. He killed an untold number of "his" people to keep his throne and it is one of our country's great shames that we helped to facilitate his oppression. The empress makes mention of how much the Iranian people "have suffered over the past 30 years." There's little doubt that the mullahs have created a theocracy that does not allow for true expression of the will of the people and it is abundantly clear that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as brutal as any other dictatorial leader. What the empress again fails to mention and is not asked about by the MSNBC reporter is the nature of the government run by her husband from 1953 until he was tossed out of his country by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. There was no form of demonstration under the Shah, and mass protest was virtually unheard of until Iran's religious leaders began to assert themselves a few decades into the Shah's rule. When the Ayatollah Khomeini led the revolt of 1979 and the U.S. Embassy was stormed, the anger grew out of decades of misguided American financial and political support of the oppressive Shah. Iran's politically oppressed were seeking an answer to his power and angry mullahs were the only ones willing to confront the strong man. Iran's youth has largely followed the religious leaders ever since those 66 Americans were captured. Until the Internet. And Obama. The more Iranians see of the west and America and our new president the more they want what is offered by a better form of democracy. Their protests now are as much about a lack of real choice as they are the bastardized and corrupted electoral process in their country. They don't know, however, whether they can trust America. We have a poor record of performance with their country. Iran's educated population knows that Ahmadinejad is a lunatic and his rumblings against Israel and denial of the Holocaust are embarrassing absurdities. They wonder, however, how the west can deny them the sovereign right to develop nuclear power, whether for peaceful or military purposes. Even if they know their president is a fool with his claims about Israel, Iranians still see an acute hypocrisy in the fact that Israel is a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel also refuses to formally acknowledge it has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world but still receives unflinching support from U.S. leadership. The Empress Pahlavi wrapped up her interview with MSNBC by saying she stands ready to help the movement for democracy in her home country. Whether this is humor or irony hardly seems to matter; she is as oblivious to her history as we Americans are to our own past in Iran. Her son, Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, has long said he hopes to return and lead his country some day. His time in America has not been wasted, either. He has learned to use the mighty lever of fear. In Washington, D. C, speaking at the National Press Club Monday, he sounded like he was a graduate of the Dick Cheney School of Nuclear Fear and Sound Bite Fun when he said, "Fanatical tyrants who know that the future is against them may end their present course on their terms, a nuclear holocaust." The people of Iran deserve far better than another Pahlavi, Ahmadinejad, or Mousavi. They also have countless reasons to be angry. And a part of their rage belongs to us. Also at http://www.moorethink.com
 
Citigroup Raising Salaries As Much As 50% Top
After all those losses and bailouts, rank-and-file employees of Citigroup are getting some good news: their salaries are going up. More on Citibank
 
Disgrasian: Hangover Star Talks Openly About His "Tiny Penis" Top
DISGRASIAN saw The Hangover recently, and we giggled a lot, because it was totally our kind of chick flick (i.e. a dick flick). But one thing that left me feeling queasy after the movie--besides the Welch's fruit snacks Diana brought to the theater that I shoveled down by the handful--was Ken Jeong's character, Mr. Chow. I hated the generic Engrish accent. And the character's queeny affectation left me cold, coming across more prissy than funny. The thing is, Ken Jeong, in my book, can do no wreong . I have no idea why. There's something reassuring about his presence. Maybe he cultivated this as a real doctor. I think it also has to do with that classic Hardass Asian Dad-haircut of his and the soothing timber of his voice. He should read children's bedtime-stories-on-tape on the side or something. So post- Hangover , I had a hangover of my own, and I was really confused. Then a friend forwarded this podcast Dr. Ken did with Adam Corolla last week about his role in The Hangover . In it, he went there , and by that I mean, he talks about his dick (there's a scene in which he does full-frontal). Not only that, he refers to it over the course of the interview as "the smallest cock," a "tiny penis," "a grower, not a shower," and a "mangina." In the movie, the only other dick we see is Zach Galifianakis's, but that was a prosthetic . And given prevailing stereotypes, I thought what Ken said in the podcast--and the fact that he did full-frontal in the first place--took balls . So I'm back again to Ken Jeong can do no wreong. And I feel so much better now. [ AdamCorolla.com: Adam and Ken Jeong ]
 
Olbermann: Bush Returns To Make "World's Worst Person" (VIDEO) Top
The 'Worst Persons in the World' tonight on "Countdown" included Republican Senator Judd Gregg, Newt Gingrich, and former President George W. Bush. Gregg took the bronze for introducing a bill in Congress that would ban signs identifying projects as funded by the stimulus, criticizing them as "simply for political self-interest." Gregg neglected to mention, however, the $500,000 earmark which led to the Judd Gregg Meteorology Institute or two other places, a library at Plymouth University and a "hall" at New Hampshire University, named for him after he pushed money the institutions' way. Gingrich took home the silver for launching ads against a clean energy legislation funded by his 527 group when that 527 group has received $250,000 from a giant coal company that would be forced to clean up its pollution if that legislation is passed. Bush returned to the scene to claim the gold for the emergence of yet another memo, resulting from a British government investigation into the Iraq war, that showed Bush determined to invade that country whether there was reason to or not. [WATCH} Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Video
 
Dan Solin: A Quick and Easy Way to Increase Your Returns by 17% Top
When it comes to reporting returns, actively managed mutual funds are engaged in an elaborate shell game. They report their returns pre-tax. If they were required to report their returns after-tax, and those returns were compared to the after-tax returns of index funds of comparable risk, investors in actively managed funds would understand that more than 17% of their returns are lost to taxes. John Bogle did a study that demonstrated that investors in actively managed funds kept only 47% of the cumulative returns of the average fund. Index investors kept 87%. Why the big difference? Actively managed funds have much higher costs. These costs include sales commissions, taxes, cash drag, higher expense ratios and transaction costs. In this week's video, I discuss the effect of taxes on the amount of returns investors get to keep in actively managed and index funds. It is the big secret your broker hopes you will never find out. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. More on Taxes
 
New Evidence Links Saudi Royal Family To Al Qaeda And Extremists, But May Never Be Used In 9/11 Suit Top
WASHINGTON -- Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles. More on Saudi Arabia
 
Palin Reimburses Alaska $8,000 For 19 Family Trips Top
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin has paid more than $8,100 to reimburse Alaska for the costs associated with nine trips taken with her children. Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, says the governor paid $8,143.62 to the state on June 19 for the nine trips, some with more than one of her five children, taken between January 2007 and February of this year. The payment was due Tuesday. An ethics complaint had alleged Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her. The Alaska Personnel Board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for trips found to be of questionable state interest. Van Flein and state administrative director Linda Perez sent The Associated Press copies of the check and other documents of the transaction. The board's investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said in his report that state rules give little guidance to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's family. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest. Van Flein noted that Palin had followed historical practices on first family travel and that her travel requests were processed by the same administrators who processed requests for predecessors, Frank Murkowski and Tony Knowles. "No one challenged Gov. Murkowski's or Governor Knowles' travel practices," Van Flein said in an e-mail. "The rules were, and are, being changed in midstream for Governor Palin. However, as noted in the agreement at the time 'the Governor wants to exceed minimum legal standards.'" Anchorage resident Frank Gwartney, a Democrat, filed the complaint in late October. It closely followed a report by The Associated Press that Palin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters' commercial flights, including events where they weren't invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business. Palin was the Republican vice presidential candidate when the complaint was filed and after the February settlement she called the grievance "an obvious political weapon." As part of the settlement, the Alaska Department of Law was asked to develop specific rules clarifying when the state should pay for a governor's family travel. That effort is under way, with the goal to have a final draft by the end of the year, according to Judy Bockmon, an assistant attorney general. Also on Tuesday, the governor's office announced the 15th dismissal of an ethics complaint against Palin or one of her staff. It alleged Kris Perry _ director of the governor's Anchorage office _ worked on state time to benefit Palin's interests during and after her vice presidential run. The governor's office said the complaint was filed even after Perry obtained an opinion from Perez, her ethics supervisor. "It is outrageous to file an ethics complaint against a state employee who sought and obtained ethics guidance in advance," Mike Nizich, Palin's chief of staff, said in a statement. "This is not about ethics. This is not about holding the governor or state employees accountable. This is pure harassment." (This version CORRECTS that payments involved 9 trips with one or more of her children, not 19, which counted each child separately.) More on Sarah Palin
 
Roberta Lee: The Medicine Cabinet is Shrinking Top
Earlier this year in February, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that without changes in federal policy, the number of Americans without health insurance would grow from about 45 million this year to about 54 million in 2019 . But 2019 is years away and I wonder in the more immediate future what my patients will do if they need medication for diabetes, hypertension or high cholesterol and can't afford it. Medication costs without insurance coverage are astronomical-- and my uninsured patients are struggling to pay for all their needed prescriptions. By 2019 many of my patients could be dead simply because they're not taking their medications--even when they know they should. A report issued by the US Public Interest Research Group in 2006 documented that uninsured Americans were paying 65% more than what drug companies charged the federal government for prescriptive medications. This survey evaluated ten of the most commonly prescribed medication in 35 cities including D.C.. Customers purchasing medications online from Canadian pharmacies were paying half the price for the same medications. Not only that, the average price between 2004- 2006 rose 11% annually. At the time this study was conducted Premarin®, a commonly prescribed estrogen medication, was 550% higher in the U.S. versus the listed price in a Canadian pharmacy. Surveys released by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) taken between the years 2001-2007 revealed that the proportion of Americans under the age of 65 having problems affording prescription medications grew from 10.3 % in 2003 to 13.9 % --an 11.7 million increase of people from 2003 which initially recorded 36.1 million working age adults and children experiencing medication cost concerns Not surprisingly, the report noted that the most vulnerable were the uninsured, those with low incomes and those with chronic conditions . Having at least one chronic condition more than doubled the likelihood of reporting unmet prescription drug needs. The health insurance safety net under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), for those recently losing their jobs is not necessarily preserving health coverage like it was in the past. When a person becomes unemployed COBRA extends insurance benefits under a previous employer's plan. An employer's health care plan is typically much lower in cost to the individual because it is a plan negotiated by the employer as a group plan. Its benefits are good for 18 months. Despite the fact that 2 out of 3 working adults are eligible for COBRA, nine out of ten unemployed workers opt out of COBRA coverage because it is too expensive. Those opting out with medical conditions represent another growing group of people at risk for developing unmet prescription medication needs. Today there are people among the insured who are struggling to keep up with the ever increasing price of prescription medication co-payments. A HSC report released in 2007 indicated that tiered prescriptive medicine plans which use generic medicines to reduce overall healthcare costs are now offered by roughly 95% of employers. Generic drugs are substituted in most medication categories and are offered as the first line full coverage medication to the patient over the more expensive name brands. Those who wish to use name brands can still purchase these medications as an out-of-pocket expense. During the initiation of copayments for prescriptive medications early reports suggested little or no negative effect on patient compliance or health outcomes. However, an HSC tracking report released in January 2009 revealed that with a rise in prescriptive drug copayments higher than 20% many people began to have trouble paying for needed medications. In fact, the percentage of unmet medication needs among U.S. working age adults with higher incomes and chronic conditions was almost as high as those with unmet prescription drug needs without chronic conditions and low incomes ( 21% versus 23% respectively). Low income was defined as those families with incomes below the federal poverty line and high income was defined as those families whose incomes were two times above the federal poverty level. In addition, I have seen many patients attempt medical management of some of their medical problems by using dietary supplements, additionally availing themselves to indigenous medical practices such as acupuncture and chiropractic. The current prevalence of use of these practices and modalities often referred to as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or modalities is approximately 40-60 % depending on the survey and definition of CAM. However, it is unclear what proportion of activity is due to philosophical preferences versus attempts toward cost containment by the patient--especially in this last year when so many have lost their jobs. Yet, what is consistent among reports of patients incorporating these practices is the lack of disclosure to their healthcare providers; typically this represents 60-70% of patients in primary care. What has always been troublesome about this fact is the potential for medical mismanagement. I wonder if we will see additional complications as more people use CAM as an alternative to conventional or integrative medicine primary care purposefully leaving behind any discussion from medical practitioners. For whatever the reason, the growing proportion of patients with unmet prescription drug needs is disturbing. The fact that those suffering financially the most are those with chronic diseases certainly is a signal that in a time when health care cost containment is critical to our nation we need to change course. It is imperative that what ever system we choose medications for the management of chronic diseases should be accessible to all regardless of income. Prevention and proper management of disease saves money, but more importantly, it saves lives and improves quality of life for patients and their families. More on Health
 
City Leased The Streets Along With Its Parking Meters: Study Top
The deal to lease Chicago's parking meters to a private company has crippled the City's ability to make comprehensive transportation planning, a new report finds. Giving up control of the placement and pricing of meters stripped the City of the public right of way, its most important tool for urban street planning and for shaping people's parking and transportation habits, according to the study released Tuesday by the Active Transportation Alliance . "This means that every potential project on a street with meters, including bus rapid transit, bicycle lanes, sidewalk expansion, streetscaping, pedestrian bulb-outs, loading zones, rush hour parking control, mid block crossing, and temporary open spaces are dictated, controlled and limited by parking meters," the report reads. "These restrictions severely limit innovative planning for bicyclists, pedestrian and transit users." The City lambasted the report in an email response released late Tuesday afternoon by budget department spokesman Pete Scales, saying it showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the parking meter lease deal and the law of public right of way. It also chastised the ATA for not reaching out to the city before publishing the report. "The claim that the City has lost control of 'one of their most powerful urban planning and revenue-generating tools' is absolutely incorrect," the response reads. "To suggest that the parking meter concession 'restrictions will severely limit innovative planning for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users' is wholly wrong. To the contrary, the City continues to pursue a wide range of planning efforts and construction projects, part of an ongoing effort to offer attractive non-driving options." ATA spokeswoman Margo O'Hara insists the group reached out to the City when it first began work on the report late last year but got no response. Giving up control of the meters also means money from meters no longer goes to improving nearby sidewalks and roads, a formula the ATA says is what makes for the most sophisticated urban planning. "A key element of competitive, fair parking strategy is that the increased revenues are used to generate a healthier, more pedestrian-friendly and appealing environment in which it is attractive to shop," the report reads. Instead, the revenue generated by meters goes to the private company, Chicago Parking Meters, LLC. "The reason why this is so important to us," O'Hara said, "is that we want to see our streets be safe for pedestrians, be safe for cyclists with innovative street designs. This deal limits and at its most extreme penalizes these designs." The report recommends that planners adjust parking meter rates based on the principle of market-rate pricing: lower prices where lots of meters are open and raise rates where there's overcrowding. In its response, the City says its rate increases early this year did just that. "As ATA notes, the objective of market-based pricing is to bring pricing to a level that will provide optimal utilization of the system. The meter rate increase implemented in early 2009 were intended to do just that, specifically reducing cruising for underpriced parking and promoting turnover and availability," the response said. The Active Transportation Alliance began researching the report shortly after the meter deal was approved last December. "We starting looking into it first because of all the political secrecy around the deal," O'Hara said, "but then we decided to ask, 'Well, what is the right price for parking meters?' Raising rates is not necessarily bad -- and parking is often hugely subsidized -- so long as the City is giving people other options, like more bike paths or making the trains more reliable. "Our impression is that the lease was done from a budgetary perspective and not from a transportation perspective," O'Hara said. The lease does allow for the city to change meter rates, locations and hours of operation, but it must compensate Chicago Parking Meters, LLC, for any lost revenue. This need to reimburse the private operator for any lost revenue all-but negates the city's ability to change meter rates and hours, as the case the of 32nd Ward Ald. Scott Waguespack illustrates. Waguespack wanted to reduce the charged hours on 250 meters in his ward for the next three years, as the Reader' s Ben Joravsky and Mick Dumke reported in the second part of their exhaustive series chronicling the parking meter deal . But told by the city that he would have to find a way to compensate for over $600,000 in lost revenue, Waguespack scrapped his plan . Cindy Gatziolas, a spokeswoman for the Mayor's Office of Special Events, said that the City's agreement with Chicago Parking Meters, LLC allows for a certain percentage of the meters to be out of service, without penalty, for events like street fairs and festivals, but wouldn't say what that the percentage was. The Active Transportation Alliance report comes three weeks after Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman issued a study that determined the city leased the parking meters for nearly $1 billion less than their potential market value and with almost no consideration of the long-term financial impact.
 
Glenn Beck Plays With Dolls On "The O'Reilly Factor" (VIDEO) Top
Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are working together to expose the vast conspiracy that is the organization known as ACORN. Beck, who has a history of employing wacky antics on his own Fox News show, was a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight so he could inform O'Reilly of very important news regarding the federal government's investigation of ACORN. Oh, and Beck brought dolls. Beck used the dolls to illustrate that the federal government's probe of ACORN was too narrow, and that by focusing on one of their houses in New Orleans, they were letting the "villains" just drive away and set up shop elsewhere. We think. It seems that such a relatively simple point could have been made without the dolls, but perhaps a visual aid was necessary to distract from the fact that Beck's not making much sense. Watch the clip for yourself and, if you can discern what Beck is talking about, please discuss in the comments. More on Video
 
Robert L. Borosage: Gut Check Time on Shackling Wall Street Top
The administration has rolled out its financial reform plan, which the president accurately calls the "the boldest set of reforms in financial regulation in 75 years." Rep. Barney Frank, the chair of the House Banking Committee, promises to act rapidly, hoping to pass reforms by the end of the year. Best to move now while the banks are weak, goes the argument, than try to take them on when they are back on their feet. The banking lobby has reacted like wasps whose hive has been hit by a stick, swarming out to fend off the threat. First target of their sting is the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, designed to defend consumers from the serial abuses of credit card companies, payday lenders, mortgage brokers and the like. Ed Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, decries even the idea of the agency, saying banks are "dumbfounded" by its scope, suggesting that it would "blow up the system" This assault on the consumer agency reveals how much the banking lobby has already won. Most notable about the administration's plan is what was left out. Nothing real is done about compensation schemes. Exotic derivatives and credit default swaps are not banned. Rating agencies are still paid by the financial houses they are supposed to rate. Banks too big to fail are to be monitored, not broken up. Oversight of the system is entrusted to the Federal Reserve, which was designed to insulate money center banks from the democracy. No mention is made of a tax on securities transactions that would both put a damper on excessive speculation and raise a ton of money to help repay some of the staggering costs of the crisis the speculators caused. Sadly, the whole notion of urgency is based on the false assumption that the banks are weak since they are on the public dole. But, as we've seen over the past months, the banks, even on life support, have big time clout in Washington. They blocked the effort to give bankruptcy judges the right to renegotiate mortgages of distressed families. They torpedoed legislation to put a lid on credit card interest rates. "It's hard to believe," Senator Dick Durbin said in frustration, but the banks are "still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." So what can alter the balance of forces in Washington? We have one lesson from history: the Pecora Commission in the New Deal. Ferdinand Pecora, the fearless chief counsel of the Senate Banking Committee, led hearings that dragged the barons of Wall Street before a riveted public, exposing their insider dealings, their ponzi schemes, and their excesses. By the time he was done, Time Magazine was calling them banksters, the public was demanding reform, and Congress located its backbone and enacted the Securities Exchange Act, the Glass Steagall Act and much more. (For a good summary see Kate Phillips piece here ). These real reforms helped the US escape the cycle of financial crises that previously had convulsed the economy about every ten years. It was only when these protections were dismantled from Reagan on that the bankers once more became "masters of the universe," and replayed the sorry saga of casino and crash. Modern day Pecora hearings are waiting to happen. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Congress passed legislation setting up a Financial Crisis Commission with subpoena power and the mandate to probe and exposed the roots of the current crisis. Senate leader Harry Reid and Pelosi each have the power to name three commissioners, with the Republican leaders of the House and Senate naming two each. Pelosi and Reid name the chair. With strong and independent leadership -- say if it were chaired by Elizabeth Warren, the brilliant Harvard Law Professor who has chaired the Congressional Accountability Panel that helped expose the follies of the bank bailout -- the Commission could transform the debate in Washington. It could hold hearings in the epicenters of the housing crisis, exposing the systematic fraud practiced by lenders like Countrywide and fostered by the banks that bought up the mortgages. It could expose how the banks and rating agencies colluded to transform garbage NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) mortgages into triple A securities. It could subpoena the barons to show how they profited personally and turned their eyes as the banks took ever greater risks, gambling with ever higher levels of borrowed money. It could make the case for adult supervision. Americans are eager for this. Pollster Celinda Lake found that 71 percent of voters want Congress to hold investigations into the "events leading up to the Wall Street financial crisis." We want to know who caused this mess, who made out like bandits, who brought down the house. Public hearings would gain national attention. Leads winnowed out by the Commission would be pursued by muckrakers and bloggers. Congressional committees would be stirred from their lethargy. Time magazine would start talking about banksters again. Then real reform might be possible. It is now up to Pelosi and Reid. The law was passed weeks ago. They have the power. They can choose to name aggressive and independent commissioners or to turn the commission into a pro forma review that creates a report for the shelves a year from now. The banking lobby is no doubt pushing hard to neuter the commission. And here we see another cost of the Geithner decision to subsidize the banks rather than reorganize them. If his plan fails, we'll be like Japan with the recovery burdened by zombie plans. If the plan works, we'll end up with the banks "too big to fail." And while we're deciding whether it works or not - as we are now -- there's immense pressure not to "undermine confidence." The banks are given stress tests and allowed to pass by cooking their books (not marking their toxic assets to market). The Treasury Secretary announces that they are "healing." They trumpet independence by repaying billions to the Treasury, even while they are still mainlining a range of subsidies from Federal Reserve. That same pressure makes Geithner and Summers unlikely allies of a strong, independent and public investigation (to say nothing of Summers' involvement in the deregulatory follies of the 1990s). But Reid and Pelosi have a significant stake in creating a hard-hitting commission. Politically, Democrats need to hold the Wall Street barons accountable, not just bail them out. Americans are furious at the hundreds of billions that are going to save the richest people in America while workers lose their jobs. As the party of "no," Republicans are being taught by Newt Gingrich on how to disingenuously disavow any responsibility and posture as fake populists. Democrats need to show that they are not in the pocket of the Wall Street. Moreover, this isn't just about politics. Fundamental financial reform is essential to the future of the economy and the country. President Obama is correct when he says we can't go back to an economy where finance captures 40% of the profits of the country. He's right when he condemns a culture of "arrogance and greed" that can't be tolerated. If we don't get comprehensive reforms now, we'll have created an even greater peril -- banks and hedge funds officially recognized as too big to fail, assuming that they can pocket their winnings and the public will cover their losses. That is a recipe for another crackup a few years from now, as avarice once more clouds memory. Will we get a modern day Pecora? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have the power. They could appoint truly independent commissioners, give them the budget to gear up, and the mandate to tell the people. It's time for them to step up.
 
Arianna Huffington: Media Playground: Obama Calls on HuffPost, Michael Calderone Pouts, Ben Smith Calls Us Names, Dana Milbank Gets His Facts All Wrong Top
Lots of squawking going on in the media sandbox after President Obama called on HuffPost's Nico Pitney at today's press conference. Seems some of the boys can't seem to understand why the president would have the nerve to call on someone whose Iran coverage has been praised throughout the media, from Charlie Rose to Andrew Sullivan to the Economist . Politico's Michael Calderone couldn't seem to get over the order in which Nico was called on. "It was a departure from White House protocol," he fumed (the DC equivalent of "I'm telling Mom!"). Dana Milbank went the conspiracy route , calling Nico "a planted questioner" and tossing snarky comments into the mix: "Pitney recognized his prompt", "Pitney asked his question, as arranged." In Milbank's melodrama, "reporters in the room looked at each other in amazement at the stagecraft they had just witnessed. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel looked at the first row of TV correspondents and grinned." I'm certain if Emanuel had a mustache, Milbank would have portrayed him twirling it. But hyperbole wasn't Milbank's biggest sin. It was repeatedly getting his facts wrong. He claimed: "Pitney had sent what he called a 'solicitation' to the White House." Not true. Nico solicited his readers about questions they'd like to see the president asked about Iran. The White House then contacted him about asking a question at the presser. Milbank also says "Obama aides agreed to call on the Huffington Post writer with the understanding that he would ask a question from an Iranian." Wrong. They never agreed to call on Nico; they alerted him that he might be called on. (You can read what actually happened, as told by Nico and Bill Burton, here and here .) Nico has been liveblogging about events in Iran almost around the clock for over a week. So did Milbank really suppose that Nico would have chosen to ask the president about something else? Steroids in baseball, perhaps? Oh, right -- one of Milbank's co-workers already did that . Back at Politico, Ben Smith declared the calling on Nico "a nice case of symbiosis, not entirely unlike the Bush administration's close ties to Fox," branded HuffPost "left leaning" and part of "the new partisan media," and said that "what's good for the Huffington Post is good for the White House, and vice versa." Now, I know Ben is a busy guy -- and I love reading him. But before he decides to characterize a site he really should take the time to, y'know, read what's on the site. If he had, he'd have known that, unlike Fox and Bush, HuffPost regularly takes on the Obama administration. Indeed, we have been critical of many administration decisions. Take my posts on the administration's handling of the financial crisis and the bank bailout for starters. Was it "a nice case of symbiosis" when I called on Tim Geithner to resign , writing that "it was painful to watch Obama... go on Jay Leno and say that Geithner is doing an 'outstanding job,'" and that "Obama's assessment had more than a whiff of Bush telling Brownie he was 'doing a heck of a job'"? Was it an example of "the new partisan media" when I laid out chapter and verse on Larry Summer's toxic ideas ? Was it "good for the White House" when I disparaged Obama's desire to put the Bush administration's use of torture in his rear view mirror? How about when I chided the administration for capitulating on the cramdown provision in the bankruptcy bill? And these are just a few examples (see the links below for more). And these are just my posts. We regularly run stories by our reporters and posts by our bloggers that no one could ever describe as "good for the White House." Would Ben Smith say the same about Fox's coverage of Bush? Michael, Dana, and Ben: come in from recess. You guys clearly need a nap. And a better fact-checker. Links: Mission Shrink: We've Gone From Saving Wall Street in Order to Save Main Street to Just Saving Wall Street Wall Street, DC, and the New Financial Euphoria The Stress Tests Fail The Smell Test Why Are Bankers Still Being Treated As Beltway Royalty? Obama's First 100 Days: The Good, the Bad, and the Geithner The Torture Moment The Obama Economic Team's Flawed Cosmology: Still Believing the Universe Revolves Around the Banks Larry Summers: Brilliant Mind, Toxic Ideas Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands A Disturbing D.C. Whodunit [Update II] Why is Obama Reluctant to Kill the Zombie Banks Threatening Our Economy? Bipartisanship Fetishism vs. What's Best for America: Obama Needs to Choose Tim Geithner, CNBC, and the Second Coming of Known Unknowns It's Time to Treat America's Homeowners as Well as We've Been Treating Wall Street's Bankers More on Iranian Election
 
GOP Congressman Says Obama's Hesitance On Iran Responsible For Violence (VIDEO) Top
It was bound to happen. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused Barack Obama on Tuesday of allowing violence in Iran to get out of hand by not speaking out against the country's leadership earlier. The California Republican, appearing on MSNBC's The Ed Show, said that the president "ratcheted up the language a little bit" during his press conference on Tuesday. But, he added, "If [Obama] would have been talking even a little bit tougher a few days ago we might not have seen the violence and bloodshed of this repressive regime in Tehran in the last two days." The comments, by far the most personal attack on the Obama administration's handling of the situation in Iran, were far enough removed from perceptive analysis that even former Rep. Tom Tancredo - hardly a shrinking conservative voice - pushed back against them. "I take issue with my very good friend Dana Rohrabacher, believe it or not," the Colorado Republican told Schultz in the subsequent segment. "I actually think that the president was right in the way he was handling the issue. I don't think there was an awful lot he should have said. In a way I was disappointed that he seemed to cave into the pressure he was getting to actually speak more harshly about this in his press conference. I think he was on the right track." Indeed, even Rohrabacher - after being pressed for clarification - backtracked from accusing Obama of having blood on his hands. It was, he added, the "Mullahs" in Iran who were to blame for the violence. Obama "is responsible for his own actions." "[The President's] own actions and his lack of a tough statement early on gave them the impression that... emboldened the mullah dictatorship," Rohrabacher said. "It would be like Ronald Reagan going to the Berlin Wall and saying Mr. Gorbachev, that's your business over there." The video is worth a watch if, for nothing else, to see the outer limits of where the domestic debate of Iranian politics can go.
 
Johann Hari: The Uprising in the Amazon Is More Urgent Than Iran's: It Will Determine the Future of the Planet Top
While the world nervously watches the uprising in Iran, an even more important uprising has been passing unnoticed -- yet its outcome will shape your fate, and mine. In the depths of the Amazon rainforest, the poorest people in the world have taken on the richest people in the world to defend a part of the ecosystem none of us can live without. They had nothing but wooden spears and moral force to defeat the oil companies -- and, for today, they have won. Here's the story of how it happened -- and how we all need to pick up this fight. Earlier this year, Peru's President, Alan Garcia, sold the rights to explore, log and drill 70 percent of his country's swathe of the Amazon to a slew of international oil companies. Garcia seems to see rainforest as a waste of good resources, saying of the Amazon's trees: "There are millions of hectares of timber there lying idle." There was only one pesky flaw in Garcia's plan: the indigenous people who live in the Amazon. They are the first people of the Americas, subject to wave after wave of genocide since the arrival of the Conquistadors. They are weak. They have no guns. They barely have electricity. The government didn't bother to consult them: what are a bunch of Indians going to do anyway? But the indigenous people have seen what has happened elsewhere in the Amazon when the oil companies arrive. Occidental Petroleum are currently facing charges in US courts of dumping an estimated nine billion barrels of toxic waste in the regions of the Amazon where they operated from 1972 to 2000. Andres Sandi Mucushua, the spiritual leader of the area known to the oil companies as Block 1AB, said in 2007: "My people are sick and dying because of Oxy. The water in our streams is not fit to drink and we can no longer eat the fish in our rivers or the animals in our forests." The company denies liability, saying they are "aware of no credible data of negative community health impacts". In the Ecuadorian Amazon, according to an independent report, toxic waste allegedly dumped after Chevron-Texaco's drilling has been blamed by an independent scientific investigation for 1,401 deaths , mostly of children from cancer. When the BBC investigator Greg Palast put these charges to Chevron's lawyer, he replied: "And it's the only case of cancer in the world? How many cases of children with cancer do you have in the States?... They have to prove it's our crude, [which] is absolutely impossible." The people of the Amazon do not want to see their forests felled and their lands poisoned. And here, the need of the indigenous peoples to preserve their habitat has collided with your need to preserve your habitat. The rainforests inhale massive amounts of warming gases and keep them stored away from the atmosphere. Already, we are chopping them down so fast that it is causing 25 percent of man-made carbon emissions every year -- more than planes, trains and automobiles combined. But it is doubly destructive to cut them down to get to fossil fuels, which then cook the planet yet more . Garcia's plan was to turn the Amazon from the planet's air con into its fireplace. Why is he doing this? He was responding to intense pressure from the US, whose new Free Trade Pact requires this "opening up", and from the International Monetary Fund, paid for by our taxes. In Peru, it has also been alleged that the ruling party, APRA, is motivated by oil-bribes. Some of Garcia's associates have been caught on tape talking about how to sell off the Amazon to their cronies. The head of the parliamentary committee investigating the affair, Rep. Daniel Abugattas, says: "The government has been giving away our natural resources to the lowest bidders. This has not benefited Peru, but the administration's friends." So the indigenous peoples acted in their own self-defense, and ours. Using their own bodies and weapons made from wood, they blockaded the rivers and roads to stop the oil companies getting anything in or out. They captured two valves of Peru's sole pipeline between the country's gas field and the coast, which could have led to fuel rationing. Their leaders issued a statement explaining: "We will fight together with our parents and children to take care of the forest, to save the life of the equator and the entire world." Garcia responded by sending in the military. He declared a "state of emergency" in the Amazon, suspending almost all constitutional rights. Army helicopters opened fire on the protesters with live ammunition and stun-grenades. Over a dozen protesters were killed. But the indigenous peoples did not run away. Even though they were risking their lives, they stood their ground. One of their leaders, Davi Yanomami, said simply: "The earth has no price. It cannot be bought, or sold or exchanged. It is very important that white people, black people and indigenous peoples fight together to save the life of the forest and the earth. If we don't fight together what will our future be?" And then something extraordinary happened. The indigenous peoples won. The Peruvian Congress repealed the laws that allowed oil company drilling, by a margin of 82 votes to 12. Garcia was forced to apologize for his "serious errors and exaggerations". The protesters have celebrated and returned to their homes deep in the Amazon. Of course, the oil companies will regroup and return -- but this is an inspirational victory for the forces of sanity that will be hard to reverse. Human beings need to make far more decisions like this: to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and to leave rainforests standing. In microcosm, this rumble in the jungle is the fight we all face now. Will we allow a small number of rich people to make a short-term profit from seizing and burning resources, at the expense of our collective ability to survive? If this sounds like hyperbole, listen to Professor Jim Hansen, the world's leading climatologist, whose predictions have consistently turned out to be correct. He says: "Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with a sea level 75 meters higher. Coastal disasters would occur continually. The only uncertainty is the time it would take for complete ice sheet disintegration." Of course, fossil fools will argue that the only alternative to burning up our remaining oil and gas supplies is for us all to live like the indigenous peoples in the Amazon. But next door to Peru, you can see a very different, environmentally sane model to lift up the poor emerging -- if only we will grasp it. Ecuador is a poor country with large oil resources underneath its rainforests -- but its president, Rafael Correa, is offering us the opposite of Garcia's plan. He has announced he is willing to leave his country's largest oil reserve, the Ishpingo Tmabococha Tiputini field, under the soil, if the rest of the world will match the $9.2bn in revenues it would provide. If we don't start reaching for these alternatives, we will render this month's victory in the Amazon meaningless. The Hadley Center in Britain, one of the most sophisticated scientific centers for studying the impacts of global warming, has warned that if we carry on belching out greenhouse gases at the current rate, the humid Amazon will dry up and burn down -- and soon. Their study earlier this year explained : The Amazonian rainforest is likely to suffer catastrophic damage even with the lowest temperature rises forecast under climate change. Up to 40 percent of the rainforest will be lost if temperature rises are restricted to 2C, which most climatologists regard as the least that can be expected by 2050. A 3C rise is likely to result in 75 percent of the forest disappearing while a 4C rise, regarded as the most likely increase this century unless greenhouse gas emissions are slashed, will kill off 85 perfect of the forest. That would send gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere -- making the world even more inhabitable. There is something thrilling about the fight in the Amazon, yet also something shaming. These people had nothing, but they stood up to the oil companies. We have everything, yet too many of us sit limp and passive, filling up our tanks with stolen oil without a thought for tomorrow. The people of the Amazon have shown they are up for the fight to save our ecosystem. Are we? Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here or for an archive of his writings about environmental issues, click here . You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com
 

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)