Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Ordinance Would Create 'Bubble' To Protect Abortion Patients, Providers From Protesters Top
Arguing that abortion protests have grown more "vicious" and "in-your-face" since the May 31 murder of a Wichita, Kan., doctor, a Chicago City Council committee agreed today to create an eight-foot bubble around employees and patrons of Chicago hospitals, medical clinics and other health facilities.
 
Bill Scher: Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill: A Second Chance For Progressives Top
The new Boxer-Kerry Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act gives progressives a second chance to influence climate legislation , if we learn the right lessons from both the legislative process for the House climate bill and the ongoing health care debate. Many progressives have varying degrees of frustration with both processes, but the fact is the progressive grassroots has had more impact in the health care debate than the climate debate. With health care, progressives picked their target and picked it early: the public option. There are a myriad of elements to health care reform, but focusing on one fundamental, easy to understand component channeled grassroots energy. The push for the public option -- an idea that wasn't even in existence two years ago -- began before any bill was even drafted. Most progressive organizations, led by the Health Care for America Now coalition , prioritized the public option and launched grassroots actions that put pressure on lawmakers. Progressive media outlets put their spotlight on the early legislative maneuvering around public option, letting progressive citizens know that their efforts were needed and who needed persuading. Now, four bills that have cleared House or Senate committees include a public option. The Senate Finance Committee may have rejected it. The final outcome remains uncertain. But it is indisputable that early, focused activism allowed progressive voices to be heard when it mattered, making a significant impact. The House climate bill process was another story. Environmental groups were split on policy objectives. There was no single policy target to focus grassroots energy. Progressive media outlets, as well as traditional media, ignored the early legislative maneuvering. Progressive citizens simply had no idea that climate deals were being worked out, and so, we missed our chance to influence the negotiations. Rep. Henry Waxman, climate bill point person with unquestionable progressive credentials, was left with no grassroots wind at his back while working with the significant number of Democrats from coal, oil and agriculture producing districts. He did the best he could to compromise without undermining the integrity of the carbon cap. I argued the compromise passes the threshold of acceptability, but many progressives were surprised and frustrated upon learning of the compromises to the fossil fuel lobby. Regardless of your support for the House bill, it is indisputable it would have been a better bill if the progressive grassroots were engaged earlier and focused on a clear target. Now, the process starts anew in the Senate with the Boxer-Kerry bill. Fortunately, Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry did the right thing to spark grassroots energy. They introduced a stronger bill than the House version , in defiance of the conventional wisdom than any Senate bill would have to weaker than the House. Despite the nonsensical whining and ingratitude from coal-state Dem senators, who pretended that Rep. Waxman didn't spend months crafting difficult compromises with fossil fuel interests specifically to make them happy, Sens. Boxer and Kerry embraced a more aggressive short-term target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions -- 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, versus 17 percent in the House bill -- and restored EPA authority to regulate emissions. So we are not just playing defense in the Senate. We can get back on offense. And offense is more enticing for the grassroots. But to play effective offense, you need to know what the goal is. The environmental community remains split -- roughly between those who believe we immediately need a drastically more aggressive bill to get the world under 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere , and those who believe a bill that would keep us from reaching 450 at least gets us started and establishes a framework for even bolder action later. But those organizations more inclined to support the basic framework of pending legislation appear to be coordinating better among themselves, having forged a new Clean Energy Works coalition . However, the question remains if they plan to pick a single policy goal to channel grassroots energy towards. The 20% short-term target for cutting emissions? EPA authority to regulate emissions? Maybe going after the coal subsidies or potential loopholes in the carbon offset provisions. Good arguments could be made for any of those, and it's not for one blog post to arbitrarily decree what the best target would be. But I do contend the lesson from the past year is that single target is needed, if we are best channel grassroots energy. And without grassroots energy, it will be extremely hard to pressure the 18 Democratic senators from coal country that can deny us even a simple majority. Ask Henry Waxman. Originally posted at OurFuture.org
 
Matthew DeBord: Pro Golf's Young Guns Are Shooting Blanks Top
The 2009 pro golf season (mercifully) officially ended this past weekend, with the Tour Championship in Georgia. On the course where Bobby Jones learned to play golf, East Lake, Tiger Woods won the controversial FedEx Cup, and Phil Mickelson won the tournament. Tiger took home $10 million and salvaged a season in which he didn't win a major championship. Mickelson ended an annus horribilis, in which both his wife and mother battled breast cancer, on a very upbeat and inspirational note. He made a few million less than Woods. The PGA Tour was practically orgasmic over the outcome. Tiger, Phil, together, hoisting trophies, together! The photogenic, telegenic finish concluded the third year of the FedEx Cup, a yearlong points competition that concludes with a playoff series after the PGA Championships. It's one of the stupidest ideas ever inflicted on professional sports and the sport-loving public, an incomprehensible mash of points-earning and points resetting and players weary from an already overlong golf season. It has to face off against the beginning of the NFL season and the end of the MLB season. But, at least this year, the Tiger-Phil finish made the final event worth watching. Of course, it also highlighted a serious problem with the men's pro tour. Namely, the absence of younger players from contention. Riddle me this: Who's won a major lately besides Phil or Tiger? Well, a lot of guys. There was Stewart Cink at the 2009 British Open, and of course Padraig Harrington's two British Opens and a PGA, and an Asian player no one has ever heard of, Y.E. Yang, nipped Tiger at the 2009 PGA, becoming a hero in the Pacific Rim in the process. Let's see, who else... No, Sergio Garcia hasn't won anything big. Anthony Kim hasn't won anything big. Camilo Villegas? No. Adam Scott? Um, no. Lucus Glover, winner of the 2009 US Open? Not really so young anymore. I could on, but most of the big tournaments over the past decade or so have been won by Woods, Mickelson, and either Ernie Els, Retief Gosen, or Harrington. All players who are now in their thirties, some even pushing forty. The younger generation just can't seem to make a dent, can't seem to break through on the grand stage. Garcia came close a few years back when he missed a winning par putt at the British Open, but since then he's been pretty cold. The result of all this is that the PGA Tour is utterly reliant on Woods and Mickelson, the only two heavyweights who seem to be able to make stuff happen in big events on the weekend. Angel Cabrera, an ebullient Argentine, captured the Masters this year, dashing the hopes of an old gun, the nearing-fifty Kenny Perry. But action everyone wanted to watch came from the Woods-Mickelson pairing, and in particular from Mickelson, who shot a 30 on Augusta National's front nine on Sunday. Mickelson later threatened at the US Open. Commentators keep asking when a young player is going to step up to challenge Woods, who has dominated the game since the late 1990s. Given the dismal performance of the young guns so far, that isn't going to happen. Something has gone very wrong in the competitive apprenticeship that is big time golf. We have the Big Two, Tiger and Phil, and then a constantly rotating cast of wannabes and one-off winners. And Harrington, an indomitable Irishman. Oh, and guys who are effectively retired, like Greg Norman, and on the senior tour, like Tom Watson, vying for the British Open the past two years. What's gone wrong is money. In the Palmer-Nicklaus-Watson-Player-Trevino-Miller eras, you had to finish well and win big tournaments in order to become a successful professional athlete. Now, a journeyman PGA Tour pro can never win, never post top tens, and still make a few million a year. Woods of course makes more money than anybody, but he seems to not care--he's entirely focused on winning majors. Mickelson started out as the greatest moneymaking machine ever--he could almost decide that he was just going to out-birdie a field and win an event--but that held him back from winning majors, so he changed. Luckily, the financial crisis has arrived just in time to clobber golf's oligarchical sponsors and threaten to roll the clock back to a time when purses were smaller. Equipment makers have also taken a hit, so it's tougher for players to make a go of it on endorsements and off-the-course money. Eventually, somebody will come along who's in it to beat Tiger, to beat Phil, and not but a new Ferrari ever other month. Then we'll see some young guns who aren't shooting blanks.
 
Quinn's Olympics Agenda: Kissing Babies, Basketball With Dikembe Mutombo Top
Gov. Pat Quinn will join Chicago's Olympic delegation in Copenhagen and said one of his main jobs will be "kissing as many babies as possible." More on Olympics
 
Huff TV: HuffPost Reporter Sam Stein Debates Fate Of Public Option, Alan Grayson's Health Care Comments (VIDEO) Top
HuffPost political reporter Sam Stein was a guest on "The Ed Show" tonight, along with conservative radio host Michael Medved, to discuss health care reform, particularly the prospects for a public option, and the battle between Republicans and Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (FL) over Grayson's comments that the GOP health care plan amounts to "don't get sick" -- and if you do, then "die quickly." WATCH: (Video starts at 7:05) Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Health Care
 
Chris Weigant: Washington Post Looking For "America's Next Great Pundit" -- Could It Be You? Top
The Washington Post , one of the leading newspapers in the country, has announced on its website a contest to name "America's Next Great Pundit." In an enticing blend of reality television contests and print journalism, they are going to run a contest to see who deserves to be printed on their op-ed pages, on the sheer strength of writing. I heartily applaud this innovative effort -- even though I seem to be ineligible to enter . I also applaud anyone who reads this who might normally be inclined to write me a comment, and who instead decides to write an entry to the contest. Because you could be "America's Next Great Pundit." The winner receives a 13-week run for a weekly column, paid at $200 a pop. That's not the million-dollar prize reality TV routinely awards, but the newspaper industry is hurting, so you've got to make allowances. Kidding aside, it's not really the money anyway -- it's the prestige they're offering. But, since I've been an advocate for newspapers to do exactly this sort of thing for a while now, I have to cheer the Washington Post for their outside-the-box thinking. I have to fully disclose, in true journalistic fashion, my own biases in the matter. Especially since my position seems to be somewhat of a rarity in the blogosphere. I like newspapers. I really do. I like them for a number of reasons. I like newspapers for tactile reasons (reading news online is just not the same as sitting at a cafe rustling pages of newsprint in the sunshine). I like newspapers for stupid reasons (the fun little puzzles they print every day). I like newspapers for juvenile reasons (the comics). Call me brainwashed, I won't deny it. I grew up reading the Washington Post (back when it was overthrowing presidents), and still consider it among the nation's best papers (even though their editorial pages have taken a serious rightward lurch in the past few years). Such early exposure to the Post doubtlessly warped my fragile psyche forever. But I still like newspapers. In all seriousness, I like them because without them our merry blogosphere simply would not be possible -- at least not in its current form. Look at any of your favorite blogsites. Right, left, or center, almost all of them rely heavily (while at the same time, relentlessly mocking) "the mainstream media." Think about it -- it's just about the only thing that a "Sarah-Palin-loving, gun-toting, secessionist-advocating, socialism-fearing, red-blooded" rightwing blogger and a "Dennis-Kucinich-loving, gun-banning, Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging, single-payer-advocating socialist" leftwing blogger can agree upon: the "MSM" sucks. They both have their different reasons, but they both arrive at the same conclusion: MSM suckitude. Which includes all newspapers. Which is why both the right and the left are cheering on the sidelines as newspapers disappear one by one from our biggest cities. But they're wrong to do so. Corrupt or not, biased or not, corporate-directed or not, newspapers are the plankton in our commentariat food chain. If they die off, people further up this food chain are going to suffer. Don't believe me? Look at your favorite blogsite, whether Huffington Post or Drudge Report . Count up the stories directly from newspapers. Now count up the blog entries and other stories which would not be possible without them (second-order "feeding" upon news stories includes articles like this one -- where I am free-form opinionating about a story which appeared in a newspaper). When you eliminate the first-order and second-order stories, you are not left with much. Bloggers love to write stories such as "here's what I think about this factual story in the newspapers," or "here's what I think about an op-ed printed in a newspaper." Of course, some of these blog posts stem from television news or a magazine article, but a large proportion of them come directly from the "plankton" of newspaper stories. Without such fodder being around, there's going to be less to blog about. But enough exploration of my own personal bias, let's get on to the contest! The Washington Post page which explains the contest challenges you to: Start making your case. Use the entry form to send us a short opinion essay (400 words or less) pegged to a topic in the news and an additional paragraph (100 words or less) on yourself and why you should win. Entries will be judged on the basis of style, intelligence and freshness of argument, but not on whether Post editors agree or disagree with your point of view. Entry deadline: Oct. 21, 2009 at 11:59 p.m. ET. Now, 400 words is not much. A typical op-ed column in a second-rate newspaper is around 600 words. In a top-flight newspaper, perhaps 750 words. Try writing a 400-word essay on any subject and you'll soon see how limiting it is. But they're doubtlessly going to get a flood of entries, so perhaps it's an excusable limit, especially for the initial entry. You don't get to sing a full song to Simon Cowell in your first round, either. That's a nice touch about the editors not agreeing or disagreeing with your point of view, as liberals have decried the conservative direction of the Post for a while now. What they are in essence saying is: "lefties, don't be afraid to enter." They then go on to explain the elimination rounds: Then get ready for the great debate. Beginning on or about Oct. 30, ten prospective pundits will get to compete for the title of America's Next Great Pundit, facing off in challenges that test the skills a modern pundit must possess. They'll have to write on deadline, hold their own on video and field questions from Post readers. (Contestants won't have to quit their day jobs, but they should be prepared to put in about eight hours a week for three weeks.) After each round, a panel of Post personalities will offer kudos and catcalls, and reader votes will help to determine who gets another chance at a byline and who has to shut down their laptop. Eight hours a week for three weeks isn't a whole lot, for serious contestants. It certainly sounds like an interesting contest -- which is the whole point. Not only is the Post generating attention from entrants, it will also generate its own "buzz" -- which draws in readers. More customers, more profit. Although this does not sound like it should be a radical business model to follow for any American business, it has indeed become anathema to newspapers. Newspapers seem to be clinging to blandness as a viable business model in an exciting new world of opinions available to their potential customers -- to their detriment. And then they wonder why they're failing. Now, I have to admit, I've become less and less a fan of the Washington Post , especially since they fired Dan Froomkin. But their loss became the gain of the Huffington Post , who snapped up Froomkin by hiring him to edit their politics reporting. So while the Post was diminished by the entire episode, Huffington Post was enhanced. [More full disclosure: Froomkin does not edit or in any way control my work here, so I'm not sucking up to him by saying this. In fact, I wrote about Froomkin's situation at the Post here, long before he was hired by the Huffington Post .] And there is still one glaring example of the disdain which newspapers regularly show for anyone who calls themselves a "blogger," codified into the rules of the contest . In the very first paragraph, on "eligibility" is the following: Entrants may not have previously written or contributed to a regular column in a major national publication in print or online. Sponsor shall determine, in its sole discretion, what constitutes a "regular column", "major national publication" and "contributed". Which, I am guessing, leaves me out in the cold -- as well as anyone else (right or left) who blogs regularly on any popular blogsite. This is extreme short-sightedness. It's as if Major League Baseball decreed that no professional team in the big leagues could ever hire anyone playing on the "farm teams" (triple-A, or whatever), and instead had to recruit from pickup softball games in local parks. In other words, the utter contempt and disdain which the blogosphere regularly shows the "MSM" is regularly returned by that very same media to the bloggers themselves. There are plenty of examples of stories which originate from a blogger and then are picked up by the newspaper journalists (often without any attribution), so methinks they should look in the mirror a bit when pointing fingers at bloggers "stealing their work." But, even though I have pretty obviously been banned from even entering their contest, I still think it's a great idea, and heartily endorse it. Because I know that if it catches on -- even just at this one newspaper -- then there will be a "second season" contest eventually. And, to keep things new and fresh, eventually they're going to have to give the bloggers a crack at it. My real hope is that other newspapers around the country see this as an innovative idea to be copied in their own pages. Because one of them is doubtlessly going to relax the rules for their contest. So I remain optimistic that some day I'll be agonizing over which 400 words to use in my entry. For now, I wholeheartedly support the concept. Ironically, my local paper (which still arrives at my doorstop every morning) recently issued a plea for ideas on how to improve themselves to their readers. They talked mostly of improving "their business model," and not at all about improving their actual product. They patted themselves on the back for their news reporting operation, and didn't even mention their op-ed side of the aisle. They also gratuitously slammed bloggers who "rant and rave" while asking for new ideas. So, naturally, I sent them my thoughts. You decide whether I'm "ranting" and/or "raving" in my response: Newspapers and print journalists absolutely refuse to admit the problem with their product -- you have become bland in a new world of excitement. Not so much for the news portion of your paper, but in specific the op-ed page. Which often is a single page. A few times a week, it's two pages (whoopee!). Has any American newspaper tried the "new business model" of expanding this part of your paper? Not that I am aware. Has any newspaper thought to itself "wow, there's an explosion of opinions out there, we've got to get on board this train"? Again, not that I am aware. You've got to focus on thinking outside the box when thinking about your "business model." Your op-ed page, like every single op-ed page of every single newspaper in America, draws from a universe of perhaps 100 writers. They are syndicated, and most of their names are well-known to news readers. But their range of thought is actually quite limited. It's what bloggers like to disparagingly speak of as "Serious Persons in Washington." And nobody else is allowed in. Those 100 people (it's really closer to 50 or less) are supposed to do the opinionating for everyone. They have failed. They do not represent a multitude of opinions which are rarely (if ever) heard in the mainstream press. This is why you're dying as an industry. You are in your Ivory Tower of journalism, which is really an Ivory Bunker at this point. You refuse to let others in (while patting yourselves on the back for barring your sacred gate from the hordes of unwashed bloggers), and then wonder why fewer and fewer people are paying for your product. Or reading it. . . . We [newspapers and bloggers] can save each other. Bloggers would love the imprimatur of seeing their names not only online but also in print. Bloggers would love a few bucks in recognition of a fine piece of writing. Newspapers would revitalize their product in two ways -- letting in other voices than the same old stale syndicated op-ed columnists, and inoculating yourself against charges of bias. If you're regularly printing lefties and righties then how can people argue that you're slanted in one direction or the other? And -- most importantly -- you would attract new readership, in an industry which is losing (badly) among the young consumers of news. This is key to your industry's survival. The guy who wrote the article asking for feedback was immediately snowed under by hundreds of emails, but did take the time to write me back, so I have to give him credit for that. The newspaper is currently mulling over the reactions they got -- many of which were described (in a followup article) as "you're too liberal" or (much rarer) "you're too conservative" -- exactly the problem I was talking about. But the Washington Post moved quicker, and moved decisively to introduce what the people who talk about "business models" call "a new paradigm." Letting non-professionals (even if they do limit it to non-nationally-seen-bloggers) have a voice beyond the letters to the editor is indeed a new idea. And Americans love competition. The cheesy "reality show" contests certainly pull in viewers by the millions. Most importantly, a huge majority of those viewers are young . This is the audience the newspapers need, and have simply not broken into in any significant way. So, even with its restrictions and even if they did fire Dan Froomkin, I publicly applaud the Washington Post for at least trying something new. I sincerely hope their contest is a success. Here's the most important part -- while I've never watched more than a smattering of reality TV contests, I will be glued to my screen watching this contest online. I am not exactly the demographic they may be aiming for, but this is like catnip to a domestic feline -- I simply will not be able to resist it. Nor should anyone reading this who has ever thought "I could do a better job" than the current crop of pundits out there. What you should be doing this weekend is writing and editing your 400 words. Get your friends and ex-teachers to review what you've written. Write another draft. Make it better. For the love of all that's holy, don't forget to spell-check it. Make it the best you possibly can before you send it in. The Washington Post has thrown down the gauntlet, and is waiting for you to pick it up. Here's how their page which explains the contest ends. It's a fitting end to this column, as well. Eyes on the prize. The ultimate winner will get the opportunity to write a weekly column that may appear in the print and/or online editions of The Washington Post , paid at a rate of $200 per column, for a total of 13 weeks and $2,600. Our Opinions lineup includes a dozen Pulitzer Prize winners, regulars on the national political talk shows and some of the most influential players inside the Beltway. We'll set our promising pundit on a path to become the next byline in demand, the talking head every show wants to book, the voice that helps the country figure out what's really going on. So what are you waiting for? Indeed, what are you waiting for? Get your 400 words together, and enter to become "America's Next Great Pundit" today!   Chris Weigant blogs at:
 
What Rivalry? Brazil's Lula Says He Urged Obama To Make Olympics Trip Top
COPENHAGEN — Brazil's president says he's not worried that U.S. President Barack Obama is coming to Denmark to lobby that Chicago and not Rio de Janeiro should win the 2016 Olympics. After arriving in Copenhagen, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva says he encouraged Obama to make an appearance. Said Silva on Wednesday: "I actually told Obama to come. He said his wife would come, and then I said: 'It's important you go because I will go with (my wife) Marisa. That would be two against one." Silva also says he doesn't see the lobbying effort as a rivalry with Obama. And he once again predicted a win for Brazil, which would be the first South American nation to host the games. He said: "I am very optimistic and believe in Rio's victory." More on Olympics
 
Alan Grayson: Republicans Are "Knuckle-Dragging Neanderthals" On Health Reform (VIDEO) Top
Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (FL) escalated his battle with Republicans over comments he made Tuesday on the House floor. Rep. Grayson said that the GOP's health care plan is for people to not get sick, and if they do, then to "die quickly." Grayson has refused to apologize for his comments ( although he took to the House floor to apologize to the dead who have passed for lacking health insurance ), and he again blasted Republicans tonight on CNN's "The Situation Room" for blocking health care reform. Grayson insisted that it's the GOP who needs to apologize to America, and he called Republicans "knuckle-dragging neanderthals." WATCH: More on Health Care
 
Cameron Todd Willingham: Texas Governor Dismisses 3 Commission Members Just 48 Hours Before Arson Review Top
DALLAS — A report concluding a faulty investigation led to a Texas man's execution won't be reviewed by a state board as planned Friday after Gov. Rick Perry abruptly removed three people from the panel, forcing the meeting's cancellation. Perry, who has said the execution was appropriate, replaced the head of the Texas Forensic Science Commission and two of its eight other board members Wednesday. The upheaval on the commission came just 48 hours before it was to consider a report critical of the arson finding leading to Cameron Todd Willingham's execution for the deaths of his three daughters in a 1991 fire. Baltimore-based arson expert Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, concluded the arson finding was scientifically unsupported and investigators at the scene had "poor understandings of fire science." His report has bolstered arguments from advocacy groups that Willingham was innocent and wrongly executed. Perry told The Associated Press the terms of the dismissed board members were expiring and replacing them "was pretty standard business as usual." But several board members have served more than one term and had their appointments renewed. Earlier this month, Perry expressed confidence in Willingham's guilt and derided reports questioning the arson investigation, referring to their authors as "supposed experts." He said he had not "seen anything that would cause me to think that the decision" to execute Willingham "was not correct." Perry was governor in 2004, when Willingham was executed. The state commission doesn't have the power to rule on Willingham's guilt or innocence but was expected to release a report next year on the validity of the arson investigation. Perry appointed Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley as the new head of the panel, replacing Austin attorney Sam Bassett. Bradley acknowledged he and the other new member appointed by Perry have a steep learning curve ahead of them. Friday's canceled meeting has not been rescheduled. "I don't see how we can successfully have a meeting with the board turnover and lack of time for an orientation and education for the new board members," Bradley said. The other new appointee, forensic scientist Norma Jean Farley, said she learned of her appointment Tuesday. Perry can't appoint a third replacement until he receives a recommendation from the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Bassett said he suspected he would be replaced last month after Beyler issued his report. At that point, he said, he heard Perry's office began looking for new candidates. He said he hopes the Willingham investigation is completed. "In my view, we should not fail to investigate important forensic issues in cases simply because there might be political ramifications," he said. Prosecutor Alan Levy, who heads the criminal division in the Tarrant County DA's office in Fort Worth and supports the death penalty, said he learned he had been fired in a Tuesday afternoon phone call. "I was a little surprised, given the timing," Levy said. "The commission should do its job and follow the facts. And if the facts are that this is not good science, then so be it." Willingham, 36, was convicted of setting the fire that killed 2-year-old Amber and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron on Dec. 23, 1991, in the family's Corsicana home. He maintained his innocence, even from the death chamber. But a now dead state fire marshal and a local fire investigator ruled it was arson, testifying a liquid accelerant was ignited and the blaze was set to prevent anyone from rescuing the children. The investigator stands by his conclusions. ___ Associated Press writer Juan A. Lozano in Houston contributed to this report. More on Rick Perry
 
Deal For Old Main Post Office Done? Buyer Bill Davies Misses Closing Deadline Top
The plot thickens. The top bidder for Chicago's old post office says he has the money to seal the deal but thinks the price is too high. Meanwhile, the back-up bidder is claiming victory.
 
Ned Goldreyer: Where No Man Has Won Before Top
"A steam boat? That Fulton feller's gonna drown or kill us all!" "An electrical light? That Edison feller's gonna drown or kill us all!" "An 840 page September issue? That Wintour feller's gonna drown or kill us all!" When will the bow-tied vest-wearers of the it's-never-been-done-so-it-can't-be-done crowd ever learn? Time and again their predictions of failure fall flat, yet they continue bloviating their spoil-sportism as though the rest of us don't think they're all just a bunch of jerks. The latest target these clueless wet -blanketeers are misfiring upon is the our impending conquest of Afghanistan. In their giddy efforts to retard progress, the dream-tramplers gleefully cite legions of previous invaders who stumbled in their attempts to subdue the fearless keepers of Kabul . "Even Alexander the Great couldn't do it! How can we possibly succeed where history's greatest military mind could not?" You know what else Alexander the Great couldn't do? Microwave a bag of popcorn, peddle a mountain bike or call in some Hellfire-packing Predator drones. There are probably other examples, but I think I've made my point. If not, feel free to make your own. "Oh, but it wasn't just Alexander," they counter, indignation-melted moustache wax spattering in all directions. "What about the British? What about the Soviets? Have we learned nothing from their misadventures on Afghanistan's plains, where the women come out to cut up what remains?" Yes, we have, and that the lesson is once you're there, never leave! The surest way to lose, other than by not winning, is to quit. If you're wedded to a strategy with little or no chance of success, the only alternative to defeat is a rock-solid commitment to dig in and hang on. Remember Vietnam? We could still be there, if only we hadn't left. Of course, just sticking around is no guarantee of victory in and of itself. The Afghanis are on their home turf. Defenders (them) are almost always more motivated than invaders (liberators (us)), but if anyone can do it, we can. After all, it was the proto-U.S. Army who ran the Seminoles out of Florida, the Mohegans out of New England and the Takelma out of existence. When it comes to transforming indigenous peoples into street names and Halloween costumes, America takes a back seat to no one. So will we be as successful at vanquishing the Afghani's as we were with the Shinnecocks and the Irondequots? Perhaps. The land we took from Native Americans yielded corn, beans and some tobacco. Yummy and nutritious to be sure, but Afghanistan's most popular produce packs a bit more of a wallop, for theirs is the sod from which springs the world's finest heroin. Heroin that, I'm told, provides an experience better than sex. I've never had heroin, but my guess is they'll put up a pretty good tussle over a crop that tastes better than an orgasm. A final word to the doubters - nothing is impossible. Quantum mechanics assures us that there is an infinitesimal but real chance that even the most unlikely event may come to pass. A working robotic elephant made entirely of wax lips could instantaneously materialize in the middle of your next dinner party. My dog could wake me up tomorrow morning singing "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway," a song I know for a fact he hates. Compared to these, our victory in Afghanistan is virtually assured. More on Afghanistan
 
Anna Jane Grossman: The Internet Ate My Twenties Top
Have you heard that print media is having a hard time these days? Too bad -- I'm really going to miss it. I'm particularly going to miss the way in which one person's tossed off newspaper could be your travel companion or dinner date, encouraging you to tip your toe into oceans of information you'd never thought about. Case in point: up until recently, I knew nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt. If I ever saw anything about her online, I'd never think to click on it. Why strain my finger muscles? But, last night at a bar where I was having dinner, there was a newspaper on my seat and I started to read it. Why? Because reading is better than not reading? And therefore, when faced with text, I feel the need to consume? I don't know. It was in French -- I'm visiting friends in Brussels at the moment. Maybe I just felt like reading what the Belgian press has to say about Jon and Kate Plus Eight. Indeed, the entertainment section seemed to be the only one that was fully intact. My point: Had I been spending that time on the Internet, I never would've learned anything about Jennifer Love Hewitt! As if The New York Times homepage doesn't have enough for me to read? So ... much ... information. It's so great, right? Really, I just open up that tab on my browser in the morning and then run and hide in my closet in fear. But I like to make people think I read such things. The text about Hewitt was just staring me down at this cafe table. I had to do it. This is what I learned: Don't pay attention to the red color. I couldn't figure out how to turn the flash off so I just held my scarf up in front of it. Shut up. Do pay attention to the following line, which I will translate for you using my vocabulary-of-a-tipsy- 16-year-old-American-exchange-student French skills. "Le matin, avant que je quitte la maison, je dis cinq chose que j'aime de moi-même..." equals: "In the morning before I leave home, I say five things that I like about myself..." Already, I have so many questions. Is there anyone else there when she is announcing these five things? Does she do it in her home, as opposed to outside of her home, because she doesn't want anyone else to hear her? If so, then why is she about to say these things to a reporter? Now, she gives an example: "Comme tu as vraiment des jolis yeux ." Or, as we say in America: "Like, you have such pretty eyes ." Dear readers, Jennifer Love Hewitt is trying to pick herself up at a bar. She has just done her bit to combat women's right to anything . You know how many guys are out there right now saying, with heavy Belgian-French accents, "Dude! Girls really do dig that line! They're even saying it to themselves!" Thanks, Jennifer. Or should I say: Thanks, Love? After I got home, I did use the Internet. And here is my problem with "news" on the internet: I learned so much more than I ever wanted to know. You see, I never before would've clicked on the news story about Jennifer Love Hewitt (not that this really constitutes a "news story," but these are trying times for papers). However, that doesn't mean that on my own I might not necessarily devote too many minutes of my life to some kind of scavenging-in-the-wilds- of-the-web Indiana Jones-style adventure. My crazy journey took me to ... IMDB . According to IMDB: "Jennifer Love Hewitt got her first name from her older brother Todd Daniel Hewitt (b. November 8, 1970), who picked the name after a little blonde girl he then had a crush on." Okay, that's fine enough. I mean, I'd be a little weirded out if a guy told me that he was so into me that he had his mother name his baby sister after me. But, you know, that's me. But then we get the rest of the story: "Her mother selected her middle name, Love, which she goes by offstage, from her best friend at college." Juicy stuff, right?! I'm so glad we have the Internet to feed us so, so much well-edited, well-culled information. First of all, there are a couple of commas missing in this sentence. I'm sure the IMDB editing person is chewing his pencil in fear that his boss is going to read this. I think that what we are supposed to understand here is that Jennifer's mother's middle name is Love. Oh, no wait. Jennifer's mother's friend's name was Love, and therefore Jennifer's mother, whose middle name isn't Love, gave her daughter, Todd's sister, the middle name of her friend. Okay? Thing is, I just don't buy it. Have you ever seen a more Jennifer-looking person in your life? I got kind of uncomfortable when I read the following a little lower down the page: Trivia: Sent 3 dozen pink roses to Gwyneth Paltrow the night before Paltrow won the Oscar in 1999. Hewitt also wrote her a two page letter praising her as a role model and admiring her work. Paltrow sent a reply a week later, and Hewitt framed it -- "it's my favorite thing." When the two actresses met for the first time at the 2000 Golden Globes, "she came up to me and gave me a hug for the flowers. I thought I was going to pass out. I was absolutely going to have a heart attack." After this, I had to waste more of these precious last days of my twenties learning even more about Love. Jennifer. Whatever. Like, the following Wikipedia nuggets: In 1991, Meldac funded the recording of Hewitt's first album Love Songs , when she was just 12. Of course, I needed to lengthen my journey by looking up who Meldac is. Guess which: a) My uncle's canasta buddy or b) Japanese record company whose only other album was by Bob Marley. Take your time ... Next? The album was only released in Japan in 1992 where Hewitt became a pop star. Her explanation for her success in Japan is that the Japanese "Love perky music. The poppier the music, the better." Huh. Okay. I mean, I guess this means her music is perky? I would've thought she was more of the Yoko Ono type. Why do I feel like I need to know? Please God, let me have the strength to not go onto Pandora. Oh, phew: it doesn't work in Belgium. Who knew. But wait! There's more! After she joined the cast of Party of Five in 1995, she signed to Atlantic Records, who rushed her first single and second album, Let's Go Bang, out in October. Again, we have some grammatical issues here. Roll over, William Safire: I think an infinitive has beens split. But the main thing of note here is the album name. If my math is correct, she was 16! "Let's go bang?" Really? Juggling her music career with her acting career, she recorded her follow-up in 1996. The first single, "No Ordinary Love," failed to chart and led to the album doing the same. But wait! Isn't that a Sade song? No wait! That's bad! I didn't realize this story was going to have a sad ending! Then again, we're only up to 1996... How could I ever have been satisfied with only the tiny bit of information conveyed on that bitty piece of newsprint at the bar? One day when I'm old and gray, I'm going to look back with such fondness of all the time I spent learning new things on the Internet. Won't you? More on Newspapers
 
Dave Johnson: A New Economy from Old Roots? 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. How do we build a new economy out of the collapse of the old economy? How do we start fresh to begin creating jobs again, while building in economic and environmental sustainability, as well as workplaces that respect human needs and rights? How do we change things so that we all get to share the benefits of the economy rather than just contributing to the increasing wealth of a few vastly wealthy people? While we look for a vision for a new economy, we should examine what has worked in the past. America had periods in which regular people enjoyed sustained increases in their standard of living. For a long time it was a conventional wisdom that each American generation would do better than the previous generation, more people would receive good educations, medical care would get better, the middle class would grow, leisure time would increase, poverty rates would decrease, retirement would be easier, etc. But this pattern stopped. Beginning in the late 1970s and especially in the 1980s incomes began to stagnate, wealth increasingly concentrated at the top, working hours and workplace pressures steadily increased, availability of good health care started to decrease, etc. The standard of living of most Americans began to and continues to decline. At the same time corporations became more predatory as consumer protections vanished. Meanwhile outsourcing, deunionization and other anti-worker policies led to increasingly unpleasant, stressful and unrewarding worklives for more and more people. Many of today's problems are traceable directly to the policy results of anti-government propaganda that was blasted out from well-funded conservative think tanks starting in the 1970s. The anti-government campaign led to defunding of many national, state and local government programs that improved education, helped the poor or enriched people's lives. We suffered deregulation in many areas where the government had protected consumers, workers, investors and the environment. Huge reductions in taxes for the wealthy were either offset by tax increases for the rest of us or government borrowing. And that borrowing has led to increasing problems of paying the interest and threats to funding even basic programs like Social Security and education. So what worked, before the conservatives trashed the place? Regulation One thing we know for sure now, learned the hardest way thanks to the financial crisis: regulation worked. Regulation was necessary, it worked, it kept firms from taking risks that could bring down the economy. And we can also see now how regulations protected consumers from predatory corporate activities, workers from wage theft or unsafe working conditions, and the environment from exploitation and destruction. Taxes Before Reagan the tax rates at the top were very high. After you reached - and took home - a certain very high income you paid a high percentage of the rest in taxes. This had many beneficial results - even for the people who paid higher taxes . Government could afford to keep the physical, education and legal infrastructure in good condition without borrowing. Government could afford to invest in programs that improved our standard of living, health, knowledge and technology, which helped businesses grow. Businesses thrived in such well-watered soil. The high tax rates also kept the bad side of human nature in check. When it took years to build up a fortune businesspeople had to rely on the health of the greater community to nurture their own wealth-building enterprises and keep them thriving over a long period. They had to think and act long-term. The roads needed to be kept in repair, the schools needed to provide excellent education to potential employees, the courts needed to be functional to enforce contracts, and they wanted the communities they were going to have to stay in to be pleasant places to live. But once taxes were lowered vast windfalls could be realized from a single event and it made more sense to try to fleece the community with quick-buck schemes than to rely on it. We began to see corporate raiders break up solid, ongoing companies, steal pension funds, etc., while encouraging communities to cut spending on schools, roads, etc. It became more profitable sell off or outsource our manufacturing capacity. And then, as things fell apart, the few who benefited could just fly away in their private jets or sail away in their huge yachts. The greater community was no longer any use to them except as crops to be harvested. Vulnerable consumers are the only crop that is coming up in this economy. Big Government Government is We, the People making the decisions. "Big government" is simply another way of saying that more of the important decisions are made by the people. Shrinking government means handing the decisions over to big corporations. In the real world this is the choice. And in the real world big corporations make decisions that benefit them, and only them . Before you badmouth government think carefully about what the alternative is. Old-Fashioned Government Planning As I said in a post a few months ago , The phrase "industrial policy" sounds so Walter Mondale, 1970s, smokestacks and brick factory old-fashioned. I suspect the subject turns people off, eyes glaze over, hands reach under the table for iPhones and Blackberries... But here we are without an industrial policy. How's that working out for us? Every other country has one. China seriously has one. We instead have huge trade deficits. We don't make things here so we have to borrow money to buy things made elsewhere. To add insult to injury, recently Deutsche Bank released a research note advising investors that the U.S. was not a good investment because of our lack of a government industrial policy. See Deutsche Bank: Absence of US Clean Energy Policy Will Send Global Capital Elsewhere . While we envision a new direction for our economy, maybe we should also be looking at returning to a few old-fashioned ways of doing things, too. More on Taxes
 
Dana Ullman: Epidemic of Fever Phobia: The Facts on Why Fever is Your Friend Top
        Health and medical journalists are not presently providing the public with what might be the most important health advice that they should be given during the flu season:   people with the flu should avoid taking fever-reducing drugs, such as aspirin or acetaminophen (aka Tylenol TM ), except in rare situations.        It is widely recognized that fever is a vital defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection.  A fever enables the body to increase its production of interferon, an important antiviral substance that is critical for fighting infection.  Fever also increases white blood cell mobility and activity, which are instrumental factors in fighting infection. Jane Brody, a long-time respected health columnist for the New York Times , reported back in 1982 on the healing benefits of fever.  She noted, “a number of physicians, including pediatricians, are now suggesting that moderate fevers be allowed to run their course, for they may shorten the illness, potentiate the action of antibiotics and reduce the chances of spreading the infection to others.” [1]       Recognition that fever is beneficial has been known for more than 2,000 years, and historically, the healing benefits of fever are so substantial that many patients have actually been treated with ''fever therapy'' to aid their recovery from such ailments as cancer, syphilis, tuberculosis and even mania. [2] [3]   However, in the 1800's, aspirin compounds that rapidly reduced fevers became commercially available, and the medical view of fever changed dramatically. Since the mid-1800s, drug companies have successfully convinced conventional physicians and the general public to become vigilant in bringing down fevers, even sometimes using such drastic measures as cold baths and alcohol rubs along with aspirin.       In reference to the flu and fever, the bottom line is that it makes little sense to aggressively suppress the body’s natural defenses against viral infection.  There are, of course, some exceptions here.  For instance, it may make sense to seek medical care if one’s fever is above 104 degrees for over six hours or in any fever in an infant under four months of age.    Calling Dr. Gupta:  CNN’s Correspondent Gives Himself Questionable Medical Advice       “Fever phobia” is so rampant that many usually intelligent people, including physicians and medical reporters, forget what they know about the inherent defenses of the body when they become sick.         On September 23, Sanjay Gupta, MD, CNN’s chief medical correspondent, described his own experience in getting the H1NI flu while reporting from Afghanistan. [4]  Although Dr. Gupta reported that he experienced a “high fever,” he never gave specifics, but it is unlikely that over 104 degrees.  The fact that Dr. Gupta was away from home and in war zone probably led him to want some relief of his fever, and because of this, he choose to take Tylenol.  However, he certainly didn’t help himself by taking this drug to suppress his fever.         It is therefore no wonder that he became the sickest he has ever become.  Taking drugs that suppress fever disables the body’s own defenses in fighting infection.  It is akin to unscrewing the warning oil pressure light in your car as a way to get rid of that irritating red signal.  Such “treatment” is not curative, and in fact, it can lead to much more serious problems.          Ironically, the word “symptom” derives from the words “sign” or “signal” …and just turning “off” a sign or signal is simply not smart, even if double-blind studies show that unscrewing the warning bulb is “effective” in turning the light off.          Ultimately, Dr. Gupta missed a great opportunity to educate the public about not taking fever-reducing drugs, except in certain extreme fevers.  Perhaps this article will “light a fire” underneath him to do so.   The New Drug Pushers:  Parents         In a 2007 survey of Australian parents published in a pediatrics journal, a shocking 91% of parents used fever-suppressing drugs in the treatment of their children’s fever.  Even more startling is the fact that this survey found that the medications were refused or spat out by the child in 44% of the cases, and yet, 62.4 of the parents actually used force to get their child to take these drugs, using different methods of ingestion (29.5%) or by using a suppository (20.8%). [5]         It is interesting to note that children tend to have an inherent fear of doctors, and this fear may not simply be the result of getting injections from them.  This fear may be an instinctual fear that what doctors offer them may not really be good for them, despite the seemingly short-term benefits of many drugs.  It may be time for us to listen to our children.   Serious Problems from Aspirin and Acetaminophen         Many people minimize the problems from these common drugs, but do so at their own and their family’s peril.         Children who get a viral infection and are given aspirin can lead to Reye’s syndrome, a serious neurological condition that can cause death.  Aspirin is also known to thin the blood and increase the chances of various bleeding disorders.  Its use more or less doubles the risk of a severe gastrointestinal event, which in most cases can lead to hospitalization. Lower doses that people take to reduce heart problems only seem to decrease these risks by a small amount.          Many people take acetaminophen because it is not associated with increased bleeding.  However, the general public is usually not aware of the fact that poison control centers in the US receive more calls as a result of an overdose of this drug than any other drug. [6]   This same problem exists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.  Most commonly, overdoses of acetaminophen can lead to acute liver failure.  In children, it has been associated with increased asthma and eczema symptoms.    Safer Solutions for the Flu…          Instead of using conventional drugs that suppress fevers or that inhibit other important defenses of the body, it makes more sense to use some type of natural medicines that mimic and augment the wisdom of the body.           Homeopathic medicines are my own favorite method to augment the body’s own defenses so that they can more effectively heal themselves from various ailments, including the flu.  Because of the similarity between the 1918 flu and the H1N1 flu, it may be helpful to reference homeopathy’s impressive successes in treating people during the 1918 flu. [7]   The death rates in the homeopathic hospitals in the US were only around 1%, while the death rates in conventional hospitals were closer to 30%.  Another important fact from that era is that New York City had the lowest mortality rate during the 1918 flu than any city in the U.S., and this impressive statistic is primarily due to the fact that this city’s health commissioner at that time was Royal Copeland, MD, a renowned homeopathic physician, who later became a thrice-elected U.S. Senator (Franklin D. Roosevelt was even his campaign manager during his first election as senator). [8]   Copeland asserted, “There can be no doubt that the superiority of homeopathy in a purely medical condition is just as great as it was fifty years ago.”          One of today’s most popular homeopathic medicines for the flu is the popular Oscillococcinum , a medicine that has been used by homeopaths since the 1920s.  There have been four controlled studies that have shown that this medicine is effective in reducing the symptoms of influenza as compared with those people given a placebo. [9]            The effectiveness of another homeopathic remedy, called Gripp-Heel , was compared with that of conventional treatments in a prospective, observational cohort study in 485 patients with mild viral infections and symptoms such as fever, headache, muscle pain, cough or sore throat. [10]   As evaluated by the practitioners, 67.9% of patients were considered asymptomatic at the end of Gripp-Heel therapy vs. 47.9% of patients in the control group. Practitioners judged homeopathic treatments as 'successful' in 78.1% of cases vs. 52.2% for conventional therapies. Tolerability and compliance were 'very good' given for 88.9% of patients in the homoeopathic group vs. 38.8% in the conventional treatment group.          The above homeopathic medicines are primarily helpful during the first 48 hours of onset of the flu.  Other homeopathic medicines to consider during this time and afterwards include:  Gelsemium, Bryonia, Ipecacuanha, Arsenicum album, Eupatorium perf., Rhus toxicodendron, and Baptisia (homeopathic medicines are traditionally listed by their Latin names so that consumers and doctors will know the precise plant, mineral, or animal species of every medicine).  Each of these medicines has a history of efficacy in homeopathic doses for treating the specific syndrome of symptoms that each has been found to cause when given experimentally in overdose to healthy people.  To determine the details of each of these medicines, please consult a homeopathic guidebook, such as Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines by Stephen Cummings, MD, and Dana Ullman, MPH or the Complete Homeopathic Resource for Common Illnesses , by Dennis Chernin, MD, MPH.   REFERENCES:  [1] Brody J. Fever: New View Stresses its Healing Benefits.  New York Times , December 28, 1982. [2] Hobohm U. Fever therapy revisited. British Journal of Cancer (2005) 92 , 421–425. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602386 [3] Brody J. Fever: New View Stresses its Healing Benefits.  New York Times , December 28, 1982. [4] http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/23/i-went-to-afghanistan-and-all-i-got-was-h1n1/ [5] Walsh A, Edwards H, Fraser J.  Over-the-counter medication use for childhood fever: A cross-sectional study of Australian parents.  J Paediatr Child Health . 2007 June 29.  [6] Lee WM (July 2004). " Acetaminophen and the U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group: lowering the risks of hepatic failure ". Hepatology 40 (1): 6–9. doi : 10.1002/hep.20293 . [7] Marino R.  Flu pandemics: homeopathic prophylaxis and definition of the epidemic genius . Int J High Dilution Res 2009; 8(28): 100-109. http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/354/399 [8] Robins N. Copeland’s Cure: Homeopathy and the War between Conventional and Alternative Medicine. New York: Random House, 2005, p. 154. [9] Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4  http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001957.html [10] Rabe, M. Weiser, P. Klein, Effectiveness and tolerability of a homoeopathic remedy compared with conventional therapy for mild viral infections. Int J Clin Pract. 2004 Sep;58(9):827-32. More on Swine Flu
 
John Knefel: New York Times To Sociopaths: Give It Another Shot Top
Oh for the love of God . Did you look at the New York Times' Op-Ed section on Wednesday?! I know I've been writing about that dumping ground a lot lately, but the editors published an article today that -- if America does escalate the conflict with Iran -- will go down in history as one of the most fact-free, shameful pieces of propaganda in that paper's history. It contains, literally, nothing other than irresponsible speculation and conjecture, and follows the Iraq script so closely that it might as well have been written by Curveball. Who had the courage to rehash an argument that has already been shown to absolutely, tragicomically absurd? The same fuckers who did it the first time! I'm not kidding ! Hahahahahahaha! [BANG!] The piece was written by Gary Milhollin and Valerie Lincy, who I had never heard of until this morning. Gare and Val run Iran Watch, whose tagline is, "Tracking Iran's Mass Destruction Weapons Capabilities." So...you know...they're like, totally not biased. What is Gary's track record? Wait for it. Wait...for...it. He used to run Iraq Watch ! Guess what their mission was!?!?!?! To track Iraq's weapons of mass destruction! I'm not kidding. It's the same guy, literally, doing the same thing, literally. A detail like this would be cut from even the hackiest political satire for being to obviously absurd. Why, why, would the Times hand over their paper to him given his record, his clear thirst for Arab/Persian blood, and the fact that right now the country is following a disturbingly similar script as the one that lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq? I almost don't want to move on to the article. It's so, fucking, bad. Oh lord. OK, let's do this. Hold your nose, 'cause here comes the cold water. The first line really tells you everything you need to know about the piece as a whole: "THE disclosure of Iran's secret nuclear plant has changed the way the West must negotiate with Tehran. While worrisome enough on its own, the plant at Qum may well be the first peek at something far worse: a planned, or even partly completed, hidden nuclear archipelago stretching across the country." [emphasis added.] Oh fuck, oh fuck ! We're all totally fucked! Bomb that country now before it's too late! There "may well be" dangerous things there that we don't know about. The wild speculation continues in paragraph 3. " Perhaps Iran was planning to install more efficient centrifuges at the plant, like a version of the P-2 machine used by Pakistan." [emphasis added.] Yes, perhaps, perhaps, per-haps. "Clearly, the new plant makes more sense if it is one of many. If Iran built a second plant of the same size as the Qum operation and ran them in tandem, the production times described above could be almost halved. And if Iran had a string of such plants, it would be able to fuel a small arsenal quickly enough to reduce greatly the chance of getting caught." [emphasis added.] And if Optimus Prime were real, then he could just fuckin' drive up all like a fuckin' truck an' shit, and then once he got inside he could just be like, " Oh yeah ! It's Optimus Prime in the house!" And IF that happened it'd be so fuckin' sweet, and then we could bomb those Browns into a real live Democracy, by gawd. "This would also limit the damage if one site were discovered or bombed, because its loss might not affect the others. Such a secret string of plants, however, would probably require a secret source of uranium." ... The Qum plant might also be linked to Iran's known enrichment plant at Natanz... ... By feeding this uranium into the new Qum plant, Iran could fuel one bomb in about seven months, even at the present low production rate. If the rate were quadrupled, as Washington is projecting, the plant could fuel a five-bomb arsenal in less than a year. ... But because the Natanz plant is being watched over by international inspectors, diversion of its material would probably be detected... ... Having begun the Qum plant to supply a bomb's fuel, wouldn't Iran also create what's needed to produce the rest of the bomb's components? [emphasis added.] Really look over those quotes. What, what is happening in this Op-Ed? We start from an unfounded assumption, that the plant "may well be" one part of a nefarious network of plants, and we end up with the vile innuendo, "wouldn't Iran also create what's needed to produce the rest of the bomb's components?" It should make any thinking person sick to their stomach that the Times would publish such ridiculous speculation. A first year philosophy student couldn't get away with this fallacious of an argument. By the time the reader gets to the last rhetorical question, the existence of an evil, vast network of undisclosed America-killing factories is no longer in question. Oh, it exists , the authors assure us. But what evidence have they provided? Literally none. Can we prove or disprove the authors' claims? No, not exactly. Although it is theoretically possible that they are describing reality as it is, we as readers are given no reason to believe that is what's happening. And, put in context, we should believe the authors are doing the exact opposite: describing a paranoid fantasy world populated with Evil Geniuses bent on the destruction of America and Israel at all costs. Never once does it cross the authors minds that the constant threats of war and sanctions from the US and Israel might lead the Iranians to build a protected nuclear power plant. Never once does it cross their minds that Iran notified the IAEA well before they were required to under international law. And, most remarkably of all, never does it cross their minds that Iraq was a massive failure on every level that has resulted in untold levels of suffering in that country--and America as well--and that the US will be dealing with the blowback and crippling cost of our occupation for decades to come. None of that crossed the minds of the editorial board of the New York Times , either. Which, all things considered, is somewhat unremarkable. More on Iran
 
Chicago Olympics Bid Brings Protests, Opposition (PHOTOS) Top
CHICAGO — (AP) The mayor, the president and Oprah Winfrey may hope to return to Chicago from Copenhagen with the 2016 Olympic Games, but some around town hope the International Olympic Committee deems the Second City the second city. As in second to Rio de Janeiro. Or Tokyo. Or Madrid. The opposition is not as visible as the "We Back the Bid" signs plastered across town. But in a city all too familiar with stories of public corruption and problems with public services, there is serious concern the games can only mean more troubles – and bills – for residents. "I know it's going to cost us money somehow," said Joseph Patrick, a 51-year-old stay-at-home dad. "The government doesn't have a job (so) the only place they can get money is from us." A new Web site – Chicagoansforrio.com – is the talk of the town and features the game "Match the Olympic host with its estimated budget overrun." About 170 protesters marched outside City Hall on Tuesday night, many insisting that no matter what organizers say, the games will push people from their homes, lead to more corruption and raise taxes. "I don't believe anything the city and the 2016 committee says," said Larry Rivkin, who grew up in Chicago. At least one person was later arrested for trying to interfere with workers erecting Olympic symbols in a downtown plaza. It's not that the bid does not enjoy wide support. Laid-off laborer Dennis Ries, 45, said the Olympics would bring jobs. Resident Molly Mason, 53, sees the games enhancing tourism and public transportation. "There's no downside, only upside," Mason said. Others note protests routinely accompany Olympic bids. "The Olympics always galvanizes all sorts of opposition," said A.D. Frazier, chief operating officer for the 1996 Atlanta Games. In Chicago, though, the opposition seems to be getting stronger. A poll released this month by the Chicago Tribune showed residents almost evenly split, with 47 percent in favor of the bid and 45 percent against; that's a drop from the 2-1 support the newspaper found in a February poll. The 2016 bid committee said its own poll last week shows support from 72 percent of Chicagoans. But even that segment has concerns. Seconds after saying the games in Chicago would be "thrilling," Susan Blaine was wondering what tens of thousands more riders will do to an already overwhelmed public transportation system. "A Cubs game turns my commute to chaos," said Blaine, 51. "You're belly button to belly button." For others, concerns about taxes have only intensified since Mayor Richard Daley flip-flopped in April, telling the IOC he'd sign a contract promising the city would take full financial responsibility for the games after long maintaining he wouldn't. "For a lot of people that was definitely a major moment, when they said, `Wait a minute, we're going to be ... on the hook financially for a very large amount,'" said Anna Tarkov, who writes The Daily Daley blog and opposes the bid. Organizers have tried to allay such fears, but it can be a tough sell at a time of headline-grabbing corruption cases, the biggest one involving former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich – a Chicagoan accused of trying to sell President Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder. "I just think that the history of corruption sets the stage for a brutal series of events like misuse of funds and insider dealings," said Brian Hayes, 53, of Chicago. Frazier, of the Atlanta Games, doesn't think the opposition matters to the IOC. "They will probably be disappointed if there wasn't anything," he said. Members of a group called No Games Chicago hope he's wrong. They're headed to Copenhagen to tell the IOC that Chicago is in such financial straits that it cannot afford the games and is such a hotbed of political corruption that it doesn't deserve them. "We are bringing materials to back up our claim that Chicago is not fit to host the games," said Tom Tresser, an organizer for the group. More on Olympics
 
Robin Sax: The Predator's Partner: Nancy Garrido Top
Some say that Nancy Garrido, 54, is the "real monster" in the 1991 abduction of 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard. There is no doubt that her husband, Phillip Garrido, 58, is a horrific figure. But it's the predator's partner who sends shivers down my spine. I don't know if this qualifies as a love story, but let me take you to the beginning of their romance. Nancy met Phillip Garrido while he was serving time for rape and kidnapping -yes, you read that correctly. The Garridos' love story began in prison. If you were looking for a clue that something is wrong with Nancy Garrido, here's clue number one! While serving his prison sentence in Leavenworth, Kentucky for the abduction and rape of a young girl, Nancy "fell in love" with felon, rapist, and kidnapper Philip Garrido. Of course, Nancy "falling in love" with a convicted sex offender isn't exactly the version of prison romance that we've heard about before. No, this is a woman falling love with a man who preyed on children. I find this even more troublesome than hearing about women who fell in love with notorious murderers like the Menendez boys--or even Charlie Manson! This woman knowingly struck up a romance with someone who had been convicted of kidnap and rape. But Nancy wanted to be with him so badly, she exchanged letters with him and finally married her Prince Charming behind prison walls! They have been married for almost 28 years. During their marriage, Nancy worked in the outside world. She was not kept captive in the home herself. It's pretty ironic that Nancy worked as a state-licensed nurse's aide, serving adults and children with disabilities even as she stood by and watched her husband father two children with their captive, young Jaycee Dugard. Nancy helped keep Jaycee Dugard isolated so the girl could be available to her husband to satisfy his sick needs. As a result, young Jaycee was a victim of Philip's repeated sexual attacks for 18 years! What could Nancy have been thinking? Which brings us to another question: how, while acting as a captor, could she have simultaneously chosen to care for disabled patients? Could it have been because, in a twisted way, it made her feel more powerful? Nancy was, after all, unable to stop the abuses and tragedy occurring in her own home. But perhaps, in her role as nurse, she could be a source of comfort, a sharp contrast to her roles at home--jailor and the source of another woman's pain. Some psychologists argue that she herself was a victim of Stockholm Syndrome (a condition seen in abducted hostages in which the hostage develops signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker). Others speculate that she was afraid of Phillip and so "went along" with his evil ways. For 18 years...??? Even while, for a time, her husband was in prison on a parole violation. In my mind, Nancy Garrido was not a victim. She was a sick, vicious, abuser herself who must now be held accountable for what happened. There was a time, when Jaycee was 13, when Phillip Garrido was sent back to prison for four months. That meant Nancy Garrido had to step in as Jaycee's captor and continue the imprisonment her husband started. Nancy clearly had an opportunity to release Jaycee while Phillip was away. She did not, and as a woman, I find it truly unthinkable that Nancy, on her own, could continue to keep Jaycee captive for four months in the belief that it was the "right" thing to do. While we can ask, "How can a woman do this to a child?" we need to examine a possibility that there may be something bigger going on--perhaps an emerging trend. Do you recall the Austrian man, Josef Fritzl, who was arrested in April, 2008 for imprisoning and raping his own daughter for 24 years in a windowless dungeon he had built beneath his home. People worldwide were horrified, especially at Mrs. Fritzl - the wife - who never went to the authorities to urge them to find her missing daughter, Elizabeth. Even when Joseph "found" babies on the doorstep, he had her convinced that their runaway daughter had dropped off the babies to be raised by her parents...! How can a woman be so blind!? Earlier this month Michigan police took a 35-year-old mother, Aimee Louise Sword, into custody after finding she used the Internet to track down her biological son (whom she gave up for adoption a decade ago). Then, she seduced and raped her teenage son. It is still unclear whether or not the boy knows it was his biological mother. The Sacramento Bee has also reported a trend: Charlene Williams of Sacramento lured six teenage girls and four young adults to their deaths as her husband demanded the perfect "sex slave." Michelle Lyn Michaud, also of Sacramento, customized curling irons to help her boyfriend torture and murder a 22-year-old student abducted from a Pleasanton street. In Utah, Wanda Eileen Barzee was accused of helping her husband kidnap 14-year old Elizabeth Smart at knifepoint from her Salt Lake City bedroom so that he could secure another "wife." And now along comes Nancy Garrido of the Bay Area. Allegedly, it was Nancy Garrido who actually snatched Jaycee from the street in 1991 while her husband drove the getaway car. Now in jail18 years later, Nancy claims to truly love her and her two daughters "very much." Is this a sick, twisted case of a woman who was brainwashed and manipulated by a religious fanatic and convicted felon? Or was Nancy a monster in her own right? The other question is this: could Nancy have made up her own mind to end the horrors happening in her own home? Certainly, the answer to this question will be critical to her criminal defense case. Investigators have charged Nancy Garrido with almost as many offenses as her husband. She faces 2 counts of rape, 7 counts of forcible lewd acts and 4 counts of forcible rape - in addition to the kidnapping charge. The charges against Nancy do not indicate whether police believe she participated directly in the sexual assaults or acted more as an accomplice. Ted Cassman, a criminal defense lawyer not involved in the Garrido case, told the LA Times in September that any lawyer who claims Nancy was "brainwashed" will have a difficult time persuading a jury. "I bet they are going to claim her husband was abusive, controlling and dominating and that she was under his spell - but that is a really difficult defense," Cassman told the Times. I'm not particularly interested in the reason why Nancy Garrido sat by and watched (or participated) in the brutal rape of Jaycee and her 18-year captivity. The legal system will determine whether Nancy was "unstable" or "mentally ill" and how that will affect her criminal sentencing (once the trail takes place). But the fact remains that Nancy participated in the kidnapping of Jaycee and did nothing to return the girl to her family for 18 years. In my view, Nancy Garrido is a monster who ripped a family apart and scarred three innocent people - Jaycee and her daughters -for life. As far as I'm concerned, she should (and probably will) receive significant jail time for her actions.
 
Gerald Bracey: The Washington Post--Union Buster? Top
On September 27, 2009, the Washington Post , ran an editorial, " Charter Success ." It carried a sub-headline, "Poor Children Learn. Teachers Unions Are Not Pleased." It began "Opponents of charter schools are going to have to come up with a new excuse: They can't claim any longer that these non-traditional public schools don't succeed." It went on to call the results of the study it was summarizing "remarkable." It concluded, "now the facts are in." Are they? And are they remarkable? The short answers are "no" and "no." The study was conducted by economist Caroline Hoxby, the only person in the whole country who consistently finds results that favor charters. Here are a few cogent items about the study: Many of the data that would be needed to draw conclusions are not presented. The study is limited to New York City. The study has not been peer reviewed. The study was published by a pro-charter advocacy group staffed with people who used to work in charter schools. The editorial writer, Jo-Ann Armao, lacks the background in econometric research to actually know how to interpret the study. She was, therefore, engaging in faith-based editorializing but passing it off as evidence-based. Even if the study proves to be sound (unlikely according to some other researchers who have also looked at it), it is only ONE study. Strong conclusions in any field should never be drawn on the basis of only one study. I sent this information to the Post 's Ombudsman who replied that he only deals with news, not editorials. Ms. Armao, on seeing my post to the Ombudsman, sent an email saying that obviously I did not really want to engage her on the issue. That was true. I wanted a retraction. So I sent it to Ms. Armao's boss, editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, who replied, "It's even harder to 'engage' with an 'expert' who would rather trade in personal insults." Other relevant information: My own work in the field--a 2005, 61-page paper summarizing the research of others, not doing any original work--found a number of studies showing poor charter school performance (" Charter Schools' Performance and Accountability: A Disconnect. "). In June, 2009, another study of charters--this one more of a national look-- concluded that 46% of charters did no better than comparable public schools, 17% outperformed the publics and 37% did worse. "We've got two bad charter schools for every good one," said Margaret Raymond, the Stanford University researcher who conducted the study. Raymond has been known as a charter supporter so her willingness not to flinch in the face of these data is admirable. Would the FDA approve a drug that had adverse effects twice as often as positive effects? The Washington Post did not cover this study either as a story, an op-ed, or an editorial. Because it had published an op-ed touting charters about a week prior to Ms. Armao's love letter, I sent a letter to the editor on September 23 pointing out the above finding and wondering why Ruth Marcus, normally one of the Post 's best op-ed people, Arne Duncan and President Obama would be touting such a failed reform, forcing states to lift caps on charters to get stimulus money. My letter was not published. On September 30 2009, the Wall Street Journal published a piece on Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, with these closing sentences: "He (Duncan) also backed a union-led move in Congress to slash federal funding to a group of charter schools in Washington, D. C. He acknowledges that many charter schools have shown shoddy results." So the Secretary of Education, a charter supporter, acknowledges what the Washington Post will not. (These sentences were dropped in later editions because, according to Neil King, the WSJ reporter who wrote the piece, he wanted to end with a point about state funding which he thought was more germane. Hmmm.). Of course, the true purpose of this editorial was given away in the sub-headline. The Post has joined in a grand game of teachers union busting. More on Wash Post
 
Karen Finney: Thug Politics in America Top
In the words of a favorite song, it's time to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves. Tom Friedman was on point in his column today. Our politics and national discourse have entered a new era of thug-life. Like bullies on the playground who get out of control, undermining a child's ability to thrive and even resulting in violence, this thuggery threatens to undermine our democracy and erode our American values. I won't go through the litany of outrageous attacks on the presidency- suffice to say the latest today is a story on newsmax suggesting that Obama risks a military coup. Having seen this movie before as a staffer in the Clinton Administration, it is painful to again watch the right-wing machinery crank into overdrive; and the rhetoric spin up on all sides. Let me say upfront that I was not a fan of the "pc movement"; I believe that while it may be harder, it's far better to have our prejudices and fears out in the open. As America moves forward in this time of tremendous economic, cultural and social change, the future is uncertain. People are anxious, frustrated and scared. But as we all should have learned as children, there is an appropriate way to express that fear. Just as there is an appropriate way to listen and engage in a discussion about those fears. While I don't agree with John McCain on much, I honor his service to our country and respect that last summer when his campaign rallies became hostile and destructive, he stood up and pushed back. So where's the leadership now? Where were Republican and Democratic leaders this summer when the debate once again began to spiral out of control as the bullies seemed to take over the playground? Whose responsibility is it to "fix" this problem? If Americans really want to move beyond the old politics of division and fear, each one of us has to hold ourselves, our leaders, and the media accountable. Playing a role in de-legitimizing the Presidency of the United States either directly or with our silence, whether for political gain, ratings or bloodsport is unacceptable. It is particularly disturbing to see many of the same national media who had an almost insatiable appetite for the Whitewater "scandal", and dropped the ball as we were led to war in Iraq based on false information, now seem more interested in covering the process of de-legitimizing rather than take responsibility for their role in it. Glenn Beck's reckless rantings stoke people's fears and encourage extremists in pursuit of ratings and News Corps' profits. The reward for his deplorable behavior was a Time magazine cover story. Meanwhile, Lou Dobbs is using the platform provided to him by CNN to push right-wing propaganda and legitimize craziness like the birther story or stoke anti-immigrant fears. Recently he showed the true cowardice of a bully as he attempted to shy away from comments he made on his radio show about "bloodsucking leftists" and "driving a stake through his heart" as part of the healthcare debate. CNN tried to suggest that what he says on his radio show is not the same as his TV show or some such nonsense. Did we tell that to his listeners and viewers? We can be scared or angry. We can raise questions, concerns or doubts. But we can do it in a manner that strengthens rather than undermines our democracy. As President Obama so eloquently stated during the campaign, " This union may never be perfect. But generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected." It's time we stand up to the bullies. More on CNN
 
Steve Fleischli: Sean Hannity is a Communist-Loving Vegetarian Top
Hats off to Jon Stewart for calling out Sean Hannity yesterday for his take on California's continuing water challenges. No doubt, these issues are far more complicated than a short clip could do justice. But after watching the video I wondered what would happen if the boisterous, arrogant Sean Hannity were to be interviewed by the boisterous, arrogant Sean Hannity for his position on this issue. Here is what it might sound like: Sean Hannity #1: Why are you protecting a two-inch fish over hardworking farmers? Sean Hannity #2: Why are you supporting government handouts over hardworking fishermen? Sean Hannity #1: Saving a tiny fish, while farmers want to work. Sean Hannity #2: And giving government handouts while fishermen want to work? Sean Hannity #1: For a two-inch fish! Sean Hannity #2: To grow rice and alfalfa in the desert! Sean Hannity #1: You're choosing fish over people. Sean Hannity #2: Why do you hate fishing? Sean Hannity #1: I hate not letting farmers work. Sean Hannity #2: You're probably . . . one of those . . . vegetarians , aren't you? Sean Hannity #1: You're the one who loves tiny fish. Are you sure you're not the vegetarian? Sean Hannity #2: I mean, who eats alfalfa anyway? Sean Hannity #1: And what do you have against the rights of landowners? Sean Hannity #2: Meat eaters certainly don't eat alfalfa. Sean Hannity #1: Another example of big government intrusion . . . Sean Hannity #2: What do you have against the right to eat fish? Sean Hannity #1: What do you have against private property? Sean Hannity #2: To grow rice . . . in the desert ... Sean Hannity #1: Communists are against private property, too, you know? Sean Hannity #2: And just how much of that rice ends up in China or is eaten in Chinese restaurants in communist-loving places like San Francisco ? Sean Hannity #1: Clearly you've never read the U.S. Constitution. Sean Hannity #2: I have a copy right here. Sean Hannity #1: So you admit that you support a two-inch fish over our Constitution? Sean Hannity #2: And you support feeding the Chinese over feeding Americans? Sean Hannity #1: In fact, you're just a communist-loving vegetarian. Sean Hannity #2: I know you are, but what am I? No doubt these issues are very serious and there is a long history of debate over how best to solve them. But this is exactly what can happen when extremism takes over and meaningful dialogue gets thrown out the window; where each side is only interested in supporting their own pre-determined conclusions. In the end, no one is better for it and, in fact, everyone just ends up loosing.
 
Cameron Sherber: Clayton on Kanye Top
 
Charles Butler: Putting the First Amendment to Work Top
As an American, A Black American, a radio talk show host, and participant in social, and politics issues most of life, I find an interesting trend developing since the election of Barack Obama, as the 44th president of the United States of America. That trend is to treat President Obama with "preferential protection" based on his race. From national politicians to the average American, people are inserting their personal values about the issue of race, the definition of racism into the national debate of issues that face America. I think that their well-meaning gestures obscure the more important issue of discourse, dissension, discussion, and genuine concern about the direction our country is being directed under the Obama administration. As a constitutional adjunct professor at The University of Chicago Law School, President Obama encouraged debate and discussion from varying points of view. I think it is important to remember that President Obama is not a religious deity, nor is he the Messiah. He is an American politician, elected to the office the President of the United States of America, and he put his pants on one leg at time like any other man. President Obama represents all Americans and our interests, and he should be held accountable for his conduct, whether we support his positions or not. He is my President, and I am proud of him, and wish him much success as an American. Does that mean that I agree with all of his ideas and actions? Not hardly, however, that is my right as a citizen of the United States of America. For those of you who just got interested in politics, and those who forgot; In America, we have something called the first amendment of the constitution and it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of to people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It seems to me that this right is being impinged upon by members of U.S. Congress, past U.S. Presidents, the media, and the average citizen. Over the last several weeks we've heard our national Democratic leaders make false, misleading and inflammatory statements about the conduct of peacefully assembled Americans in the protest of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress. Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid have made false accusations about concerned American citizens calling them "Un-American," "hate-mongers," and other derogatory terms unfairly labeling Americans that are simply excerising their right to "peacefully assemble" and ask our elected officials for hard answers to their proposed legislation on health care, the financial industry, automotive industry and the two wars in the Middle East. As Americans, we criticize and make fun of our president in verse, and the popular media of the day. If you disagree with a president that loves a good discussion, who is really Un-American or a racist. It is a sad day for all of us if we allow the issue of race to enter the debate of the most important issues facing our country in the last 75 years. President Obama is who he is; a Black American, and that will never change. He is interested in changing America in ways we all agree and disagree, but there will be a middle ground and that is where the American form of government excels above all others. Those of us who differ with Mr. Obama on the issues have our own solutions and recommendations about how to address the pressing issues of the day. For the record, I personally like President Obama, however I have never agreed with most of his political views and proposed direction and legislation on the aforementioned issues. President Obama, was my state senator for eight years, my US Senator for four years, and now my president. I have rarely supported Mr. Obama positions and his agenda. This is not to be mean spirited, it is just that we have not ideologically paired, for lack of a better term. There have been numerous attempts to silence my factual presentation of Barack Obama's legislative record in Springfield and Washington DC. It is often met by the voice(s) of Kumbaya and outdated civil rights rhetoric supported by illogical arguments. I have been outraged by several attacks on the president that I thought were out of bounds and crossed the line of political disagreement. I think the president has been given more than a fair shake in the press, on talk shows, and by most media commentators whether left or right. We must be vigilant about criticizing the president and members of his administration, as well as elected officials on all levels of government. This is America, and in the Declaration of Independence the Fifth Amendment does offer protections to our life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law. So the next time you hear someone criticizing the politics and policies of the president, a congressman, a mayor, or another person; remember that they have the right to express themselves in a respectful manner because we are all citizens of the United States of America. Best regards, and God Bless America,
 
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Jimmy Carter's Price Tag Top
You've got to admire Jimmy Carter. No matter how wrong he is, no matter how many times he is refuted, no matter how inane his ramblings, he just keeps on coming back for more. Forget the fact that he was eviscerated in a landslide election where the American people overwhelmingly voted to shoo him from the presidency. And forget the fact that historians and the public rate him as arguably the worst president of all time. Carter doesn't seem to have gotten the message. We're stuck with him forever. He just won't go away. Most recently Carter shared his penetrating insight that opposition to President Obama is fueled by racism. Obama himself disagreed with the great oracle from Plains. More importantly, Obama's biggest critics still like him a lot more than the ex-President, even though Jimmy is a white man. But leaving aside that inconvenient fact for a moment, it seems incredible that Carter would accuse Obama's critics of racism when around the world Carter is perceived to be an anti-Semite. His nonstop criticism of Israel as an apartheid state and his refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself -- he has accused Israel of atrocities in Gaza while not leveling similar criticism at the Hamas terror organization which rained incessant missiles on Israeli families - has confirmed in the minds of many that Carter just has a bit of a problem with the Jewish state. But I for one have never bought it. Carter, I have argued, is not so much an anti-Semite as, what Lenin famously called, 'a useful idiot,' his mistake being to always side with the weaker party in a conflict notwithstanding their immorality. Let us never forget that the Carter Administration tried to seat the exiled Khmer Rouge as the rightful government of Cambodia even though they slaughtered one out of three Cambodians. For Carter, weakness was itself a sign of righteousness. I grew up in the United States during the 1970s when we danced to disco music, wore leisure suits, and watched The Brady Bunch . But as if that weren't torture enough, we had Jimmy Carter as president. I can still recall how depressing it was to watch his taciturn face announcing one catastrophe after another, from the skyrocketing misery index, to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to the capture of our hostages in Iran, to the tragically botched rescue attempt to free them. Fortune did not smile on Jimmy Carter and he was, poor thing, hapless at everything he touched. But Carter's biggest failing was to be bereft of a moral compass. To be sure, his heart wished to do good. It's just that his head was often confused as to what the good was. Throughout his career he invariably found himself defending tyrants and dictators at the expense of their oppressed peoples, not because he was an insensitive man but rather because he was a confused man. Carter always subscribed to what my friend Michael Scroccaro calls 'Underdogma,' a knee-jerk reaction to champion the cause of the underdog, however immoral. Poverty dictates virtue and weakness dictates righteousness. So, if the Israelis have jet-fighters and the Palestinians only Katyushas then that must necessarily mean that the Israelis are the guilty party. Carter's obsession underdog obsession is what motivated him to legitimize Fidel Castro and take his side in a bio-weapons dispute with the United States and to praise North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung with the words: "I find him to be vigorous, intelligent,...and in charge of the decisions about this country." Carter added absurdly, "I don't see that they [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation." He also hailed Marshal Joseph Tito as "a man who believes in human rights," and said of murderous Romanian dictator Nicolas Ceausescu, "Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights." Carter also told Haitian dictator Raul Cédras that he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country," which made most Americans ashamed of Jimmy Carter. From all this I concluded that Jimmy Carter was not anti-Semite so much as a man hopelessly naïve and utterly lacking in moral judgment. Truly, a well-meaning idiot. To be sure, I received a great deal of criticism from informed and intelligent readers who told me I was the one who hopelessly naïve. Jimmy Carter was a glaring anti-Semite. Was I blinded by my own theory? Therefore, when Carter said in 2006 that Israel's policies in the West Bank were actually worse than apartheid South Africa, I began to question whether my readers were right. When he followed up in his 2009 book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate our media," I said to myself anyone who rolls out the old Jews-control-the-world theory probably is an anti-Semite. And then the clincher seemed to be Carter's recent pronouncement that "the key factor that prevents peace is the continuing building of Israeli settlements in Palestine, driven by a determined minority of Israelis who desire to occupy and colonize east Jerusalem and the West Bank." You mean Palestinian terrorism, Arab aversion to democracy, and sixty years of Arab wars to annihilate Israel had nothing to do with the absence of peace? Surely this man was a bigot! And yet, something inside told me that Carter did not harbor any unnatural hostility to Jews. I was therefore delighted to chance upon Prof. Alan Dershowitz's outstanding series of articles detailing the millions of dollars of known funding that Carter has personally and institutionally taken from leading Arab sources, including Saudi King Fahd, the now-defunct BCCI bank that was controlled indirectly the Saudi royal family, Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and Agha Hasan Abedi, among others. These millions, some of which even went to bail-out the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s, finally vindicated my earlier theory. Jimmy Carter is not an anti-Semite. He is simply a man with a price. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the founder of This World: The Values Network. His newest book is 'The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul in Intimate Conversation.' www.shmuley.com .
 
The 7 Most Awkward Ken Lewis Faces (PHOTOS) Top
On the heels of the announcement that Ken Lewis will be retiring from Bank of America later this year, we decided to take an unusual look back at Lewis' controversial tenure as the bank's CEO. Known for being combative and competitive, Lewis rose from being an industry unknown to the heights of the banking world. He was actually named Banker Of the Year as late as 2008. Earlier this year, New York Magazine's Daily Intel said Lewis has "always hoarded power and earned a reputation as a standoffish, acid-tongued loner." But along the way, the press caught some rather revealing glimpses of the many facets of Lewis' multifaceted personality. And he developed something we like to call "The Ken Lewis Face." We've compiled some of the most entertaining -- and, to be fair, the most awkward -- shots of Lewis' long banking career. The captions, we should point out, are our own. Vote for your favorite Ken Lewis Face below. Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter ! More on Bank Of America
 
Alex Thurston: A Domino Effect in the Horn of Africa? Top
Somalia's civil war, pitting the Transitional Federal Government against al Shabab and other Islamist rebel groups, has been destabilizing Kenya and Ethiopia for some time now. Al Shabab recruits fighters from Kenya, and conflict on the Somali-Ethiopian border has provoked Ethiopian military interventions in Somalia even after the 2008 withdrawal of Ethiopian forces from the country. How far will chaos spread, and what is the appropriate US policy response? At the United Nations General Assembly meeting last week, leaders from Kenya and Ethiopia openly warned of the consequences Somalia's instability could have for the region. Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga devoted a large portion of his floor speech to Somalia , saying that "the continuing inflow of refugees, small arms and light weapons [from Somalia] is the major source of insecurity in our country." Ethiopian Foreign Minister Ato Seyoum Mesfin painted an even more alarming picture, arguing that not only might Somalia fall soon to al Shabab, but the conflict there could expose Sudan to radical influences from the Horn. Mesfin did not spell out precisely how he thought fighting in Somalia would destabilize Sudan, but likely he was alluding to North-South tensions stemming from the run-up to next year's presidential election and a 2011 referendum on Southern independence. Unspoken, perhaps, was another, more immediate fear: that the Somali civil war will fan flames of conflict in Ethiopia's majority-Somali Ogaden region. Reports of collaboration between the Ogaden Liberation Front, a rebel group, and al Shabab undoubtedly have Ethiopian officials nervous. How should the US react to these warnings? Washington should certainly take regional leaders' perspectives seriously, both as knowledgeable assessments of the situation on the ground and as political messages indicating the shape of Kenyan and Ethiopian foreign policy. Yet Washington should not make the mistake of viewing all problems in the Horn as stemming from a single source. Somalia's civil war constitutes a danger to the whole region, but it is not the only cause of instability. Drought strains East African governments' capacities to provide for the welfare of their constituents. Ethnic tensions inside Ethiopia and Kenya cause strife, and maneuvering in advance of the next elections (Ethiopia's are in 2010, Kenya's in 2012) consumes a significant portion of leaders' energies. These tensions would exist even if al Shabab -- or Somalia -- did not. Similarly, armed conflicts in the region that threaten to reignite - civil war between North and South Sudan, separatist violence in Ogaden, war between Ethiopia and Eritrea - began long before al Shabab formed. It is important to recognize the threat al Shabab poses to the region, but it is also important not to lose sight of the complexity of political relationships inside Somalia and across the region. This is especially true as al Shabab finds its political support slipping in some parts of Somalia. Even as the Islamist rebels bid for control of Mogadishu, other groups are challenging their dominance in strategic towns like Kismayo, a major port on the Indian Ocean, and Beledweyne, which sits near the border with Ethiopia . In American policy toward the Horn, one feature appears settled: Washington will continue to support Somalia's Transitional Federal Government with aid and weapons . But this step does not in and of itself fulfill the need for a more developed policy toward Somalia. Going forward, Washington should think carefully about how Somalia fits into a regional context. Clearly Somalia's neighbors are worried. If the United States is to play a positive role in the region, we must think about whether our policies will help allay fears or increase them. Will missile strikes on terrorist suspects in Somalia do more harm - particularly to US relations with Kenya - than they will good? Will strategies of quarantining southern Somalia keep al Shabab out of Kenya's refugee camps and urban centers? Will the perceived need to stabilize Somalia eclipse other concerns in the region, such as the political and human rights situations in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Sudan? All these questions bear scrutiny as the Somali civil war rages on, creating unpredictable effects both inside and outside of the country. More on Ethiopia
 
Tasha Gordon-Solmon: Melrose Place Recap 4: Of Landlords and Lady Pimps Top
This week featured a "glamorous" movie premiere that somehow involved every resident at Melrose place. Except Ashlee Simpson who was too busy being crazy and/or confused. Now on to the drama, because there is oh so much. Ella vs. Josie-Jane-Andrews- Mancini-Bissett Sydney's sister Jane (Jose Bissett) returns to Melrose Place, as the new landlord. Will she be nice housewife Jane or crazy evil Jane who burns whatever she can get her hands on? The latter, it would seem. She tells Ella she found all the angry e-mails she sent Sydney and threatens to send them to the cops and accuse her of murder... unless Ella dresses her super-famous-actress-client in a Josie-Jane-Andrews- Mancini-Bissett original for the big movie premiere. A bribe! The actress doesn't like Jane's dress, but Ella has no choice but to make her wear it. (Jane hisses threats in the background for emphasis.). When the actress has a dress-induced meltdown before red carpet time, Ella saves the day with a fabulous designer smock she had sitting in the trunk and is like: I'm taking care of my client, so threaten me all you want Andrews-Mancini-Bissett! But later, Ella worries about the consequences of her actions. She broods by the pool, wearing a severe black leather jump suit and warrior jewelry. David shows up and offers to help - he has dirt on Jane because she was married to his dad. Ella is very thankful and takes David home with her to show him just how thankful she is. Later, David goes to see Jane and threatens to call the FBI about that big fire she started back on Melrose Place: The Early Years (David knows this from Michael's secret computer files, which conveniently stole last week). Jane sends an apology e-mail to Ella, and everything seems find... until Ella calls the cops and tells them Ella had reason to murder Sydney and she'll give them proof. Dun dun dun! Dr. Dirty/Desperate aka Lauren Toby (Lauren's very first client, if you will) is miraculously back in town, and Lauren pays a visit to his hotel -only to find out his flight was canceled. Just then, a beautifully buff gentlemen solicits her services and she goes off to his room with him. But afterward, he won't pay her and roughly shoves her against the wall! Hurt and shaken, Lauren returns to the hotel bar - only to be picked up by security for soliciting! Just in the nick of time, a fierce blond lady comes to her rescue and tells Lauren she's been in the same "position" as her. Lauren keeps denying that she's a hooker and blond lady tells Lauren she's lying to herself. Lauren goes home, sadly looks in the mirror and at the huge welt on her arm, and decides to call the blonde lady (Ie-our lady pimp!) to talk about "future employment opportunities." At least the CW is trying to showing the dark side of Lauren's journey- the violence, the sad mirror moment... And yet, every guy she sleeps with for money is always gorgeous. Um.... Auggie and David Auggie's restaurant is, of course, catering the big party for the big movie premiere! He shows his boss, Marcello some exciting new dish he invented and Marcello is like: You're here to sauté things in your tight T, not cook new foods, so stay in line and maybe then, you'll get that promotion! The restaurant is short on wait staff for the big event, and David offers to help out. Auggie is like: no way, you've never worked a day in your life, crazy David! But David wants to make amends for their falling out over Sydney (because they both slept with her and both possibly killed her?), and so Auggie accepts the gesture and recommends David to his boss. While he's working the big fancy party, David realizes that the PI his dad hired to follow him (Yup. That Michael Mancini is a mean old daddy!) is at the party, spying on David! So, David attacks the dude in front of everyone and storms off. He tries to apologize to Auggie but Auggie's had it with David and his spoiled spoiled ways. It looks like the friendship we never really cared about to begin with, has a rift in it once more. Back at work, Marcello is upset about the David incident and tells Auggie he's not getting the promotion. Poor Auggie can't do anything but flex his biceps. So does. Jonah and Riley Guess what?! The big movie premiere is for a film written by Jonah's ex-college buddy! Jonah's all jealous, because that dude got his break, when's it Jonah's turn? He can't go on making slow motion montages of his girlfriend forever. The ever supportive (aside from when she's acting really shady about their engagement and kissing Auggie) Riley promises to stand by him as long as it takes. At the movie premiere Riley is like- the best girlfriend/fiancé of an aspiring filmmaker ever! She shmoozes with a fancy agent and gets him interested in Jonah's work; she builds him up in front of his film school friend; she even talks about golf! But then Riley has to leave to bail Ashlee out of jail. And Jonah's doesn't want Riley to leave- he needs her! Jonah: She's not even our friend. Riley: She's our neighbor! In the end, Jonah does just fine with the big shot agent and comes home to tell Riley how much he loves her. But wait--is that Ashlee Simpson in their shower? Ashlee Simpson (She's so not a Violet.) Let's back track for a second. Riley and Jonah's shower is far from Ashlee's first this week. Rewind to the day before. Detectives show up at Ashlee's apartment to question her about Sydney's murder and she's wet. She just got out of the shower and goes to put some clothes on ....and sneaks out the window. She runs to Jane's apartment and tells her she's Sydney's daughter (maybe true?). But then she tells Jane that Sydney embraced her with open arms (definitely false!). Jane seems all caring and supportive...until she steps into the other room to rat Ashlee out to the cops. The cops take Ashlee in, they question her: Why did she run? Why are her fingerprints on that lanyard bracelet at the crime scene? Ashlee also lies to the cops, telling them Sydney was her mom, and accepted her and before she died, gave Ashlee the best week of her life. Blah di blah blah. Eventually Riley bails Ashlee out of jail and brings her home. Jonah gets home from the party and is all upset that Ashlee is there. Riley tells Jonah Ashlee's whole "joyful Sydney reunion story" and Jonah is like - Ashlee is totally the killer. Just then Ashlee walks out of the shower, wet. Always wet. Why is she always WET? Anyway, she heard Jonah and "explains" that she she ran away from her abusive adopted parents, and had to steal some money from them. That's why she's scared of the police. That's why she ran. She's not a murder. Look how often she showers. Murders don't shower this much! Riley consoles Ashlee and Jonah is still suspicious. The next day a Riley and Jonah tell Ella and David how Ashlee is Syd's daughter. On cue as always, Ash shows up with rice krispie squares, and everyone "jokes" about them being laced with cyanide. Everything seem temporarily happy and calm at Melrose place.... Until next week!
 
John Wellington Ennis: The Lynching of ACORN Top
In his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas refuted Professor Anita Hill's sexual harassment testimony against him with these famous words : "This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at prime time over our entire nation....This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate rather than hung from a tree." I cite this as precedent in three realms: An African-American defining a lynching beyond the traditional mob beating and hanging of black people; a Supreme Court Justice not known for opinions sympathetic to minorities here asserting racism as the cause in a line of inquiry; and the U.S. Congress's acceptance of this definition as they hastily approved the minimally experienced Thomas following his scathing complaints. The history of lynching in America is considerable. From 1882-1968, nearly 5000 lynchings occurred in the United States. Lynching is vigilantism and extrajudicial decision by a group of people, a violent act by a mob that does not believe their agenda will be met by law, aware they are acting out of the law, but in effect being the law. There is rarely accountability for those involved. In fact, the display of the victim hanging for all to see is meant to scare off others, violators of perceived segregation or threats to authority. A perceived wrong to white women was often used as justification. Fueled by prejudice and mistruths, urged by a perceived threat or need for immediate justice, lynchings often occurred for reasons other than the alleged crime, like a land or business dispute. Lynchings occurred primarily with blacks men dying at the hands of a white mob, but white people were also targeted, for activism or outspokenness. This would seem to be the case in Kentucky, where a white census worker was murdered, left hanged, naked, hands taped together, gagged, his ID taped to him and "FED" scrawled across his chest. To dispute that this heinous crime qualifies as a lynching is a very dangerous road to go down, even from people who email Whitehouse watermelon pictures. Nonetheless, some are inhumanly quick to venture any number of defamatory theories , blaming a victim who can no longer speak for himself, rather than acknowledge what is plain as day. The manner in which Bill Sparkman was left to be found makes it clear that this was meant as a message. His body didn't have "Bill" scawled on it, or "Guy Who Wronged Me Personally In Ways That The Legal Process Will Not Adjudicate Fairly." No, it said simply, "FED," as in, what else is there to say? He was a federal employee--how dare he? But why on earth would someone want to kill a federal employee (outside of postal-worker-on-postal-worker violence)? How could population counting of American citizens to allot them equitable representation and public resources make them want to kill you? Fanatical fear mongers, such as wrist-slasher and U.S. Representative Michelle Bachman, have sought to create fears of this census process that occurs every 10 years, alleging surveillance and plans to build government camps. She has been notably dodging the issue since Sparkman's murder, but she had plenty of unfounded fears to share about the census just months ago : As you can see from this clip, ACORN has already been conflated with the right wing paranoia about the census, with FOX's Megyn Kelly re-enforcing these misperceptions up until Bachmann evokes the Japanese internment camps in World War II as reason for us to be suspicious today. That ACORN is raised as a specter in the same breath as the internment of Japanese-Americans by the U.S. Government post-Pearl Harbor reveals the far-flung misimpressions of this community umbrella organization. ACORN sounds like COBRA. The census worker lynching in Kentucky indicates that this violent fervor is still alive and well, and being fed some of the purest baloney that the right wing fear machine can mass-produce in their all-out efforts at relevance. The only danger presented by both census-taking and ACORN's voter registration is the counting and empowerment of Brown people. As the population includes more minorities--on their way to becoming the majority--plenty of bigoted white people feel their sense of prestige endangered. Census data goes into districting, and thus proportional representation in government. More Brown people voting further threatens the status quo. By the standard of a high-tech lynching, ACORN's travails are commensurate. The attacks on ACORN have been ongoing, involving the Justice Department, the White House, and the Republican National Committee, well before a couple of privileged white kids in costumes wandered into poor communities across the country hoping to make social workers look stupid and lose their jobs. This is a mob Karl Rove started years ago . Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy James O'Keefe III is serving Karl Rove, knowingly or unknowingly. His very identification of ACORN as what had to be taken down a notch -- not Goldman Sachs, not the Treasury, not U.S. companies with off-shore accounts -- why would O'Keefe even know what ACORN is? This extensive report on the Media's failure to objectively cover ACORN, just released by the Occidental College Urban & Environmental Policy Institute shows the rampant inequity of media coverage and lack of accuracy in reporting on ACORN for the past year. If someone were to see solely this much negative press, they would probably hold an unfavorable view of ACORN as well, as some 67% people do, according to a recent poll Karl Rove Tweeted . Enter James O'Keefe III to take that ball of misinformation and run with it. On FOX & Friends, James O'Keefe III is introduced at the beginning of the interview, wearing a fur coat over his preppy blazer, as he waves a cane. The host is quick to excuse his appearance: "You're not a pimp, you're just playing one on our show." O'Keefe replies: "I'm one of the whitest guys ever, I just wear ridiculous stuff and put people in ridiculous situations." That is how he assures us he is not a pimp--he is one of the Whitest Guys Ever, therefore on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Blackest Guys Ever, who normally tend to this kind of thing. Implicit is this: 'I am so white, I had to dress up like a pimp caricature to look black, and it actually worked. That they acknowledged me despite my outlandish attire shows that they are so gullible and base, I was mistaken for a real pimp, which they all must know, being minorities. Once disguised in this clownish attire, they spoke to me as one of their own, so therefore this is how they all behave throughout their organization. Had I not been dressed as Huggy Bear from Starsky & Hutch , the ACORN employees would have known that I was white, and therefore been on their best behavior, as we can expect them to be to us white people when we come around to check on them.' Just by walking in the door dressed like this, O'Keefe is casting aspersions that people like this would go there (not just sex workers--clueless sex workers). O'Keefe even pleaded with one alarmed ACORN worker to not call the cops for assistance, so that later O'Keefe can fault him for not calling the cops. As O'Keefe says in the above clip coldly, "That's who these people are." O'Keefe is quick to generalize an entire national organization based on a singular intrusive experience, despite other ACORN offices not taking his bait, after admitting he went in there to prove they were thugs . If that's who these people really are, why not release the videotapes in their entirety to show that, including those tapes shot in cities that did not humor O'Keefe, like Los Angeles or Philadelphia, where the ACORN office filed a police report about the pimp and ho spectacle? As O'Keefe insists in the clip above, ACORN's allegation that the tapes appear doctored is "a lie," so he shouldn't have a problem proving it by releasing the full unedited tapes, which would likely be part of ACORN's lawsuit against him . Refuting the "moral equivalence," O'Keefe decries that doctoring tapes does not even compare with child prostitution -- suggesting that to O'Keefe, the ends justify the means. Was this about the truth, or making ACORN look bad? Lost in all of the sensationalism of O'Keefe's hyperbole and selective truths was that there has been no other connection between ACORN and underage prostitution, until O'Keefe walked in and started talking about it to any ACORN employee he could get to listen to him. Try to explain this to the anti-ACORN vandalism that appeared immediately after O'Keefe's videos, notably at Shepard Fairy's art studio in Santa Monica. The stencil reading "ACORN Funded Prostitution Zone" doesn't take into account that there has been no evidence of actual prostitution, or that Shepard Fairy doesn't even have any connection to ACORN--but he made a poster for Obama, so they're all connected? This is the kind of hasty reaction that ties a bunch of unrelated things together in a mob's mind, searching for some easy target. Many in the crankosphere were quick to chest-beat: "To defend ACORN is to defend child prostitution itself. No one can defend them now!" Actually, you can defend ACORN , and many have , because decades of real work in communities across our country still amounts to more than a fleeting image to a bunch of anonymous people in Gotcha Mode who do not know the reality of what ACORN is and will not bother to learn. But once again, this is beside the point: Do I have to defend everything that ACORN has or has not done to decry this unjust process? Myself and others have attested to ACORN's greater good, but there is a critical need to refute gross misrepresentation and be vigilant in truth to rebuff future pitchfork-wavers. In the wake of the fallout from the Pimp-Ho videos, the first government tie to drop ACORN was the Census Bureau , even though they do not pay ACORN for their service. Rep. Daniel Issa of Orange County introduced a measure to strip ACORN of all federal funding, which quickly passed with few questions. It passed so quickly, no one realized it could apply to all defense contractors , as it might should. Now, Democrats are falling over each other trying to score a major win for Republicans and enact a new measure to re-de-fund ACORN, just to be safe. This is another characteristic of lynching: That it is not just the hate mongers doing it. This was carried out by the community. James Allen's Without Sanctuary , a book of postcards from the turn of the 20 th century when lynching photos were like trading cards, includes this observation from Pullitzer Prize-winning historian Leon F. Litwack wrote: "The photographs stretch our credulity, even numb our minds and senses to the full extent of the horror, but they must be examined if we are to understand how normal men and women could live with, participate in, and defend such atrocities, even reinterpret them so they would not see themselves or be perceived as less than civilized. The men and women who tortured, dismembered, and murdered in this fashion understood perfectly well what they were doing and thought of themselves as perfectly normal human beings. Few had any ethical qualms about their actions. This was not the outburst of crazed men or uncontrolled barbarians but the triumph of a belief system that defined one people as less human than another. For the men and women who
 
Eve Ensler: Does the Brotherhood of Fame Endow You With a Lifetime Exemption From Accountability? Top
When I saw the petition protesting the recent arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland was signed by some of my most cherished artists -- the likes of Pedro Almodovar, Ariel Dorfman, Costa Gavras, Jonathan Demme, Sam Mendes -- men who I believed to be champions of women's and human rights, frankly, I was shocked. It made it distressingly clear to me that all our years of work have not yet penetrated or changed the culture so that it understands that rape is a legal crime and a crime against the soul. As a survivor, I can attest to the fact that rape forever changes your life, robbing you of dignity, self-worth, agency over your body, and comfortability with intimacy and trust, while also escalating a pervasive sense of isolation and shame. After 11 years of traveling the world and meeting with rape survivors across the planet I can say that the long-term consequences are multiple and far-reaching, ranging from homelessness, drug abuse, and eating disorders, to imprisonment, suicide, and early death. The petition defending Polanski doesn't even address his crime. Instead, it calls it a "case of morals." That expression -- a "case of morals" -- takes the anti-violence movement back about a hundred years. Rape is not a question of morals. In fact it's not even a question. Let's review the facts: 1. A 13-year-old girl is lured to a house by promise of a job by a famous and powerful director. 2. She finds herself in a hot tub. 3. She has an asthma attack. 4. The director says he will help relieve her asthma attack and offers her (unbeknownst to her) half a Quaalude as a remedy. 5. Once the Quaalude takes effect and the girl is sufficiently pliant, he rapes and sodomizes her without consent. 6. When charges are pressed, the director later pleads guilty to "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor." 7. After spending 42 days in prison, the director flees the United States to avoid the threat of further imprisonment. What about this clear-cut case isn't criminal? Does Roman Polanski's undeniable brilliance as a filmmaker somehow not make him a rapist? Does his talent give license to violence? Does the brotherhood of fame endow you with a lifetime exemption from accountability? No one is arguing the genius of Roman Polanski, or even the pain and tragedy of his difficult life. But in the end, that has nothing to do with the crime he committed. Being an artist does not make any of us exempt from the laws of humanity -- in fact, it actually makes us more responsible to them. Eve Ensler is the author of "The Vagina Monologues" and the Founder of V-Day, the worldwide movement to end violence against women and girls . More on Roman Polanski
 
Nicole Williams: When Your Man Loses His Job Top
Everyone reacts differently to a layoff. Some people jump right into their job hunt, pounding out cover letters and calling recruiters on a daily basis. Some prefer to enjoy their severance package as they catch up on daytime TV. Others hibernate in embarrassment and disappointment, ignoring the bills piling up on the kitchen counter. So, how can you help your newly unemployed significant other navigate this treacherous time? I talked to several women to find out. Look at your finances. Obviously, money is one of the first concerns that people have when they lose their job. So, if you and your boyfriend or husband have joint accounts, you'll want to figure out where you both stand financially. That's what freelance financial writer Rose Fox, of New York City, did when her husband got laid off recently. Rose ran the numbers and determined that they had enough to live on for several months while her husband looked for work. "Money worries stress us both out, so knowing that we were in good financial shape also gave me more confidence and made it easier for me to comfort and reassure him," she explains. Shift your spending habits according. If you aren't in a good situation financially, then this would be a good time to get back on track. Nikki Maxwell's husband was out of work for six months last year. Then Nikki lost her job in education, so the L.A.-based couple have been exploring low-cost ways to relieve stress. "This year, we've discovered the library, the parks, the YMCA, and other low-cost local resources," she says. They also spend time volunteering, playing board games, and hanging out at home instead of going out. "The way we lived before was not sustainable in the sense of being able to afford that lifestyle," she adds. "Now we are much more balanced." Encourage him to explore new interests. A layoff is also an opportunity to try out other options. Maybe he'd like to apply to graduate school, start a business, or chart a new career path. This is the time to do it, so encourage him to try out other options while he has the time and flexibility. Some men even find that they enjoy being home and taking care of things around the house. "One of the funny transitions we've had to face is that he's been the domestic partner in our marriage for years now," says Nikki. "He's better at it than I am. I like my work identity and I like coming home to laundry done and a clean house." If your guy wants to take care of domestic duties, then by all means, let him! Remember, you're in this together. Though Rose is bringing home the bacon these days, she says a change in employment status hasn't really affected their relationship. According to Rose, "we've simply done whatever was necessary to support each other: paying attention and checking in, taking time for long talks to vent about anxiety or brainstorm solutions to problems, making sure we don't schedule events that we don't have the energy for, thanking each other frequently for the effort we're both putting in to make this work." More on The Recession
 
Larry Gellman: A New Year's Resolution Top
These are the most important 10 days of the Jewish calendar -- the time between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when we negotiate with God -- making the case that we are worthy to be inscribed in the Book of Life for yet another year. The biggest part of that process involves t'shuvah -- repentance. We try to be honest about things we have done wrong and need to do better during the coming year. That is obviously a very personal negotiation and each of us has very different issues to consider as part our heshbon ha nefesh -- the examination of our soul. But as a people, I would suggest that this is a time when all Jews need to look not just at what we do during the coming year but at what we say and how we say it. The Jewish tradition has always been obsessed with the destructive potential of speech. Of the 43 sins enumerated in the Al Chait confession we recite on Yom Kippur , 11 of them are related to speech. The Talmud tells that the tongue is an instrument so dangerous that God designed us in a way so it is hidden from view and behind two protective walls (the mouth and teeth) to prevent its misuse. In the book of Leviticus, there is a specific prohibition against rechilut --being a tale-bearer . The Hebrew word rechil refers to a trader or a merchant. A tale-bearer -- a biblical reference to a blogger or talk show host--is someone who deals in information instead of other goods. Long before there was talk radio, cable news, and the internet the Torah -- the Hebrew Bible understood that information is not idle chatter. It is a product. It is real. The gravest type of rechilut is lashon hara which literally means "the evil tongue." It is the practice of discrediting or saying negative things about a person even if those things are true. A person who spreads slander or untrue negative information about a person is considered the lowest of the low -- a motzi shem ra -- one who delivers a bad name. Many commentators rank these people on the same scale as murderers and far worse than thieves since the money or property stolen by a thief can be replaced but a person's good reputation never recovers from slander. There is a well-known story about a rabbi who was asked how one could repent for spreading vicious slander. He replied that it was like trying to put the feathers back in a pillow that has been ripped open during a windstorm. It simply can't be done. The great Chasidic rabbi the Chofetz Chayim was preoccupied with the evils of lashon hara -- so much so that it is said he would stay inside his house for weeks at a time because he found it impossible to go out in public without being exposed to evil gossip. Today, he wouldn't be safe even in his home. He'd have to turn off his TV, throw away his radio, and shut down his email and the internet as well. Throughout history, no people has suffered more from sinat chinam -- baseless hatred -- than the Jews. That hatred has come both from within and outside our community. Many of our sages say that the First Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed due to our sins against God but the Second Temple was destroyed due to sinat chinam -- baseless hatred shown toward each other by differing groups of Jews. Over the years, anti-Semitism grew and thrived based on lies that were spread by those who hated Jews more than they loved the truth. These bigots justified their prejudice by claiming that Jews were financial pariahs, murdered Jesus, used the blood of gentile children to make their Passover matzahs and a variety of other hateful slurs. Without these lies and those who willingly spread them, history might look very different. American Jews have always taken pride in knowing that in the area of politics and public affairs we have been the most sophisticated, influential, and intellectually honest minority group in our country's history. But on this Yom Kippur there is reason for concern. The politics of rumor, innuendo, and lies -- sinat chinam -- is on the rise in our community and it hurts us all. Former President Bush was a victim of this type of treatment. After Bush visited Yad Vashem, a prominent Jewish blogger wrote that "The President cares about dead Jews. Live Jews -- not so much." During last year's presidential campaign, nine leaders of non-partisan Jewish organizations signed a letter condemning the smear campaigns aimed at Jewish voters that had been launched against President Obama . They took this action not because they supported Obama politically but because they understood the danger of these lies. What started as fallacious emails claiming that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim who cavorts with Jew haters has actually ramped up since his election as our president. It has now made its way to semi-respectable websites and the pages of the Jerusalem Post . In several pieces by Jewish authors our president is associated with Islam, Jew hatred, and anti-Israel sentiment ignoring his voting record, statements on Israel, and commitment to fighting anti-Semitism. Sinat Chinam spills into our community's internal discourse as well. Hatespeech and uncivil conversation are on the rise. A good friend of mine just quit her job in our Congressman's office in part because she couldn't take the daily barrage of obscene and hateful phone calls she was fielding on a daily basis. Jewish Democratic leader Ira N. Forman wrote an insightful article about the rise of hatespeech within the Jewish community. He reported that he had received calls from fellow Jews accusing him of being "a liar and a stooge for the Hitlerite appeasement of Islamofascism." Jewish Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson cites ominious comparisons between the tactics of today's promoters of hatred and the brilliant propaganda breakthoughs that enabled Hitler to promote his evil agenda. Speaking of blast emails and the internet in general, Gerson says "the least responsible contributors see their darkest tendencies legitimated and reinforced, while serious voices are driven away by the general ugliness." Being Jewish has always involved rising above the trends taking place in the broader community and holding ourselves to a higher standard--the standard that has caused us to survive as a people committed to civil discourse and Tikkun Olam --repairing the world. This year, it is important to our country and also to our biblical commandmet to be or l'goyim -- a light unto the nations--for us to commit ourselves to focus on what we say and how we say it during the coming year. It's not about being politically correct -- it's about doing God's work and fulfilling our most important Jewish traditions. May you and your families have a happy, healthy, and rewarding new year. More on Barack Obama
 
David Flumenbaum: Mao Takes Manhattan: Empire State Building Goes Red and Yellow for China Top
To celebrate the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China under Communist rule and Mao's 1949 revolution, the Chinese will hold a military parade in Beijing on Thursday of unparalleled size -- 5,000 soldiers, 43,000 fireworks and a display of 52 new weapons -- followed by a civilian parade of 100,000 marchers and 60 floats, many chanting new nationalistic mantras coined by the Chinese government for the occasion. For a nation that worships Mao, and the path of development and prosperity the Chinese people believe he charted, nothing less would do to commemorate its 60th anniversary. But when it comes to the commemoration of China's 60th anniversary in the U.S., perhaps we could -- and should -- expect a little less. Wednesday night in New York City, the Empire State Building will illumine its familiar spire with red and yellow lights in honor of Communist China. The Communism-themed color scheme will stay lit through Thursday night, much to the delight of China's consular officials, who were on hand for a ceremony in the lobby of the iconic building Wednesday morning, and to the acute dismay of the dozen or so protesters outside, and to many Americans who question whether honoring China's Communist revolution here is at all appropriate. China's Consul General Peng Keyu, the main attraction at Wednesday's ceremony, offered kind words for the building, New Yorkers and the American people, before pulling a fake lever that lit up a fake Empire State Building. He told the crowd: I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to all the friends in the greater New York area for their support to China's development and the China-U.S. relations... I sincerely wish China, my motherland, continued prosperity. And let us work together for a brighter future of the Sino-U.S. relations, and a sustainable, peaceful world. Here's the video of the ceremony: American reaction to the Empire State Building's decision to honor the People's Republic of China has been fiercely, and almost unanimously, negative. To most Americans, Mao is a symbol of evil, his revolution a reign of terror, and his legacy the antithesis of how he's revered in modern China. Media reaction to the lighting has reflected America's discomfort with a Communist-themed Empire State building. U.S. News and World Report published an editorial Wednesday titled "The Empire State Building's Disgusting Kowtow to China," which asked: Is this to honor Mao Zedong, whose euphemistically-named Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution led to the mass starvation and mass murder of 40-70 million Chinese, a death toll perhaps surpassing that of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin combined, and led him to declare, "China is such a populous nation, it's not as if we cannot do without a few people?" The AP quoted New York Congressman Anthony Weiner as saying the lights should not be used to pay tribute to "a nation with a shameful history on human rights." And Investor's Business Daily asked in a Tuesday editorial what many New Yorkers and Americans in general are wondering: "What is the Empire State Building thinking?" I spoke with Han Shan , a HuffPost blogger and one of the protesters Wednesday morning outside the Empire State Building, who told me that there's no distinction between honoring the anniversary of the People's Republic of China and celebrating China's Communist party itself, which he described as a "totalitarian state that has killed 1.2 million Tibetans and countless Chinese people." When I asked Han who was responsible for making the decision to light the Empire State Building red and yellow, he said, "it's not transparent and we haven't been able to figure out how it happened... we imagine it was at the request of the Consulate." Here's my interview with Han: While Han and the Students for a Free Tibet were unable to get an answer as to who exactly requested lighting the Empire State Building red and yellow, I did my best to find out how the building came to its decision and whether it was at the request of the Chinese Consulate. The spokespeople for the Empire State Building told me the following: "ESB doesn't discuss the lighting process, but it is explained in brief on their website www.esbnyc.com ." Nothing there. So I called the Chinese Consulate and spoke with Gao Wen Qi, the spokesperson for the Consulate. He told me the decision to light the building in China's colors was "a bilateral decision, reached through a consensus between the building and the Consulate." I asked him whether the Empire State Building approached the Consulate or vice versa and he told me "in this instance, the building approached the Consulate." He assured me the Consulate didn't pay the Empire State Building any money for the honor. Representatives for the building told Fox News that taxpayers would not be footing the bill for the lights. No matter who is responsible for the Empire State Building "going Communist," as some have put it, when the spire glows China's red and yellow, New York City, defined by its most iconic structure, will be giving Mao, Communism, and the People's Republic of China a big pat on the back. As Mr. Gao pointed out to me, "this isn't the first time the Empire State Building has gone red and yellow." True. But it is the first time it has been done for Mao. More on China
 
Terry Gardner: Commerce Residents Choke on Fumes Top
I was shocked to read in Column One of the LA Times last week that residents in Commerce, California have a 29% increased risk of cancer caused by air pollution in the area. Trains idling in train yards spew gray diesel smoke and apparently other carcinogens. Another contributor to air pollution are trucks that transport goods from ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach and the ships that dock there. Neighborhoods along the 710 corridor including Wilmington, Carson, Compton, Huntington Park and Commerce get some of the most intense pollution. LA Times staff writer Margot Roosevelt reports: "Each year, pollution from ships, trucks and trains that move goods through the region contributes to an estimated 2,100 early deaths, 190,000 sick days for workers, and 360,000 school absences, according to the California Air Resources Board." See: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-air-pollution24-2009sep24,0,194490,full.story On LA Times ' Greenspace blog, Roosevelt has posted a video on the subject: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/09/railyard-pollution-california.html . I live in Santa Monica, so my air quality is pretty good (I think). No one should have to hold their breath at home to avoid inhaling diesel fumes. I hope the Clean Air Resources Board will take action on this issue soon.
 

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)