Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Gilles Dorronsoro: Dispatch from Kandahar Top
In all my visits to Afghanistan since 1988, I have never seen as high a level of distrust and hostility between Pashtuns and other ethnic groups as I have witnessed this year. This contested country has a long history of ethnic tensions, which have only become more acute in recent decades. The old ethnic hierarchy that placed the Pashtuns--the most numerous ethnic group in Afghanistan, at around 40 percent of the population--at the top was only reluctantly accepted before 1978. Once war and internal conflict erupted after 1978, other ethnic groups refused altogether to accept the hierarchy. After the Afghan state's presence in the countryside collapsed, the non-Pashtun ethnic groups--the Hazara, Tajiks, and Uzbeks--were empowered. When the unifying narrative of jihad faded after President Mohammad Najibullah's fall in 1992, political parties capitalized on existing social tensions and resentments to build their bases as representatives of different ethnic groups. During a stay in Kandahar last week, I saw both tribal and ethnic alienation among the local Pashtuns. The zirak tribes, which enjoy working relations with Kabul , control the resources, including development and security forces. The non-zirak are de facto excluded, and thus more likely to support the Taliban. The second level of alienation is vis à vis Kabul, where power is seen to be wielded by non-Pashtun northerners. The election process, which locals widely perceive as rigged, is only fueling the resentment. As a result of the changing balance of power between the different groups, the Pashtuns have suffered discrimination in northern Afghanistan, where they are a minority, and the Taliban is at its weakest. The Afghan media has played a major role in expanding the geographical scope of ethnic and sectarian conflict. Far from promoting common understanding, media outlets have actively fueled resentment in the last few years. Major political competitors, including Jamiat-e Islami head and former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani and the young Afghan-Australian media mogul Saad Mohseni, own TV and radio channels and use them to mobilize their constituents. One TV channel recently accused the Afghan Shi'a of working for Iran and promoting Iran's interests in Afghanistan. The legal boundary between information and defamation is unclear and, in practice, sanctions are limited. Pashtuns are alienated from the central government, which they believe is in the hands of non-Pashtun leaders. Although President Hamid Karzai descends from an aristocratic family in Kandahar, he is often seen as pliant to the will of the United States. And non-Pashtuns resent what they view as favoritism toward the Pashtuns, who allegedly receive the bulk of international money. The alienation of the Pashtuns is a major factor in the Taliban's success in southern Afghanistan , but it could seriously impair the group's progress in the north. The "ethnic question," then, is key for the insurgency: How can the Taliban play on Pashtun resentment in the south and simultaneously broaden the insurgency to include other ethnic groups in the north? To address this dilemma, the Taliban have been using members drawn from non-Pashtun communities who affiliate with them because of their ideological devotion. The strategy seems to work to a certain extent: In Samangan Province, in northern central Afghanistan, the Taliban have found support in the local Tatar community. Uzbek and Turkmen militants (and some militants from Uzbekistan) give the Taliban a local face in the north. And in the longer term, if the Taliban appear to be winning the war against the international coalition, they will rally more non-Pashtun groups to their cause. More on Afghanistan
 
What We Can Learn About Food Labeling From Europe Top
The GM industry (translation: Monsanto) has opposed labeling from the very beginning, no doubt because of fears that people will reject GM foods. More on Food
 
Peter A. Ubel: Hitler's Testicles and Palin's Death Panels Top
Did you know that Adolf Hitler had three testicles? You didn't? Well, you are right. That is just an urban legend -- one that I have just created. In fact, if anyone tells you that Hitler had three testicles, they are either misinformed or they are lying. Why am I mentioning Hitler's three testicles to you right now? Because by mentioning the myth of his three testicles, and debunking that same myth, I am actually increasing the odds that some time in the future you will mistakenly believe that Hitler really did have excess, um, baggage. Behavioral scientists have discovered that familiarity breeds belief. In research studies, they have exposed people to series of true and false messages, telling people at the same time which of those messages were true or false. Later, they exposed people to these same messages, and asked them whether they thought the messages were true or false. They found that previous exposure to these messages increased the number of people who believed these messages were true, even the messages that had been identified as false. How does this happen? People remember hearing the message ("Hmmm, three testicles, that sounds familiar"), but forget learning that the message was false. Therein lies the brilliance of Sarah Palin's death panels. Having heard this rumor countless times now, casual observers of politics (a.k.a. the majority of the American public) will come to believe that the rumor is true. Lying, unfortunately, can be smart politics. And countering those lies by pointing out their falseness -- that won't be enough, if we believe what behavioral scientists have learned. Proponents of health care reform must not only debunk these myths, they must also create powerful images to counter those myths -- images of how health care reform would improve people's lives. Images that can compete, if not with extra testicles, then at least with Sarah Palin's face book page. To learn more about my new book, Free Market Madness, check out my website: http://www.peterubel.com/. More on Sarah Palin
 
Reality TV contestant sought in death of CA model Top
BUENA PARK, Calif. — Police said Wednesday they want to question a reality television contestant about the death of a former swimsuit model found dead in a trash bin after a stormy relationship with the man. Police say Ryan Jenkins may be heading to his native Canada after reporting the model, 28-year-old Jasmine Fiore, missing Saturday night to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Jenkins, 32, appeared on the reality TV show "Megan Wants a Millionaire." Lisa Lepore says her daughter Fiore married Jenkins in Las Vegas in March but had the marriage annulled in May. However, she says Jenkins convinced her daughter to take him back. Fiore's nude body was found stuffed in a suitcase in a Buena Park trash bin on Saturday. Officials say she may have been strangled. Fiore, of Los Angeles, was last seen alive with Jenkins at a poker game in San Diego. "At this point, he's merely a person of interest, simply because of the suspiciousness of his disappearance. We can't find him," Lt. Gary Worral said. "We find it suspicious that with all the media coverage that he has not made himself available to us," he said. Jenkins, variously described as an architect, real estate developer and investment banker from Calgary, appeared in three episodes of the VH1 reality series "Megan Wants a Millionaire," about a woman seeking to land a wealthy bachelor by putting suitors through their paces, such as designing a marketing campaign for her Chihuahua. On the show, Jenkins was identified as an investment banker with a couple of million dollars in the bank. Lepore says her daughter modeled about two years ago but had left the business. She said Jenkins had his eyes on Hollywood. "He had stars in his eyes," she said. "He was totally jazzed, like, being a star." ___ Jablon contributed from Los Angeles.
 
Lance Simmens: Do the People Really Understand Health Care Reform? Top
It is often difficult when one is close to a problem to step back and envision how that problem looks to those who do not perceive to be ensnared in the problem. It is similarly difficult to realize the complexity of large issues when there are competing issues that seem far more pressing and immediate and affect one directly. No one will argue that we as individuals both consciously and subconsciously perform triage on issues and prioritize them, dealing with the most serious first and the least serious last. What makes the current cacophony of voices that substitutes for dialogue on health care reform so frustrating is that in each of the instances identified above there is a disconnect among a large proportion of the population as to the seriousness of the issue as it affects them. A large number of the electorate fail to realize that the problem affects them in a very direct way regardless of how close they perceive themselves to be involved with it and has a huge ripple effect on aspects of their lives that they feel are unconnected. Make no mistake about it, this is a complicated and complex issue, but no more so than climate change and to his everlasting credit Al Gore has educated millions and millions of people worldwide about the importance of this largely scientific phenomenon to their personal lives. Sometimes we need to simplify in ways that seem elementary. Let me attempt to do so in a way that may help the public to become further engaged in an issue that is of tremendous long-term importance not only to them personally but to the society as a whole. I would like to ask a series of questions that need to be answered in the clearest way possible so as to craft a message that may strike the appropriate chord. And remember, as important as it is to ask the right questions, it is every bit as important to shape the answers in a clear, concise, and understandable form. First, is there a need for health care reform? Why? And specifically, what is it in the current system that needs to be reformed? Incredibly, there appears to be confusion as to whether or not the current system is indeed in need of reform. I know to many of us it appears we have crossed that bridge long ago, but evidently not. Hence, officials and others can begin their arguments with the premise that this is the finest health care system in the world, so why fix what ain't broken? Second, what are the best ways to fix our health care system? How exactly would that affect me directly? What would change for me if we put this fix into place? Third, can we control health care costs that are spiraling out of control by fixing the system? How will this occur? What does it mean for me, both as an individual and as a contributing (read tax-paying) member of society? Fourth, what exactly are the goals of the current health care system? Should we institute a better set of goals? What are the actual outcomes of the current system? Can we effect a better set of outcomes? How will these outcomes affect me as an individual? Fifth, please outline everything, I mean everything, in terms of what it means to me. I need to know exactly how my life will change and why it will be better. If it is better for me, it must be better for everyone. Now if all this sounds like it is a little me-centered, it is. And unfortunately, that is the only language we Americans seem to be able to relate to, at least those who are currently spewing the ill-informed spittle that is being voiced and covered at these town hall meetings or that is being propagated by the conservative opposition forces. I fear that sometimes we give the populace far too much credit for being well-versed on the issues. For instance, single-payer system, public option, co-ops, even though they may seem to be evident on their respective faces, far too many seem confused, and who among us would feel comfortable explaining the differences in ways that would not force average people's eyes to glaze over? Keep it simple stupid (KISS) would be well employed here. We must first show unequivocally that the patient, in this case our health care system, is very ill. Strange thing, when people are seriously ill they care little about how they get better, only that that is the ultimate outcome. It seems to me that far too few people are either aware or accepting that the patient is ill, seriously ill. Thus, this must be our first and most prominent task. Given the time table for action it does not appear to be too late to employ such a simplification strategy. Given our failure to succeed in reforming the health care system it seems imperative that we take the time to lay the proper foundation for this debate and in many instances we need to fill in the cracks of the current foundation, one that is permeated with misinformation and deception. The opposition forces are strong, but the forces for change are stronger. We must arm these forces for change with arguments and rationales that are understandable and persuasive. My guess is that if understood and conveyed correctly, they will be persuasive.
 
Chicago Sued Over Parking Meter Privatization Deal Top
Chicago's much-maligned parking meter lease deal is getting a fresh beating. The Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization , a good government advocacy group, filed suit against the city and state in Cook County court Wednesday on the grounds that the 75-year, $1.15 billion parking meter lease deal illegally uses taxpayer assets to benefit a private company. The suit, which names Chicago Comptroller Steve Lux, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes and Secretary of State Jesse White as defendants, also claims the city lacks the standing to lease public streets and deploy taxpayer-funded city workers on behalf of a private company. "This a horrible deal for Chicago taxpayers," the IVI-IPO's Owen Brugh said at a press conference Wednesday. "But IVI-IPO intends to hold the city accountable. Even the city of Chicago has to follow the law." The suit seeks to have the deal overturned, though city lawyers have made it clear that "killing the deal is practically impossible," according to Mick Dumke's paraphrasing of their statements in the Reader .  
 
Angel Gibson: The Touching Point Top
Recently I opened a beautiful card and found myself hungrily reading the few words that my friend had squeezed in between the printed greeting. Just seeing her familiar handwriting evoked her essence, as if she was a hologram springing out from the card. I wanted to hear and see more from her. As I looked at the card, I flashed back years to a time in my life when there wasn't email, instant messaging or text messaging. Just pen and paper, and the hardest decision to make was what kind of pen, paper and envelope would I use. Sometimes it was just lined paper pulled from my three holed binder. I'd settle down on my bed, my back up against the pillows with a book on my lap, the note paper positioned on top the book or pad just so. Then I would begin, "Dear..." It might be 15 minutes or an hour later when all I had to say and share was out on these papers. Then it was... how do I sign? Lovingly, sincerely, warmly, cheers!, with all my heart? Folding the pages into the envelope, licking and sealing it shut, feeling the thickness of its contents, I was satisfied that I had given of who I was in those moments. As I addressed the envelope, I was already in anticipation of the letter that surely would be coming my way soon after this one had found its reader. I would hear of their life, their joys, hurts, excitement, challenges, defeats and victories as only they could tell it. And I would savor these over and over. These messages were links to our souls; they were our way of communing and touching our spirits together. Some of these were kept for years. We were not unique in these exchanges as generations of men and women had been doing this kind of sharing. Some of these notes have even been saved and memorialized, such as those poignant glimpses of tenderness and fears exchanged by husbands and wives, children and fathers, lovers and generals during the Civil War. How inspired we are now to listen to the letters written between John and Abigail Adams as he endeavored to get support over in Europe for a union of states in America, and she labored throughout the long years away from her husband to work and hold their land and family together. Private moments that were meant to encourage, lift and sustain each other have been kept and treasured, and now continue on as a legacy and a source of inspiration and sustenance for we who are lucky enough to find or hear them. Yes, I'm delighted to have the medium of the computer to facilitate the business of my life, and even to keep a little finger on the pulse of my family and friends. Still, a note or even letter on the computer is not the same as that note hand-written. The touch is what is important and there is something that transfers onto the paper when the author holds the pen to the paper that isn't as present on the screen. Something unseen yet very much felt and received when the hand holds the paper and the eyes first glance upon the writing. I often hear others express they are lacking in some way in their lives--monies, time, fun, intimacy, companionship. Is it any wonder when so often these days we opt for a text message rather than a phone call, or an e-card instead of a written note of thanks, or birthday wishes. Our touching to each other is getting more impersonal and more removed. I'll hear friends and people around me express fear about abuse of all kinds--child, animal, self--abuse that gets magnified into gang or armies fighting. Underneath the abuse--no matter what kind it seems to be--maybe there's a cry for love, for connection, for touching into the spirit of who we really are to release the stress in our lives. Touch helps connect us. Reaching out and touching to others brings into our lives more richness and fullness. It is even doecumented scientifically that a simple caring touch can bring a greater sense of well-being to the receiver as well as the giver. Touch can be simple...a smile, a "Hi!, a pat on the arm, a pause to listen or answer to a "How Are You?" truly. In the midst of these ever-quickening, multi-tasking moments we can give of our spirits and touch to each other. We can share encouragement, with whom and wherever we are, and make our world inside and around us better and brighter. As the Bell telephone commercials said it for years - and it's still good today - let's "Reach out and Touch!"
 
Hagai El-Ad: "Natural Growth"? There's Nothing Natural About Destroying Israeli Democracy Top
The annals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have certainly charted many triumphant peaks of newspeak. Still, recent weeks seem to somehow have succeeded in yet setting new records in this unfortunate endeavor. Cynicism put aside, we should not be amused. The cost of politicians toying so recklessly with our future is getting dangerously high. If anyone still needs further evidence for the intimate relationship between prolonging the occupation and the weakening of Israeli democracy, consider the recent remarks of Deputy prime minister Ya'alon, calling Peace Now "a virus," shortly after advocating for the resettling of Homesh, describing it as a strategic asset. One may presume Ya'alon understands strategy, being Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs. Enough nonsense. What is, indeed, required of us now is that Inaugural promise for a new era of responsibility . But instead, what we are hearing are the prolonged echoes of a previous era, of misguided recklessness and shortsightedness, combined with a touch of McCarthyism. As an Israeli who has a deep vested interest in the future of my country, I cannot but resist this foolishness and call the bluff of this newspeak for what it is: The potential undoing of my country's future, pre-packaged as patriotism and delivered with much pomp. Here's a slightly more responsible version of reality: many Israelis have grown to realize that the prolonged occupation is immoral, unsustainable, and inconsistent with a democratic Israel. For Israel's sake, they shudder at the thought of resettling places like Homesh. Further, many Israelis adamantly reject what has become the cornerstone of the prolonged occupation: The separate and discriminatory system that makes the occupation a possibility for the Israeli settlers and an endless human rights violation for the Palestinians. In other words: The price of "natural growth" and the other excuses-du-jour will be the unnatural further demise of Israeli democracy, as well as the prolonged suffering of Palestinians living under occupation. But the buck does not stop there. In addition, the kind of growing McCarthyism we're witnessing in recent months is directly linked to the irresponsible evasion of the real questions pertaining to ending the occupation. Prolonging the occupation is immoral and senseless. And so along with the exhaustion of rational arguments for the continuation of what must cease, came the one remaining substitute for a real argument: Dubbing the other guy a traitor. Minister Ya'alon going after Peace Now only follows the IDF going after Breaking the Silence, the Israeli Medical Association going after Physicians for Human Rights, and other similar attacks . All of these attacks against Israeli civil society groups have one thing in common: They never address the issues raised, but instead, as a deliberate strategy, go after those who dare present an alternative take on reality. Truth is, speaking one's mind in a democracy doesn't turn anyone into a "virus". On the other hand, there are great risks for a functioning democracy if a high ranking government minister joins an orchestrated, McCarthy-style, anti-democratic campaign. Being the Israeli optimist that I am, I believe that not only do we deserve better, but further -- that our democratic instincts are stronger than giving in to the outdated fallacies of the past. Prolonging the occupation and trying to paint Israeli human rights activist as traitors isn't patriotism; rather, it is a betrayal of our core democratic principles. To reject this is not being "anti-Israeli"; perhaps it is actually one of the most meaningful ways in which one can be patriotic these days. More on Middle East
 
Barry Sears: Health Care Reform Begins in the Kitchen Top
An article in the August 13, 2009, issue of the Wall Street Journal has made the obvious very clear economically -- most health care costs come with increasing age, especially after age 65. Furthermore, most of these increasing health care costs are in the form of increased prescription drug usage. Good for the pharmaceutical industry; not so good for the growing government deficits that come with increased Medicare financing. So what does the ongoing health care debate say about the increasing poly-pharmacy used by our aging population? Basically nothing. Let me propose a relatively radical solution: To start a drug reduction program initiated by primary care physicians for those presently enrolled in any health care plan. But what will replace the drugs that are being dumped? The answer is an anti-inflammatory diet . Two recent articles in the August 12 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association give us an insight into what the future can hold. The first article indicates that by taking the cheapest drug known (aspirin), individuals with specific colon cancer that expresses pro-inflammatory hormones would have a 30 percent reduction in cancer deaths compared to those who took no aspirin. The reduction in cancer deaths rose to 60 percent if the colon tumor was one that produced excessive amounts of pro-inflammatory hormones. Perhaps not surprisingly, high-dose aspirin has a remarkable ability to reverse diabetes and remains the number one drug to prevent a heart attack even though it has no effect on cholesterol levels. The one thing that links all of these remarkable benefits is that aspirin reduces inflammation. Of course, one problem with aspirin is that it can also increase death rates due to internal bleeding. On the other hand, an anti-inflammatory diet specifically reduces the production of the building block of those pro-inflammatory hormones inhibited by aspirin. Its great advantage is that such a diet has no known side effects. A common name for such an anti-inflammatory diet is the Mediterranean Diet. A more rigorous version of an anti-inflammatory diet is the Zone Diet , which can be considered the evolution of the Mediterranean diet to achieve even greater inflammatory control. The other article in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates people who closely followed a Mediterranean Diet had a 40 percent reduction in the incidence of Alzheimer's compared to those who didn't. Follow a more rigorous version of the Mediterranean Diet (i.e. the Zone Diet), add extra fish oil rich in omega-3 fatty acids (which has additional anti-inflammatory properties) and you have the key for drug reduction of the poly-pharmacy that awaits aging Americans. The bottom line is that increased inflammation is the reason why Americans are using greater amounts of health care resources. It's not that we don't offer the best health care in the world, but the simple fact that Americans are simply sicker at an earlier age that is driving our health-care costs out of control. By using diet as if it were a drug, you can not only reduce the mortality of some real nasty diseases, such as cancer or Alzheimer's, but also remove the driving force that forces Americans to fork over more and more of their income for prescription drugs. Getting people to follow an anti-inflammatory diet is key to reducing inflammation without side effects. To make this happen means providing enough of a financial incentive to primary care physicians to work with their patients to reduce the drug load of the patient. A good pharmacological rule to remember is that every time you reduce the dose of a prescription drug by a factor of two, you reduce the associated side effects by a factor of four. That's real pharmaceutical leverage. To accomplish this means the physician has to spend time working with the patients to alter their diet while simultaneously eliminating various drugs and reducing the dosage of the remaining drugs. That's easy because this is what every patient wants, and it immediately saves out-of-pocket expenses. There will be far improved health care in this two-step approach compared to anything currently being discussed in health care reform debates. For health care reform to be meaningful, it has to start in the kitchen. If that happens, then you can have basic insurance for everyone without breaking the bank. More on Health Care
 
Robert E. Murphy: Vin Scully's Last Innings Top
The news broke quietly last month in the place that he had identified, at the end of a famous broadcast, as "The City of the Angels." After six decades of expressing the piercing drama of the national game more eloquently and movingly than anyone else ever has, he scheduled his last innings with underspoken, indirect comments to a newspaper columnist. "God willing," he would broadcast Dodger baseball for one more season, after which it "makes sense" that he would retire. That famous game was on September 9, 1965, Sandy Koufax pitching in another Dodger-Giant pennant-race. Ninth inning, one out: "I would think that the mound at Dodger Stadium right now is the loneliest place in the world." Then two out, two balls, two strikes on Harvey Kuenn: "Swung on and missed, a perfect game!" We all heard Vin Scully's wonderful voice, undulating in pitch as it informed, entertained and excited, on national television and radio broadcasts during the last half of the 20th century. Like so many others in the '80s and '90s, I would douse the volume of World Series telecasts and turn to the sound of Scully on the radio, when he untypically worked with another commentator. It was not the format he preferred, yet he also did that better than anyone else. I remember his asking Bob Gibson if, great fastball pitcher though he was, he might be less inclined to throw that pitch to a man known to be a fastball hitter. "I might like ice cream," Gibson responded, "but I can't eat a gallon of it." And I waited for the stories. "One of the scariest things I've ever seen was in the old Sportsman's Park in St. Louis, when the late Gil Hodges was settling under a pop foul beside first base, and a fan in the lower stands suddenly flung an empty bottle toward his head." It missed, and "the Quiet Man" of the Brooklyn Dodgers lived to play in their last games and to win an impossible national championship as the manager of the New York Mets. More than anything else, I would wait for him to tell those stories about the Brooklyn Dodgers, whom he covered for eight years in his twenties, and whose last two splendid but twilit seasons will for me always be represented by his resonant and literate sentences. Near the end of 1956 the Dodgers brought up promising, power-hitting outfielder with the evocative name of Don Demeter. He had only three at-bats for Brooklyn, but one of them I watched on an black-and-white Olympic-TV screen, and I can still see the ball flying toward the left-field wall of Ebbets Field, and hear the words in which Scully declared a historic moment: "And the kid has hit one!" Demeter was 21. Scully was 28. I was seven. It shouldn't have surprised me, then, that when, during one of those CBS Word Series broadcasts Vin mentioned Ebbets Field, paused, and parenthetically inserted "dear old Ebbets Field," I nearly began to cry - the way that a college teacher of mine once told me he "wanted to weep" each time that Holden Caulfield mentioned "old Phoebe," his little sister, I 've been told by people who've known him that Vin Scully is a very nice and even modest man, who, for all the years spent in the fishbowl of broadcasting, has tried to guard his privacy and remained reticent about the events of his life, including his spot in the middle of the most wrenching event in the history of American sports, the Dodgers' once unimaginable abandonment of Brooklyn. This spring Curt Smith, a onetime presidential speechwriter who has fashioned a second career writing about baseball and its broadcasters, published a biography of Scully in which its subject had no participation or interest. There are things in this book, aptly titled Pull Up a Chair for Scully's characteristic first-inning suggestion, that I have learned elsewhere and written about in my own recent book: that Vin came of age in Manhattan's Washington Heights, played centerfield at Fordham, was hired by the august Red Barber to air college football, then Brooklyn baseball in a ballpark that he had never seen. But, myself the son of Irish immigrants to New York, I did not know and was intrigued to find out that his mother and father had come together out of County Cavan, that Vincent, his father, had died when the boy was five, and that Bridget, his mother, had afterward sailed with her child back to the old country. And I was reminded, self-indulgent though it may seem, how thoroughly Irish a man is Vin Scully in every feature of his ruddy face, in every word on his descriptive tongue, in every narrative and witty turn of his discourse, in his fondness for poetry and, away from the ballpark, his constant readiness to sing a song. And of course, being Irish, he is reluctant to talk about his personal past, especially the chapters darkened by deep sadness, or, God help us, by any tint of shame. Vin Scully, if he is as decent a man as I think he is, must know that the Dodgers' flight from Brooklyn for 300 acres of central Los Angeles was a shameful maneuver. He must know this although he has basked for half a century in the western sun, embraced and been embraced by the California Southland, become, in fact, one of the most popular personalities who ever lived there. Yet I don't believe that he has ever said a public word acknowledging that shame. This is not to say that it was his. He has always said that he was glad to keep his job, albeit a continent away from all, except for that stint in Cavan, that he had ever known. I do remember once, in a conversation with the New York radio host Jonathan Schwartz, his reference to the emotional difficulty of the move. I liked that fine, but waited in vain for him to offer some further, heartfelt commentary to his New York audience. The shame was mainly Walter O'Malley's, probably the only owner in sports ambitious, duplicitous and greedy enough to uproot the most financially successful franchise in his game. It is not for any man to deny any other man his friends, and Walter O'Malley was more than a friend to Vin Scully. He was, like his actual stepfather, like Red Barber - Scully said so -- a surrogate father to him. Vin apparently loved him, and love has its own rules. And it is not Irish, except maybe for the Playboy of the Western World, to attack your own Da. O'Malley's own father was a ruthless crook, but the son remained close to him while he lived and afterward spoke of him with affection. Walter, for all his well-rehearsed blather, was not a full-blooded Irishman, nor was he, as he liked to call himself, "a Brooklyn man." Scully is the first but not the latter. Both had grown up in other boroughs rooting for the Giants, and, as near as I can tell, Vin never lived in Brooklyn. (O'Malley did.). He had not even visited the borough before 1950, and, sincere and gracious as the memories he expresses may be, it would not surprise me to find that his not set a foot here since 1957. To him the Brooklyn Dodgers are a lovely toy to play with in his memory, an historical artifact owned and coddled by the Dodgers of Los Angeles, not a lost and irreplaceable experience, as they are to their old devotees who may live anywhere but are rooted in Brooklyn. Lately, to my amazement, I have found Vin Scully's voice, lovely still but flatter, more perfunctory now, on the internet. I will keep on listening, and wish that once, before he calls his last pitch, he will hear the better angels of his Irish nature, and say to Brooklyn, "I know that what the Dodgers did to you was awful, and I'm sorry for your trouble." More on Ireland
 
Terry Curtis Fox: Our Existing Public Option Top
Why is it universally accepted that we provide all our citizens a college education but "socialist" to universally provide health care? Why hasn't UMass, the "public option," driven its immediate neighbors Amherst and Hampshire out of business with its lower tuition? Before abandoning the notion of a "public option" in health, can we at least look at public higher education, the closest possible analogy to the original Obama health plan? In most of Europe, Canada, and Oceana, higher education (with a few notable exceptions, mostly business schools) is closely analogous to a single-pay health system. Institutions like the Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge, Trinity, and McGill were subsumed into the public system where they have low (if any) tuition and a merit-based admission system. In America, private institutions remained private, even those (like Cornell, Stanford, and RPI) that were founded on the "service" model of our public universities. Although we think of our public universities today as belonging to the states, they were actually the result of federal action. The Morrill Act of 1862, otherwise known as the "Land Grant College Act," provided for the sale of federal land in order to fund state universities. Fifteen years later, the Hatch Act provided federal money to fund state-university agricultural experimental stations. Just as the Democratic health plan is the result of a perceived urgent need, so the federal government's creation of state universities was a response to a crisis -- in that case, the need for education to fund the country's agricultural and industrial expansion. Unlike what later happened in most of the rest of the industrialized world, private universities remained private, with their governance and fee structure intact. Over the course of a century, the two systems, for better or worse, actually began to resemble each other more: certain public universities (Ann Arbor, Berkeley, UCLA, Chapel Hill) became elite institutions; many private universities became practically oriented. Yet even the presence of extremely elite public universities did not drive private ones out of business, despite a radical difference in tuition. The reason is simple and resonates with what should happen if the public option were adopted: private universities provided benefits that public universities did not. Some (Harvard and Yale being the most obvious examples) conferred a prestigious pedigree along with the degree. Others offered small classes and/or campuses. Others touted more individualized attention while some provided a religious-based education that is barred at public schools. Having found that they could successfully compete for students, private and public universities settled into such comfortable cohabitation that they could actually collaborate. (Indeed, the public and private schools centered around Amherst all tout their interconnection as a selling point.) In health today, the need for a public option is at least as great as the need for public universities in the latter part of the 19th century. And the potential for the survival of private insurance is also fairly great -- if private insurers are willing to innovate and provide a service that the public plan does not. This is, of course, the rub; the reason private insurance companies are spending millions to defeat the public option. Private insurance companies don't want to be good capitalists and innovate. They fear competition because they are in a position where they don't need to provide a better service. There are plenty of roles that private insurance could play. As in Great Britain, they could sell supplemental insurance, capitalizing on precisely the limitations of a public plan they currently criticize. Or they could offer plans with a broader pharmacology than a public plan might offer. They might be willing to pay for services that fall outside the public plan's purview. But to do this, they would have to give up their current business plan: rather than denying coverage at every opportunity, they would have to find ways of providing more or better or different coverage, just as private universities did. No analogy is precisely congruent. Most private universities are not-for-profit institutions while insurance companies are not. That does not mean, of course, that private plans could not be competitive in a blended market. Private insurers would prefer to deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition, but faced with tax breaks, they are more than happy to include everyone in a union or employer-based plan. They still make money (as do those supplemental British plans, which wouldn't exist if they weren't profitable). Even those of us who prefer a single-pay option have to admit that the public/private higher education system in the United States works pretty damn well. Before we abandon the public option, let's remember that. The public university system was built by the federal government in the best civic spirit. The same spirit can transform the country with a public/private health system as transformative and essential as public higher education.
 
Harvard, Princeton Top U.S. News & World Report's College Rankings Again Top
Perennial contenders Harvard and Princeton share the top spot in the latest edition of the influential U.S. News & World Report university rankings. Williams heads the list of liberal arts colleges while Dartmouth wins a new category ranking commitment to undergraduate teaching. The latest edition of the contentious but closely followed "America's Best Colleges" appears online and in print Thursday. Last year, Princeton had surrendered the top spot to Harvard after eight straight years at least tied for No. 1. This year the Ivy League rivals are followed by No. 3 Yale and a four-way tie for No. 4: Cal Tech, MIT, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania. The ranking formula takes account of factors such as SAT scores, peer reputation, selectivity and alumni giving. As usual, there are few major moves up or down among colleges this year, but the rankings remain a hot topic of debate among educators. While few openly embrace the idea of numerically ranking colleges, some call the rankings a helpful consumer tool. But many others consider the practice harmful for both students and colleges. Critics argue rankings pressure colleges to focus on boosting their scores in various categories, instead of improving their teaching. That debate was reignited earlier this year when a former Clemson University administrator described the school's coordinated efforts to move up the list. There are also charges of gaming the system. Clemson's president acknowledged he ranked his own school higher than any other university when he responded to the magazine's peer review questionnaire – a survey that accounts for 25 percent of a school's score. Some critics assume such cheerleading is widespread; the magazine keeps the surveys themselves confidential but says it has safeguards against "strategic voting." It didn't help much: Clemson ranks No. 61 among national universities – the same as last year. U.S. News is the most closely watched ranking of undergraduate programs, but it has a growing number of imitators – with very different ideas about what makes a top college. Rankings recently published by Forbes.com, for instance, had the U.S. Military Academy at West Point ranked first, followed by Princeton and Cal Tech. But further down the list the results were wildly different, thanks to a methodology that places greater emphasis on graduates' debt load and employability (and also, controversially, uses the not-exactly-scientific web site ratemyprofessors.com). So while Dartmouth is the No. 11 university in U.S. News, Forbes.com ranks it No. 98 in a combined category of colleges and universities. Meanwhile, Forbes puts tiny Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia 18 spots ahead of the Ivy League's Brown University. Nor do the top U.S. News universities fare well on a new report card by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an academic group whose causes include stronger general education requirements in traditional subjects like history, literature and the hard sciences. In a report card released Wednesday looking at 100 leading colleges, ACTA gave an "F" to nine of the U.S. News top 20 national universities, while awarding "A"s to five schools: West Point, Texas A&M, University of Texas, University of Arkansas and City University of New York-Brooklyn College. ACTA said it found almost 90 percent of the leading schools fail to require a survey course in American government or history. Just two – the University of Alaska-Fairbanks and West Point – require economics. Meanwhile, the report card not-so-gently mocks courses that are allowed to count for core requirements – offerings like Wesleyan University's "Physics for Future Presidents" and Stanford's "Ki ho'alu: The New Renaissance of a Hawaiian Musical Tradition." The average cost for the five schools that require six core subjects and thus received an A: $5,400. The average cost for those receiving an "F" for no such requirements: $37,700. ___ On the Net: http://www.usnews.com http://www.forbes.com http://www.WhatWillTheyLearn.com
 
Sandra Sanborn: Woman Hid 19 Bags Of Crack In Her Bra Top
QUINCY, Mass. — A woman was arrested after admitting to police that she hid 19 bags of crack cocaine in her bra. Sandra Sanborn was charged Sunday with possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute following a tip to Quincy's police drug unit. Capt. John Dougan said when detectives approached the 33-year-old woman at a Quincy building, she was holding a bag containing crack cocaine in her hand. Dougan said Sanborn then produced 19 more bags tucked away in her bra. Police seized the drugs, two cell phones and an SUV. Dougan said Sanborn is scheduled to be arraigned Monday in Quincy District Court. It was not immediately clear if Sanborn had hired an attorney yet. More on Stupid Criminals
 
Paul Paz y Miño: WATCH: Chevron's Ecuador Problem Forces Andy Rooney to Drop the H-Bomb...Something He Really, Really, Hates to Do Top
We love Andy Rooney and he gets mad at a lot of things (like iPhones or Ali G ). But now he turns his anger at sleazy lawyers, sleazy journalists, and one of the world's sleaziest corporations. In May's 60 Minutes segment " Amazon Crude ," Greg Paulenty explored Chevron Texaco's past operations in Ecuador and the toxic remains left behind. We were all outraged as footage ran of oozing oil pits left by Chevron, children swimming in Chevron's polluted rivers, and families dealing with health problems -- from cancers to miscarriages -- caused by Chevron's dirty operations. This is the reality faced by Amazonian communities in Ecuador that live in the wake of Chevron's human rights catastrophe, a reality that Chevron disputes and refuses to account for. Andy Rooney doesn't like that.... In fact, Andy Rooney hates what Chevron is doing -- leaving 18 billion gallons of wastewater and 17 million gallons of crude oil to pollute Amazonian communities, and then trying to pretend that nothing ever happened. But it doesn't have to be like this. When Andy Rooney was young...kids played in the streets, you knew your neighbors, Mom baked hot, fresh pies while Dad and Jimmy tossed a baseball in the yard...and corporations like Chevron owned up to their mistakes. You can turn back the clock to a happier time, and turn Rooney's hate into love, by learning more about the lawsuit that has Andy and millions of other people enraged. Spread the new Mark Fiore Animation, the 60 Minutes segment , and the new movie "Crude" to your friends!
 
Les Leopold: Why Warren Buffett Must Come Out of the Closet on Taxes Top
In a recent New York Times op-ed , Warren Buffet points out the dangers of the rising U.S. deficit. But in doing so he refuses to point the finger at the obvious cause: the incredible mal-distribution of wealth in our country. Instead, using a climate-change analogy, Buffett worries about a "greenback effect" -- the inflationary impact of printing more money to deal with the deficit which could turn the U.S. into a "banana republic economy." He quotes the famous Keynes passage about how governments can use inflation to "confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens...." Buffett misdirects us by making the problem seem entirely the result of our efforts last Fall to pour money into the economy in order to prevent another Great Depression. He says not a word about the decades of tax cuts on the super-rich, especially the unconscionable gift to the super-rich by George W. that gave our surplus to the wealthy and saddled the government with a trillion dollar deficit. Buffett the billionaire also fails to mention our horrendous income distribution and the role it has played in causing the crisis in the first place. The last time it was this bad was just before the great crash of 1929. Because we destroyed the progressive income taxes that moderately constrained great concentrations of wealth during the post-War period, another great fantasy finance crash emerged. (See The Looting of America for a detailed account of how we got here.) Buffett tells us that by piling up so much debt we are stuck with three bad options: either China and other countries with surpluses buy up our debt, or that we buy up our own debt through increased savings, or we print more money and become a banana republic. He implies that raising taxes will not happen because, "Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election." Even if we do assume that raising taxes on the super-wealthy will "threaten their re-election" (something that may no longer be true), Buffett isn't up for any re-election bids, so why does he pull his punches? This is the perfect time to call for a new progressive income tax scheme on the super-rich. In fact, if we had in place a fair system, there would be no deficit problem at all. Consider the fact that by 2008, the top 400 billionaires in the U.S. averaged $3.4 billion in assets each! Their total net worth was a whopping $1.56 trillion. If we had kept in place the Eisenhower era tax system, the deficit Buffett worries so much about would nearly vanish. We need Warren Buffett to stand up and demand such an income tax, not just hem and haw and hint about it. It's the only way to adequately finance the debt, and it is the best way to prevent the next fantasy finance meltdown. He knows better than anyone that the casino economy is the direct result of too much money in the hands of the few. I trust that Mr. Buffett would be more than willing to pay his fair share to save his country -- he has said as much on more than one occasion (see this report from United for a Fair Economy). If he really led the charge, we might be able to break through our congenital resistance to any and all taxes. As Wall Street gears up to pay itself outrageous sums again, even as we're bailing them out, it's possible that a majority of Americans would see the justice of having the super-wealthy pay their fair share. Maybe, just maybe, even weak-kneed politicians will follow along. Come on Mr. Buffett, do your patriotic duty. Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It , Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009. More on Financial Crisis
 
Thomas Frank: Dissent Commodified Top
The 40th anniversary of the Woodstock music festival has certain pundits in a misty-eyed nostalgic funk for the days when youth culture came of age, challenging conformity, standing up for individuality, and making awesome music before it all got so commercialized. The memory it brought back for me came from the late Trader Monthly magazine, a chronicler of the truculent way of the trading pits and possibly the definitive opposite of the Aquarian spirit. Leafing through an old issue a while ago, I happened across "Cash of the Titans," an accounting of the nation's most successful speculators, in which images of the billionaires were tastefully rendered by none other than Peter Max, the artist once beloved of the Now Generation for his psychedelic posters. Perhaps this coming together of peace, love and accumulation brought a curse to the lips of Woodstock's earnest memorialists. For me, it was a reminder of how seamlessly counterculture and business culture have meshed; how neatly '60s cultural radicalism fit into structures it was supposedly against. By this I do not mean to refer to the many rock stars who have been knighted, or the Cadillacs their music has been used to promote, or the maddening ubiquity of classic rock, which I am starting to suspect is required by some secret agreement to be played over the PA system of every hardware store in the nation until the day the last boomer takes his final toke. I am not talking about "selling out." What I have in mind is something grander: that business embraced the carnival it saw in the muddy hills of upstate New York in 1969 not merely because it wanted to sell things to kids but because coolness, nonconformity and soulfulness expressed something deep and true about capitalism itself. Consider the TV commercials with which Enron used to insist that we question authority, that we use "the chosen word of the nonconformist" and "ask why." Or the TV commercials in which Washington Mutual, before its collapse, told the world how it came up with its brilliant ideas: By running proposals by a captive panel of old-school snob bankers; when this country-club set disapproved, turning up its nose in a way you have learned to hate from a thousand iterations of the same cliché, the unpretentious people from WaMu knew they were on the right track. Think of all the dying industrial cities that have sought to revive themselves by persuading Jennifer and Jason Hipster to relocate their transgressive selves to fake bohemias those towns have constructed. Or all the popular business books narrating this "revolution" or that, declaring the end of the "Organization Man" model, and instructing us to respect the outside-the-box thinker, the maverick with the creative spark. And while the tuned-in and the well-heeled chew whole-grain foodstuffs produced by the hemp-wearing people of authenticityland, Interstate Bakeries Corporation, the maker of Wonder Bread and Twinkies--those symbols of what the counterculture disdained--emerged from bankruptcy earlier this year. As did Chrysler and General Motors, makers of the tailfinned monsters Woodstock Nation disdained in favor of Volkswagen vans. We commemorate Woodstock as the symbolic moment when it began, when the youthful uprising against conformity and soullessness was supposedly pure and untainted. In truth, the counterculture critique was never all that shocking. The reason our advertising people and management theorists love it is because it was in many ways so utterly superficial. After all, if the essential problem with our civilization is conformity, it is an easy problem to solve. It merely requires that new and more authentic products appear all the time and that old products to be showered with scorn, cultural operations that consumer society performs incredibly well. If the problem is a lack of respect for creativity, management theorists stand ready to plaster our cubicles with posters hailing entrepreneurship and risk-taking. Then there are the interesting political byproducts of all this. When commercial culture started to work by laughing constantly at the squareness of Middle America, it brought lots of Middle Americans to a state of simmering rage. They have remained there ever since, a "silent majority" that has rebelled more or less constantly since the late '60s, although not in a way that will ever convince the makers of commercial culture to stop disrespecting their values. As we remember those poignant early days when Boomers took on the establishment, let us also remember that any establishment is lucky to have an opposition like this one. Read other articles in the Opinion Journal: Immigration Out of Sight Why AT&T Killed Google Voice The Death Book for Veterans
 
Ensign: I Did Nothing "Legally Wrong" Top
 
Tom Matlack: Why Men Don't Talk Top
It's not about Oprah or People Magazine or the red carpet or American Idol or even Dr. Phil . Men don't talk because the very vocabulary for day-to-day life has been so dominated by a female frame of reference that we've lost the ability to explain ourselves in any meaningful way. So we dig a deeper and deeper hole as men. It's about Tony Soprano and Don Draper. Only in real life. "Feelings" is a female word used to describe one of thousands of states of mind that a woman goes through on a daily basis. As a devoted husband, madly in love with my wife, the only thing I know for sure is that she's the one. But I have had to become an expert at reading the tea leaves and using my powers as a Vulcan mind reader to anticipate my wife's moods because I am not like her. I'm a guy. I'm all about getting stuff done and not talking about it during the process. My life is like a long to-do list where I am constantly trying to check off the boxes. Walk the dog. Check. Take the kids to the dentist. Check. Make investment decisions. Check. Ride my bike until my heart rate maxes out. Check. I also like to think that I am on some kind of against-all-odds heroic mission in my life, even if its on the tiniest of scales. In my case it has to do with experiencing huge professional success early on in life, going through a god-awfully painful divorce with little kids that shattered me as a man, and then trying desperately to put all the pieces back together again. I have seen the mountain tops but also the gutter. Most guys have. I'm a sucker for come-from-behind stories from the Shawshank Redemption to the Red Sox winning four straight against the Yankees in the 2004 ACLS. It also means when I look into Tony Soprano or Don Draper's eyes and see a good man trying desperately to get out, despite all kinds of depraved behavior, I can relate. I'm transfixed by the moral battle going on in one body. That struggle is what I end up talking to my guy friends most about. Just how to do the right thing as a father and husband even when the cards seem profoundly stacked against you. My theory is that my group of friends and I are not the only ones. At this moment in history guys from Wall Street to General Motors, Sing Sing to Harvard, Boston to Marines in Bagdad are all looking in the mirror asking what the hell happened to the life they had thought they were chasing. Its a moment of national introspection for us men as we re-evaluate what's really important. Some are staying home with the kids, some are changing careers completely, some are re-dedicating themselves to marriage, and some are getting divorced. Some are going green. What unites us is that we each have a story to tell . And we are a lot more similar than we know. We sure as hell don't want to talk about our feelings. But deep down we want to believe we are good guys. And we don't want to be alone. We're fascinated by other guys who are also the real deal, fighting the good fight and winning. So the answer to me is not Oprah for guys. It's guys telling their stories in men's language. About doing right and wrong. About pain and suffering. About violence endured and inflicted. About success and failure. About redemption. About being a father, son, husband and provider. And in the end about the struggle to be a good man.
 
'Social Networks' May Help Save Tasmanian Devils From Extinction Top
Understanding how Tasmanian devils interact may help limit the spread of a disease that threatens to wipe out the wild population, a study has suggested. More on Animals
 
Andy Wilson: Big Oil Astroturf Rally in Houston More Company Picnic Than Grassroots Campaign Top
Yesterday the Public Citizen Texas team drove down to Houston to crash the American Petroleum Institute's Energy Citizen event. Billed as a "grassroots" rally against the cap-and-trade bill currently before Congress, this event was nothing more than a company picnic. About 2500 energy employees were brought by charter bus to the Verizon Wireless Theater, a private location that could be easily secured to keep undesirables out. David, Ryan, and Andy were all denied access, but stealthily dressed in Banana Republic and spectator pumps, our intrepid Sarah was able to blend in with the crowd and slip into the hot dog line. Inside the theater it became evident quickly what a polished, professional event this was. Right at the door you could pick up a bright yellow t-shirt with a clever slogan on it like "I'll pass on $4 gas," "I'm an Energy Citizen!" and "Congress, Don't Take Away My Job!" The same lines could also be found on bumper stickers and the same kinds of cardboard signs you would wave at a football game. In the middle of the arena was a giant action center where employees could voice their disapproval of climate change legislation through a variety of mechanisms. Six or seven computers were cued up with petitions to Sens. Hutchison and Cornyn, and attendees were invited to text JOBS to ENERGY (363749) to get involved. Drop boxes for postcards were also positioned in the corners of the room, and "activists" could sharpie their signatures to eight-foot-tall "shame on you" or "thank you" letters to Congressmen that voted for or against the American Clean Energy and Security Act. My favorite aspect of the rally by far, however, was the high school marching band and star-spangled dance team. When I asked one of the teenage dancers what she thought the rally was about, she told me she thought that it was about conserving energy. Even far-right teabaggers, brought out to the event by FreedomWorks and a promise of a free meal, weren't allowed in, despite actually being sympatico with Big Oil's agenda. The offending item that got one kicked out? An American flag. Why does Big Oil hate our freedom? Read the rest and watch more video of inside and outside the rally at www.TexasVox.org . More on Climate Change
 
Eve Ensler: The Terminator is Back Top
What Governor, once an actor, then a Terminator, married to a major women's leader has the chutzpah to wipe out 100 percent of the domestic violence budget of California, the biggest state in the country, with a single grope of his veto pen? What same Governor does this as the state economy is plummeting and violence is escalating? When the STAND Hotline, that serves Contra Costa County, fielded more than 12,500 calls for help in the first seven months of 2009, triple the number in a normal year (if violence is ever normal). In a state where over the past six months at least five men, desperate from losing their jobs, have murdered their families and themselves? What other Governor is willing to sacrifice the lives of his constituent daughters and mothers in order to protect oil corporations from paying taxes on their multi billion-dollar profits. Fair taxes that could easily fund these same programs. I try to imagine what the Governor thinks as he draws his veto pen through 40 years of women's struggle and work, how he sleeps knowing women across his state who are exposed to brutality will be left without escape, shelter or even a friendly voice at the end of a hotline. How he justifies women having to choose between becoming homeless or staying in the midst of danger. Then I am reminded he is the Terminator - no pity, no remorse, no fear. Fortunately other Governors do feel pity and remorse. They know that having muscle isn't what makes a man, but it is compassion and wisdom and respect for women and girls. In New Mexico, Governor Richardson has not only preserved funds for domestic violence programs, but has made a sincere and deep commitment to ending violence against women in his state. Schwarzenegger has always had contempt for the vulnerable, or maybe it's just his own inner girlie man he despises. But now he has gone too far. This cut is reckless and dangerous. It could begin a wave of cuts throughout the country. It sends a message to perpetrators. It basically says no one is watching, no one is coming. All bets are off. Having just spent months in the Democratic Republic of Congo, I can tell you that this climate of free for all, spreads violence like a California wild fire. Governor, too many hours in your cigar smoking corporate oil drilling boy's tent has made you think that you can get away with this. We've got your number. Unlike you we don't act alone. There are thousands of us, we are organized, and we won't be stopped by one muscle-bound veto. Don't terminate. Reinstate the funds. Don't annihilate. Alleviate the suffering. Eve Ensler, a playwright and activist, is the founder of V-Day, a global movement to end violence against women and girls.
 
David Jones: Why Call It Charity Care? Top
When I mention to people I meet for the first time that I lead a nonprofit, I often get the look I sometimes display when introduced to a priest or naïve young person -- how nice for you to do good deeds, the rest of us have to work for a living. The disconnect in how the general public perceives nonprofits goes back to the earliest beginnings of the Republic (and obviously includes a serious mistake by the Wampanoag Indians who greeted the Pilgrims and helped them through the first winter and were virtually wiped out by the English in thanks). The collective charitable work in rural and small towns, where helping your neighbor when disaster struck or assisting them in raising a barn, are all deeply embedded in the popularized view of nonprofits. Soup kitchens, Meals on Wheels, the ASPCA, and similar agencies all still dominate the collective consciousness of what nonprofits do. But the sector has been undergoing massive changes over the last 20 years. No other part of the developed world has a nonprofit sector like the United States. It has developed in a totally different way from the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) of Europe and it has developed because of a unique political, economic, and cultural confluence of factors. It now employs an estimated 8.7 million people (as of 2007), nearly 6 percent of the American workforce. The question of whether these entities should be given special preference in the tax code, charitable deductibility, and what rights do the public -- which underwrites both directly and indirectly their existence -- have to regulate their operation is one I'm struggling with. In New York City, an estimated 22 percent of the workforce is employed by nonprofits. This is due almost entirely to the health and education sectors in the city. The health sector is a great example of some of the problems that have begun to emerge with accountability and transparency. While nonprofit hospitals (there are no significant for-profit hospitals in New York City) are charitable institutions, paying no taxes and receiving contributions which allow donors to avoid substantial tax liability, they increasingly look like for-profits in the way they operate. Their pay structure for top management is on par with the private sector, they have the right to turn away patients who can't afford their fees, and their boards in no way reflect the racial and economic diversity of the city. I served on the Board of the city's Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) for five years. HHC depends mostly on public funding; its hospitals serve everyone. On the other hand, nonprofit hospitals, which don't have to serve everyone, are private. I was appointed by Mayor Dinkins and had the privilege of being terminated by Mayor Giuliani on the exact day my term expired. In fairness to Mayor Giuliani, I had sued him over his effort to privatize public hospitals, using my position on the HHC Board to provide legal standing for advocates to bring their case. During my service on the HHC Board, some of the inequities that have crept into our nonprofit hospitals became obvious. For example, all hospitals are required to accept emergency room patients, but they are not required to provide care after a patient is "stabilized." (Mind you, the patient can be vigorously billed and even sued for this care.) That has led to patients showing up with gunshot wounds at a nonprofit hospital, being examined, bandaged, and told they should go quickly to a municipal (public) hospital. That's assuming they can find the emergency room. NYU's hospital is notorious for having the smallest sign for directions to its emergency room in the city. They plainly don't want "that" kind of patient. A nationwide survey by the Internal Revenue Service of nearly 500 nonprofit hospitals revealed that the median nonprofit hospital spends less than 4 percent of its annual revenue on charity care. Nearly a quarter of these hospitals reported spending less than 1 percent of their revenue on charity care. In the meantime, earlier this year, the American Journal of Medicine reported that up to 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies have a medical cause -- most medical debt is obviously incurred in hospitals, where the big-ticket health expenditures are racked up. That same article noted that the increase in medical-related bankruptcies had increased by 50 percent between 2001 and 2007. In response to the charity care crisis, Senator Charles Grassley (Rep.-Iowa) of the Senate Finance Committee floated a proposal that nonprofit hospitals allocate at least 5 percent of their operating expenses or revenues for charity care or lose their tax-exempt status. This brought howls of protest from the nonprofit hospital industry. Yet it was a very modest proposal considering that the federal government loses about $40 billion each year by offering nonprofit hospitals tax-exempt status to serve more than 48 million uninsured Americans. A 5 percent threshold of free medical care to qualify a nonprofit hospital for tax exemptions and public funding is not unreasonable. Or else, why call it charity care? More on Rudy Giuliani
 
Russ Baker: A Well-Oiled Crowd Balks at Climate Fix Top
The New York Times has a surprisingly direct, no-hedging, exposé of oil industry shenanigans designed to block climate change legislation. For once, it is crystal clear to readers what is going on--the oil industry is rallying workers whose (understandable) immediate concerns do not extend beyond continuing to earn a living, to...preserving life on earth. Hard on the heels of the health care protests, another citizen movement seems to have sprung up, this one to oppose Washington's attempts to tackle climate change. But behind the scenes, an industry with much at stake -- Big Oil -- is pulling the strings. Hundreds of people packed a downtown theater here on Tuesday for a lunchtime rally that was as much a celebration of oil's traditional role in the Texas way of life as it was a political protest against Washington's energy policies, which many here fear will raise energy prices....This was the first of a series of about 20 rallies planned for Southern and oil-producing states to organize resistance to proposed legislation that would set a limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases, requiring many companies to buy emission permits. Participants described the system as an energy tax that would undermine the economy of Houston, the nation's energy capital. What we are seeing these days is the explosive growth of efforts by narrow interests to leverage whatever they can and to appeal to those who, unlike the wealthier shareholders and CEOs, really don't have the luxury of thinking beyond their next paycheck. It is not hard to imagine this country channeling, say, Italy, with the entire calendar coming to resemble a constant election campaign, and with the forces of reaction stoking the anxieties of whatever working-class allies they can muster. The origins, motivations, and civic literacy of crowds is always at the core of good reporting about public events. More on Climate Change
 
John Atlas: Karl Rove Vs. ACORN Top
Now we know that Karl Rove spearheaded the firing of David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico who refused to follow the Bush White House's orders to intimidate low-income voters by making false charges of "voter fraud." What the New York Times , Washington Post , Los Angeles Times , Wall Street Journal and other major papers missed in their stories last week was that Rove was specifically targeting ACORN, the community organizing group that has waged some of the most effective voter registration drives in recent memory. Rove viewed ACORN as a threat to the GOP because of its success in registering low-income voters and turning them out to vote on election day. I describe Rove's campaign against ACORN -- not only in New Mexico, but also in other "swing" states where more low-income voters could hurt GOP candidates -- in my forthcoming book Seeds of Hope , a history of ACORN, published by Vanderbilt University Press. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released over 5,000 pages of White House and Republican National Committee e-mails, with transcripts of closed-door testimony by Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. The documents reveal that Rove played a central role in sacking Iglesias, who was one of several federal prosecutors fired in a string of politically motivated dismissals in 2006. Iglesias refused to cooperate with the White House's political agenda of prosecuting ACORN for "voter fraud." Under pressure from New Mexico Republicans and Rove, Iglesias, a Republican and former Navy lawyer appointed by President George W. Bush, did investigate whether ACORN was engaged in voter registration fraud. But once Iglesias realized ACORN was following the rules he refused to smear the group by filing a phony indictment. Rove's attempt to enlist Iglesias in the GOP political agenda was not an isolated incident. In many states, Republicans viewed ACORN as a threat and sought ways to demonize and undermine the organization. In 2004 and 2006, Republican politicians at the local, state and federal levels waged a systematic campaign to challenge ACORN's voter registration efforts. Republican operatives went after ACORN hard, with a media smear campaign, trumped-up lawsuits in Florida, New Mexico and Ohio, and pressure on state law-enforcement officials to file criminal charges against the group. As the 2004 election approached, then-Attorney-General John Ashcroft launched a broad initiative to crack down on supposed voter fraud in battleground states, including Florida, Missouri, Ohio and New Mexico, where ACORN was making headway registering voters. In all of those states, Republicans filed suits against ACORN for voter fraud, and, in every case, ACORN was exonerated. Nevertheless, conservative media continued to smear the group. In October 2004 right-wing news outlets pounced on a story about the organization mishandling voter forms and, according to Rush Limbaugh, "trying to register voters two and three times." Two years later, after the 2006 election, the Wall Street Journal promoted claims that ACORN was under scrutiny for election irregularities with one headline blaring, "A union-backed outfit faces charges of election fraud." An editorial included an allegation-that ACORN gave cocaine to a worker in exchange for fraudulent registrations-that was a complete fabrication. By 2008, attacks on ACORN became a key part of John McCain's presidential campaign playbook. In the third presidential debate, McCain tried to link ACORN and Obama, a one-time community organizer warning the nation that ACORN was "now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country." ACORN, McCain said, maybe "destroying the fabric of democracy," and he insisted that Obama reveal his ties to the community organizing group. Since it was founded in the 1970s, ACORN has been in the thorn in the side of big business, banks, Democrats and Republicans. It has helped families obtain affordable housing, increased wages for working people, stopped mortgage companies from deceiving customers with predatory subprime loans, cleaned up vacant lots, and saved thousands of Hurricane Katrina survivor's home from being demolished. Rove no longer controls the White House, but the GOP and its conservative allies in Congress and the right-wing media echo chamber at Fox News and elsewhere are still using the Rove playbook. Their attacks on ACORN have persisted, part of their propaganda campaign to tarnish Obama and Democrats as "radicals." John Atlas is the author of Seeds Of Hope: The Untold Story of ACORN, America's Most Successful Anti-Poverty Community Group and How It's Changing America , a history of ACORN, to be published next year by Vanderbilt University Press. More on Karl Rove
 
Bruce Moskowitz: Health Care Reform Must Include a National Surgical Device Registry to Protect Patients Top
As our country ignites with its furious debate surrounding Health Care Reform, the discussion centers largely around financing - public versus private, etc. There is a danger that smaller but critical portions of this bill which substantially improve patient safety and save lives are going largely unreported and overlooked. For example, Section V of HR 3200 will change patient safety requirements on surgical device manufacturers by expressly calling for a national registry of devices. This would have enormous positive implications. Consider the case of Richard Stone, a 49 year old married father of two working as an attorney in West Palm Beach Florida who was a candidate for hip replacement surgery at 47 stemming from childhood injuries that deteriorated his bones. He scheduled surgery at Cornell Weill Hospital for Special Surgery in NYC, the national leader in hip replacement surgery and after his operation went home in severe pain. Unbeknownst to Richard and his surgeon, the prosthetic manufacturer had recalled an entire batch of hip about two weeks after his surgery. His serial number wasn't included since the device had already been implanted. A notice went on the FDA web site, but no information made its way to Richard. Meanwhile, the metal rods that make up the components of his replacement had broken and were rubbing together in his femur - creating excruciating pain. Eventually the metal rods began to protrude from his scar and as his primary care physician. I referred him for the revision surgery. That involved deeply drilling in to his bone and gouging out the prosthesis and installing a new one. Another 6 months of excruciating convalescence followed. Patients are given information at the time of their surgery, but in the event of a recall or early problem detection, the manufacturing company only has to notify the physicians that have used the devices and the FDA. Without a registry that collects patient info similar to state automobile registries, this guarantees that some patients will remain uninformed. In my practice in Florida, an enormous portion of retirees - the age bracket that has the most surgically implanted devices - have relocated here from other colder parts of the country. There exists huge obstacles in reaching these patients in the event their device has trouble, as they have moved away from their surgeons and physicians. Consumers have multiple means of gathering automotive information and car manufacturers are quite adept at alerting the public regarding defects, recalls, etc. This has been a law since 1949, overseen by the National Transportation Safety Authority and well accepted and enforced in the name of public safety. Even the manufacturers of your coffee grinder or stereo can notify you if there is a problem with the machine (assuming you filled out that little card). But conversely, the average person walking around with an implanted device has no idea who makes it and manufacturers have no idea who is using their products. A database already exists which offers exactly this type of service to alert patients of recalls and problems with hips, stents, knees, defibrillators, etc. It was compiled by a non-profit research group at University of Pennsylvania, in conjunction with researchers at the Cleveland Clinic, Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in NYC, Georgetown Medical School and University of Rochester. It can be found here. In essence, the Health Care Reform Bill being debated, (HR 3200), expressly calls for a registry for surgically implanted devices in Section V, which would be used by patients who have implantable devices to alert them in the event of a recall, act as an early warning system or used by the manufacturers as a tool to alert patients. Think of it like a "Carfax" for stents, defibrilators, orthopedic devices, etc. The reason this provision of the bill is so crucial are the real life examples of patients who suffered catastrophic complications because of a lack of information about their device like Richard Stone. If Richard Stone had the Medical Device Registry available to him, he could have looked up his device BEFORE the surgery and discovered any complications. Afterwards he could have registered his implant and been notified IMMEDIATELY of any problems in the field before his condition reached the severity that it did. I have seen several patients like Richard Stone over my career which led to my involvement as an architect of this non-profit registry. As Congress and the White House are arguing over what a health reform package should include, its important that we recognize comprehensive reform must attempt to fix the problem of patient notification and create a national system to insure patient safety for implanted devices. The Medical Device Registry that has emerged from these academic institutions is effective way to reach patients in the event of ANY problem with ANY device. That is exactly the scenario that HR3200 can now cement into law. Also, when looked at through a financial lens, it will alleviate much of the liability and burden on manufacturers because it provides a communications vehicle direct to patients. Perhaps calling attention to these lesser understood portions of the Health Care Reform Bill will take the temperature down in some of the town hall meetings and remind people of the much needed measures that will ultimately protect their health.
 
Afghan War Not Worth Fighting, Say Majority Of Americans Polled Top
A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
 
Georges Ugeux: United States of America vs. UBS: A Step Too Far? Top
Let's start from the facts: UBS (United Bank of Switzerland) is the world's largest money manager and has naturally developed that business in the United States. Being a Swiss bank, they offer not only US bank accounts but also Swiss bank accounts to their U.S. clients. Most foreign banks offer the same services in the United States. This is not illegal, neither is it tax fraud. Where the fraud starts is when U.S. taxpayers do not disclose the revenues they earn from foreign accounts. The United States is the only country that taxes worldwide revenues. Until June 30 of this year, foreign bank accounts had to be disclosed if they collectively reached $10,000 or more. There are perfectly legitimate motivations for opening foreign accounts, partly due to the absence of specific international competencies of the U.S. brokerage community. However, for many U.S. foreign accountholders, one of the key motivations is to avoid taxation. UBS had gone too far by building sophisticated mechanisms that allowed revenues to be concealed and substantial amounts of taxes to be avoided. For this, UBS paid $ 780 million in fines to the IRS and was forced to restructure its business on a model that no longer creates incentives for tax fraud. They also communicated the identity and information on about 300 US clients who are currently being sued by the IRS. Two were fined last week and the IRS is pursuing at least 150 more of them, with threats of jail sentences. As everything seemed to be settled, the IRS sued UBS in Miami to obtain confidential information on 52,000 US accountholders. This prompted the Swiss Government to step in because such communication would violate the laws of Switzerland and threatened to seize that information. Eventually, the US and Swiss Governments came to a settlement whose terms remain secret, but seems to include the disclosure of a few thousand accountholders and the case was sent for arbitration to the US regulator, FINRA. UBS and the Swiss Government will communicate information on 4,550 more accounts. Further changes to the Swiss banking secret regulations were agreed, but I would be very surprised if they were approved by the Swiss voters. (Such changes are submitted to the "votation" that takes place at least once a year in Switzerland.) At the core of this lawsuit lies a much broader issue: the United States has behaved intrusively and has shown little respect for Swiss sovereignty. When I studied law (yes, I am a non-practicing lawyer as well) one of the key principles of international private law was the territoriality of law. The same applies to Governments' taxation powers. In the last few years, the United States has shown a growing tendency to ignore those principles and to exert its authority beyond its borders. A recent example was the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. While there was no reason to extend its application to foreign stocks, fears that U.S. companies would migrate to offshore centers led lawmakers to violate the principles of international law. I was in charge of the foreign companies listed on the NYSE at that time. It took a year to ensure that the SEC would apply this act in a way that would not create a conflict of law. Companies, even if they are listed in the United States, are first and foremost regulated by their national authorities. However, nothing could be done to prevent a wave of delistings of foreign companies from the United States. The net loser was the United States capital markets themselves. Sarbanes-Oxley gave a huge boost to the City of London, which became the place of choice for foreign listings. Tax shelters have become a hot topic in international politics. President Sarkozy, Prime Minister Brown and Chancellor Merkel decided to make offshore tax shelters a key issue in the G20. The U.S. reluctantly followed course, not because they are indifferent to tax evasion, but because they know that no international venue can do anything in this matter. The issue merely offered a convenient opportunity for the Europeans to point fingers outside of their borders. The decision was taken to insolate those tax shelters that, according to the OECD, were on the black list. Three months later, it was announced that no country in the world is on that blacklist any longer. They all had "taken measures" to apply the OECD principles. While I condemn tax fraud as illegal and immoral, I do not believe that the United States has the right to extend its tax arm beyond its borders. This attitude is most unnerving even to our allies. The IRS is empowered and entitled to prosecute U.S. tax frauds and U.S. taxpayers, not to pursue changes in foreign rules and regulations or to threaten foreign financial institutions (unless they commit such frauds). There are legitimate reasons to limit taxation powers to national borders. Imagine the reverse: taxes would be levied on individuals and companies worldwide in a completely disorderly way. All countries negotiate tax rulings or rebates to attract foreign investors. Taxation is a global competitive weapon. They need to feel confident that international legal norms and national sovereignty will be respected. It is also not in the interest of the United States to disrupt international tax laws. The fact that New York has lost its global capital market leadership is not favorable to the country. Those activities are taxed and produce substantial IRS revenues. Delistings have hurt U.S. tax revenue. Ask Mayor Bloomberg how he would balance its budget without the taxable revenues of foreign companies and employees in New York. Last but not least, it is a question of respect: sovereign states are sovereign states. They deserve to see their sovereignty recognized. The Swiss Government candidly admitted today that they accepted this unprecedented move to avoid a sovereignty conflict with the United States. The IRS statement that it is a "historic agreement" says it all. Diplomacy, not the assertion of tax powers abroad, is the way to address international tax issues. This settlement is a shame for all parties: the US Treasury for having exercised its power rather than its right to force that settlement that does not respect the basic principles of international private law. The Swiss Government for having opened the way for future such investigations and bent its own laws under U.S. pressure. UBS betrayed their customers who trusted their advice to rescue their U.S. knowing that the IRS will seek imprisonment. There is no winner when fundamental rule of law and customer loyalty are not respected. This will have major ramifications outside of Switzerland and the United States.
 
Tom Barrett Speaks For First Time Since Attack (VIDEO) Top
MILWAUKEE — A bloodied scab on his face and his shattered hand bound by a bulky cast, Milwaukee's mayor said Wednesday his decision to intervene in a domestic dispute got "very ugly" quickly but he did what any good citizen should have done. Tom Barrett spoke for the first time Wednesday about being attacked by a man as he attempted to help a woman and her 1-year-old granddaughter near the Wisconsin State Fair on Saturday night. The popular 55-year-old mayor suffered a shattered hand, got two of his teeth knocked out and had gashes on his face and the back of his head. "I'm still standing," he said. Embedded video from CNN Video Speaking in the front yard of his home where he has been recuperating since he left the hospital on Monday, Barrett said he initially thought something was wrong with the baby before realizing the 20-year-old man was agitated. "I think it's fair to say things got very, very ugly, very, very quickly," Barrett said. The mayor declined to discuss details of the attack, saying he didn't want to jeopardize the ongoing criminal investigation. The 20-year-old man has been arrested, and Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern expected charges to be filed Thursday morning. The grandmother has said the suspect is the girl's birth father. Barrett said he was most concerned about his hand injury but his overall prognosis was good. "We're on the mend, everything's heading in the right direction, and I just wanted to let you know I'm still standing," he said. About 100 neighbors and friends gathered and applauded the mayor Wednesday as he emerged with his wife, Chris, sister Betsy Barrett-Flood, and his 20-year-old niece, Molly Barrett-Floodwho called 911 for help after her uncle was attacked. As he's been recovering, Barrett has gotten calls from many well-wishers, including President Barack Obama. He said he was happy to get the call – but told the president he'd prefer "to be called for pitching a perfect game" instead. A reporter told Barrett her television station had received hundreds of get-well wishes from people who called the mayor a hero.When asked to respond, the mayor said simply: "I'll say Molly's my hero." Kathleen Hubing, 58, was among the neighbors who came to hear Barrett speak. She said she was impressed that he spent so much time praising his family, as well as police and hospital officials. "That's our mayor. He's always giving honor and praise to those who need it rather than himself," said Hubing, a retired schoolteacher. On Tuesday, Brew City Brand Apparel started selling black and yellow T-shirts in honor of Barrett that read, "Our Mayor Ain't No Cream Puff." Cream puffs are enormously popular at the state fair, which ended Sunday. Barrett's name has been circulating as a possible Democratic candidate for governor in 2010 after Gov. Jim Doyle announced this week he will not seek a third term. Reporters didn't ask Barrett about those rumors because a mayoral spokesman requested before the news conference that questions pertain only to the mayor's condition. Barrett was elected Milwaukee mayor in 2004 and re-elected last year with nearly 80 percent of the vote. He also served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1992 to 2002. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
James Shapiro: Books in Limbo Top
Much has been written of late about the Google Book Settlement, mostly about issues of copyright, monopoly and privacy. The tone has become increasingly nasty and the turn to scare tactics familiar to anyone following the health care debate. Lost in these broadsides and in the motions filed to the U. S. District Court that will soon rule on the case is the view from the trenches: What effect will the proposed settlement (or its derailment) have on students and scholarship? Ask anyone how undergraduates go about researching papers these days and you'll hear the same thing: They surf the Internet. The good ones quickly move beyond Wikipedia and consult the thousands of scholarly books and articles now easily accessible with a click. Going to the library or bookstore and lugging home a treasure-trove of books -- one of the great pleasures of my life -- holds less appeal for those I teach. They don't have the time. It's not how they are used to finding out about things. And with library acquisition budgets slashed, the books they seek are all too often only available through time-consuming interlibrary loans. Happily, a lot of scholarly books are already accessible online, though nearly all of them were published either before 1924 (and are therefore in the public domain) or after 2000 or so, when academic publishers began making some books accessible in digital form. For a student researching a paper, most books published in the interim remain invisible and might as well not exist. Put another way, it's easier for students to call up electronic copies of even the most obscure works of Shakespeare's contemporaries than it is for them to get hold of important scholarly books on Elizabethan literature published only a decade ago. The intellectual labor of several generations of scholars across the disciplines is in danger of becoming, by default, condemned to limbo. I'm the author of one of those books in limbo, Rival Playwrights , published in 1991 in hardcover by Columbia University Press and priced at $35. It has sold around a thousand copies and never appeared in paperback or electronic form. Technically, it is still in print but you wouldn't be able to order a new copy on Amazon.com, find it at a B&N superstore, or download it onto your Kindle (though if you are desperate, I'm told that a used copy can be picked up for $248, plus shipping, from Canada). You can also check it out of the library -- if, that is, you have borrowing privileges at a leading college or university. That situation is about to change. It's estimated that Google is spending upwards of a half-billion dollars in an effort to scan all the books -- as many as 20 million -- located in top research libraries. Google ran into trouble, though, when, without permission, it scanned books like mine that were still under copyright. The Authors Guild stepped in and sued. After extended negotiations a settlement was reached, one that protects the rights of publishers and authors through a Book Rights Registry while rewarding Google's investment (the settlement also allows copyright holders to exclude their books or make only parts of them available). I don't ever expect to make much in royalties from my book, but I feel good about the prospect of seeing it in wider circulation. And I'm cheered that my publishers stand to profit from the settlement and have already made snippets of my book and many others like it available through Google Book Search. Friends and colleagues with whom I have spoken -- and I suspect many thousands of academic authors with books in limbo -- feel the same way. When you spend a decade or longer writing a book that contributes to the conversation in your field you want the next generation to read it. One of the arguments made against the Google Book Settlement is that it rides roughshod over the legal rights of "orphaned" books -- the technical term for titles still in copyright whose owners cannot be found. It's a threat that is considerably overstated (those in the business of hunting down copyright holders of orphaned books estimate that about 80-85% can be located). Orphaned books need to be acknowledged, but so too do books in limbo, whose intellectual importance has been all but ignored in debates about the settlement. And of course every orphaned book is currently in limbo. If the settlement is approved it's not only those affiliated with colleges and universities who will gain access to all these books. The settlement requires Google to make available at a terminal in each of 16,500 public libraries copies of every single scanned book. Anyone can read them there for free. Access to knowledge will no longer be a function of privilege, as millions of citizens can consult a general collection that surpasses those found in the best Ivy League universities. Those who want to purchase copies will also be able to do so -- with writers and their publishers receiving the lion's share of these payments. All this should also enable university libraries to redirect resources toward acquiring and maintaining unique archives such as manuscript collections as well as cultural artifacts that can't be scanned. Would I prefer that research universities had dipped into their deep endowments and done this collectively before Google acted? Sure, but that was always a fantasy and those endowments have now dried up. Will the settlement bring back the scholarly book? I don't know, but I'm betting that it will at least stem the rising tide of wiki-based research. Will we live to see the day when students store favorite books on their laptops much as they collect music on their iPods? We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, it's worth reflecting on the consequences if those trying to block this settlement have their way. Who knows how many more years all that scholarship will be condemned to limbo. James Shapiro is Professor of English at Columbia University. He also serves on the Council of the Authors Guild. His next book -- Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? -- will be published by Simon & Schuster in April 2010. More on Google
 
DIA Proposes $7 Million Dollar Project To Convert To Solar Top
DENVER — Denver International Airport wants to build a $7 million solar electric-generating system to power its fuel storage and distribution system. Airport officials said Wednesday they will ask the City Council for approval to sign a contract with two companies to develop the 1.6-megawatt project on about 9 acres north of the airfield. It would provide almost all the electricity needed to power the airport's fuel farm. The airport would buy electricity from the solar companies for about 90 percent of the rate charged by its commercial supplier, Xcel Energy Inc. The system is expected to be completed by the end of this year. The airport already has a 2-megawatt solar photovoltaic system near the terminal.
 
Number Of Poor In U.S. Likely Increased By 1.5M Last Year: Report Top
WASHINGTON — The numbers of poor and uninsured Americans are likely rising – with more than 38.8 million believed to be in poverty. Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department's undersecretary of economic affairs, spoke to The Associated Press in advance of next month's closely watched release of 2008 census data. Noting the figures are not yet final, Blank said the numbers will likely show a "statistically significant" increase in the poverty rate, to at least 12.7 percent. That would represent a jump of more than 1.5 million poor people last year. "There's no question that 2008 economically was a much worse year than 2007," she said Wednesday. "The question is how much and how bad." The number of uninsured is also expected to notably increase due largely to rising unemployment and the erosion of private coverage paid for by employers and individuals, but Blank declined to say by how much. In 2007, the number of uninsured fell by more than 1 million mostly because government programs such as Medicaid for the poor picked up the slack. The census figures, set to be released Sept. 10, could have important ramifications as Congress returns from its August recess to debate health reform, its cost, and the ways to pay for it. Republicans also have traditionally pointed to the intractable poverty rate as a sign that government programs do not work, a claim likely to be repeated often in light of the federal stimulus package. In a 30-minute interview, Blank said the census figures released next month could possibly understate the actual number of poor people, since the poverty rate is a lagging indicator that tends to accelerate over time. As a result, the 2008 data could prove to be the tip of the iceberg, with more significant declines reflected in 2009 figures released next year. She estimated earlier this year that poverty could eventually hit roughly 14.8 percent or more if unemployment reaches 10 percent as some analysts predict – or nearly one out of every seven Americans. Based on 2007 figures, the poverty rate currently stands at 12.5 percent, or 37.3 million, largely unchanged from recent years. The official poverty level is now $21,203 for a family of four, $13,540 for a family of two, based on a calculation that includes only cash income before deductions for taxes. It excludes capital gains and it does not take into account accumulated wealth or assets, such as a home. On Wednesday, Blank said she was working with the Census Bureau to provide better measures of poverty. Such alternative measures, which will be released sometime after Sept. 10, will seek to better incorporate added costs of health care, child care, housing and transportation, but also noncash income from the stimulus and other government programs, such as tax credits and food stamps. More on Poverty
 
James Moeller: Bipartisan Health Care Reform: Not Likely, Not Necessary Top
As Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny reported in the New York Times, the Democrats appear to be preparing to go it alone on health care reform while trying to hang the obstructionist tag on the Republicans. While there are obvious dangers to abandoning bipartisanship on such a hot-button issue, you have to wonder what took them so long. Bipartisanship sounds like a good idea and polls show most Americans want the parties to work together to solve big problems. This of course led President Obama to talk about reaching across the aisle during his campaign and in the early days of his presidency. He took it one step further and appointed Republicans to high-ranking positions - Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Ambassador Jon Huntsman among others. And bipartisanship gives the governing party some political cover. It would be hard for Republicans to criticize the Democrats about the outcome of health care reform if they voted for it. But the reality is that bipartisanship is hard to achieve and is no guarantee of public policy success. For example, The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed the Senate with only two dissenting votes , hastening the escalation of the Vietnam War. Perhaps a little obstruction might have been a good thing. Similarly, the Iraq War resolution passed with broad bipartisan support, as Democrats tried to burnish their war on terrorism credentials. On the flip side, some very successful public policy has been enacted along straight party lines. Medicare passed without a single Republican vote and is today one of most successful and popular of all government programs. Bill Clinton's economic package of budget cuts and tax increases passed in 1993 without a single Republican vote , ushering in eight years of prosperity and balancing the federal budget. In the end, the success of health care reform will not be judged by how many Republicans (or Blue Dogs) vote for it. It will be judged by how well it works. Democrats won't be punished for pushing through reform without Republican support. They will be punished if they fail to act, or if what they unilaterally enact fails. The stakes are high for both parties, but sometimes going it alone is not so bad. More on Health Care
 
Bob Cesca: Bipartisanship Porn Top
There are many kinds of porn. In the modern vernacular there's "food porn," which describes gastronomic perfection so delicious, it's practically obscene. There's also "torture porn," made famous by Mel Gibson's movies, Rob Zombie's movies, 24 , Fox News Channel and, of course, the Bush administration. And then there are the too numerous to list forms of regular old "porn" porn. I'm not so thrilled to announce that there's a new kind of "porn" in town. What we've been witnessing during this health care reform process can easily be defined as "bipartisanship porn." It's a display of bipartisanship so obscene and excessive that it borders on perverse. But unlike most of the other forms of porn, it's not even fun to look at chiefly because it involves the shriveled mugs of Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus. Today, following a killer 12 hours of fresh air in which it looked like bipartisanship porn was dying, Robert Gibbs let fly in the White House press room : White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration remains committed to drawing Republican support for the bill, particularly in the Senate. "I don't know why we would short-circuit that now," Gibbs told reporters. He said the White House believes some Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee "are still working in a constructive way to get reform through the Senate and ultimately to the president's desk." After everything that's gone down this month? Sheesh. Get a room. Gibbs has dropped these comments on the same day when Rahm Emanuel finally admitted that the Republicans aren't at all interested in voting for health care reform. It's the same day when the New York Times reported that the congressional Democrats are prepared to jettison the Republicans once and for all in order to pass a real health care reform bill. It's within the same week when both Grasshole and Jon Kyl made it perfectly clear that the Republicans will not vote for any health care reform bill short of something that abolishes Medicaid, privatizes Social Security and replaces Secretary Sebelius with Kelly Prejean. And it's following several weeks when the entire Wingnut-Industrial Complex injected numerous lies, distortions and actual firearms into the health care debate. This succeeded in scaring the white plastic belts and warm-up suits off scores of old people and convinced a supermajority of Fox News viewers that affordable, reliable and portable health insurance is somehow the Fourth Reich (because we all know how much neo-Nazis love mixed-race liberal politicians). During the battle over the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we observed that the Republicans were only interested in sabotaging the president's agenda. Their goal was to play along with this notion of bipartisanship just enough to find gap through which they could drop their psycho-bombs into the legislation and dash away -- brazenly shouting "So long, suckers!" as they went. Like the well-known fable about the scorpion and the frog, it's their nature. This is what they do. Their only path out of exile is to sabotage anything and everything in the Democratic agenda. When the Democrats fail, the Republicans rise again. They've been perfectly honest and up front about this, too, as evidenced by the famous "fail" remarks from their impotent de facto leader Mr. Limbaugh. So why are they being allowed to do it again, this time with something as critical as health care reform? The answer can be illustrated by outlining the three biggest bipartisanship porn fetishists, if you will. The White House, centrist Democrats and the establishment press. The last group first. The establishment press, the Villagers, believe that the only path to seriousness is bipartisanship. It's a leading ingredient in the conventional wisdom cocktails served at various inside-Washington media mixers. It goes without saying that this is a standard reserved for Democrats only. When the Republicans controlled Washington not so long ago, the establishment press was all about fetishizing Republican virulence -- how masculine their packages looked in a flight suit and how easily the Democrats could be clubbed over the head with its sheer bulbous-ness. Now that the Democrats are in power, however, bipartisanship is mandatory for being considered "very serious." It's why very few members of the Progressive Caucus have managed to sneak onto a Sunday show. Not bipartisan enough and therefore not very serious. The centrist Democrats, meanwhile, are obsessed with bipartisanship porn because it helps them to look more like Republicans. This has a dual benefit in that it attracts the establishment press, it appeases their more conservative states/districts and it calms the nerves of their financiers in the various lobbies and PACs -- in this case, the health care industry. I would lump Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, the Nelsons and Joe Lieberman into this category. And finally, there's the White House. While they appear to be leading the charge in terms of keeping bipartisanship porn alive today, I'm not sure how genuine they really are. It's difficult to believe that they're this blind to what the Republicans are up to. Rahm Emanuel appears to understand the scorpion-ish behavior as evidenced by his comments today. And the president is too smart not to see it. So what's their motivation? There's no way they'd deliberately allow this legislation to fail altogether. And a crappy, watered-down reform bill would haunt their legacy for decades to come. I mean, if we're not looking at significant relief in how we deal with health insurance by 2012, there's no amount of campaign platitudes that will ameliorate the continued pain and anger. After all, there are experts who are good at math and they'll be able to track whether the reform bill allowed health care prices to continue to skyrocket, further subsidizing the health insurance mafia, or whether the reform bill actually did something, you know, positive. The only justification I can see for what Gibbs said today and, to a certain extent, what the president and Secretary Sebelius said over the weekend is that with or without the public option, the White House doesn't have 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster. Unless Senators Kennedy and Byrd are well enough to turn up for two floor votes several months from right now -- one to break the filibuster of the reconciled Senate bill and another to break the filibuster of the conference report -- the White House will need two Republicans to flip and vote against their own party's filibuster. Twice. And this scenario depends on zero Democrats voting with the Republicans (they'd be insane to do that). Ultimately, the only way to get those two Republican votes for cloture is if the White House at least attempts to seem "bipartisan." This possibly explains the continued posturing amid all of the obvious crazy. (Reconciliation is a way around, but, by some accounts, reconciliation would blow giant holes in the bill, perhaps taking the public option with it.) At this still early stage I'd like to think that the White House's express preference for bipartisanship porn is purely tactical and not reflective of what can only be described as political ignorance and stupidity. If it's the latter, the White House will have ultimately succeeded in its utter self-destruction -- limping across the threshold with a health care reform bill that's been brazenly cut to pieces by marbled-mouthed Glenn Beck disciples like Chuck Grassley. I sincerely hope this is the last time I write about porn and Chuck Grassley in the same essay. Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go! More on Health Care
 
Etan Thomas: Not New Rules But New Questions Top
1. How can David Harold serve one year in prison for raping and sodomizing a four-year-old girl but Michael Vick serve nearly two years for dog fighting? Is the life of an animal worth more than the life of a human being? Let alone a child? 2. Why do Republicans forget, when complaining about the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, that this was the mess leftover from the Bush administration? Why do they forget that President Obama didn't create this but is rather attempting to fix it? 3. Why are so many Christians in favor of the death penalty when there is no possible way to justify that belief using the New Testament (which is the new covenant Christians are suppose to abide by brought by Jesus Christ)? 4. Why is it okay to send a 17-year-old child to fight a war (that we should not have even started in the first place) but not okay for another child that same age to play in the NBA? 5. Does it scare anyone else that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have as many supporters as they do? 6. Why does the United States have the highest reported incarceration rate in the world compared to its democratic, advanced market economy counterparts? The facts show that although crime rates have decreased since 1990, the rate of imprisonment has continued to increase. Why is that? 7. When I was in school the style was baggy clothes. Adults were afraid of and uncomfortable with the appearance and stereotyped the style of dress as that of a thug. The current generation of young people wear skinny jeans and tight shirts (which is horrible in my opinion). My question is, are adults as afraid of them as they were of us? 8. How can anyone be in favor of a health care system in which the patients are treated according to the amount of coverage their insurance company provides? Why is a government run insurance option such a terrible idea? If you are happy with your coverage you keep it and if you are one of the 50 million Americans who are not covered at all, you have the choice of a government option. I personally believe that insurance companies should be eliminated altogether, but if the public option will lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market, why is it looked at as such a terrible idea by so many people? 9. There have been many scare tactics employed mostly by Republicans of President Obama's health care plan. Claims such as: Myth 1 : "Health reform won't benefit people like me, who have insurance." Myth 2 : "The boomers will bankrupt Medicare." Myth 3 : "Reforming our health care system will cost us more." Myth 4 : "My access to quality health care will decline." Myth 5 : "I won't be able to visit my favorite doctor." Myth 6 : "The uninsured actually do have access to good care--in the emergency room." Myth 7 : "We can't afford to tackle this problem now." Myth 8 : "We'll end up with socialized medicine." Why are so many people buying into these claims without their being any proof of one of these claims being true? 10. Why is the perception that if you disagree with some of the foreign policy and practices of Israel, you are labeled anti-Semitic? Why don't I ever hear the term anti-Palestinian? 11. During the recent debate on CNN between Ann Coulter and Rev. Al Sharpton, did Coulter really say that racial profiling doesn't exist? Did she really say that there is an assumption of racism by cops and that you have one hoax after another? Did she really say that eventually there has to be at least one real case of it? I can't believe that she actually believes this, but just in case she or anyone else does ... 12. Is there perhaps a better method for Gov. Schwarzenegger to attempt to bail out California's budget deficit than to cut the heart out of the state's vital programs and services helping women, children and families deal with domestic violence? Was this line-item veto of the state's $20 million anti-family violence program evidence that he simply doesn't put women and families affected by domestic violence high on his list of priorities?
 
One For The Table: Thank You, Gwyneth Top
For years, as both my husband Chad's and my weight have yo yo'd, I've begged him to diet along with me but we've never been able to be in sync with our willingness to trudge the road of deprivation. Until now. We email each other from different rooms in the house. (And they say Great Britain is in danger of having the laziest people in the world.) The subject line in his email to me read: "yes, or no". It had a link to a newsletter called Goop, written by Gwyneth Paltrow. I know most so-called "celebrity diets" have to bear up under a lot of scrutiny. After all, what qualifies someone like Marilu Henner to give herself the moniker of "health pioneer" when her children's cookbook, in the words of health writer Sally Fallon, "contain guidelines that are more likely to produce a variety of pathologies, including some kinds of eating disorders..."? Well, Gwyneth merely presents what she's learned from Dr. Alejandro Junger, a cardiologist and 'leader in the field of integrative medicine'. I've never heard the term 'integrative medicine' but it seems remarkably intuitive in the context of wellness. Also, this program is not a diet. It's a Cleanse. Paltrow's narrative as she puts forth her own augmentation of the "Cleanse" as it's called, is charmingly self-deprecating, empathic towards the reader and encouraging. She lets us all know that she's tried the hardcore cleanses in the past and they've kicked her ass, even though they've worked. And she discovered that those kinds of fasts could actually be bad for you. So she takes the bullet for us and we can just dismiss the ones out of hand that leave you looking like that emaciated guy from the movie Seven (hey, she was in that) and we can look all tough, as though we might have even considered it. I must say, I'm a veteran of diets and I'm somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to nutrition but some things were new to me. The cleanse keeps you hyper hydrated, but not in an obnoxious, drink eight ounce glasses of water a day way. Who is ever that thirsty, for fuck's sake? I was introduced to coconut water and smoothies and fruit and vegetable extractions and soups that not only satisfied my hunger, but they tasted delicious! The hydration served a very important function besides hunger abatement. It prevented me from having that coffee withdrawal headache that I fear so much. The food was so satisfying, that before I knew it, I had eliminated dairy, sugar, caffeine and wheat from my diet. Completely!! Never before has a system been able to defeat my cunning network of denial and rationalization. Now, since this is a detox, I gotta tell you, there were some really dramatic side effects in the beginning. Since I knew to expect them and knew what they meant, the fact that they were somewhat unpleasant at times was downright uplifting. For instance, both my husband and I, at various times felt body aches, exhaustion, and lower back pain. After drinking something called Super Greens (a delicious juice from my extractor consisting of celery, fresh ginger, kale, pear and lemon) I immediately experienced a jolt of pain running through what I'm pretty sure was my spleen, but could have been my liver. Maybe those organs were jumping for joy? Chad said at one point, he felt like needles were stabbing him on both sides of his pelvis. We must have been pretty stuffed with poison, that's all I can say. But this was short lived and after only a few days we felt invigorated, calm, well rested and yes, by golly, we lost weight. Other symptoms of progress involve elimination but that would make people way too happy to read about, so I'll just let them experience it for themselves. There are some foods conspicuously missing, like strawberries, potatoes, bell peppers, asparagus and tomatoes. That's what I meant when I said I thought I was knowledgeable. Evidently, some of these are in the family of nightshade and can cause inflammation. I tell you, this stuff is deep. Gwyneth Paltrow recommends Dr. Junger's book in order to understand the science behind all of this and I'm in the process of reading it now. Some of it is annoyingly redundant, but the brass tacks of it are fascinating and worthwhile. I've subscribed to Paltrow's newsletter, which is abundant with topics of fashion, food, activities, spirituality etc. What a gal. Thanks Gwyneth. More on Gwyneth Paltrow
 
Levi Novey: Will Ken Burns' New National Parks Documentary be Boring? Top
For national park nerds like myself, the release of Ken Burns' new documentary about America's national parks is a big event. Aside from the Obama family's recent visit to several national parks , this documentary will be one of the few major opportunities that come along for national park enthusiasts to help communicate the value and importance of national parks to a wider audience than those people who choose of their own interest to visit them. The 27-minute preview that PBS has released online (you can watch it below) gives a pretty good idea of what we can expect. Even before I had seen the preview, a couple of my friends who like some of Ken Burns' other documentaries had already asked me, a former national park ranger, if I think "the national park story" will be interesting enough to capture and maintain an audience's attention (read: theirs). I emphatically told them yes. Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle confirms my belief , explaining that at this year's Television Critics Association press tour the documentary "did manage to overcome the (unfair) perception of being a boring topic once people had seen it. In fact, plenty of critics could be heard saying how surprised they were that the series was so entertaining." Jonathan Storm of the Philadelphia Inquirer has even suggested that Park Ranger Shelton Johnson could be Ken Burns' next documentary celeb, much like the southern historian Shelby Foote, who gained a fan base after appearing in Burns' Civil War documentary. I think he's right, and you can see Ranger Johnson's charisma as he tells a story in the first minutes of the documentary preview. I do have several doubts about the documentary, even though I have only seen the preview. For instance, will it be too kind when presenting the stories of how some of the national parks were created in part by forcing tribes and settlers to move off their land? The documentary might also suffer from having too many inarticulate or vague exaltations as to why national parks are important. If you don't know what I mean, take this quote that appears at the end of the released preview from Gerard Baker, who is currently superintendent of Mt. Rushmore National Monument: "We need national parks to have people, especially our kids, understand what America is. America's not sidewalks, America's not stores, America's not video games, America's not restaurants. We need national parks so people can go there and say, 'Ah, this is America.'" The National Parks: America's Best Idea premieres on Sunday, September 27th on PBS. It's a six part series, with each part lasting approximately 2 hours. Will you be watching?
 
Chris Brassington: Commentary on FOX News and Its Recent Mobile Site Redesign Top
A recent interview in Mobile Marketer with Scott Margolis , director of digital business evelopment for FOX News, a 2ergo client, outlined the importance of consistency and user experience in the development and design of a mobile Web presence. Scott echoed a number of the key best practices we associate with a successful mobile marketing strategy. Here are some excerpts from that interview and my thoughts on Scott's insights. Mobile Marketer : "As phones become smarter and smarter, do you expect most mobile sites will redesign to have more of a consistency between online and mobile?" Scott: "Yes. As the phones get smarter and as the wireless networks get faster, we are able to provide a more consistent experience between our online and mobile properties. With the advances in technology, it becomes much easier for us to improve the site layout and introduce things like rich graphics and photos, making the look-and-feel of our mobile site similar to our online site." I could not agree more, and would add that as important as consistency is to preserving the brand, "cut and paste" does not work in the mobile Web environment. Traditional Web sites and the copy that accompanies these are developed for larger screens and longer viewing times. This does not translate well in the mobile world, so we always recommend rethinking the way you approach and deliver content to the mobile user. Think "sound bites" and "information on-the-go", and with that in mind do your best to make it easy to digest for mobile consumers. The following question and response speaks to what I mentioned above... MM: "How have you altered the user experience?" Scott: "Individuals who consume content on-the-go most likely do not have much time. We are cognizant of that and have streamlined the navigation to get users to the content they want with as few clicks as possible. We also feature different content sections on a rotating basis to allow our users to discover more content." ...and also communicates another important aspect of mobile site development. Keep it up to date and cycle new content in on a regular basis. In this age of on-the-go consumers who quickly devour information, brands are expected to stay relevant. Stale does not work on the traditional Web and is even worse on the mobile Web. You can view the new mobile site from FOX News on your mobile phone here. Look forward to future posts on best practices in mobile Web and mobile marketing campaign development. To contact me directly please email or ring me. Chris Brassington +44 161 8744 222 2ergo More on Fox News
 
NBC/WSJ To Test Public Option As Choice And Alternative In Next Survey Top
Critics who called out the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll for excising the word "choice" from its question about a public option for health insurance will be happier by next month's survey, which will ask the question both with and without that key element. Supporters of the public option were upset by Tuesday's survey which, after the language change, found support for a government-run alternative to private insurance down a staggering 33 percent, to 43 percent, in just two months. NBC's White House correspondent Chuck Todd told the Huffington Post on Wednesday afternoon that pollsters Bill McInturf and Peter Hart will ask respondents two questions regarding the public plan for their September study. The first: "Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?" The second: "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance?" The inclusion of both questions should provide an interesting window into how slight changes in messaging can (or don't) drastically alter the health care debate. The latter question was asked in an NBC/WSJ poll in June with 76 percent of respondents saying they felt it was either extremely or quite important to have a public option. The former question was asked in July and August, with 46 and 43 percent of respondents respectively saying they favored a public option. Todd's decision to put both questions in the mix also should placate a host of progressive health care proponents who were critical of the NBC/WSJ pollsters. On Wednesday, Todd defended the decision to drop "choice" from the survey, calling the word a "trigger" that sent a certain "message" to respondents. And while he argued that the revised way of asking the question was "very neutral" he admitted that the idea of putting both options side by side was "something we wanted to test." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Paul Korda: Safe our Forests: Legalize Pot Top
Safe our Forests: Legalize Pot Add to the ever-growing list of arguments in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana this: Legalizing pot may save one of our most precious natural treasures - our national forests. In the rugged hills above Santa Barbara, California the La Brea fire has destroyed nearly 90,000 acres of pristine wilderness. Narcotics agents and US Forest Service officials concluded that a cooking stove sparked the fire on August 8 at a camp used by Mexican drug traffickers. 30,000 high-quality marijuana plants, scorched irrigation tubes, empty fertilizer containers, several propane gas tanks, a gas cooking stove, mounds of trash and a semi-automatic rifle were found at the origin of the blaze, according to investigators. ""This is the trend," Russ Arthur, a special agent for the U.S. Forest Service, said at a Santa Barbara news conference. "I've been involved in hundreds of arrests and all of the suspects have been Mexican nationals." Drug rings south of the border send workers to plant in densely forested areas of the U.S. in early spring. The workers care for the plants for four to five months, camping out until it is time to harvest, agents said. California's state and national forests are favored locations because of the good weather and soil. The remote pot farm where the La Brea fire started is in a steep, overgrown canyon more than a mile from the nearest road, investigators said. Growers terraced the plants up a mountainside, diverting a nearby stream to provide drip irrigation to the plants, they said. The fire burned away from the farm and it appeared that the growers stayed for a while until firefighters drew close. They fled and are believed to still be in the forest, attempting to leave on foot, Sheriff's Lt. Sonny Legault said. Authorities cautioned rural residents not to approach people leaving the forest because they could be armed. It's been a record year of pot seizures for the state and federal agents who work with the Santa Barbara County narcotics unit each summer to eradicate illicit farms. So far they have pulled 225,058 plants with an estimated street value of $675 million. Many of the illegal farms were not far from where the fire started. In late July, agents pulled 113,000 plants from one site, a record for the multi-agency team. Legault said the increase in seizures is not a result of more law enforcement manpower. He said pot growers have become more sophisticated, planting multiple sites with bigger farms. Brown agreed, saying it's virtually impossible to get rid of all the marijuana grown in the state's forests. He suspects that there are many more undetected pot farms. "The reality is we could have an army out there and not be able to cover all of that ground," the sheriff said. After a 10-day battle, firefighters on Tuesday were close to completing containment lines around the La Brea fire. Firefighters were still dousing hot spots and making aerial attacks, officials said. Grounds crews are on the lookout for the fleeing individuals, Forest Service officials said. Arthur, the special agent, said other smaller fires have been started accidentally in forest lands by suspected drug traffickers. But the La Brea fire, he said, is the largest. LA Times - http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fire19-2009aug19,0,3207658.story?track=rss We are witnessing a widening of the War on Drugs. The enemy - organized crime, particularly the Mexican Drug Cartel - is following a Scorched Earth Policy, literally. Trying to contain marijuana use by criminalizing it is an utter failure. Pot's recreational use has remained steady; its medical use is skyrocketing in the 13 states where it is allowed. The only ones making out like bandits are the bandits - in this case the "banditos". And now, the banditos are not only reaping fortunes (not to mention the criminal chaos along the Mexican-American border which has claimed hundreds of lives) but they are burning down our dwindling supply national and state forests. Ironically, this latest catastrophe is taking place in the very state that stands to be most enhanced by decriminalizing marijuana. California, our most cash-strapped state, could reap enormous income by taxing cannabis cultivation. To Californians and all who cherish our natural wilderness: It's time to reap taxes from reaping marijuana, not scorch our forests where the banditos roam.
 
Timothy Karr: Unmasking Astroturf Top
If you haven't been paying attention to the work of "astroturf" groups in Washington, in the media and at your local town hall meeting, now's the time to tune in. These front groups for hire have been everywhere this summer -- spreading misinformation about health care reform, carbon emission caps and financial regulation. Astroturf shills, notably FreedomWorks' Dick Armey and Americans for Prosperity's Tim Phillips, surface wherever and whenever reform policies threaten the corporate or political status quo. Next on their hit list is Net Neutrality , the principle that prevents big phone and cable companies from deciding what you can and cannot do online. They're already painting new Net Neutrality legislation as an attempt to " socialize the Internet ." They dismiss as "extremists" the more than 1.5 million who support a free-flowing Web. The national coalition that supports Net Neutrality includes such "far-left elements" as the Christian Coalition, The Gun Owners of America, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds and the American Library Association. The Boy Who Cried Socialism All Net Neutrality really does is protect market competition, consumer choice and online innovation. But don't tell that to the astroturfer-in-chief, Scott Cleland of NetCompetition.org . His group is funded by phone and cable companies to attack legitimate consumer organizations and to confuse the public about Net Neutrality. Here's the rub: In testimonies before Congress, Cleland supported Net Neutrality before being paid by AT&T to oppose it. And oppose it he has: "Just like the Soviet socialists, the Net Neutrality movement blatantly misrepresents the facts," Cleland once said . Take that, librarians! Behind their Cold War rhetoric is a dirty little secret: Astroturf groups are set up and funded by corporations and political groups to manufacture a Potemkin Village of public support for any given issue, to sway politicians with PR and junk science, and to fool members of the media into putting them on the air. Typically, these groups won't reveal their sources of funding, and with very few exceptions, the media forget to ask about it. That's why Armey and Phillips squirmed under the lights when Rachel Maddow broke with the mainstream this month and pressed them about the money propping up their operations. And it's why Free Press just released " Astroturf: Exposing the Fake Grassroots ," an interactive online tool that makes it easy to view the seedy underbelly of the Astroturf groups bankrolled by big phone and cable. The tool tracks the huge amounts of money moving from phone and cable companies to lobbyists and political campaigns, and links it to the deceptive activities of coin-operated groups like FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, NetCompetition.org and the Heartland Institute. $incerity vs. Sincerity The Heartland Institute , in particular, is a poster child for deception. This coin-operated "think tank" specializes in aping industry talking points to downplay global warming, oppose health care reform and attack Net Neutrality. Its Fortune 500 clients include Philip Morris USA, the ExxonMobil Corporation and major telecommunications companies. When asked to report the sources of its funding, Heartland President Joseph L Bast said Heartland "now keeps confidential the identities of all our donors" because revealing it would give fodder to those who want to "abuse a sincere effort at transparency." Like the others, the Heartland Institute seems to think a lack of transparency gives more credence to their arguments, when in fact, it simply demonstrates what more people are coming to realize: Astroturf has no place in politics. A healthy 21st-century democracy doesn't need phony front groups. We need transparency, accountability and real debate. And we need to know whom we're talking to--and who's talking to us. The crucial policy decisions being made right now must be based on independent research, reliable data and honest brokers. Powerful special interests must stop distorting the issues and hiding behind Astroturf. -- Timothy Karr is the campaign director of Free Press, the national, not-for-profit media reform group. Free Press accepts no money from industry, industry groups, political parties or government. More on Rachel Maddow
 
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Do Arabs See Israel as a Permanent Fact? Top
A recent article in the New York Times sums up all that is wrong with the Obama administration's posture toward Israel. The article concerns President Hosni Mubarak's meeting with President Obama. What we first discover is that Mubarak has not visited the United States in five years because of "President Bush's Middle East policy... and criticism of Egypt's political and human rights record." So what we first discover is that the Obama administration is prepared to overlook the lack of any kind of Democratic progress in Egypt and treat Mubarak as an important visiting Head of State even though he's been a dictator, for nearly 40 years. The next thing the article shares with us is that Mubarak's message to Obama is that, from the Arab perspective, progress can only be made if Israel agrees to "freeze settlements...and agree to negotiate with all issues on the table including the status of Jerusalem and the refugees." So, in other words, if Israel is prepared to give up its capitol and to allow massive numbers of Palestinian refugees that would basically offset the Jewish character of the State of Israel, are the Arabs prepared to negotiate. In other words if you open the door to ceasing to exist we are prepared to begin speaking. Over the weekend I was reading Benny Morris' brilliant new book 1948 The First Arab Israeli War and the chapter concerning the UN's resolution 181 which voted for the partition of Palestine in 1947. I came across a quote that sums up the Arab position towards Israel better than anything that I've read. Morris quotes 'Abd al-Rahman 'Azzam, who was the Arab League secretary-general in 1947 who said the following: "[To the Arab peoples] you are not an [existing] fact. You [the Jews] are a temporary phenomenon. Centuries ago, the crusaders established themselves in our midst against our will, and in 200 years we ejected them....Up to the very last moment, and beyond, they [the Arabs] will fight to prevent you from establishing your State. In no circumstances will they agree to it." But Morris says that "Azzam added that, in the past, the Arabs had "once had Spain, and then we lost Spain, and we have become accustomed to not having Spain....Whether at any point we shall become accustomed to not having a part of Palestine, I can not say." This sums up the Arab posture better than anything else. It is only when the Arabs accept Israel as a permanent and unassailable fact that they will come to terms with Israel and make peace, just as they were forced to do with their loss of Spain which the Muslims had held on to for hundreds of years prior to the Catholic reconquest. That will not happen if Israel does not establish facts on the ground that demonstrate once and for all that it is here to stay. This is the reason why Arab governments press so hard against settlements. The less there is of Israel the easier it is for them to accept that Israel will be like a crusader state in their midst, established for a period of time but ultimately destined, G-d forbid, to disappear. I just came back from a Mayonot trip to Israel where I met AIPAC representatives who were my friends at AIPAC who were guiding both the republican and democratic delegation of Freshman congressman and they were showing them that by the Obama administration's definition of settlement this would include even apartments in the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem who would not be allowed to add rooms for natural growth as babies were born. Clearly a policy like this is not just wrong headed but discriminatory. It would put limits to where Jews can live. No wonder then that polls are showing that 90% of Israelis are opposed to President Obama's policies, which is interesting given that Israel is so evenly divided between right and left and they all seem to agree that Obama has just lost the plot on his efforts for peace in the Middle East. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Follow Shmuley on Twitter Shmuley's on Facebook Buy Rabbi Shmuley's newest book The Kosher Sutra Join the national "Turn Friday Night Into Family Night" initiative. See Shmuley on the web More on Obama Mideast Trip
 
Rush Limbaugh Makes Gay Joke About Barney Frank: "He Spends Most Of His Time Living Around Uranus" (AUDIO) Top
Rush Limbaugh has made what appears to be a joke mocking Barney Frank's sexuality in response to Frank's tough stance with a town hall protester Tuesday night. Tuesday, Frank asked a protester who had compared President Obama to Hitler, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" On his show Wednesday ( via Mediaite ), Limbaugh responded, mocking Frank and asking, "Isn't it an established fact that Barney Frank himself spends most of his time living around Uranus?" Frank was the second openly gay member of Congress and is "one of the most prominent LGBT politicians in the United States," his Wikipedia entry states . Watch:
 
Paul Loeb: The Progressive magazine needs our help Top
If you're familiar with The Progressive , it's a wonderful magazine with a hundred-year history of advocating for progressive social change, going back to their founder, Robert La Follette. Doesn't matter what the issue, they were ahead of their time, and they continue to publish wonderful writers from Howard Zinn to Barbara Ehrenreich to Eduardo Galeano, plus they have a syndicated show on 40 radio stations. But they may not be able to continue without our help. I'm chipping in and hope my fellow HuffPo readers will too. It's easy to think that in our digital age, only blogs matter, but The Progressive continues to run important and timely stories that get us thinking in a longer framework. The have a good web audience as well, though not as large as ours. They're an important independent voice, and I don't want to lose them. But they need to raise $90,000 in the next couple weeks to get through a short-term cash crunch, after which they'll be ok for the rest of the year, and with cutbacks, in decent shape for the following year. They've come up with $25,000 so far, which leaves $65,000. I gave and I hope other Kossacks will as well. Paul Loeb Author of Soul of a Citizen Here's the descriptive letter from editor Matt Rothschild: Dear Progressive Reader: Let me put it to you straight: We must raise $90,000 in the next two weeks to keep going. We've got no money in the bank, and we have payroll to meet on August 31, and our printer to pay, and other creditors hounding us. We've got to shell out $130,000 in the next two weeks, but we're only expecting to bring in $40,000. That's why I urgently need your help with a tax-deductible donation by clicking here . Please be as generous as you can. The Progressive is a nonprofit, legally and all-too-literally these days. Aware of our acute budget problems, we, for the first time in the 26 years I've been here, recently had to institute staff cutbacks and salary reductions, including for me. We've also combed over every expense line, and trimmed wherever we possibly could. There's no place else to trim. On the revenue side, I've spent the better part of my summer nights calling people up on the phone for donations. And still we're short. Next year looks a lot better. With all the savings we've made, we stand to secure our footing and gain significant ground. But we need to get there first. If you value the weekly letters and updates I send you, If you value the writing and reporting on our website, If you value the Progressive Radio offerings or those of the Progressive Media Project, Or if you value the essayists we bring you in the magazine, like Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, Barbara Ehrenreich, Dave Zirin, and Eduardo Galeano, Or if you value the 100-year history of The Progressive magazine, this great institution of dissent, Then please show your support right now by sending The Progressive a tax-deductible donation by clicking here . I need to hear from you today. Thanking you in advance, Matthew Rothschild Editor and Publisher The Progressive P.S. If you want to discuss our situation with me, feel free to e-mail me at mattr@progressive.org , or call me at (608) 257-4626. I really appreciate your support. And please share this appeal with any and all friends who might be in a position to help. Thanks so much! 409 East Main Street | Madison, WI 53703 US More on Magazines
 
Alycia Lane Resurfaces As KNBC Weekend Anchor Top
OUR favorite anchorwoman, Alycia Lane, dumped from KYW Philadelphia a year and a half ago, has resurfaced as weekend anchor at KNBC in LA.
 
Alain de Botton To Be Heathrow Airport's Writer-in-Residence Top
LONDON — Heathrow Airport has hired a writer-in-residence to chronicle the modern travel experience in hopes of showing frazzled passengers there's more to flying than long lines and waiting. Alain de Botton, author of highbrow best-sellers including "The Consolations of Philosophy" and "How Proust Can Change Your Life," is spending a week inside Heathrow's Terminal 5, the airport said Wednesday. De Botton began his stint Tuesday and spends some of the time sitting behind a desk in the departures area, observing and interviewing passengers and staff. De Botton, 39, said airport officials had agreed to give him full access to the terminal and to allow him to write what he likes. The airport hopes the project will give readers a more rounded picture of what goes on behind the scenes. "My agent and I devised the cockroach test: in other words, I had to be allowed to discuss every last cockroach I might spot at the airport if that's what I felt like doing," he wrote in Wednesday's Evening Standard newspaper. He said airports – so often thought of as places to be endured – were fascinating locations where big global themes including technology, globalization, consumerism and the environment came to life. "If you wanted to take a Martian to a single place that best captures everything that is distinctive and particular to modern civilization, in its highs and lows, you would undoubtedly take them to the airport," said de Botton, whose latest book is "The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work." Overcrowded Heathrow is Europe's busiest airport, but far from the best-loved. Terminal 5, designed to modernize and expand the airport, opened last year in a blaze of negative publicity. Hundreds of flights were canceled and thousands of pieces of luggage lost after the terminal's high-tech baggage-handling system broke down. Heathrow chief operating officer Mike Brown conceded that opening the airport up to a writer's scrutiny was "a bold and adventurous step." De Botton's observations will be collected in a book scheduled to be published next month. Some 10,000 copies will be given away free to travelers at Heathrow. Heathrow says it is the first airport to employ a writer-in-residence, but in-house writers have been adopted by institutions from prisons, shopping malls and football teams to London's ritzy Savoy Hotel.
 
Kiri Westby: Do Toilets Gross You Out? Top
Lately I have been cleaning public restrooms. Having spent a lot of time in Asia, where the toilet-going experiences are ripe and raw, I have begun to investigate my relationship with toilets here in the US. Recently, a woman in front of me in the bathroom line at the movies walked the row of seemingly open stalls, slowly shaking her head and making poo-face at the stalls where there was some visible evidence of the previous user. As if trying to find the toilet stall that could confirm her belief that she was the first user since its cleaning, she decided to wait until a stall, more up to her standards, opened up. I took the stall with the ripped, wet, toilet seat cover hanging over the lid...which remained empty despite a line of women doing the pee-dance and missing their movies. I reached down, grabbed the wadded-up piece of paper, flushed the toilet, cleaned up some other paper trash off the floor, got a new toilet seat liner and sat down. I very well may have touched someone else's pee. While washing my hands I thought about how paranoid we are of each other's excrement in the US. Regardless of the antibacterial soap and the special seat liners, public bathrooms can bring out the inner hypochondriac in all of us, myself included. While in Nepal, India and Tibet we regularly use pit toilets, forced to see and smell the export of the former squatters. In fact, the toilets at the Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet are some of the nastiest I've seen...and down below a herd of cows lives off the bounty. And there is rarely toilet paper for wiping -- simply your hand and some old water. You touch your own poop and you wash your hands...and it's fine. Here in the US, however, we all seem to agree that cleaning up after ourselves or, God forbid, after someone else in the bathroom is someone else's job...and usually it is. But wouldn't it be easier and saner if we just stopped being afraid of the grosser parts of life and gave our stall a quick once-over before and after we left? So lately, I have been choosing the dirtiest stalls and forcing myself to look at and experience the yuck and the shit of life. I have been cleaning public restrooms, unasked and unthanked, because It makes me feel less afraid and more connected to the world...how funny is that? Do you have a story about facing the stink and yuck of life head-on? Let us hear it! Kiri Westby was featured in Ed and Deb Shapiro's new book, Be the Change: How Meditation Can Transform You and the World , with forewords by HH Dalai Lama and Robert Thurman.
 
Dr. Erika Schwartz: Bogged Down By Special Interest, Health Care Reform Becomes a Political Tool Instead of a People's Right Top
Prevention is a crucial element of healthcare reform. President Obama said that through prevention, Americans will become healthier and thus substantially reduce the costs of healthcare. He extolled the importance of training more primary care physicians, encouraging each and every one of us to take responsibility for getting and staying healthy and focusing on prevention. But that was a few months ago when the president first presented his plan for a government run overhaul of our severely ailing healthcare system. I for one, along with many of my patients, applauded the president. We who live and work in the trenches where healthcare actually happens know how desperately needed a change of direction is. We know first hand that all too often our hospitals are sources of more disease than cures, that patients get shuffled from specialist to specialist and test to test for years without improvements in their condition, that the insured are often treated just as poorly as the uninsured. We in the trenches watch in horror as some of our peers care more about how much money they make from a particular test, by prescribing a particular drug or by giving a lecture for a drug company, then spending an extra 5 minutes with a patient listening and caring. We in the trenches know that the system is overtaxed and the training of physicians is not of the quality or purity we need to keep the country healthy and thriving. We also know that the most advanced technologies or drugs will never make up for the humanity and care we are often unable or unwilling to give our patients for lack of time or maybe fear of getting sued. Of course, each one of us is responsible for creating a positive outcome in our own lives, but in the case of healthcare we need a little more than good attitudes and perspective. We need some serious support. Support from our government was promised by President Obama during his campaign. We agreed it was needed. We needed change and voted for it. Unfortunately, not much of what we truly need is included in the HS 3200 plan and the increasingly heated discussions we are faced with today. Personally, as a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I felt betrayed and horrified to read the President had gone back on his word to avoid involvement with special interests by making a deal with the pharmaceutical lobby. The White House secretly made a pact with the drug companies that was hammered out several months ago but only came to light a few weeks ago in all too few media outlets. Although quite sketchy, this much we know: The drug companies, through their powerful lobby, agreed not to oppose any form of healthcare reform and offered $80 billion in cost savings over 10 years if the White House would protect them from having to shoulder additional financial burden in upcoming legislation. Please note this is not about giving free drugs to poor people who cannot afford them and actually need them -- this is about keeping the drug cartel running the healthcare system. This type of deal will make drug companies even more powerful and the country more addicted to prescription and other forms of "legal" drugs. Not exactly a promising start for a trend towards prevention. True prevention is about preventing disease and inherently diminishing the need or more drugs, regardless of cost. The $80 billion "giveback" deal is a drop in the ocean for drug companies. If healthcare reform legislation is passed as is, it will give millions more American access to their products and result in windfall profits. That is, as long as the health care system continues on the path of status quo: more disease diagnosing, more testing, more drugs, less doctor-patient interaction. The deal with the Administration guarantees drug companies a "seat at the table" as the reform process plays out and perpetuates their position as one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington regardless of which political party is in power. This does not bode well for the American public. Never mind that too many drugs are proven to harm people more than help them, that drug companies influence physician practice, not only by paying for medical education but also through ghostwriting scientific articles published in respected medical journals. Never mind that drug companies advertise their drugs directly to the public while also sponsoring some of the most senior and highly respected medical groups and academic centers in this country. Increasing access to drugs takes the focus off the real problem and allows the drug companies which already have destroyed the concept and reality of a free and safe health care system to continue their plan to benefit from America being sick and using drugs instead of shifting the focus to eating right, exercising and preventing disease. Instead of worrying Americans about "death panels" and rationing of health care which is already in place with HMOs and other large insurance carriers, let's put the focus back where it belongs. Do not allow America to continue being manipulated by special interest groups and help the people of America understand that they must control their own fate. Let them start by learning how to eat right, exercise, sleep and be kind to themselves. Once these basic health care tips become part of the fabric of our society, we can focus on demanding that physicians and other health care providers work for us. Healthcare is the ultimate service industry and should become exactly that. Once healthcare becomes solely about serving the public and not special interests, the solution to all our health care problems will be found. Dr. Erika Schwartz is the Medical Director of Cinergy Health. For more information visit www.cinergyhealth.com .
 
"Gang Of Six" Talks To Continue By Phone Top
WASHINGTON — A key Democratic committee chairman involved in talks on a compromise health care plan said Wednesday they are on track to reach agreement. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he'd prefer a bipartisan deal but "patience is not unlimited." Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said his group of three Democrats and three Republicans "is on track to reach a bipartisan agreement on comprehensive health care reform" that can pass a divided Senate. Baucus said the negotiators – dubbed the "Gang of Six"_ will hold a teleconference Thursday to continue their talks. His Republican counterpart, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, has recently come under fire for his harsh public statements about the Democratic proposals. But Grassley said Wednesday he isn't quitting either – although he didn't sound nearly as optimistic as Baucus. "Something as big and important as health care legislation should have broad-based support," Grassley said. "So far, no one has developed that kind of support, either in Congress or at the White House. That doesn't mean we should quit. It means we should keep working until we can put something together that gets that widespread support." Reid, D-Nev., has given Baucus a Sept. 15 deadline for an agreement. His office said Wednesday the White House and the Democratic leadership would still prefer a bipartisan bill over trying to pass legislation with only Democrats. Spokesman Jim Manley said no decision will be made to pursue a Democrats-only strategy until efforts to produce a bipartisan bill have been exhausted. "However, patience is not unlimited and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary," Manley said. Democrats could use a parliamentary maneuver to try to pass the health care bill with 51 votes as opposed to the 60 normally needed in the Senate on controversial issues. But going that route – called reconciliation – risks having big chunks of the bill stripped out during consideration on the Senate floor. The Senate's second-ranking Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, says Congress should start over on health care with a blank sheet of paper.
 
Yasmin Zaher: The Modern Making of Refugee Politics Top
In the center of Copenhagen, capital of the Scandinavian state revered for its welfare policies, wait thirty Iraqi refugees in Brorsons Church for the asylum fate most feared. Supported entirely by local donations and young Danish volunteers, they and two hundred more face forced repatriation following a decade of rejected asylum applications and a futile exhaustion of legal appeal. They have been living in the basement of the church for almost three months now, a room barren, canned food circumscribing a long wooden table with hospital beds and curtains mocking the synthetic privacy of those who suffered Iraq's darkest era. As Denmark honors scoring highest in the world index of satisfaction with life, they are now orchestrating repeated psychological traumas of refugees who only want a chance of a decent living. In reality, these families are asking for a chance at life if at all. If repatriated, these individuals face persecution, lack of financial security, bombings, terror, and ethnic and sectarian transformations, which must brand Denmark's decision a humanitarian emergency. A hundred and seventy five civilians died on the streets of Iraq only in the last two weeks, with many predictions of the start of a civil war. The aftermath of the 2003 invasion holds Denmark responsible as a participant, but it must also respect the welfare values it models on its veneer. The nineteen Iraqis arrested last Wednesday, who fit the UN definition of a refugee, are outside the country of nationality and are unable or, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. Putting the word unwilling aside, the Danish government's decision to repatriate these Iraqis is life threatening. One man awaiting in the church is 72 years old and suffers a severe degree of dementia, an other woman is sick and needs medical attention of USD 1000 a week. A family of four faces repatriation of the mother and younger son, a family torn apart. Abu Maher -not his real name-, a charismatic father serving as the spokesperson of the group said last June, "If I return to Baghdad I will have to live on the streets, in a tent or a cardboard box." A month later he was arrested with his two sons, the eldest a newly admitted student at the University of Copenhagen. The deeper one delves into the issue, the more Iraqis face injustice and the more peculiar the case of the Danish government appears. Denmark was the first signatory state on the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UNHCR and Amnesty International have stated that the situation is still unstable, especially in Mosul, Baghdad and Kirkuk, where majority of refugees come from. The Prime Minister of Iraq denies a deal to forcefully repatriate Iraqis and insisted that Iraq would only accept those who return by their own will. There should be no doubt that these people's lives are threatened, and the Danish administration seems to know this very well. The Foreign Ministry states that "All travel to Iraq, with the exception of travel to the three Kurdish provinces of Dohuk, Erbil and Sulemaniya is discouraged and Danes are urged to leave the country." Furthermore the Board of Refugees delegation, those very people who persistently rejected the asylum application of the 282 refugees, hasn't entered Iraq for security assessment, due to security reasons, since 2004. The Refugee Board's website states that a country's poor conditions, including civil war, does not justify protection status. If that is not a reason to grant asylum, as the Convention mentioned earlier stipulates, what is? In Sweden, 8 out of 10 asylum seekers from Iraq are granted asylum on the basis that they would be in danger if sent back. In Denmark, only one out of ten is granted asylum, even though Denmark is bound by the same conventions as Sweden. The typical reaction of Danish officials these days is that Denmark has still accepted asylum of 300 Iraqis last year. A deeper examination reveals that the majority are merely former interpreters to the Danish forces, and is the group most commonly willingly returning to Iraq only a few years after resettlement. Copenhagen is losing its glow these days: only visible are the lit candles of a few thousand demonstrators and the clashing flashlights of policemen hushing the crowd, sometimes with pepper spray and truncheon beatings. The young voice of a volunteering Danish psychologist echoes through the church's walls and up to the Alter. She helps the refugees deal with the inevitable fear, anxiety and depression. She maneuvers between the devastated refugees, trying to relieve a cry her discipline cannot contain. She looks at her city and shares a sentiment many have recently come to admit; they are ashamed of their government. Yasmin Zaher and Saned Raouf are students at Yale University who investigated the psychosocial needs of Iraqi refugees during summer 2009. More on Refugees
 
Pablo Triana: Why Nassim Taleb is the True Predictor of this Crisis Top
The punditry and the world at large have been hard at work trying to find ex-ante predictors for the malaise that has engulfed our markets, our economies, and our societies. Desperate efforts to find those who "called it" have been relentlessly launched. We all seem to want to know who among us really saw the mayhem coming. It was unavoidable that such an agitated process would deliver a sizable dose of less-than-reliable prophets and less-than-robust explanations. The breathless quest for prospective explainers, the unquenchable thirst for totemic ex-ante seers has resulted in the crowning of individuals who, notwithstanding their many qualities, did not get it exactly right before the troubles initiated. Yes, many of them did warn about the unsustainability of the housing bubble, and the insalubrious practices taking place in the sub-prime mortgage business, and (much less often) about the toxic nature of certain newfangled securities. But only one person among the appointed oracles truly pointed fingers at the true prospective culprit behind the current devastation. And he did so not in 2005 or 2006, but as far back (at least) as 1997. This is what Nassim Taleb said more than a decade ago that qualifies him, in my eyes, as the true and only visionary: I believe that Value at Risk is the alibi bankers will give shareholders and the bailing-out taxpayer to show documented due diligence, and will express that their blow-up came from truly unforeseeable circumstances and events with low probability, not from taking large risks they did not understand. ... I maintain that the due diligence VaR tool encouraged untrained people to take misdirected risk with shareholders' and ultimately the taxpayers', money. In the midst of the credit nightmare, such pearls could not appear any more prescient. For VaR, the mathematical model used as risk radar by banks and chosen by regulators as the tool that sets capital charges for trading activities (what essentially dictates the amount of leverage that banks can engage in), did ultimately cause the crisis and the Taleb-predicted bail-out, precisely by providing reckless bankers with a seemingly scientific alibi to monstrously leverage their balance sheets with the most toxic and illiquid of financial wares. By being unrealistically low, VaR allowed banks to cheaply devour as much toxic stuff as they wanted. Since those gigantic toxic positions are what truly sank Wall Street, and since the sinkage of the latter is what truly unleashed what is known as the credit crisis, it follows that without VaR the pain would have been much more diluted. This crisis was not really a "housing crisis," but a "trading crisis." Mortgage defaults on their own would have never created this kind of tremors. The melting into oblivion of complex securities based on those mortgages is what did unleash hell. VaR unseemly allowed banks to afford the complexity feast, and that's why I declare it guilty numero uno. Only Taleb saw this coming, more than ten years ago. If only we had listened to him more attentively. More on Housing Crisis
 
Penn And Wright Agree To Division Of Property, Custody Top
SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — Robin Wright and husband Sean Penn have already agreed on how they will divide property in their divorce, according to court records. Wright, 43, filed for divorce Aug. 12 in San Rafael, Calif., citing irreconcilable differences with Penn, 49, her husband of more than a decade. The couple have agreed to share custody of their 16-year-old son Hopper Jack. The couple also has an 18-year-old daughter, Dylan Francis. Publicists for Wright and Penn didn't immediately return e-mails seeking comment Wednesday. A message for Wright's lawyer, Bruce Clemens, was also not immediately returned. The couple, married in April 1996, have filed for separation or divorce twice before, only to dismiss their petitions. Penn asked for separation as recently as April. But he later withdrew the petition, telling the New York Daily News the filing was "an arrogant mistake." The couple met on the set of the 1990 Irish mob movie "State of Grace." Penn had previously married and divorced Madonna, and Wright was married once before to former soap star Dane Witherspoon. They attended the Academy Awards together in February when Penn received an Oscar for his role in "Milk." But he didn't thank Wright in his acceptance speech. It was Penn's second Oscar. He had won previously for his role in "Mystic River." Wright is best known for her roles in "The Princess Bride" and "Forrest Gump." The couple has been ordered to appear in court on Dec. 17 in the divorce case, according to court filings. More on Sean Penn
 
Lockerbie Bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi To Be Released, Say Reports Top
EDINBURGH, Scotland — A decision has been reached in the case of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and will be announced Thursday, the Scottish government said. British news networks reported that he would be released on compassionate grounds. Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill said he had informed the families of the victims that he had come to a decision about what to do with al-Megrahi and would make a formal announcement Thursday afternoon in Edinburgh, the Scottish capital. Sky News television reported Wednesday that al-Megrahi will be released from prison on compassionate grounds. The BBC has also previously reported that al-Megrahi would be set free on compassionate grounds, adding that his release had been expected before the end of the week. Neither network cited the source of its information. Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988. The airliner – which was carrying mostly American passengers to New York – blew up as it flew over Scotland. All 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground died when the aircraft crashed into the town of Lockerbie. The former Libyan intelligence officer was sentenced to serve a minimum of 27 years in a Scottish prison for the crime, but a 2007 review of his case raised the prospect that al-Megrahi had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and many in Britain believe he is innocent. Meanwhile, relations between Libya and the West have improved dramatically. Western energy companies – including Britain's BP PLC – have moved into Libya in an effort to tap the country's vast oil and gas wealth. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has lobbied for the return of al-Megrahi, an issue which took on an added sense of urgency when he was diagnosed with cancer last year. His lawyers say his condition is deteriorating. The question of whether to release the 57-year-old al-Megrahi has divided Lockerbie families, with many in Britain in favor of setting him free, and many in the U.S. adamantly opposed. British Rev. John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the attack, said Wednesday he would be glad to see al-Megrahi return home. "It is right he should go home to die in dignity with his family. I believe it is our Christian duty to show mercy," he said. But American families have largely been hostile to the idea. So too has the U.S. government. Seven U.S. senators and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have urged MacAskill not to release al-Megrahi. "I'm totally against it. He murdered 270 people," said Paul Halsch of Perinton, New York, who lost his 31-year-old wife in the attack. "This might sound crude or blunt, but I want him returned ... the same way my wife Lorraine was ... and that would be in a box." Peter Sullivan of Akron, Ohio, whose friend and college roommate Mike Doyle died at Lockerbie, said he believed Britain was putting commercial interests before the interests of the victims' relatives. "The interest of big oil should not be the basis of a miscarriage of justice to let a murderer of 270 people be released," Sullivan said. "If he's released on compassionate grounds, who would provide comfort and compassion to the family members?" ___ Associated Press Writers Jessica M. Pasko in Albany, New York, and Jim Hannah in Dayton, Ohio, contributed to this report. More on Crime
 
Carolyn Rubenstein: 3 Steps that Turn Hardship into Hope Top
Various studies show that an optimistic mindset will lift your mood and might add years to your life. But how do you look on the bright side when life is really bleak? Let's say you've lost a job, are going through a divorce, or are struggling with a health problem. Is there a way to stay positive during such hard times? Yes, there is! I've met and worked with many people who seemingly had every reason to feel down. Yet they were among the most optimistic people I've ever known. They taught me a lot about turning hardship into hope. These courageous souls have taught me the following life lessons: 1. Accept what you cannot change. I can't always control what's going on in the world around me. I can't control the economy. I can't control the actions of other people. I can't even control whether or not I suffer from certain health problems. But I can control how I react to what's out of my control. You can do this, too, by taking charge of your mind. You can control what you think about and how you feel. Become the leader of your own mind. Do not allow negative events to lead you to negative emotions. Empower yourself to change your mindset. 2. Redefine what's possible. Perhaps you can't get a job in your chosen profession right now, but you can set a goal to do something. Maybe you can set a goal to earn just enough money - doing something outside of your chosen profession--to make ends meet. Or perhaps you can make it your goal to make the best of your free time during your unemployment to get all of those projects done that you never have time to do. Even if you have a major health problem, you have possibilities. I've interviewed cancer patients, for instance, who could not control the course of their disease, but they could control how they lived their final months. Ask yourself, "What do I want? How I can redefine what's possible for me?" 3. Define how you'll get there. Once you know what you want, create a plan that will help you accomplish that goal. How do you turn hardship into hope? : : : * For more reasons to feel hopeful, get a copy of PERSEVERANCE today! I sincerely appreciate your support! * Each day, I post inspiring tips focused on turning knowledge into action and action into change. You can read these tips and much more on carolynrubenstein.com ! *Celebrate the Release of PERSEVERANCE: TWEET to win a Kindle! Read the details here and get started by tweeting #perseverance !! More on Twitter
 
Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner: Take that! Moms in Capes Bust Healthcare Myths Across the Nation Top
Faster than a toddler crawling toward an uncovered electrical outlet and more powerful than a teenager's social networking skills, moms across the country are fanning out to dispel the unfounded rumors, misperceptions and lies about healthcare reform. The effort, the SuperMom Healthcare Truth Squad, is spearheaded by MomsRising.org. Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco are among the first cities to witness this "mom power," when the cape wearing SuperMom Healthcare Truth Squad arrives today to distribute information about Myths & Truths. SuperMoms dressed in red capes are distributing powerful truth flyers to passersby to educate them about what healthcare reform will really do and how it will help to ensure the economic security of families across the country. Join this effort online by Truth Tagging a friend with healthcare reform myths & facts today: http://www.momsrising.org/TruthSquadTag While the SuperMom Healthcare Truth Squad is debuting in Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco today, this is just a small part of what's going on with moms fighting for healthcare reform right now. Across the country, over the next several weeks thousands of other MomsRising Truth Squad members will do their part by talking to friends, neighbors, and other community members about what healthcare reform will really accomplish; sending emails that explain the real purposes and plans for reform and dispel the myths; and using their school and soccer/sports team lists, along with Facebook and Twitter accounts to spread the truth. Why do moms care? Not only are families struggling with getting children the healthcare coverage they need for a healthy start, but 7 out of 10 women are either uninsured, underinsured, or are in significant debt due to healthcare costs. In fact, a leading cause of bankruptcy is healthcare costs--and over 70% of those who do go bankrupt due to healthcare costs had insurance at the start of their illness. Clearly we need healthcare reform! Healthcare reform is a key economic security issue for mothers and families in our nation. That's why this summer, MomsRising members across the country are also meeting with over 90 in-district U.S. Senate offices to share their experiences with the healthcare system and to convey the message that moms will "not be pacified" until our healthcare system is fixed. Dozens of highly attended in-district meetings with U.S. Senate offices have already happened in the past couple of weeks. Pictures can be seen here: http://www.momsrising.org/HealthcareSenateMeetingHighlights At these meetings, MomsRising members are sharing their stories, as well as delivering a book of members stories complete with a real pacifier and the message that, "Moms won't be pacified until our healthcare system is fixed." See the book of member stories here: https://momsrising.democracyinaction.org/o/1768/images/SenateMeeting_MomsRising%20Book%20Color%20Low.pdf Why did we start the MomsRising Truth Squad? Well, things were getting so out-of-hand with ridiculous rumors flying, that we at MomsRising decided to add a little levity and, importantly, truth to the situation with moms in capes. So if you can't wear a cape today, join us in the game of Truth Tag to help put a little truth into the mix of the national dialogue on Healthcare Reform right now: http://www.momsrising.org/TruthSquadTag Go to this link to tag a friend with the truth and pass it on. Onward! More on Health Care
 
Dave Johnson: National Association of Manufacturers Blasts ... American Manufacturing? Top
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF. Last week Harold Meyerson wrote a great column in the Washington Post, Just One Word: Factories , promoting American manufacturing. Meyerson wrote, "Since 1987, manufacturing as a share of our gross domestic product has declined 30 percent. Once the world's leading net exporter, we have become the world's leading net importer. In 2007, we exported $1.2 trillion worth of goods and services but imported $1.8 trillion. If there were a debtor's prison for nations, we'd all be in the clink. [. . .] What makes the decline of American manufacturing particularly galling is that we're not falling behind because we're inefficient: American factories are among the most productive on the planet, as McCormack notes. But alone among the world's industrial powers, we have left the task of enticing manufacturers not to the federal government but to state and local governments, which try to attract factories and research facilities with tax abatements and public investments that are dwarfed by the efforts of national governments in other lands. ... It's not just that the United States uniquely lacks an industrial policy. It's that the United States uniquely has an anti-industrial policy." This sounds good to me. If we are going to restore American economic power we need to promote American manufacturing. So who comes out to blast Meyerson for his column promoting American manufacturing? Was it the European Manufacturers Association? Was it the China Manufacturers Association? Was it the Korean Manufactures Association? No, it was America's own National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) . Yes, the American NAM, not the European, Chinese, Japanese or Korean NAM, but the American NAM. They say American manufacturing is in fine shape and doesn't need any help from the government to keep it strong. WTF? Why is the NAM blasting Meyerson for writing a column promoting American manufacturing? A clue might be the source of the anti-American-manufacturing information they use. They quote Daniel J. Ikenson of the Cato Institute. Cato is an anti-government "libertarian" think tank that supports "free trade" and is against any kind of regulation of business, including any restrictions on imports. This could be because Cato receives a great deal of financial support from non-manufacturing interests including commodities and securities traders, tobacco companies, communications companies, software companies and oil companies. They also receive support from non-American manufacturing interests, including the Korea International Trade Association. What I want to know is: Why is America's National Association of Manufacturers echoing the Cato Institute's views against American manufacturing? Has this organization lost its way? Does the NAM membership know about this?
 
Sanjeev Bery: Lack of Coverage on Transgendered Pakistanis Shows Bias in US Media Top
It probably wasn't the first time that someone had organized an Independence Day cricket match in Pakistan. But it almost certainly was the first time that such a match occurred between a team of professional cricket players and a team of transgendered Pakistanis. As the Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported , the transgendered team won. Known as hijras , transgendered Pakistanis and Indians have historically lived in their own communities and within their own cultural contexts. The word hijra combines a range of sexual identities -- gay crossdressers, hermaphradites -- who identify as female, and male-to-female transgendered individuals. In Indian and Pakistani English, words like "eunuch" and "transvestite" are often used in place of the word hijra. Of course, it goes without saying that many Pakistani hijras, like their Indian counterparts, live challenging lives of discrimination and social stigma. That is why it was such positive news when the Pakistani Supreme Court recently ruled that transgendered citizens cannot be discriminated against in Pakistani government welfare programs. The Court also directed the government to take specific steps to ensure their well-being. In the words of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, "Eunuchs are also the citizens of Pakistan and should be given basic fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution." Of course, even the most sophisticated consumers of American media are unlikely to be aware of such developments. Why? Because American media outlets didn't report on them. For American reporters and editors, Pakistan only exists in the context of security concerns: the Taliban, terrorism, fundamentalist Islam, and the war in Afghanistan. Outside of this context, there is no Pakistan. By comparison, consider how the U.S. media reported on related developments in India. When the Delhi High Court threw out an Indian law banning gay sex, American newspapers trumpeted the news. As the New York Times reported , "In a landmark ruling Thursday that could usher in an era of greater freedom for gay men and lesbians in India, New Delhi's highest court decriminalized homosexuality. " Plenty of other U.S. media outlets sounded off too. Taken on its own, this focus is a good thing. The expansion of equality deserves to be reported on, whether one is writing about the Indian Supreme Court's decision in 2009, or the U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that ruled similar bans unconstitutional across the U.S. But the heavy U.S. coverage of the Indian Supreme Court's decision also fits into a pre-existing Western narrative of India. As the story goes, India is a growing democracy and a rising economic power. In that context, the story of the expansion of Indian equality easily resonates in the American mind. Not only is the U.S. simultaneously addressing similar challenges faced by gay and lesbian Americans, but there is a strong underlying belief that democracies perfect themselves over time through an expansion of liberty across society. Unfortunately, Pakistan's story of expanding equality for transgendered citizens doesn't quite fit the pre-written American narrative. After all, Pakistan was supposed to be on the verge of becoming a "failed Islamic state." How can the same country possibly have a Supreme Court that bars discrimination against a sexual minority? The story of the Pakistani Supreme Court decision poses other challenges to the dominant narrative as well. Dawn identified the individual who brought forward the claim on behalf of transgendered Pakistanis as Dr Mohammad Aslam Khaki, an Islamic jurist. As reported in Pakistan's The News International , Dr Khaki "told the court that eunuchs were discriminated [against] everywhere, including hospitals, schools and colleges," and that "eunuchs should be provided with an opportunity to interact with other segments of society including journalists, lawyers, ulema and the like." You can imagine the cognitive fit that such a news story might induce in the mainstream U.S. media. How can an Islamic jurist advocate for transgender communities? Why weren't there Pakistani riots when the decision came down? To make things even more interesting, it is worth pointing out that the Chief Justice who issued the Supreme Court ruling isn't some isolated bureaucrat disliked by mainstream Pakistani society. No, Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry is actually a highly popular judge who was once removed from power by the U.S.-backed military dictator Pervez Musharraf. He was subsequently put back in office by a massive movement of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis who marched on the capital of Islamabad twice . While the Bush Administration was pumping billions of U.S. tax dollars into Musharraf's regime, Musharraf worked hard to protect his reign by dismantling the rule of law at home. Independent courts have a way of interfering with dictators' designs, so Musharraf replaced Chief Justice Chaudhry and his peers with more "compliant" judges. It took the protests of two "Long Marches" to bring the real Chief Justice back to the Pakistani Supreme Court. None of this, of course, fits within the dominant U.S. narrative on Pakistan. First of all, transgender equality in Pakistan isn't a security issue. Second, Muslim jurists and courts aren't expected to advocate for the rights of sexual minorities. Third, it carries the subtle implication that U.S. support for Musharraf actually delayed the pursuit of equality for an aggrieved community. No wonder the mainstream U.S. media couldn't find space for this story. It just doesn't fit. This is part of HuffPost's Spotlight On Pakistan . Eyes & Ears and HuffPost World are building a network of people living in Pakistan who can help us understand what is happening there. These individuals will send us reports -- either snippets of information or full-length stories -- about how the political crisis affects life in Pakistan. This is an opportunity to have a continued conversation with Americans about what's happening in your country. If you would like to participate, please sign up here. Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Pakistan
 
ALL Fish In US Streams Have Mercury In Them, New Study Reveals Top
From The AP: WASHINGTON -- A federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday found the toxic substance in every fish tested at nearly 300 streams across the country, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become. The study by the U.S. Geological Survey is the most comprehensive look to date at mercury in the nation's streams. From 1998 to 2005, scientists collected and tested more than a thousand fish from 291 streams nationwide. While all fish had traces of mercury contamination, only about a quarter had levels exceeding what the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for people eating average amounts of fish. "This science sends a clear message that our country must continue to confront pollution, restore our nation's waterways, and protect the public from potential health dangers," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement. Mercury can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children. The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury -- a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish. Some of the highest levels in fish were detected in the remote blackwater streams along the coasts of the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana, where surrounding forests and wetlands help in the conversion. Mercury was also detected in high concentrations in western streams that drain areas mined for mercury and gold. At about 59 of the streams, mostly in the West, mining could be contributing to the mercury levels, the researchers said. "Some ecosystems are more sensitive than others," said Barbara Scudder, the lead USGS scientist on the study. All but two states -- Alaska and Wyoming -- have issued fish-consumption advisories because of mercury contamination. Some of the streams studied already had warnings. "This is showing that the problem is much more widespread," said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst for the Environmental Working Group, which has pushed for stronger advisories on consumption of mercury-laden fish and controls on the sources of mercury pollution. "If you are living in an area that doesn't have a mercury advisory, you should use caution." Earlier this year, the Obama administration said it would begin crafting a new regulations to control mercury emissions from power plants after a federal appeals court threw out plans drafted by the Bush administration and favored by industry. The Bush rule would have allowed power plants to buy and sell pollution credits, instead of requiring each plant to install equipment to reduce mercury pollution. The EPA also has proposed a new regulation to clamp down on emissions of mercury from cement plants. On the Net: * U.S. Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/mercury/ More on Food
 
Freedom House: What's Really Underneath the 'Burqini' Controversy? Top
By Nioucha Homayoonfar Authorities at a public pool in France recently booted a woman out of the facility for wearing a so-called "burqini." For those who may not know - myself included until just recently - a "burqini" is a head-to-toe Islamic swimsuit. Since it is designed to protect the modesty of a Muslim woman it has a lot more in common with the controversial burqa than the French version of the bikini, which leaves little to the imagination. This event followed an announcement by the French minister for Urban Regeneration, Fadela Amara, a Muslim of Algerian origin, urging the ban of burqas in France. To her, the clothing represents "the oppression of women." These recent developments are forcing me to break my long self-imposed silence on what I've always considered a sticky and rather complex issue. I have struggled with my feelings on hejab (a Muslim woman's veil or cover) for years. I was raised in Iran, during the 1980s when the country became an Islamic Republic. All women older than nine were forced to wear proper hejab or else they were arrested and sometimes whipped for not obeying the rules. I covered myself throughout my teenage years and was reprimanded for improper hejab (either for showing a bit of hair, neck, or forearm) by the religious police patrolling the streets of Tehran numerous times. Once a year, my French mother and I would travel to her native country and spend two glorious months on French beaches. It was jarring to be among hidden bodies on the streets of Tehran one day and to be seated the next on a beach as topless women sunbathed and men strutted by wearing Speedos (incidentally, why haven't those been banned?). It would take me a good week before acclimating to my hejab-less state. I felt exposed and provocative for showing my hair, arms, and legs, parts otherwise tucked away while in Iran. My experience in Iran has given me a deep-seated resentment toward hejab. I wish Muslim women after leaving their countries could throw away this smothering garment and embrace a freer lifestyle. But that doesn't always happen. Regardless of my opinions, I have learned to respect a woman's decision to exercise her religion -- as I believe governments should. Many Muslim women living outside of their own countries are forced by their husbands, fathers, brothers, relatives back home, and community to hold on to traditional values and to fight the temptation to become Westernized. For these Muslim women, is it fair that they must walk the streets of France bearing the brunt of a society that visibly shuns them? What are they to do when they live in fear at home, but are also catching hell from the French? Is banning them from practicing their religion regardless of why they are doing so also not a violation of their basic human rights? When I was 16, I briefly lived with my uncle in Paris. One afternoon, as I walked back home holding a baguette under my arm, a young man stuck his head out the window and called me a dirty Arab. I never understood what provoked this hateful act, given I don't look Arab or wear hejab. But the experience was so humiliating and hurtful that I hid in my uncle's apartment for the next few days. I can't even begin to understand how difficult it must be for Muslim women to deal with such harassment whilst living in a supposedly democratic country that espouses the universal declaration of human rights. There are, of course, numerous Muslim women that openly embrace the hejab, considering it an integral component of their faith. Contrary to popular belief, not all Muslim women who don the garb are uneducated, oppressed women. These myths only perpetrate discriminatory views toward Muslims. Verbally attacking women and banning them from public places is not the right path for France to choose. These actions only serve to further isolate Muslim women from society. Ostracizing and critiquing women for what they either choose to pursue or are forced to pursue shows a complete lack of civility. It is itself an act of oppression towards women. Haven't women suffered enough? Now we have to ridicule them for pursuing public modesty? Nioucha Homayoonfar is a Program Officer at Freedom House. More on France
 

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)