Thursday, August 27, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Daoud Kuttab: Fayyad's Brilliant Two-Year Plan for Palestinian Statehood Top
Palestinians have finally started to act in a different way. Instead of cursing the occupation, the new strategy is aimed at building up the desired Palestinian state. The idea is to force the Israelis to the negotiating table rather than beg them to come. The way to do that is to work for a state as if there were negotiations. This idea has been brilliantly developed by the Palestinian prime minister. Salam Fayyad proposal for the de facto creation of a Palestinian state within two years is a brilliant idea that is hard to ignore or oppose it. Fayyad's blueprint includes plans to end the Palestinian economy's dependence on Israel, unify the legal system and downsize the government. The idea, submitted by him after weeks of meetings with his ministers and staff, also involves building infrastructure, harnessing natural energy sources and water, and improving housing, education and agriculture. An airport in the Jordan Valley, the reclaiming of the Qalandia airport and the creation of an oil refinery are some of the strategic ideas that are included in the Fayyad plan. Talking to the press, the Prime Minister said that he wanted the American president arriving in Palestine on Airforce One, to an international airport, and not just a small airstrip. Fayyad told the Times of London that he made the plan public in order to "end the occupation, despite the occupation". The former World Bank official kept his positive and determined attitude in his talk with the British paper. "We have decided to be proactive, to expedite the end of the occupation by working very hard to build positive facts on the ground, consistent with having our state emerge as a fact that cannot be ignored. This is our agenda, and we want to pursue it doggedly," he told the Times . Previous Palestinian efforts required Israel to quit the occupied territories as a prerequisite for peace. This allowed the Israelis and the international community to declare hundreds of peace plans, to which the Palestinian's strongest card was the power of saying no to anything that fell short of the publicly declared Palestinian position. Unable to declare a counter-proposal, the hands of negotiators were tied and the public image of Palestinians was that of rejecting peace offers. Perhaps the Bill Clinton-Ehud Barak attempt during the Camp David summit with Yasser Arafat stands as the most prominent example in which the Israelis boasted of their "generous offer" that was rejected by the Palestinian leader. By taking the initiative and moving forcefully into a Palestinian-state-creation mood (rather than defeating occupation) the Palestinian prime minister has been able to keep the accepted Palestinian pre-June 1967 borders while appearing to all as a moderate leader. If the talk is about a de facto state declared by one side, Palestinians are not obliged to make border compromises. If the other side wants compromise, it must show serious intentions about peace in the negotiating room and not just in public declarations. Fayyad stressed the idea of a de facto state rather than a unilateral declaration of statehood because of the existence of a congressional resolution (H CON RES 24) of the 106th Congress "expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and urging the president to assert clearly United States opposition to such a unilateral declaration of statehood". Fayyad's two-year plan of a de facto state sounds much more realistic than Bush's Annapolis promise of an independent state within one year. By putting a two-year ceiling, the Palestinian leader requires Palestinian institutions to work effectively and efficiently, but also puts the ball squarely in the Israeli court where lack of progress in the peace talks will cost the Israelis a heavy price, namely having to accept a reality on the 1967 borders. Politically, it will be difficult for radical Palestinian groups, whether nationalist or Islamist, to oppose this plan. The Fayyad action plan doesn't compromise on Jerusalem or the right of return and is in line with the consensus issues agreed on by Palestinians. The methodology of reaching statehood is also interesting here. Coming after the Fatah conference -- shifting from armed resistance to popular non-violent resistance -- the Fayyad plan provides a clear, doable alternative to what President Mahmoud Abbas has opposed, namely the "militarisation of the Intifada and the 'senseless' rockets". Even Israelis will have a hard-time publicly opposing this plan. It meets rather than contradicts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's calls for an economic peace while exposing the futility of continuing any settlement activities in areas that are the focus of this plan for a de facto Palestinian state. With this plan, Fayyad has clearly separated what is required of the civilian leadership (Cabinet) and what is expected of the political (presidency). This is a brilliant plan that works with or without Israeli cooperation. If the Israelis want a negotiated settlement, the plan gives negotiators two years to reach it. However, if the Israelis drag their feet, a Palestinian state will exist in reality by then. Once these tangible elements of a genuinely viable Palestinian state come into being, all that will be needed is the political will to declare statehood and enjoy worldwide recognition. More on Fatah
 
Adam Neiman: The Tenacity of Fear... Top
Now we get to see just what it looks like when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The audacity of hope versus the tenacity of fear. That fear doesn't just drive the opposition to a frenzy of fanatical rejectionism. It also clutches at the throats of Obama supporters, especially those of us from the "Moses" generation. We've seen the mirages, the "just over the next hill" promised lands. Better to stay in the wilderness, too many of us feel, than to risk the heartbreak of being fooled again. This old dread chokes the righteous outrage over our current travesty of a health care system. We fear the sell-out and the real possibility that our desire for change will only wind up enriching the very insurance companies responsible for this murderous mess in the first place. As in, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." Obama's wavering signal on the public option exposed the Republican position perfectly -- no reform whatsoever is acceptable to them. Nice work. He simultaneously placed himself in the shrinking but critical middle of the American political spectrum, painting himself as the non-ideological pragmatist who just wants to get the problem solved, not the flaming socialist of the Republican narrative. It's important to let the right keep painting themselves into an ideological corner and no less important not to join them there. And the Democratic base rallies to prevent the public option from being sold down the river. So far, so good. Everything is going according to plan -- except the Henry Lewis Gates distraction, probably. Health care is as racially loaded as any social issue in US history. I spent a bit of time early this year in an IC unit at an assisted living facility in Baltimore County, where my mother was dying. The patients were all old and white, the health care workers all young and black and/or immigrants. The institution was completely segregated by Jim Crow's last line of defense -- age coupled with income. My mother's little all had come to her -- in perfectly fitting fashion for the liberal lioness she was -- from a class action suit for job discrimination at Voice of America in which she was a star plaintiff. As a single working mother of many years, she had no issues about surrendering power to anyone in exchange for their taking care of her. As she sank deeper into senile dementia she became more childlike and trusting, her old battle axe from many wars waged dropped away. Watching Obama win as her lights went out was deeply satisfying to her. It reinforced her basic Panglossian faith that things ultimately do work out for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Watching the impact of the election on the mood of the Roland Park staff was pure joy. But the reaction of some of the old southern matrons in their care was very different. I didn't recognize their response at the time. It was pure, existential racial dread. "Sometimes life is funny" were the last words Judy Neiman spoke. Funny how things do work out. We have all of these people who so urgently need jobs that happen to be from a culture that is warm and physical and loving at the exact moment we have all these seniors who need someone to care for them. It is truly a blessed country, however little we may deserve it. But to be well cared for, even by the best and most loving providers, you have to surrender power. And a lot of those white folks just weren't prepared to do that. It was most obvious in the IC unit. There you had the wailing demented, gasping and screaming up and down the halls that their nurses were trying to kill them. At the time, I never imagined that this would become the Republican battle cry against health care reform. The old white people's party is suffering from early onset senile dementia. They are locked in a hell of their own imagining, a self fulfilling prophesy of an Alamo Armageddon where their final caretakers will appear to them as demonic torturers and would-be executioners. The tenacity of their fear will lead them to clutch to life when all that remains is a living hell self-created by their own fear and intolerance. The seemingly over the top rhetoric about Nazis and death panels is just a reflection of their deep seated fear that justice is upon them. It's an interesting ending for the old party of Lincoln, whose abolitionist soul was sold out in favor of the moneyed interests many eons ago and a cautionary tale for Democrats. The "malefactors of great wealth", as the last great Republican Roosevelt called them, are better heeled than ever and desperately need a new vehicle, now that the Republican Party appears stuck in a tiny exurban cul-de-sac. All their wealth is now focused on just a handful of moderate Democratic senators from marginal states. Not a very hopeful prospect. But maybe, just maybe, the sweet deal the Obama crew cut for the pharmaceutical industry and the prospect of 40 million newly insured consumers for their products will pit greed against greed just long enough to loosen the throttle-hold the health insurance industry has over the wealth (and health) of the nation for a reform bill with a public option to squeak through Congress. PhRMA & the SEIU have a multimillion dollar joint ad campaign for health care reform in the strange bedfellows act of the year. Big Pharma saves the day on health care? Well, snake venom is the antidote for snakebite. Could be just what the doctor ordered. Sometimes, life is funny.
 
Johann Hari: The Terrible Moral Emptiness of Quentin Tarantino is Wrecking His Films Top
Quentin Tarantino sauntered onto celluloid in the mid-1990s as a Natural Born Thriller, the boy-man who was going to stab adrenaline straight into the heart of American cinema. The movies he wrote and directed were highly stylized ballet dances of torture, haemorraghing internal organs, and rat-a-tat-tat pop culture monologues about Madonna's vagina, the Brady Bunch, and what they call a Big Mac in France. (It's Le Big Mac). He showed extreme cruelty in extreme close-up and - somehow - made the audience laugh with him through the screams. But there were always dark questions underneath the guffaws and applause - and his new film, 'Inglorious Basterds', sucks them to the surface. The story of Tarantino's rise is a film geek's fantasy-screenplay. Born to a single mother in Los Angeles, he dropped out of school at sixteen, got a job at a video store, and marinated himself in the history of film. He absorbed everything from Lucio Fulci's Italian horror-fests to Preston Sturges' one-liners to John Woo's Hong Kong shoot-outs. And as he took them in, they churned inside his brain - and spilled out, reassembled and regenerated, into a string of his own screenplays. The first to be made was 'Reservoir Dogs' in 1994. Like all his films, it took an old stock genre premise - an armed robbery goes wrong, and in the aftermath the gang tries to figure out which of them is an undercover cop - and made it twitch back to life. He scrambled the chronology, poured hot sauce onto the dialogue, and made the bleeding after a shooting slow and real. Trapped together in a bare warehouse, the characters slowly destroy themselves. In the most famous scene, Mr Blonde - played by Michael Madsen - captures a cop and tortures him to get him to give up the identity of the fink. As he dances to the old cheese-hit 'Stuck In The Middle With You', he hacks off the cop's ear, and douses him with petrol, threatening to burn him alive. It's entrancing and repulsive all at once - and one of the most disturbing scenes in cinema. At the time, many critics recoiled, saying this was sadism served up as style. The film was even banned on video in Britain for several years. But I was inclined to defend the film: I thought this violence was more real and repulsive than the glib gore-free massacres of an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle. When these characters bleed, they really scream. When they feel pain, you really flinch. Here was a director showing violence as it really is. But since then, Tarantino has enthusiastically proved his critics right, and his defenders wrong. The moral vision of Reservoir Dogs turns out to have been something well-meaning viewers projected onto it: Tarantino really does think violence is "like, cool." He has been systematically squandering his cinematic talent ever since - in ways that reflect disturbingly on us, the viewers. He has turned suffering into a merry joke. From 'Pulp Fiction' to 'Kill Bill', he encourages the audience to chortle at torture and mutilation and anal rape. A typical punchline is - whoops! - a man being shot in the face. Where there should be a gag reflex, he gives us a gag. In 'Inglorious Basterds', a group of Jews undercover in Germany torture and scalp Nazis, and he gets the viewer to roar with laughter as people are carved up, alive and howling. "Violence in the movies can be cool," he says. "It's just another colour to work with. When Fred Astaire dances, it doesn't mean anything. Violence is the same. It doesn't mean anything. It's a colour." He scorns anyone who tries to see simulated violence as having meaning. With a laugh, he says: "John Woo's violence has a very insightful view as to how the Hong Kong mind works because with 1997 approaching and blah blah blah. I don't think that's why he's doing it. He's doing it because he gets a kick out of it." Praising Stanley Kubrik's direction of 'A Clockwork Orange', he says: "He enjoyed the violence a little too much. I'm all for that." In the slightly pretentious language of postmodernism, he is trying to separate the sign (movie violence) from the signified (real violence) - leaving us floating in a sea of meaningless signs that refer to nothing but themselves and the sealed-off history of cinema. What's wrong with this vision? Why does it make me so queasy? I don't believe works of art should be ennobling. I don't believe the heroes should be virtuous, or that bad characters should get their comeuppance. It can show deeply violent and deeply cruel people, and tell us that - as in real life - they can be charismatic and successful and never pay a price for their cruelty. But what it should never do is tell us that human suffering itself is trivial. It should never turn pain into a punch-line. Violence has particular power on film precisely because it involuntarily activates our powers of empathy. We imagine ourselves, as an unthinking reflex, into the agony. This is the most civilising instinct we have: to empathize with suffering strangers. (It competes, of course, with all our more base instincts). Any work of art that denies this sense - that is based on subverting it - will ultimately be sullying. No, I'm not saying it makes people violent. But it does leave the viewer just a millimetre more morally corroded. Laughing at simulated torture - and even cheering it on, as we are encouraged to through all of Tarantino's later films - leaves a moral muscle just a tiny bit more atrophied. You can see this in the responses of Tarantino himself. Not long after 9/11, he said: "It didn't affect me because there's, like, a Hong Kong action movie... called Purple Storm and they work in a whole big thing in the plot that they blow up a skyscraper." It's a case-study in atrophy of moral senses: to brag you weren't moved by the murder of two and half thousand actual people, because you'd already seen it simulated in a movie. Only somebody who has never seen violence - who sees the world as made of celluloid - can respond like this. Tarantino's films aren't even sadistic. Sadists take human suffering seriously; that's why they enjoy it. No: Tarantino is morally empty, seeing a shoot-out as akin to dancing cheek-to-cheek. He sees violence as nothing. Compare his oeuvre to the work of a genuine cinematic sadist - Alfred Hitchcock - and you see the difference. Precisely because Hitchcock enjoyed inflicting pain, the pain is always authentic, and it is never emptied of its own inner horror. And yet, and yet... I have to admit that part of me loves Tarantino's films. The scene in 'Pulp Fiction' where John Travolta and Uma Thurman dance the twist in a 1950s-style diner, and later when he has to stab adrenaline into her heart after she ODs, are burned onto my brain, even though I have refused to watch the film for more than a decade. There are scenes in 'Inglorious Basterds' of perfect tension. This man knows how to make a scene work than almost any director working today. But I can't forget - it sees the Holocaust as just another spaghetti Western, and one where the suggested solution is more torture, coming from the victims this time. Can you love a film even while you are repulsed by its moral vision, or lack of it? This is a question that goes right back to the birth of cinema (and beyond). The three greatest silent films are all explicit hymns of praise for totalitarianism. 'The Birth of a Nation' champions the Ku Klux Klan, 'Battleship Potemkin' hymns for Bolshevism, and 'The Triumph of the Will' is a paean to the Nazis. They are ravishing and repellent all at once - and I defy anyone to watch them and not get swept up in their power, even as your frontal lobes yell: "Stop! Danger!" But aesthetics and the rest of life are not entirely separable spheres - and anybody who claims they are is simply posing. We don't leave our moral senses at the door when we go to the movies, or pick up a novel, or go to a gallery. We feel such tension in Tarantino's movies because the good and sane part of us doesn't want the violence to come - while the debased part of us is cheering it on. That's a moral conflict underpinning the aesthetics; by denying it is there, Tarantino is wilfully misunderstanding the effect of his films on their audiences. The artists who have claimed their work was purely aesthetic were either frivolous, psychopathic, or lying. The novelist Vladimir Nabokov - who I love - claimed in the introduction to 'Bend Sinister' that "politics and economics, atomic bombs, primitive and abstract art forms, the entire Orient, symptoms of 'thaw' in Soviet Russia, the Future of Mankind, and so on, leave me supremely indifferent." He was writing in the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he and everybody he knows came within a few hours of dying in a nuclear war. How could he be "supremely indifferent" to that prospect? How can you revere aesthetics and not mind if every aesthetic object you love is incinerated? The answer is, of course, he wasn't indifferent. If you read his letters, you find he worried about these issues at great length. Similarly, I suspect Tarantino has deeper instincts beneath his life-is-a-grindhouse-flick pose. He knows what he is saying isn't - can't - be true. The tragedy of Tarantino is that he could have been so much more than the Schlock and Awe merchant that he has devolved into. If he had stopped mistaking his DVD collection for a life, he - to borrow a phrase from a real film, etched with real pain - could've been a contender. When I remember the raw force of Reservoir Dogs, I still hope that he will. It's not too late. He could do it. How about it, Quentin? Step out into the big world beyond celluloid, and use your incredible talent to tell stories about it. As Mr Blonde says, "Are you going to bark all day, little doggie - or are you going to bite?"
 
Norwegian Towns Sue Citigroup Over Investment Losses Top
Vik, Norway - The 2,800 residents of this pristine village isolated on a narrow finger of the gleaming Sognefjord are embarrassed, angry and eager to get their money back. So are the townspeople of Bremanger, Hattfjelldal and Hemnes, not to mention those of Kvinesdal, Narvik and Rana. More on Citibank
 
Mark Blumenthal: No 'Perfect' Way to Poll The Public Option Top
Is there a right way to "poll the public option?" Are most pollsters "getting it wrong," while only a few ask the "perfect question" about the much debated health care reform proposal to create a "public option?" Nate Silver, in a post earlier this week , argues just that and suggests "five essential ingredients" for a good poll on the public opinion. While I agree with some of Nate's observations, I have to disagree with his underlying premise. When it comes to testing reactions to complex policy proposals, I would rather have 10 pollsters asking slightly different questions and allowing us to compare and contrast their results than trying to settle on a single "perfect question" that somehow captures the "truth" of public opinion. On an issue as complicated and poorly understood as "public option," that sort of polling perfection is neither attainable nor desirable.  In this case, public opinion does not boil down to a single number. Continue reading on Pollster.com
 
Rabbi Abraham Cooper: Reigniting America's Human Rights Mojo Top
Thirty years after Ayatollah Khomeini rode grassroots disaffection with the Shah into power, the majority of Iranians (unlike Iraqis) have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards America. Not anger but disbelief echo in Tehran's streets as ordinary Iranians ask: Why is Washington silent? What has happened to America's leadership on human rights? First came President Obama's signals that he wanted to negotiate with corruptly-elected President Ahmadinejad even as the mullahcracy brutally repressed the Twitter Revolution. Now, comes two waves of "Show Trials," with the regime investing tremendous effort and prestige in trying 100 democracy protesters, accused of the sin (nowhere in the Iranian Penal Code) of trying to engineer "a velvet revolution." This is still small scale compared to the thousands who lost their heads during the French Terror's trial-by-guillotine, and the millions during Stalin's mass purges, publicly executed or, more often, just disappeared into gulags. Yet the Mullahs' show seems far from over. The image of former VP Mohammad Ali, stripped of robe and turban and the right to be tried by fellow clerics, looking dazed and emaciating as he falteringly reads a confession about bizarre plots--recalls Stalin's original conspiratorial show trials. Ali and fellow "reformers" were denied lawyers, but at least allowed a public trial--unlike the hundreds of other less-known figures returned to grieving relatives by the prison authorities, along with a bill for the coffin. After three decades, Khomeini's revolution has begun to "devour its own" -- just as the French revolutionaries guillotined each other, and the Old Bolsheviks disappeared in time for Russia's near-destruction by Hitler during World War II. Perhaps the Iranian hardliners will end up shooting each other, circular firing squad fashion. Or perhaps, sans any tangible and moral support for the Iranian people, they'll use the Soviet dictator's tactics to last as long as he did. How did we lose our human rights Mojo and how can America recapture it? Throughout our history, the U.S. has had great presidents and generals, but we're a great nation because our moral vision derives, not from the centralized top down, but from the periphery and the grassroots. In the midst of the Cold War, as the U.S. suffered setbacks in Vietnam and during Watergate, a new generation of bipartisan human rights activists emerged who demanded that -- every American toast with Brezhnev, every Arms Control negotiation -- be accompanied by demands that the human dignity of the people of the Soviet Bloc not be forsaken. Initially, presidents and pundits dismissed such demands as inconvenient nuisances, but eventually U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz -- with bipartisan support from Congress -- would successfully make human rights the cornerstone of American foreign policy. Americans not only helped free dissident Sakharov and refusenik Sharansky, we helped inspire people behind the Iron Curtain to believe in the possibility of change. American presidents -- from Carter and Reagan to Bush, Clinton, and Bush -- deserve credit, not for originating this grassroots human rights crusade, but by co-opting it into their foreign policy game plan, with varying degrees of success. Now, Barack Obama has been elected president because of an impressive grassroots movement promising "change we can believe in." Change, yes, but not repeal of three decades of a muscular bipartisan commitment to build a U.S. human rights brand that inspired reformers from Poland's Lech Walesa, to the anonymous young man who faced down a tank in Tiananmen Square, to Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi. In Cairo, President Obama rightly said that the U.S. should not be in the business of imposing democracy, but can we be indifferent to those who seek to embrace it? In May 1945, U.S. troops liberated the emaciated inmates of Mauthausen concentration camp including Simon Wiesenthal. The survivors helped Colonel Richard Seibel replace the Swastika with a handsewn American flag secretly pieced together from salvaged cloth, consisting of 13 stripes and 56 stars. They were wrong about the numbers--but got America's promise right. Their inspiration was not drawn from reading American newspapers or hearing on the radio President Franklin Roosevelt eloquent "The Four Freedoms" speech. No, the late Mr. Wiesenthal recalled, "It was because the Stars and Stripes represented Hope." To live up to the promise of Mauthausen's 'Stars and Stripes', leaders on both sides of the Congressional aisle must call a truce in their domestic policy brawlslong enough to re-establish its historic bipartisan support for human rights. And as tyrants and despots vie for their richly un deserved limelight at the General Assembly next month, President Obama should use his moment at the corrupted UN bully pulpit to signal them all that the United States will once again openly pursue the cause of human rights at every venue. Rabbi Cooper co-authored this essay with Historian Dr. Harold Brackman, a consultant to the Simon Wiesenthal Center More on Barack Obama
 
Rafael Pichardo, Man Who Bit Off Cop's Finger In Atlantic City, Gets 15 Years In Prison Top
MAYS LANDING, N.J. — A New York City man who bit off part of a New Jersey police officer's finger has been sentenced to 15 years in prison. Thirty-year-old Rafael Pichardo was convicted in May on charges including aggravated assault, resisting arrest and making terroristic threats. The Staten Island resident was sentenced Thursday. Prosecutors say he bit Atlantic City Officer Dean Dooley on the left index finger while being arrested during a disturbance in a nightclub at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort in February 2007. The officer has since returned to work. Defense lawyer Peter Willis says his client plans an appeal.
 
Bruce Nilles: Persistence Stops A Train - and Global Warming Slowed Top
A massive new rail line planned to move millions of tons of low-grade coal from northeastern Wyoming to the Midwest has been stopped. For more than 9 years Sierra Club and our allies have been battling plans by Dakota Minnesota& Eastern Railroad Corp. (DM&E) to build this new coal line and late yesterday DM&E announced the project is "on hold."   The $6 billion rail line would have carried 100 million tons of coal annually, enough to power about 50 coal plants.  If burned, the coal shipped by this rail line alone would have emitted approximately 200 million tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of adding about 40 million cars to our highways.  By stopping this coal line we are ever closer to averting runaway global warming and jumpstarting a clean energy revolution.   Let's put those numbers in perspective. Stopping this one rail line may be one of the biggest steps we have ever taken to slow global warming. For the U.S. to do its part to stop global warming, we have to reduce our carbon run-rate by upwards of 200 million tons each year.  This one victory has thus bought us a full year's worth of progress - not that we should stop here, of course.     This decision is also further evidence that coal is on its way out. The risk of financing coal ventures, future carbon regulations, the Obama Administration closing the loopholes coal enjoys in mining, burning and ash disposal, and competition from affordable and reliable clean energy options clearly spells trouble for coal. The Sierra Club beat back this project in 2002 when we and our allies persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that the Bush Administration had failed to consider the global warming impacts of this new train line. This decision stands as one of the first global warming cases in our nation.  After the Bush Administration agreed this project might have some impact on global warming, the legal challenges continued. Throughout the years of legal wrangling we worked with a broad coalition of landowners and public health advocates - including the Mayo Clinic in Rochester - that did not want coal trains running through its back yard.   Stopping this ill-conceived coal line continues a welcome and recent trend. In just the past few weeks we've seen decisions not only to abandon plans for new coal plants, but also existing coal plants being retired and replaced with cleaner alternatives.   Last week Ohio Edison Co. announced it would slash coal burning at its R.E. Burger coal plant in Shadyside, Ohio, and replace the coal with biomass due to a pollutant-lowering agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   This past Monday, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) entered the twentieth century when it announced that it will study whether it should close the John Sevier coal plant in Rogersville, Tenn., and six units of its Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Stevenson, Alabama.   Just one day later, Progress Energy made public plans to close three coal plants in North Carolina. The coal plants would be replaced with a clean-burning natural gas power plant.  Progress Energy cited "changing emission targets and the likelihood of legislation to reduce carbon emissions" as a reason for the switch .   This week we also celebrated the 101st proposed coal plant being defeated.  For more than a year we, along with our allies, have been battling Santee Cooper's planned Pee Dee coal plant in South Carolina. Apparently someone at Santee Cooper finally updated the cost of coal and realized that global warming regulation was imminent.     All that, and we can see why the Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced recently that coal use in the United States has plummeted in the past year. Whereas coal provided more than 55 percent of our electricity in May 1985 in May of this year it only provided 42.5% of U.S. electricity. It's a welcome downward trend for coal, and we will be doing everything we can to replace the remaining dirty coal with clean energy even faster in the future.
 
Former Stanford CFO: Firm Had Blood Oaths, Bribes, Fake Profits Top
HOUSTON (AP) -- The former finance chief for jailed Texas financier R. Allen Stanford said his boss created a business empire where blood oaths were taken to secure loyalty, bribes were paid from a secret Swiss bank account and investor profits were more fiction than financial genius. New details about how Stanford allegedly bilked investors out of $7 billion were made public Thursday after James M. Davis, Stanford's former chief financial officer, became the first person to plead guilty in the case. Davis pleaded guilty in Houston federal court to three counts: conspiracy to commit mail, wire and securities fraud; mail fraud; and conspiracy to obstruct a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. The plea is part of a deal Davis, who has been helping prosecutors, made with the Justice Department in exchange for a possible reduced sentence. His plea came hours after Stanford was taken from the privately run prison where he is being held outside Houston to a local hospital with an irregular heartbeat and high pulse. Stanford had been set to appear in the same courtroom for a hearing on whether he can get a new attorney. U.S. Marshals spokesman Alfredo Perez said Stanford was undergoing tests at the hospital but declined to give more details. Davis, 60, only made a brief statement after his hearing. "I did wrong. I'm sorry. I apologize. I take responsibility for my actions," he told reporters outside the courthouse. But Davis' 23-page plea agreement provided new details of how Stanford's business began; how he, Stanford and others manufactured profits; and how panic set in as they tried to hold off federal investigators who were closing in on their scheme. Stanford, Davis and other executives of the now defunct Houston-based Stanford Financial Group are accused of orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme by advising clients to invest more than $7 billion in certificates of deposit from the Stanford International Bank in the Caribbean island of Antigua. Investors were promised their investments were safe and were scrutinized by Antigua's bank regulator and an independent auditor. Stanford claimed higher rates of return on his CDS than those offered by commercial banks in the U.S. and consistent double-digit returns on his bank's investment portfolio. But Davis said in the court documents that the bank's balance sheets were made up and the work of "reverse engineering." "Stanford was insistent that (the bank) appear to show a profit each year. Stanford and Davis would collaborate to select a false revenue number ... Stanford, Davis (and other conspirators) would then use the 'budgeted' numbers to develop falsely inflated revenue numbers which would be claimed as the 'actual' revenue numbers to generate the desired Return on Investment," according to the plea agreement. Asked why Davis defrauded investors for years, David Finn, his attorney, said it was greed. To protect his scheme, Stanford paid more than $200,000 in bribes, as well as $8,000 for two tickets to the Super Bowl in Houston in 2004, to Leroy King, the former chief executive officer of Antigua's Financial Services Regulatory Commission or FSRC. King has also been indicted with Stanford and is awaiting extradition to the United States. Davis said Stanford secured King's loyalty in a most unusual way. "Sometime in 2003, Stanford performed a 'blood oath' brotherhood ceremony with King and another employee of the FSRC ... This brotherhood oath was undertaken in order to extract an agreement from both King and the other FSRC employee that they, in exchange for regular cash bribe payments, would ensure that the Antiguan bank regulators would not 'kill the business' of" the bank," according to the plea agreement. Stanford had Davis get the bribe money from a secret Swiss bank account that was funded by investors' money. The account was also used to make bribes to the bank's outside auditor. When the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission began investigating Stanford's bank and contacted King by letter in 2005 and 2006 about its probe, Stanford and others in his company helped King write false and misleading response letters. "King appeared very stressed. King related that he had again been contacted by the SEC. King asked Davis if 'we were going to make it?' which meant whether the fraud they had been engaged in was going to be exposed. Davis informed King that he thought they were going to be OK," according to the plea agreement. By mid-2008, Stanford, Davis and other conspirators were "desperately seeking a fraudulent mechanism whereby they could artificially inflate (the bank's) assets" and hide that Stanford had used $2 billion of investor money to make loans to himself, said the plea agreement. They came up with a bogus real estate deal that falsely inflated a $65 million real estate sale in Antigua into a $3.2 billion bank asset. By January 2009, the SEC had served subpoenas to Davis, Stanford and other executives about the bank's CD investments. In February, Davis, Stanford, company lawyers and other executives met in Miami to discuss testimony that Chief Investment Officer Laura Pendergest-Holt and another executive would give to the SEC. At that meeting, Davis revealed that 80 percent of the bank's investment portfolio was made up of grossly overvalued real estate and of $1.6 billion in loans to Stanford, meaning the bank was insolvent. Stanford at first said the bank had more assets and liabilities but later in private "acknowledged that (the bank's) assets and financial health had been misrepresented to investors and were overstated in (the bank's) financials," according to the plea agreement. Davis faces up to 30 years in prison when he is sentenced. While a sentencing date of Nov. 20 was set, Finn said he believes that will be delayed. As part of his plea agreement, Davis was also ordered to forfeit $1 billion in proceeds he made from his illegal actions, although there's little hope Davis can ever retrieve the funds. Finn said authorities have seized all his client's assets and Davis, who had made between $5 million and $6 million in the last decade, is broke and now doing manual labor on a relative's farm in Michigan, making $10 an hour. Hittner postponed a hearing scheduled for Thursday in which he would hear arguments about Stanford's legal representation. DeGuerin has asked for permission to quit the case because he doesn't have assurances he will be paid. Stanford was considered one of the richest men in the U.S. with an estimated net worth of more than $2 billion. But he claims he is now penniless. Stanford, along with three former company executives, have pleaded not guilty to various charges, including wire and mail fraud, in a 21-count indictment issued June 18. Stanford has been jailed without bond since then, considered a flight risk by Hittner.
 
Jonathan Littman: Want Customer Love? Give A Tour Top
On vacation recently in Boulder, Colorado, I discovered what every business needs to be loved -- and not hated. A tour. This summer I had two contrasting weeks that help you to clearly see business opportunities. One week I was in New York helping a venerable brand try to regain the number one spot it had taken for granted. The next I was on vacation in Boulder, Colorado, discovering part of the solution to the East Coast firm's challenge. Boulder is a beautiful town, perched dramatically on the shoulder of the dramatic Flatirons and home to the University of Colorado. The world's greatest marathon runners and cyclists train here, and nearly everyone seems vibrant, or at least incredibly fit, biking, running, climbing and hiking at all hours. But there's another reason you or your company needs to visit. Seven days a week, Celestial Seasons, the tea maker, demonstrates how vital it is for enterprises to have a real story that nourishes and drives your company. Unlike so many firms where employees don't even pretend to use their own products - and no one could imagine customers wanting to tour their facilities -- Celestial Seasons shows what is possible. How good is the tour? My wife and kids are eager to return for a second round. The experience begins before you arrive. The road to the factory is named "Sleepytime Drive," after the company's bestselling herbal tea, the sign a colorful picture of the company's trademark cuddly bear. At the tour entrance, you are handed your ticket, a sampler packet of teas and herbal infusions. The tour kicks off with a short movie recounting the company's local roots and traditions that stretch back to 1969, when the founders began blending fresh herbs picked in the Rocky Mountains. Today Celestial's herbs and teas are sourced around the world, exotic locales from Chile to Madagascar. Rituals can help make brands catch fire, and what's most remarkable here is that there are no pricey gimmicks. The tour is essentially a guided walk through the company's sole factory. It begins with a quirky ritual that brings smiles of amusement: everyone has to slip on hairnets to tour the plant, and the extra hirsute must pull on beardnets. Then while navigating zipping forklifts and toeing the yellow safety line, you see up close how hibiscus and chamomile petals and teas from distant lands are milled, refined, blended, bagged, boxed and sealed. Along the journey you learn key parts of the Celestial story, now part of the Hain Celestial Group. The company's bestselling products are herbal infusions and caffeine free teas. Not surprisingly in this company that has mastered storytelling and words to propel it's brands there is a plot twist. In America you can only sell something labeled as "tea" if it has the leaves and leaf buds of the camillus sinensis plant. Hence every Celestial box that is not technically tea is labeled as a "Caffeine Free Herbal Tea." But this story also has a sensory heart. At one point, the guide throws open a warehouse door and beckons us in. The aroma floods our sinuses and tears our eyes. The reason: Bags upon bags of peppermint stacked 25 feet high. Most of the group can't stand it for more than a few seconds. We learn that without the heavy door every other herb or tea in the building would stink like peppermint. The herb, we are told, is so strong that it can be smelled a mile away. But a hard core few "Mint Junkies" remain. "We have some locals with bad sinuses," our guide chuckles. "They take the tour regularly." The tour follows the herbs and teas through a maze of machines and robots that bag, box and seal enough boxes to deliver 1.6 billion cups of tea a year. We learn why Celestial is that rare tea producer without strings, tags, staples or individual wrappers. Workers at the plant ruled that with their unique "pillow" style tea bag - they didn't need a string or plastic. Today by eschewing stings and plastic and using recycled paperboard for the box, Celestial claims it annually saves more than 3.5 million pounds of waste from entering landfills. But the best part of the tour is the Celestial cafe. There are no brochures laying around or handed out. In the cafe we are greeted by a line of several teas to taste for free in handsome silver coffee urns. There are inviting couches and chairs, and a series of enclaves, each with a table and chairs nestled among photographs and maps, and the original paintings that enliven the boxes. Sit at each table and you are immersed in the unfolding, international story of the herbs and teas. The trademark witty Celestial sayings are even inscribed on the table tops. After the tour, I visited Celestial's intuitive website and was not surprised to learn that that they've won national awards for innovation. Your journey has a bit of adventure, two pots of tea identified only by numbers next to a little computerized device that prompts you about your impression of each mystery tea. Visitors gladly line up to taste -- and rate -- these new teas. There is even grace in the departure. A transparent box near the door to collect donations for local charities, stuffed with cash, a gentle reminder that the tour is free and Celestial has its heart in the right place. The tour made me think of that East Coast brand, struggling to find direction. They have the punch of one of the world's most famous advertising firms touting their products. But no tour to speak of, and the executives and managers I met with confessed that few at the company partake of their products. Perhaps you're thinking no one would want to go on your tour. That they'd find more to hate than love? But what if you think of your company as your home. Find the story within. It might be a tale of hard work or inspiration. Simple or something more layered. Don't worry whether it meets the formal requirement of a tour. Consider how a visit to your office or company might be a journey that people will enjoy and remember. You'll know you've succeeded when they want to come back. Jonathan Littman is the co-author of the new book I HATE PEOPLE! (Little, Brown and Company; June 2009) with Marc Hershon. A Contributing Editor at Playboy, Jonathan is the co-author of the best selling Art of Innovation.
 
Brad Friedman: Formerly-'Gagged' FBI Whistleblower Details Congressional Blackmail, Bribery, Espionage, Corruption in Remarkable Videotaped Deposition Top
Sibel Edmonds' full under-oath testimony transcript from Ohio election case, details explosive allegations against key members of Congress and other high-ranking State and Defense Department officials... Just over two weeks ago, FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds was finally allowed to speak about much of what the Bush Administration spent years trying to keep her from discussing publicly on the record. Twice gagged by the Bush Dept. of Justice's invocation of the so-called "State Secrets Privilege," Edmonds has been attempting to tell her story, about the crimes she became aware of while working for the FBI, for years. Thanks to a subpoena issued by the campaign of Ohio's 2nd District Democratic U.S. Congressional candidate David Krikorian , her remarkable allegations of blackmail, bribery, espionage, infiltration, and criminal conspiracy by current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials, and agents of the government of Turkey are seen and heard here, in full, for the first time, in her under-oath deposition. Both the complete video tape and transcript of the deposition follow below. Though there was much concern, prior to her testimony, that the Obama Dept. of Justice might re-invoke the "State Secrets Privilege" to keep her from speaking, they did not do so. Nor did they choose to be present at the Washington D.C. deposition. The BRAD BLOG covered details of some of Edmonds' startling disclosures made during the deposition, as it happened, in our live blog coverage from August 8th . The deposition included criminal allegations against specifically named members of Congress. Among those named by Edmonds as part of a broad criminal conspiracy: Reps. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA), as well as an unnamed, still-serving Congresswoman (D) said to have been secretly videotaped, for blackmail purposes, during a lesbian affair. High-ranking officials from the Bush Administration named in her testimony, as part of the criminal conspiracy on behalf of agents of the Government of Turkey, include Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, and others. During the deposition -- which we are still going through ourselves -- Edmonds discusses covert "activities" by Turkish entities "that would involve trying to obtain very sensitive, classified, highly classified U.S. intelligence information, weapons technology information, classified Congressional records...recruiting key U.S. individuals with access to highly sensitive information, blackmailing, bribery." Speaking about current members of Congress during a break in the testimony, Krikorian told The BRAD BLOG that "for people in power situations in the United States, who know about this information, if they don't take action against it, in my opinion, it's negligence." ( More video statements from Krikorian, Edmonds and attorneys from all parties, taped before, during, and after the 8/8/09 testimony, are available here . ) Edmonds' on-the-record disclosures also include bombshell details concerning outed covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's front company, Brewster Jennings. Edmonds alleges the front company had actually been shut down in August of 2001 -- three years prior to Bob Novak's public disclosure of the covert operative's identity -- following a tip-off to a wire-tap target about the true nature of the CIA front company. The cover was blown, Edmonds alleges, by Marc Grossman, who was, at the time, the third highest-ranking official in the U.S. State Department. Prior to that, Grossman served as ambassador to Turkey. He now works "for a Turkish company called Ihals Holding," according to Edmonds' testimony. An unclassified FBI Inspector General's report , released on her case in 2005, declared Edmonds' classified allegations to be "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI." In 2002, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), then the senior members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, co-wrote letters on Edmonds' behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, calling on all of them to take action in respect to her allegations. And in a 2002 60 Minutes report on Edmonds' case, Grassley noted: "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story." The 8/8/09 deposition was brought by Krikorian as part of his defense in a case filed against him before the Ohio Election Commission (OEC) by Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH). The 2nd district Congresswoman has accused Krikorian, an Armenian-American who ran against her as an independent in 2008, of "false statements" during the campaign last year alleging that she had accepted "blood money" from Turkish interests. Krikorian says that Schmidt, co-chair of the Congressional Turkish Committee, accepted more money from Turkish interests during last year's campaign than any other member of Congress, despite few, if any, ethnic Turks among her local constituency. He has suggested she may have been instrumental in helping to hold off a Congressional vote on a long-proposed, much-disputed resolution declaring the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians during WWI as a "genocide" by the Turks. Edmonds herself happens to be a Turkish-American, though she was recently attacked by the Turkish Lobby , following her long-sought, long-blocked testimony. The complete transcript of Sibel Edmonds' under-oath testimony, may now be downloaded here [PDF]. The complete video-taped testimony follows, in five parts, below... PART 1 (appx. 51 mins) - Direct PART 2 (appx. 35 mins) - Direct continues PART 3 (appx. 17 mins) - Direct continues PART 4 (appx. 43 mins) - Cross PART 5 (appx. 54 mins) - Redirect & Recross * * * Originally posted at The BRAD BLOG... * * * Recently related at The BRAD BLOG ... 8/5/09: Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, To 'Break' Gag Order 8/8/09: EDMONDS UNDER OATH: BLACKMAIL, BRIBERY, ESPIONAGE BOMBSHELLS 8/9/09: VIDEO: Whistles Blow - Scenes From Outside Deposition 8/12/09: House Candidate on Edmonds Depo, Google Blocks 'Denial' Ads 8/14/09: Turkish Lobby 'Declares War' on Sibel Edmonds Following Under Oath Deposition 8/14/09: Several Charges Dropped in OH Election Case After Tetsimony More on Turkey
 
More CIA Documents to Be Disclosed Monday Top
The deluge continues. Word comes that in response to pending requests from the American Civil Liberties Union, another tranche of CIA documents about Bush-era interrogations and detentions could be released as early as Monday. That's on top this week's release of the 2004 CIA inspector general's report on torture; two additional documents requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney on the efficacy of torture; and a pile of additional Justice Department memoranda on the legality of all of this. More on Dick Cheney
 
Dem Rep. Marshall: I Haven't Read the Health Care Bill And I Won't Vote For It Top
Terry Humphrey reported from Warner Robbins, Georgia, as part of HuffPost's Eyes & Ears Town Hall Watch . Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) held his second town hall meeting on health care in Warner Robins, Georgia, on August 24th. The papers reported that over 1,000 people attended. Marshall started the meeting by explaining that if we didn't do something to reform our health care system, by 2030 or 2040 we'd have so much health care related debt that we wouldn't be able to pay the interest on any other government debt. The rest of our tax revenue would only cover current health care expenses, federal retirement obligations such as Social Security, and nothing else: no defense, no education, no highway projects... nothing. Marshall recommended that people read an article in the Atlantic Monthly by David Goldhill entitled, " How American Health Care Killed My Father ." He said that the article accurately explained the problem with the current system in language we could all understand. Regardless, Marshall said he was against the current bills floating around in the Congress. Marshall added that he hadn't read H.R. 3200 because he knew it didn't meet his criteria for health care reform and therefore he wasn't going waste his time. Despite this fact, about 50 percent of the citizens who asked him questions during the three hour long event wanted to know why the bill was going to do this or that. Several times, he reiterated the fact that he didn't support the bill. There were some people, maybe 15 percent of the crowd, who disrupted the meeting several times to voice their opposition to H.R. 3200 or any bill that would change their current health care system, but for the most part people were respectful of both Congressman Marshall and each other. Although one gentleman asked Congressman Marshall for his resignation, the majority of the citizens was genuinely concerned about the health care problem in this country and recognized a need for change. The overwhelming majority of the audience was not looking for the type of change proposed by what they believe would result from the passage of H.R. 3200. They certainly do not want socialized medicine. About halfway through the meeting Congressman Marshall explained that in the past, when the members of the house couldn't reach agreement on an issue, the leaders of both parties would get together in a closed door session and compromise, resulting in a solution acceptable to most Americans. He said the reason this was possible was because the majority of congress, and certainly the leaders, were moderates regardless of their party affiliation. He explained that due to gerrymandering over the years, the current congress has become very polarized. He said that the leaders in the house are so polarized that, although they are sincere individuals who are truly interested in finding a solution, they can't find any common ground on which to develop an acceptable solution. By the end of the evening, Congressman Marshall never articulated a proposed solution to the health care problem. Instead, he proposed creating a non-partisan panel modeled after the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process to depoliticize the issue and find a solution that addressed the weaknesses in the current system. Congressman Marshall's understanding of the problem with the current system was that we don't pay for our own health care. Patients pay insurance premiums but they don't care what the insurance companies pay the doctors or the hospitals and they don't care what tests are run or how much they cost. He said the free market system is the most efficient because the participants, acting in their own self interest, reward efficiency with their patronage. With the current system, the reward doesn't come from individuals but from insurance companies. Therefore, the medical industry reacts to the pressure created by insurance companies and not the patients. He said if individuals had to pay for their own treatment, they wouldn't allow the doctors to run so many tests. They would discuss with their doctors which tests were prudent and only authorize those tests. One gentleman asked if Congress had considered creating a Medical Savings Account that allowed funds to roll over to the next year. He suggested that people could buy catastrophic insurance to cover what the medical savings account couldn't. Congressman Marshall said that was part of the solution David Goldhill proposed . I've never been a fan of Congressman Marshall for reasons that had nothing to do with health care. But, after watching him stand before 1,000 people, most of whom wished he had lost the last election, and tell them something they didn't want to hear, I started to believe that he really is sincere about this issue. He said a couple of times that if he knew doing the right thing would get him fired he'd do it anyway. Much to my surprise, I believe him.
 
Wendy Block: Fixed? Top
"Either the public buys the politicians or the special interests will." -- George Skelton, LA Times Big Pharma makes sweetheart deals with the White House. Big Oil sends employees to spoil congressional Town Halls with their assault rifles and their "grassroots" concerns about climate change. Big Milk seizes the dairy industry (seriously). Last week NPR's John Burnett reported on two huge corporations which, ala Walmart, cow -- pun intended -- small independent farmers into selling their milk so cheaply, many are forced out of business. Bush Administration investigations against the two colossi evaporated . Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Milk. All special interest patrons of America's Big Money bordello. What are good progressives to do? Either we get lobotomies (not that recession-lashed activists can afford them) or we fix the way the country finances politics. It was thrilling last week when 65 Congressional Reps refused to crumple on the public health insurance option. But as I wrote in my last post , to salvage representative democracy, voters must reclaim our electoral power. We deserve a country where politicians value all constituents as highly as their largest donors, where people without fortunes -- or access to them -- get an equal shot at running for office. And there is progress. Voter Owned Elections and Open and Ethical Elections Codes are two Clean Money/Elections systems succeeding throughout US states and cities. Competitors get enough public - clean -- money to challenge even lavishly-financed opponents, in exchange for strictly limiting the cash they accept from private sources. No more having to spend 30 percent of their time begging corporations and wealthy donors for contributions and then voting the interests of these backers. Candidates are free to learn what's important to voters, and once elected, to serve everyone they represent. After years of disgust with electoral politics, I began working in 2000 to bring Clean and Fair Elections ( California Clean Money Campaign [CCMC] ) here. How else can we end the ubiquity of the political quid pro quo? The CA legislature stunned supporters last year by passing the California Fair Elections Act (CFEA). It designates one contest -- the campaign for Secretary of State -- as our clean money pilot project. Why Secretary of State? Partly because this officeholder manages all federal and state elections within California. If any job needs to be free from even the palest trace of manipulation, this is it. Remember George W's victory linchpins, Secretaries of State Kathryn Harris, Florida, 2000, and Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio, 2004? Also, the Secretary of State regulates the activities of lobbyists. Conflict of interest over-easy, anyone? While clean elections advocates were celebrating state lawmakers' brilliant Fair Elections vote, we enjoyed a second blissful moment when the governor signed the bill into law. CA voters get the final say in June, when the CFEA appears on our state ballot. Visions of triple ecstasy... Some argue against using the public's (read: MY!) money for a candidate I oppose. But in California's case, the people will not be asked to pay a penny. This Act's tab will be picked up by lobbyists, whose state registration fees will rise from $12.50/year to $350/year. This is the fee many states charge. CFEA is minuscule compared to laws elsewhere that offer full clean financing for campaigns statewide. But if the opposition models its tactics on the ever-mutating healthcare reform melee, Clean Elections supporters won't be surprised if all sorts of ka-razy claims start hitting the fan (omg, a government takeover of elections!!!). I'm doing everything I can to get this passed, including joining the Clean Election Speakers Bureau, to help reach the widest possible audience. A fellow devotee and I did our first presentation earlier this summer. It went great; people were interested, skeptical, encouraging and challenging. We all learned something. Once substantive national health reform passes (it'd better...), CCMC will expand its Speakers Bureau and its audience. Maybe we'll persuade some fence-sitters and even an opponent or two to give this a chance. Meanwhile in D.C., The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) was introduced in both the Senate and the House this past March. Last month, lawmakers urged the House Administration Committee to support the Act. From GOP California Rep Dan Lungren -- "I'm going to put it on the record, I hate raising money for campaigns," he told the committee. "The only two people I know who enjoyed it, both went to prison." Act co-sponsor Walter Jones (R-N.C.) testified, "[L]et's return Congress to where they vote based on their conscience, not on the influence or perceived influence of money that buys the conscience." After November's victorious trifecta, progressive activists worried about getting lulled into fat, cheery complacency. Nine months later, it's clear we didn't even get a glimpse of complacency from our porch. That we're still in this reform brawl shows we have fortitude. So do our valiant Congressional reps -- and a growing number of heroic senators -- still pushing for the health insurance public option. Since lobotomies will only grow more prohibitively expensive, activists will either have to fix the nation's political funding structure, or we'll all stay stuck in our current fix. For more information: www.caclean.org www.fairelectionsnow.org More on NPR
 
Modiba: Traffic Jams, Zookeepers, and Strange Cousins: Tribecastan Unleashes Uzbek Lutes, Pakistani Taxi Horns, and Six Foot Shepherd's Pipes Top
By Ian Merkel Amidst Holland Tunnel traffic is John Kruth, decked out like a Technicolor Bedouin conducting the blaring horns of frustrated drivers with a pencil and channeling a hybrid symphony of New York noise. Next appears the slyly unassuming Jeff Greene, whose conventional attire belies a profound first-hand knowledge of esoteric overtone flutes, Arabic scales, and all things ending in "-stan." We're not in Soho anymore. Welcome to Tribecastan , a country without borders tucked away in a corner of downtown Manhattan. This country of the mind is home to Uighur mountaineers and Croatian zookeepers. Drum and fife corps march alongside Slovakian shepherds with six-foot-tall pipes and Indonesian scales warp rock mandolins. Strange Cousin (Evergreene Music; July 14, 2009) captures the ancient future of this imaginary land where Swedish nykelharpas and Pakistani taxi horns can live together harmoniously both in peace and mayhem. Tribecastan was founded during a particularly raucous celebration of World Jug Band Day (also known as Labor Day), when the washboards and tubs turned into a parade of "radical trad music," as Kruth calls it, on the streets of Tribeca. "We knew we had to keep doing this." So Kruth, known for his "banshee mandolin" playing with punk bands like the Meat Puppets and the Violent Femmes, united with ethnomusicological whiz Greene to found a new musical nation. The caravan soon picked up rock-solid Ween bassist David Dreiwitz; Steve Turre, conch shell virtuoso better known as the trombonist for the Saturday Night Live band; the eerie power of the ex-Be Good Tanyas' Jolie Holland and her voice and box-fiddle; and ethno-jazz reed master Matt Darriau of Klezmatics fame. If Tribecastan had patron saints, they would be the least recognized folk musicians in the world: "People like Don Cherry and Yusef Lateef were just as much folk musicians as jazz musicians. They are the epitome of what we're striving for," Kruth explains. "They took folk melodies from around the world and improvised on them," an overlooked facet revealed on songs like "Mopti," a banjo-laced cover of the Cherry tune based on a Malian village song. Or on "Yusef's Motif," where the peculiar resonance of an African flute and the overtones of a Slovakian shepherd's pipe pay homage to mentor and inspiration Lateef. The same principle applies to Tribecastani original "Dancing Girls." "We took a Tajik melody, then made it our own and added a Bulgarian kaval (shepherd's flute) and an Afghani rubab (short-necked lute) and some Moroccan drums like the darbuka. And of course, there's a plucked mandocello doing a rock thing," laughs Greene. "It's a natural sonic evolution of where urban folk music is going," Greene continues. "How can you ignore all these influences? How can you synthesize them organically, so they sound like the music belongs to you, to one place or person. That is what we are trying to accomplish. We are making music that has meaning. It's an honest evolution of these influences." Tribecastan's influences are as freewheeling and wide-ranging as their instrument menagerie, but they all flow from what Kruth and Greene feel is the deep inexplicable resonance they've experienced in the streets of Split, Croatia or in the melodies of the Sahara, where Greene spent a season hitchhiking as a teenager. Every time Kruth returns with his partner to Croatia, "I hear these Eastern European melodies, and people tell me they sound Jewish. I didn't grow up listening to klezmer, so maybe it's the echo of my DNA." This echo deeply resounds in songs like "The Flower (that I Placed at my Ancestor's Grave Spontaneously Burst into Flame with their Appreciation)," which features Klezmatic clarinetist Matt Darriau, and in a shout-out to a deceased relative "Tonko the Zookeeper" that gets wildly Tribecastanified with a dulcet Uzbek dutar (strummed lute) and a curious Moldovan kaval flute discovered at a French convention of thousands of hurdy-gurdy players--where else? A tape Greene bought during a ride in the mountains of Indonesia sparked "Sunda Sunday." The pentatonic melody Greene found intriguing called out for Turre's conch stylings, as well as a Trinidadian steel drums. "Raphaela" started out as a song Greene picked up in Havana, with Kruth adding some klezmeresque touches for an out-and-out "Juban" jam. And "Otha's Blues," a blues riff once played by Othar Turner's fife and drum corps, only needed a towering Slovak overtone fujara flute to gain a full Tribecastani pedigree). Inspiration often strikes far closer to home, right on Tribecastan's borders, with the phone number of a Uighur musician in the remote region of Brooklyn or a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam in Lower Manhattan. "I was walking down by the Holland Tunnel, and everyone is just jammed in traffic. I pulled a pencil out of my pocket and started conducting this traffic jam," Kruth recalls. Even the most belligerent New York drivers couldn't help but smile and allowed this strange figure to direct their horn blasting. "It was wonderful, something Albert Ayler or Ornette Coleman would have gotten a kick out of; a wild hurricane of sound." Kruth would know, having played with Ornette and the Master Musicians of Jajouka. Back in the recording studio this moment later became "Tribecastani Traffic Jam," a free jazz explosion flowing from loosy-goosy, point and wave conducting. "Something amazing happened during that piece. It was like mental telepathy," Greene explains. "Everyone was on the same wavelength." Nailing down the multifarious culture of Tribecastan -- or even getting it to hold still for half a second -- is a tall order. Kruth and Greene have purposefully aimed to tear down the clichéd boundaries between world, folk, and jazz and rejecting all genres as adequate definitions. "I like to think of us as avant garde doing something new. But what are we doing? Just like Art Ensemble of Chicago, one of my favorite bands, we compose and play Ancient Future music. Sun Ra would play music from the roots to the fruits and music from next Tuesday that you haven't heard yet," muses Kruth. "I like to think we are playing music you haven't heard yet."
 
World In Photos: August 27, 2009 Top
Here is the HuffPost's selection of photos of today's news and events from every corner of the globe. Check back Monday through Friday for this HuffPost World feature. Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Jimmy Carter Fasts For Gazans Top
Former US President Jimmy Carter and his wife fasted in solidarity with the people of the Gaza Strip who are living under siege. More on Palestinian Territories
 
Terry Humphrey: Dem Rep. Marshall: I Haven't Read the Health Care Bill, But I Won't Vote For It. Top
Terry Humphrey reported from Warner Robbins, Georgia, as part of HuffPost's Eyes & Ears Town Hall Watch . Join the citizen coverage by clicking participate at the bottom of the article. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) held his second town hall meeting on health care in Warner Robins, Georgia, on August 24th. The papers reported that over 1,000 people attended. Marshall started the meeting by explaining that if we didn't do something to reform our health care system, by 2030 or 2040 we'd have so much health care related debt that we wouldn't be able to pay the interest on any other government debt. The rest of our tax revenue would only cover current health care expenses, federal retirement obligations such as Social Security, and nothing else: no defense, no education, no highway projects... nothing. Marshall recommended that people read an article in the Atlantic Monthly by David Goldhill entitled, " How American Health Care Killed My Father ." He said that the article accurately explained the problem with the current system in language we could all understand. Regardless, Marshall said he was against the current bills floating around in the Congress. Marshall added that he hadn't read H.R. 3200 because he knew it didn't meet his criteria for health care reform and therefore he wasn't going waste his time . Despite this fact, about 50 percent of the citizens who asked him questions during the three hour long event wanted to know why the bill was going to do this or that. Several times, he reiterated the fact that he didn't support the bill. There were some people, maybe 15 percent of the crowd, who disrupted the meeting several times to voice their opposition to H.R. 3200 or any bill that would change their current health care system, but for the most part people were respectful of both Congressman Marshall and each other. Although one gentleman asked Congressman Marshall for his resignation, the majority of the citizens was genuinely concerned about the health care problem in this country and recognized a need for change. The overwhelming majority of the audience was not looking for the type of change proposed by what they believe would result from the passage of H.R. 3200. They certainly do not want socialized medicine. About halfway through the meeting Congressman Marshall explained that in the past, when the members of the house couldn't reach agreement on an issue, the leaders of both parties would get together in a closed door session and compromise, resulting in a solution acceptable to most Americans. He said the reason this was possible was because the majority of congress, and certainly the leaders, were moderates regardless of their party affiliation. He explained that due to gerrymandering over the years, the current congress has become very polarized. He said that the leaders in the house are so polarized that, although they are sincere individuals who are truly interested in finding a solution, they can't find any common ground on which to develop an acceptable solution. By the end of the evening, Congressman Marshall never articulated a proposed solution to the health care problem. Instead, he proposed creating a non-partisan panel modeled after the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process to depoliticize the issue and find a solution that addressed the weaknesses in the current system. Congressman Marshall's understanding of the problem with the current system was that we don't pay for our own health care. Patients pay insurance premiums but they don't care what the insurance companies pay the doctors or the hospitals and they don't care what tests are run or how much they cost. He said the free market system is the most efficient because the participants, acting in their own self interest, reward efficiency with their patronage. With the current system, the reward doesn't come from individuals but from insurance companies. Therefore, the medical industry reacts to the pressure created by insurance companies and not the patients. He said if individuals had to pay for their own treatment, they wouldn't allow the doctors to run so many tests. They would discuss with their doctors which tests were prudent and only authorize those tests. One gentleman asked if Congress had considered creating a Medical Savings Account that allowed funds to roll over to the next year. He suggested that people could buy catastrophic insurance to cover what the medical savings account couldn't. Congressman Marshall said that was part of the solution David Goldhill proposed . I've never been a fan of Congressman Marshall for reasons that had nothing to do with health care. But, after watching him stand before 1,000 people, most of whom wished he had lost the last election, and tell them something they didn't want to hear, I started to believe that he really is sincere about this issue. He said a couple of times that if he knew doing the right thing would get him fired he'd do it anyway. Much to my surprise, I believe him.
 
Brad Balfour: Oscar-nominated actor Paul Giamatti and director Sophie Barthes Try Saving Our Cold Souls Top
Starting with its premiere at The Sundance Film Festival 2009 to its New York debut at New Directors New Films, Cold Souls was finally released in theaters this month after a long year of building interest and positive press reaction. Given its wonderfully wacked-out premise, it is a film that does not deserve to be lost in the summer shuffle. The story goes something like this: The Actor Paul Giamatti is rife with anxiety over a production of Uncle Vanya -- so much so that when he sees an article about a company that can remove your soul and store it, he seeks it out to see if the removal of his soul will quell his agony. He meets with Dr Flintstein (a perfectly devilish-in-his-banality David Straithairn ) who convinces him to try it and guarantees his soul will be safe in cold storage. Lo and behold, things go awry when Giamatti's soul goes missing and in order to recover it, finds himself going to Russia where trafficking in "borrowed" souls is part of the underground economy. Devised by the seemingly sane young French-accented director Sophie Barthes , the gets more absurd as it goes along. Barthes went from Columbia University's School of International Affairs to co-directing two films with cinematographer/director Andrij Parekh . Then she attended both the Sundance Screenwriters and Directors Lab to develop this debut feature with Giamatti (as both the actor and as a producer) and d.p. Parekh in tow. Of course scoring the Oscar-nominated Giamatti was a coup. Now much in demand, the American-born actor started landing lead roles after his remarkable turn in American Splendor playing cranky graphic novel creator Harvey Pekar. He then did an amazing job in the sort-of road movie Sideways and the boxer bio pic Cinderella Man (and garnered his Oscar-nom for it). With such a track record in mind, Giamatti and Barthes sat down with few of us journos to discuss how she came up with the idea, convinced Giamatti to play himself, and how they survived their surreal soulful ordeal. Q: Paul, how did you prepare to play yourself? PG: The only thing I felt any pressure to do was make sure that that persona was put across. Q: So is that "you? " PG: It's me to some extent, playing an idea of me based on other movies. But mostly it was a character, and mostly it felt like a character, like a very distinct type of New York actor. So there's a type, a character, and a bit of a persona. I just mixed that all together. Q: Was that character based on your idea of a New York Actor who has done theater? PG: Yeah, to some extent. I felt like I got it, right? I mean, I don't think I'm wrong in saying there's a certain amount of type, and also it was helpful to know to some extent that [Sophie] originally conceived the role for Woody Allen. I don't think I was doing Woody Allen in any way, but I knew the idea was this kind of neurotic sort of fuzzy bearded New Yorker guy who reads the New Yorker and that kind of guy. So I got the joke of that too. Q: Especially when compared to Sleeper, Weird Science, or James Bond. PG: Weird Science is an awesome movie. Q: Or it could have been "Bob Balaban." PG: Well that's exactly the kind of guy it was; Bob Balaban, right, it's that kind of guy. Or Wallace Shawn or something. Guys we know and think of as these classic New York [types]. SB: Wallace Shawn was a big inspiration because of Vanya on 42nd Street [the late Louis Malle film starring Shawn as Vanya], and so when I saw that--I saw it a long time ago--but I saw it again when I was writing the draft, and I could totally see Paul doing Vanya the way Wallace Shawn does. Q: How do you rehearse with yourself the idea that you're doing maybe a little Wallace Shawn? PG: I didn't consciously think of Wallace Shawn, but it's that type; I was clear on the archetype of it--it made sense to me. Q: Even though it was you playing yourself, it didn't seem like you were playing yourself. PG: No, I never did either--it was a character. Q: Sometimes it seemed that you had changed the name a little bit but kept it similar, but then it becomes apparrent--"Oh he is playing Paul Giamatti!" PG: That always threw me off when people said my name in the movie; that was the only thing that ever annoyed me about it. SB: At one point we had [him as] "Paul Gianelli." PG: They changed it but that felt kind of coy and sort of like, "Well why not?" SB: Because the producers were scared of all the trouble we were going to get, so they said, "Make it Paul Gianelli." Q: Because you might sue Sophie? [chuckles] PG: No I think they were just worried about it being... There were concerns about it being... I don't know. See I like it because I actually feel like it maintains the kind of surreal edge of it; the fact that it's a real person keeps you wondering why is it this real person and that actually is why I like it. And when we did actually change it at one point to Bob Stevens or something like that, I felt like it really lost something, because I really liked this sense of you kind of going, "I'll have a dream and Wallace Shawn will be in it," and I'll be like, "Why the fuck was I dreaming that Wallace Shawn is my dentist?" I'll sit there going, "There's got to be some significance to this," and then you try to figure it out, and you base it on, well, Wallace Shawn is this kind of guy. It just draws you into what the movie's about, I feel, like, by having it be me. Q: If Russia represents the new frontier and New York sort of represents the decaying bourgeoise society as it is, where do you see the link in particular to the soul? SB: Well the idea was to flirt with the cliché of the Russian soul. PG: They're the most soulful people. SB: It's in all the Russian literature. PG: And the idea that everybody's got a poet's soul there; the soldier, the factory worker etc... SB: And they talk about the Russian soul and you're like, "Uhh..." PG: And they sit around talking about it, they literally sit around talking about their souls. SB: But it's also a theme that Chekov makes fun of in Vanya ; there is a long monologue of Vanya's when he says he could have been a Dostoyevsky and all this, and that a man of talent is something so precious. They talk so much about the Russian soul but what is the Russian soul? I wanted to flirt with the cliché, the stereotypes, I think it was funny. Also, I think the US and Russia are mirroring each other and they have this love/hate relationship since the Cold War. You feel it when you go to Russia; they admire and hate the US at the same time, and here also there's this mistrust and it's always going to be there. Q: Besides getting a chance to get a free trip to Russia, how do you feel about Russia, the link between Russia and America, and the other aspects, economically or politically? PG: That's why I took the job [for the trip]. No, that was one of the most appealing things to me about it because I have a similar affection for Russian culture, history, literature and stuff like that, so that was something that right away struck me and made me interested in it; I liked the playing around with it and thought the idea was very funny, that the source of souls for the world was Russia. They're willing to sell anything for any amount of money, fuck it, they're just like, "The hell with it," but what they've got a surplus of is souls is funny to me. Q: Or the lack thereof. PG: Or the lack thereof. So the Russia thing was very appealing to me; it was kind of one of the biggest things about it that appealed to me. Q: Paul, as your character did in this film, did you ever struggled with taking your work home so to speak, having separation anxiety from a character that you were playing? PG: I've been sad to stop playing a character, mostly that's happened on stage because you get more attached to them in a more intimate way I think on stage. I've been sad to have to let go of playing something. Q: Which character? PG: I did a play once, I played a really wonderful character in a David Hare play, Racing Demon , just a great character, a very happy person which was actually really hard to do and not have him be an idiot. Because he wasn't an idiot, he was a very smart guy who was incredibly optimistic and happy, I loved playing this part. It was a fantastic and it broke my heart when I had to stop doing it. But I've never had it to this degree; I've had a hard time, more so with theater because I think not only is it the part, it's the repetition of it. Although movie stuff can be hard too but you don't have to do the same thing over and over again all the time. Q: Without giving it away, the ending was interesting because we are at war and in the film you see the military wanting new souls. SB: I wrote this in 2003 during the Bush administration and I was literally feeling like my soul was shrinking in that environment. I was also thinking to move out at one point; it was so gloomy and the rhetoric and the atmosphere was really not pleasant. So it must have influenced this reference to the soldiers and the country was at war and we're going to take souls for soldiers. Q: Would you come up with a different ending now? SB: I'm much more optimistic. PG: It was much more specific what the military was doing there, and you cut back on it. So now it's just there's this military presence and Flintstein says, "I'd rather not talk about it." And in Russia it's happening too, that this technology it's inevitably going to be co-opted for something. So that's what still remains of that idea. SB: No, it is more like [the paranoid cult sci-fi writer] Philip K. Dick saying that the government... PG: They're always going to take control. SB: And so there was a scene that was cut where they're literally extracting soldier's souls and sending them to the war without a soul so the families could claim the soul in case they die. PG: It opens the idea up more to have gotten rid of that problem. SB: But then the movie was three hours and we had to cut it. Q: How did you decide that his soul is a chick pea? SB: It's from the dream. Q: It almost doesn't have a significant meaning that it's a chick pea but at the same time it's an intriguing idea to draw attention. SB: Well it came from that dream where Woody Allen had a chick pea soul so I made the film from that dream, but I think there is something in the pea that must be shared in the collective unconscious because as a kid my favorite tale was The Princess and The Pea. I don't know if you remember the story, but it's a princess and she sleeps on this mattress and there's a little pea that is bothering her and you can interpret it many ways but it's maybe her sensibility, so there is something in something very small and round that is bothering this woman so much. So I think the dream has an element of that. PG: Didn't you read a poem too, isn't there a Sufi poem [in there somewhere]? SB: Yeah, because one day I was like, "I'm going to check on Google" and I put "chick pea soul" in and saw the Sufi poem. Q: Really, by Rumi--the great Sufi poet? SB: Not Rumi, but someone in the same movement as Rumi; it's about a soul that is a chick pea and has to be cooked to soften. So there is a theme about the chick pea being the soul somewhere, because it's a round little thing that is maybe hard... PG: And contains a lot. SB: Yeah, contains a lot and is bothering you. Also, I thought it was so comical because the appearance is so tiny and it's so ridiculous, but it's so important. PG: But it doesn't matter too; the vanity of worrying about what it looks like is funny too. And he says, it doesn't matter what it looks like, it doesn't have any correlation, but it does matter. Q: The funniest parts were when you went to go eat salad. How do you feel about eating chick peas now? PG: I love chick peas, yeah I love chick peas. Q: Then there was the reaction you had when the Russian actress was upset that she didn't get Al Pacino's soul. That was so funny; and it was really funny when you found out she was really a soap opera actress, "That ruined my soul!" PG: Yeah, I love that whole Al Pacino thing. He's got to have a good soul. Q: Was it your original decision to make the Dr. Flintstein character a dark comic character with a dry wit? Or did he evolve into that kind of persona and was that a play on words with the name? SB: I was wanting him to be like this; he was inspired by actually an article I read in the New Yorker of an architect who had developed this technology for cryogenics to freeze people and he had whole workshops... PG: Built a kind of city, wasn't he building a city? SB: Yeah, he built an amazing thing that he wants to build in Arizona that is going to be like... Q: I read about this. SB: You read about it? PG: It's wild, a huge sort of dome refrigeration. SB: I'm forgetting his last name now. The article was hilarious; it was like a four-page article in the New Yorker with his picture and the model and he really believed he would freeze people and that all of these old Jewish ladies of the upper east side would go to his workshops to get a spot in the thing, and you can get frozen either your head, or your head and your body, either the entire family together, and the structure is going to be bomb proof and earthquake proof and it's supposed to last for 200 years; it's like Sleeper . And they would unfreeze you in 200 years, so it was based on that. Q: I think Philip K. Dick has written about people in a state of suspended animation... what was that book? PG: Ubik . That's true, I forgot about that in Ubik ; they can talk with the dead people because the dead [in their half-life state] are still capable of speech. Those kind of corporate visionary guys are always creepy like that. SB: And architects [are like that] because they have such a big ego. PG: They're so psychotic. SB: [The guy in the New Yorker article] believed he was doing something good for people; very naïve at the same time. Q: But as we were saying, Strathairn was a great choice; Paul, didn't you work with him before? PG: I have. It's funny because everybody says to me, "Oh he has such a kind of creepiness in this part," but I guess because it's him I never think of him as creepy; he's so not a creepy guy. David's like the least creepy human being alive, so I always look at him and it's like, "Oh it's David, he's a nice guy." But there's that persona thing; I can't think of him as creepy. Q: So what happens when a soul owner dies? SB: Well that's the big
 
Kevin Grandia: Fighting Astroturf with Bare Bums [video] Top
The very-active Avaaz Action Factory was in rare form recently when they showed up for a naked protest in front of the offices of DC's Astroturf King, Bonner and Associates. The point of their action was to not only get a nice shower but to drive home the point that Bonner and Associates is a naked fraud. A point I fully agree with. As you may recall, Washington, DC corporate power player, Jack Bonner and his firm Bonner and Associates were recently busted for sending fake letters to Congress representatives urging them to vote against the Clean Energy and Security Act - the underhanded tactic was paid for by the Washington coal industry lobby who stands to lose big-time if their toxic emissions are regulated under the new act. For those not up to speed on their PR spindoctoring nomenclature, Astroturfing is a an age old, slimy and undemocratic technique in which one manufactures a fake grassroots uprising. It is a big money service offered by some very powerful Washington public relations companies and one of the more successful of these is Bonner & Associates, which boasts of a long history of manufacturing fake grassroots movements for corporate America. Anyways. On to what you came for, the video [ps. here's the photos from the naked protest ]:
 
Rex Rammell, Idaho GOPer, Jokes About Hunting Obama Top
BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho Republican gubernatorial hopeful insists he was only joking when he said he'd buy a license to hunt President Barack Obama. Rex Rammell, a former elk rancher slated to run against incumbent C.L. "Butch" Otter in the May 2010 GOP primary, made the comment at a Republican rally Tuesday in Twin Falls where talk turned to the state's planned wolf hunt, for which hunters must purchase an $11.50 wolf tag. When an audience member shouted a question about "Obama tags," Rammell responded, "The Obama tags? We'd buy some of those." Rammell told The Associated Press Thursday he was just being sarcastic and sees no reason to apologize for the comment. __ Information from: The Times-News, http://www.magicvalley.com
 
David Beckmann: It's Time for Foreign Aid Reform Top
When Congress reconvenes after Labor Day, they will find an increasingly vocal and diverse, bipartisan movement pushing to make the non-military U.S. foreign assistance system more efficient and effective. Of our aid dollars today, less than half of one percent is given to poverty-focused development assistance. A more modern foreign aid system will strengthen our efforts to alleviate poverty and hunger, fight disease, and create economic growth for struggling people in developing countries. The movement cannot be ignored. Supporters from the Obama administration, members of Congress, pastors, and concerned citizens have come together with a simple message: given the big foreign policy and economic challenges we face, we cannot afford piecemeal or patchwork changes. Neither can the world's most vulnerable people. We need fundamental and comprehensive reform now. The problems that have to be addressed are well documented. Our current foreign assistance system is a fragmented, duplicitous, and non-transparent network of programs. It is overseen by 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and nearly 60 government offices. The U.S. foreign assistance system traces its roots to the Marshall Plan, a U.S. support program that helped rebuild Europe from the devastation of World War II. Despite the success of the plan, public support had dwindled by the late 1950s. To remedy the situation, President John F. Kennedy pushed for the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The law decoupled civilian and military assistance, attempted to depoliticize development, and created, among other things, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). His rationale for the law has haunting similarities to the situation we now confront: "...the existing program [is] bureaucratically fragmented, awkward and slow, its administration...diffused over a haphazard and irrational structure covering at least four departments and several other agencies. Its weaknesses have begun to undermine confidence in our effort both here and abroad." Over the next half-century, Kennedy's strategic and moral vision for long-range economic and social development promotion lived on in landmark programs like the USAID-led Green Revolution in agriculture. This helped deliver millions of people from poverty and set nations like India on paths towards prosperity. But Kennedy's call for a more effective foreign assistance system was lost. Fast forward to the last decade, when an unprecedented bipartisan coalition came together to push new foreign assistance initiatives like debt relief, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). These programs have saved millions of lives in the developing world, and they have helped support a march towards self-sufficiency by many poor countries. Despite all good intentions, layering the new programs over the existing foreign assistance structure, while also instituting the much criticized "F Process" which crippled USAID, led to more fragmentation than consolidation. The result is a foreign assistance system that is not getting us as much bang for our buck, and keeping us from being the responsible partner for people in developing countries we support. The Obama administration has now made ambitious pledges to increase foreign assistance and modernize the system. This is largely because of an unprecedented consensus around the need to make development a pillar of U.S. foreign policy amid the complex and interconnected challenges we face. The early signs for foreign aid reform give reason for optimism: Secretary Clinton is moving forward with the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, a blueprint for our diplomatic and development efforts. She also secured strong funding for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in the 2010 budget and has taken the lead in forging the administration's new world hunger initiative; One hundred bipartisan members of the House are supporting Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Howard Berman's Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 2139). A related bill was launched by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, ranking minority member Richard Lugar, and four other bipartisan committee members. Both bills would bring greater efficiency, coordination, and transparency to U.S. foreign assistance; President Obama promised an empowered, streamlined, 21st-century development agency during the campaign. We are, however, still waiting for a nominee to head USAID. There are indications that the White House may issue a presidential study directive to make sure overall U.S. development policy -- whether related to trade, agriculture, climate change or finance -- is more strategic and coordinated; and, Both Kerry and Berman appear ready to soon revisit badly outdated Foreign Assistance Act. In fact, Berman has already invited comments on a draft outline for what a new bill could look like. With leadership from President Obama and coordination between these various actors, I am confident that foreign assistance reform will move forward and finish the task President Kennedy set out nearly 50 years ago. Although it isn't clear yet whether the administration and Congress will choose fundamental reform over the patchwork approach, one thing is irrefutable: we can't afford for our leaders to hurry up and wait when so much is at stake. Reverend Beckmann is president of Bread for the World and co-chair of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN), a coalition advocating for a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. foreign assistance system. More on Foreign Policy
 
Keith Ferrazzi: How to Win Friends and Influence People by Practicing Social Arbitrage Top
Friendship makes prosperity brighter. - Cicero Real power comes from being indispensable. Indispensability comes from being a switchboard, parceling out as much information, contacts, and goodwill to as many people -- in as many different worlds -- as possible. Engaging in this constant and open exchange of favors and intelligence is what I call social arbitrage. Think of well-executed social arbitrage as a sort of career karma. How much you give to the people you come into contact with determines how much you'll receive in return. In other words, if you want to make friends and get things done, you have to put yourself out to do things for other people -- things that require time, energy, and consideration. Here's a few rules to become a master: Think of social arbitrage as a game. When someone mentions a problem, try to think of solutions. The solutions come from my experience and knowledge, and my tool kit of friends and associates. Think: How can my network help? It's a sort of ongoing puzzle, matching up the right people and the right opportunities. Just do it. Don't wait to be asked. People aren't used to looking for others for help, beyond a small circle, and usually either won't think of it or will be too polite to ask. Don't limit yourself to one clique. Make a point of knowing as many people from as many different professions and social groups as possible. The ability to bridge different worlds, and even different people within the same profession, is a key attribute in managers who are paid better and promoted faster. Become a knowledge broker. Knowledge is free -- it can be found in books, in articles, on the Internet, pretty much everywhere, and it's precious to everyone. Expertise will not only allow you to grow your connections, it helps you solve problems in situations where there's a gap in your network. Carpe Diem. When you see a way that someone else in your network can help a friend, don't wait. Pick up the phone mid-conversation to make the introduction -- "I'm here with my friend so-and-so and they need x and may call you, if it's alright" - then give your friend the information so they can follow up as they choose. Not only have you made it completely comfortable for them to reach out, you've also pinged someone else in your network -- double score. Successfully connecting with others is never about simply getting what you want. It's about getting what you want and making sure that people who are important to you get what they want first -- and having fun while doing it. Read more articles like this one at Keith Ferrazzi's blog . More on Relationships
 
Sarah Lovinger: It's The Health Insurance Lobby, Stupid! Top
Would a mere $2,154,200 change how you voted on the health care reform bill? If that's not quite enough, would $3,973,485 or $8,994,077 be more to your liking? Ask Senators Kent Conrad, Max Baucus and John Kerry. These multi-million dollar sums represent total donations from the health insurance industry and other groups opposed to real health care reform to the campaigns of these senators. Significant contributions like these could kill the best chance our country has for real health care reform. The health insurance lobby certainly hopes so. Our country will have a health insurance bill this year. Despite the angry town halls and the 'death panels', President Obama and the Democratic congress have enough momentum to pass a bill providing health care coverage for all or most Americans. But they need to pass the right bill. Only a bill with a government option will provide meaningful health care reform. The government option is not only preferred by large numbers of Americans--as many as 20 to 30 million people, by some estimates. More importantly, the federal government is the only entity big enough to inject real competition into the health insurance market. Are you paying too much for your insurance premiums? Are you tired of a policy that only pays for 80% of your care, sticking you with 20% of the cost? Does it drive you mad that every year you pay higher co-pays for the same prescription drugs? In a country (ours) in which 94% of the health insurance markets are not competitive, according to the American Medical Association, insurance companies can continue to charge us more for health care while increasing their own profits. That's why there are some really busy health insurance lobbyists in DC these days. Not only is the health insurance lobby giving large donations to our elected officials, they may also be behind the angry mobs protesting at town hall meetings and obsessed with fictional 'death panels'. The untruths these town halls are spreading could derail progress for real health care reform. Short-circuiting the public option benefits the health insurance industry, but not the rest of us. Why is the public option really the antidote to all of this? According to David Borris, owner of a catering company in Chicago and executive committee member of the Main Street Alliance, an organization for small business owners, "We need an entity as big and strong as the US government to keep insurance companies honest." With little or no outside competition, the health insurance industry can keep premiums high and manipulate the market so that we consumers have very few low-cost options. A health insurance bill with a public option would inject a different type of competition into a market where insurance companies monopolize the cost of health care, adding to the enormous costs that we all pay. "We believe that the establishment of a transparent insurance exchange with a strong public plan will increase transparency and provide the competition necessary to force insurance companies to bring premiums down," said Mr. Borris. Insurance companies currently thrive on the kind of complexity and multiplicity that prevents many people from really knowing what kind of care is covered in their policies. A transparent exchange with multiple insurers offering a limited number of insurance options in clear language would provide the ideal antidote to the current confusing set of choices most people face. For example, some policies may say that the policy-holder can choose any doctor, but the fine print gives far more limited choices. Transparency would eliminate the 'fine print'. The exchange would provide everyone with clear and simple choices- whether in private or public plans-- so all Americans make a rational, fair and honest choices. It's unlikely that Senators receiving large campaign contributions from such a powerful lobby can clearly grasp the benefit of a public option. With the passing last night of our country's most prominent universal health care champion, Senator Edward Kennedy , proponents of a public option will need to work even harder to have their voices heard. The US Senate needs to just say no to the health insurance lobby, and get on with the business of real health care reform.
 
Poospatuck Tribal Reservation May Be Barred From Selling Cigarettes To Non-Members Top
In a decision that could put a significant crimp in untaxed cigarette sales from the Poospatuck tribal reservation in Mastic, a federal judge has granted New York City's request for an injunction against sales to nonmembers of the Indian tribe.
 
Politics In The Doctor's Office? Top
Shirley Rish of Mesa, Ariz., met with an orthopedic specialist earlier this month hoping for relief from some pain in her wrist. Instead, she received an unwanted dose of politics. "Well, we're in a box, because I can't give you a cortisone shot, because of the valley fever," the specialist said, according to Rish, who had recently recovered from valley fever. "Your valley fever doctor would not be happy with me. But we're lucky we're not in the Obama box, because if we were, I couldn't treat you because you're over 70." "I could not believe my ears," Rish said in an interview with the Huffington Post. She took what the doctor said to be a version of the false "death panel" propaganda spread by health care opponents. She told him she disagreed. "I'm 74, but I'm not stupid," she said. The orthopedist, Dr. Ralph V. Wilson, did not return calls left with his assistant. Annette Procknow, practice administrator of the orthopedic office where he works, said she wouldn't comment, citing doctor-patient confidentiality. But she didn't shy away from talking about health care reform. "It's a very emotional situation for lots of people, and here in Arizona we have so many senior patients, and it's also a big thing to our physicians who are trying to treat patients," Procknow said. "The number of Canadian patients we see in our office during the winter time for joint replacements is incredible, because they can't get it done in Canada with their socialistic medicine... People are only hearing certain things that are coming out from Obama, and our physicians know that." HuffPost readers: Have you talked politics with your doctor? Has your doc spoken negatively or positively about health care reform? Tell us about it! Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com . American Medical Association policy says physicians have a responsibility to keep themselves informed and "to work for the reform of, and to press for the proper administration of, laws that are related to health care." And they should tell their patients: "It is natural that in fulfilling these political responsibilities, physicians will express their views to patients or their families," the policy says. "However, communications by telephone or other modalities with patients and their families about political matters must be conducted with the utmost sensitivity to patients' vulnerability and desire for privacy. Conversations about political matters are not appropriate at times when patients or families are emotionally pressured by significant medical circumstances. Physicians are best able to judge both the intrusiveness of the discussion and the patient's level of comfort. In general, when conversation with the patient or family concerning social, civic, or recreational matters is acceptable, discussion of items of political import may be appropriate." Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the AMA's policy is too generous. "Doctors can be political, but they have to keep it in the waiting room. It should not ever be in the clinical setting. You've gotta keep it informational," he said. "The patients are vulnerable because they want to please the doctor... You don't want to irritate your doctor when you're in your little half-naked nightgown and you try to find out if the doctor will see you again about your defibrillating heart." Rish, a retiree and a widow who volunteered for both the Kerry and Obama campaigns, sent her physician an angry letter. "I am extremely well informed, and I know that you are one of those peddling lies that are preventing much needed health care reform," the letter said. "I believe that your comment was intended to intimidate and frighten an elderly patient. I don't doubt that you make that kind of comment to all of your elderly patients. Your comment was unethical and immoral. Those opposing health care reform are motivated by greed, ignorance, or stupidity. I have to assume that in your case, it's not ignorance or stupidity. "I was terribly upset when I left your office. Please stop perpetuating those kinds of lies." More on Health Care
 
Martha St Jean: Living With HIV/AIDS: Marvelyn Brown Top
For conversation three I bring you Marvelyn Brown, who is quite literally a "tour de force." She's a public speaker, author and champion of those living with HIV/AIDS. To find out if she will be speaking at an event near you check out her website, MarvelynBrown.com . For those reading this blog who may not know what HIV and AIDS are, would you define the terms for us? People think HIV and AIDS are just words, but they stand for something. I am not telling them what it stands for; they need to do their research. If they have a favorite television show, for example mine is " Real Housewives of Atlanta ," they need to skip the show one night and do their research . I need you to stop and educate yourself. This has never been about me; this is about whoever is reading this blog and their health. Tell me how you got started in AIDS advocacy. I got involved in aids advocacy after my diagnosis at age 19, after realizing that I was not unique that this is a human disease. I knew the power of my own story. What is your story? My story is of contracting HIV through a partner who I loved and who I trusted. That seems to be the story of many young women today, especially young black women. How are you using your story to educate this segment of the population ? My story in general as it relates to African-American women is that I try to get them to take responsibility for themselves. Women are caregivers and oftentimes they forget about themselves. I am definitely trying to get them to give the same care they give to others to themselves. This is about women taking responsibilities for themselves and their actions. I need women to take control of their lives. How can they take control of their lives in relation to HIV/AIDS? Protect themselves, be responsible. The sad thing I hear so often is, "He didn't tell me," or "I didn't know he was on the down low." People lie. With that being said, you have a responsibility too; this is a preventable disease. What do you mean by down low? Down low is when a guy is pretending to be straight when he is gay or bisexual. In different communities it means men being with women while sleeping with other men. I hear women and men saying, "I am over black men bringing this virus into the community." My response to that is, "I'm just over the whole 'everybody-to-blame-but-me.'" People need to take responsibility. Is there such a thing as safe sex? People don't realize that there is no safe sex. What I am saying is that if you are going to have sex, no matter what I say, I am telling you to use protection each and every time, in order to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. By me saying there is no safe sex, I am telling you that condoms are not 100% effective. How did you become passionate about AIDS work? Just seeing the devastation it had on my peers and my community. The lack of education is astounding, especially since there is so much out there. What method do you use to get through to your peers? I use the get real method, the no sugar coat, the no BS method. Can you give us an example of what you might say at speaking engagement? I tell people the guy who infected me knew he was infected when he passed the virus to me. But I had a choice. I chose to have unprotected sex. I also have to look at the situation as if he didn't know, as if he had never been tested. Whether or not he knew had nothing to do with me contracting the virus, because I should have protected myself. You recently wrote a book, The Naked Truth: Young, Beautiful and (HIV) Positive . Why did you feel the need to write it? I wanted to give people the complete story, the before, the after and during. In interviews and at speaking engagements you don't have the time to tell the whole story. I wanted my story to be in places that I could never be. Is there a particular audience for your book? The youngest person who I knew was reading my book was eight years old and there are also seniors reading my book. I'm hoping parents will read the book and remember who they were when they were young, and pass that information on to their children. How do you stay positive while dealing with the disease? Since my doctor told me stress kills people with HIV, it made me realize how short life is and that a negative attitude plays a major role in life and can set you back. I do things that make me happy: I shop; I cook; I put myself first. More on HIV/AIDS
 
Nassim Nicholas Taleb: My Letter Addressing the Guardian's Distortions Top
I used to think that the US press was guilty of distortions. Recent events changed my mind, as UK anti-Cameron papers tried to cut and paste from my talk to weaken him by trying to demonize me. The problem is that they got my ideas backwards on every single point. Such lack of ethics, I am certain, would have never happened in the US. Here is my letter to the Guardian : *** Dear sirs, I am extremely honored to see my conversation with MP David Cameron at the RSA so repeatedly covered in your paper. However I was astonished by the representations that you made as they were in complete reverse to my positions on three subjects: the environment, market crashes, and taxation of the rich. 1) Climate Change. I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion (climate experts, like banking risk managers, have failed us in the past in foreseeing long term damages and I cannot accept certainty in a certain class of nonlinear models). This is an extension of my general idea that one does not need rationalization with the use of complicated models (by fallible experts) to the edict: "do not disturb a complex system" since we do not know the consequences of our actions owing to complicated causal webs. (Incidentally, this ideas also makes me anti-war). I explicitly explained the need to "leave the planet the way we got it" . Instead, I was presented as a "climate-change denier" (Lucy Mangan), and my environmental views summarized by "Climate change is not man-made" (Nicholas Watts). A minimum of homework on the part of your staff would have revealed that I am one of the authors of the recent King of Sweden's Bonham declaration on attitude to climate change. 2) Crashes. By some coincidence I spoke at the same venue, the RSA, some 30 months earlier, way before the current crash, as part of my crusade against the risk of financial collapse and the need to robustify society. I find it depressing that the British public could have saved several trillion pounds and hundreds of thousands of jobs had they minded these hidden risks in the system. My position is that a robust system needs to produce frequent crashes, with citizens immune to them, rather than infrequent total collapse, for which we have no robustness. By constraining cycles and assuming "no more boom and bust" (as your current government did) you end up with a very large bust -and I am sure that I do not need more events like the most recent crisis to prove the point. Instead, the anti-Black Swan crusader was portrayed as someone who "loves crashes" (Nicholas Watts and Lucy Mangan). Go figure. 3) Social Fairness. I spent 13 years fighting bankers bonuses (when nobody else did) and am currently crusading for clawbacks of past compensation as I have shown how regular taxpayers have been financing bonuses of millionaire bankers ("socialism for the losses, capitalism for the profits"). We are financing today those who got us here, with tax hikes on those who do the right thing, and larger tax break for those who blew us up. Companies who made mistakes and fragilized the system are being subsidized by the countercyclical ones who make it more robust. Instead, I was quite shocked to see the headline "David Cameron's guru Nassim Nicholas Taleb says rich should not pay more tax to help the poor". This transformation of my ideas by Nicholas Watts is extremely wicked. The depressing part is that nowhere does your paper discuss my central idea, that the risks that were in the system 30 months ago are still with us now, and that unless we lower debt to "definancialize" the economy (instead of increasing deficits through stimulus) we face more risks of blowups. As a systematic thinker with a body of scholarly work around these risk management ideas --not a politician with ad hoc opinions -- the game of selective (and aggressively biased) quoting does not work very well. With the same game one could easily make Karl Marx an apologist of capitalism and Adam Smith a promoter of communism. Sincerely, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, PhD. Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering New York University, principal, Universa LP, and author, The Black Swan ***
 
Amnesty International: Private military and security companies wanted for hire by CIA as "hitmen"? Top
by Lillian Tan, Corporate Action Network The bad media which surrounded the Nisour Square shootings on September 16, 2007 galvanized the U.S. Government to take some steps towards ensuring that the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of State (DOS) better regulate PMSC operations in Iraq. But was it enough? We're now approaching the second anniversary of the Nisour Square shootings, in which six Blackwater (now Xe) personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians outside Baghdad's green zone. The six Blackwater guards who allegedly indiscriminately opened fire in Nisour Square were finally indicted late last year. The trial hasn't even started but Blackwater/XE personnel are already implicated in another incident. On May 5, 2009, four Blackwater/Xe personnel reportedly shot and killed two Afghan civilians in Kabul . So much for lessons learned in Iraq; so much for regulation, oversight, and accountability. However, the U.S. government should not keep pushing aside the questions of how to effectively regulate and where to set the limits on using PMSCs -- especially with the increased number of contractors flooding into Afghanistan in the wake of the planned surge in troops. The longer it takes for the U.S. government to finally take a position and answer these questions, the longer PMSCs operate in a legal limbo, in which they may commit human rights abuses with impunity. Just recently, it has been reported that the CIA contracted Blackwater/Xe to assist in a secret assassination program of which the Congress was not even aware . According to the August 20, 2009 New York Times , "it is unclear if the CIA planned to use Blackwater/Xe to actually capture and kill Qaeda operatives, or just to help with training and surveillance in the program." The article also mentions that government officials are concerned about serious issues of accountability when contractors are brought into covert and lethal operations. Where there is no transparency, accountability will be near impossible if a crime were committed during those operations. The past administration has been quick to invoke several legal reasons to withhold sensitive information from the public -- from the Glomar response to claiming that releasing detainee abuse photos would be against the Geneva Conventions . When the same photos were about to be released in May 2009, the Obama administration sought to block their release arguing that the images could further inflame anti-American opinion. If it is already this difficult to get information out of government agencies , then imagine the difficulty of obtaining information for the purpose of accountability when there's a private contract involved in a sensitive national operation. Another area of great concern that the New York Times article briefly touches upon is whether, aside from the concerns about accountability for PMSCs in such a program, PMSCs should be involved in the first place? As Senator Diane Feinstein (CA) aptly states, "It is too easy to contract out work that you don't want to accept responsibility for". In the debate about the use of PMSCs in modern warfare, there is the pressing question of what functions a government can and cannot outsource. In U.S. statute and policy, inherently governmental functions are loosely defined as "a function so intimately related to the public interest" that it must be performed by Federal employees. The list of functions that fall under "inherently governmental" is also extremely inconsistent, varying from agency to agency. Because of this lack of a clear and consistent definition, PMSCs are contracted to perform duties in highly sensitive areas such as intelligence and now, even assassinations. To better regulate the industry, Congress also needs to pass legislation that will close the legal vacuum in which PMSCs are operating and appropriate more resources to regulation and oversight. The U.S. government currently does not adequately regulate the industry and its statutes to hold PMSCs accountable for crimes overseas are few . In its June 2009 Interim Report, the Commission on Wartime Contracting finds that U.S. government oversight of PMSCs is inadequate. Because they mostly operate transnationally, jurisdiction can become a problem. While PMSCs contracted by the DOD can be held accountable under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), contractors hired by other agencies such as the DOS often fall through legal gaps. The foundation to improve regulation, oversight and accountability of PMSCs has already been set. To close legal gaps such as the one in MEJA , legislation has been proposed in the past and we look forward to similar legislation in the 111 th Session of Congress. As for clarifying definitions of "inherently governmental functions", a bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting was established in Public Law 110-181 to recommend among other things improvements in its Final Report on the "process for determining which functions are inherently governmental and which functions are appropriate for performance by contractors in a contingency operation, especially whether providing security in an area of combat operations is inherently governmental." On an international level, the UN Working Group on Mercenaries (UNWGM) completed its two-week visit to the U.S. on August 3 rd , 2009. During that time, the UNWGM met with the DOJ, members of Congress, governmental officials and public interest groups to discuss how PMSCs can be regulated on international, regional, national and local levels. Such efforts are all a step in the right direction. More on Iraq
 
EllynAnne Geisel: A Slice of Welcome, A Piece of Consolation Top
Recently, we received news the most wonderful company was paying us an overnight visit. On their arrival day, I got up super early and baked this two layer yellow pudding cake. With each step of its preparation -- from opening the boxed mix to greasing the pans to turning out the layers to cool to licking the ready-made dark chocolate icing from the spatula - I thought about our long distance friends and the joy that would accompany their visit. Upon learning a few days later of the death of an acquaintance's beloved wife, I baked this chocolate pound cake. And with each step - from sifting the flour to beating fresh ingredients until creamy to slipping the tube onto a bottle for even cooling to cutting flowers for decorating the platter - I thought about the number of times we'd talked about driving the half an hour to pay a visit, and did not. Baking a cake requires one to slow down and provides the opportunity for reflection. And whether out of the box or carefully measured out, as an expression of welcome or consolation, cake is always greeted with accolades. Baking a cake is time well spent. Chocolate Pound Cake 1 cup butter, softened one-half cup shortening 3 cups sugar 5 eggs 3 cups flour one-half teaspoon baking powder one-half teaspoon salt 5 Tablespoons unsweetened cocoa 1 cup buttermilk 1 Tablespoon vanilla Preheat oven to 325 degrees. Grease and flour a 10-inch tube pan. Cream butter, shortening and sugar until fluffy. Add eggs one at a time, mixing well. Sift together dry ingredients. Alternating with milk and vanilla, add dry mixture to creamed mixture, mixing well with each addition. Pour batter into pan. Bake for 60-90 minutes at 325 degrees, testing for doneness with a wooden pick. Cool 20 minutes before removing from pan. Serves 15. Freezes very well.
 
James Rucker: Ten more companies say 'no' to Glenn Beck Top
Today we're announcing that ten more companies have made sure their ads won't run on Glenn Beck's program : Adding to an increasing list of companies distancing themselves from Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck, ten new companies whose ads were recently seen during Beck's program--Applebee's, Bank of America, Bell & Howell, DirecTv, General Mills, Kraft, Regions Financial Corporation, SAM (Store and Move), Travelers Insurance and Vonage--have pledged to take steps to ensure that their ads don't run on Beck's show. Forty-six companies have now committed not to support Beck's show since ColorOfChange.org launched its campaign three weeks ago after the Fox News Channel host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends. Three of the latest defections--Travelers Insurance, Bell & Howell and DirecTv--join the list of advertisers who claim to have already placed Glenn Beck's program on a "do not air" list, but whose ads have been seen on Beck's program, apparently against their wishes. "We could not be happier with the results of our campaign so far," said James Rucker, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org. "All 46 companies that have distanced themselves from Glenn Beck should be applauded for their stance." "We are still reaching out to companies whose ads we see during Beck's nightly program," Rucker continued. "Based on the fact that many of the recent ads on Beck's program are for gold coins and News Corp properties , it looks like Fox News Channel is struggling to place advertisements on Beck's show." Over 170,000 people have now signed our petition to Glenn Beck's advertisers , and it's working. Here are statements from the new companies distancing themselves from Beck: "As mentioned before, Applebee's regularly evaluates where our advertising appears," said Miles McMillin, a spokesperson for Applebee's Services, Inc., in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "We strive to reach our diverse group of consumers in many different advertising venues. We do advertise in programming where various opinions are debated as we believe discussion about issues important to our country is very valuable. We expect this discussion to be respectful. As also pointed out earlier, we have not purchased advertising time on the Glenn Beck show specifically. However, at this time, we have asked that our advertising that appears on FOX News not be included on the Glenn Beck program." In an email conversation with ColorOfChange.org, Joseph L. Goode, Senior Vice-President of Global Media Relations for Bank of America, confirmed that a statement posted on MediaMatters.org [http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908250014] was authentic and that any advertisement placed on the Glenn Beck Program was an error and they would take steps to correct it. "We don't advertise on Glenn Beck's show anymore," said Charlie Sahner, a spokesperson for Vonage, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "I can confirm the authenticity of the statement published on http://jenkinsear.com/2009/08/20/kraft-foods-drops-glenn-beck/", said Valerie Moens, Senior Manager of Corporate Affairs for Kraft Foods Inc., in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "Kraft Foods has made the decision to stop advertising on the more politically extreme programs on all networks. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of shows with extreme content, including on the political front. These shows often are controversial and do not align with our company or brand values. That's why we have made the decision to stop advertising on the more politically extreme programs on all networks." "We're not an advertiser, that I can't tell you [sic]," said Tom Forsythe, Vice-President of Corporate Communications for General Mills, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "It's not necessarily in response to your campaign. The action has much more to do with the content of the program...Upon hearing your request, I made sure that that was true. But it should have already been true because of the nature of the show." In a phone conversation with ColorOfChange.org, Jon Gieselman, Senior Vice-President of Advertising and Public Relations for DirecTV, Inc., confirmed that their ads should not be running on Glenn Beck's program. "We have actually not purchased national advertising from Fox News during his show since August 3rd, and right now we don't have plans to purchase media in the future," Gieselman said. "We have already clarified our position with Fox News." "To be clear, the Glenn Beck program has never been part of our advertising effort," said Frank Colangelo, Director of Advertising Research for Travelers Insurance, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "Any Travelers advertisements that ran during that program in the past were due to commercial placement mistakes by Fox News. In fact we have a standing "no buy" policy with regard to the program and we have confirmed that fact with Fox News." "We've discontinued our advertising on this program and don't plan to resume," said Scott M. Peters, Chief Marketing Officer for Regions Financial Corporation, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "Our company, SAM (Store and Move) has complied with your request and "The Glenn beck" show has been put on the "do not air" list for SAM," said Nicole Henkel, a spokesperson for SAM (Store and Move), in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "While our distributor controls advertising, we have no plans for ads on this [Glenn Beck's] program," said Hank D'Ambrosio, Vice-President of Administration for Bell & Howell, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "As I said to you in our conversation and reiterated in my conversation with our distributor, in our 102 year history, Bell and Howell has never been involved in politics or in anything that could be construed as discriminatory in any way and never will." We're going to continue monitoring ads on Glenn Beck's show, reaching out to his remaining sponsors, and making sure that none of those that dropped Beck resume advertising on his show. Thanks again for being a part of this campaign -- we couldn't do it without you. More on Glenn Beck
 
Holbrooke, Karzai Have "Explosive Meeting" Over Afghan Election Top
The BBC has learned that the US special envoy to Afghanistan has had what has been described as "an explosive meeting" with President Hamid Karzai over the country's election. More on Afghanistan
 
Chez Pazienza: An Open Letter to Kate Gosselin Top
Dear Kate, You don't know me, but I felt like I just had to reach out to you after watching your appearance on Larry King Live a few nights ago. I know you've been through a lot over the past several months: the cruel tabloid headlines, the negative assumptions about you, the betrayal, the impending divorce, seeing your estranged husband cavorting with whores in Ed Hardy t-shirts, your kids' refusal to sit the hell down and shut up when Mommy tells them to, people making fun of your haircut -- I know it's all been eating you alive inside and turning your well-established sense of self upside down. It's hurt me for so long to watch you held up for public ridicule -- to see the once-vainglorious Kate Gosselin reduced to groveling for mercy in the face of those who would take joy in knocking you from the pedestal you so richly deserve to sit atop. But when you looked right into Larry King's lifeless eyes (an act of incredible bravery in itself) and told him, "I'm lonely," well, that was all I could take. I know you're in pain, Kate. I know you feel like no one understands. But I need you to know something -- I do. That's why, right here and now, I want to tell you that there's someone in this world who gets you completely, who loves you entirely -- and who wants to be with you forever. Me. Yes, me. A little about myself: I'm a 39-year-old underemployed writer and journalist with over ten years experience -- on and off -- dealing with women like yourself, Kate. Women others would call, well, let's just say "difficult." (Only the crassest and most Philistine would refer to your kind by that other word.) And let me be clear: When I say that I know how to "deal" with you, that's in no way meant to imply that I have an intact spine and would be willing to make an effective stand against you should I feel that you were trampling me underfoot and crushing my fragile ego. On the contrary, you can consider me already very well housebroken -- an easily malleable lump of human wet clay that will never so much as raise his voice to you when you publicly emasculate him for not picking out the right paint color for the living room or maybe rubbing your feet clockwise instead of counter-clockwise at the end of the day. Life with me would be the Kate Show all the way. My balls are well accustomed to that particularly cold area at the back of the refrigerator anyway; why break with tradition? Speaking of shows, I have a couple of children of my own. Just think of the possibilities: Kate and WHO? + 8 + 2 . It would be like The Brady Bunch for Generation Meth. I even think you're really hot. No joke. You're a total babe. I don't even think it's important that you, for once, stand up straight. Katie, my sweet, you don't have to be lonely anymore. I ask only that you please think about my offer. I honestly believe that if you give it a little serious consideration, you'll come to the only possible conclusion -- that I'm the man for you. I have the skill, the will, and, most importantly, the complete lack of self-respect in the face of a spiteful woman -- and I'm totally ready to be the next Mr. Kate Gosselin. Hey, I used to produce for Ashleigh Banfield. I Love You, Chez : ) More on Jon & Kate Plus 8
 
Apple App Economy Worth $2.4 Billion, More Than Somalia's GDP Top
Apps, apps everywhere, but just how big is Apple's app economy anyhow? Chances are, it's bigger than you think. According to mobile ad startup AdMob, $200 million in apps are downloaded each month, making the App Store worth about $2.4 billion per year. To place that in context, that's slightly less than the nominal gross domestic product of Somolia, and quite a bit more than the GDP of Central African Republic. More on Apple
 
David Sirota: It's Not a "Free Market" System When Taxpayers Are Financing the Profits Top
Thanks to both the focus on health care and the storm over President Obama's comments on Henry Louis Gates, few bothered to note a deeply troubling moment during last month's White House press conference in which the president displayed genuine stupidity, willful ignorance, intelligence-insulting dishonesty - or some combination of all three (I bring this up now, because it's the very same argument we're going to hear from supporters of Ben Bernanke in his renomination process). Referring to the recent news that banks like Goldman Sachs reported big profits, he said: "What you're seeing is that banks are starting to make profits again. Some of them have paid back the TARP money that they received, the bank bailout money that they received. And we expect more of them to pay this back. That's a good thing...And we also think it's a good thing that they're profitable again, because if they're profitable that means that they have reserves in place and they can lend. And this is America, so if you're profitable in the free market system then you benefit ." (emphasis added) Yeah, sure - economically speaking, it's a great thing when a business makes a product or delivers a service and is able to make a profit from that endeavor in a free, unsubsidized market. However, that's not what's going on in the financial industry...at all. As Matt Taibbi noted a full week before Obama's press conference, "this is not free-market earnings but an almost pure state subsidy." In a TrueSlant article that followed his original Rolling Stone gem, he breaks down all the subsidies and handouts the financial industry engineered for itself outside of just the TARP bailout . He concludes: One of the most hilarious lies that has been spread about Goldman of late is that, since it repaid its TARP money, it's now free and clear of any obligation to the government - as if that was the only handout Goldman got in the last year. Goldman last year made your average AFDC mom on food stamps look like an entrepreneur... Taken altogether, what all of this means is that Goldman's profit announcement is a giant "fuck you" to the rest of the country. It is a statement of supreme privilege, an announcement that it feels no shame in taking subsidies and funneling them directly into their pockets, and moreover feels no fear of any public response. It knows that it's untouchable and it's not going to change its behavior for anyone. And it doesn't matter who knows it. So in light of the evidence Taibbi lays out - evidence that has been reported in the business press for the last many months - it's clear President Obama's claim that the big banks are back to being "profitable in the free market system" is stupid, willfully ignorant, or dishonest, because they're quite obviously operating inside the opposite of a "free market system." Their profits are a direct taxpayer subsidy. Is that a "good thing?" Well, I guess it's a "good thing" that after all the subsidies, the banks didn't report more losses. However, I'd prefer the phrase "the absolute least that should have happened" to "good thing." Why? Because the idea that they did something right or smart or brilliant or moral or newly responsible by generating their recent profits is absurd. Had they been given so much taxpayer cash and not reported a profit - that would have been an embarrassment. Put another way, there was almost no possible way for the banks to report anything other than profits when they were the recipients of so much taxpayer cash. The president praising them for being "profitable in a free market system" is like him signing legislation transferring $1 million from the U.S. Treasury into my bank account, and then a month later, sending me a letter of commendation for having mustered the brilliance and hard work to earn $1 million. OK, fine, you get that this isn't a free market. But you're still wondering about motive. Why would Obama go on national television and tell the American public that big bank profits are a "good thing" like any other endeavor that is "profitable in the free market system?" What motive might he have? I'd guess defending Wall Street and the ongoing subsidies/bailouts. Remember, Obama is the guy who raised more campaign cash from Wall Street than any other candidate in American history - and he was the guy who played a pivotal role in passing the bailouts in the first place. And while, sure, it's seems like a positive that Obama wants financial "reform," we don't really know what "reform" means. It could mean nothing - or, based on administration proposals to actually put more power into the very secretive agency that allowed the mess to happen, it could mean an even worse regulatory system. So it's entirely possible - if not probable - that Obama is just doing his part to tamp down popular anger at financial firms and the bailouts so as to help prevent any kind of serious regulatory reform and/or political backlash against Wall Street. I mean, the guy is a smart guy - he of all people knows that the banks are not earnestly generating profit in a "free market." The fact that he can't even bring himself to acknowledge that and provide some straight-talk to the American people about such an obvious reality suggests an ulterior motive. More on Ben Bernanke
 
Brooklyn Paper: Meet The Other Mayors Of Brooklyn Top
Bloomy ain't the only mayor in town. Brooklyn is a borough of neighborhoods, and almost every one of them has its own un-elected mayor in charge of everything from hanging Christmas tree lights to negotiating complicated rezonings -- all without any official power.
 
Craig Crawford: The Best Kennedy Legacy Top
I am honored and proud to have written an upcoming book with the incomparable, indefatigable and relentless Helen Thomas . With no reservations we concluded that John F. Kennedy was the best of our presidents in recent times. Here's what we wrote: "Why do we say John Kennedy was our best president? Sure, there is a case to be made for others. But we make a fine distinction here between our best and our greatest presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. It was not just that Kennedy put the nation on a path toward racial harmony -- one that Lyndon Johnson advanced with the passage of civil rights legislation. It was not just that Kennedy and his elegant wife, Jackie, opened the doors of the White House to artists, musicians and other icons of our culture. It was not just that JFK was telegenic at the dawn of the television age. Kennedy knew how to embody, nourish and advance what it means to be an American. The rest of the world looked at Kennedy and saw all Americans in a different way. They saw that America was the future, that our Democracy and respect for civil rights was a path for all nations to follow willingly -- and not just because we had the most weapons. At a time when the threat of nuclear war was real and among us, Kennedy initiated the idea of negotiating treaties to curb the proliferation of weapons. Until then, world history had been all about building new generations of weapons and using them. For the first time, leaders of great powers stepped back from the brink and broke the vicious cycle. Plenty of weapons have been made and used since, but Kennedy created an ethos among nations that, while there have been lapses, continues to this day. That next generation of weaponry, the massively destructive powers of nuclear bombs, remained sheathed for the generation that followed him. Kennedy put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Let us hope and pray that it stays there. In announcing a test-ban treaty with the Soviet Union in 1963, Kennedy said it best, that the peace he sought was 'not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.' To complement the hard bargaining with our enemies, Kennedy created the Peace Corps, which is still a fixture in our global reach. He understood that the world needed more than our military power to follow our lead. He called upon young people to enlist for a different tour of duty, to bring food, medicine and education to impoverished nations. For such a young man and a new president, Kennedy was noticeably cool under pressure. During the Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviet Union's installation of bombs in our neighborhood sparked fears of a nuclear conflict, Kennedy managed the challenge to a peaceful resolution. After Kennedy's assassination, then-President Johnson talked to reporters about what he had observed during JFK's marathon White House meetings to handle the Cuban missile crisis. There were many Washington veterans present, some who had been serving in powerful jobs when Kennedy was a teenager. But America had never faced such a direct threat to its security so close to our shores and many of the old pros were unsure about what to do. 'Kennedy was the coolest man in the room,' Johnson said. 'And he had his thumb on the nuclear button.' Since Kennedy was in office, much has been written to denigrate his personal life. The press corps certainly looked the other way during his tenure, choosing not to pursue rumors about affairs in keeping with the tradition of his times that politicians' private lives were out of bounds unless they clearly affected service to their country. Such a quaint rule is long gone, and today Kennedy would not enjoy that zone of privacy. Despite any personal failings, Kennedy's legacy as a visionary leader is intact. It is best symbolized by inspiring the country to walk on the moon. But it was more than a symbol. Kennedy's challenge to send astronauts to the moon, which was met in less than the ten years he set forth, ushered in an era of technological advance that prepared the nation for the computer age. While born in the need to compete with the Soviets in space, going to the moon turned a corner at just the right moment in history. Nations throughout history perish or flourish based upon how well they progress into a new age. America mastered the industrial age in the early 20th Century and, thanks to Kennedy's appreciation for the future of science, we mastered the technological age. This is what our best presidents do. They prod us forward. They nourish our best instincts. They do not just lead our government. They lead us, make us better and, as a result, make us a stronger country." -- "Listen Up, Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted Your President to Know and Do," by Helen Thomas and Craig Crawford ( Coming in October from Scribner ) More on Nuclear Weapons
 
Atom Cianfarani's Green Roofs Are Two Of The Smallest In City Top
Green roofs have become all the architectural rage these days, with each new one claiming to be the biggest of such-and-such area, type, whatever. But you hardly hear of the smallest green roofs. Atom Cianfarani, a Brooklyn artist, introduced what are probably among the tiniest green roofs in New York City Wednesday in her Brooklyn public art exhibit, "Welcomed Guests," as part of a Department of Transportation urban art program.
 
Nouriel Roubini: How We Can Escape The Spend-And-Borrow Economy Top
In the last few months the world economy has been saved from a near-depression. That feat has been achieved by a range of extraordinary government stimulus measures: In the U.S. and in China, and to a lesser extent in Europe, Japan and other countries, governments have pumped liquidity, slashed policy rates, cut taxes, primed demand and ring-fenced and back-stopped the financial system. All of this has worked, but at a cost. Governments have been spending and borrowing like never before. The question now is: how do they stop? More on The Fed
 
Ben Cohen: Ted Kennedy Rescues Us From Michael Jackson Media Orgy Top
The revelation that Michael Jackson's death was ruled a homicide threatened to derail media attention on the vitally important healthcare debate. One could almost hear the cogs begin to turn at CNN/Fox/MSNBC as they geared up for a media love fest that would have them pour millions of dollars into covering MJ's still unburied body. And then, as if by divine intervention, a man intimately intertwined in America's deeply divisive healthcare debate, swooped in and rescued the country from hours of relentless speculation by 'experts' on celebrity deaths. Sadly, Senator Ted Kennedy rescued the debate by dying, but he saved it nevertheless, and the country owes him a debt of gratitude for his final act of public service. In America, the media can usually focus on one thing, and one thing only. When a D-List celebrity with large breasts dies, you can forget foreign wars, poverty or political corruption. The public's insatiable curiosity with everything celebrity is fed, nurtured, and exploited by a media system interested only in profit. But sometimes, and it really is only sometimes, the media's relentless focus on a single, personality based issue can reap unintentional rewards. The 24/7 coverage of Senator Kennedy's death will swing debate back to healthcare, because that was the main focus of his life. And because Kennedy was so adamant that there should be a public option, it may actually inspire the chronically cowardly Democrats to fight for it. "His death absolutely will stiffen the spine of the Democrats to get something this year for this extraordinary giant in Senate history," said Howard Dean. And he may well be right. The prospect of a half-assed bill without a public option passing after the death of Senator Kennedy would be too much for the Democrats to withstand politically, and the progressive wing would never forgive the Centrists, making future collaboration virtually impossible. So Ted Kennedy's final act may be the very thing the Democrats need to unify themselves, stop debating with the Republicans, and pass a meaningful bill that would bring affordable healthcare to the public. And if they do, we'll have Senator Kennedy to thank for it. Ben Cohen is the Editor of TheDailyBanter.com and founder of BanterMediaGroup.com More on Michael Jackson
 
Stephen Rickard: Fix the Field Manual Top
Every time we think we know how bad it was we learn it was worse. The newly released CIA interrogation instructions paint a graphic picture of what "enhanced" techniques looked like in practice -- naked, shivering prisoners wearing soiled diapers being slapped and slammed repeatedly into walls. And that's just the instructions. No wonder the CIA destroyed the interrogation videotapes. The instructions demonstrate powerfully why President Obama and the Interrogation Task Force deserve high praise for making a decisive break with these sordid Bush Administration practices and concluding that there is no legitimate need for interrogation techniques that go outside of the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation. The Field Manual bans a number of forms of torture, like waterboarding. But more importantly it permits only a set of specifically described, tried and true, non-abusive techniques. It contains these essential protections against torture: It's a single standard for the whole US Government. It effectively bans all techniques not specifically described and authorized. It's public. The Field Manual contains one other critical protection -- the "Golden Rule." It tells interrogators to ask themselves, "Would I want this technique used on a captured American?" If not, don't use it. We owe a debt of gratitude to the mostly unheralded people who fought hard inside the Bush Administration and the military to preserve this and other core elements of the Field Manual. But like so much else the Field Manual did not escape the Bush Administration unscathed. When the Administration revised the Manual in 2006 it deleted key policy statements. These included the observation, now endorsed by the Interrogation Task Force, that "[e]xperience shows that the use of prohibited techniques is not necessary to gain the cooperation of interrogation sources." The Bush Administration also deleted the important if obvious statement that torturing others may "place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors." These points should be restored. More importantly, the Bush revisions created at least three critical problems which the Obama Administration must fix: The Manual now approves sleep deprivation. Appendix M of the Manual ("Restricted Interrogation Technique - Separation") unfortunately steps on the treacherous terrain of creating special rules for special prisoners, including sleep deprivation -- a clearly illegal technique. Appendix M needs to be immediately deleted. The Bush Administration deleted clear prohibitions against sleep deprivation and stress positions which the old Manual explicitly called "torture." That language should be restored. The revised 2006 Manual appears to have been carefully edited to avoid unequivocal condemnation of most of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques. They should be expressly prohibited. Few people have focused on this last point. As is well known, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Bush Justice Department wrote several "torture memos" defending the legality of about a dozen abusive interrogation techniques. These included the "attention grasp," slamming prisoners into plywood walls, the "insult" and "belly" slaps, "cramped confinement," wall standing and other stress positions, water dousing and cold, sleep deprivation, nudity and waterboarding. All of the "enhanced" techniques are implicitly banned by the Field Manual because none of them are approved for use (with the important exception of sleep deprivation in Appendix M). But what is very striking about the revised 2006 Field Manual is that almost none of them are explicitly banned. It strains credulity to think this was an accident. Language in the old Manual clearly banned wall standing and other stress positions. It was deleted. The old Manual called sleep deprivation "torture." That was deleted. Rather than banning the use of cold, the 2006 Manual only prohibits causing "hypothermia" consistent with OLC limits on using cold. The 2006 Manual prohibits "beatings ... or other forms of physical pain." But it doesn't flatly ban assaults, which is critical because the OLC memos argue at great length that the authorized physical assaults - slapping, grabbing, walling and others - were intended to cause shock and not "pain." The 2006 Manual does not ban using water or cramped confinement. In fact, waterboarding and nudity are probably the only "enhanced" Bush Administration techniques that John Yoo, principle author of the Bush "torture memos," would concede are expressly banned by the 2006 Manual. But these are the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule. By 2006 both had already been abandoned by the Administration. President Obama has taken a vital step. But he needs to immediately shore up the foundation of his new interrogation policy by fixing the Field Manual. More on Harsh Interrogations
 
Obamas' Martha's Vineyard Vacation Day 5: President Bikes Without A Helmet, Family Visits Gay Head Lighthouse (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
The first family did a little Martha's Vineyard tourism on Thursday, beginning with some biking on Lobsterville Beach in Aquinnah. Along for the ride were Konrad Ng, the president's brother-in-law, his daughter Suhaila, family friend Eric Whitaker, and a few other unidentified children. Everyone wore helmets except President Obama, and the first lady revisited the colorful madras shorts she wore to walk Bo in mid-June . Would you like the president to wear a helmet? Vote in the poll below. The Obamas and their companions then took time to enjoy the view at the Gay Head Lighthouse, also in Aquinnah. PHOTOS: Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook ! More on Photo Galleries
 
Naazish YarKhan: Writers Conference for Teens and Twenties? You bet! Top
If athletes are being recruited out of high school, where are the talent scouts for teen and tweeen literary stars in the making? Well, now there's finally a conference where aspiring writers can learn something and meet agents too! Yours truly will also be presenting one of the workshops.   Teens ‘N Twenties Writers Conference (TNT) to be held Sept 19 in Indiana, reflects its dynamic abbreviation! This inaugural conference brings together authors, agents, editors and publishers from throughout the country to share their vast knowledge with the writers who will chronicle and change the world — authors between the ages of 13 and 30. Between workshops, conversations with other authors and discussions with faculty members, writers conferences provide vital networking and social support and encouragement for the often solitary world of writing. Writers might meet a future editor, publisher or agent! The conference will open at 9 a. m. with a motivating keynote address by Robert Yehling , author of The Write Time . Following the keynote, participants will head to one of four workshops that will take place in each of four 75-minute sessions. Over the course of this single day, participants will take in presentations that include the secrets of getting published, working with agents, freelance writing, novel building, universalizing personal experiences, songwriting, playwriting, using writing as leadership and service, socially conscious poetry, and crafting a writing career. Workshop facilitators will offer their lifetime of experience and share their love of writing, while providing invaluable tips and materials. During the day, agent Verna Dreisbach will be available for private appointments with young authors who have material ready to be considered for publication.  
 
Guess The Celebrity Daughter, 16 (PHOTOS) Top
This famous guy has five children, one of whom was out shopping in London on Thursday and got snapped by Getty photographers. The lovely girl, 16, has her name revealed in the slideshow below, so click through to find out who her dad is. PHOTOS: More on Photo Galleries
 
Pres. Paul Kagame: Information Technology Means No More Excuses Top
Information and communication technology has changed how nations grow, and live with one another. For one thing, the world has fewer excuses for intolerance and poverty. First, there is a global awareness of national events -- for example, in China and Iran -- that are due to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and relatively inexpensive access to technology. These moments in history are captured and diffused to remote corners of the world, even as the events unfold. Second, this is the era of total global competition for raw materials, financial capital, skilled workers, and market access. The competition is intense and is characterized by discontinuous leaps in the productivity and prosperity of hundreds of millions of people, but also the exclusion and deprivation of billions of their brothers and sisters. The difference between these two experiences is access to information technology, and the strategic possibilities and self-determination such access provides. Competition, for those who are prepared, for those who have a safe and stable place to live, and who possess skills, fosters their creativity and spurs initiative. Those who are ready for this new world embark upon a sea of opportunity, innovation, and affluence. For those nations and people who are not prepared, who lack knowledge and resources and access, competition will be cruel and debilitating, and can even effect their dignity. Inability to compete with technological competence will compel billions of people into a survival stride of long hours and degrading work, sometimes far from their homes, driven to exhaustion, dropped to their knees to beg on behalf of spouses and children for shelter, medical care and rations of food. In an age such as this, "poverty" goes beyond the lack of clean water, safe food, and shelter; it is also the exclusion from powerful networks of learning, production, and trade. The power in information technologies is that there are fewer excuses for nations to exclude themselves from these powerful networks and to mire their citizens in poverty. For those nations who stand outside the domain of technology, denied access by lack of education or resources, blocked by policies that are outdated and unjust; the future seems devoid of hope for positive change, for upgrading one's own life, for improving the possibilities of one's family. And, just seeing what others have, and can do, when one does not have these possibilities, can destroy hopes and aspirations for some, with extreme consequences for all of us. This last decade was a communications revolution on the African continent, which affected large cities and small villages, the rich and poor alike. Between 1995 and 2005, over twenty five billion US dollars were invested in ICT in Sub-Saharan Africa, led by African private operators and investors. African mobile phone companies have become regional and even global players -- something that our continent has not been known for in the past. There is hardly any sector on our continent that has not benefited from this communications revolution, including the strategic sectors of health and education. Even small growers and local entrepreneurs have been greatly impacted by the ICT-led revolution in Africa -- mobile phone-based exchanges link the buyer and seller with market data, which eliminates unnecessary journeys, stabilizes prices, and allows our growers to capture more value. And the result is that Rwanda grew at 11.2 percent last year. More importantly, we did that while wages in key sectors grew up to 30 percent each of the last eight years. We sell our coffee to Costco and Starbucks, and we created a tourism experience that attracts some of the world's most experienced travelers. We have even entered into preliminary discussions to host state-of-the-art infectious disease, genome sequencing, and deep computing research capabilities. Because of ICT, the world has come into a time of global transparency the likes of which none of us has ever seen. When bloodshed cried out for global intervention in our nation's past, it was possible for some to excuse their lack of intervention by their ignorance. They did not know, they said. It is ICT, above all else, that has taken away this excuse from all global men and women of good will. Technology has, forever, lifted the shroud of silence that, at one time, obscured heinous acts of a few deranged men perpetuated upon helpless, anonymous, and disenfranchised millions. This is the era of total global and near-costless communication. In Rwanda, we are preparing ourselves by creating networks of learning, production and trade, to connect even our most remote citizens to worldwide networks of prosperity. Rwanda has embraced competition and technology as forces for positive change. The former compels us to be creative and to invest, and the latter enables us to have high hopes and unique aspirations, holds the very promise of our self-determination, and removes the excuse, forever, of those who might cloak themselves in the shibboleth, "We did nothing, because we did not know." President Paul Kagame was a recipient of a 2009 World Technology Award.
 
James Denselow: Lebanese Politics in the Post-Bush Era Top
The shift in allegiances of Lebanon's chameleon-like Druze leader has sent tremors through the country's political system For almost three months the headlines of Lebanon's papers have told a similar story of the deadlock in forming a cabinet. The optimism that followed the victory of the March 14 alliance - made up of the Progressive Socialist party (PSP), the Future Movement and others - in June's elections has been lost in the maze of internal and external politics. Arguably one of the most significant turning points can be attributed to an astonishing shift in the allegiances of the PSP leader, Walid Jumblatt, on 2 August - from seemingly being Syria's arch-enemy in Lebanon to heading back into the Damascene fold. The ramifications of Jumblatt's departure from the (Saudi and US-backed) March 14 alliance continue to send tremors through the country's fragile political system. If Lebanon can be said to represent a microcosm of the Middle East's politics, then Jumblatt can be described as a bellwether of prevailing trends in political power. Indeed, he described himself as "an exceptional and independent case". His defection is evidence of the death of the Bush conceptual framework for the Middle East that divided the area into "moderates" and "extremists". The battle lines were drawn between a US-supported alliance of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Jordan, Egypt, Fatah Palestinians and the Lebanese March 14 alliance versus Iran, Syria, the Lebanese March 8 alliance and Hamas. Previously Jumblatt decided to side with the aggressive new US neocon administration at a time in which Bush's "you're either with us or against us" approach left little room for compromise. Yet the wave of change promised by Bush's interventions in the Middle East crashed on the bloody rocks and rubble of Iraq, leaving Lebanon increasingly isolated. The departure of the Syrians, the setting up of a tribunal after the assassination of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri and the recent election victory of the March 14 group suggested that serious change had been brought to Lebanon. But the series of assassinations of anti-Syrian figures and in particular the US impotence in the face of Israel's month-long mauling of the country's infrastructure in 2006 (which was estimated to put the country back some 15 years) was a reminder that the US was a part-time player in the Lebanon arena, whereas it is the Syrians who have the long game. The new US approach to the region is a realist one characterised by its focus on dialogue with its enemies. The warming of relations with Syria in particular, with reports suggesting that a US ambassador to Damascus will be appointed shortly, has forced Jumblatt to significantly adjust his alliances to better protect his sect. In announcing his flip-flop, the chameleon-like Druze leader spoke of his regret over the alliance with US neocons, describing 2006 meetings he had in Washington as a "black mark". Yet his resume is a testimony to his ability to adapt interests to power regardless of its source. After all, this is the man who was forced to become leader of his sect at 27 when his father was assassinated by the Syrians, yet formed an alliance with Damascus in 1983, a year after he reached out to the Israelis when they invaded in 1982. Jumblatt's Druze fiefdom is located in the Chouf Mountains just south of Beirut. The Middle East's mountains are filled with minority groups who have fled from persecution from whatever majority existed in the political framework (be it pre- or post-Ottoman, colonial or post-colonial) of the time. Jumblatt's base of about 200,000 Druze is surrounded by Shia communities allied to Syria, and whereas US policy towards Syria may oscillate, Syria will always be Lebanon's neighbour with a myriad of interconnections between the two states. What is more, a series of crucial events occurred during the Hezbollah takeover of the Beirut streets last year. While media attention focused on what was happening in the capital, brutal fighting was going on in Chouf between Hezbollah and Jumblatt's Druze PSP forces. Following the killing and mutilation of two Hezbollah supporters by the PSP, a convoy of Hezbollah vehicles hellbent on exacting revenge ran into a prepared ambush on the outskirts of Shuwfat. In the battle that followed, anti-aircraft guns and RPGs were used and dozens were killed on both sides, leading the combatants' respective leaders into an emergency dialogue to prevent a battle escalating into a war. Ultimately the incident exposed Jumblatt and the Druze's vulnerability. While the Hariri killing highlighted that even the most protected individuals can be targeted, the prospect of taking on Lebanon's dominant military force (Hezbollah) in open conflict was a bridge too far when combined with the changing winds of international policy. In his history of modern Lebanon, Fawwaz Traboulsi observed that "the Lebanese entity was to be periodically reproduced by means of a compromise between the dominant regional and international powers". It would appear that Jumblatt's change of direction is a symptom of the new compromise of the Obama era towards Syria. What this means for the future of Lebanon will become clearer once its tortuous cabinet negotiations are finally resolved.
 
Mike Lux: The "We Can Do Health Reform Without Taking on the Insurance Industry" Argument Top
There are a lot of folks in the conventional wisdom, establishment-oriented Democratic circles that are trying the sell the argument that reform without a public option is still big, important, transformational health care reform. I totally get why they are doing it, and even have some sympathy for what they are trying to achieve: worried that we can't get a public option bill out of the Senate, they are scrambling to make it seem like whatever passes isn't a failure or disappointment. The latest example is Third Way's Roll Call op-ed, " Don't Pass on the 'Next New Deal'" . The folks at Third Way know how to make an argument -- and what they say sounds reasonable enough -- that if we regulate insurers to stop the worst things about our current system, that will still be a big improvement in health insurance rules. What I fear instead is another bill like Kennedy-Kassebaum which, as I have written before , was supposed to solve some of the same insurance problems like people losing their insurance when they switched jobs, or being deprived for pre-existing conditions -- all of which continues to happen. Another bad outcome would be that we get something like the Massachusetts health plan , which passed with a lot of hype a few years ago. It's not working very well, though, as way too many people can't afford to sign up for coverage, and the costs are quickly spiraling out of control. These two pieces of legislation are failing because of the same problem: neither one took on the power of the insurance industry. These two bills, both passed with great fanfare in the thoroughly bipartisan fashion, are not working because they provide no check on insurance industry power, no competition and no reason for insurers to control their costs -- which, by the way, is exactly why they passed so easily with such big bipartisan support. Remember, insurance companies are granted exemption from anti-trust laws by the McCarran-Ferguson Act . A very small number of them have overwhelmingly market power in huge parts of the country. Their rates are unregulated by the federal government. And they have enormous political power to go along with their massive market power. What my friends at Third Way don't mention is that the insurance industry has happily signed off on all the regulatory changes mentioned above, just as they supported Kennedy-Kassebaum and the Massachusetts health bill. They know that with all the market and political power they have, without anti-trust or federal rate regulation to worry about, without competition from a public option, they can raise rates as much as they want and probably write loopholes into the regulations that they agreed to so that they will be easier to slide around. This is the simple fact that has made progressives in the House draw a line in the sand in terms of keeping a public option in the final bill: without the public option check on private insurance, there will be no check on insurance company power to set whatever rates and rules they want to, and health reform will not work. A bill with no check on insurance company power, with no competition for insurers, will drive health care prices higher and will fail to solve the real problems we have in how insurance companies treat people. So don't give up on a health care reform bill that keeps insurance companies honest, my friends at Third Way and my other friends in the DC establishment. In spite of all the doom and gloom of the conventional wisdom spinners, we have a path to victory, as long as we don't give up and decide we don't have the courage to do what needs to be done and take on the insurance industry. If we do what the President wants, and have competition and choice so that we keep them honest, we really will have accomplished something that can be compared to Medicare and Social Security. More on Health Care
 
Jeffrey Wasserstrom: NIMBY Comes to China Revisited Top
Many things have happened in the PRC this year that echo phenomena discussed in China in 2008: A Year of Great Significance, a book I co-edited with Kate Merkel-Hess and Kenneth L. Pomeranz (both of whom, like me, are historians based at UC Irvine who sometimes write for the Huffington Post and are co-founders of the China Beat ). The most recent example of a 2009 variation on a 2008 theme has been the renewal of Shanghai protests relating to train lines. As Associated Press reporter Elaine Kurtenbach notes in her valuable dispatch on the latest demonstration , the 2009 agitation has so far been on a smaller scale than the early 2008 one discussed in our book. The most recent protests have also been directed toward a more convetional kind of railway (albeit one that moves very fast) rather than a Magnetic levitation (Maglev) one. Nevertheless, Kurtenbach's summary of the situation (in this case regarding a line that would head out of the city in order to link Shanghai to Hangzhou, as opposed to one that would run through the heart of the metropolis to connect its eastern and western districts) describes a familiar source of discontent. Here's how she puts it: "China's topdown style of governing and state-controlled media allow for scant public input, and increasing affluence has left many residents expecting more opportunities to be heard." The developing situation seems similar enough overall that of the early 2008 anti-Maglev "strolls" (a term used by protesters to suggest a reasonable and non-confrontational call to be heard rather than a militant action) and some other urban struggles of the last couple of years (e.g., the 2007 Xiamen demonstrations trigged by plans to built a chemicle plant) that it seems useful to provide a few links here to commentaries on those events of the recent past. The use of the acronym "NIMBY, standing for "Not in My Backyard," seems appropriate again (it is a term that some of us commenting on the anti-Maglev protests used at the time), since the 2009 railway protests again involve homeowners and renters trying to protect the livability of neighborhoods and sometimes also the health of their children and their property values. If you happen to have China in 2008 handy, you can find a good deal of background reading that helps put the latest railway protests into perpsective. On pages 15-21, for example, you will find two views of Chinese NIMBY protests--protests that, it is worth noting, have sometimes achieved at least some degree of success, delaying if not always derailing (pardon the cheap pun) the development plans to which the demonstrators involved objected. The first of these two pieces from the book that I have in mind is a short commentary on the subject that I wrote in January 2008, which first appeared and is still available online at the Nation's website here , where you will find it accompanied by a Youtube clip of an anti-Maglev demonstration. (Much that I say there dovetails with what others wrote about the subject before or after I weighed in on it, but I think I am still the only one to have placed the Shanghai protests into a historical context that takes in not just the Xiamen ones of the previous year but the actions of rickshaw pullers worried about the introduction of streetcars that threatened their livelihoods early in the 1900s.) The other relevant contribution to China in 2008 I was thinking of is a reprint of an interview that blogger and freelance journalist Angilee Shah did with political scientist Benjamin L. Read, who has been doing important work on homeowners' associations in both the PRC and Taiwan. That interview, which first appeared as a very early China Beat post, can be found online here . Other valuable takes on the phenomenon that are just a click away include: 1) This smart piece on the anti-Maglev protests of early 2008 (again with a YouTube video accompaniment and nods back to Xiamen) by Maureen Fan. 2) This extended analysis of "strolls" and other forms of non-confrontational protests (and their possible impact over the long run) by two social scientists, George J. Gilboy and the aforementioned Read, which appeared in the Summer 2008 issue of The Washington Quarterly. 3) This look at Chengdu protests of May 2008 , with nods back to Xiamen and Shanghai, by Jeremy Goldkorn of the invaluable Danwei.org site, who quotes liberally from a New York Times report but also makes some additional points of his own and lets the interested reader know the characters used for a couple of the terms mentioned (in case they were wondering what "stroll" looks like in Chinese, for example, though alas we do not get his gloss of NIMBY in Mandarin). There are also some interesting comments from readers appended to the piece. 4) This useful report by Jonathan Watts of the Guardian on Beijing NIMBY protests (by people who wore surgical masks to highlight their concern over pollution) in the aftermath of the Olympics. 5) This wide-ranging and thoughtful essay surveying the rise, during the years immediately preceding the Xiamen protests, of various forms of environmental activism, much of which relied on the use of new media of communication of the sort that have figured in all of the actions just mentioned. Assessing the potential of a new "green public sphere," this article was co-written by Guobin Yang (who also deals with many related issues in his important new book on the Chinese Internet) and Craig Calhoun (President of the Social Science Research Council and author of one of the best book-length studies of the Tiananmen Uprising of 1989).
 
Microsoft Slashing Price Of Xbox 360 Top
NEW YORK — Microsoft Corp. is slashing the price of the high-end Xbox 360 console by $100, matching Sony's $100 price cut for the PlayStation 3 last week. Now, both the Xbox 360 Elite and the PS3 will cost $299. The price cuts in both cases are worldwide, though the exact amounts vary by region depending on currencies. Microsoft, which has had three versions of its Xbox 360 available at three different prices, also was to announce Thursday it is phasing out the mid-range, Pro, version of the console. It will be available for $249, down from $299, while supplies last. The cheapest Xbox, the Arcade, which comes without a hard drive, will still cost $199. The price cuts are effective Friday, said David Dennis, a spokesman for Microsoft. Video game companies hope the price cuts will re-ignite sales in time for the holiday rush. For the bulk of this year, the industry has suffered from weak sales – hurt by the recession and lackluster game releases, which have kept consumers waiting to spend money on new titles. The announcement from Microsoft leaves only Nintendo Co. without a price cut for the fall, at least for now. The Wii has cost $250 since its launch nearly three years ago. Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft has sold more than 31.4 million of the Xbox 360 machines globally, compared with 23.7 million PS3 machines sold by Sony Corp. and 52.6 million Wiis. More on Microsoft
 
Colleen Perry: Treating Chronic Pain - There is a Better Way! Top
When it comes to the problem with healthcare in the U.S., I tend to agree with Dr. Andrew Weil that "what's missing, tragically, is a diagnosis of the real, far more fundamental problem, which is that what's even worse than its stratospheric cost is the fact that American health care doesn't fulfill its prime directive -- it does not help people become or stay healthy. It's not a health care system at all; it's a disease management system, and making the current system cheaper and more accessible will just spread the dysfunction more broadly." I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Weil that we can't just keep doing more of the same when it comes to healthcare. The most overlooked reason why Americans are seeking medical treatment in the first place is CHRONIC PAIN. According to the latest figures 50 million Americans -- 17% of the population, suffer from chronic pain. Chronic pain is the #1 reason for missing work, the #1 reason for disability, and the #1 reason patients seek medical care in this country. Attempts to diagnose and treat chronic pain are costing us over 100 Billion dollars per year. Add to that figure, depression, which contributes to chronic pain, affects 30 million Americans (16%) of the population, and costs us $80 Billion a year. (1) And so it seems to me that we must be willing to build a new paradigm when it comes to chronic pain. So, what's the answer? The answer already exists and it's called TMS or tension myositis syndrome. The phrase was originally coined by Dr. John Sarno in the 1970's to describe psychosomatic pain. Psychosomatic does NOT mean that "it's all in your head" or that you are making it up. That is a common misconception among the medical community and lay people alike. What psychosomatic does mean is a mind-body connection, specifically that there are disorders that appear to be purely physical (i.e. back pain), but which have their origin in unconscious emotions. In other words, how we feel emotionally affects how we feel physically. Unfortunately, doctors aren't trained to recognize this in medical school as true, and are therefore not trained in how to treat it. Fortunately, there are more and more fine doctors and healthcare practitioners who recognize the mind-body connection and have very effective means of treatment for their patients. It's not the purpose of this blog to go into explaining TMS as there are many fine books on the subject already in print. (2) My point is to drive home the fact that we cannot talk about reforming our healthcare system without taking into account the billions of dollars that are wasted by the American Medical Association's widespread refusal to recognize chronic pain as a mind-body disorder. Here are some of the conditions that are often mistakenly treated with drugs and surgery only: back pain, neck pain, heartburn, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, ulcers and stomach pains, eczema, migraine headaches, fibromyalgia, insomnia, carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic fatigue, TMJ, repetitive stress injury, shoulder pain, chest pain, pelvic pain, and depression. In fact, there are people who are suffering so badly with chronic pain they are choosing medically induced comas as a treatment option. That's right, COMA! I couldn't believe what I was reading in this month's People magazine; "Suffering from a debilitating neuromuscular disorder called reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), John, 50, is one of about 100 chronic pain patients resorting to a radical new treatment in search of relief- a medically induced coma using ketamine, a surgical anaesthetic and hallucinogen sold illegally as 'Special K.' " Since coma therapy is not FDA approved, patients are sent to Mexico or Germany for the $50,000 procedure which, you guessed it, is not covered by health insurance. What I found most fascinating about the histories of the people profiled for this story is that all of them felt like they had tried everything and were out of options, but not one person mentioned having undergone intensive psychotherapy, or that their doctors had suggested a psychosomatic origin for the pain. The injuries they sustained that resulted in excruciating pain and years in a wheel chair were: falling down rotted stairs and tearing a rotator cuff, and a finger injury and ankle sprain. Now considering these two injuries by themselves does not lead one to think of pain so bad, inducing coma to "reboot" the nervous system is the answer. As a psychotherapist and fellow human being, I sympathize with pain so bad that you want to kill yourself, so you'll try anything...even a coma to find relief. But to try something so controversial and expensive without first trying to understand how emotions and life stressors play a role in your pain is something I have trouble getting my mind around. For $50,000 you could afford to see a fairly high priced therapist or psychiatrist for over 6 years! Seems like it might be a good investment to just check it out before risking paralysis, as was the case with one poor soul. My hope is that the healthcare market will respond to consumer demand. When a "tipping point" is reached of doctors and patients demanding better understanding of the mind-body connection, that's when the way we treat chronic pain will change as well as the way we choose to spend our healthcare dollars. To find out more about TMS and treatment options please visit one of the following websites: www.yourpainisreal.com , www.stressillness.com , www.mindbodymedicine.com , www.tmswiki.wetpaint.com , www.colleenperry.com . (1)Research study by Richard Harris Ph.D. on The Neurophysiology of Mood and Chronic Pain. (2) The Mindbody Perscription , John Sarno MD The Divided Mind, John Sarno, MD They Can't Find Anything Wrong , David D. Clarke MD Molecules of Emotion , Candace Pert Ph.D. Pain Free for Life , Scott Brady MD
 

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)