Monday, September 14, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Eric Schurenberg: Four Questions About Obama's Financial Reforms Top
Today the President outlined, in general terms, the principles of the financial reform package that he would like to see. Good thing: I was worried that the health care debate and the stock market recovery had made him forget all about it. My colleague Jill Schlesinger is even more concerned than I am about that. But surely the political will to punish the banks that led the country to the brink of a depression is at least as strong as the will to reform health care. After all, most Americans are more or less comfortable with their health insurance. But no one wants to see a replay of the fall of 2008-or to see another banker get another zillion-dollar bonus. The broad outlines of a reform package , including the creation of a long-overdue consumer financial protection agency, have been around since this spring. Inevitably, though, the model will be civil servants overseeing Wall Street Masters of the Universe, same as always. I have a few modest questions about that. How do you keep regulators from being outgunned? Pitting bureaucrats on government salaries against the most highly compensated people in the U.S. is a bit like sending cops with .38s onto the street against gangs armed with automatic weapons. The SEC's own investigation of its failure to bust Bernie Madoff described how its investigators were dazzled by Madoff's wealth and power. What will keep that from happening again, particularly when every financial regulator eventually wants to go work for the incredibly lucrative industry they've been overseeing? How do you regulate risks that are too complex to figure out without a Ph. D.? During the last wave of regulatory reform in the 1930s, there were no derivatives, no CDOs or credit default swaps. It's clear now that neither the management of the firms trading these instruments nor the credit rating outfits understood them. Little wonder the regulators were so easy to bamboozle. The Treasury Department plan requires a single regulatory agency to oversee too-big-too-fail firms and stricter regulation of non-standard derivative contracts. Good impulse: But how do civil servants keep a step ahead of financial engineers being paid a fortune to create the next generation of credit time bombs? How do you eliminate skewed financial incentives? Existing bonus systems reward traders and financial executives who produce short term profits with no regard to long term risks. That could be fixed, but at the moment, compensation is in the hands of corporate boards of directors, not financial regulators. But as long as banks lavishly reward their top people for taking excessive risk then, guess what-they'll take excessive risks. How do you foresee the next bubble? Some reform plans require the Federal Reserve to keep an eye out for "systemic risk." Others put the responsibility on a committee drawn from several regulatory bodies. But come on. If bubbles were easy to foresee and easy to back out of, they wouldn't happen in the first place. The idea that financial regulators have better crystal balls than anyone else is, to put it mildly, not supported by the evidence. But if not the regulators, who? Continue reading on CBSMoneyWatch.com
 
James Rucker: Glenn Beck has lost over 50% of his ad dollars Top
Our campaign to hold Glenn Beck accountable for his race-baiting and fear-mongering has been a great success, with 62 advertisers making it clear that they don't want their brands linked to Beck's vile rhetoric. Up until now, however, there's been a question of what the real consequences are for Beck and for Fox, especially as Beck's ratings have soared. It's starting to become clear. Today, we're announcing that Glenn Beck's show has lost over 50% of its advertising dollars since just before our campaign started. From our press release about the news: The advertising boycott of Glenn Beck has cost the controversial host over half of his estimated advertising revenue since it was launched by ColorOfChange.org a month ago. This according to data analyzed from industry sources. Estimated advertising revenue [the total amount of advertising money being spent during a block of commercial time for a program] was collected on a week-by-week basis for a period of two months. According to the data collected, the amount of money spent by national advertisers on Beck's program per week was at its highest at approximately $1,060,000, for the week ending August 2, 2009. ColorOfChange.org launched their campaign at the end of that week and since then, 62 advertisers have distanced themselves from Beck. Data collected for the week ending September 6, 2009 shows Beck's estimated ad revenue at $492,000, equal to a loss of $568,000. "Fox News Channel has consistently claimed they haven't lost revenue as advertisers abandon Glenn Beck, but the numbers prove otherwise," said James Rucker, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org. "Fox News Channel has a limited amount of ad positions. If 62 companies refuse to run ads on two of their 24 hours of programming, they are losing inventory. No matter how high Beck's ratings have been lately, advertisers still see Beck as toxic and don't want him associated with their brands. There is no way that Fox News Channel is making the money they should be making with Glenn Beck." Our campaign is working. Respectable companies don't want to be associated with Beck or support his show with their dollars. It's resulting in a major loss of funding for his show, and at the same time making it clear that Beck's race-baiting and fear-mongering are far outside the mainstream. The longer Beck stays isolated, the more of a problem he'll be for Fox, and the less he'll be able to spread his lies and distortions. If we can keep the pressure on, Fox will have to make a choice: 1) drop Beck because it doesn't make business sense to keep him; or 2) communicate to the world that they're so intent on providing a platform for race-baiting and fear-mongering that they don't care if they lose money (a serious problem for a public company like News Corporation, the owner of Fox). Thanks for everything you've done to make this effort a success -- none of it could have happened without the more than 200,000 of you who have stepped to be a part of this campaign. More than ever, it's time to keep the pressure on. You can help by joining us in thanking the advertisers that have stopped supporting Glenn Beck , and calling on those whose ads are still running on his show to follow suit. More on Glenn Beck
 
Kerry Trueman: Good Nutrition Starts at School Top
I haven't got much in common with Whitney Houston; I'm not tall or thin, and I can't belt out show-stoppers. Oh, and I'm white. But, like Whitney, I believe that children are our future. We all agree - whatever size, shape or color we may be - that it's in everyone's interests to feed our children well. "Good nutrition is essential to good learning," as President Lyndon B. Johnson stated when he signed the Child Nutrition Act into law in 1966. Kids need fresh, wholesome, nutrient-dense foods to ensure proper brain development; talk about a no-brainer! You can't nourish children on a steady diet of processed foods full of fatty, empty carbs and sugary soda or juice. And yet, we've been trying to do just that for the past few decades. Heat 'n' serve convenience foods have replaced made-from-scratch meals in cafeterias and kitchens all over the country. As Michael Pollan points out in Food, Inc. , "the way we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000." The result? Obesity rates among children have doubled in the last 10 years and tripled for adolescents, according to One Tray , a national campaign dedicated to promoting "more healthful, more sustainably produced and regionally sourced school food that can improve the health of kids, develop new marketing opportunities for farmers, and support the local economy." Sounds like a win-win-win to me. We know fruits and vegetables are packed with all kinds of nutrients and fiber and other key ingredients that keep us healthy. And yet, only 2% of children get enough fruits and vegetables to meet the USDA's Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendations. An entire generation is missing out on the pleasures of home-cooked meals made with freshly harvested foods. But there's a growing movement to reclaim our food chain and give our children the tools they need to achieve kitchen literacy. It begins with feeding them real food, but it doesn't stop there; programs are flourishing all over the country dedicated to teaching kids how to grow food and cook it, too. One Tray Campaigns like One Tray at a Time and Slow Food's Time For Lunch are galvanizing support for better school food. Chef Ann Cooper, the Renegade Lunch Lady , has launched a new website, The Lunch Box , whose motto is "healthy tools to help all schools." Family Cook Productions has been a pioneer in the development of programs that provide families, schools, and corporations with the skills to "bring families together around delicious, fresh food". Lynn Fredericks, the founder of Family Cook Productions, is also the author of Cooking Time Is Family Time: Cooking Together, Eating Together, and Spending Time Together , an ahead-of-its-time guide that shows parents how to make mealtime a fun, family-centered activity that kids of all ages can participate in. This post originally appeared on Meatless Monday .
 
Evan Handler: America, I Love You. Americans, You Suck. Top
I have found the last week to be one of the most politically dispiriting of my adulthood. After President Obama's address to the nation on healthcare, I posted an opinion piece on Huffington Post which garnered well over 600 comments, as well as dozens of emails sent directly my way. The piece was in support of strong healthcare reform legislation, including a "public option," and used my own history of overcoming acute myeloid leukemia, as well as my wife's Italian family's healthcare experiences in that country, as reference points. Most responses were of the "Thank you for saying what I've felt" variety, and it's always gratifying to be told I've said something important, or made someone else feel heard. The strong minority current won't surprise anyone who's followed the healthcare debate, or most any political discussion, over the past couple of years. A vocal minority has let me know, over and over again, that they don't want the government taking any more of their money; that they want to be able to decide how to spend and invest their own money; that they don't want to have to pay for anything for anyone else; and - the big time, firecracker, most-consistent comment of all - they don't want any Americans to have government subsidized health care insurance if one single, goddamn, fucking, disgusting illegal immigrant might be able to get their hands on it, too. Okay. I get it. And here's my response to both groups. First, to those opposed to any European-styled government subsidized health insurance option: I found every one of your arguments to be small-minded, selfish, fear-driven, ill-informed, self-serving, and - most crucially - detrimental to the long-term interests of the United States of America. As I indicated in my last piece, the oft-stated logic of "government out of my life" is a fantasy existence you've never experienced, and that you'd whimper in fear over were you ever subjected to it for an instant. Make a list of the industries you're aware of: medical, chemical, automobile, steel, housing, whatever. Each and every one of them would crush you with glee without government regulations if it added to their profits by one one-millionth of a percentage point. They'd sell the juice they squeezed out of you as a refreshment drink, if they could get away with it. As corrupt and inefficient as your government is (and it clearly is), it's the only thing keeping you alive moment to moment. Reform it, by all means. Keep it honest. Throw out the bums who aren't protecting you adequately enough. But, end its involvement in your life? Scale it back? You're kidding yourself. That's a joke. Take one look back at history (please, just one look!), and see how workers, and children, and consumers are now protected where they were once injured and exploited. That's called "progress," and we're hoping to add a little more. To those who insisted, "I don't use public transportation, my local taxes pay for my town's sidewalks, I don't use this, I don't use that," yours are idiotic arguments. The concrete under your feet, the steel used in elevators, the earthquake and flood resistant building codes, the dams that don't break and drown you, the cars that (hopefully) don't fall apart as you're driving them, the airplanes that don't (usually) land on your head - every single thing that keeps you safe every day of your life is provided to you by a government standard or regulation. Argue with me about it all day long; go ahead and take offense at my use of the word "idiotic." None of it changes the fact that you wouldn't survive a week if you were really in it on your own, and that your resistance to recognizing it is a much bigger problem than 11 million people who entered this country illegally. You, in your refusal to acknowledge your interdependence with everyone else, are a bigger problem than they are. As to those immigrants, and the rage I've seen inspired by them, just give me a break. You're all immigrants. Everyone of you. Every one of your pink, overstuffed, jiggly "American" asses is stuffed full of tortillas, or pancetta, or paella, or schnitzel, or knockwurst, or moussaka, or Dublin Coddle, or whatever the fuck your ancestors ate before they crawled their way over here. And, when they got here, someone hated them just as much as you're hating whoever's newest here now, and fought against their having anything you now enjoy. If it's only the illegal entry that's an issue for you, let me ask you this: If you lived in Country A, where you and your family were starving, and you knew you could get a job in Country B, are you telling me you wouldn't sneak across a border to feed them? Of course you would. And, if the people of Country B kind of, sort of allowed it, and benefitted tremendously from your willingness to harvest their crops, or work on their assembly lines, or vacuum their offices, or clean their children's school toilets for pennies, it would be pretty shitty treatment, indeed, to turn you away from an emergency room if you got got sick, like I've heard recommended in terms of the undocumented residents of the United States. As to those undocumented residents, get ready to have your blood really boil. They're not going anywhere. No one is going to round them up and send them home, other than in token gestures to calm you down, and no amount of mistreatment is going to force them to run home in any meaningful numbers. What needs to happen, and what will happen, is that they be put on track to gain legal residency status, so that they will pay taxes, and be rightfully protected from all the evils I've outlined above, just like the rest of us human beings living here. The reason it needs to happen and will happen is that it's the more cost efficient thing to do. It's cheaper than keeping them here as a marginalized population, with all the costs included in that, and it's cheaper than the impossible process of gathering, prosecuting,and sending them away. Really, when will enough be enough? Don't you realize, can't you realize, that all the change you're fighting against - just like the protections that are now taken for granted, but that someone fought against once-upon-a-time - will happen, eventually, whether you like it or not? That last bit is the only thing that comforts me right now. No matter how hard the nitwits (and the clever ones who manipulate them) fight, eventually everything they despise will come to pass. Gays will get married and enjoy equal protection. There will be some form of government subsidized healthcare coverage for all. And the vast majority of the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently here will be granted some degree of permanent residency status. These things will all happen, even if it's thirty more years until they do, because they need to. They are the most correct solutions. (Don't tell me, "There's no right or wrong. We just happen to disagree." Nonsense. I don't accept it. There is right, and there is wrong, and those against strengthening protections for those least able to protect themselves are wrong.) The joke is that, by fighting, and delaying, those who think it's just "unfair," or that providing rights or protections for others will "cost too much," or who want "the government out of my pocket," will make the final tab so much higher than if the reforms were implemented now. The costs of exclusion are astronomical, from ER care for those with no coverage, to cultural warfare and political campaigning, and eventual (lost) lawsuits by those who've been trampled upon. My prediction is that, finally, one day, with fewer fireworks than anyone could now expect, with more of a groan of exhaustion than much celebration, enough of the opposition will have seen enough carnage to come to their senses, or have discovered they can love the gay children they've given birth to (imagine that!), or had a catastrophic illness themselves, and the right laws will come into play, and the country will change. But what will we have gained from the long delay? As to those who agree with some, or much, of what I say, you'd better get off your asses right now. I mean right now. The greedy and the foolish are ruling the day, even after they lost an election (and even though they hold no majorities, either in government or in population). Because they're working harder. They're yelling louder. Their hatred is out hustling your good will by a mile. How many of them showed up in Washington, fifty-thousand, or 1.5 million? It doesn't matter. Because no bigger demonstration existed to demand government subsidized health insurance be available to those who want it. Were there facts shouted at the town hall meetings, or lies? It doesn't matter. Because there was no larger force, to sing "I Ain't A-Scared of Your Lies, 'Cause I Want My Health Care," to the tune of the old civil rights song "I Ain't A-Scared of Your Jail, 'Cause I Want My Freedom." That would have made the evening news. Because it would have taken a spectacle, and used it as a jumping point to create a bigger, more powerful, one. Because it would have framed the effort for what it is, a struggle for what should be a civil right. And, at least for one small day, a news cycle would have been won, instead of lost. Oh, the mail I'll get now. The comments will scream that I don't know what I'm talking about, because one or two of my facts might not be perfectly correct, or phrased. People will take offense, and say I've lowered the level of dialogue with my language. But there is no dialogue. One glance at the comments section to my last post, or at my emails this week, and you can see. Dialogue is over. There is no convincing those who will not listen to reason. It's funny to remember and compare such a small incident, but it applies. When I still lived in New York, I owned a small apartment in a co-op building. There was a security guard who patrolled the block at night, and he was paid by voluntary contributions from those who chose to give. Ten dollars a months was the requested amount. Ten dollars a month, from people who owned Manhattan real estate, in order to make the block a bit safer, and a bit cleaner. But payments to the guard's salary were dwindling, so a survey was done, and it became clear that while 50% of the people on the block were contributing, our building had a participation rate of only 30%. At a board meeting, some of my neighbors said, "I don't go out at night. Why should I have to pay for a security guard when I don't go out at night?" "Well, would you rather have to step over broken glass and used condoms during the day, when you do go out?" I asked. "Would you rather have noise and music from groups that gather at night, or hear screams from people being robbed, or worse?" It didn't matter. They weren't moved. So we did what the law allowed us to do. We took a vote, and we made the ten dollars a month a mandatory part of the building's monthly maintenance charges. We went from 30% participation, to 100%. In other words, we stopped trying to reason with them, or make them understand, or agree. We used our majority, and we rammed it down their throats. It's time now to do the same. This is a war we're in. Not a shooting war (and I condemn anyone who takes up arms on either side of it, like some have already done at supposed "Town Hall Meetings"). It's an ideological war. And the longer it takes to recognize and acknowledge that fact, the longer it will take for our society to throw off the outsized influence of those who are willing to wage one from the other side. So, if you feel inspired, if the words of the last post meant something to you, do something. Don't write to me on Facebook, or merely pass the article on there (though I thank you for doing so this past week). Call Senators and Congressmen/women. Flood their phone lines. Send them emails. Shout out to them from the street. Carry signs. Gather. Organize. Call ten friends, or a hundred, or fifty-thousand, or a million-and-a-half, and go to Washington. Scream and shout. Wage war. Insist. We were once a nation of such potential. A nation built on the pride of its self-proclaimed superiority. We've been embarrassing ourselves in front of the world since shortly after 9/11, 2001. In spite of a change of leadership, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Shame on the citizens who are trying to obstruct, and shame on the politicians who pandered to them this past week. The words on the Statue of Liberty, liberators of concentration camps, inventors and innovators throughout the twentieth century. And what's the United States' most recent contribution? Collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and eleven million brown, yellow, and red-skinned people who'll be denied the privilege of paying money to purchase health care insurance. Hooray for the red, white, and blue. Evan Handler's latest book is "It's Only Temporary: The Good News and the Bad News of Being Alive." EvanHandler.com More on Health Care
 
Bill Scher: 76% Support Restricted Public Option ... Which Is What's In The Bill Top
ABC News' polling director Gary Langer makes a notable observation about the W. Post/ABC health care polls from today and June: "[Our] June poll found that support for a public option drops dramatically if it would put many private insurers out of business, as critics claim. This poll shows a flip side: Support for a public option swells to 76 percent if it were available only to people who can't get coverage from a private insurer. The increase is most dramatic among Republicans, a 32-point gain to 59 percent support; and seniors, a 33-point gain to 68 percent." Langer concludes: "Something like this was suggested by Obama, who said in his address the option would be available only to people who 'don't have' insurance; herein may be a path to compromise." Obama suggested it, because that's basically how the bills are currently written. This is not a new compromise to be forged. It's what's in the bill. The polling question is overly simplistic , because few in the media have bothered to explain the policy details in the pending bills, that: 1) the public option would only be available as a part of a health care "exchange" -- or marketplace -- featuring good-quality, mostly private, insurance plans, and 2) few who now have insurance would have access to the exchange. But the underlying message from the public is clear in the polling data: an overwhelming majority supports providing the choice of a public plan, so long as it can't overwhelm the private insurance industry. Healthy competition, not an unlevel playing field, wins the day. If anything, the bills as written risk tilting the playing field in favor of private insurance by restricting access to the exchange. As Jacob Hacker explained in his analysis of the various bills in Congress: In all the bills, the exchange would be open to people without qualified coverage from their employers (qualified coverage would have to meet standards designed to ensure it was affordable and available to all workers whose employers offered it). However, the bills differ with regard to what size of employers can "go into" the exchange--in effect, allowing their workers to choose from among the private plans and the new public plan. In the House bill, firms with twenty or fewer workers would be able to go into the exchange. Their workers would then be able to choose among the plan options there. A House Education and Labor committee amendment to the bill expands access to the exchange to firms with 50 or fewer employees. The House bill also gives the [Health and Human Services] Secretary the discretion to open up the exchange to larger firms in the future... ...The HELP bill [from the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions committee], by contrast, leaves the determination of which employers may go into the exchange unsettled. In the HELP bill, states are encouraged to create their own exchanges ... and the states would determine which firms had access to them. That pretty much restricts access to those who don't have insurance, and some small business employees who do have it but whose employers struggle to provide it. Hacker is comfortable with these initial restrictions preventing medium and large businesses from ending their own health benefits and sending employees to the exchange, though noting "the Secretary should be granted discretion to consider and implement an opening up of the exchange to larger employers in the future." While the Washington Post's Ezra Klein is concerned that it's too restrictive: "[The House biill has] a good, strong public plan. And I can't use it. Not even if I want to pay for it out-of-pocket. I work at a large employer and thus I am not allowed to buy into the exchange. A strong public plan on a weak exchange will fail because it won't attain sufficient market share." (As Hacker reminds, "the CBO has concluded that roughly a third of those in the exchange would [choose the public plan], or between 11 and 12 million enrollees.") Lawmakers may be overcompensating to assuage concerns that private insurance will get steamrolled. But tweaks can certainly be made down the road once we've seen how well reform works after a few years. It's mostly important to get the basic framework established. But it is clear that the majority of the country wants the assurance that there will be healthy public-private competition. What hasn't been made clear by pretty much every reporter covering this story is that assurance is already in the bill. Originally posted at OurFuture.org
 
Bill Gates, Sr.: HuffPost Review: Half the Sky Top
I don't normally do book reviews. However, because I'm a recent book author, a colleague sent me an advance copy of the manuscript for Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn's new book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity Worldwide and suggested that some of the themes might be of interest to me. It was. In fact, the book is stunning. Not because it's a compelling read, which it is. Not because it immediately leapt on to the bestseller list (as an author, I pay more attention to such things now). The book belongs on the "must-read" list because it offers perspective, insight, and clear-eyed optimism for why and how each of us can and should meet one of the great moral and humanitarian challenges of our times. In case some of you don't know Nick or Sheryl, they are Pulitzer Prize winners who earlier this year won the prestigious Dayton Literary Peace Prize for Lifetime Achievement for their work chronicling human rights in Asia, Africa and the developing world. Nick also writes a widely read and influential column for the New York Times. You can go to other book reviews to hear what the literary professionals think. I just want to give you my perspective as a husband, father, lawyer, and co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. What Nick and Sheryl have done is lay out a case for why empowering women in the developing world is both morally right and strategically imperative. Their essential message is that Lifting Women Lifts the World. I couldn't agree more. As someone who is soon to turn 84, I have spent a lot of time thinking about women and their role in society. My first wife, Mary Maxwell Gates, was a force of nature. It seemed perfectly natural to me that she would become a community leader and a trailblazer as one of the first women ever invited onto corporate boards. Mary was my partner, and she modeled to all of our children that there is nothing that women can't achieve. In many ways, my children took for granted that women can do anything. I think they also saw that when a man partners with a strong woman, everyone benefits. This is not to say that women can't do amazing things without a man - they do, everyday. Some of the most successful and inspiring women I know are not married or partnered. However, because of my own experience, what I find remarkable is that more men around the globe don't realize how much stronger they would be if partnered with a strong woman. Way too often and in too many corners of the globe, women are denied the opportunity to reach their full potential. It's wrong and it's backward, and of course, the irony is that by keeping women down, men lose out too. We're seeing remarkable evidence of what can happen when men and women partner together - our president and his wife Michelle being a wonderful example. My own son and his wife (both of whom I report to) are true partners in the work of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. My current wife Mimi Gardner Gates is my partner in all of the things that are important to me now. The authors titled their book after an old Chinese proverb that says "Women hold up half the sky." It's time that people around the world recognize the full implication of that wise proverb and work together to ensure that women everywhere are able to rise to their fullest potential -- for themselves and so that we all can benefit from the contributions they will make to global society. Finally, and in that vein, to everyone around the world who has asked me what it takes to raise a successful son like Bill Gates, my first response is: Make sure he can learn from a strong woman. More on Books
 
Linda Fairstein: "You can't play politics with people's lives." Top
"You can't play politics with people's lives." That was the slogan of Manhattan's great district attorney, Frank Hogan, who served for almost three decades. DA Hogan was re-elected time after time with the support of both parties and established the Manhattan DA's Office as the premiere prosecutorial agency in America. This was a mantra that each one of the young lawyers who worked for Hogan internalized, and one that I'm afraid one candidate for DA has forgotten. The office is remarkable for other reasons. There have been only three elected district attorneys in Manhattan since 1942, all of them with a firmly established presence on the national scene: Thomas Dewey, Frank Hogan, and my professional patron saint, Bob Morgenthau. Under the watch of these three giants, prosecutors were selected on the basis of merit instead of the old clubhouse deals that still mark their counterparts in many jurisdictions. Morgenthau became the gold standard by which all other DA's are measured. He brought down BCCI (the Bank of Credit and Commerce International) when the feds couldn't figure a way to go after the foreign crooks; he pioneered every advance in protecting women and children from predators, including the first Cold Case DNA Unit to identify rapists in unsolved cases; and he led a revolution in legal quarters by appointing women to every top position in the office in the 1970's, when we had so long been denied our places in the courtroom. There is no election this fall more critical to the well-being of New Yorkers than Tuesday's Democratic primary to select the next District Attorney. Three lawyers, all former prosecutors in that great office, have entered the race. Cy Vance, Jr., has put forward a brilliant array of policy papers, and has been endorsed by the New York Times , Daily News , New York Post , Amsterdam News , and El Diario . He has been endorsed by Bob Morgenthau, Borough President Scott Stringer, Sen. Tom Duane, David Dinkins, Gloria Steinem, Caroline Kennedy, and the giants of the New York bench and bar. Most of us have worked with all three candidates in the race, and we are familiar with their ability, their integrity, and their temperament. Cy is my former colleague and my candidate -- I admire him enormously. Last week, this race took a particularly ugly turn. Vance's opponent, Leslie Crocker Snyder, launched a series of ballistically negative attacks against him on TV and in mail ads that criticize him for the work he has done as a defense attorney. While Cy is a partner in one of the most distinguished firms in New York City and a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, Snyder's viciously bitter language is an attempt to denigrate his experience and his ethics. Her vitriolic pandering is done with blatant disregard of the bedrock principles of our criminal justice system: the right of the accused to competent counsel and a vigorous defense. Snyder, who trumpets her years protecting the citizenry as a tough judge -- so tough she once told a defendant she wished she could give him the lethal injection herself -- may not want voters to remember the time she spent defending criminals. I haven't seen that claim in any of her literature, but I have a vivid recollection of her role. In January of 1982, a man named James Smith was tried for the murder of a thirty-one year old woman named Velma King. Ms. King was shot in the head, stabbed in the arm, slashed on parts of her stomach and body before being stuffed into a cardboard barrel. Despite the frigid cold winter day, when that barrel was produced in the courtroom as evidence for the jury to see, the stench was so vile that the judge directed that all the windows be opened wide and jurors were supplied with Vicks camphor sticks to rub beneath their noses against the strong smell of death. Leslie Snyder stood beside James Smith and fought for his acquittal. When convicted, she argued vociferously that he shouldn't be sentenced to the maximum term, and then she appealed the verdict. It was easy to hate James Smith for the heinousness of his crime but he was certainly entitled to the defense that his lawyer -- Leslie Snyder -- so vigorously mounted on his behalf. When did her view of the system change? Surely not in her years on the bench, when she was frequently called upon to appoint defense counsel for indigent criminals who appeared before her. Were they all denied adequate representation? For more than 35 years, Snyder was a staunch advocate of the death penalty. Sometime right around her 65th birthday, after 40 years of work in the criminal justice system, she had an epiphany in which she realized that from time to time, innocent men had been put to death in this country, and when she ran for office she distanced herself further and further from the lethal injection she once offered to administer herself. Cy Vance has never believed that a civilized system of justice supports the taking of a human life as punishment -- that has always been his ethical stance, not his political posture. Snyder has called Frank Hogan her mentor. The campaign poster with his famous slogan hung on the wall in her office, as it did in mine. She once understood, as we all did, that politics has no place in the District Attorney's office, that politics can have no place in the decisions made in any case that comes before a prosecutor -- misdemeanor or felony -- that so profoundly affect people's lives. How tragic it is that she has stooped to using the lowest form of political tactics in the last hours of this race; tactics which not only demean her own career, but threaten to disgrace the powerful office she seeks. For three quarters of a century, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has led this country as a model of professionalism and integrity, using innovative investigative techniques and a cadre of talented young lawyers -- many of whom have gone on to other jobs in the public sector -- and many to serve proudly as members of the defense bar. Morgenthau's own rule about case decisions -- 'do what you think is right' -- has established a legacy of fairness and fundamental decency that needs to be maintained to keep that office great. You can't play politics with people's lives. Cy Vance knows that well. Cy Vance should be the next District Attorney of New York County.
 
Andrea Chalupa: Retail therapy solutions: hot, useful, affordable fashion fixes Top
Retail therapy is real, and it is dangerous. Who hasn't succumbed to shopping's siren call when things are this bleak, even if your checking account can't handle it? If you must feed the beast, do so with these affordable, useful, and hot shopping fixes. Walletpop's Megan Angelo round-ups 10 pick-me-up buys -- each under $20:   "ESSIE NAIL POLISH It happens every season -- designers bust out a color that you suddenly can't imagine how you lived without. The problem? Their busting-out medium usually consists of a coat or a shoe that costs hundreds of dollars. The other problem? That same color you're suddenly dying to wear may very well seem ridiculous to you when next season rolls around. So the undeniably pragmatic place to put trendy shades is on your nails -- and for my money, the smooth, long-lasting formulas from Essie rule. This $17 set of minis will keep your digits on-trend. "EVERYMAN JACK Many guys I know -- none of them the fussy salon-product type -- swear by these grooming products (available at www.everymanjack.com and at Target). And I can see why -- with components like sandalwood and mint, they're definitely a step up from the chemical-laden products in the same aisle. "HUE TIGHTS The last three winters have made it official: tights aren't going away. In fact, they're only getting bigger -- where nude and black once dominated, brights and patterns have broken in. Hue's styles are affordable, fashion-forward, durable enough that you can count on rocking your plum and teal legwear indefinitely -- and so eye-catching that no one will notice you've been topping them with the same black dress all season long." For more affordable fixes for retail therapy, go to Walletpop.com...
 
Jenifer Fox: Transcending Your Child's Learning Disability Top
In February 2001, the New York Times published a memorable article about a scientific study by a group of psychologists. The group claimed to have done an "exhaustive" review of Winnie-the-Pooh literature and then catalogued and diagnosed a range of clinical, personality, and psychological disorders among the major characters in the Winnie-the-Pooh books. Their study, called the Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood: A Neurodevelopmental Perspective on A. A. Milne , was one in which the authors describe the various deficiencies of each character. Pooh, for example, has impulsivity issues signaling ADHD, which is compounded by his addiction to honey. For him, they prescribe Ritalin and adherence to the Zone diet. Piglet, they contend, is beset by generalized anxiety disorder and may benefit from a low dose of paroxetine. Owl, though bright, is dyslexic; no drugs are able to help him. Christopher Robin spends too much time playing "make-believe," perhaps signaling some future malfunction, and the scientists noted the total lack of adult supervision in the Hundred Acre Wood. The study was a great joke, highlighting our increasing tendency to label each other and focus on weaknesses rather than strengths. An amazing number of people didn't get it. They complained research "shouldn't be used for stuff like this." Other people got it but didn't think it was funny. "These things are much too serious to be joked about," they said. The joke is in the madness of it all. We have created in real life a storybook world that is as crazy as the study done on the Hundred Acre Wood. Most of the labels we ascribe to children overlook what is right about children. We prefer to concentrate on labeling weaknesses. Teachers and parents must begin to change the focus from labeling weakness to proclaiming strengths. I am not suggesting that the students who are labeled LD do not struggle -- they clearly do, and suffer as a result. And I am all for helping kids catch up and learn what they need to know to get ahead in life, but the way in which we do that -- with a sole focus on the weakness of the students -- is only half the equation. If we are going to remediate weaknesses, we must have an equal commitment to building strengths. We don't help children succeed when we place all the blame for the learning problems on them. We assume that the struggle in school is all the student's fault when there are many factors that can contribute to a child having difficulty in school: If an adolescent is left home alone most afternoons, with no one to talk to her or help her solve problems or learn how to interact, the child may become delayed in social or intellectual development. If teachers have a learning style that is at odds with the child's style (such as a highly visually oriented adult and an energetic child who learns by doing, not by seeing), the mismatch may appear to be a learning disability in the child. If a child is fed a constant diet of junk food and gets little exercise, he may be unable to concentrate in school. If early instruction in reading and math was poor, a student who cannot catch up may become so frustrated that he gives up. People will have to learn to rely on different types of evidence that measure individual achievement and satisfaction. This is going to require a major paradigm shift, but just like every other important shift in outdated, conventional thinking, the process begins with the individual. We can make things better for future generations, and for our own futures, if we begin to see past the learning disability paradigm and come to realize that we all learn differently.
 
Brendan DeMelle: Imprisoned Democrat Paul Minor Awaits Ruling On Appeal of Partisan Conviction With Major 1st Amendment Implications Top
After much deliberation and an unprecedented three rounds of post-oral argument supplemental briefing, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is primed to issue a judgment on the appeal of prominent Mississippi attorney Paul Minor . Minor was wrongly accused and convicted of bribery stemming from his campaign fundraising for two Democratic candidates for state judgeships in Mississippi. The appellate court has undertaken an extensive, thoughtful review of Minor's case, repeatedly asking the government to document and explain the quid pro quo "this for that" deal necessary to put - and keep - Minor behind bars. The judges have also questioned whether the government incorrectly applied the federal bribery statute in Minor's case, and whether charges against Minor regarding one of the judges amounted to constitutional double jeopardy. Minor was originally indicted in 2003 in what many believe was a targeted political prosecution, ginned up by Karl Rove's GOP cronies in the partisan Bush Justice Department. As a successful plaintiff's attorney, Minor posed a threat to corporate interests, including the Chamber of Commerce which largely bankrolled the specious "tort reform" attacks on plaintiffs' rights to sue corporations for illegal behavior. Karl Rove and his GOP operatives, long-time puppets of Big Business, targeted Minor and other Democrats in a coordinated effort to scare off big-ticket donors to the Democratic Party nationwide. In Mississippi, Paul Minor was the prime target as a successful trial attorney who repeatedly won big decisions against corporate interests and fought against tort reform as a champion for the little guy's right to a just day in court. Minor was also the top Democratic fundraiser in the state, and had a keen interest, as an attorney would, in seeing fair, impartial candidates win the state's elected judgeships rather than the business-friendly candidates endorsed by the GOP. In August of 2005 Minor was acquitted on part of the charges and the jury hung on the rest of the charges. Minor was immediately re-indicted by a partisan U.S. Attorney desperate to save his job after learning that his name appeared on a list of U.S. Attorneys recommended for dismissal by Bush White House officials . Minor's campaign contributions to the Democratic candidates were mistakenly ruled "bribes" in the botched 2007 retrial. The conviction resulted in Minor's hefty 11-year sentence for non-violent white-collar crimes he never committed. Minor has languished in a Pensacola prison camp for the past three years, where he recently endured the tragic ordeal of his wife Sylvia passing away after a long battle against brain cancer. Despite the substantial questions raised in his appeal - upon which the federal bail statutes mandate release pending outcome of the appellate review - Minor was repeatedly denied release and never got to say goodbye to his dying wife. Adding insult to injury, Paul was denied a furlough to attend Sylvia's funeral where he planned to deliver a eulogy honoring their 41 years of marriage and to comfort their children in the family's time of loss. But the sun may soon shine again in Minor's brutally interrupted life, as the Fifth Circuit appears poised to rule in his favor on appeal. At oral argument in April, the Court repeatedly posed troublesome questions that the government attorneys struggled to answer . The appellate judges subsequently requested three rounds of post-oral argument supplemental briefing, a rare level of probing that indicates to many observers that the court is likely ready to reverse Minor's conviction. The final round of supplemental briefing was submitted on September 3rd, and the judges could issue a decision at any time. During the botched 2007 retrial, Bush DOJ attorneys glossed over existing case law to persuade the district court not to require critical instructions to jury members that the government must prove a specific quid pro quo deal in order to convict Minor on the federal bribery charges lobbed at him by the partisan, conflicted U.S. Attorney Lampton. As extensively briefed by Minor's lawyers during the appeal, specific quid pro quo proof was clearly required for all of the charges against him. Since the jury was never required to find any proof of a "this for that" quid pro quo agreement for the trumped up charges, the prospect of reversal of Minor's conviction appears not only likely, but mandated under Supreme Court and other case law. The Fifth Circuit is not only deliberating the fate of one man. There are profound First Amendment implications in this case. The failure to instruct a jury that it must find quid pro quo proof in a case involving campaign contributions essentially means that anyone who gives money to a candidate vying for public office could face bribery charges without any underlying proof of a favor or deal promised in return by the recipient. If the court rules that Minor was correctly convicted, it would send shockwaves through the political world, as anyone - including members of Congress and the administration - could be targeted for the long-time tradition of giving campaign contributions to candidates who share the values of donors, an expression of free speech central to our participatory democracy. Amicus briefs recently filed with the Supreme Court supporting former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman's request for Supreme Court review confirm these profound implications. Siegelman was convicted on remarkably similar charges of bribery involving campaign fundraising. Ninety-one former Democratic and Republican state Attorneys General and nine distinguished First Amendment law professors filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court this week asserting the importance of requiring exacting, explicit quid pro quo proof in such cases. The law professors argue that, absent exacting quid pro quo proof that campaign fundraising actually constituted bribery, both private individuals and public officials who participate in political fundraising could "face the risk that a prosecutor will single them out for prosecution."[PDF] The professors rightly point out that this would "place a chilling effect on the First Amendment right to contribute to political campaigns," activity that is essential to our participatory democracy unless campaigns are publicly funded. Without quid pro quo proof of a deal between donor and recipient, anyone - regardless of political affiliation - could be accused of "bribery" just for giving money to a candidate running for office. The Fifth Circuit's decision in Paul Minor's case will determine if this form of free speech is indeed protected as laid out in the Constitution, or punishable by severe prison sentences dictated by partisan politics. The integrity of our entire political system hangs in the balance. They must get it right. More on Karl Rove
 
Michael Brenner: 9/11: Never Again? Top
This essay first appeared in the National Journal Security Expert Blog. This is the most painful of anniversaries. Fear, anger, anxiety -- a cocktail of emotions. The images are still vivid. This year's commemoration is especially full of angst. Perhaps because torture, Afghanistan and failed wars are creeping back into the headlines. These reflections aim to disentangle fact from myth, emotion from reason, so as to better estimate what we really should worry about and whether our current policies actually raise the risk of something horrific occurring again. 9/11 was a unique event. The perpetrators were a transnational network without a national affiliation who used hijacked civilian aircraft to attack monumental buildings in the homeland of the world's greatest power located across an ocean -- and did so with devastating effect. To describe what happened is to evoke the audacity of the project and the intensity of the reaction. Any serious appraisal, therefore, must detach itself from the powerful emotions of fear and dread as well as the horrific imagery -- to separate actuality from legend. The critical lesson to be drawn is that the operation did not depend critically on a fixed location although facilitated by a stable base in Afghanistan. It was multinational: conceived in Afghanistan, organized in Germany and the US, and executed here by Saudis and Egyptians. The plan's stunning success should not obscure its simplicity. No innovative technology was designed, no complicated logistics were entailed, no special opportunity available or created, no great amount of cash needed. Most impressive was the dedication and emotional resiliency of the hijackers who kept their sense of suicidal purpose despite living in an alien environment. A key to success was the equally stunning incompetence (and, let's face it, sheer stupidity) of security agencies in the target country. The 9/11 Commission's conclusion that nothing reasonable could have been done to prevent it is utter nonsense: just scanning the transparent facts makes that embarrassingly obvious. The most egregious failure was the FBI's in not following through on the two agents' reports of Middle Easterners taking flying lessons without concern for take-off or landing. We perhaps have to live with the possibility of a conspiracy by similar extremely motivated persons. We cannot accept similar self-created vulnerability. As to future threats, let's keep in mind the following points. Freedom to use large swaths of territory is not an absolute precondition to doing something of the same order. Technological thresholds are low whether we think of airplanes, conventional explosives or chemicals. It is fairly easy to commit terrorist acts that kill at least hundreds. Assuming the truth of the two previous statements, the question that stands out is why so little has happened over the last eight years. Superior intelligence/police work? In the United States, not one serious plot has been exposed. The few, over-publicized cases were embryonic schemes involving marginal persons lacking the mental and morale capacity to do much of anything. In Europe, there have been a number of instances (Germany, UK, France) where plots were disrupted at very early stages -- but none came approximately close to 9/11 in capability or organization. They, too, involved marginal young men of limited competence. Major successes were scored in Pakistan to diminish severely al Qaeda's original group. We should also note that the superior recruiting and training facilities we provided in Iraq over the past six years (plus motivation given to potential bankrollers) has not had any demonstrable effect insofar as major threats outside the Greater Middle East are concerned. Logically, it follows that we either have overstated the size and scope of the al-Qaeda network; mistakenly assumed that the prominence of the U.S. as a strategic target relative to Middle Eastern governments was a constant for the relevant persons or groups; and/or exaggerated the ease of marshaling persons with the requisite combination of emotional strength and discipline to even consider doing something like 9/11. The implications in terms of American policy can be simply stated. Going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan made sense. It was a partial success. Everything else that we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq (Somalia, too) has been an enormous waste of resources: human, financial, technical and political. Enhancing classic intelligence/police work in close cooperation with the services of other governments is far more valuable, far less costly -- and avoids the counter productive consequences of endless wars and occupations. The negative effects of our policies are huge in well-known respects: motivating possible terrorists from across the region, providing the proving grounds for them to hone their skills, motivating potential funders, and alienating deeply the general population of the regime which not only favors terrorist groups but also endangers incalculably other vital interests of the United States. Negative effects also register at home -- financial, constitutional, ethical and in feeding a dangerous mood of anger, fear and frustration. The Real Worry The exploiting of free floating feelings of dread among Americans for political and ideological purposes has both obscured real dangers and contributed to them. Let's drop the childish game of scaring ourselves with the likes of high school drop-out Jose Padilla and similarly I.Q. challenged riff-raff. In doing so, we are behaving like kids who conjure monsters lurking in the stairwell so as to get a thrill by toying with their self-generated fears. The guy to think about is the reputable scientist/technician who visits the U.S. regularly, who may have an institutional tie there, who has a friend or relative in the shipping business, who has become deeply alienated and aggrieved by things we have done. He may have a close relative (direct or by marriage) who was a victim of some American atrocity in Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine. He may have developed an overwhelming urge to act destructively -- even if it is in the form of a symbolic act punctuated by an exclamation point! None of our rampaging around Southwest Asia will protect us against that scenario becoming real. Indeed, the more rampaging we do the better the odds on it happening. When it does, Richard Holbrooke, David Petraeus, Barack Obama et al will not need 50 performance measures to "know it when they see it." Holbrooke, speaking at the Center for American Progress on August 13, summarized administration thinking this way: "The specific goal.....is really hard for me to address in specific terms. But I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we'll know it when we see it." The unwitting reference is to a comment by a Supreme Court Justice in an opinion on a landmark pornography case. How apropos. This is what passes for grand strategy in Washington these days. More on Terrorism
 
Rachel Ben-Avi: Best Laid Plans Top
That which is mind-boggling always entertains. The story I have to tell is truly mind-boggling, so stay with me, that you may get to the "HUH?" at the end. Several weeks ago, I received a request, via e-mail, "from" Michelle Obama, to volunteer. It was a national day of volunteering, the e-mail said, so I exhorted myself: do not just leave the good deed to others, get out there and do something useful for someone. I scrolled through the list of good works to be done locally (I live in Sarasota, Florida), searching for something I was competent to do, and lo and behold, I found a low-cost health clinic in an area that is more or less our local version of Harlem. The clinic is called Genesis and serves both the community and returning veterans. Those who are poor, who have lost jobs, who have no health insurance. Some who are homeless. Returning Vets, I thought. Now, surely, they need and deserve all the help we can give them. I am a clinical psychologist (PhD, 1976) and a psychoanalyst (Psychoanalytic Certificate, 1982). And I was on staff, as a psychologist, for seven years at New York University Medical Center's Institute for Rehabilitation Medicine, which cares for severely physically disabled patients of every sort. And for fifteen years, I was in private practice as well. So, I have experience with both psychological and physical distress. A tall, lean, black man named Jim runs Genesis and seemed glad to get me. "You're a mental health counselor?" he asked. "A clinical psychologist," I nodded. "You licensed here?" he asked. "Only in New Yok," I told him, ruefully. "Not an issue," he reassured me, "We'll get you a Limited License; since you'll be volunteering and not charging anything, it won't be a problem. Fill out these papers," he handed me a few sheets posing questions of the name-address-telephone number sort, asking that I affirm that I have practiced for at least ten years in the United States, that I was indeed licensed and that I am retired and have no intention of charging anyone any fees. I did as required, had the papers signed by Jim and notarized, and sent them off. Meanwhile, assuming this license business was pro-forma, I began to work. On day one, I discovered--this was in early August--that there was a waiting list stretching out until the end of September, of people who needed to complete written intakes before they could see the one volunteer psychiatrist available to prescribe medication and/or begin some talking therapy with one of the three counselors who were, by the way, already booked up. The situation was unacceptable. Picture people in anxiety panics, people weeping, people contemplating suicide. Weeks? They had to be seen now. So I said (thinking OY, what am I getting into...) "let's get through these intakes. I'll do them." We scheduled them one after another, day after day, any hours I could be there. People had disappeared, moved, lost phone service, but we got through a slew of those who were still available, still waiting. When done, I informed Jim that I would give the clinic one day a week. I have patients scheduled tomorrow. Now comes the brain-curdling part. Over the weekend, I received a letter from the Florida Department of Health, signed by one Robin McKenzie, Program Administrator. She thanked me for my licensure application and told me that I needed to submit further documentation, which papers she enclosed with her letter. Then, she added, "If we receive the signed affidavit, your application file will be complete." And then the astounding words, " I'm sorry to inform you that your completed application would then be presented to the Board with a recommendation to deny. "Please let me know if you have any questions," she wrote. HUH? I try calling Robin McKenzie, but an answering device tells me she is out of town until tomorrow. I am told to press O for immediate assistance. I do so and am told--also by a recording--that no one is available to answer, that I should try again at a later time. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Do I charge forth to work without the state's approbation or do I allow myself to be hog-tied by red tape and cancel the patients who expect to see me tomorrow? Florida has me on hold. And people say we don't need health care reform?
 
Tom Matlack: Meet Me at The Shack Top
"Why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, its seems to be the way you most reveal yourself." Asks Mack, a man who has suffered brutal abuse from his own father and lost his young daughter to a serial killer who leaves a bloody red dress in a remote shack only to be invited back that same shack four years later by God who appears as a black woman. "Well, there are many reasons for that, and some of them go very deep. Let me say for now that we knew once the creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don't misunderstand me, both are needed -- but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence." So begins the conversation between Mack and God, soon to be joined by Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost in The Shack , by Wm. Paul Young . For Mack, and for us as readers, what transpires in the shack requires creative imagination not unlike that in Harry Potter or any number of fantastic tales. But in this case the subject is far closer to home: the healing of a broken heart. Mack is one of those many good people beset by tragedy and unable to get beyond the great sadness it brings with it. The Shack is also an exploration of God and Spirit from a completely different dimension, both matter-of-fact and revolutionary in its condemnation of organized religion's shortsightedness. As I read the book I felt myself climbing into a gradually more and more comfortable womb of safety and found myself beginning to believe that everything does happen for a reason, even the most painful events. In darkness there is light and love. For Mack the issue comes down to forgiveness and reconciliation first with his abusive father, then God, and finally his daughter's murderer. The gravity of Mack's situation, perhaps the worst scenario any human being could go through, allows us as readers to reflect on our own flavor of tragedy and those we have yet to forgive. The underlying theme of The Shack is that rugged individualism doesn't work. There is no evil, only lack of goodness. The human flaw is to believe that we can live free of our relationships with one another and with God. The horrific set-up to the book, Mack's tragedy, takes just a few pages. The rest is an exploration of Mack's rehabilitation. In one memorable scene Jesus touches Mack's eyes to allow him to see the light and color of human energy, both dead and alive. As a reader, I had to suspend my cynical mind. Butit wasn't hard given the beauty described. One of the gathered is experiencing great pain, affecting all those around him. It's Mack's father, the man who chained him to a tree and beat him. Mack sees, finally, that the key to his salvation is forgiveness. Not for the perpetrators of the crimes but for himself. The Shack is one of the most compelling modern descriptions of faith because it is able to describe the indescribable in an easy to understand narrative. We get the sense that God appears as the Trinity because that is what will work for Mack. Much of the book is intended to point out the limitations of religion when it comes to faith. None is better or worse than another but so too none hits the mark of what God has to say to Mack about why his father beat him and his daughter was brutally murdered and why, despite all that, he is loved by the Devine and there is room for joy in his life not despite these events but in fact because of them. It's speaks equally both to those who are devote followers of religion and those who are not. More on Books
 
Chloe Malle: The Empress Has New Clothes: How Diane von Furstenberg Conquered the World (Well, Just About) Top
"Rising like a phoenix, she is a modern myth, the queen of the desert, a true adventurer, exploring and enticing." The first line of the program notes of Diane von Furstenberg's Spring 2010 collection, Oasis, describes the woman who will inhabit these clothes. The collection debuted yesterday afternoon in the tent at Bryant Park, where von Furstenberg is the Bedouin queen of Mercedes Benz Fashion Week, ruling her tent camp in an economic desert. Von Furstenberg is the President of the Council of Fashion Designers in America and has jumped to crisis management director for a faltering fashion industry. Taking on the role of New York fashion's mother hen, von Furstenberg was pivotal in the planning of this year's fashion week. At the CFDA meeting held in New York in July, she announced, "In the middle of a tsunami, we can't change everything. But I would like to make New York Fashion Week the most dynamic in the world." And why not? In New York City fashion is the largest industry after finance, with over 800 fashion companies and 175,000 employees generating $10 billion in total wages. Why shouldn't New York's Fashion Week be the most dynamic in the world? And with the way things are going, New York City designers and retailers could use all the help they can get. As IMG senior vice president and fashion week organizer, Fern Mallis, said, "It's up to the fashion industry to put its best foot forward and create things that will make everybody go, 'God damn, I have to buy that.'" As CFDA President von Furstenberg was co-organizer of Anna Wintour's brainchild "Fashion's Night Out," an odd sort of consumer lovefest dotted by Oscar de la Renta serenading Barbara Walters and Jonathan Adler at a potter's wheel. "Fashion's Night Out" articulated the industry's shared mania to encourage consumers back into stores in the midst of the worst U.S. recession in 70 years. Over 60 designers will debut spring 2010 collections at this fall's semi-annual fashion week and all of them will grapple with the question of how to get consumers back into stores, which have seen sales fall every month for the past year. Diane von Furstenberg's approach to this dilemma was to provide an aesthetic oasis in a desert of warehouse sales. Von Furstenberg who made fashion history with her iconic wrap dress in the 1970's and has since continued to pioneer her wearable, bold-faced designs, is no stranger to spring collections. But this year the message was clear, let the modern woman embrace her inner wanderlust; emotional, sartorial or geographic. Let her find her oasis in a fiscal desert. Escapism grounded in the now. On the DVF website the collection's tagline reads, "wherever she goes, she belongs" and the invitation to the show is a palmtree-ed postcard, post-stamped "Oasis, DVF" with 2009 stamped in roman numerals. Von Furstenberg described the 2010 collection as, "Looking into antiquity ... for effortless beauty." The show, a magical mystery tour through a David Roberts Disneyland, employed all illusions of oases and the converging cultures that meet there. A celebration of the undrawn line that divides Northern Africa and Subsaharan. The line that isn't actually drawn by national borders but by dust patterns and the people who move among them. The line where Arabian Nights meets Conrad's concubines and the traveler gracefully slips into the scenery. Indeed, the program notes, "An Orientalist figure set in marbled temples or against a backdrop of dazzling blue sky, she is a reflection of her surroundings." The collection is about fantasy, illusion and whimsy set against a Bedouin sky and Ramses' ruins. Described as "soft with structure," the collection mixes fantasies and travelers' myths. The 43 outfits are detailed in the program next to their model's name and offer descriptions such as, Alyona's "palace tiger Thai silk coat, golden silk charmeuse bomber, leopard chiffon jodhpurs" and Karlie's "black zebra appliqué rope dress." Stacked, striped lanyard cuffs from the Vital Voices Collection of African Women Artisans work their way up models' asparagus-thick forearms while H. Stern provides more weighty adornments. Pieces range from "hammered metal spun into an airy bolero" to shredded chiffon jackets and silk camouflage jodphurs, more Masai Mara plains than traditional khaki Rorschach amoebas. The designs' mixture of wearability and fantasy blend the romance of Salaambo with Maria Schneider's dust-bitten calm in "The Passenger." Bedecked in the "gold coin beaded leather harem shift" the final model exits. Von Furstenberg appears from the wings, taxi-ing elegantly down the runway with a personal clapper behind her reminding the audience to hasten their applause. "Spirited and strong...she commands with her presence, but is as fleeting as a mirage," the program notes describe the ephemeral but omnipresent female inspiring and embodying this collection. The program lures the now-conscious consumer into this oasis, convincing her she is the queen of her desert. Yet, by the end of the show, it is von Furstenberg, gilded in bronzer and post-show glow, who rises like the phoenix out of the economic ashes into modern mythdom. More on Fashion Week
 
Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Freedom from Corruption v. Freedom of Speech: The Citizens United Case Top
After Republican Senators sought repeated assurances from Justice Sotomayor that she would follow the law, the Constitution and precedent (stare decisis), we are about to found out whether Republican appointees to the Supreme Court likewise feel bound to carry out that same commitment. At issue in the Citizens United case (recently argued) is whether a movie very critical of Hillary Clinton violates the corporate-financed ban on certain political activities. The ban has had a long history and is supported by a number of court precedents. Numerous federal and state laws and regulations were intent on removing powerful corporate and union influence from political campaigns, for fear that such major contributors could corrupt the system. Limits on individual contributions had the same purpose. The fear was that allowing enormous contributions from a single source could corrupt the system by making the recipient or beneficiary of such largess beholden to the contributor or certainly give that appearance. Equally compelling are the advocates of free speech, who contend that such limitations violate the First Amendment and impose a substantial and improper impediment on free speech. The case could easily be resolved by concluding that this particular movie did not violate the exiting ban. However, there is a sense that the Court may go well beyond that narrow holding, and put at end to the ban on corporate giving in elections. This is a profound and difficult issue. Both arguments have merit. How the Court decides the case will not only substantially influence the conduct of future elections, but it will say a great deal about the future of the Court itself.
 
The Real Reason Bloomberg Opted Out Of A Presidential Run Top
Politico posted an excerpt from Joyce Purnick's new biography of Mike Bloomberg this morning and, incredibly, no one noticed the astonishing references in it to Bloomberg's real attitude about Barack Obama. More on John McCain
 
Rudy Giuliani Pushed To Run For Senate Seat Against Gillibrand Top
Top state Republicans will urge former Mayor Rudy Giuliani to abandon his interest in running for governor and run instead against unelected US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, The Post has learned. The appeal, expected within a few weeks, comes in the wake of Giuliani's embarrassing defeat in his effort to block Manhattan lawyer Ed Cox, ex-President Richard Nixon's son-in-law, from becoming the state GOP chairman. More on GOP
 
Whitney Houston Explains Her "Heavy" Drug Habit, Says Bobby Brown Spit On Her Top
CHICAGO — Whitney Houston took drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, with ex-husband Bobby Brown, who was emotionally abusive during their marriage and at one point spit on her, the singer said during an interview that aired Monday on "The Oprah Winfrey Show." "I had so much money and so much access to what I wanted," Houston told Winfrey. "I didn't think about the singing part anymore. I was looking for my young womanhood." After a long absence from music, Houston is staging a career comeback with a new album "I Look to You" released last month and a two-part appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show." Houston is one of the best-selling artists of all time, but her career stalled as she grappled with drug problems and a troubled marriage to Brown. The couple married in 1992 and were divorced in 2007. During their marriage, Brown was arrested on drug and alcohol charges, and Houston twice entered drug rehabilitation programs. She has custody of their teenage daughter. Houston told Winfrey that Brown wasn't physically abusive but "he slapped me once but he got hit on the head three times by me." A phone message left Monday with Brown's attorney in Atlanta seeking comment was not immediately returned. Houston said she was attracted to Brown because he took control of their relationship and had "a sweet, gentle tenderness." "At home, he was very much the father, he was very much the man," Houston said. "He was very much in control. I liked that. When he said something, I listened. I was very interested in having someone have that kind of control over me. It was refreshing." She described an episode after a birthday party for Brown that left her "horrified. He spit on me, in my face." She said their daughter, Bobbi Kristina, witnessed the incident, which left Houston "very hurt, very angry." Houston also said Brown would smash and break things at their home. The 46-year-old singer described her drug use, saying it became "heavy" after her 1992 movie "The Bodyguard." She said she would take marijuana combined with rock cocaine. "You put your marijuana, you lace it, you roll it up and you smoke it," Houston explained to Winfrey. During a 2002 ABC interview with Diane Sawyer, Houston admitted dabbling in drugs but denied using crack, then uttered the now-famous phrase: "Crack is wack." "He was my drug," Houston told Winfrey of Brown. "I didn't do anything without him. I wasn't getting high by myself. It was me and him together. We were partners." Houston said she stuck with Brown because she took her marriage vows seriously. She said she told her daughter about her drug use and took her with her to an Atlanta drug rehab for mothers and children. "I didn't lie to her," Houston said. Her mother also tried to intervene, the singer said, and at one point came to Houston's home with police. The singer prayed for help, asking God to give her strength, she said. "I was so weak to him," Houston said. "I was so weak to the love." ___ On the Net: http://www.oprah.com/ http://www.whitneyhouston.com
 
School Cancels Trip To See Bush Top
Six days after drawing fire for not showing President Barack Obama's speech to schoolchildren, Arlington Superintendent Jerry McCullough announced Monday that he also will not be allowing 600 fifth-graders to attend a Super Bowl event next week featuring former President George W. Bush.
 
Park District May Fork Over $20M For Olympic Canoe, Kayak Course Top
The Chicago Park District may contribute $20 million toward the construction of a canoe and kayak slalom course should the city win its bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.
 
Cantor To Hold Public Health Care Debate With Democrat Top
This should be interesting. House minority whip Eric Cantor has hatched his own response to all the talk about town hall hooliganism: He's agreed to sit down for a public, "civil" debate on health care with Dem Rep Bobby Scott, who's also from Virginia, a Cantor aide confirms.
 
Saleh Ali Nebhan, One Of FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists, Reportedly Killed By U.S. Commandos In Somalia Top
A U.S. commando attack in Somalia has killed an al Qaeda operative who is on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists, sources tell ABC News. More on Somalia
 
Greg Hanlon: Encouraging Start: Week 1: Giants 23 -- Redskins 17 Top
Week 1: Giants 23 -- Redskins 17 Despite the modest six-point margin of victory, this was a very encouraging start to the season for the Giants. We don't know how good the Redskins are going to be, but we do know the Giants looked a lot better than them today, better than six points would indicate. And sure, the Redskins looked awful, but so did they when the Giants beat them 16 to 7 in last year's opener, before turning around and winning five of their next six games. Point being, stifling defenses have a way of making offenses look inept. What's to like: The defense, particularly the run defense: On the Redskins first play from scrimmage, Clinton Portis got outside for 34 yards (Osi Umenyiora would later accept the blame for letting Portis get outside). From that point on, Portis carried 15 times for 28 yards. New additions Chris Canty and Rocky Bernard played a lot in the second half, a sign that Jerry Reese's plan to rotate able bodies at defensive tackle is working. Corey Webster: It's common among NFL pundits to refer to players like Webster as "budding stars." After a year or two of being a budding star, a player can ascend to star status, a distinction that usually comes at the tail end of his prime and lasts a couple years into his decline. So let's skip this nonsensical process and recognize Webster as the star he is, right now. Last year, Webster broke up a league-leading 32.1 percent of the passes thrown in his direction, according to Football Outsiders stats . In his first game of 2009, he made a balletic interception and completely shut down Santana Moss, who caught 2 passes for 6 yards. On the play before, he fought off his block to force Clinton Portis out of bounds on a two-yard gain. Together, the two plays show how far Webster has come since mid-2007. Osi Umenyiora: Talk about a return to the Osi of old: This touchdown was eerily similar to one he had against the 49ers two years ago, when he stripped Trent Dilfer and ran 75 yards for the score. Osi's well-known athleticism is evidently back. But what's so impressive about these plays is his hand-eye coordination. Think about the controlled swipes he took at the ball in both cases: How many other players have you ever seen who could do that? Now think about the seamless way he picked up the fumble and accelerated. How many football players can do that? Justin Tuck: Had 1.5 sacks, 5 tackles, and was generally disruptive against the run. After the Hall interception, Tuck dropped Clinton Portis for a 6-yard-loss and sacked Campbell on the next play, leading to a long third down the Redskins didn't convert. With Kiwanuka rotating in and keeping Tuck and Osi fresh, Giants fans have to be excited. Bill Sheridan: He got a Gatorade shower -- albeit the weakest one I've ever seen, particularly shameful with Harry Carson in the building -- and a hug from Osi. A good start. Ahmad Bradshaw: Jacobs certainly has his value, but it may be that Bradshaw is our best back against good run defenses. Today, he had 60 yards on 12 carries (5.0 average) compared to Jacobs' 46 yards on 16 carries (2.9). Without Bradshaw, our running game would have been in serious trouble today. And for as much as Bradshaw is portrayed as an unknown quantity by many commentators, remember that he was our best back in the 2007 playoffs: He averaged 4.3 carries to Jacobs' 3.2. However, give Jacobs credit for catching the ball today. He needed to improve that part of his game, and today's signs were encouraging. Steve Smith: The Little First Down Machine, our best receiver yesterday. Of Smith's six catches, four went for first downs. With the Giants up 20 to 10 with around 10 minutes left in the game, Smith caught two consecutive passes -- including a beautiful grab in traffic -- that took the Giants into Redskins territory. This allowed the G-Men to wind down the clock and kick a field goal that all but iced the game. Mario Manningham: Mario Cashmere Manningham . His parents gave him that middle name because his hands are so soft and his moves are so smooth. Dude has some talent. The Pass Protection: Only one sack and two hits on Eli. Tremendous job. Eli Manning: You could take issue with the bonehead interception, which brought back memories of other ill-conceived back-foot throws in Giants territory (playoff losses to Carolina in 2005, Philadelphia last year). You could also point to his fumble, though you would have to acknowledge that Eli did well to cut his fumbles from 10 and 11 in 2006 and 2007 to 5 last year (not an exceptional figure, but well above average). And you would have to acknowledge that his numbers yesterday were very good: 20-for-29 for 256 yards, 8.8 yards per attempt with a 93.5 rating, though the terrific rating doesn't account for his fumble. But that's kind of the thing about Eli right now, isn't it? No, he's not great, but he's pretty good. And more importantly, one trusts him as a Giants fan. Did you know the Manningham touchdown was a check-down by Eli? And how about his fourth quarter hard-count that compelled a Redskins false start, which ultimately resulted in a makeable 45-yard field goal by Tynes. And how about his scramble on the pass to Boss, which set up Tynes' last field goal, which pretty much put the game away? Kevin Boss: What is it about throwing to Boss on the first play of the 4th quarter that seems to wake up our offense? After a quiet start last year, Big Smooth came on strong as a receiver. He's an underrated asset. What's not to like: The injuries: Danny Ware is out indefinitely with a dislocated elbow, which puts us at two running backs instead of the four we came into camp with. This has a minimal impact as long as Jacobs and Bradshaw stay healthy. But realistically, chances are both guys won't stay healthy all year. Fortunately, Nicks characterized his injury as a "knick-knack" yesterday, even though it resulted in his being carted off the field and put in a soft cast. The latest reports say he will be out at least 2-3 weeks. Let's hope it's only that and nothing more. Because he's a rookie, one could see him getting phased out if he's out for a month or more. That would be bad, because he's much more talented than Hixon. Not having Hixon return kicks: A big problem I have with Coughlin is that he doesn't maximize resources. Hixon is a nice player as a receiver, but a bona fide playmaker as a kick returner. Coughlin should get over his rigid notions about starters not returning kicks and let Hixon do what he does best. The short-yardage and red zone offense: Two situations on the first two series: 2nd and 2 from the Washington 2, and 2nd and 3 from the Washington 5. Result: 3 points. Once the glow of this auspicious victory subsides, Giants fans might even remember their team coming up small on numerous occasions in last year's playoff loss to Philadelphia. The middle-of-the-field pass defense: 61 percent of the Redskins yardage total came on passes over the middle (166 out of 272 yards), mostly to Chris Cooley and Antwaan Randle-El. Granted, some of these yards came on the Redskins final drive when the Giants were in the prevent defense and funneling everything to the middle, but still. Terrell Thomas in particular seemed to have a rough game (To be fair, I haven't looked carefully at the game and I don't know the coverage schemes). The good news is that the Giants will soon get back Aaron Ross and Kevin Dockery, two of their three most experienced defensive backs (along with Webster). Additionally, they will see the return of Michael Boley, a weakside linebacker who comes to the Giants from Atlanta with a reputation as a good pass defender. Chase Blackburn, who manned that spot yesterday, is not known for his coverage skills.
 
Killer Whales Are Screaming To Be Heard Over Ship Noise Top
Researchers have found that because of nearby ship noise, killer whales are having to make louder sounds to be able to communicate with one another. More on Animals
 
Media Barred From Palin's Hong Kong Speech Top
Sarah Palin's speech to investors in China later this month will be closed to the media, organizers of the event confirmed to CNN Monday. More on Sarah Palin
 
White House To Hold Chicago Olympics Event On South Lawn Top
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will welcome Mayor Richard Daley and Olympic athletes to the White House on Wednesday to promote Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Summer Games. More on Barack Obama
 
Showerheads: Dangerous To Your Health? Top
WASHINGTON — In what may be the scariest shower news since Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho," a study says showerheads can harbor tiny bacteria that come spraying into your face when you wash. People with normal immune systems have little to fear, but these microbes could be a concern for folks with cystic fibrosis or AIDS, people who are undergoing cancer treatment or those who have had a recent organ transplant. Researchers at the University of Colorado tested 45 showers in five states as part of a larger study of the microbiology of air and water in homes, schools and public buildings. They report their shower findings in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In general, is it dangerous to take showers? "Probably not, if your immune system is not compromised in some way," lead author Norman R. Pace says. "But it's like anything else – there is a risk associated with it." The researchers offer suggestions for the wary, such as getting all-metal showerheads, which microbes have a harder time clinging to. Still, showerheads are full of nooks and crannies, making them hard to clean, the researchers note, and the microbes come back even after treatment with bleach. People who have filtered showerheads could replace the filter weekly, added co-author Laura K. Baumgartner. And, she said, baths don't splash microbes into the air as much as showers, which blast them into easily inhaled aerosol form. It doesn't seem as frightening as the famous murder-in-the-shower scene in Hitchcock's classic 1960 movie. But it's something to be reckoned with all the same. The bugs in question are Mycobacterium avium, which have been linked to lung disease in some people. Indeed, studies by the National Jewish Hospital in Denver suggest increases in pulmonary infections in the United States in recent decades from species like M. avium may be linked to people taking more showers and fewer baths, according to Pace. Symptoms of infection can include tiredness, a persistent, dry cough, shortness of breath, weakness and "generally feeling bad," he said. Showerheads were sampled at houses, apartment buildings and public places in New York, Illinois, Colorado, Tennessee and North Dakota. The researchers sampled water flowing from the showerheads, then removed them, swabbed the interiors of the devices and separately sampled water flowing from the pipes without the showerheads. By studying the DNA of the samples they were able to determine which bacteria were present. They found that the bacteria tended to build up in the showerhead, where they were much more common than in the incoming feed water. Most of the water samples came from municipal water systems in cities such as New York and Denver, but the team also looked at showerheads in four rural homes supplied by private wells. No M. avium were found in those showerheads, though some other bacteria were. In previous work, the same research team has found M. avium in soap scum on vinyl shower curtains and above the water surface of warm therapy pools. And stay tuned. Other studies under way by Pace's team include analyses of air in New York subways, hospital waiting rooms, office buildings and homeless shelters. The research was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Virginia Tech microbiologist Joseph O. Falkinham welcomed the findings, saying M. avium can be a danger because in a shower "the organism is aerosolized where you can inhale it." In addition to people with weakened immune systems, Falkinham also cited studies showing increased M. avium infections in slender, elderly people who have a single gene for cystic fibrosis, but not the disease itself. Two copies of the gene are needed to get cystic fibrosis, but having just one copy may result in increased vulnerability to M. avium infection as people age, said Falkinham, who was not part of Pace's research team. ___ On the Net: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org
 
Frank Naif: The discreet charms of CIA morale Top
Opponents of accountability for intelligence excesses, such as former officials and media commentators speaking out against Attorney General Eric Holder’s recently announced inquiry into CIA’s torture and detention program, complain that scrutiny hurts CIA morale.  Such a stance betrays a simplistic, overgeneralized, and idealized view of CIA culture, and the most recent appearance of the CIA morale canard is political cherry-picking: before Holder announced his preliminary probe, even before Obama promised an end to torture and detention, morale at CIA was sagging.   For anyone who’s ever worked at CIA, or even paid attention to the news about CIA, that morale problem thing has been around a long, long time, which kind of takes the punch out of the claim that more investigation leads inexorably to less effective, lower quality intelligence and frowny-faced spies. The latest sky-is-falling assessment of CIA morale appeared a few Sundays ago in the  Washington Post , in an article that extensively quoted Buzzy Krongard, a bigwig at CIA sweetheart contractor Blackwater/Xe and former CIA executive director.  Krongard was a curious source for the  Post  article, and reporters Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick irresponsibly chose not to disclose a couple of glaring facts about Krongard, such as his cronyistic association with Blackwater/Xe, and that he hardly can be characterized as a CIA insider. Melvin Goodman, former senior CIA analyst, helpfully  points out  in the  Public Record  that Krongard’s short, detached tenure at CIA amounted to ‘stunt casting.’  Krongard was a banker who parachuted into CIA at the most senior level, where he became known as an aloof and detached executive director, rarely seen by actual CIA employees. As executive director, his focus was on support activities like security and contract management, not on core CIA missions of intelligence collection and analysis.  Indeed, if he can be credited with any one lasting achievement at CIA, it would be CIA’s outsourcing boom, a trend kicked off by Krongard’s  privatization of intelligence support.  Small wonder that Krongard ended up with a sinecure at leading CIA contractor Blackwater/Xe. The out-of-touch Krongard and his  Washington Post  stenographers would have the world believe that morale at CIA was excellent until Holder announced his inquiry, or maybe until Obama announced that Leon Panetta would be the next CIA Director. The  Post  doesn't mention that happy warriors don't really fit in at CIA, where long faces are a way of life. When I reported for duty as lowly CIA intelligence analyst in the final months of the first Bush administration in 1992,  retirement buyouts and a ‘share the pain’ approach to post-Cold War, post-Gulf War, peace dividend downsizing were crushing spirits in CIA hallways. My senior analyst mentors and managers mourned their glory days, when Bush and Reagan administration lapped up their intelligence papers and reports. The rest of the nineties weren't much better. CIA Directors  Jim Woolsey  and  John Deutch  continued to do a number on CIA morale by allowing the agency to recede to the very margins of Clinton policy making, and letting Congress micromanage  responses  to various CIA  screwups . Deutch's  nod  to CIA's  then-widely acknowledged morale problem  was his former DoD aide  Nora Slatkin , who focused morale-fixing efforts on remodeling CIA’s cafeteria and gyms, but who is now remembered by veteran CIAers for her Diana Ross-like penchant for dressing down junior CIA employees and demanding VIP treatment while traveling overseas, even when visiting primitive, hush-hush locations in the deepest third world. The well-liked George Tenet  buoyed CIA morale  for a time, but  ended his tenure  with CIA's spirit all but broken: 9/11 was viewed as an intelligence failure, as was CIA's misunderestimation of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capabilities, and the advent of the Office of the Director on National Intelligence  effectively demoted CIA  from its former perch at the top of the US intelligence community. Tenet's successor,  Porter Goss , implemented an  aggressive agenda  of alienating top CIA career officers and a politicized new order via the 'Gosslings,' haughty aides brought with him from his Congressional staff. Goss left CIA  under a cloud  as well, with his hand-picked executive director, Dusty Foggo snared by the FBI for contract fraud.  Michael Hayden succeeded Goss and fared somewhat better in cultivating better morale, but he faced some tough sledding, the result of nearly two decades of bad morale. One disturbing artifact of the bad morale legacy: CIA's current  work force  is probably its youngest and least experienced in its history. One sure sign that morale problems continued through Hayden's tenure:   sharply worded statements   from CIA spokespeople  denying that there's a morale problem This recap of two decades of bad morale at CIA offers two insights into the current fretting over how awful for national security an inquiry into torture-related crimes would be. First, CIA employees are a whiny, dramatic lot, prone to bemoaning their leaders and policymakers, and expecting to get a hearing for their grievances that the cultures at other Federal agencies could only dream of.  Ever heard of widespread, decades-old morale problems over at the Centers for Disease Control or the Social Security Administration threatening to disrupt national life, or even getting major play in the  New York Times  or  Washington Post ?   Second, the much ballyhooed current morale crisis at CIA is actually a couple of different morale crises.  Sure, there are a few CIA officers and managers who participated in detainee mistreatment, and they are afraid of prosecution for what they believe were their authorized official actions. Then there's the morale problem that senior CIA managers have inflicted on the agency. Many CIA officers--including almost all that I know--are disgusted and disappointed that their agency engaged in torture and extrajudicial detention in the first place. They are disgusted and disappointed that senior Agency officers didn't refuse or protest the orders to torture and imprison possibly innocent men. They are disgusted and disappointed at how senior agency managers and policy makers didn't do a better job of ensuring that CIA operations were backstopped by robust legal authorizations, while these same leaders bemoan investigations and shun responsibility and accountability for their decisions.  And they are especially disgusted and disappointed that their fellow CIA employees who actually messed up renditions and detentions, such as the officer who presided over the altogether erroneous rendition and five month imprisonment of German national Khaled el-Masri, have actually been promoted, despite such naked incompetence. CIA morale had already been damaged, long before Obama, Holder, or the current inquiry over torture and detention. It was damaged when CIA turned its back on ideals that it teaches in its own classrooms and new employee orientation sessions.  And morale won't improve by hoping the torture and detention issue just goes away.  It must be put cleanly and completely in CIA's past, and only a full accounting will keep tomorrow's agency from being plagued by more doubt--and more bad morale. More on Blackwater
 
Kelly Clarkson Likes Her A**hole, Cheating Ex More Than Kanye West Top
Kelly Clarkson has some choice words for Kanye West, whose bizarre outburst at the VMAs stole the spotlight from best female video winner Taylor Swift. Clarkson writes in her blog : Dear Kanye, What happened to you as a child?? Did you not get hugged enough?? Something must have happened to make you this way and I think we're all just curious as to what would make a grown man go on national television and make a talented artist, let alone teenager, feel like shit. I mean, I've seen you do some pretty shitty things, but you just keep amazing me with your tactless, asshole ways. It's absolutely fascinating how much I don't like you. I like everyone. I even like my asshole ex that cheated on me over you...which is pretty odd since I don't even personally know you. The best part of this evening is that you weren't even up for THIS award and yet you still have a problem with the outcome. Is winning a moon man that much of a life goal?? You can have mine if it will shut you up. Is it that important, really?? I was actually nominated in the same category that Taylor won and I was excited for her...so why can't you be?? I'm not even mad at you for being an asshole...I just pity you because you're a sad human being. On a side note, Beyonce has always been a class act and proved again tonight that she still is. Go TEXAS!! Taylor Swift, you outsell him ....that's why he's bitter. You know I love your work! Keep it up girl! Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Lara M. Gardner: Reality Check Top
I have seen several articles on 9/11 debating whether the US is safer now than then, particularly since we went to Iraq. That 9/11 is even connected to Iraq as somehow making us safer is laughable, especially considering the only relation between the two is that 9/11 was used as an excuse to get into Iraq. Any suggestion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 has been roundly proven to be non-existent. Yet the myth remains. Ironically (or not considering the climate of this country since the year 2000), in the so many "arguments" against healthcare reform, the reason most often posited against any public option by those purporting to be reasonable is the cost. This is ironic mainly considering these same naysayers have not been arguing against the obscene cost of the Iraq war. Even if the government took over 100% of healthcare, owned every medical facility, hired every medical professional, and owned all of the equipment, the cost still would come nowhere near what we have spent and continue to spend on the Iraq war. Supporters of the Iraq war have long used the argument that being there keeps us safe from terrorists. This of course is in spite of evidence against any connection between Iraq and terrorism, at least before we got there. We may now have created more terrorists in the way we have handled and treated the citizens in Iraq. But to the supporters of the war, spending money in Iraq is spending money to combat terrorism. Yet let's be realistic here. Suppose we actually were doing something to fight terrorism by being in Iraq. Would the cost still be justified? Ask the average American how their life or the lives of their family members have been touched by terrorism. It is more likely that this person has been struck by lightning five times than it is they have been personally affected by a terrorist attack. Yes, it can be scary for some people to contemplate. But seriously, it is extremely rare any of us will endure anything terrorist-related that affects us personally. Ask the same average American how their life or the lives of their family members have been affected by the healthcare crisis in this country. It is more likely that they or a family member have been affected personally by the healthcare crisis than not. Nearly everyone has some story to tell. And even if citizens haven't yet been affected, the possibility they will be affected if they lose their job (a much higher possibility even in a good economy than being affected by terrorism), then the lack of affordable healthcare will affect them. We have spent billions and continue to spend billions in Iraq based on the dubious possibility we might be fighting terrorism, something that affects so few people, yet most of us cannot point to anyone who has been personally affected by it. At the same time, we have politicians and citizens arguing against a public option because they claim we can't afford it, even though most of us are affected by it every day. We need a reality check. The next time a politician claims we can't afford public healthcare, ask them to stop spending money in Iraq and spend it here on healthcare instead. Even if we could afford Iraq (we can't), and even if being in Iraq protected us (it doesn't), the reality is we should stop spending that money there and spend it here at home on something that affects all of us every day. More on Health Care
 
Obama Extends Cuba Embargo One Year Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has extended the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba for one year, the White House said in a statement released on Monday. The extension was expected and has been the practice of all U.S. presidents dating to the 1970s under a section of the so-called "Trading With the Enemy Act." Obama extended the embargo even though he has made reaching out to old U.S. foes a key plank in his foreign policy. There have been signs of a possible thaw in U.S.-Cuban ties since Raul Castro early last year took over as president from his ailing brother Fidel. Fidel Castro had held the post since heading the revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed Batista regime on Jan. 1, 1959. Obama has sought to reach out to Cuba by easing travel and financial restrictions on Americans with family in Cuba. The two countries have said they will hold talks on resuming direct mail links. But Obama has also said he will not lift the embargo until Cuba undertakes democratic and economic reforms. In signing the extension, Obama was taking a symbolic step because existing law, the Helms-Burton Act, requires Congress to take action specifically ending the embargo. But Obama also bypassed an opportunity to suggest a willingness for easing U.S.-Cuban animosity. The White House statement renewing the provisions was dated Sept. 11 but only released on Monday, when the last extension, issued by former President George W. Bush, was to expire. "I hereby determine that the continuation for one year of the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba is in the national interest of the United States," Obama said in a memorandum addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
 
Diane Dimond: An Antidote for Bank Robbery Top
Have you gone into a bank lately and noticed anything different? During my recent travels I noticed a bank in Albuquerque invited me, via a sign on the door, to "Please remove your sunglasses so we can smile at you!" At a bank in Los Angeles I was greeted by not one but three employees who looked me directly in the eye and chanted a hearty, "Good afternoon!" Maybe you have noticed how suddenly friendly and accommodating your bank staff has become. Why is that? Have banks suddenly realized that to engage the unfamiliar customer might be a good way of thwarting robberies? Willie Sutton once famously and matter-of-factly said he robbed banks because "that's where the money is!" He might have been the first to realize that tellers and their stashes of cash were sitting ducks. In these times of economic hardship, as the nation's unemployment rate hovers at a 26 year high, I wondered what the rate of bank robberies is these days. Actually, despite our dire economic situation, the latest FBI figures show a slight decline in bank holdups nationwide. But there are still regions of the country experiencing a boon in bank robberies. In Colorado, for example, the feds just rounded up Michael Alan Kincade and Christopher Lee Richardson who are suspected of robbing as many as 17 banks in four states. They're now in custody and facing up to 20 years in prison. The FBI gave Kincade the nickname "Shaggy Bandit" after surveillance tape from the scene of the crimes showed he looked like the character Shaggy from the Scooby-Doo cartoons. Now that Shaggy and his cohort are behind bars officials believe the spike in Rocky Mountain area bank robberies will go way down. Bank robbers are often repeat offenders. And why wouldn't they be? All banks have a policy (based on advice from the FBI) for employees not to resist a robbery attempt, rather, to simply hand over cash and not make a fuss while the crime is being committed. To do otherwise, security experts have long preached, could provoke violence and leave innocent customers, employees and bystanders injured or dead. A victimized teller's only weapon has been the silent alarm (after activation the criminal is usually long gone before help arrives) or a well placed exploding dye pack in amongst the cash. Neither is designed to stop a robbery - only to make the getaway more difficult. Banks have long been sitting ducks for anyone with enough guts to walk in and demand money via a passed note or at gunpoint. Imagine the surprise, then, of the bank robber who entered a branch of Seattle's Key Bank back in July. He probably thought it was going to be an easy score. But when he demanded his bag be filled with money, "This is a ransom," he inexpertly declared, the teller sensed a neophyte. Bank employee Jim Nicolson tossed the bag on the floor, jumped the counter and chased the man out the door and down the street. Nicolson and a bystander held the suspect, who had a record of convictions for theft and robbery, until police arrived to take him into custody. What a hero that Nicholson was - right? Nope, not in the eyes of Key Bank. Nicholson was fired for acting on his instincts. His response was definitely not typical. It's strange to me that banks would have clung to their do-nothing policy for so many years. That attitude almost certainly insured a robber would escape to rob again. As Larry Carr, Special Agent with the Seattle Office of the FBI put it, "Every bank robbery is every bank's problem." With that in mind Agent Carr joined with Washington state law enforcement a couple years ago to design a new way of dealing with potential bank robbers. It's called SafeCatch and it's been described as "customer service on steroids." The idea is spreading nationwide. Ahhh. So that's what I've been experiencing. Tellers have suddenly become pro-active! Instead of standing behind the counter hoping the strange looking customer who just walked in the door isn't there to rob the place bank tellers trained in SafeCatch techniques approach and engage. They introduce themselves, ask the person's name, offer to help with any transaction they might need and continue the face to face contact throughout the person's stay. This disarming attention has been cited for the 50% reduction in the number of bank robberies in Washington state. If you're a regular customer this one-on-one consideration is a welcome development. If you're teetering on the brink of committing a bank robbery the personal attention may make you simply slink away. You wouldn't shoplift an apple if the store clerk was watching would you? Gee, customer service as a crime fighting tool. Who would'a thunk it? -30- Diane Dimond can be reached via her web site at www.DianeDimond.net
 
Frank Sharry: White House Joins Democratic Senators to Appease Joe Wilson Top
On Friday I explained how Rep. Joe Wilson’s controversial heckling during President Obama's joint Congressional address last Wednesday laid bare the ugly-as-ever, Republican illegal immigration wedge strategy for the nation to see. What’s more astounding, I argued , was that key Democrats, Senators Baucus (D-MO) and Conrad (D-ND) to be specific, seemed to be validating Wilson's outburst.  Republicans were scaring up a fake bogeyman – the undocumented immigrant who would benefit from taxpayer funded health insurance – and rather than pushing back with the facts, Baucus and Conrad told the American public to take them seriously. Raising red flags, the White House took a similar tack late Friday evening, as ABC's political blogger Jake Tapper reports: And within this conceit, the White House has declared the following: "Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate. "Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps. "Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don’t participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible. "There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker." As a friend of mine remarked incredulously Friday night, "Wait, wait. We're going to say you can't BUY something in America?" Look, if there's one thing that this debate over immigration in health care reform makes painfully clear, it's that any meaningful legislation that the President or Congress is looking to pass is going to continue to get hijacked by the Joe Wilson's of the world-- who, yes, are now feeling validated by all this scurrying around by Democratic leadership to make the bill "tougher" on immigrants. It will continue to get hijacked until meaningful immigration reform is passed. Period. This bears repeating: we're never going to be able to have a rational policy debate in this country until we pass fair, comprehensive immigration reform . We need real reform that repairs our dysfunctional immigration system to get people here legally, cracks down on employers who are gaming the system, and creates a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the shadows of our broken laws. We can get reform that actually makes us money, to boot. It's time for Democratic leadership to take half the time they currently devote to appeasing the likes of Joe Wilson and spend it winning the votes for real reform. Note: Cross-posted at www.AmericasVoiceOnline.org/Blog . More on Health Care
 
Bernard-Henri Lévy: An Appeal to World Leaders: Protest the Election of Farouk Hosni Top
Co-authored by Richard Rossin, Mohamed Sifaoui and Pascal Bruckner We the undersigned appeal to the heads of state of the 58 countries responsible for the election this month of the future director-general of UNESCO and to the heads of state of the 193 members of the U.N. General Assembly responsible for ratifying the choice. Koichiro Matsuura, the outgoing director-general of UNESCO, has successfully restored the prestige of an institution which since 1945 has been entrusted with the mission of mobilizing "the conscience of humankind in the cause of peace" and which is the guardian of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The September election brings together eight candidates from different countries. But one of them, Farouk Hosni, Egypt's minister of culture for the past 20 years, threatens UNESCO's legitimacy, competence and means of action. We launch an urgent and solemn appeal to prevent the moral and financial meltdown of the institution. UNESCO's legitimacy is endangered by the candidacy of a minister who has controlled Egyptians' freedom of thought for 20 years, who prosecutes Internet users, who censors independent filmmakers, who tracks down intellectuals and artists who do not share his opinions. By sending dissident voices to prison (notably the courageous Egyptian bloggers), by censoring films, books and concerts, Hosni has worked to reduce the heirs of the Pharaohs and the library of Alexandria to mindless obeisance. Hosni has shown an inability to understand the Other and his differences. Even if he retracts his anti-Semitic statements, which have been deservedly condemned, this man -- a man who has turned students over to the security forces just for expressing contrary ideas -- cannot lead UNESCO, the institution for intercultural understanding and respect for the opinion of others. Also endangered is UNESCO's capacity for action and that of the 320 or more NGOs that work with it. For how will a minister of culture whose closest associates have been convicted of corruption persuade the international community that he will properly manage the institution's finances? Some larger countries have already confidentially said that it will be necessary for them to review their relations with UNESCO under so unqualified a director and in such a dishonest environment. We call upon intellectuals, scientists, artists and scholars the world over, from north to south, from Western and non-Western countries, from Africa, from the Arab world and Asia, and from Egypt itself, to protest the election of Farouk Hosni. The minister who has for 20 years managed Egypt's cultural heritage by leaving the door open to corruption, hastening Egypt's brain-drain and the disappearance of its treasures, cannot hold the foremost cultural position in the world. To sign this appeal, please click here and put your name and profession under "comments." It will be added to the list of signers.
 
Robert Teitelman: Lehman Brothers' nonlessons Top
Tired of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.? Weary of turgid, dutiful recapitulations of events from last year? Everyone is doing it (hell, I did one in a column in last week's The Deal magazine), and it might be palatable if anyone really had anything new to say about Lehman, Merrill Lynch & Co., Bank of America Corp.(NYSE:BAC) or Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson or, for that matter, shorting. Maybe the low point came over the weekend when a BBC-produced show on National Public Radio offered a seemingly endless recreation (fake voices, seemingly fake dialogue) of the financial events that did in Lehman. This seemed to consist of lots of deep male voices self-importantly telling things to each other that the shoeshine guy knew. Stilted is a compliment. It was like getting trapped in an endless round of meetings; in other words, it was like a speed read of David Wessel's "In Fed We Trust." For all the vast outpouring of retrospectives (including Wessel in Monday's Wall Street Journal describing all the innovative stuff Bernanke et al. pulled off), two things stand out. First, no one can yet explain what regulators were doing between the fall of Bear Stearns Cos. in March 2008 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which, yes, the shoe shine guy suspected might be coming. In Monday's paper, Wessel inadvertently deepens that matter with the comment that "top officials" had no idea that the Reserve Prime money market fund was stuffed full of Lehman paper. Really? The systemic issue with Lehman was not that it collapsed, but that it was so deeply interconnected with key parts of the financial sector. Regulators had clearly been frightened by the extent of Bear's credit default swap exposure; but according to Wessel in his book, Bernanke and Paulson thought that the rest of the Street had already begun to pull back. Now there's this stray fact about the money markets. It is important, as the president will say Monday to a Wall Street audience, to get the power to move in and shut down a failing firm. But it's really unsettling to know that regulators drifted into the Lehman situation not really knowing what the systemic profile of the firm was. Did they have to be in the dark? Were there things that they could have known and gamed out -- like the money markets? What were they really up to in those seven months? Why were they continually surprised? The second thing that's really obvious is that despite Washington's large role in inflating the bubble, then trying to save us all from its consequences, politics is now more a part of the game than ever before. I'm not really talking about matters like bailouts, bonus debates or even lobbying. What I'm talking about is the longer-term macroeconomy and the role of the Federal Reserve. The New Republic this week features a piece by Peter Boone, who works for a unit of the London School of Economics, and the ubiquitous Simon Johnson of MIT arguing that the very steps that got us out of the short-term mess -- the very innovations Wessel praises -- will create yet another, even more devastating bubble. The pair are a little vague about where and when that bubble will occur (they gesture toward capital flowing into some Asian and Latin American markets), as is The New York Times, which leads Monday's Business Day with a grab-bag of a story about the next bubble as well. Now talking about the inevitability of the next bubble is an easy game to play: Who's going to say you're wrong? And we're certainly going to be in for bubble prognostications, ala the Times, every time a market surges (as we were regularly after the dot-com bust, leading one to suspect that promiscuous bubble forecasting may desensitize us to the real thing). But Boone and Johnson are absolutely right about the politicization of the Fed, nearly every aspect of which points to a simulative, liquidity-driven return to growth. The bailouts and the recovery are fueled by low-interest rates. Congress has failed so far to do anything with regulatory reform. If the Fed does get systemic regulatory powers, it will have traded any autonomy left (and after all the bailouts, not a lot was left) for increased power. And Congress and the administration, both of which define the origins of the crisis as a matter of out-of-control bonus-happy bankers and debt-crazed consumers, seemingly can't return fast enough to the pre-Bear status quo, with some tightening of enforcement throughout the system, though how long that will last is anyone's guess. Who knows what may change this situation? But the real lesson of the Lehman meltdown and failure may turn out to be that it was not a deep enough shock to change a political and economic system that seems to require liquidity-driven growth, just as it hasn't changed global trade imbalances in the least. The real lesson of Lehman and of all these recaps may be that we've learned very little at all. - Robert Teitelman Robert Teitelman is the editor in chief of The Deal . More on Lehman Brothers
 
Dennis Whittle: When At First You Don't Succeed... Top
It takes an average of 58 new product ideas to deliver a single successful new product.  That is the core message of Getting to Plan B , a new book by John Mullins and Randy Komisar.   Since Plan A almost never works, it is critical to quickly learn from failure and move on to a successful Plan B (or C or D or E...).    This book provides an exceptionally helpful framework for how to do this.  Its power lies in its analytical framework combined with vivid examples from companies - including both for-profit and non-profit. The first order of business for the authors is to dethrone the business plan.  Many entrepreneurs and inexperienced investors obsess over the initial business plan.  But the quality of the initial business plan is far less important than the ability of the entrepreneurs to form and test hypotheses rapidly - discarding the leaps of faith that don't pan out and doubling down on those that do.   Contrary to popular perception, most successful businesses did not strike it rich from the beginning. A company like eBay, profitable from day one, is the exception that proves the rule (and Pierre Omidyar has said that he realizes how lucky he was). Even eBay has struggled to figure out how to make money from new business lines such as Skype.  Google would not be the behemoth it is today - and might even be out of business -- if it had not discovered its own Plan B, paid Adwords.  Amazon burned through hundreds of millions of dollars before it hit upon the right business model that made it profitable.  Today, the jury is out on whether Twitter and even Facebook will find profitable Plan Bs that sustain their early growth.    What matters most is not the quality of the initial business plan, but instead the ability of the team to iterate successive business plans as a means to finding what works.  Merely flailing about from Plan A to B to C increases the chance you will run out of cash before finding the right Plan.  So the trick is to experiment quickly but intelligently, and with discipline. The authors urge entrepreneurs to assemble several analogs (features of other companies they want to emulate) and antilogs (features they want to avoid).  Based on these, entrepreneurs then form a hypothesis about a product or service - essentially a leap of faith  that customers will buy it at a price and quantity that generate revenues in excess of cost. The next step is to develop a dashboard to monitor whether the hypothesis is correct.  Can you get the product to market with the amount of investment you have been able to attract?  Are enough customers buying?  Are they willing to pay the price needed?  Is the cost of production such that the company can become profitable at the appropriate scale?   The answer to one or more of the above questions is likely to be "no" for Plan A.  So the next step is to repeat the process - develop new analogs and antilogs and another hypothesis or leap of faith based on those.  Try it, and monitor with a dashboard.  Repeat again.   The key is to pick the simplest possible dashboard that includes only the key drivers to your success.  To help the reader determine these, the book provides helpful examples using real companies relating to several dimensions - the revenue, gross margin, operating cost, working capital, and investment models.  Anyone who is thinking about starting a new business should read this book.  Given the pace of change in the world, even established business leaders should read it, since the constant threat of new competition often requires even existing companies to develop new Plan Bs. More provocatively, this book helps explain why some economies grow faster than others.  An economy whose institutions and other structures facilitate rapid-cycle experimentation is going to produce more successful companies and products.  By contrast, economies that discourage experimentation and punish failure are going to find fewer of those one in 56 new ideas that work.  One implication of this is the need for a fundamental change in the DNA of development aid agencies.  The existing aid agencies are based primarily on the idea that if a problem is studied in enough depth, then a select group of experts will be able to design a solution.  As a result, a huge amount of resources go into Plan A, which results in projects with a typical life span of three to five years.  And to make it worse, agencies such as the World Bank aim for a project success rate of 85% - far above the 1:56 chance of the first idea being a successful project.   For official aid projects, thorough reviews are done after several years have passed.  In theory, the lessons learned are incorporated into the next project, which launches a couple of years down the road  Though small course corrections are possible, it is difficult to significantly modify a project once it is underway.  As part of this mentality, failure is seen as very bad - as evidence that not enough analysis and planning were done or (worse) that the experts involved were incompetent.  Agencies go to great lengths to sweep failures under the rug instead of quickly embracing the lessons of failure and acting on them. Aid agencies instead must mirror the way that successful economies operate- they must encourage rapid-cycle experimentation.  They must acknowledge that even the best experts rarely get it right the first time - or even the second or third time. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the key is to fail quickly and then move on to test new hypotheses until they find one that works, just like leaders of the most successful private companies.   I do have one major complaint with this book.  As a leader of one of the organizations featured in the book, I was fortunate enough to have the counsel of Randy Komisar along the way.  But it would have saved me a lot of headaches if Komisar and Mullins had written this entire book some nine years ago.  When I co-founded GlobalGiving , I spent a lot of time on our initial business plan, and I was highly confident our Plan A was going to work.  When Plan A failed, I spent a lot of time licking my wounds and wondering what went wrong.  This book would have helped me understand that early failure is par for the course, and it would have given me a framework for getting to Plan B much earlier. [GlobalGiving]
 
Senate Guru: Will the NRSC Pony Up for Scott Brown? Top
{ Originally posted at my blog Senate Guru . } If the NRSC had its druthers, the establishment candidate for the Republicans in the upcoming special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts would be a former statewide elected official (former Gov. Mitt Romney, former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, former Gov. Paul Cellucci), someone with previous prominent governmental experience (former Presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card, former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan), a prominent businessperson who could self-fund (former Carruth Capital president Christopher Egan), or a politically conservative celebrity (retired Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling). It looks like none of these will be represented in the Republican establishment candidate. It appears that the GOP establishment is coalescing around Republican state sen. Scott Brown . Andrew Card even endorsed Brown as he announced that he would not be a candidate. The only other Republicans to have expressed interest are Bob Burr, a Selectman from the town of Canton, Massachusetts' 85th most populous municipality , and Jack E. Robinson, who almost finished third (barely a percentage point ahead of the Libertarian candidate) in the 2000 U.S. Senate race. So, barring a surprise candidacy, Scott Brown will be the Republican nominee. Brown is one of only five Republican state senators in the forty-person body (to go along with only 19 Republicans in the 160-person body). One could look at that and say that a Republican has no shot in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts. Another could look at that and say that Brown wins where other Republicans might not. Which is the correct way to look at it? Let's ask the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Should anybody in Massachusetts think that Brown has even an outside chance to win? Well, if the NRSC - the Republican campaign committee whose sole focus is electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate (i.e. they who should be Brown's biggest cheerleader) - publicly commits to ponying up serious cash for the special election (serious being at least $1 million), then Republicans and right-leaning independents can at least take heart that Washington D.C. is taking this race seriously. However, if the NRSC will not publicly commit to spending a cool million or more in Massachusetts in support of Brown's candidacy, that means that they're writing it off. If the Republican campaign committee whose sole focus is electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate writes Brown off, why shouldn't Massachusetts voters write Brown off? So, ladies and gents of the NRSC, which is it? A public commitment to spending serious dough in Massachusetts, or writing off the race altogether? (At the very least, maybe the NRSC can hook Brown up with a better graphic designer .)
 
Bachmann Defends Joe Wilson: He "Spoke Truth" (VIDEO) Top
In an appearance on Newsmax TV last Friday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) expressed support for Rep. Joe Wilson in his "outburst" during President Obama's health care address to Congress. "Joe Wilson spoke the truth on the floor of the House," Bachmann said. Democrats and Republicans alike have agreed that Wilson's actions were inappropriate . In the context of the larger health care debate, Bachmann continued, "People can buy their own health insurance if government gets out of the way." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Michele Bachmann
 
Andy Borowitz: Joe Wilson, Serena Williams and Kanye West Kick Off National Outburst Week Top
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), tennis legend Serena Williams and recording artist Kanye West held a press conference in Washington, DC today to kick off the first annual National Outburst Week. "We're here to celebrate every American's right to unleash a sudden, unprovoked verbal outburst," Ms. Williams said. "And if you don't like it, you can shove this tennis ball down your fucking - " "Hold up, Serena," said Mr. West, seizing the microphone. "I just want to say that Beyonce's video is one of the greatest videos of all -" "You lie!" shouted Rep. Wilson. C-Span said that it would offer coverage of National Outburst Week "with many interruptions." More here .
 
Pablo Triana: Why Doesn't the Media (Really) Care About the Credit Crisis? Top
Last Thursday several men and women assembled in a sober Washington, DC room to discuss one of the key issues (if not the key issue) behind the terrible economic and financial crisis that has caused so much misery. Among the gatherees were top politicians and top financial pros. A world-renowned bestselling author was there, too. You would think that the media would have, globally, devoted endless broadcast hours and inundating amounts of ink to such an important event. After all, this crisis is the only thing that seems to have occupied people's minds, globally, for the past two years. Surely journalists wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to report on a roundtable of policymakers and experts that promised to tackle the true factors behind the mayhem, right? Wrong. The historic hearing convened by the US Congress' Committee on Science and Technology on the responsibility of the mathematical model Value at Risk for the meltdown has received essentially no attention from the punditocracy. A couple of informed bloggers here and there have shared the news with their e-readers, but the silence from the mainstream behemoths has been deafening. This is simply outrageous. It's not only that the first congressional hearing ever on the real-life (negative) impact of financial models should naturally deserve some media cuddling, but VaR was, without a doubt and for the umpteenth time, a decisive malign force behind this crisis. Bluntly stated, you can't talk about this crisis without talking about VaR. Just like you couldn't talk about WWII without mentioning Hitler. If you want to be properly informed and, most crucially, properly inform others about this crisis you can't hide when it comes to debating VaR, you can't ignore it. Just like you couldn't ignore the guy with the funny moustach when discussing the Big War. Can you imagine a reporter covering the fraudulent accounting crisis that afflicted America a few years back and not attending the Enron hearings on Capitol Hill? Or a reporter covering the OJ Simpson case and not attending Mark Furhman's testimony? Or a reporter covering WWII and not attending the Nuremberg trials? I don't need to tell you that this crisis involved financial fraud, murder, and annihilation of the worst kind. Shouldn't media people want to dig in and truly get what happened? Some may say, come on be fair, journalists should not be expected to be aware of the existence of abstruse models like VaR, let alone comprehend them. Really? VaR has for the past twenty years been the risk radar of choice for Wall Street, religiously detailed under regulatory filings and annual reports. And, certainly, VaR has been for the past fifteen years the tool of choice when it came to determining the capital charges to impose on banks' trading activities. You are telling me that those covering the economic and business landscapes should not know this? Should not be aware of VaR? You must be kidding. Many of the main forces behind the chaos are of a decidedly technical nature. CDOs, CDSs, SIVs, Gaussian Copula, VaR. Even those journalists who understand those things may want to shy away from reporting on them, fearing that their quick fix-seeking audience may hopelessly be at a loss and change the channel, log out of the site, or put down the paper. To be fair, some in the media (including mainstream) have covered those themes in some detail, but generally speaking not overwhelmingly so and much less than was required. To the vast majority of folks out there all that matters when it comes to this recession are subprime loans, Greenspan's too-easy policies, Wall Street's remuneration structure, greed, and loosely-stated regulatory mishaps. All of the above did, of course, contribute to igniting the fuse, and it is only normal that they be talked about in spades. But that should be no excuse to neglect other, less straightforward perhaps, factors that played an even more clearly direct role. Covering D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge should not compensate for failure to mention Hitler. By not covering the VaR hearing and keeping their audience in the dark as to such an impacting and eye-opening development, the mediatocracy makes sure that the truth is not unveiled, going a long way towards contributing to a repeat of the cataclysm down the road. More on Financial Crisis
 
Morgan Warners: Health Care Reform is the New Gay Marriage Top
I'm going to go out on a limb here. The Tea Baggers are not just a whole bunch of white racists, comments by Janeane Garofalo to the contrary. I don't at all disagree that racism is a huge factor in all the outrage.  Garofalo's point, that if these people were really just concerned about spending they would have been protesting George W. Bush's tax cuts and spending, has merit. Just look at this photo over at Politico. But I think there's a broader, existential fear here and that racism is but one element of it.  There are particularly American elements of this and others related to globalization. Americans have long had an ambivalent relationship with government, going back to 1787 or even before.  We have always contested its very makeup and responsibilities. Not all the colonists wanted independence, then we had the Articles of Confederation. Our Constitution is as much the product of compromise as consensus. The Supreme Court arguably invented its capacity to exercise judicial review. The Civil War pitted South and North against each other and set a fault line that has yet to disappear. Desegregation pitted the Feds against States. The governor of Texas now openly speaks of secession . Today's battle over health care reform and "government takeover" clearly relates--the Governor's remarks came at one of the now infamous Tea Parties. Today, the Tea Bagger movement displays new specific fears laid over a pastiche of classic American preoccupations. The race issue in the health care reform debate is, I think, more than just a signal of the unfinished business of racial reconciliation and justice. It is more than a battle over the proper role of government. It's a signal about the broader challenge of preparing an entire country to live in a modern world that departs in significant ways from real and percieved traditions and forms of the status quo. Our quintessential American troubles regarding race and government meet a world that now easily penetrates the comfort of our local communities.  Ironically, this permitted and incited conservative Christians, in reaction to the baudy 1960s, to organize via televangelists and direct-mail campaigns in the 1970s to launch Reagan into office, followed up by the two Bushes.  Barack Obama used tools that did the same thing--using our Facebook pages, our email accounts, our Blackberries and iPhones his campaign got people together in peoples' homes all around the country, gave conference calls to supporters.  Social issues seem to have functioned in much the same way. Gay marriage and our increasingly obvious interconnectedness present threats to traditions and ways of doing things that many of us, though not all of us, think should change. Who could have predicted the existential angst of those whose world seems so threatened by people of the same sex getting married? How could we explain that without recognizing some kind of fear finding its manifestation in an appeal to tradition? In that regard, health reform is the new gay marriage. The Tea Baggers aren't just a rowdy mob of racists.  Their behavior, like that of Joe Wilson, can't simply be explained as racism, even though that's clearly a factor.       More on Tax Day Tea Parties
 
Susan Davis and ReShonda Young: Small Businesses and Health Reform: It's Time to Speak for Ourselves Top
In his speech to Congress on Wednesday night, President Obama touched on the urgency of fixing health care for America's small businesses. The President highlighted how rising costs are forcing business owners to scale back or drop coverage and how concentrated health insurance markets give insurance companies free reign to overcharge small businesses who have no leverage. As people concerned with small business issues -- a local Chamber director and a small business operations manager -- we have a major stake in the success of health care reform. Our current health care system has failed small businesses famously. It has failed to control costs. It has failed to give small businesses real choices. It has failed to offer true financial security or peace of mind. As such, it threatens the very viability of small businesses across America. Starting a small business that creates jobs and serves the needs of a community is part of the narrative of the American Dream. Yet small business owners who are doing exactly what that narrative says to do are facing a real nightmare when it comes to health care. Small businesses that do offer health coverage pay 18 percent more than larger businesses for the same coverage, are vulnerable to steep annual rate hikes with no recourse, and watch health care costs eat deeper and deeper into the bottom line every year. Businesses that can't afford it are left without any financial security and struggle to recruit and retain good employees against bigger competitors that can afford to offer benefits. Small business owners are fundamentally problem solvers and pragmatists: we seek solutions to everyday problems, and we're interested in what works for business, our employees and our customers. We've grown accustomed, though, to the name of small business being borrowed - without permission - to justify conservative ideological positions. So we have pretty good radar for that sort of thing... and the alarms are going off right now in health care debate as conservative lobby groups try to paint health care reform as bad for small businesses. The fact is, small businesses have as much to gain as anyone from real health reform that stops insurance companies from denying coverage, increases our bargaining power, offers us more choices, and drives down costs. There are four core components to the President's plan that will help small businesses afford quality health coverage: - A health insurance exchange will promote transparency and new choices. - A competitive public health insurance option will give small businesses new leverage, drive down costs, and force insurers to compete around cost and quality. - Insurance market reforms will prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions and end discrimination against small groups based on health status and gender. - Affordability measures , including tax credits for small businesses and subsidies for our workers, will make health coverage affordable for smaller businesses and our employees. These elements are essential to make health care work for Main Street. Yet, despite these benefits, the name of small business has been invoked more often than not to justify opposition to reform. For example, the health care surcharge proposed for the highest income earners to help make coverage affordable for everyone in the House bill, HR 3200, has been attacked as a "tax on small business" despite the fact that 96 percent of small businesses would be unaffected by the original proposal (the original proposal would begin assessing the surcharge on families earning over $350,000; it appears likely the threshold will be raised as high as $1 million). The overwhelming majority of enterprises you would think of as small businesses - your auto mechanic, the neighborhood florist, your favorite corner bakery or café - won't come close to being touched by this surcharge. Most small business owners will tell you they can only dream of taking home that much in profits... many will add that even if they did, they'd be happy to pay a little more to put an end to their constant health care headaches. The President's call that everyone must take responsibility for meeting the challenges of health care -- including employers and individuals as well as government and insurers - has also been criticized in the name of small businesses, even though the proposed plans would provide an exemption for the vast majority of small businesses (as many as 95 percent) from the employer contribution requirement. The real point here though is that small business owners share a sense of responsibility to do right by their employees and want to offer health coverage. We need reform that makes it possible for small businesses to opt in on health care, not opt out - and that's what the insurance exchange, public plan, market reforms and affordability measures will do. Small businesses can't afford to see costs double over the next ten years. They can't operate if forced to continue paying twice as much in administrative costs as larger groups. They can't continue to absorb the rate hikes that follow after an employee faces illness or injury, or go without coverage after being "purged" by an insurance company. Without real reform, small businesses could be forced to cut coverage, lay off workers and shut their doors. We risk losing the critical foundation that small businesses provide for the economy and for communities. We can't afford the cost of doing nothing. So why are some groups working so hard, against the facts, to make reform sound bad for small businesses? Because they know that speaking in the name of small business carries real currency in the American political debate. Now is the time for small business owners to speak for themselves and stand up for what we really need: real health care reform, and fast. Susan Davis is the Executive Director of the Rainier Valley Chamber of Commerce in Seattle, WA. ReShonda Young is Operations Manager of Alpha Express, Inc, a family-owned transportation and contracting business in Waterloo, IA and an Executive Committee member of the Main Street Alliance ( www.mainstreetalliance.org ). More on Health Care
 
Janine Yorio: Sustainable Agriculture Investment Poised to Surge Top
Earlier this year, investment guru Jim Rogers predicted that within the next decade farmers will be the ones driving Lamborghinis, while stock brokers will drive tractors or taxis. His contrarian proclamation has since fueled intense investor interest in the agriculture sector. But despite this growing interest, the majority of investors have yet to discover the sector's most promising niche: sustainable agriculture . Today, farming uses 80 to 90% of all the water consumed in this country, along with millions of gallons of chemical pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. After food is grown, processors and retailers ship it across vast distances before it reaches consumers. The result is a tangled web of farms, runoff, oil dependency and highly-processed or unripe food laced with chemicals. Sustainable agriculture offers a healthier, more environmentally-friendly alternative. Two measurable factors are driving growth in the sustainable agriculture sector: rising oil prices and increasing consumer demand. Traditional agriculture is highly dependent upon petrochemicals. In fact, in 2006, when fuel and fertilizer prices began to rise, USDA researchers noted that most farmers immediately began to reduce fertilizer, fuel, pesticide and herbicide usage to reduce costs. With input costs on the rise, "sustainable" practices may become synonymous with "cost-effective." At the same time, savvy consumers are demanding foods free of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. In an effort to appease these consumers, food companies like General Mills Inc. and Sysco Corp. have already been asking farmers to change the way they farm, from conserving water to limiting pesticide usage. Recently companies like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., The Kellogg Company and PepsiCo's Frito-Lay have mandated conservation practices, and the few producers able to meet their requirements have been inundated with orders. All this means that a new crop of agriculture businesses, ones with cost-effective, eco-friendly innovations, will experience increased demand for their products. A few investment firms have already begun to take advantage of this trend, seeking out these companies and investing in them directly. My firm, New York-based NewSeed Advisors, invests exclusively in businesses that make a significant contribution to sustainable agriculture. By doing so, NewSeed hopes to provide investors with double-digit returns and a clear conscience. Our goal is to find small companies, even companies just starting out, to make seed-stage investments and to guide them toward profitability. It's not a "beat them or join them" proposition. Agriculture is a $100 billion industry; there is room for everybody. NewSeed is not alone in this thinking. Canadian investment firm Investeco has invested in sustainable agriculture companies such as Organic Meadow and Horizon Distributors. Black River Asset Management , a subsidiary of Cargill, also invests in sustainable agriculture companies as part of its broader mandate. High net worth individuals and family offices are also beginning to scour the sector. "I've been approached by several clients interested in investing directly in local food production," Frank Morris of Ecologic Advisors , a NYS Registered Investment Advisory, told me. Sustainable agriculture investments are not limited to land-based agriculture. New York-based investment firm Aquacopia invests exclusively in open-sea fish farming, while San Francisco-based Sea Change Investment Fund invests in sustainably harvested seafood companies. Soon, these investment firms will not be alone in this profitable pursuit. This week, on September 17, interested investors from across the country and around the world will converge in New York City to discuss investment in sustainable agriculture at the Agriculture 2.0 conferenchise . Entrepreneurs looking to raise capital will also be flocking to the conference to meet investors. (NewSeed Advisors, along with SPIN Farming , is hosting the Agriculture 2.0 Conference.) The sustainable agriculture sector is about to pop. While that may not mean a rash of Italian sports car dealerships in Des Moines anytime soon, the future for sustainable agriculture investment looks very promising. For more information about the conference, visit www.newseedadvisors.com/registration .
 
After Urlacher Injury, Cutler Picks, Are Bears Still Super Bowl Contenders? (POLL) Top
The Bears season began with such promise. Rocket-armed Jay Cutler gave the team its first potential franchise quarterback in recent memory . Defensive rock Brian Urlacher was finally healthy after struggling to play through back, neck and thumb injuries the past two seasons. Expectations were so high that Sports Illustrated 's Peter King picked the Bears to win the NFC and face the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl (though some downplayed the hype ). And then, in the first game of the year, the bubble burst. In his Bears debut, Jay Cutler threw a career-worst four interceptions as the Bears lost to the Green Bay Packers 21-15. Cutler, however, can rebound. More alarming is the loss of Brian Urlacher, who will miss the season after injuring his wrist in the first half . The Bears confirmed Monday that Urlacher is expected to be out for the entire season after having surgery to repair his dislocated right wrist. Pisa Tinoisamoa, another starting linebacker, will also miss some time with an injured knee. Tribune NFL writer Dan Pompei says that Urlacher's loss could be "huge" for the Bears: The Bears are going to miss more than his playing ability. They are going to miss his leadership.[...] At some point, that is bound to show up because other players looked to those players for guidance in terms of pre-snap direction. The Bears do have some depth at linebacker , however, and Da' Bears Blog's Jeff Hughes argues that that bench makes Urlacher the team's most expendable star: Now I'm not arguing that the Bears defense will be more productive without 54. They'll miss his ability to get sideline-to-sideline and he still can be a force in coverage. But Nick Roach and Jamar Williams are good, solid back-ups and linebacker is the deepest position on this roster. So, are the Bears still a playoff team, let alone Super Bowl contenders?
 
Bruce Raynor: Crystal Lee Sutton, the real "Norma Rae" was a fighter to the end Top
Our nation lost a great hero and champion of working people. Crystal Lee Sutton was a courageous woman who stood up for herself and her coworkers under the most difficult circumstances. She was an inspiration to organizers in this union and beyond, particularly Southern women who went on to lead their own campaigns after learning from her example. It's well known that Crystal's story was the inspiration for the academy award winning 1979 film Norma Rae , but I wish more people knew the real story of Crystal Lee Sutton and her co-workers, and the strength and honor they showed as they fought to organize the textile giant JP Stevens. They stood up and proved that workers in the South could organize and change their jobs and their lives against all odds--across racial lines, and over the objections of anti-worker companies. For decades, JP Stevens called the shots in Roanoke Rapid N.C., paying poverty wages and offering deplorably unsafe working conditions. Workers routinely lost fingers, inhaled cotton dust, and lost hearing due to the deafening drone of machinery. JP Stevens was so vehemently anti-union that it systematically purchased small unionized textile mills in the south only to close them down. But as determined as JP Stevens was to keep its workers down, Crystal Lee Sutton was even more determined to lift them up and bring them a union. Sutton knew that she and her co-workers deserved more out of their employer and in 1973 she found a way to bring that change when she agreed to help organize the plant with the assistance of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union (ACTWU) and its lead organizer, Eli Zivkovich. JP Stevens mounted the most vigorously hostile union-busting efforts ever seen in US history, amounting in over 122 unfair labor practice findings. But Sutton could not be deterred and at the end of a 10-year boycott, the 3,000 workers at JP Stevens won their 17 year fight with a strong contract. She fought her whole life for working people, and as she fought cancer, she continued to be an advocate for the needs of working people. Once again, Crystal's story is of both an extraordinary woman and of every woman. Like so many other working families, after a lifetime of paying premiums her health insurance failed her. She took her challenges head on, and never stopped fighting for what was right. While she fought cancer she spoke out about the struggle she had with the health care system and the toll it was taking on her family. Crystal Lee Sutton is an inspiration to every worker who holds out hope and is prepared to fight for justice and respect at work. Our condolences go to her family, but they should know that we will not forget her, and she continues to inspire our union and workers throughout the world. More on Labor
 
Eastern Europe Feels Neglected By Obama Top
Czechs feel betrayed, Poles irked, Romanians slighted. Ask them who's to blame, and the answer may come as a surprise: President Barack Obama. George W. Bush fawned over Eastern Europe, and its leaders rushed to join his post-9/11 "coalition of the willing." Now many – officials and ordinary citizens alike – are grumbling over what they perceive as the Obama administration's neglect. It's a startling shift in a region long accustomed to cozy ties with the United States. "Now we see the beginning of indifference," said Tudor Salajean, a Romanian historian and researcher. At times, and from some corners, the new mood can even border on hostile. Obama's approaches to pressing world problems "aren't worth a moldy onion," declared Mircea Mihaies, deputy head of the Romanian Cultural Institute. Two in three Bulgarians, Czechs, Poles and Romanians approve of Obama's foreign policy, according to a survey published earlier this month by the German Marshall Fund, a nonpartisan policy group. That may seem robust, but it pales in comparison to backing for Obama in Western Europe, where nine in 10 respondents support him. It's normal for relations to evolve, and at the moment there appear to be few pressing reasons to make eastern Europe a U.S. priority, said Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies project at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "These countries may be victims of their own success," Bugajski said Monday. "They're fairly stable. There's no major social unrest or political instability, no real security threats. The more successful you are, the more you tend to slide down the agenda of U.S. foreign policy." "They do understand that this is the new face of America – that it's not to anybody's advantage to be anti-American," he added. Broadly speaking, Obama is still admired by many ordinary Easterners. In April, delivering one of his first major foreign policy speeches with Prague's medieval castle as a backdrop, the U.S. leader invoked decades of trans-Atlantic friendship that helped liberate nations hemmed in by the Iron Curtain – and he was cheered by thousands who packed a square. Yet after eight years of being wooed and courted by Bush, they're just not feeling the love from Obama – and the reasons vary widely. Czech and Polish leaders bristle at America's new ambivalence over a Bush administration plan to base a missile defense shield in the two ex-communist countries. The system, which would put 10 interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, had been touted as a strategic way to counter a threat from Iran. But recently, senior U.S. Defense Department officials said they're considering other options. The Czech-Polish plan had infuriated Russia, and the Obama administration has been working to improve relations with the Kremlin. It gets even more complicated: Although the Czech and Polish governments agreed to host the system, it's been highly unpopular among ordinary citizens, who staged boisterous protests. Now, some leaders fear they may have exposed themselves to needless flak. "I would consider it a dirty trick if the Czech Republic and Poland would end up unprotected," Alexandr Vondra, a former deputy Czech prime minister and one-time ambassador to the U.S., told The Associated Press. Vondra was among a group of prominent Eastern European ex-leaders who wrote to Obama in July, saying the region is gripped by anxiety that his overtures to Russia could lead him to ignore them. "If we don't take care of relations between the U.S. and Central and Eastern Europe, it could lead to a certain worsening of relations in the future," he told the AP. Poles have other reasons to be rankled at Washington. On Sept. 1, the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was there for the commemoration. So was French Prime Minister Francois Fillon and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. The U.S. sent National Security Adviser James Jones – a move seen as a snub by Poles who expected Vice President Joe Biden or Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. "They don't want us. They don't care about us," commentator Lukasz Kwiecien wrote in a scathing editorial for the national daily Dziennik under the headline: "We are paying for our blind love for America." And there could be consequences, warned Bartosz Weglarczyk, a columnist for the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper. "I have no doubt that under the new administration, Washington has neglected relations with Poland and with Central Europe as a whole. Some say, and I count myself among them, that it is a mistake and that one day Washington may pay dearly for it," he said. Romanians, among the many Eastern Europeans whose troops fought alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, now feel hung out to dry over allegations their government let the CIA set up a secret prison where suspected terrorists were interrogated and possibly tortured. The Romanian government has vehemently denied any complicity. But the allegations persist: Last month, The New York Times, citing a former CIA official, reported that one of the covert detention centers was housed in downtown Bucharest. Romanian President Traian Basescu, a staunch supporter of Bush, recently spoke nostalgically about the "endless list of common objectives that had been reached" with the Bush White House. This summer, for the first time, Basescu skipped the U.S. Embassy's July 4 party. Then Romanian media reported that the new U.S. ambassador – who traditionally would get a special audience with Basescu – instead had to present his diplomatic credentials on the same day as the new Canadian, Dutch, Filipino, German and Mexican ambassadors. The U.S. envoy, Mark H. Gitenstein, plays down talk of eroding support for Washington. Romania, he insists, remains "the most pro-American country in Europe." Romanian school teacher Roxana Pop isn't so sure, even though she thinks Obama is doing a better job than Bush. America's influence "wasn't always a good thing," said Pop, 28. "They should leave us alone ... We shouldn't be at anybody's beck and call." ___ Associated Press Writers Karel Janicek in Prague, Alison Mutler in Bucharest, Romania, and Ryan Lucas and Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Poland, contributed to this report. More on Europe
 
Dylan Kendall: Down and Out in Los Angeles Top
Privilege, Poverty, and the Arts: Debunking the "Basic Needs" Myth I've met hundreds of homeless young people who steal groceries and sleep in abandoned buildings to survive. A patchwork but functional system exists to meet their "basic needs" -- to get them shelter and food. But my work has led me to question whether our current understanding of "basic needs" does little more than sustain the problem of homelessness, rather than solve it by creating empowered individuals capable of managing their own lives. Young people who have grown up without a healthy, functioning family lack the emotional maturity and intellectual skills to manage their own lives and move permanently off assistance. Can some of them get jobs and stay in shelters? Yes. Are they able to keep these jobs and follow shelter rules to move into independent lives? No. We fail these young people by depriving them of long-term sustained access to tools which develop motivation. And the road to motivated, inspired lives runs through the practice of making art. Arts and music sit at the center of educational and emotional development. Cognitive neuroscientists convened by the Dana Foundation demonstrated that training in a specific art form produces motivation, which in turn sustains attention, which helps to develop cognition. The ability to understand ideas and participate intellectually in society increases confidence and one's sense of self-value. Most people engage daily with art and music. They lie at the core of our selves. We prove our commitment to and appreciation for arts and music by spending billions of dollars a year to support creative endeavors. Most of us find something emotionally appealing about a good song, a compelling movie, or an interesting book that makes us laugh, cry or feel not so alone. We have aesthetic responses to color, space and design. And they change our lives. Take Bill. Bill, 23, landed on the streets at 18, slept in abandoned buildings, spent his days going to a drop-in center for lunch and smoking pot. When Bill first came to Hollywood Arts he sat in our parking lot, stoned, and strummed one of our guitars for hours. After six months, he began to take acting classes because they looked "like fun." One day he suddenly realized that he was showing up five days a week for classes in improvisation. He found a job working part-time construction and moved to a shelter. What happened? Bill says, "The acting classes gave me the confidence to believe in myself. They made me less scared to talk to potential employers and also made me a quicker thinker when they asked me questions in interviews." He now follows the rules of the shelter and at his job, tasks he struggled with before. Is a construction job or a shelter bed the goal of learning at Hollywood Arts? No. But these are critical first steps. Bill now has an internship with a film company. He works 18-hour days on set and is starting production classes outside of Hollywood Arts in the fall. Or take Leonard. Leonard, 22, was just hired by Comcast Entertainment Group after a paid summer internship ended. A year ago, Leonard was homeless. He too entered Hollywood Arts with trepidation. But after a year of steady participation in acting and writing classes, lectures from professionals in the entertainment industry and a mentorship, Leonard works in the media center at Comcast, attends classes full-time at Los Angeles City College with the hope of transferring to UCLA, and lives in his own apartment. Yes, we bought him a suit, but the real work happened inside Leonard. He woke up every morning at 6:30 to take a bus to Comcast, met with his mentor to learn job-etiquette, and decided to do the homework necessary to excel in college. Why? He believed in himself for the first time. These stories illustrate solutions based on personal motivation that is unlocked not by food or shelter but by improving self-esteem. Human development is a slow process, and while faster in youth, is directly tied to how we feel about ourselves and what motivates us. Unlocking motivation is critical to creating empowered individuals who will be able to learn the skills to manage their own lives. Young people possess unparalleled enthusiasm for the arts. By reaching youth through arts and music, we are taking advantage of critical developmental mechanisms. Shelter is important. Food is vital. But a strong sense of self-worth is also a basic need. Current approaches are only sustaining, not solving, the problem of homelessness, leaving generations of young people who will spend their adult lives on assistance. Arts-based learning is a way out by creating empowered and educated individuals who are able to live independently. Dylan Kendall runs Hollywood Arts, the only arts-based educational facility for low-income, homeless and foster care young people ages 18-24 in the country.
 
Jerry Weissman: Obama's Health Care Speech Top
In his weekly Ne w York Times column yesterday, Frank Rich called Barack Obama's health care speech to a joint session of Congress last Wednesday, "inspired, lucid and, in the literally and figuratively Kennedyesque finale, moving." Mr. Rich was referring to two Kennedys, Ted and John; the latter was the figurative reference and the former the literal. Obama quoted directly from a letter Ted had written to him just before he died: He expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform⎯"that great unfinished business of our society," he called it⎯would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "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." Obama then plucked that last phrase, "the character of our country," and proceeded to expand upon it in his objective to overcome the controversy that has divided our country over health care reform. Invoking the spirit of Ted Kennedy's lifelong efforts on the issue, Obama appealed to the Republicans and Democrats in the Joint Session, and to the millions of American citizens watching the prime time broadcast, to put aside their differences and come together on an efficient and fair system of health care. The figurative reference to John F. Kennedy came in Obama's finale. JFK's most memorable words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," represent a rhetorical technique called antithesis, or a figure of balance in which two contrasting ideas are juxtaposed in adjacent phrases, clauses, or sentences. Here's how Obama employed antithesis: We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. And then Obama turned to one of his own favorite rhetorical devices, anaphora, or the repetitive use of a key phrase. (For a fuller discussion of antithesis and anaphora, please see my earlier blog about his Inaugural Address.) I still believe that we can act when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test. Because that's who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. My next blog will have another example of Obama's use of repetitive phrases in another speech about health care that he gave three days after his address to Congress. More on Health Care
 

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)