Saturday, September 12, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Terry Gardner: GM Forget the Guarantee, Fight for Clean Air Top
Will California ever be permitted to implement its Clean Air Act? First we had a President that removed the words "Environment" and "Protection" from the EPA's mission statement. Under the Bush Administration, I believe EPA stood for the Embracing Petroleum Agency. We finally have a President that takes the long view on the environment, and instead of looking for a quick fix, wants to takes steps to transform America into a more sustainable country. And sustainability is good for business. Just look at all Walmart's white roofs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Association have filed a federal lawsuit to stop California from moving forward with new greenhouse gas emissions rules for cars and trucks: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-emissions-waiver11-2009sep11,0,1938672.story What good is a business's bottom line if we end up with air we can see and chew? Could these litigants be required to suck on a tail pipe for half an hour or take a quick jog through Beijing before opening arguments? If the plaintiffs claim to be Christian, as a Christian I'd love to see their version of "The Bible" . Perhaps they have an Exxon or Mobil edition where the language calling for all God's children to be custodians of the planet is redacted. The other news that broke today was General Motors' new money back guarantee. If I buy a GM car and am not thrilled with it, I can return it within 60 days and get my money back, provided I have driven less than 4,000 miles. The offer also emphasizes the brand names of Chevy, Buick and Cadillac to help us forget about the GM bankruptcy hiccup. ( http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gm-moneybackbox11-2009sep11,0,7551730.story ) Well, GM, I've got a better idea. You invented the electric car and then buried it (the EV-1). You're in the process of creating an awesome electric vehicle, the Chevy Volt. So why not step up and embrace lower emissions? Instead of offering me a guarantee, how about filing a Friend of the Court brief on behalf of the EPA? Any auto maker that would file a Friend of the Court brief on behalf of California, the EPA and their own lungs is a car company from whom I'd like to buy a vehicle. Toyota, Honda, Chrysler? And if not an automobile company, how about it Walmart? You've been a leader in sustainability?
 
John Farr: How Popular Culture Empowers The Joe Wilsons Of This World Top
In politics, in life and in the movies, whatever happened to the idea of good fellowship and manners?  The whole flap with Joe Wilson made me ashamed to be a fifty year old white guy. Did anyone hear Mark Shields (someone who makes me feel considerably better about being a fifty year old white guy) on Friday’s Jim Lehrer NewsHour program?  Referring to the Wilson incident, Shields said it reflected a “coarsening in our political and national life”. Linking how we act with what we see and hear, he then referenced the sour, cynical, base tone of much of today’s film and TV entertainment as being either contributors to, or outcomes of, the same troubling condition (take your pick).  Shields makes a worthy and salient point regarding the link between the plummeting standards in both our national discourse and our popular culture.  Before hearing his words, I might have said that I prize classic black and white movies because they tend to feature better scripts and stories. I now also realize I love them because they actually comfort me, taking me back to a friendlier, more innocent time when good manners and thoughtful conduct were actually revered and practiced in day-to-day life.  (And just notice: even the villains wore ties then, were well-groomed, and could summon up twice the vocabulary of today’s drooling, psychopathic bad guys!)  Yes, I think in the current climate we have something to learn from the good old days, and a long-unavailable title brought it all home to me. Through Warner’s new on-demand Archive Collection, I just screened a film called “The Magnificent Yankee” (1950) , about the early twentieth century Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes.  Recreating his Broadway triumph in the title role is Louis Calhern, a smooth, patrician actor I’ve admired since seeing him in Hitchcock’s “Notorious” (1946) , as Cary Grant’s C.I.A handler, and most impressive, as the doomed crook leading a double life in John Huston’s “The Asphalt Jungle” (1950) .  “Yankee” is that lost relic: an unapologetically sentimental depiction of one man’s ascension to the nation’s highest court late in life, set against a tender love story of an adoring marriage.  In these cynical times, the film will seem corny to many people, but I adored it. Specifically, I was captivated by the sweet, gentle way this devoted nineteenth century couple treated each other. In the light of Joe Wilson, I realize I wanted to bask in that time when two married people could go a lifetime without exchanging profanities.  And surveying this loftier, more idealized world makes it only more evident that we must take a sobering lesson from the likes of Wilson, one of those mediocre, small men who have always occupied the fringes of influence but to whom, in bygone days, it would never have occurred to insult a sitting President.  Mark Shields is right: our mainstream movies and TV do project a jaded, aggressive, and negative tone. The idea of portraying authentic role models in film has receded so that now, too often we see only types, and not very inspiring ones at that, propped up by hyper-adrenalized violence and special effects. Disturbingly, all this is particularly evident in media aimed at our kids. Meanwhile, stories that reinforce positive human values and interactions seem significantly harder to find. (And I should know- I spend my life looking for them!) Now I am neither a closet evangelist nor a moral beacon. But essentially, I still like the idea of being a gentleman, or at the very least striving to be one most of the time.  And I’d greatly appreciate more movies that help me teach and reinforce this fundamental idea to my children. Otherwise, we risk growing into a nation of Joe Wilsons, do we not?  When last night, I finally viewed Carlos Reygadas’s sublime Mexican film “Silent Light” (2007) , I was reminded there is still hope. Here is a film about passion and adultery that nevertheless concerns love more than sex; a film that uses technology to create images of poetic beauty without resorting to special effects; a film made with non-actors who give distinctive, wrenching performances; a movie that evokes deep and universal human conflicts with grace and subtlety, rather than the blunt hammer we too often use in this country.  Rather than deal solely with our worst impulses, "Silent Light" depicts essentially kind, principled human beings who must still traverse the messy, unpredictable business of being human. Thus, “Light” conveys a deep and profound truth about life while affirming the basic good intentions, even nobility, of mankind.  If we ever needed to re-discover our “better angels”, that time is now, as the troubling state of our politics, our nation, and our popular culture attests. And this vital challenge to raise and then maintain a higher standard of discourse in this country will remain long after Joe Wilson has returned to his richly-earned obscurity. For over 2,000 movie recommendations on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com . To see John's weekly movie recommendations on video, go to www.reel13.org .   More on Barack Obama
 
David Finkle: Coping With Book Guilt in London Top
As a man prone to bearing heavy guilt, the last thing I needed as my next trip to London loomed was a New York Times article about a bookseller brouhaha brewing there. It seems that second-hand and used book dealers, particularly one in Salisbury, are exercised about the chain of Oxfam charity shops that deal partly or entirely in used books. Apparently, the Oxfam stores, which have lower overheads because their books are donated, are siphoning sufficient trade from other merchants that going-out-of-business signs are popping up. The Salisbury shopping-strip store about which the Times item centers is already shuttered. Full disclosure: I review books, even occasionally on this site, and receive many reader's copies. Nevertheless, I'm an inveterate book buyer, one of those people who can't pass a book shop without entering. Once inside I'm not like a kid in a candy store, I'm like a book lover in a book store. I rarely exit without having purchased something I'm convinced was sitting on the shelf just waiting for my arrival. Second-hand and rare book dealers are valuable to people like me: They have no end of out-of-print books. Even more meaningful to me, they have editions of books -- like Harvard Classics or Oxford Classics or Everyman Library--that you don't see anymore, palm-sized books with sturdy covers, ribbon book marks and damnable, lovable small print. Yes, London, famous for its bookshops, is an unending lure -- but not an untroubled enticement. I'm ready to admit that books -- the same books that have given me such pleasure over the decades--will likely be my undoing. My apartment is laden with books. No one comes through my front door without immediately saying some version of "So many books!" The cursed things are two deep on many shelves; they lie around in precarious stacks. I'm fully aware that books may be the death of me. Literally. My demise could well resemble the end suffered by whichever Collyer brother tripped a wire that brought an avalanche of books down on him, Or my final chapter might conclude like Leonard Bast's in E. M. Forster's Howard's End . Poor, unfortunate Bast met death by toppling bookcase. You've picked up, then, that I'm confessing to an ambivalent attitude towards books. I love them, but they foment torrents of guilt in me. I feel guilty about: the amount of money spent on them; the space they take up; the ones that rest unread while more come in as competition; the ones that get reread while those not yet read lurk idly near, the ones that remain unfinished when I'm distracted by others. Case in point: I've been halfway through a rereading of Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain for about four years. Therefore, that diabolical Times piece feeds my incipient guilt pangs about browsing in my favorite London book emporia unable to resist the temptation of still more books. Do I need even more guilt because I value Oxfam as a supplier for my fix? No, I don't, because I hasten to declare it's Oxfam along with my affinity for the venerable G. Heywood Hill on Curzon Street or for the established bookstores on, for example, Charing Cross Road? Honestly, I do split my custom between Oxfam and the others--or between Oxfam, the low-overhead booksellers under Waterloo Bridge and the others. While anticipating my trip, I decided that this division of loyalties would continue. I wouldn't -- I couldn't -- deny my debt to Oxfam, where on separate occasions I found, respectively, Anthony Trollope's Phineas Finn and Phineas Redux . Locating them at such intervals struck me as nothing less than book-hunting magic. Then again, I've never failed to locate something I wanted at Charing Cross Road's Henry Pordes Books either. Once in London, where I'm writing these anxious words, I figured I'd do my best to support both Oxfam and the dealers out of whose mouths, and from whose children, Oxfam is evidently taking sustenance. (Remember: Oxfam's mission is feeding the deprived. Irony?) In a day-long book-buying tour, I found one volume (Hanif Kureishi's Black Album ) on the groaning tables underneath Waterloo Bridge and three (Henry Fielding's Jonathan Wild , Oliver Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield and C. P. Snow's New Men ) at well-lighted stores where books are bought as well as sold. I also visited my favorite Oxfam but, atypically, found nothing I wanted. When I began my search, I wasn't certain whether I'd be expiating my guilt or compounding it. In terms of putting booksellers out of business I did fine: I made impartial rounds. So now I'm only guilty about: 1) the money spent proving my buyer's thoughtfulness; and 2) the strong possibility I may never get to the books I've added to my bloated collection.
 
Jonathan Weiler: Norman Podhoretz's Jewish Question Top
In the Wall Street Journal this week, Norman Podhoretz, one of the grand old men of neo-conservatism, rues the fact that his (our) tribespeople remain overwhelmingly liberal and hopes against hope that they will begin to experience "buyer's remorse" about their ill-advised support for Barack Obama last fall. Podhoretz: Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points. Except for African Americans, who gave him 95% of their vote, Mr. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. Thus the Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics. These numbers remind us of the extent to which the continued Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: "Jews earn like Episcopalians"--then the most prosperous minority group in America--"and vote like Puerto Ricans," who were then the poorest. Jews also remain far more heavily committed to the liberal agenda than any of their old ethno-religious New Deal partners. As the eminent sociologist Nathan Glazer has put it, "whatever the promptings of their economic interests," Jews have consistently supported "increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor." As with these old political and economic questions, so with the newer issues being fought out in the culture wars today. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America. In particular, these cultural positions - such as on gay rights and abortion - contradict "Jewish law," according to Podhoretz and highlight the fact that: in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right. And to the dogmas and commandments of this religion they give the kind of steadfast devotion their forefathers gave to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. For many, moving to the right is invested with much the same horror their forefathers felt about conversion to Christianity. All this applies most fully to Jews who are Jewish only in an ethnic sense. Indeed, many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal. This is all, of course, a deeply lamentable state of affairs, a depressing case of false consciousness among American Jews who mistakenly believe that their "true allies" are on the political left, whereas in reality, it is the American right that is the proper home for correct-thinking Jews. This is because, according to Podhoretz, the virtues of American society, the ones that afforded this historically persecuted people the opportunity to thrive in a way that was never before imaginable in Jews' troubled wanderings, are precisely those that contemporary liberalism abhors and seeks to tear down. Podhoretz's view of liberalism is, of course, a silly caricature (and I leave aside Podhoretz's equally silly caricature of Obama's views on Israel). The man he decries as a "false messiah," President Obama, has repeatedly venerated America's unique virtues. And his major policy proposals are, in no meaningful sense an enemy of "the moral values" and "socio-economic institutions" that Podhoretz believes are the foundations of our greatness, unless Podhoretz wants to argue that expanding health care coverage to the less well off is an affront to those values and institutions (and to Jewish ethics). Furthermore, the signature institutions and policies of liberalism, those associated with the New Deal, are precisely the foundations of contemporary American life that the right wing has declared war on. Should Jewish seniors, secure in their retirement in substantial part because of the twin pillars of Social Security and Medicare, really lament that their co-religionists would prefer to support the party that has most faithfully supported those programs? And what, exactly, in Jewish ethics, supports the principle that the wealthy in America should be given every break, while the less well-off should better learn how to fend for themselves, all in the context of an historically unprecedented thirty year period of upward redistribution of wealth? That Podhoretz has a skewed view of liberalism and the comforts it has afforded him in his sunset years is one thing. But it's Podhoretz larger ethical vision that is most relevant to his incapacity to understand why the vast majority of Jews don't see things the way he does. The right-wing today has thrown in its lot with an ugly, intolerant worldview, one premised in the conviction that the browning of America is an irredeemable disaster for our country. It is amazing that Podhoretz could exalt the America that opened its arms to the tired, wretched and poor of the world and insist that Jews should now repay the favor by casting their lot with a party intent on demonizing precisely today's equivalent. Needless to say, nativist and know-nothing groups in the 19th and into the 20th centuries saw Jews as a cancer upon our society, dirty, ugly people who were biologically incapable of honesty, leaches and parasites on America's collective resources. One can, of course, argue that today's right is only concerned about "illegal" immigrants, just as one can argue that the repeated complaints from the right that Obama should know his place and not be so arrogant have nothing to do with his skin color. But it really should be no mystery that the overwhelming majority of an historically persecuted minority group might not embrace a party or ideology increasingly indulging in intolerance toward other historically persecuted minorities. Furthermore, it's in the Ten Commandments themselves that God enjoins us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The right-wing spin on that injunction these days - which seems obviously to mean to live an empathetic life - is to mock and deride that commandment. But is it really a violation of the spirit of one of the most fundamental of Jewish ethical principles - Tikkun Ha Olam - repair of the world - that Jews should place greater value and priority on treating people with decency and concern than on berating and demonizing them for their failings. One might insist that this is an unfair characterization of the right. But listen to its leading lights these days - Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Palin, etc. - and tell me what about the worldview they articulate is consistent with the broad ethical injunctions to repair the world, help the less fortunate and love others as if they are you yourself. These basic principles may or may not be the reasons why Jews continue to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. But that Podhoretz cannot see the connection between these principles and a tendency to recoil in horror at the ugliness of the contemporary American right speaks volumes about his own ethically impoverished perspective. The data show that Jews are the least authoritarian group in America. This is perfectly consistent with their own history of persecution at the hands of those who would demonize difference. And it's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why it's not false consciousness or belief in a "false messiah" that would prompt Jews to reject the contemporary American right, to which Podhoretz himself is so slavishly devoted. Jonathan Weiler's second book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in Contemporary American Politics , co-authored with Marc Hetherington, is just out from Cambridge University Press. He blogs daily about politics and sports at www.jonathanweiler.com
 
Juliet Linley: Hi, Dumbo Top
"Hey, can you fly with those bat ears?"..."Your ears are so huge, you could tattoo them and pass for a giant moth..." "Hi, Dumbo." To avoid the heartache that comes with so-called 'jug ears', three year old Vivi's parents want her to undergo otoplasty. Not right away, of course. But they are already researching the procedures that are on offer and the age at which such surgery could be considered. Their adult friends who were tormented during their schooldays because of their bat ears, advise them to absolutely try to avoid their little girl being subjected to such humiliation. Vivi's parents are already in touch with professor Massimo Robiony in the Northern Italian city of Udine, who has developed a particularly efficient technique using micro-incisions. "The operation is quick and carried out under local anaesthetic," the surgeon explains. "There are no risks, it's perfectly safe. The only complication that could arise, could be that the ears return to their original position. But it's a rare occurrence, linked to other factors." From a medical perspective, the surgery can be done between 5 and 6 years of age. But the child's psychological preparedness also needs to be taken into account. I ask myself whether subjecting a kid to such an operation is really necessary. I wonder whether this is the best way to combat the cruelty of other children's remarks. I wonder whether this kind of operation is more or less acceptable than other types of plastic surgery. And most of all, I wonder how Vivi's parents will go about explaining the reasons for this elective surgery to their little daughter... Before the jokes set in: "We want to have your ears operated, to avoid you being made fun of." By avoiding the topic altogether: "You have a little problem with your ears which we're going to fix with minor surgery." Or later on: "Since your classmates are tormenting you, we're going to have your ears operated." What would you do?
 
Rory O'Connor: Network News Chiefs: The Future's So Bright! Top
Remember that catchy pop tune from 20 years ago, courtesy of Timbuk 3? You know, the one with the catchy chorus: "The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades?" The lyrics got stuck in my head recently at an unlikely venue: the normally staid Council on Foreign Relations and its 60th anniversary celebration of the Edward R. Murrow Press Fellowship. The fellowship, established in 1949 but renamed in 1965 in honor of the late, great CBS News icon, offers journalists who cover international affairs an opportunity "to engage in sustained analysis and writing, free from the daily pressures that characterize journalistic life." The program's goal is to promote the quality of responsible and discerning journalism that exemplified Murrow's work. Surprisingly, there was little mention of Murrow - but much of the recently late and also great CBS News icon Walter Cronkite - at a session devoted to "Conversation with Network News Presidents: Meeting Industry Challenges." Ably moderated by New Yorker media writer Ken Auletta, the event featured four white men in dark suits - three broadcast news chiefs - NBC News President Stephen A. Capus; ABC News President David Westin; Sean McManus, president, CBS News and Sports, and, for good measure, cable news honcho Jonathan Klein, once a top CBS News executive and now president of CNN/U.S. Given their lack of diversity, it was perhaps unsurprising that all four newsmen expressed the unitary thought that mainstream news operations already are, as the session title phrased it, "meeting industry challenges" and, in general, are performing admirably. Denial was the order of the day: If ratings are down at the broadcast nets, they are still delivering "trusted news" to twenty five million viewers nightly. If international bureaus are being shuttered, the new "digital journalists" and "vjs" that have replaced them are more than picking up the slack. If there is less coverage of international news than ever, that's because these things move in cycles ... and we can't program the news by a quota system ... and so on, ad infinitum , and frankly ad nauseum ! Even Auletta, a gracious and moderate moderator, but one still prone to asking tough questions, appeared at times bemused at best by the responses - or should I say lack thereof. Thus, they told the assembly, network news isn't dying - and it will never go away. Content is king and quality rules, they said - so if there is less international news ("Who really knows?" they demanded. "How do you measure?" they wanted to know), that's simply because there is so much excellent reporting to choose from. Anyway, and after all, less is more . (Great and jocular reference was made and attention paid to the old ABC News Paris bureau, complete with wine steward, as an example of how much smarter the nets are in allocating their "news budget" these days!) No, said the presidents - the naysayers and critics (aka the people formerly known as their audience) are dead wrong - the cutbacks and layoffs and buyouts and closed bureaus and diminished resources only mean the network news divisions are being run more efficiently than ever, and they are more important than ever - and anyone who dares suggest otherwise is, well, misinformed at best. And - oh yes - the future's so bright, they have to wear shades! At one point CBS News head McManus compared the network news divisions to American automakers such as General Motors, saying that if the nets, like Detroit automakers, failed to respond to their customers' needs and demands - and to a rapidly changing world - they too would soon be driven to the edge of bankruptcy, but without the possibility of a federal bailout. The analogy was apt - except for the fact that, judging by their defensive postures at the CFR and ostrich-like responses to their customers and the rapidly changing world out there, each steadfastly remains convinced that continuing to manufacture the news equivalent of a Hummer every day is a path to profitability as well as serving the public interest. Yes, the future's so bright, they have to wear shades. Of the three broadcast news heads, ABC's David Westin stood out most for his obstinate refusal to bend in the face of reality. Take the basic question of whether or not it still makes any sense (if in fact it ever did) to pay someone 10-15 million dollars annually to read the news reader - or be an "anchor," as they like to call it. Asked by Auletta what he would do if Katie Couric offered to give back some of her salary to be used to bolster news resources, McManus said he'd accept the offer in a heartbeat. But Westin shocked me by revealing for the first time that he had actually refused a similar offer made to him some years back by an unnamed former ABC News bigwig! (Ted Koppel, perhaps?) Pressed by yours truly during the Q and A that followed the discussion, Westin, who just hired a new multi-million dollar " anchor " last week, responded petulantly by saying the question itself was uninformed and betrayed a lack of understanding of how network news works at a basic level. That may well be true - my own experience as a network news employee was admittedly limited and lowly, although as an independent producer I was being subsequently and variously involved everywhere from NBC (where our pilot series on innocent people in prison was bumped for "all Monica Lewinsky, all the time") to ABC (where a piece commissioned by the nightly news was first commissioned, then killed, then aired after I threatened to sue for the money I had been promised initially) all the way to Fox (where the fax machine for a news magazine literally emptied into a waste basket.) But I digress! Perhaps the words of President Barack Obama, delivered at the memorial for Walter Cronkite that preceded the Murrow anniversary by just a day, might hold more weight for Westin. Here's what this president had to say about network news : We also remember and celebrate the journalism that Walter practiced -- a standard of honesty and integrity and responsibility to which so many of you have committed your careers. It's a standard that's a little bit harder to find today. We know that this is a difficult time for journalism. Even as appetites for news and information grow, newsrooms are closing. Despite the big stories of our era, serious journalists find themselves all too often without a beat. Just as the news cycle has shrunk, so has the bottom line. And too often, we fill that void with instant commentary and celebrity gossip and the softer stories that Walter disdained, rather than the hard news and investigative journalism he championed. 'What happened today?' is replaced with 'Who won today?' The public debate cheapens. The public trust falters. We fail to understand our world or one another as well as we should -- and that has real consequences in our own lives and in the life of our nation. We seem stuck with a choice between what cuts to our bottom line and what harms us as a society. Which price is higher to pay? Which cost is harder to bear? Unlike the four on the stage at the Murrow anniversary, here is one president who actually gets it, and isn't afraid to tell it as it is - or as it could be . So when Obama tells us the future of journalism (at least - if not network news itself) could be bright, it doesn't just come across as an annoying reminder of some treacly pop confection from twenty years ago. Instead, you actually believe not only in him, but in the truth and possibility of what he is saying: Our American story continues. It needs to be told. And if we choose to live up to Walter's example, if we realize that the kind of journalism he embodied will not simply rekindle itself as part of a natural cycle, but will come alive only if we stand up and demand it and resolve to value it once again, then I'm convinced that the choice between profit and progress is a false one -- and that the golden days of journalism still lie ahead. The golden days of journalism? Count me in! Stand up! Demand it! Resolve to value it once again! Remember - the future's so bright. More on CNN
 
Joan E. Dowlin: Mr. Limbaugh, You Need to Apologize to our President Top
Listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio show made my blood boil. He was complaining about President Obama's declaration that today (9/11/09) is a "National Day of Service and Remembrance" when he gave a speech at the Pentagon. The President was calling on all Americans to be strong, firm, and united to serve the nation while remembering the events of 9/11/01. This all sounds very inspiring. But not to Rush Limbaugh. He called it an outrage and accused the President of using a solemn occasion (the eighth anniversary of 9/11) to push a socialist agenda by asking citizens to serve the state. ( www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091109/content/01125106.guest.html ) I just saw the video of the President's speech and all I can conclude is that Limbaugh is delirious. How is what Obama has proposed any different than President Kennedy's call to action in his 1961 Inaugural address; "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? ( www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html ) And how about President George H.W. Bush's call for community volunteerism with his 1988 " a thousand points of light" speech? ( www.spansociety.com/2009/05/thousand-points-of-light.html ) Maybe I shouldn't be surprised after Limbaugh remarked that he wished Rep. Joe Wilson had not apologized for his rude heckling of "you lie" during the President's speech on health care to a joint session of Congress even after members of Wilson's own GOP party scolded him. ( www.silobreaker.com/heckler-calls-obama-liar-5_2262589770112696325 ) And this is also the same radio talk show host who said in regards to Obama's economic prescription for the nation during our deep recession: "I hope he fails." ( www.huffingtonpost.com/.../limbaugh-i-hope-obama-fai_n_159397.html ) Not "I suspect he will fail" or "I disagree with his policies", but "I hope he fails." Isn't El Rushbo a great patriot? Limbaugh has also continually called upon citizens to disrupt health care town hall meetings and protest with Tea parties, claiming these are ordinary Americans asserting their right of free speech while they display photos of Obama looking like Hitler. That is all well and good, the same had been leveled against President George W. Bush, but what of the President's call for civility? Do we need to be yelling at one another? What will that accomplish? I had a close friend share her views at a recent local town hall meeting on health care. Bringing forward her desire for reform brought boos from the right, but when she mentioned she wanted to know how much this would all cost and how it would be funded, she got screaming from the left. One woman kept yelling "liar" to her and to anyone else who expressed any thoughts different from her own viewpoints. It seems that this behavior has seeped into the Capitol. I agree with the President that "the time for bickering is over." I was glad to see him so "fired up" and "ready to go" delivering what may be a momentum changing address on this issue. Last night I watched "Real Time with Bill Maher" that featured an interview with Bill Moyers of PBS that was originally aired on August 29, 2009. ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gSQ2DWkVE0 ) Either Moyers is clairvoyant or President Obama watched the show. Moyers called on him to change the "metaphors" and take back the health care conversation from the right wing by expressing it as a moral issue while emphasizing the inadequacies of the present private insurance system. And that is just what the President did in his eloquent speech. ( www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/.../obama.speech/index.html ) Perhaps it was the spirit of Sen. Ted Kennedy speaking through his posthumous letter to the President referring to "the great unfinished business of our society" and that "what we face is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country" that inspired Obama. Maybe his recent vacation allowed him to recharge his batteries. Whatever it was, he was never more on message or passionate than he was in delivering this televised address. Maybe Rush Limbaugh senses Obama will gain momentum back on this historic bill and he is grasping for straws. Just as he was when he was critical of Obama's speech to America's school children saying the original intent was "right out of the pages of Kim Jong Il". ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2334737/post ) Yes, asking students to work hard and stay in school is a really Communist notion! He reminds me of a pit bull barking and nipping at the heels of the President. He doesn't want health care reform to pass so that the President will fail and he and his ideological right wing cronies (who have labeled this issue "Obama's Waterloo") can regain power in the next election. It's up to us to seize this moment, follow the inspiring lead of our President and honor the legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy by urging Congress to pass health care reform this year. Let's end the partisan bickering and finally muzzle annoyances like Rush Limbaugh. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Lisa Derrick: Vice TV: Revolutionary, Bold Pop Culture Explorations Top
Deep in the Colombian jungle, a group of men cluster in a carefully guarded camp, stirring a noxious brew of chemicals. They not manufacturing cocaine, but rather building a fiberglass "narcosub," a submersible boat which can hold a crew of three, tons of cocaine and enough food for the sea-faring journey. If the crew are lucky--not caught by the Coast Guard or if they don't sink--they will receive a few thousand dollars for their weeks' long journey transporting contraband worth millions of dollars, at which point the sub will be scuttled, the crew returning to Colombia. And throughout this, Vice TV cameras are rolling, as Vice producer Santiago Stelley interviews the narcosub crews and law enforcement, exposing how expendable human beings and the environment are when hundreds of millions of tax-free dollars are at stake. There are no holds barred for the revolutionary, bold, irreverent Vice TV, aka VBS.tv . The media website, which grew out of Vice Magazine, explores the strange, the controversial and the timely in exciting often edgy long and short form documentaries, covering stories that mainstream media just can't or won't do: A interview with Hezbollah's self-proclaimed mayor of Beirut; a week-long, well-documented stay in North Korea complete with karaoke and the Mass Games; a trip the the Ohio "body farm" where students of forensic medicine and crime scene analysis learn the many ways bodies decompose; a cruise to "garbage island," an atoll of plastic trash the size of Texas afloat in the Pacific Ocean; robots, skateboarders, sex, heavy metal, politics, organized and dis-organized crime, ethno-botanicals--all things wild, weird and wonderful about our world are explored by Vice TV. Along with its website VBS.tv, Vice programs can bee seen on MTV2--VBS is co-production with MTV Networks--and lately producers and directors have been guests on Firedoglake.com's Movie Night to discuss their documentaries. On Monday September 14, from 5pm-6:30pm west coast at firedoglake.com , Vice TV's director of content Santiago Stelley will be the guest in live online chat about his adventures in Colombia uncovering the "Narcosubs," story.
 
Dr. Hendrie Weisinger: Community Caring...Honoring Mother Nature Top
A wolf stands over a frozen bird and begins eating it while his littler mate watches hungrily. Then, when he has eaten more than half the bird, he rises, carries the carcass and lays it a foot from his sister's nose. He then waits beside it as she delicately takes it. Later in the week, the same wolf carries a fresh-killed hare in his mouth for more than two miles to feed his sick brother. Care-giving comes in many forms, like the preceding illustrations of bonds of allegiance . It includes nurturing, providing safety and security, and being responsive to the needs of others, especially the young. It's evolutionary function is that providing care to others, especially the young, boosts the odds that the organizational unit will continue to flourish. Care giving, then is nature's inherent tool for developing others, or more broadly, for advancing the future. For this reason, Mother Nature has made sure, regardless of sex, that we are all hardwired with the instinctual tool, care giving. We all know the value of care giving and the joy it creates, in ourselves and in others so we should all thank Mother Nature for instilling in us this instinctual tool that enhances life. How can we thank her? I think Mother Nature would feel honored if we became a more nurturing and caring society. Benefits are obvious. However, talk is cheap, so Mother Nature would consider only actions honorable. Here are some. First, we need more awareness and acknowledgment of acts of care giving in our society. Right now, too many people, especially in the working world, perceive the world as a hostile place and that human nature is selfish and aggressive. We are suspicious of good behavior and think it is motivated by self-aggrandizing intentions. Somebody makes a donation, and we immediately think they did it for the tax break or the patron's plaque on the wall. We need to change this perception by getting the message out that we are hardwired to make positive gestures to others, to nurture others . Promoting the perception that people and societies are inherently care-giving will have profound life enhancing effects for everyone. Since care giving starts with the mother-infant relationship, it would honor Mother Nature if ll mothers had equal access to good health care. Ensuring a healthy pregnancy helps not only the mother and her child, but our society as a whole. Yet, as we all know, the United States is one of the few nations in the developed world that lacks a national health program. Pregnant women are left to arrange their own prenatal care. Those with insurance get it, and those without insurance make do with whatever clinic services re available. This is more than a slap in the face to Mother Nature, it is a national disgrace. One redemption would occur if we made sure that regardless of income, all expectant mothers have equal access to the resources that will enhance their pregnancy. For example, some communities offer mother mentors to "at-risk" young women from low economic and social classes. These programs are found to reduce the stress of the expectant mother by providing support and education that helps be a better caregiver to her newborn. Increasing the care giving in our institutions would also honor Mother Nature. In the business world, this means training and educating employees in the skills that help them related to each other in more supportive and encouraging ways, and to have flexible policies that re sensitive to employee needs. Our education system can be more care giving by maximizing cooperative learning, teaching children conflict resolution skills, and providing constant developmental opportunities for teachers-their own development helps them develop the young. Our criminal justice system, too, needs to be more care-giving-not more lenient, but more effective in efforts to rehabilitate offenders so that they can leave destructive paths behind and are supported on a constructive life course. All these actions would honor Mother Nature for giving us the nurturing instinct. The Plaque would read as follows: To Mother Nature Who taught us all that it is better to give than to receive. More on The Giving Life
 
Michael Schwartz: The Obama Administration is Actually Increasing the US Presence in Iraq Top
US presence in Iraq is actually growing. Believe it or not, the U.S. presence in Iraq is growing under the leadership of antiwar president Barack Obama. A recent Washington Post by reporter Walter Pincus explains that when U.S. troops are "withdrawn," their jobs are taken over by......mercenaries -- the notorious "contractors," who are hired for fabulous sums of money to sustain the huge U.S. presence there. And there are some really awful aspects of this process, including: • The cost of the contractors is substantially higher than the cost of the soldiers they replace. (That is, the cost of the war is going up as the U.S. "scales down" its presence in Iraq) • "Where private guards replaced soldiers, many more guards were needed to do the same job." So the numbers and cost of the U.S. presence is going upward, not downward. • The new contractors are overwhelmingly "third-country nationals" employed by U.S. corporations under contract from the U.S. Defense and State departments. That is, with unemployment at 60% in many places around Iraq, the new jobs created by these contractors are not giving employment to unemployed Iraqis. • And just to underscore that this is not a process of de-escalating a U.S. presence, the "third country nationals" brought in to replace U.S. soldiers are required to speak English, but they need not speak Arabic. So we learn that the process of cultural imperialism is continuing--there is no effort to have the U.S. presence become blended into Iraqi civil society. In fact, this and so many other actions work to coerce the Iraqis into integrating into the globalized U.S. political economy. Just another glimpse of the long term effort of the U.S. government to colonize Iraq. More on Iraq
 
Kristi York Wooten: When Vogue Says No: Beyond The September Issue Top
When creative director Grace Coddington shoots a $50,000 photo spread for Vogue and it ends up on the cutting room floor, she wonders if it ever existed at all. Like the proverbial tree falling in the forest, if her art isn't out there for the world to see, it may as well be a figment of the imagination. Publication equals validity, even for the creators of one of the world's most famous magazines. Much has been written about The September Issue , R.J. Cutler's documentary about the top names on the masthead at Vogue that hit movieplexes in the heartland Friday. Critics have frothed at this fly-on-the-wall look at U.S. Vogue 's influential decision-makers, whose fetishes, whims, and personal rules of style dictate the multibillion-dollar fashion industry. And rightly so: Cutler's work deserves the praise. But in all their overwrought analysis about whether or not the doc's primary subject, Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour , is indeed the devil who wears Prada, what those critics and bloggers have failed to recognize is that The September Issue has much less to do with the cult of personality than with the innerworkings of an exclusive club - a club that also happens to be the model for the way almost all magazines operate (or at least the way they operated in 2007, before the publishing industry imploded). Because the nature of publishing is subjective, every publication has its internal structure of driver and passenger POVs. With Vogue , there's no question who's at the wheel. Yet Wintour wouldn't be complete without Coddington - they are classic yin and yang: the former is an exacting curator with a Teflon exterior who only peeks from behind her bob to flash a coquettish smile - and a spark of warmth - when mentoring CFDA/ Vogue Fashion fund recipient Thakoon or discussing her daughter Bee's post-college plans; the latter is a flame-haired wood sprite with a genius eye for fashion's fantasy side who believes "whatever you see out the window can inspire you" (Cutler captures this moment perfectly as Coddington gazes wistfully out over Versaille's lush grounds during a Galliano shoot). Together, these two women - who started at Vogue on the same day decades ago - embody the age-old power struggle of art vs. commerce. Aside from comic relief provided by the brilliant Andre Leon Talley (the magazine's editor-at-large, who huffs and puffs up and down a tennis court while draped in a Louis Vuitton blanket), there is nothing flimsy or disposable about Cutler's vignettes. Yet the poignancy of these glimpses is not derived from the film's ability to illustrate how trends are made and destroyed, but instead in the way it makes striving look beautiful. It's not manual labor, mind you, but these folks do work hard. The drab carpet and cubicles in the Vogue offices are a far cry from TV's glossy "Ugly Betty" MODE surroundings. And while no one would argue that 840 pages of cash-flush ad sales wasn't uncommon pre-2008, the seeming superfluousness and excess of transcontinental travel and endless re-shoots of $5,000 dresses are balanced by surprisingly long hours, bags under the eyes, and two very different levels of perfectionism that, come press time, leave both the 59-year-old Wintour and 68-year-old Coddington exhausted. In the end, Coddington's artful spreads make it back into the September issue. Her relief and satisfaction at seeing page upon page of colorful couture combinations are an affirmation of the positive, especially after hearing the word "No" so many times. Rather than villainize Anna Wintour, though, the scene makes one wonder what the magazine would be without her. My guess is that, when it comes to Vogue , there's more than one hero in this story. (And still, it's a club I'd love to be a part of: Click here to read one of my essays recently rejected by Vogue.)
 
J. Richard Stevens: Reporting on 'Lies' and 'Liars' ... Top
Previously, I posted about the problematic use of the "lies" and "liars" frame to express disagreement with one's political opponents (using the Congressman Wilson outburst Wednesday night as a springboard). One of my Facebook friends subsequently posted a note referencing an article from Fox News reporting that President Obama called Sarah Palin a liar, "wondering" if the president would apologize to her. I chuckled at that, and then paused. I initially assumed the article was referencing some moment from the campaign trail. I certainly didn't recall candidate Obama ever calling Palin a liar, certainly not directly, but I certainly can't claim to have consumed every single moment of the campaign trail coverage. But the article was not addressing the campaign trail. The article, titled "Obama Calls Palin a Liar During Speech" was referencing Wednesday's health care speech. Confused (I didn't remember the president mentioning Sarah Palin in the speech), I called up the Fox News article in question . Turns out it was simply a headline with a one-sentence blurb and an article link. The article link refers to an AP story, Obama: Claims of death panels are a 'lie.' First of all, it should be mentioned that rewriting headlines to AP stories is hardly an uncommon occurrence. In the newsroom, editors often rewrite headlines to localize the story, conserve space, or for any of a number of other editorial considerations. But this revision was more than merely economizing words. The AP's story reports that Obama stated that certain claims were "lies." The Fox News article composed a new statement inferring, since Sarah Palin had made such a claim, that Obama was (in effect only, though this point is lost) calling Palin a "liar." That's a stretch, even in these detail-challenged times. Second, I find it interesting that Fox rewrote the headline of a three-paragraph story and then didn't even run the actual story. Just the rewritten headline and the first line of the story, with a link to the article (the link source is also not explicated). This practice is also not particularly unusual, but when an outlet significantly rewrites a headline and then doesn't run the entire text of a story, it looks bad. It certainly fooled my Facebook friend, who used the headline to wonder if the president would apologize to Palin for something a Fox editor wrote. Third, this extension of objective logic of an isolated statement into a moral statement drawn from independent statements of others is problematic. If I say that a statement is a "lie," does that mean that I have now accused every person who passes along the statement of lying? Where is the space for misunderstanding? Ignorance? Faulty logic? Mistakes? It's well-established that Sarah Palin did not originate the "death camps" argument, only the wording. The statement apparently originated with Betsy McCaughey , and McCaughey herself has backtracked from her original remarks. If, in her original premise, McCaughey made a mistake of logic, comprehension, or even if she had deceit as her motives for her statements, does that lead one to conclude that Palin lied when she repeated the statements? Is it not possible that Palin believed McCaughey's words were true? How would one establish support for such a conclusion? And even if one could establish that Palin knew the statements were false and repeated them anyway, does that make her a "liar"? How many lies does it take to make one a "liar"? One? 20? 100? 500? Is it a calculated percentage of truth/lies in public statements? This is why rewriting headlines to extend a statement to an indirect object are so dangerous in a democracy. The headlines alone spread false impressions. In this case, the headline infers that the president might appear to be a hypocrite for seeming to call for an apology (which he did not actually do) for an action that he himself appears unwilling to apologize for (an action he doesn't seem to have actually performed). Though it might seem that I'm picking on Fox News for this practice, I've seen quite a few rewritten headlines at CNN's site that also don't appear supported by the stories to which they refer. I remember a couple of months ago, several CNN headlines tended to include the word "slammed" and "slapped down" as an action verb in several headlines for stories in which no motive or intention was discussed. Particularly in stories related to the White House response to the "birther" movement. The difference between "disputes" and "slaps down" is rather large. We teach our journalism students to adopt more objective terminology, if only to maintain accuracy (one never knows, much less can prove, the contents of another's mind enough to establish motive without evidence). More on Barack Obama
 
Andy Borowitz: Glenn Beck Proposes Cap on Nation's IQ Top
Speaking at a massive rally of his so-called 9/12 Project in Washington, D.C., Fox News host Glenn Beck called today for stricter limits on the nation's IQ. "Barack Hussein Obama would like to see our country's IQ rise - just like our taxes!" Mr. Beck thundered to the raucous crowd, who stopped drooling long enough to give him an enthusiastic ovation. The conservative host proposed capping the nation's IQ "somewhere in the low seventies" and putting tight restrictions on the number of multisyllabic words allowed in the country. Overall, Mr. Beck seemed to revel in the turnout of his 9/12 rally, which he called "The Million Moron March." More here . More on Glenn Beck
 

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)