Thursday, August 27, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Blog Alert
Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Nancy Stoner: Best Urban Beaches Top
As an urban dweller and water advocate, I love The Huffington Post's contest to rank the best city beaches in the United States. It's true that many of our coastal cities boast some spectacular, easily accessible beaches. But all too often they also offer something else: an elevated risk of contracting rashes and diarrhea because failing urban pipes dump untreated sewage and polluted stormwater flows right into our beaches after heavy rains. The number of these events is startling. Every year, NRDC releases Testing the Waters : A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches . In this year 's report, we discovered that there were more than 20,000 days of closings and advisories in 2008 because beachwater exceeded public health standards. For instance, one of Huffington's featured beaches, Zuma Beach in Los Angeles County, exceeded health standards for beachwater quality (indicating the presence of human or animal waste) 11 percent of the time in 2008. While some beaches fared worse, that's 4 percent higher than the national average, and shows that Zuma is prone to dirty runoff. This is the case in communities all around our country, but the effect is more intense in metropolitan areas. When it rains on city streets, water rushes into storm drains pulling oil, toxins, pet waste, fertilizers, and trash along with it. In many cities, stormwater gets passed through the same pipes as sewage, and when the system gets swamped by a downpour, the sewage sometimes bypasses the treatment plant and gets dumped raw--with all its cargo of infectious bacteria, viruses, and parasites-upstream from  urban beaches. This is what occasionally happens at San Francisco's Ocean Beach, another beach included in Huffington's contest and one popular with surfers. City officials closed certain stretches for several days in 2008 because mixed stormwater and sewage was discharged after heavy rains. The best way to keep beaches open is to keep the pollution out of the water in the first place. Federal and local governments can make this a priority by requiring better controls on stormwater and sewage. A key solution is to use something called low impact development--techniques that retain and filter rainwater where it falls, letting it soak back into the ground rather than running off into waterways. But in the meantime, if you want to enjoy the last days of summer by taking a dip in your city's best swimming holes--and you want to avoid a trip to the emergency room--take a look at NRDC's beach guide before you go. It will tell you how well your city officials monitor local beaches and how often they have exceeded health standards. You can also take a look at our 5-star rating guide for 200 of the nation's most popular beaches. This is a good place to find swimming options that are fun and healthy.  The water at these beaches is monitored more than once a week and almost always meets public health standards.  In addition, the public is promptly informed whenever contamination is found. Here is a sample of some well rated beaches (5 stars): Gulf Shores Public Beach (AL) Laguna Beach-Main Beach (CA) Bolsa Chica State Beach in Huntington Beach (CA), Newport Beach (CA) Ocean City (MD) Park Point - Community Club Beach in Duluth (MN) Hampton Beach State Park in Hampton (NH). And for tips on how to have a healthy trip to the beach,  check out this live chat with me from earlier in the summer. This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
Garrett Johnson: What Will an Economic Recovery Build Upon? Top
There's been a lot of talk recently about the economy. Has it bottomed? Are we recovering? Will we see a "V" shaped bounce? Or a "U"? Or a "W"? Since most of the economic numbers are still negative, it seems a little premature to talk about a recovery. Nevertheless, since the cheerleaders of the economy have brought it up, let's examine exactly what is going to lead this economy out of our deep recession. In order to do that we must look at a topic that the Green Shoots crowd doesn't mention much -- the fundamentals of the economy. I'm going to make this as simple and uncontroversial as possible. Since consumer spending is more than 70% of the American economy, let's start there. This chart shows us clearly why the economy has contracted so much. It also shows a clear bottom in consumer spending. The question is whether than bottom is temporary or permanent? To answer that we must look at the fiscal health of the consumer. There are two measurements of that - money coming in and money going out. As you can see, workers have virtually stopped getting raises, and that assumes that people are still working. Obviously the American worker's income is under incredible pressure, and this is translating to less buying. The tiny downward correction on the number of unemployed in the chart above is due to nearly half a million workers no longer being counted as unemployed despite not getting new jobs. There is another element to the American consumer's balance sheet, and that is savings and debt. While there has been a modest improvement in the debt servicing levels of the American consumer, there has been very little improvement for overall debt levels. This is a reflection of lower interest rates, not to debt actually being paid down. The debt charts are beginning to move the right way, but they are nowhere near close to what can be considered "healthy". The San Francisco Federal Reserve put it this way . The combination of higher debt and lower saving enabled personal consumption expenditures to grow faster than disposable income, providing a significant boost to U.S. economic growth over the period. In the long-run, however, consumption cannot grow faster than income because there is an upper limit to how much debt households can service, based on their incomes. For many U.S. households, current debt levels appear too high, as evidenced by the sharp rise in delinquencies and foreclosures in recent years. To achieve a sustainable level of debt relative to income, households may need to undergo a prolonged period of deleveraging, whereby debt is reduced and saving is increased. On the other side of the coin is America's saving and investment. These two charts are the most damning of all. Without saving and investing there can be no sustained economic recovery. Period. This is an absolute disaster. Not only do these charts show no bottom, they are moving in the wrong direction at a worsening rate. Until these charts reverse the fundamentals of the economy will get worse. The IMF summed up the situation this way . Directors observed that the crisis will have important implications for the role of the United States in the global economy. The U.S. consumer is unlikely to play the role of global "buyer of last resort" -- suggesting that other regions will need to play an increased role in supporting global growth. Not all of the economy is domestic. America does get some economic support from foreign trade. There are signs that the rest of the world is starting to recover, but to benefit from that America will have to produce products that the rest of the world wants to buy. So far there has been no significant signs that this is happening. Of course there is one more element of the economy that I haven't covered here, and it is booming ! Lately there has been some improved housing numbers, but there are several caveats to them. For starters, the marginal improvement in comparisons are to the disastrous selling season of mid-2008. Secondly, 43% of all home sales last quarter were first-time home buyers. Normally that would be a good thing, but this time it is a reflection of the government's $8,000 tax credit that people are rushing to take advantage of. Some people are even using it as a down payment. In case people have already forgotten, borrowers that require extraordinary help getting into a house are much more likely to default on their mortgages. It looks like an attempt at reinflating the housing bubble. Finally, those small signs of price increases are due entirely to more expensive homes being forced onto the market. The other positive economic number we've seen recently is in auto sales. This is due to the recently ended cash-for-clunkers program . So the spiraling government debt and the two most positive economic numbers are directly linked. With that in mind you have to ask yourself, what will the economic recovery build upon? More on The Recession
 
Sabria Jawhar: Saudi Tribal Customs, Not Islam, Responsible for Male Guardianship Abuses Top
A battle is brewing among Saudi women over the touchy issue of male guardianship. Pressure from outside Saudi Arabia has been building to abolish guardianship laws, and a number of women who fashion themselves as activists have led the charge. Perhaps the most visible is Wajeha Al-Huwaider, a Saudi who does a little showboating by being driven in a taxi to the border checkpoint to enter Bahrain without permission from a male guardian. She's always turned away by Saudi authorities and told to go home. She is the darling of Western conservatives who think this public demonstration will further the cause of Saudi women. It's silly. Public acts of defiance are unseemly in Saudi society and few women want to give up their dignity when letter-writing and petition campaigns are more effective. Additionally, advocating to completely abolish guardianship rules is not a productive means to deal with abuses in the system. The problem with some Saudi activists is that they want to make wholesale changes that are contrary to Islam, which requires a mahram for traveling women. If one wonders why great numbers of Saudi women don't join Al-Huwaider it's because they are asked to defy Islam. Al-Huwaider's all or nothing position undercuts her credibility. Of course, there are a great many women who are abused and they are seeking to change the guardianship system. And these efforts have sparked a counter-campaign by women who want the system to remain the same. Recently a campaign called "My Guardian Knows the Best for Me" was initiated in direct response to the anti-guardianship movement. I have mixed feelings about both movements, but I must say the guardianship supporters have me more worried. The system currently in place is seriously flawed. Saudi authorities have abdicated their responsibility to see that laws are enforced in a fair and equitable manner. It has ceased being a religious issue and is more about patriarchal control. Many families treat their wives, daughters and sisters with great respect and don't follow their every move. Permission to travel or to conduct business abroad is often granted carte blanche with a signed piece of paper from a mahram . Many women travel freely with this document and consult little with the men in their families about their movements. But since there are no codified laws, most Saudi women traveling alone don't know from one day to the next whether their documents will pass scrutiny at the airport. And for every family that follows guardianship rules, there is another family that wields the law like a club. It's not a system ripe for abuse. It's already a system abused with regularity. Guardianship opponents are waging a losing battle if they believe that Saudi authorities will abolish the law. The reality is that there is little incentive for the government to consider anything but maintaining the status quo. More worrisome is the women's pro-guardianship camp that is perfectly happy for men to control their lives. That's fine for them. They undoubtedly live in households of unquestioned male authority and are pleased with the arrangement. But what about the women abused by the guardian system? It was reported recently that a Saudi woman protested that her father rejected several potential husbands because they did not belong to the family's tribe. The father confined her to the house as punishment and denied her outside employment. He even sent her to a mental institution when she continued her protests. She sued her father in court, but found herself at the wrong end of a tongue-lashing from the judge who said she did not respect her father. She now lives in a women's shelter. Here is a clear instance of the Saudi judicial system failing to protect the woman and tacitly endorsing abuse of the guardianship system. If men follow the spirit of guardianship as outlined in the Qur'an and recognize at the same time there is no place for tribal customs within the system, then a happy medium can be found. But if the Saudi courts fail to implement checks and balances to punish guardianship abusers and to protect the victims, then the laws are pointless. Tribal customs should not usurp Sharia. Yet, to listen to the pro-guardianship camp, Saudi customs and traditions should indeed be a central part of the system. In effect, they are placing customs and traditions above Islam. By waging a campaign fully supporting existing guardianship rules dooms thousands of Saudi women to being housebound servants to male family members. A campaign to encourage guardianship, but also to demand that codified laws protect the abused, makes more sense. Such a system respects an independent woman's right to move about, attend university and marry whomever she pleases. It allows the family to determine a comfort level, but also imposes consequences on guardians who manipulate the laws to their own advantage. The argument that women are not competent to handle their own affairs is not valid and never has been. More Saudi women than men attend universities in Saudi Arabia and abroad. Most of the money held in banks belongs to women. How guardianship laws are followed must be a joint decision involving the family. But Saudi judges also need to summon the courage to cast aside customs and traditions when faced with abuse cases and make the right call to protect victims. More on Women's Rights
 
Mike Huckabee To Headline Conference On EMP Attacks Top
Matt Corley over at ThinkProgress noted yesterday that former Arkansas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee has got a brand new thing going on , freaking out America with worry that terrorists are going to subject the United States to an electromagnetic pulse attack. Huckabee is the recently-announced keynote speaker at the EMPACT America Conference this September 9-10 at the Seneca Niagara Hotel and Casino in Niagara Falls, New York. I'm guessing you can TiVo the Glenn Beck show for further details. To put it in a way that would allow Sarah Palin to tweet about it, electromagnetic pulses are a secondary effect of a nuclear explosion, and, depending on the payload and altitude of the blast, the extent to which gamma rays and electrons could potentially get all riled up is such that it could fry electronic devices and delivery infrastructure across a vast land mass. Most Americans are probably familiar with EMP attacks through their pseudo-scientific depictions in spy novels or in the hit caper movie, Oceans 11 : Outside of enabling Don Cheadle to assist in robbing the Bellagio, what sort of threat does an electromagnetic pulse attack pose? Well, according to The New Republic 's Michael Crowley , the threat is very real, but you'd have to find a terrorist who prefers convoluted and exotic means of attack to actual effective ones: There is a scientific basis for fears about widespread electric outages, and there is evidence that other countries, possibly including Iran, have studied the technique. "EMP is real," agrees Joe Cirincione, a nuclear weapons expert who now runs a pro-disarmament think tank, the Ploughshares Fund. But, as Cirincione notes, few analysts take the threat very seriously. The odds that Iran or North Korea would prefer a technologically untested Rube Goldberg scheme to merely nuking us seem slim. And any terrorist group able to execute such a plan was probably capable enough to get us one way or another anyhow. Those realities argue overwhelmingly for prudent but unsexy infrastructure protections, not preemptive attacks or advanced technology. "It's horror theater," says Cirincione, "trying to scare Americans into doing something which a rational analysis would stop them from doing." Charles Ferguson, a nuclear engineer at the Council on Foreign Relations, agrees. "[T]here are some important things we can be doing that won't cost much, but that can serve as a vital backup," he says. For instance, Ferguson has advised the New York City Fire Department to keep some backup communications equipment and extra ignition switches for its trucks in electromagnetic pulse-resistant steel cages. So, how has it come to pass that various members of the GOP, such as Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Curt Weldon (all of whom will appear at the EMPACT event, along with the "godfather of EMP alarmism," Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.)) have fixed upon the ornate and unlikely possibility of an EMP attack as a cause celebre? As Corley points out, fearmongering on EMP attacks allow them to "to argue for 'familiar hobbyhorses' like missile defense and preemptive military strikes." OH! You thought maybe that they were going to advocate a lot of free-market solutions to this problem? It's a weird obsession for a group of people who not long ago, chortled at the thought of the government providing for public safety in the form of volcano monitoring . [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Terrorism
 
Don Siegelman: Fire Rove's Prosecutors Top
Earlier this month, I was fortunate to join many friends from here and all around the country at Netroots Nation and discuss some of the victories we have achieved together. Specifically, I mentioned the success we had seen in urging the House Committee on the Judiciary to force Karl Rove to testify and admit his role in the firing of U.S. Attorneys while issuing "non-denial-denials" about his role in my prosecution. That's something we never could have achieved without the support of the Netroots. I can't thank you enough for your steadfast support. But, this fight is not over; not for me, not for Karl Rove, and not for our democracy. That's why, at my Netroots Nation panel, I launched a new campaign, www.FireRovesProsecutors.com , dedicated to seeing those Rove-vetted U.S. Attorneys and appointees still poisoning the Department of Justice removed from their positions -- ending their ability to threaten our democracy. Since then, more than 5,000 people have sent messages to the White House demanding these individuals be removed from power. I hope you'll join me by contacting the President's Senior Adviser, Valerie Jarrett, today. This issue is anything but dead. The people who did the dirty work are still on the job right now because only a handful of the appointees have been replaced: just five of the 93 Bush put in place. That means Rove's clones are still calling the shots! They are a cancer on our system of justice and must be removed before our democracy can be healed. To be clear, removing the previous President's appointees has been, until now, a simple matter of process. George W. Bush fired Bill Clinton's U.S. Attorneys the day after he took office. But even now, seven months after President Obama took office, my prosecution is still being led by the same Rove/Bush prosecutors at the Department of Justice and the same U.S. Attorney, who is married to one of Rove's closest political allies. This is clearly personal for me, but my case is merely a symptom of a larger problem. Every day Rove's attack dogs remain in place is another day our nation fails to move past the crimes perpetrated under the Bush Administration. The time is well past due to remove them and move forward. Visit FireRovesProsecutors.com to send a message to Valerie Jarrett now -- and encourage her to tell the President it's time to remove Rove's clones from the Department of Justice! As I told my friends at my panel in Pittsburgh, none of what we accomplished could have happened without you. That's why I'm asking you to stand with me again as we continue this fight for justice. More on Karl Rove
 
Small Midwestern States To Be Hit Hardest By Climate Change: Report Top
The politics of climate change are difficult in the Senate, it's often said, because it's a regional issue: coal state senators are afraid their economies will be driven under if the price of dirty energy rises too quickly. Climate change is, in fact, a regional issue, but not in the short-term way that the coal senators think, according to new analysis from the Nature Conservancy. The environmental group finds that rural Midwestern states will face the greatest consequences of climate change. The three that will face the steepest rise in temperature -- Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa -- are farm states whose soil will be significantly less productive as temperatures rise more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit there by 2100. The rise by by 2050 -- only 41 years from now -- is also projected to be substantial. ( Click here for an interactive map of the analysis.) The two Republican senators from Kansas, which will be most ravaged by climate change, are unlikely to support legislation addressing it. Sen. Sam Brownback, who is retiring from the Senate but continues to have statewide ambitions, has said that humanity has a religious imperative to reduce climate emissions, but he has also signed on to the "No Climate Tax Pledge" being pushed by Americans for Prosperity, which opposes climate change legislation. The pledge says that Brownback will "oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue" -- which means any of the plans currently being considered. Sen. Pat Roberts will also be a difficult vote for advocates to score. In Nebraska, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson often works to pull legislation in a more conservative direction and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) isn't clamoring to support taking action to address climate change. Nelson signed a letter earlier this year calling for climate change legislation to be put off. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the state that will face the third worst catastrophe, will be a key player on the Finance Committee, which hopes to claim jurisdiction over the distribution of the revenue that will be raised through a cap and trade system. His Democratic counterpart, Sen. Tom Harkin, is a much more likely yes vote. The consequences to these farm states will be far reaching. As droughts become more common, their soil and climate will begin to look more like their neighbors' to the south in Texas and Mexico. The ten-degree rise in temperature in the three states assumes that carbon emissions will continue their rate of increase. If the world's population somehow manages to reverse greenhouse gas emissions, the temperature is still expected to rise more than three degrees, which would still devastate those states' economies. "To many, climate change doesn't seem real until it affects them, in their backyards," said Jonathan Hoekstra, director of climate change for The Nature Conservancy. "In many states across the country, the weather and landscapes could be nearly unrecognizable in 100 years." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Climate Change
 
Russell Simmons: David Paterson, The Accidental Governor? Top
Governor Paterson is DEFINITELY AN ACCIDENT! Like a ten car pile up on the FDR! Or an eighteen-wheeler hitting a Prius on the 405! You may want to call him an accident, but he is NOT the guilty party! He's an accident because his principles, ideals and vision are the kind that we could not have expected to see in the Governor's mansion. The fact is, his support for people in need is unprecedented. So, this is one accident I am happy to be a part of. It is easy to be as progressive as he is when you are representing a progressive district, but when you get to the Governor's office, I guess "accidents" are not supposed to happen. It seems that you are suppose to toe the line, and leave your progressive ideas where you came from. Definitely don't bring that sh*t to Albany. Maybe we can say the Governor is cashing in the clunker, as it has been decades since we have seen a progressive in Albany like David Paterson. Okay, I will admit, he's got a sh*tty communications department and sometimes says the wrong thing...but, we should be looking at what he believes and what he is getting done and what he wants to get done. That is what really matters. Putting aside his weak communications department, and his ill-advised decision to not appoint Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo to Senate last year, (although more conservative, Kirsten Gillebrand, is still is a fine choice), the Governor is someone who the progressives should be thrilled about. Throughout his entire political career, Governor Paterson has worked tirelessly to UPLIFT AND EDUCATE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE. If the Governor runs next year, we should stand up and support him. In fact, whoever runs on the Democratic ticket, we hope he or she can live up to the standards set by Governor Paterson. In a year where every single Governor is under fire, and other governors have simply quit (Mrs. Palin?), Governor Paterson is working hard to weather the storm during this difficult economic time. Remember, states don't have the ability to print money and spend their way out. Governor Paterson, like every Governor has had to have a sharp knife, cutting so many programs and angering so many people. However, let's not forget how dull a knife gets for Governor Paterson when it comes to programs that uplift the poor. During his short time in office, the Governor has been successful at championing progressive causes. He raised taxes on the wealthy (including me!), ended the Rockefeller Drug Laws, publicly supported same-sex marriages and gave $200 back-to-school grants to low-income families. And when the legislature in Albany was at stalemate, his leadership shined through when he named a lieutenant governor to break the tie. These are just a few reasons why David Paterson is no "accidental governor." He is the righteous Governor of our great state of New York, and I know that if given the chance, while at the same time being held accountable by the people of our state, he can be a champion for all of us! - Russell Simmons
 
Barton Kunstler, Ph.D.: An Obama Rendition Scenario Top
President Obama has recently ratified continuation of the U.S. rendition policy -- removal of terrorist suspects by extra-legal means to a foreign country for interrogation. This was intended to allow prisoners to be tortured in many nations, Syria, Egypt, Latvia, Jordan, Morocco, Yemen, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Pakistan, among them in a process facilitated by Great Britain, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Indonesia, and others. However, Obama's is not the Bush/Cheney version of rendition. The President has assured us that interrogations will be monitored to guarantee that torture does not occur. Amazingly, I have just received a recording spirited from the near-future of an interrogation conducted under the new kinder, gentler rules. Let's listen in. Unfortunately, only the interrogator's voice can be heard. Factual comments are in italics. President Obama has closed our secret overseas prisons. Welcome, Mr. Rajmani, to one of our nation's five star hotels. You can call me "Buzzsaw". As Hospitality Captain, I will be your host for the duration of your stay. Yes, I know you are an American citizen, but your FBI thought you could use a little vacation. Rendition is open-ended, time-wise. Oops, did I say little? Let me assure you, Mr. Rajmani, that you don't have to leave your room by any specific time. In fact, you can stay here as long as necessary...that is, as long as, well, let's just say you won't be leaving here soon. Your wife and children? Don't worry. They know you're not home. Well, that may seem self-evident to you but if it is self-evident, what's the problem? Of course, they'll be expecting you, but let me ask you this, Mr. Rajmani. If they knew you were staying in such a lovely facility, would they not be glad for you? I am sure you will return to them. Maybe not in one piece...haha...just joking! Now, Mr. Rajmani, we simply are going to ask you a few questions. Over and over and over again, true, but just a few questions. Obama administration guidelines against torture do not necessarily cover "detainees"; nor do they rule out discomforting practices not considered to be torture. Torture! Mr. Rajmani! How can you say that!? This is not the Bush/Cheney rendition. This is Obama rendition. We do not torture. The Obama regulations do assure us that suspects will not be sent to nations that condone torture. You are absolutely right, Mr. Rajmani. You can no longer be renditioned to a nation that does condones torture. There is a problem, though. According to Amnesty International, over 150 of the world's countries have used torture so it's really tough to find one that doesn't. Besides, we don't condone torture. Who does? True, the new guidelines do allow unpleasant techniques, but you have my word we will never cross that thin line separating mild pain from torture. In fact, I am changing my nickname from "Buzzsaw" to "Arm-Twister"! According to the Obama regulations, interrogations will be monitored to make sure the suspect is not being tortured. Who is this burly man standing next to me? Call him "Jeff". And no, Mr. Rajmani, Jeff is not glaring at you. He will be your first interrogator but he will be constantly monitored to make sure he doesn't torture you. Right Jeff? Jeff...Jeff...back off Jeff! You'll have your turn! Jeff must be hungry. I'll feed him before he questions you. Most "suspects" in overseas detention, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, and the U.S. have had only tenuous connections to any terrorist group, if any. Some of the most highly publicized cases were later shown to be without merit. Of course you don't know anything, Mr. Rajmani! No renditioned prisoner ever knows anything. You do have an uncle in Karachi who has been visiting the Swat Valley, correct? Of course you do! You see, we do not operate at random! What's that? He's a doctor? He's treating villagers wounded from the fighting? Hmm. And don't you think some of those villagers might be al Qaeda or Taliban sympathizers? And that your uncle, this Dr. Rajmani, may be giving comfort to terrorists? And didn't you send him money for "supplies" last month? You may indeed have important information for us, Mr. Rajmani, you just don't know it. Safety from arbitrary government seizure has been protected by habeas corpus since the Magna Carta of 1215. Rendition ignores habeas corpus. Also, under the Obama rules, American overseers will see that rendition suspects are not tortured - but our influence in foreign jails is admittedly limited. Who is that man standing in the shadows in suit and sunglasses? His shoes are rather pedestrian, though. You see, I make joke! Let's just call him, Habeas Corpus - NOT! Ha ha, Mr. Rajmani, is that not another LOL moment!? He's your American friend and will be attending to your health and well-being. And with a pool in our health spa.... The pool? For waterboarding? How could you think such a thing? Read my lips: no water-boarding. President Obama did order all secret prisons closed - but not detention centers. A 2006 Red Cross report noted that some American doctors did assist CIA torture sessions. Mr. Rajmani, please. This is not a secret prison. True, the CIA still has its "detention centers" but those aren't the same as prisons. Look at this lovely hotel room! Hardly a prison! And the President has stated that rendition will continue, so it's not secret either! Your own private CIA doctor will refresh you whenever an outside inspector comes to visit, so you won't be embarrassed if you're looking a bit drawn - and quartered! Aha, just joking again! We must wonder why President Obama insists on retaining retention. If torture is forbidden, can't we interrogate suspects in our own country? A former interrogator, contrary to Dick Cheney, has just publicly stated that torturing suspects yielded no useful information. Play charades? What a strange request. I don't know, ask Jeff. Oh, why are we going through this charade? I see. Well, you may call it a charade but look at it this way, Mr. Rajmani. Putting together a good rendition program takes a lot of resources. Your country is not about to dismantle it just because a few jelly-kneed liberals complain that it's unconstitutional. Rendition may turn out to be the first step to outsourcing American prisoners all over the world. Your own jails are overflowing with over one percent of your adult population. Rendition is actually a favor to those men and women stuck inside of Immobile with the Memphis blues again. Laugh out loud, Mr. Rajmani. Please, I must insist that you laugh at my jokes. You know the drill. Hmm, speaking of drills, Jeff, how is our supply holding up? More on Barack Obama
 
Richard Laermer: Senator Ted Kennedy: The Lion In Water Top
Ted Kennedy was undoubtedly the lion of the Senate who lived a long and consistent life as a public servant. Not even political foes can argue that his service was not of the highest order; he served just as his brothers before him had and his legacy is one of proud accomplishment. Always a liberal trendsetter, this Kennedy pushed for single-payer national health care starting in 1974. A consistent promoter of what he believed was right, the man never wavered. Throughout the career of the Massachusetts leader, a notable cloud followed him at all times. He just wan't able to shake Chappaquiddick '69, the night he drove off a Cape Cod bridge. Though he swam to safety, his career never fully recovered. His passenger - a young woman who worked for both he and his brother Bobby - drowned. To make it worse, Kennedy did not alert the authorities of the accident until the next day. The young politician pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a two-month suspended sentence. An empanelled grand jury brought no indictment. The bridge in question. It was the Kennedy curse: bad happened to the K clan all the time. He was no exception. Then Sen. Kennedy ran a messy campaign for president in 1980 and broke the long-standing custom leaving an incumbent president unchallenged by his party. Polling suggested Kennedy would beat Carter for the nomination until that day Chappaquiddick's skeletons were levied from the closet (by Dem naysayers, no less). It made excelllent TV as Kennedy was roundly, honorably defeated at the convention later that summer. After that loss he never had one. He was reelected easily each time through 2006. His electoral stature gave him a unique place in politics: the chance to do something without real fear of losing his position. He worked alongside (with and against) every administration since Nixon on that still-evolving issue of health care and along the way successfully championed the cause of uninsured children. There isn't room to explore every little thing he did but here's a moment to consider what would have happened if he had not crossed that dark bridge.... He would have run for president in 1972. Defeated Nixon? Who knows. In the thick of the Vietnam War it would have been a more exciting race than McGovern's bid. Had he been elected, many pages would be missing from the history books: Watergate, "I am not a crook," Midnight Massacre, Gerald Ford (or the ridiculous rise of vainglorious Chevy Chase), Reagan, and the Republican revolution in 1994. Lots of rewritten chapters for America. This nation would by 1980 have passed a health care system ahead of most of the rest of progressive Earth. We'd have left Vietnam a lot sooner and with heads held higher. Justice Kennedy would never have had a firm seat on any bench. Clarence Thomas? Who is that? Yes, this is speculation - could Mario Cuomo have ridden his own 1984 wave to a post-Kennedy White House?--yet remember how minor choices in life affect the rest of it. Kennedy was an admirable steward of liberalism who drove into water and changed his world (and ours) in hard-to-fathomways. RIP Senator Lion! More like this at Laermer.com (blog) More on Health Care
 
Ted Sorensen: Remembering Ted Kennedy, My Friend of 56 Years Top
After all the magnificent eulogies and obituaries, what more and what new can be said about Ted Kennedy, my friend of almost exactly 56 years and the leader of all the causes in Washington in which I believe -- a more peaceful world, a more just America, a more humane and progressive United States government. Too many people still think about the human frailties that characterized his youth; and those without sin are permitted by scripture to cast the first stone against him. But that past only emphasizes the extraordinary extent to which, like his brothers Jack and Bobby, Ted grew as his responsibilities increased. His determination to achieve his brothers' goals was genuine and unrelenting, his devotion to each of his own many causes over the years was sincere and unflagging. He became known on both sides of the Senate aisle for his careful selection and retention of a brilliant staff, and - with their help - doing his homework in preparation for every Senate debate. Most people do not realize the extent to which he was, in the final analysis, a survivor. Both his oldest brother and his oldest sister were killed in plane crashes, but he survived the plane crash that broke his back and killed the pilot and co-pilot. As the younger brother of two assassinated young liberal heros, he received his own share of anonymous hate mail and death threats, but he survived to age 77. Both after his plane crash and his automobile accident, I sat at his bedside, wondering if he would have the strength to go on. But he did, and for this last year I had hoped that somehow he would come back again and go on to even greater heights as a champion of America's final effort to achieve accessible health care for all of its citizens. As a friend, he could be funny, full of laughter and as interested in frivolity and gossip as anyone else in Washington. He had the good fortune to meet and marry Victoria Reggie, whose parents were a wonderful politically-oriented and active Democratic Party couple in Louisiana whom John F. Kennedy and I had met long before Teddy had met Vicki. But she was the saving grace of the latter portion of his life, even before he was suddenly struck by brain cancer; and she was as well the caregiver and schedule coordinator who made his last year a time of peace that included recreation as well as a continuing voice in legislation. He is fortunate as well to be survived by three remarkable children, who have had their own encounters with illness and adversity: Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy, who could someday rise, if all goes well, to be a leader of not only his Party but the House of Representatives; Edward Kennedy, Jr., who has learned from his father's leadership on health care, his two uncles' fight for universal access to quality medical care, and his own early setback -- when cancer took his leg -- to make a career out of providing advice and assistance to medical and hospital facilities -- particularly those helping the orthopedically disabled -- all over the world; and Kara Kennedy Allen, Ted's daughter, who has shown the same caring for the least fortunate in her own career. Kara works for Very Special Arts, the creative counterpart to Special Olympics founded by her aunt Jean; and serves as well on the Board of the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Facing lung cancer in 2003 but currently in remission, she too has personal experience with the highs and lows of healthcare in this country. Clearly, Teddy Kennedy's own legacy will live on through his children, through the hundreds of important pieces of legislation that he authored, through the brilliant staff that he assembled and dispersed to other important roles around the country, and through the books, articles and speeches he has produced in his 46 years as a United States Senator. Above all, his legacy will live on through the millions of friends he has made and nurtured over the years, both in and out of politics, both in and out of the United States, among members of many races, religions and nationalities. Among all those friends for whom he did so much good, some will mourn and miss him more than others. I am among those who will miss him most. Ted Sorensen is the former Special Counsel and Advisor to President John F. Kennedy and most recently the author of Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History . More on Ted Kennedy
 
Ann Leary: Hoarder Culture Top
They've found another one. It's been all over the news. They keep showing footage of her standing in front of what seems to be an ordinary suburban home, but when the front door opens, her awful secret is revealed. This sweet, innocent-looking granny hasn't seen fit to throw anything out since the Nixon administration. She's a hoarder and her grown-up children have ratted her out. It's a disease, they say on the morning news, on CNN, on CNBC - a disease that creates chaos for those around the hoarder. How did her life get so out of control? To find out, I'm told, tune into Oprah (or Dr. Phil ) later today. News about hoarders used to be a wake-up call for me and I'd spend the next several days trying to unearth my office from years worth of old manuscripts, bills, wrapping paper, empty hamster cages, sports bras, Easter baskets, dog bones, waffle irons, soccer cleats and magazines. Oh, and catalogs. Hundreds and hundreds of catalogs. Now, I'm so far gone that when I see a fellow hoarder being carted off, my eyes dart from side to side and my heart races. Is that a car I hear pulling up outside? A news van? Oprah's limousine? I envision myself being led outside to a waiting team of behavioral psychologists, while men in haz-mat suits and gas masks bravely enter my home. I'm really not as bad as the people who end up on Oprah , but I'm getting there. I have children and sometimes they have friends over. Sometimes these friends have parents who pick them up and stop in to chat. I can't bear the shame of a messy home, so I do the only sensible thing. When I learn that somebody is about to arrive at my house, I run around grabbing newspapers off the floors, cable bills out of the sink, dog bones off the sofa, socks and sports bras off the kitchen table and I toss them into the only downstairs room with a door - my office. Then I close the door. When the person arrives, they see a relatively tidy home. I'll sort out my office later, I tell myself. And the years go by. I have sought help. I've watched the Oprah episodes, I've even watched home-improvement shows devoted to cleaning your home and organizing your life, but the extent to which they try to simplify the whole problem is absurd. The solution, according to the experts, is to throw stuff out. "Throw out all the catalogs, more are coming," said some house-organizing nut on one of these shows. Right, and never find that set of barbecue tools with the industrial-sized tongs I saw in one of them, three years ago. Get real. I must have those tongs! I'll never find them if I throw away the old catalogs. Last year my daughter was about to get her first driver's license. In order to do so, she needed to show her birth certificate. Her birth certificate was in the office... someplace. So, one rainy afternoon, I decided to just get it over with. I would clean the office. Five hours later, though I was not even halfway through the pile next to my desk, there were five contractor sized garbage bags filled with junk in my front hall and I had learned the following: A) I have ADD 

 B) The accumulated stuff was/is crazily organized by stratum. It's like an archeological dig. The top layer was all stuff from the current month, the next layer last month, dating back to the turn of this century. It occurred to me that I should leave everything just as it is. When I want to find the title for car, for example, I need only to figure out what month and year we bought it, and then I can instantly thumb through the pile until I reach that date, and there it will be . C) I have really bad ADD.
 
Rod And Patti Blagojevich To Appear On "The View" Top
NEW YORK — ABC says Rod Blagojevich (blah-GOY'-uh-vich), the indicted former governor of Illinois, will be a guest next month on "The View." He'll be joined by his wife, Patti. The joint appearance is set for Sept. 9. Blagojevich, who first appeared on the daytime talk show last January, will be promoting his new book, "The Governor." Earlier this summer, Patti Blagojevich was a contestant on the NBC reality show "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!" ___ ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co. ___ On the Net: http://www.abc.com More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Pakistan Bomb Attack At NATO Border Crossing Kills At Least 18 Top
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A suicide bomber hit a Pakistani security checkpoint Thursday at the main border crossing for convoys ferrying NATO supplies into Afghanistan, killing at least 18 border guards, police said. The attacker approached on foot and detonated his explosives at the Torkham checkpoint in the Khyber region, local police officer Sadiq Khan said. Border guards were gathering in front of their barracks after sunset for a meal to end their Ramadan fast when the bomber struck, according to Jehanzeb Lateef, spokesman for the federal agency that administers the region. At least 18 security officials were dead and dozens reported wounded, Lateef said, adding that the death toll could rise. The border had closed for the day a few hours earlier. Ali Raza, an official in the administration office, said he heard a huge explosion in the building next door. "We rushed out and saw destruction all around," Raza said. He helped rush the wounded to a hospital. Several of the wounded told Raza that the last thing they saw was a young boy approaching with what looked like jugs of water for the security officers, but no one could confirm he was the bomber. The Torkham checkpoint marks the main border crossing from the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan. Some 300 supply trucks traverse the passage daily, and U.S. and NATO troops in landlocked Afghanistan rely on the supply line for up to 75 percent of their fuel, food and other logistical goods. More on Pakistan
 
The Juiciest Madoff Fruit Top
The year's most wildly frothed-over piece of plump New York real estate isn't officially on the market. It's not even one of those quiet listings, like the philanthropist Courtney Sale Ross' duplex at 740 Park Avenue, which was mutedly made available late last year for more than $60 million.This co-op is six floors below hers. And it's even nicer. Apartment 6/7B at 740 Park belongs to the disgraced financier J. Ezra Merkin, whose clients lost around $2.4 billion in the Madoff Ponzi scheme. Brokers are talking; enquiring; circling. "I keep hearing, 'It's going to come on, it's going to come on, it's going to come on,'" one Brown Harris Stevens managing director said this week, "but nothing concrete, nothing solid."
 
SaraKay Smullens: Health Care Reform: Some Optimism Please Top
"The hope arises anew, and the dream lives on." -- Ted Kennedy Interspersed with the news of the death of Ted Kennedy are the comments from Senate members and pundits that the health care bill is now on a last leg. I am as totally baffled by this diagnosis as I am about the lies, distortions, and misunderstanding concerning Obama's plan that have taken firm root. I had just read about the guy at the town meeting who went berserk screaming that the Government was not going to touch his Medicare, when my husband came home to share parallel confusion. His barber. whom he has known and trusted longer than he has known and trusted me (which is almost 30 years) told him that a health care bill would raise his taxes, ration and compromise his care, and that government bureaucrats would take away his doctor and decide his medical fate. This from a guy who voted for Obama! I had thought that Hillary Clinton exaggerated when she talked of a right ring conspiracy that destroyed her attempts at heath care reform in 1993. I thought that if she had communicated and planned openly, instead of behind closed doors, involving dedicated health care professionals in her planning, common sense and success would have prevailed. I was wrong. Rationality is no match for concentrated hate and fear tactics, strengthened today in a world of 24 hour cable, and thriving technology. The only match for lies and distortions are leaders with the maturity to come together and act for the good of their constituents, addressing this truth: We cannot afford not to move forward because our current system is financially unsustainable! Health care costs are consuming our national output, rising faster than inflation. They are the largest cause of personal bankruptcies and are rendering our industries noncompetitive in the world market. And what are we, American citizens, getting for this? Our life expectancy is lower than most industrialized countries, and our health care costs are considerably more than any of them. Buried in the unnecessary turmoil and rancor, is a solid degree of consensus achieved in both the House and Senate bills which will benefit us all. For instance, there will be a requirement for all Americans to have health insurance, either through their employer, through government programs, or personally purchased. Those who cannot afford insurance will have either tax credits or subsidies for purchasing. The choices of benefit programs and their costs will be more easily understood through state based "exchanges" with specific transparency of information and rules as well as appropriate explanations of what is available. Insurance will no longer be denied because of "pre-existing" medical conditions. There is even agreement about how to make the system less costly and of higher quality, with more money devoted to patient care. Doctors and hospitals offering efficient, high quality, evidenced based care (such as aspirin right after a heart attack, appropriate blood thinner for types of irregular heart beat, ordering only necessary tests... the list goes on and on) will be financially rewarded. There will be financial penalties for less than quality care and efficiency. There will be encouragement and funding for more primary care physicians and greater emphasis on prevention and maintaining good health, rather than emphasis on payments made during illness. In other words, doctors and hospital systems will be rewarded for keeping patients well! Further, efficiency will be achieved through simplification of record keeping, communications with insurance companies, and by standardization of insurance forms. Electronic health records will be encouraged and finally mandated, improving communication among health care professionals, leading to less test duplication, waste, confusion, and error. There will also be a crackdown of fraud and abuse within the system, such as charging Medicare for equipment that patients never receive or doctors charging fees for patients they have never seen. How are we going to pay for all of this? It is estimated that about 30% of the $2.5 trillion yearly spent on health care goes to overhead, which will be reduced greatly by addressing the above. Other funding will come from payment reform of Medicare and Medicaid, such as bundling of payments for physicians and hospitals for an episode of medical care. Funding will also come from employer payments to a general fund. Any new taxes that may be required will apply only to the wealthiest among us. As for the distorted fear regarding "rationing of service," we have that now as insurance companies deny coverage and specify services. In the Obama plan there is no rationing; there is payment for treatment that evidence shows will truly work. And there is nothing in any bill that will take away one's doctor. The major roadblock to health care reform is whether or not to include a "public option" plan, which would force insurance companies to lower their costs to remain competitive. Currently "for profit" insurance companies use the expression, the "medical loss ratio" to describe the percentage of the insurance dollar that goes to patient care. It has moved from the low 70s to the low 80's. The rest is overhead and profit. Medicare has an overhead expense ratio of 3%, which means that $0.97 cents of every dollar goes for health care. Successful, beloved politicians are principled pragmatists who know that inflexibility is the enemy of progress. When our nation lost President Kennedy, grief was soothed when a divided Congress faced down hatred, insisted on compassion and united to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Senator Ted Kennedy deserves this quality of recognition for his life work. The Health Care Bill need not be perfect. But it must be passed. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat: Who Will Replace Him? (SLIDESHOW POLL) Top
Ted Kennedy's death leaves an open Senate seat in Massachusetts for the first time in 25 years. State law requires a special election for Kennedy's seat to be held within 160 days. Before his death, Kennedy urged that the law be changed to allow Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary replacement until the special election could be held. So who will replace the Senate's "liberal lion"? See a list of potential candidates and choose your favorite: Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Ted Kennedy
 
Frank Carnale, 83, Chases DWI Suspect 15 Miles Through New York, Connecticut Top
SOUTHEAST, N.Y. — An 83-year-old driver chased a pickup truck for 15 miles from New York into Connecticut, helping police catch the drunken driving suspect who had rear-ended his car. The incident last weekend started on Interstate 684 in Southeast, N.Y. Frank Canale of Scarsdale, N.Y., pursued the man all the way to his driveway in Danbury, Conn., and stayed there until police arrived. He says he feared the man could kill someone. His daughter, Lori Canale-Smith of Pleasantville, called police on her cell phone during the chase. By the time they finished filing police reports in two states, the pair missed the wedding they were heading to when the accident happened. Police say the truck's driver was charged with driving under the influence and driving without a license. ___ Information from: The Journal News, http://www.thejournalnews.com
 
Jimmy Fallon, The Roots Featured At Free NYC Concert To Mark 1st 9/11 Day Of Service Top
NEW YORK — Some prominent performers are saying thank you to the people who have answered President Barack Obama's call to volunteer and to people connected to 9/11 – relatives of victims, recovery workers and those who served tours in the military after the attacks. Gavin DeGraw, The Roots and other musicians are performing in a free concert this Sept. 11 to mark the first time that the anniversary of the terrorist attacks is being recognized as a National Day of Service and Remembrance, organizers announced Thursday. Members of the Sept. 11 community and volunteers will be among the first to receive the free tickets. Other people can try to snag one of a limited number of tickets being distributed by lottery. Actor Gary Sinise, talk-show host Jimmy Fallon, the Harlem Boys and Girls Choir, and singer Anjulie will be among the performers at the Beacon Theatre show. It's part of an effort to encourage more people to serve as volunteers, organizers said. "Our ultimate goal is to leave a positive legacy that honors the victims and those who rose in service," said David Paine, the president of MyGoodDeed, one of the organizations responsible for the event. "We hope to rekindle the spirit of unity and compassion that followed the terrorist attacks." Paine's organization, which pushed to establish Sept. 11 as a National Day of Service, was also launching a Web site on Thursday. People planning to give of their time on Sept. 11 can go to to share their plans and learn about volunteering opportunities. http://www.911dayofservice.org ___ On the Net: 9/11 Day of Service: http://www.911dayofservice.org ___ On the Net: 9/11 Day of Service: http://www.911dayofservice.org More on Barack Obama
 
Andy Plesser: Video: Ted Kennedy Video Interview up on BigThink Top
One of the last interviews with Ted Kennedy that was done is up on BigThink , the little New York-based start-up which creates and publishes interviews with thought leaders. The company has raised angel money from several notables, including top White House economics adviser Lawrence Summers, and has been doing well with an advertising syndication deals.  We've seen the clips on sites from msnbc.com to VentureBeat.  Here is the launch story in The New York Times . I've pasted below my interview with co-founder Victoria Brown from January, 2008. Congratulations to Victoria and the BigThink crew for all their progress -- and for producing this extraordinary video of Ted Kennedy. The Kennedy video was recorded in late 2007 in Washington. This video was originally published on Beet.TV. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Karen Salmansohn: 10 Tips for How Not to Be a Jerk During Conflict Top
Fighting with your sweetie? If so -- are you fighting fairly -- or are you being a jerk when tensions rise high? Everyone of us has a little streak of asshole - hopefully only a slight wedgie streak of asshole. In my new book PRINCE HARMING SYNDROME http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Harming-Syndrome-Relationship-Essentials/dp/084370926X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250627704&sr=8-1 I give many tips on how to keep that asshole-factor to a minimum during those highly stressful times of conflict. 1. Pick the right time, the right place. Do you have at least 30 minutes of uninterrupted time ahead? Are you in a place where you can talk openly and not self consciously? In general, the best place to talk is alone in your home, where you can sit facing each other, with good strong eye contact. 2. Avoid harsh start-ups. Relationship expert Dr. John Gottman says he can predict 96% of the time how a conversation will end based on its first three minutes. In PRINCE HARMING SYNDROME I share a a lot about tapping into what Aristotle called "the virtue of discipline and conscious insight. " Tapping into this dynamic duo definitely helps one to avoid using criticism, sarcasm or cruel words. Be aware of not starting out blaming -- or calling your partner bad names -- or your partner will spend more time defending himself than attending to your needs and feelings. Instead, try beginning with a compliment about what you appreciate about your partner. Also, include a reminder about how you really want to work on your relationship so it succeeds and you both can grow together. Begin by calmly explaining how the conflict affects you -- your feelings, values, dreams, goals. Recognize that eventually most fights do not stay about the fight's topic -- but rather the "way" people choose to fight -- and consciously choose to share your concerns with warmth and integrity. 3. Don't try to convince your partner you are right. Instead of trying to win arguments, try to have a winning relationship! How? Try talking in "I" sentences instead of "you" sentences--so you speak more about how you feel. (And "I think you are a jerk!" is not an example of an "I" statement!) Your goal is to get your partner to empathize -- so forget about harping on details and facts. Keep staying with your feelings, values, dreams, goals. From this place of empathy, your partner will better hear you--and thereby want to find a way to take care of your needs and feelings. If the conversation escalates, be sure to tell your partner that you recognize that your point of view is relative. Your truth is not necessarily the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Be ready to be convinced out of your anger and misery. As Stephen Covey brilliantly stated in his fabulous book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People : "Seek first to understand--then to be understood!" 4. Put in the virtue of discipline to calm yourself before you begin talking. Although studies show that yelling is better than stonewalling, yelling has its share of problems. Studies show when people yell, they get themselves even angrier. Interesting factoid: If you and/or your partner's heartbeat becomes higher than 100 beats per minute during an argument, you will not be able to fully understand/process what the other is saying. Basically, when you're angry, your brain's processing becomes blocked, and it's literally more difficult to solve problems and express yourself clearly. Plus -- duh -- you're more likely to foolishly inflame the situation with insults and petty meannesses. As Marcus Aurelius said: "How much more grievous are the consequences of anger, than the causes of it." 5. If you are upset at your partner for something specific that they did, try not to generalize their action by saying, "You always do this. You always say that." Generalizations will only escalate your partner's emotional state because they're more vague to discuss, and less believable. Come on. Be honest with yourself. A realistic "always" action is a very rare thing. Psychologists all agree it's best to limit your talk to the one specific recent event that is bugging you, and make past offenses not admissible evidence. 6. I've said it before -- and I'll keep saying it: I believe nearly all our lessons in life are lessons in learning how to get better at loving and being loved. If your partner is angry with you, recognize that his anger is a misdirected plea for love. Your partner's simply upset because he feels something you said or did was a sign of not loving him enough. View his anger through this lens. When you have this conscious insight about anger, you can more swiftly feel better about sharing loving words and a loving response with your angry partner. 7. If you're upset with your partner, name the exact emotions you are feeling. For example: angry, resentful, hurt, embarrassed, humiliated, vulnerable, afraid, uptight, depressed. Researcher Matthew Lieberman from UCLA discovered that simply straightforwardly recognizing that you're feeling a negative emotion -- like anger -- can calm this emotion by 50% -- because it halves your "amygdala activation" to consciously observe your emotions. I want you to double up the benefits of this halving. After you've named a negative emotion, rename it with a positive. Consciously decide to replace each negative emotion with one of the following words: acceptance, forgiveness, surrendering, empathy, warmth, love, understanding. Contemplate this word, over and over, as if it were a mantra. 8. If interruptions are invading an angry discussion, slow down and segment up. Decide to give each of yourselves your own segmented 10 minute expression non-interrupted time block to talk and be heard -- until you both feel heard. 9. Make sure your body language is not cursing and shouting. It's very harmful to a conversation with your sweetie if your arms are crossed or your face is sneering. Studies show it helps to hold each other's hands while having a difficult conversation because due to Neural Linguistic Programming it taps into the "I love you" reminders in your brain. 10. Close a difficult conversation by purposefully sharing memories of good times you've shared and good qualities you love about your partner, so as to jump-start loving memories, and defuse bad ones. If it's been a while since you've felt that lusty, feisty feeling of romance, you can jump start this phase anew, by going back to those first few romantic courtship places. Chances are you will re-feel the love thanks to the romance feng shui of this place--and you will experience deja romance all over again. Also be sure to end a difficult conversation by creating an obvious upside to talking--so you and your partner will want to share honest difficult conversations again. In other words, be sure to close the conversation by consciously listing all the positive things you learned thanks to the perk of the virtue of discipline. Do you have your suggestions on how not to be a jerk during conflict? Share them below! And for more tips on finding a loving happier ever after relationship check out PRINCE HARMING SYNDROME If you want more happienss tips sign up for Karen Salmansohn's free BE HAPPY DAMMIT newsletter at www.notsalmon.com . Salmansohn is a best selling author with over 1 million book sold -- who's been read/loved by Jon Stewart, Deepak Chopra, Tony Robbins, Madonna, Peter Guber - and then some! More on Relationships
 
Clintons' Bermuda Vacation Details: Local Paper Reports Hand-Holding And Candlelit Dinners Top
As the Obamas caught most of the media's attention with their Vineyard vacation , a former first couple managed a more low-profile beach getaway. Bill and Hillary Clinton traveled to Bermuda last week where, The Bermuda Sun reports , they spent time at the beach and ate buffet breakfasts. They also celebrated Bill's 63rd birthday, which was on Wednesday, with "a candle-lit dinner on a private beach and watched the sunset with waves lapping at their feet." The paper reports the Clintons were pretty lovey-dovey and camera-friendly, holding hands, posing for photos and talking to locals. The former first couple stayed at Cambridge Beaches resort in what sounds like a pretty sweet suite. "The cliff-top [pool] suite had its own plunge pool, panoramic ocean and sunset views, a whirlpool bath and high-end Bose surround-sound system." Bill made some time for a golf game at the Port Royal, and the couple met Premier Dr. Ewart Brown and wife Wanda, Governor Sir Richard Gozney, Lady Gozney and U.S. Consul General Grace Shelton for cocktails at Horizons resort in Paget, where the group "spent just over an hour at the bar terrace of Splendido restaurant 'talking politics' on Thursday evening. Mr. Clinton drank tea and diet coke, saying he had a sore throat, while Mrs. Clinton drank gin and tonic." The last time the Clintons were in Bermuda was 30 years ago, at Horizons, where their daughter Chelsea was reportedly conceived. According to The Bermuda Sun, "The Clintons were given a quick tour of the property and Mrs. Clinton commented to her husband 'look darling, it's so romantic.' They were 'very keen to see the room' they had stayed in 30 years ago, but unfortunately didn't have the time." They were scheduled to stay until Saturday, but flew back to Washington on Thursday due to Hurricane Bill. Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook ! More on Bill Clinton
 
Rob Johnson: Squandered Honeymoon: How Botched Bailouts Hamper Healthcare Reform Top
We live in an era where the effectiveness of government has been denigrated for more than 30 years. The echo chamber of the right, particularly since the election of Ronald Reagan, has sought to intimidate anyone who let the romantic notion into their head that government can help. They even denigrate the New Deal , like it was a bad dream rather than a series of programs that helped many people, and may have saved capitalism from itself. With the romance of government trampled, the void in social theory was filled by the romance of markets. The free market fundamentalists vehemently promoted the notion that markets were not just a means to achieve social goals. To their way of thinking, social goals themselves would have to be designed to curry favor with the "wisdom" of the market. In the years from Reagan to Bush II, we experienced " Capitalism Unleashed ," as the late Andrew Glyn titled his fine treatment of this period of history. Distribution of income and wealth became more concentrated at the top; productivity growth and profit soared; wages were flat; and finally, outsourcing, foreign direct investment and the stress of bringing labor-intensive, low-wage countries like China into the world economy caused severe adjustment pain. Yet none of this stress really shook the romance out of free market fundamentalism. The pain was temporary, and better times would surely come, they said. That all changed with the Financial Crisis of 2007. Entering A World of Pain The real economic spillovers and side effects of Wall Street-leverage and rocket-science concoctions brought the curtain down on the romance with the unfettered free market. This was a mess that did not need to happen. It was a calamity that will cost the world economy trillions of dollars. This is the stage that President Obama walked onto when he made his run and was elected to the White House. Government romance had been pounded out of the hearts of Americans for decades. Yet now free market fantasies were in tatters. For Obama, seeds of opportunity were contained in the crisis. What was remarkable about Obama was his seemingly magical ability to inspire us all to suspend our cynicism about civic engagement and government and give things a new try. Sure, he had help from the dreadful examples of his predecessor's work on Katrina, Iraq, torture and the TARP bailout. Yet he pulled it off, and the idea of a strong leader steering us through a crisis brought visions of FDR into the minds of many. We took comfort in the notion that "the best and brightest" would be taking over. The Administration promised bold actions on many fronts, including stimulus, climate change, financial regulation, bailout policy and healthcare. Just after the inauguration, many in the markets felt that a bold financial plan would be announced. It would be something strong--something like what the team of Summers and Geithner had recommended in the 1990s to the Asian developing countries and Japan. Hopes were high that the return of the dynamic duo to government service would lead to immediate action to restructure the banks and bold steps to regulate the capital markets. All of this would be needed to clear away the financial wreckage and get capital flowing again. Botching the Bailout Instead, we got nothing on inauguration day. We got a plan-to-have-a-plan in early February, followed by the announcement of PPIP and infinite forbearance through an intravenous-drip system of capital injections so that the behemoth banks, their executives, their stockholders--and most profoundly, their unsecured creditors-could hold onto their money. We got that, coupled with the announcement of AIG bonuses. As a final insult, we heard Administration officials waxing on about the sanctity of contracts while the autoworkers' benefits and pensions were being restructured. The public was rightly enraged. At the time, I argued that failure to restructure these too-big-to-fail banks would be costly in three ways. 1) Budget costs; 2) The enhanced risk of a future crisis by leaving the too-big-to-fail firms to repeat their feats (heads they win, tails the taxpayer loses); and 3) The impact on Obama's ability to inspire people to believe in the good government could do. In the realm of budget costs, proper restructuring of the unsecured debt of Citigroup and BofA, among others, would have obviated the need to increase public debt. As we all now know, the deficit hawks--apparently vacationing underwater from October to March when the bailouts were constructed--came back in full force. The result? Future programs would have to be curtailed and the future economy might have to be burdened with taxes so that bondholders who made foolish risky bets that included no government guarantees could get their money back. A second cost would be that these large, unresolved zombie institutions would remain in the market. They could rightly be considered as off-balance-sheet contingent liabilities for the future. In other words, they were the seed corn of a future crisis and another future costly bailout. We missed the chance to break them up and diminish this possible danger. Wasting the Crisis The whispers around the Treasury and White House suggested there were legal difficulties associated with inadequate "resolution powers." We heard murmurs about the complexity of derivatives books and the dangers to the real economy of trying to close the large financial holding companies. No one wanted another "Lehman." In the end, we saw no effort to pass emergency legislation to make it easier to handle these Too-Big-and- Complicated-to-Resolve institutions. That alone raised suspicions that our public servants might not be, first and foremost, working to defend the taxpayers. Yet to be fair to the Administration, they faced daunting hurdles. Congress was not going to execute emergency legislation in front of a bank lobby that was unlikely to stand by and watch their stockholdings zeroed out and their executives become more vulnerable to firing. Other insiders with a more international orientation whispered about the fragile nature of the foreign exchange value of the dollar. They hinted that government takeover of major brand-name institutions and write downs of bank debt would damage the confidence of the foreign investor who held "conjectural guarantees" that the U.S. would support all elements of its financial system. It is often said: to run an international empire one has to "waive the rules in order to rule the waves." The rules were waived; the bank creditors won. Witness the bond king Bill Gross of Pimco--perhaps the most gutsy gambler on conjectural guarantees-enjoying his new $23 million dollar home in California while the taxpayers have inherited a cadre of shameless financiers and experts telling us that we have to cut entitlements to stabilize our public finances. You've Lost that Loving Feeling We're now beginning to understand the details. In the first major act of this financial farce, the question was raised: will Wall Street rule Washington or will the White House govern finance? The White House whiffed. As Simon Johnson's characterization of Wall Street's oligarchs touched a nerve, Obama even tried to use his magical oratory gifts to reframe strength as the act of resisting the temptation to settle scores with financiers rather than finding the spine to stand up on behalf of the general interest. No one really bought it. The Administration's exercise in government risk-management-of choosing forbearance with the big banks over this risk of "another Lehman"-- made sense in isolation. What it missed was an awareness of the historic context and opportunity. Free markets had profoundly failed. Government had been given another chance by the electorate that was inspired by candidate Obama. A chance to do some good for the general interest and regain the reputation of a productive public sector after thirty years of disparagement. Yet by refusing to stand up to the oligarchs and set proper boundaries in defense of society, they fed the cynics and dissipated the magic that Obama had created for real change. The Administration seemed closer to Jamie (Dimon) and Goldman Sachs than to us. The lesson: if you fail to defend society once, people lose faith. The loss of faith carries a high price, and we're paying that price now in the arena of healthcare reform. We Gotta Get Out of This Place This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. I spoke at the time in many public forums about the risk of missing this chance to inspire respect for public service that would result from pandering to finance. Martin Wolf of the Financial Times wrote about it vigorously. He could see the dangers clearly. On February 10, 2009 he said in print: Has Barack Obama's presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating. Loss of faith in government limits what we can achieve together. Obama created space for the suspension of cynicism about government after thirty years of denigration. This was of tremendous potential value, but the administration blew it in the first major act. The Chicago School, which fanned the flames of the romance of markets, can certainly now divert attention from their failings and point to the work of Chicago Nobel Prize winner George Stigler on regulatory capture, and say "I told you so" to the romantic liberals whose faith in the capacity of government to respond to market failures has been shattered. As Paul Krugman said recently in his New York Times column, I don't know if administration officials realize just how much damage they've done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing. But I've had many conversations with people who voted for Mr. Obama, yet dismiss the stimulus as a total waste of money. When I press them, it turns out that they're really angry about the bailouts rather than the stimulus... Somebody Got to Help Me, I Can't Help Myself The financial sector issues have receded into the background for a time. But the residue of anger and distrust has not, as we're now seeing with healthcare. At a logical level, the nature of the debate seems crazy. Blue Dogs wrap themselves in the mantle of "budget discipline" while opposing the things that would cut federal expenditures on healthcare costs. Seniors are screaming at senators and congressman to keep the government away from their Medicare (a government program.) These are the facts: - We pay twice as much for healthcare as citizens of other countries, yet we have poor measured relative performance. - The Administration rather meekly supports a public option while, having rejected the single payer plans in the pregame ceremonies. - The radical right and the insurance industry have turned on the public option, invoking comparisons to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. - Pundits on the right like Greg Mankiw paint visions of an unfair competition between a competitive private sector insurance industry and a GSE-like public option entity that could unfairly dip into the taxpayer and drive the private firms out of business. (Leave aside for the moment that Mankiw's vision is somewhat silly in an oligopolistic market place where what would be disciplined is the excess profits arising from the monopoly power of insurance companies vis a vis the population.) Yet let's be fair and not get confused by the confusion. Anyone who saw the handouts to Wall Street started by Paulson/Bush and continued by Geither/Obama has substantial basis for doubting that a public insurance company would operate on an actuarialy fair basis and not hit the taxpayer with a backdoor bill after driving out the private competition. This is what happens when we lose faith. Put simply, after the financial bailouts, few believe that the Obama Administration will act as a fair referee. Why trust someone to enforce proper boundaries in one highly visible context when they have failed to do so in another realm? The Administration's credibility and ability to inspire has been damaged by their actions in the bailout arena. We are back to the place where we can envision good policies but no one trusts that our government can deliver and execute them. The public option suffers as a result. The Administration acts surprised --they rightly sense they have lost control of the process and are now back to beating up the left for making the public option their Waterloo. Connect the dots, ladies and gentleman of the Administration, You blew finance, so you lost control of healthcare. In the most recent issue of Rolling Stone , Matt Taibbi, who wrote quite favorably about Obama during the campaign, renders the following verdict on the US political system after the failure of the healthcare reforms. The bad news is our failed health care system won't get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: The political entity known as the United States of America. That verdict is a depressing one. Yet I sense many would agree with it. We all know that our health care system has failed. (See Bill Moyers' Journal Friday August 28th airing of Money Driven Medicine based on Maggie Mahar's fine book of the same name to see just how broken it is, and how no bill currently on the table will even get close to fixing it.) In the aftermath of the financial crisis and the early Obama experience, we have a shattered society with little faith in markets or in the capacity of government to make us better off. Experts, particularly in finance, have let us down. We view politicians as salesmen for bad causes rather than leaders. We did not need to be here. Obama could have done better. He had our attention. Our president is now in a place, as Martha Reeves once sang , with Nowhere to Run and Nowhere to Hide. Having fumbled on finance, Obama has to show the American people why we elected him, or be at risk of losing his job. He could have relied on the people that he inspired to elect him. Instead he was cautious and did business as usual in inside the Beltway. He took care of industry groups. Now it will be harder for him to inspire all
 
Lynn Peemoeller: Heart of Chicago Comes Through for Eat-In Top
Like all great public spaces, Daley Plaza in downtown Chicago has set the stage over the years for as many causes as there are types of people. The great walls of city hall, the Federal building, and the Chicago Picasso have been the backdrop for a melting pot of events. When I heard about the idea of an Eat-In, which is a group of people gathering in public in order to share a meal together and make a political statement I wanted to do it in Daley Plaza with our Slow Food Chapter. Locally we are well known for great events that celebrate food through farmers, artisans, and ethnic cultures but we have never really gone down the path of organizing people around a reason for action. The reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act in Congress this fall and the Slow Food USA campaign (Time for Lunch) that is raising awareness for better food in school lunches and nutrition for our most vulnerable populations gave us ammunition to bring people together for an Eat-In. Now, I've been to plenty of events put together by big fancy event companies and they are often impressive. As a small and completely volunteer-run organization, for us to do something of this scale requires not only time and money but also dedication from scores of people. The Slow Food USA 'Time for Lunch' Campaign is proving that people all over the country are passionate and dedicated to making a difference in our food system through civic engagement and advocacy for change in Federal policy. There are over 250 Eat-Ins planned throughout the country on Labor Day in all 50 states. This has exceeded expectations all around. I was the kind of student who always wanted to go first to get my presentations over with. That desire was working for me, when the only available date we could get for Daley Plaza this summer was on August 26th. So we started down the path of planning a simple yet impressive event, the first in a nationwide series. Even the most-simple events are complicated. Good ideas like buying seasonal fruit from local farmers to give away became a logistical nightmare after we decided to spread our love (i.e. purchasing power) and buy from four farmers at different farmers markets on different days. Unforeseen consequences of inviting partner organizations to come and set out literature were met with scrutiny about the limitations of commercial activity in the plaza. And after we found the perfect African drumming troupe to energize the crowd we got entangled in a web of insurance issues and ultimately could not hire them. Not to mention the rain plan that was impossible to resolve. I shouldn't have been surprised to see the rain coming a week away. Though a volunteer went with me, sitting in the plaza at 6am in the pouring rain watching the city wake up, I felt a little lonely. As tables, chairs, tents, and volunteers started to arrive the pace of the morning picked up. However the rain held steady and we had decisions to make about going indoors or sticking it out. Doppler was consulted, opinions were shared. Eventually we decided to take the risk. By the time the stage, and sound were setup, a crowd with picnic baskets in hand started setting up their lunch on the tables. Our speakers were all there, and I looked out at the many faces of people who had committed to planning this event for months. My heart warmed. The rain stopped. What we got was an Eat-In that was a little soggy, but had a lot of heart. This was confirmed for me when four lovely ladies dressed as ears of corn stepped on the plaza complete with their male butter, salt and pepper counterparts. Then again when the entire staff of the Angelic Organics Learning Center arrived wearing home made hats with local food messages, like "You can raise chickens in the city; ask me how". And even more so by the excellent speakers who spoke passionately about civic engagement and child nutrition. We were fortunate to have the support of our state legislator and candidate 10th Congressional District, Julie Hamos. She has been a long time champion of the Food Farm and Jobs Act of IL, which recently instated a statewide coalition to work on creating incentives and opportunities for more growth and trade of local food, including school feeding programs. She spoke on the heels of Jim Braun, co-coordinator IL Local & Organic Food & Farms Task Force & Slow Food USA Board member who shared the power of civic engagement and how we have the ability to affect Federal policy. The program covered grassroots perspectives from Cleo Record, a teenager and Growing Power Intern who shared how good food and eating healthy have become important in her life and Lucy Gomez Feliciano, a community organizer for the Logan Square Neighborhood Association who has worked extensively with parents to teach healthy lifestyle skills including diet and fitness. Josh Viertel, the President of Slow Food USA came from New York to share the ideas good, clean and fair idea behind Slow Food and how the Time for Lunch Campaign will leverage a national network of action around reform for the Child Nutrition Act. Indeed it is a critical mass of people that will send a clear message to congress that child nutrition is important and change must happen. We are well on our way to defining the early 21st century by the food movement. The renewal of the Child Nutrition Act is an opportunity for us to affect the amount of money and the policies that will define how the most vulnerable populations have access to quality food. The Eat-In at Daley Plaza gave us the stage to share that message. Using public spaces and community networks to educate and leverage these messages to policy makers is a tool that people all over the country can use. Pressure needs to come from both top-down and bottom-up if we are want to meet anywhere in the middle. Our work in Chicago has just begun; hopefully we will have many more sunny days to share our message. But now we have built a policy platform, we have expanded our network, and we have proved that people will come out in the rain for something that they believe in. As fate would have it, Mother Nature was on our team too; it started to pour again, about an hour after we finished.
 
Philip Lee Miller: Whither Now Health Care Reform? Top
The Patriarch of the Kennedy Dynasty has passed. Whither now health care reform? Why is this important? For the last 40 years Edward Kennedy was the voice of the under-represented. His lifetime goal was a more perfect and accessible health care system in the United States. He worked tirelessly to achieve these goals. We are told that he counseled Barack Obama in the early days, "I will support you openly under the condition that you make health care the centerpiece of your administration." Wise counsel. But this may have been a strategically and untenable position. Like the myth of Sisyphus, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt every president has aspired to a more perfect health care system. The debate that rages from all sides about health care reform is not about health care reform. It is about economic reform. This is about moving various pieces of the economic pie that are rapidly dwindling. There is no doubt that private and public debt burden is rising at unsustainable rates. This will become painfully evident in the 18 months. Guaranteed. We do not have a health care system. We have a disease management system . And the "crisis" is not new. Medicare is on a path to insolvency within the next 5 years. We have known this clearly since 1997. Congress failed in 1999 at bipartisan reconciliation efforts . In order to achieve this goal and dream of a new health care order, massive amounts of money will be needed. We do not have this money. That is the reality. We are talking trillions and trillions of dollars, where this was not even in our lexicon a year ago. Tony Blair, while still Prime Minister of Britain, in 2007 was interviewed by the British Sun . It was an extraordinary interview in which he was most candid about the prospects for health and the National Health System (NHS) in Britain. I studied this system in the early 1970s and came to the conclusion that "socialized medicine" was not the bugaboo. It is bureaucratized medicine . It does not matter whether it is a government official or an inordinately insensitive insurance clerk. Bureaucracy stifles medical care and innovation. It stifles the creative and inductive thinking processes and discretion necessary for problem solving -- clinical diagnosis. Health care and the medical delivery system is not the banking system. This is an entirely different crisis. And we never really solved the banking crisis. We are simply biding our time. It has been widely noted, and it is true, medicine is already being rationed. Pre-authorizations abound. Patients are routinely denied care. Hospitalizations are not fully reimbursed. But it is worse. Even Keith Olbermann just last night had a special on the United Health Group and its current CEO. Each one of you should see the innumerable EOBs [explanation of benefits] flooding an average physician's office each day. A nice euphemistic term for a explanation of how and why we decided not pay. Insurance companies cut 20% off the top for starters. And then more. Most claims are rarely fully reimbursed. Insurance is the problem ... not the solution . We should be talking about reforming and highly regulating the insurance industry. From the incalculable immorality the industry represents to the unreal expectations that the public demands. Insurance subsidizes the cost of drugs. This is why the cost of drugs are rising at an unsustainable rate. Health insurance has become a club membership. It is the only insurance you will ever buy that you expect to pay off -- immediately. What Tony Blair discussed with the British Sun was the nature of the struggle between Big government and Smaller government. This is a classic struggle of opposing forces. Who is responsible for this shape future of medical care in this country? It is you and I. As Tony Blair so eloquently explained, bowl of fruit in hand: The PM wants people to prevent illnesses rather than relying on the NHS to cure them. He told The Sun: "Anyone who looks after themselves is going to live longer. There is no doubt that the NHS is overstretched like every health care system in the world. But you can make a great big difference if you take care of your own health, it actually pays dividends collectively So I repeat, this debate is not about health care, is about the economics of a system that is failing us all -- physicians, patients -- everyone. It is not a problem that will be solved from the top down. We all need to participate. That is the nature of Longevity and Antiaging and Functional medicine -- a new paradigm. More access to a failing system is not the answer. Universal coverage does not guarantee universal access. Universal access does not guarantee healthy and good outcomes. This is not a Left versus Right issue. This is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. This is not a Blue State versus Red State issue. This is not about [from one of the great Pink Floyd cuts] Us and Them . If anything comes of good, despite the pitchfork and torchlight crowds now beseeching town hall meetings, it will be a true national debate. We do not need an immediate fix. We need a new beginnings. More vision. Most of all, we need more input from all participants -- practicing health care providers and recipients. Allowed to take its current course, the insurance companies will prevail. They will not lose. This is not what you want. You want insurance reform. That should be the immediate goal. That is what Teddy Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson would have done. But ultimately, we should think long and hard about just what is optimal health and well being? What would that look like? Be careful what you wish for. Be careful of the law of unintended consequences.
 
John Petro: NYC's Economic Development Strategy: Keeping People in Poverty Top
When city tax dollars are used to subsidize a private developer, community residents should benefit from the deal. That is the principle behind the fight to bring living wage jobs to the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx. Community leaders are prepared to stop the redevelopment of the historic structure into a mall--unless the developer agrees to require new retail tenants to pay a living wage. The effort to redevelop the Armory goes back ten years to the Giuliani administration. Last year , the City chose Related Companies as the developer of the project, which will convert the building's 575,000 square feet into retail space. The City will subsidize the project, providing Related Companies with $40 million in tax breaks and city-funded repairs on the structure. But even though Related is getting public dollars for the project, it refuses to provide the public benefit of living wage jobs. Jesse Masyr, spokesperson for Related, said last April that the developer would not be able to promise that its retail tenants would pay a living wage. As reported in the Norwood News : "I can't ask tenants to have a [higher] wage package than they have just two miles down the road," Masyr said. He added that other people in the industry think Related is "crazy" for even attempting to proceed on this retail-heavy project, given the state of the economy. "Retail is dead," Masyr said. But tenants "two miles down the road" aren't in a space that is receiving public subsidy. If Related wants our tax dollars, it should be prepared to give something back to the community. My guess is that even with a living wage requirement, retail tenants in the space will do very well, as will the profits of Related Companies. It only takes one trip to the Target at Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn, rumored to be the busiest in the country, to see that national retailers do very well in the city. Plus, with city subsidies to sweeten the pot, Related Companies is getting a good deal. But the real issue is: should the city be subsidizing projects like this in the first place? Does using city money to create poverty-level jobs make any sense? The answer is no. Economic development subsidies are intended to create new jobs in the city by helping businesses relocate or expand their operations here. But job quality matters just as much as the number of jobs created. When the city subsidizes poverty-level wages, it pays twice. First, taxpayer dollars are first diverted from schools, infrastructure, and other city needs. Then taxpayer dollars must go towards programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, and other social services that are needed by the workers in city subsidized jobs who still cannot make ends meet. Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union, made this clear in a press release about the Armory, "Economic development that creates jobs that keep people in poverty accomplishes nothing. We expect and demand that the Kingsbridge Armory be developed in a way that strengthens the community, and not just enriches the developer." Other cities have taken steps to ensure that economic development also brings economic opportunity. Minneapolis requires that subsidy recipients create a certain number of living wage jobs. If those jobs aren't created, the recipient must pay the money back with penalty. The law has changed the way the city makes economic development deals. Businesses in Minneapolis know that they are expected to create good jobs, and the city knows that economic subsidies must create real employment opportunities for its residents. If Related Companies does not agree to require living wages from its retail tenants, the project might very well be scuttled. Bronx residents know that poverty-level jobs are not going to help them put food on the table or to move up the economic ladder. If Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz does not approve the developer's application for a land-use change, it would seriously damage the project's chance of moving through the city's ULURP process . But the creation of living wage jobs must be part of the city's economic development strategy moving forward. We need to follow the lead of Minneapolis and change our economic development policy to require the creation of living wage jobs. Without a living wage, all we're doing is subsidizing the cycle of poverty.
 
Erica Boeke: Not Your Regular 21-Year-Old Snowboarder: A Q&A with Kevin Pearce Top
By Erica Boeke It's horrendously hot. It's hideously humid. No wonder I have visions of the Winter Olympics dancing in my head. There are a dozens of up-and-coming athletes who are looking to go for the gold and the glory in 2010 -- but one rising young snowboarding star is also looking to change the face of his sport. His name is Kevin Pearce ... he's 21 ... and he's the one to watch in Vancouver next year. He is also extremely fun to watch -- flying through the air with his big air moves, flawlessly executing and nailing his elaborate tricks, even in the most unforgiving elements. I have to admit that when I was offered the chance to interview Kevin, I had some preconceived notions. When someone tells you that you just have to interview this incredible 21-year-old snowboarder, lots of things pop into your head. Things like, "This may be a tough interview filled with one-word answers ... one-word answers that may often include the word 'dude.'" Wrong. This kid is different. He's heart and soul and passion and patience. He's an Olympic hopeful that you find yourself really hoping for. Here, my Q&A with snowboarding phenom, Kevin Pearce. EB: You split your time between living with your family in Vermont and your buddies in Carlsbad, California -- snowboarding and surfing. Which do you prefer? KP: Snowboarding is my first love, but surfing is a great break. Carlsbad is a great getaway from snow and cold -- it's totally mellow. I was recently up in LA and wanted to kill myself ... I would say there were too many velvet ropes and parties for me. But I do love the west Coast, because it offers surfing and snowboarding. EB: I know you started snowboarding in Mammoth, but what would you consider your home mountain? KP: I don't really have one home mountain. I ski a lot in Colorado, Mammoth and Tahoe, but I love skiing all over the world: Japan, where there is an amazing amount of snow and powder; Norway; Switzerland; Austria; Colorado ... all over the world. EB: Tell me about your family. You seem to be a very tight knit group. Your parents, your brothers ... KP: My family is a huge part of my success. My parents had a very unique sense of raising us. Their motto was: "Do what you want, we trust you." I think this helped to shape me into the person I am. I'm the youngest of four -- two of my brothers and I have dyslexia, and my oldest brother David has Down Syndrome. The experience of dealing with these challenges with my brothers has taken me down a lot of different paths. EB: Your dad is Simon Pearce, a renowned glassblower and designer. Tell me more about him ... KP: My dad dropped out of high school and traveled around the world. He started creating pottery in Ireland and then opened a glassblowing shop there. A few years later, he moved to Vermont and opened a glass-blowing mill and a restaurant. It's cool. It's all hand made glass and pottery, plus everyday tableware. EB INTERNAL MONOLOG: What other 21-year-old uses the phrase "everyday tableware"? BACK TO KP: My oldest brother Andrew works there and David works there. It was a great place to grow up as a kid. We got to throw pots and make pots. Not many kids can say their dad's an artist, they can throw pottery and have a skateboard ramp in their barn! EB: OK, please tell me more about this barn. What a cool place to grow up ... KP: Yeah, it was. We had a barn in the back of our house and my parents turned it into a playhouse for all of us, with a skateboard ramp and everything. This is where we spent most of our time. Now, it's more of a snowboard museum, it's where we keep all of our trophies and posters. But I still hang out there with my brothers and our friends. EB: You say "our" trophies. Isn't your brother David a well-regarded Special Olympian? KP: Yep, David does it all: Bowling skiing, running ... He does great in all the sports. And he's so unhappy at second and third. He hates to lose ... just like me! EB: How was it growing up with a brother with Down Syndrome? KP: David's a very unique kid in that he's aware that he has down syndrome. So from a very young age, my parents put a twist my on it. We called it "Up Syndrome." It was their way of keeping it positive. Even when he was younger, if someone said "Down Syndrome," David would immediately correct you ... "Nope, Up Syndrome." Growing up with David has taught me patience. I can travel and see the world, and then spend time with David -- and it's so real. I can see how life is so difficult for him, but also see how he can have so much fun and give so much to people. EB: Tell me about your group of friends, or should I say, "Frends" because there's no "I" in "Frends" ... KP: This is a group that came about really naturally and organically. My friends and I all had obligations to all of our sponsors, but we wanted something to bring us together in a team forum. Snowboarding is such an individual sport, this is the great way to add our support together - and have each other's backs. Now our group has gained recognition ... We want to show people that we're a tight knit group of friends and expand on it and show how cool it can be. That no matter how big you get, you still have your friends. There's even a TV show in the works, where they'll show our lifestyle and how lucky we are to do what we do on the road to Vancouver. EB: So speaking of which, how excited are you to try to qualify for the Olympics? KP: So excited. I'm trying to qualify for the Men's Halfpipe. The last time it came around I wasn't in the running for it. Now I really have a great chance. I'm putting as much energy I can to making the most out of it. It's a great opportunity for me. I'm really hoping that it works out. EB: You are known for exhibiting great patience and your nickname is "Marathon Man." How do you think this will serve you as you look towards Vancouver? KP: Patience is huge for me -- and it will be huge going into this year. I'm going to do my best to be patient with everything, take things one step at a time, and give it my all when I get the chance. EB: So what do you think of Shaun White? KP: I've known Shaun for a long time -- I'm going to the US Open with him. He has always been there at the top of the sport, and I've been there learning from him and riding with him. He has really done amazing things for the sport. I really hope, though, that we can all become the face of snowboarding. In our crew of "Frends," it's not just one or two, it's all of us. At any of these contests, any of us could win. We've had some really good training sessions, we have some new tricks coming up. EB: Anything you can tell us about? KP: There will be some cool new stuff, but we're trying to keep things quiet for now. EB: Fine, Kevin. This interview is over. No really, it is over. I don't have any more questions. KP: Cool. As you know, I typically reach out to the Twittosphere if they have any questions for these athletes. Visit GoGameFace.com for the full Kevin Pearce interview, and check back this fall for our upcoming interview with Kevin on the GoGameFace.com podcast series GameOn. You can also follow Kevin Pearce on twitter at: http://twitter.com/Kevin_Pearce
 
Jeff Blattner: Teddy: The Man in the Arena Top
Strange as it seems, the best description of Senator Kennedy may have been offered by another Teddy -- Roosevelt -- more than two decades before Kennedy's birth. In a famous 1910 speech , Roosevelt dismissed the critics and the cynics of his time. He sung the praises of "the man who is actually in the arena," "... Who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." Senator Kennedy thrived in the arena. He fought passionately and vigorously to improve the lives of all Americans, to lift the burdens of those he described as "the left out and the left behind," and to realize the Constitution's great promise of equal justice for all. He fought without cynicism, without bitterness, and with a spirit of joy and lightheartedness that was a wonder to behold. There are so many memories at a time like this, of acts of kindness large and small. Let me share two. One was from the 1994 campaign. At an event at Brandeis University, Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet refusenik, talked about the dark days when he had been under house arrest in Moscow in the 1970s. He described how his hopes had soared when word had reached him that Senator Kennedy wanted to visit him during a trip to the U.S.S.R., and how the KGB dashed those hopes when it refused to permit the Senator to make the visit. And then Sharansky described a knock at his door in the middle of the night -- Senator Kennedy had shaken his Soviet "hosts" and appeared miraculously at the refusenik's door. Sharansky's eyes filled with tears (as did Kennedy's) as he recounted how Kennedy had spent a night and day with Sharansky and other refuseniks, lighting the night with optimism at a time of despair. Overwhelmed by the moment, Kennedy quoted from memory Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1884 speech , "[t]hrough our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire." The second came not in a moment of victory, but in a moment of defeat. The Senator had called on me and some other "old hands" to assist him in preparing for the nomination hearings for Judge Samuel Alito. Despite the Senator's vigorous opposition, the nomination had been confirmed. A few days later, an invitation arrived for a "thank you" party at the beautiful home that he and Vicki shared in Washington. I felt a bit uneasy as I arrived, as the sting of defeat had not disappeared. To my surprise, the Senator and Vicki had hired an old-fashioned rock and roll band, and old hands and staffers rolled up the carpets and the Senator danced and laughed and told stories for many hours. There was no bitterness, no looking back in anger, just a joyful spirit getting ready to fight the next great battle. That was the man whose life we celebrate and whose passing leaves a hole in our hearts and in our lives. Somewhere in Heaven, one Teddy is welcoming another. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Angela Bonavoglia: Media Blind to GOP Hypocrisy in Health Care Debate Top
The confrontations between the GOP, the Democrats and their supporters in this health care debate have reached hysterical proportions. But not once in all the media coverage have I heard a conservative Republican pontificating on the sacredness of the doctor-patient relationship asked how one reconciles that position with the governmental restrictions their party has championed on women's health care for the better part of three decades. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is one of the Gang of Six, the three Republican and three Democratic senators charged with hammering out a health reform compromise. Speaking to Iowans recently, he set himself apart from those who think that "when Grandma's lying in a hospital bed with tubes in her," government policy has a place, by declaring: "I am just the opposite." In a recent NPR interview, he singled out, as markers of progress in making health care reform more palatable to Republicans, his caucus's staunch opposition to rationing care and its insistence on "no interference in the doctor-patient relationship." Carrying the banner for patients' rights on the subject of end-of-life care, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passionately declared on Meet the Press that "The idea that we ought to talk about our future health and what our family and what we want done is a good idea, it's legitimate. What is not legitimate is having the government even weigh in on it. It is intensely personal, your health care, your plans, your family. There is no role for government in it." What's stunning is that these are the same people who, with their party, have brought us an avalanche of governmental regulations dictating the availability of women's reproductive health care. It's even more stunning that the media is failing miserably to call them on it. Indeed, conservative Republicans have spent years limiting the access of American women to birth control, emergency contraception, and pregnancy termination services, while requiring expensive medical tests, irrespective of medical need, and literally putting words into doctor's mouths in order to impede if not prevent women from getting reproductive health care. Grassley has a 100 percent rating from National Right to Life Committee. Call it by any other name, but he's apparently quite content letting government ration women's reproductive health care, enthusiastically supporting efforts to withhold access to a legal procedure, to family planning services, and to birth control. Coburn has the dubious distinction at this moment of being from the first state in the Union where Republicans are fighting -- first in the legislature, now in the courts -- to pass a uniquely onerous law. As one of its elements, the law would require that any woman who chooses to end a pregnancy have not just an abdominal ultrasound -- irrespective of medical need--but that she have a transvaginal ultrasound, if that would "display the embryo or fetus more clearly." It's hard to imagine any test more "intensely personal" than a transvaginal ultrasound. It is an extremely invasive test wherein the woman lies half naked on an examining table while a cold, plastic probe is inserted inside her and painfully maneuvered for image clarity. According to this legislation , the woman has no right to refuse -- even if her pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Here's her choice: an invasive sodomization with a transducer, upon orders of the State, or carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Nor does her doctor have a right to refuse. If the woman is terrified, does not want a transvaginal ultrasound, or has already suffered forced penetration, her doctor is helpless to protect her. If the doctor does refuse to do the test, he or she can be fined $10,000, have his or her license suspended or revoked, or be sued by the woman, the spouse, parent, sibling, guardian, or "current or former licensed health care provider" -- this from the party that fights so vociferously for tort reform. (The statute generously adds that the woman will not be prevented from "averting her eyes," and that if she does, neither she nor her doctor will be subject to prosecution.) Beyond the facile dismissal of pregnancy termination as a covered service, thereby restricting access to a safe, legal procedure for hundreds of thousands of women each year, what has happened with women's reproductive health care in this country, despite its pertinence to health care reform, is essentially invisible in this debate. Yet we have to ask: Would people stand for it if the health care reform model being promoted gave the State the power to mandate a non-medically indicated, invasive, costly test as a prerequisite for the open heart surgery Grandma needs to save her life? If it countenanced State mandates forbidding her to refuse to have the test or the doctor to refuse to give it? If it put words into her doctor's mouth? While many are fretting over the notion of a government takeover of health care in the spirit of Big Brother, for women in America, in the area of reproductive health care, that takeover has already occurred. It's time this came up in the health care reform conversation. This piece was written for The Women's Media Center website, a non-profit organization founded by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan, dedicated to making women visible and powerful in the media. More on NPR
 
Byron Williams: This Will be a Difficult Seat to Fill Top
It appeared audacious when Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. engineered the selection of his relatively inexperienced son, Robert, as U.S. Attorney General by his older son John, who had just won the presidency. But the elder Kennedy had even more daring plans. With one son in the White House and another in the Cabinet, the 73-year-old patriarch of the Kennedy klan wanted more, he wanted his youngest son Edward to succeed his brother in the U.S. Senate. "You boys have what you want, now it's Teddy's turn," Kennedy told his older sons. This seemed to be quite the long shot for two reasons. First, at 29 Ted was not old enough to replace his brother in the Senate. Second, he had held only one substantive job since law school, as one of 26 district attorneys in Suffolk County, Mass. To get around the first problem JFK had a friend fill his vacated senate seat until his brother was old enough. To address the second, was the nom de famille, Kennedy. As those challenging Kennedy stated during the campaign, if his name were Edward Moore, his candidacy would not be taken seriously, but his name was Kennedy and that made all the difference. There is nothing comparable in contemporary politics. On its face, the candidacy of Edward Kennedy was far more outlandish than say, a B actor running for Governor of California and then becoming President of the United States. But in 1962, Edward Moore Kennedy, with one brother President of the Untied States, another brother, Attorney General, and a father who was one of the richest people in the country, succeeded his brother as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. An auspicious beginning indeed, but it was certainly not one to be taken seriously by his Senate colleagues. With names like Hubert Humphrey, Estes Kefauver, and Everett Dirksen walking the Senate Floor, who knew that this freshman senator with scant political background, whose election to the senate had more to do with pedigree than experience, would ultimately be regarded as one of the great senators in history? Kennedy, who lost his battle to brain cancer this week, leaves behind a legislative record unmatched by any of his senate colleagues. On paper, he seemed less imposing, than his older brothers, but Ted Kennedy has the more impressive legislative record impacting the lives of more people than his siblings combined. We know about the personal tragedies he endured in 1963 and 1968, the plane crash that nearly took his life 1964, and Chappaquiddick in 1969 that ultimately cost his dreams of higher office, not to mention other self-inflicted wounds. But this odd journey, pregnant with tragedy, may have been what Kennedy needed to find his true calling. He was not his brothers, and they were not him. Kennedy's name and imprint can be found on the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the expansion of the voting franchise to 18-year-olds; the $24 billion Kennedy-Hatch law of 1997, which provided health insurance to children with a new tax on tobacco; two increases in the minimum wage; the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, which made health insurance portable for workers; the 1988 law that allocated $1.2 billion for AIDS testing, treatment and research; the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act; the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. Kennedy has also helped abolish the poll tax, fund cancer research and create the Meals on Wheels program for shut-ins and the elderly. In 1985 Kennedy and Republican Lowell Weicker co-sponsored the legislation that imposed economic sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa. The bill became law despite a filibuster by Jesse Helms and a veto by President Reagan. Kennedy then led the override of Reagan's veto by a margin of 78 to 21. Now that legacy comes to an end. With the exception of a temporary proxy, for the first time since 1952, it is possible someone whose last name is other than Kennedy will hold that Senate seat from Massachusetts. Filling that seat won't be easy because the charge for the next person has already been given by Kennedy himself: For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die. Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War . E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his Web site, byronspeaks.com . More on South Africa
 
Dave Johnson: The Medicare-For-All Opportunity Is Here Now Top
The Republicans have shifted their attack on health care reform by claiming that it endangers Medicare. They have even introduced a new " Health Care Bill of Rights for Seniors" proposal to "protect Medicare." The Blue Dogs have stepped up their own attack, claiming that the costs are too high. The insurance industry flacks are claiming that at over 1000 pages the bill is too complex. Etc. The Republicans and Blue Dogs have given us an opportunity here. This is the opening to introduce to the bill the idea of adding people to Medicare by phasing in age groups starting with the youngest and oldest at the same time. Immediately lower age eligibility to 55 and immediately cover everyone up to 21. Every year add 5 eligibility years on each end so 2011 it would be up to 26 and down to 50, etc. Someone in the Congress can add a few paragraphs called the "Save Medicare Clause" or something to the reform bills. Just say you are addressing the concerns of the Republicans and their new "Protect Medicare" demands, and the Blue Dogs concerns about costs. The cost reduction from adding the youngest balances the added costs of adding people who are older, and this lowers all the costs in the current plan from covering these people. And the costs of doing this is so much less than the cost of covering these people under the current reform plans that this greatly lowers the costs of the overall reform schemes. How to fight for this? Simple: Answer anyone who says it is a "government takeover" Republican-style. Just say it isn't, that we're just adding them to Medicare. Then let the Republicans explain to everyone that Medicare is a government program! I am sure we can find ways to answer every objection to this proposal using this kind of Republican-blunting argument. In fact it would be fun. The Blue Dogs say it is costly, just point out that it is much less costly than their own plan. And much less complicated. Medicare already exists, is already set up to cover millions and add millions every year, etc... We can point out how this simplifies everything people are worried about in the reform fight. Everyone loves Medicare -- so much so that the Republicans are using Medicare as a club to kill this complicated and expensive health care reform scheme. So what the hell, give them what they want, while giving the people what they want at the same time. This is an opportunity to achieve Ted Kennedy's and our own health care goals that we did not have at the start of this reform effort. The opponents have stirred people up so much and raised so many objections that everyone is looking for something simple to get us out of this. "Medicare-For-All" answers every objection that the opponents of health care reform have raised. More on Health Care
 
Missing Girl Reappears After 18 Years; Woman, Now 29, To Reunite With Family Top
Jaycee Lee Dugard, who was abducted from her South Lake Tahoe home as an 11-year-old in 1991, is being reunited with family today after surfacing in the Bay Area. The El Dorado County Sheriff's Office this morning confirmed the identity of the woman who walked into a Bay Area police station claiming to be Dugard. More on Crime
 
FDIC Softens Its Proposed Rules For Buying Banks Top
As expected, the board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has approved controversial rules that will govern how risk-taking private equity firms can snatch up failing banks. The new rules, approved recently by a 4-1 vote, represented a compromise . The FDIC attempted to impose standards on the private equity firms without discouraging them from jumping in when a bank fails. The rules, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a statement , strike a "thoughtful balance to attract non-traditional investors" while also "maintaining the necessary safeguards to ensure that these investors approach banking in a way that is transparent, long term and prudent,". But, as the Wall Street Journal points out , the rules are also "watered-down" from what the FDIC first proposed in July. From the Journal: After a ferocious lobbying effort by the buyout industry, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. backed away from an initial set of tough proposals that would have imposed heavy capital requirements. The private equity firms that buy banks will have to keep high-quality capital equivalent to 10 percent of the bank's assets, considerably lower than the FDIC's original plan for a 15 percent requirement that could rise in the event of another market collapse. The board also ditched a rule that would have required private-equity firms to act as a "source of strength" for banks they buy, according to news accounts. The remaining rules still impose significant restrictions on the firms. The new capital requirements (10 percent) are twice what traditional banks face. The firms also must hold on to failed banks they purchase for at least three years, another rule that doesn't apply to traditional banks. Some suggest these new rules might put private equity at a disadvantage when competing with regular banks over new acquisitions. The New York Times said the rules , "could wind up keeping those buyers in their seats." The lone dissenting vote today came from John D. Bowman, the head of the Office of Thrift Supervision, who argued that private equity firms shouldn't face special regulations that aren't applied to other bidders. "I am not a fan, or proponent, of private equity, but it is hard to know whether the restrictions are required," Bowman said at the board meeting. The FDIC's decision marks a philosophical shift for the agency. Until now, the FDIC has largely avoided having private equity firms buy up banks. Only two such deals have been arranged this year. So even if the rules aren't what the FDIC originally wanted, there was a sense of urgency to get something passed. With bank failures at their highest level in 17 years, the FDIC's insurance fund, which essentially protects bank deposits from disappearing, was in some danger of disappearing itself. So far this year, the FDIC has shut down 81 banks, shrinking the insurance fund to $13 billion, down from $52.8 billion a year ago. As private equity firms prowl the marketplace for these banks and their assets, the FDIC hopes the burden on the fund will be eased. The FDIC will revisit the new regulations after six months to assess their impact. More on Banks
 
Martha's Vineyard Farmers Market: Preparing For A Presidential Visit (VIDEO) Top
Plum TV's Alex Friedman stops by the famous farmers market in West Tisbury, located a half-mile from the Summer White House (and a rumored stop on the Presidential vacation itinerary). We get the scoop from the market vendors (& Alan Dershowitz!) and their recommendations to the First Family for an authentic local experience. See more Obama Martha's Vineyard coverage on Plum TV. Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter! More on Video
 
India: Dozens Of More Farmers Commit Suicide Due To Drought Top
HYDERABAD, India — Dozens of impoverished farmers struggling with debt and poor rainfall have killed themselves in southern India in recent weeks, leaving behind families plunged even further into poverty, activists and politicians said. Nearly every day, newspapers report more farmer suicides in Andhra Pradesh, a state of 80 million people where 70 percent of the population depends on agriculture – and which has suffered badly this year from weak monsoon rains. Officially, the total number of suicides stands at 25 in the past six weeks. But opposition parties and farmers' groups say the true total is more than 150. "The government is trying to hide the facts," opposition leader N. Chandrababu Naidu said Wednesday in a speech before the state assembly. "I have a list of the names and addresses of 165 farmers who have ended their lives because of the distress caused by the drought." Farmer suicides have, over the past decade, become a grim ritual in Andhra Pradesh and other parts of the Indian agricultural heartland, where small farmers are increasingly in debt. The sums can appear barely consequential to a Westerner, or even to India's increasingly large middle class: $300, $500, $1,200. But for families often earning less than $2 a day, the loans, mostly made by small-town moneylenders, can be overwhelming. More than 17,500 farmers a year killed themselves between 2002 and 2006, according to experts who have analyzed government statistics. At least 160,000 farmers have committed suicide since 1997, experts say. Many kill themselves by swallowing a tool of their trade: insecticide. What they leave behind are indebted families that now have no one to work their fields. Andhra Pradesh received just 50 percent of its normal rainfall this year, and while recent showers have helped some farmers, enormous damage had already been done, particularly in water-intensive crops like rice, sugar cane and cotton. As farmers depend increasingly on loans to buy fertilizer, irrigation equipment and increasingly expensive high-tech seeds, they are driven directly into the hands of moneylenders who charge up to 30 percent interest, activists say. The lack of access to bank credit at reasonable rates laid the groundwork for the trouble years ago, said K. Ramakrishan, president of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers' Association. "Drought has only worsened it," he said. Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy insists his government is taking the problem seriously, telling reporters Wednesday that he has ordered local officials "to submit a detailed report on such incidents and check the veracity of the opposition's allegations of more suicides." He added that a national job plan for the rural poor, which guarantees 100 days of work per year at a daily wage of about $2, should help most poor farmers. "The state government is also providing a package of 150,000 rupees (about $3,000) to the family of every farmer who commits suicide", he added. Activists, though, say profound changes are needed to fix the problem. "There is no new reason for the current spell of suicides," said P.V. Sateesh, director of the Deccan Development Society, a group working with farmers to use less irrigation-dependant crop varieties. "We have been following a pattern of agriculture which is bound to create such a serious crisis," he said. More on India
 

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)