Saturday, September 5, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco and Carola Suarez-Orozco: More Diverse, Less Prepared Top
Next week, as children head back to schools across the country, the rituals of Fall will provide continuity and comfort to millions. Students will come eager to share their most vivid summer adventures. Teachers will work to project equal amounts of authority, competence, and warmth. Parents will dispense, one more time, wisdom about first impressions, the wonders of politeness, and being kind to the new kid in school. These timeless rituals have been repeated in schools, East and West, North and South, in rich and working class neighborhoods, in cities and suburbs, since the time of the mythical Little Red Schoolhouse. They will help manage anxiety in the first day of school, create a sense of belonging, and provide continuity with the past. But in nearly every other respect schools will look very different. To paraphrase the French proverb, the more things change, they more they change. Come next week, American schools will face a task no other wealthy democracy has ever done well: educating the most demographically diverse group of students in history to compete in an ever more globally integrated world at a time of deep economic crisis. Come next week American schools will be more diverse than ever before. Over 10 million students -- slightly more than the population of Sweden or about size of the population of Michigan -- will come to schools speaking a language other than English. Nationwide approximately a quarter of all children heading to school next week will originate in homes where English is not the primary language. In the nation's three largest school districts, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago immigrant origin, English language learners (ELLs) are now the fastest growing sector of the student population (25% of all students in New York City, 41 % of all students in LA, and 14 percent of all students in Chicago). In California, nearly 2 million children will come from homes representing well over 50 different languages (Spanish, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Tagalog lead the way). New York dwarfs California in terms of depths of its diversity pool: in New York City alone approximately fifty percent of the students heading to school will originate in immigrant-headed homes representing over 190 different countries. This never happened before in the history of the world: one city educating children from literally every corner of earth. But it's not just big cities. In Dodge City, Kansas approximately 40 percent of the kids heading to school next week, speak a language other than English at home. We are not in Kansas anymore. By the time next week's first graders graduate from High School, the U. S. will be the most diverse high-income country in the world with fully 40 percent of the population tracing their origins to groups other than the white-European origin majority. Are our schools up to this historic challenge? While sociologists, see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/books/review/Patterson-t.html?_r=1&em, tend to celebrate the wonders of the still-well oiled American assimilation machinery, they may be asking too little of schools in an era of global integration and economic uncertainty. While immigrant children are learning English at rates comparable to prior generations and getting better jobs than their immigrant parents, it maybe too little too late. Sociologists comparing how this wave of immigrants is doing vis-à-vis earlier waves focus on the half full side of the glass. The half empty side of the glass becomes clear when we focus on global competition not anachronistic historical comparisons. The children heading to school next week are not going to compete with -- and should not be measured against -- the children of Irish, Italian and Easter European immigrants of last century. They are going to compete with students in Hong Kong, Korea, and Finland for best jobs the global economy has to offer. Data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) a respected system of international assessments measuring the performance of 15-year-olds in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy every 3 years tells a blunt story: In 2006, the average mathematics literacy score in the United States was lower than the average score in 23 of the other 29 high income OECD countries for which comparable PISA results were reported. These and other data suggest that our students are more diverse but less prepared in the ways that matter. The main policy instrument to make sure all American students are ready for the 21st Century is No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Does it make a difference in the twin age of global competition and demographic diversity? Yes, but mostly for the wrong reasons. The high-stakes testing context of NCLB is proving to be extremely challenging to our ever more diverse student population. Not only are many immigrant-origin children tested before their academic language skills have adequately developed, but all too often their day-to-day educational experiences are shaped by instruction that teaches to the test, a far from an adequate measure of what it takes to succeed in the global century. Is it any surprise then that in the "gold standard" National Assessment of Educational Progress reading assessment for 2007, 71 percent of English-language learners in the eighth grade scored "below basic" in reading and zero percent scored at the "advanced" level? What will it take to thrive in the 21st Century? We will need a KCIC to get us there: Knowledge for Creativity, Innovation, and Complexity. KCIC will shape the global competition. The best research suggests that schools should focus less on tests, and on teaching to those tests, and more on the higher order cognitive and meta-cognitive skills needed for expert thinking and problem solving within and across disciplines and domains, the skills needed for communication in complex settings, and the cultural sensibilities needed for working simpatico in groups made of individuals of diverse origins. The world has come to the Little Red School House. How we fare in turning the children of the world into productive and engaged citizens of an ever-smaller, more integrated planet will teach the world a lesson on the vitality of the American promise. Marcelo and Carola Suárez-Orozco, are Members of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton and on the faculty at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University. Their most recent book is Learning a New Land: Immigrant Students in American Society, http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SUAMOV.html More on Immigration
 
Jon O'Brien: We Believe in Health Care Reform Top
The health care system in the United States is broken. Forty-seven million people are uninsured and 30 million more are under-insured. With the current state of the economy, men and women around the country are struggling to make ends meet. They are making the tough decisions between putting food on the table and going to the doctor. Now, more than ever, we need a system that works for everyone. We need health care reform. As Catholics, we believe that health care is a right, not a privilege. Keeping in mind Catholic social teaching which calls for a preferential option for the poor and knowing that those living in poverty are the most adversely affected by our health care system, we believe in a universal health care system that provides comprehensive health care to every person living in the United States. As President Barack Obama, his Administration and Congress work to repair and rebuild our health care system, the Catholic bishops and their conservative allies are undermining this work by seeking to obliterate any sexual and reproductive health care services from the plan, mainly through spreading myths about the nature of the health care reform proposals. While it is important to debunk these myths, we also cannot risk missing the forest for the trees. Not only must we debunk any myths about health care reform, we must also speak out in favor of including sexual and reproductive health care in any health care reform plan. We believe that contraception should not just be affordable, it should be free. Oftentimes, women and men living in poverty choose less-costly contraceptive options, if they choose to use contraceptives at all. When contraception is not free and when insurance only covers certain contraceptives, the freedom to choose which contraceptive best fits one's lifestyle is taken away. We believe that everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status, should have that choice. Providing contraceptives free of charge will save taxpayer money. For every one dollar spent by the federal government to provide contraception to people living in poverty through Title X and Medicaid, it saves over four dollars. It's not just good for the soul; it is good for the pocketbooks of the American people. Currently, health care reform plans include provisions that would allow states to use federal funds to provide birth control assistance to women who do not qualify for Medicaid. Otherwise, the coverage of contraception remains the same -- good but not great. As access to free contraception provides men and women with the resources they need to lead happy and healthy lives and saves money, including provisions for free contraception ought to be obvious to the architects of health care reform. We believe that abortion should be federally funded and covered by all insurance companies. Abortion has emerged, not surprisingly given the myopic mindset of social conservatives, as a key issue in the health care reform debate. Fear mongering has become all too common, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and others demanding that any mention of abortion be stripped from the health care reform plan. The bishops' protest to the inclusion of abortion in health care reform is particularly disturbing given their peculiar view on sexual and reproductive health -- a view that is not generally shared by Catholics or the American public. The bishops would do well to remind themselves of the declarations of the Second Vatican Council on religious freedom for all. It goes against these principles for the bishops to require health care reform proposals that will affect all Americans -- Catholic and non-Catholic -- to conform to the minority outlook of the church hierarchy on sexual and reproductive health. Some anti-choice groups have suggested that the president's health care reform plan will overturn the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding of abortion, and force all insurance companies to cover the procedure. Although this is blatantly untrue, we believe that the health care reform plan should indeed include federal funding for abortion and require insurance companies to cover this vital procedure. Other groups have suggested that abortion should be left out of the debate because it is too divisive. Here, they are wrong. A poll by the bishops themselves found that 89 percent of American adults believe that abortion should be provided in some or all cases. All of these groups, however, neglect to mention that abortion is a legal medical procedure in the United States and should be covered in health care reform. Women's lives depend on it. We believe that all men and women should be able to access affordable assisted reproductive technology services. Just as men and women need access to family planning services in order to choose when and if they have children, those who are unable to conceive but wish to have children must also be supported. Currently, assisted reproductive technology (ART) services are generally reserved for only those of means due to high costs and limited insurance coverage for these procedures. In states that mandate insurance coverage for ART procedures, however, the rate of utilization is nearly three times that in states that do not mandate coverage. In addition to helping men and women expand their families, covering ART is also economically advantageous for the country. For instance, the cost of in vitro fertilization comes back seven-fold once the child enters the workforce and pays taxes. Income level should never be a determinate of who does and does not receive treatment for infertility. We believe that women who choose to continue their pregnancy should have access to quality pre- and postnatal care. Every year, nearly one million pregnant women from the United States do not receive adequate medical attention before or after giving birth. Maternity and childbirth costs far outweigh costs for any other medical procedure. Due to the high costs of these procedures, pregnant women across the country have found that the services are profit-driven rather than compelled by evidence about quality maternity care. All pregnant women should have access to quality maternity care and we are pleased that currently health care reform proposals will cover all pre- and postnatal care. However, the quality of care currently administered under private insurers and Medicaid plans also needs to be vastly improved. Just as women who choose to end a pregnancy should be supported, so too must women who choose to continue a pregnancy. Merely covering the costs of pre- and postnatal care is not enough. Health care reform proposals should also improve the quality of pre- and postnatal care. We believe that access to HIV prevention, care and treatment should be covered. Nearly half of people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States lack access to the health care services they need. Many living with HIV are considered "too healthy" to obtain Medicaid benefits but cannot afford or are denied private insurance coverage. Because private insurers often refuse to cover people with HIV, only one in five people living with HIV have private insurance coverage. Health care reform efforts must include ways to provide coverage for all people living with HIV and also include strong provisions on prevention. With nearly 60,000 people newly infected with HIV each year in the United States, the rate of new HIV infections remains disturbingly high. Luckily, the health care reform plan does include provisions on HIV/AIDS. The plan will allow states to extend Medicaid coverage to thousands of low-income people living with HIV who are currently "too healthy" to obtain coverage and also increase the number of people who benefit from the AIDS Drug Assistance program. Finally, the plan contains several prevention and wellness provisions that will increase access to voluntary HIV testing and other prevention methods. More can always be done, but this is a good start. We believe in health care reform. Surely, the church hierarchy and their conservative allies will continue to wave their flags against any inclusion of sexual and reproductive health in healthcare reform. However, bowing to the cries of this minority will be gravely harmful to men and women throughout the country. An overwhelming 71 percent of Americans support provisions for sexual and reproductive health in healthcare reform, according to a recent poll by the National Women's Law Center. Back in November, a majority of Catholics voted for the proc-hoice presidential candidate knowing that he maintains common sense values on sexual and reproductive health. Catholics for Choice stands with President Obama and this majority who understand the fundamental need for sexual and reproductive health care services in the United States. Sexual and reproductive health care is a vital part of the well-being of our society. When men and women have access to high-quality sexual and reproductive health care, our country is healthier and stronger. And without a doubt, we can all agree that a stronger country is better for everyone. More on HIV/AIDS
 
Michael B. Laskoff: Afghanistan: Let's Go Home Top
We should get the hell out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. The expense of continuing this foreign adventure and the danger to US citizens of staying has simply become unacceptably high. The concept of victory is no longer meaningful or practical. The sooner we face this, the better off we will be. I don't feel good about this, but sentimentality won't change the facts on the ground. Let me be clear, I supported the American led effort to topple the Taliban after 9/11. Unlike the totally misguided invasion of Iraq, we were displacing a government that gave aid, comfort and shelter to our enemies. And while we arguably did nothing to damage Al-Qaeda, we did remind the world that we're awfully good at regime change. From time to time that's an unfortunate necessity. Unfortunately, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld combo forgot something that most parents endeavor to teach their children: you break it; you own it. In other words, when we invaded, we assumed responsibility for a snake pit that had already humbled the Soviets and the British in the past 150 years. Knowing that, we should have been ready not only to topple the government but also to have a plan for what to do with the place after. Our 'plan,' as you may recall, consisted of dropping Hamid Karzai into power, invading another country and hoping that the neo-con fantasy of a liberated people immediately adopting a democratic government and a free-market economy would magically happen. Sure, we kept some troops there to hunt - usually ineffectively - Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but really we threw everything into Iraq. Jumping forward to 2009, it's clear that we made a mistake. While we were occupied in the Middle East, the Taliban was reorganizing. Even if we had wanted to engage in real nation building, we simply did not have enough troops on the ground to protect the population. Meanwhile, our political client was sliding down the path of clinging to power at any cost. Most recently, this consisted of building coalitions with bad people (warlords, drug cartels and tribal leaders) in order to remain the titular head of the country. And when that didn't work, he resorted to out-and-out fraud to win the election. So here we are, supporting an illegitimate regime in a country in which we have proven unable to deliver basic security. Not surprisingly, we're not winning many hearts and minds in the process. In addition, we are fighting an enemy that still moves largely at will across the Pakistani border, a place where our ground troops cannot go. True, the Pakistani government has been more cooperative of recent, but it seems unlikely that will continue once the 'existential threat' to that nation has been removed. Now, we're trying to make up for lost time. We are moving more into a counter-insurgency mode that requires ever more troops, while reducing their capacity to use lethal force. Unfortunately, such strategies can take a decade to yield results. We don't have that kind of staying power Add it all up, and it seems clear that we are spending a fortune and in treasure and lives to defend a bad regime without gaining the gratitude of the people that we are supposed to be helping. Maybe this could have been avoided, but it's time to own up to the fact that we bungled this and come to grips with the reality that our presence in Afghanistan is not making America safer. Knowing that, we should leave, the sooner the better. More on Afghanistan
 
Bryan Farrell: An Inglourious Basterdization of History Top
In one of the most memorable scenes from Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, Brad Pitt's character gives his army of Jewish soldiers a pep talk so rousing audiences can't resist whooping with excitement after he says, "We're in the killin' Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin." But audiences aren't the only ones cheering. Critics are eating up Tarantino's revenge fantasy just as eagerly. Roger Ebert gushed over the film , writing, "He provides World War II with a much-needed alternative ending. For once the basterds get what's coming to them." Even the actors have gotten in on the retribution game. Melanie Laurent, who plays the film's main protagonist, told reporters she was happy to be "the face of the Jewish vengeance," while Eli Roth, who plays the head-smashing character known as "The Bear Jew", described the film as, "kosher porn, something I have been fantasizing about for a long time." Tarantino, however, has shirked the "revenge fantasy" label, saying, more generally, "I like that it's the power of the cinema that fights the Nazis." He's clearly not the only one in the film industry. Over the past year Hollywood has treated us to an assassination attempt on Hitler and an armed Jewish uprising in Poland. We have become enchanted, perhaps more so than ever, with the idea that the Nazis could only have been defeated by brute force, when it has been argued by a number of historians that the horrors of war itself may have been what sparked the Final Solution. Chronology suggests that it was not until the end, when Germany was suffering great defeats on the battlefield and seeing its cities torched to the ground, that extermination programs were enacted. Movies, arguably more than any medium, reinforce the belief that superior violence was the only way to take down Hitler. For instance, the Hitler in Tarantino's film becomes a confounded and frustrated mess when he hears of the Basterds brutal exploits. In reality, however, Nazis were actually relieved when the resistance turned to violence because it gave them an excuse to use more drastic and suppressive measures. According to military historian Basil Lidell Hart, who had the unique opportunity to interview German generals imprisoned in Great Britain after the war, "other forms of resistance baffled them" because "they were experts in violence, and had been trained to deal with opponents who used that method." Such a finding suggests a surprising truth about WWII: nonviolence, of the kind Gandhi practiced, was used successfully against the Nazis. For all the films about WWII, only a handful have depicted nonviolent resistance. Some of the best stories, however, have not yet been told on the silver screen, though not for lack of drama. One such story begging for a film adaptation, is told in a book by Philip P. Hallie called, Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed: The Story of the Village of Le Chambon and How Goodness Happened There . The setting, much like the opening of Inglourious Basterds , was a small farming community, nestled in the mountains of south-central France. But unlike the French farmer in Basterds, the people of Le Chambon openly and successfully protected Jews and other peoples fleeing from Nazi oppression. By the end of the war, they had saved an estimated 5,000 refugees, approximately 3,500 of whom were Jews. Their success was in large part due to a charismatic young preacher named André Trocmé, who led an operation that hid Jews in the homes of peasants and poor farmers, as well as seven boarding houses located in the center of town. Financial aid came from outside the village and in most cases Jews and other refugees were housed for the entire German occupation. Trocmé also founded a private school on his strong belief in nonviolence that taught, among other things, conscientious objection, internationalism, fellowship and peacemaking. As a result, when a representative from the Vichy government came to visit the town, he was met with a letter from students declaring their intent, as Trocmé would later put it, "to protect persecuted people whenever and wherever they could." The Chambonnais made good on that promise. When Vichy police arrived to start arresting Jews, they found themselves outsmarted. A plan to hide the Jewish population in the thick woods that surrounded the village had already gone into effect. The police scoured the area for three weeks and managed to make only two arrests before leaving. Over the next three years, under complete German occupation, the Nazis carried out only one successful raid, thanks to the townspeople's dedication. Most, if not all, European countries have their own stories of nonviolent resistance, but they so rarely get attention. Thanks to Tom Cruise, more people know about the failure of Operation Valkyrie than the actually successful Danish resistance. It's not as if the story of ordinary people systematically stifling the Nazis through acts of industrial sabotage and general strikes, as well as saving 8,000 Jews by covertly sailing them to neutral Sweden is lacking in excitement. The same goes for the story of a Bulgarian bishop, who along with local farmers, threatened to lay down on the train tracks to prevent Jews from being deported, which in turn convinced the Bulgarian government to back down from Nazi demands, saving 48,000 Jews from the concentration camps. Not even the grim ending of Defiance, which claims that the destructive actions of the film's protagonists and their guerrilla movement helped ensure tens of thousands of Jewish descendants, can truly match those bloodless results. Clearly, people love watching movies about WWII. It gives them the chance to see good triumphing over evil. But nothing says we have to stick to the same stale and misleading storyline that violence is what saved us from the Nazis. Tarantino once said, "I loved history because to me, history was like watching a movie." Perhaps it's time for him to do us all a favor and next time indulge his love for history instead of his fantasies of revenge. More on Tom Cruise
 
Eric Rosenbach: Afghan Security for Afghanistan Top
As Afghans await the final results of their presidential election, the long-awaited strategic assessment from General Stanley McChrystal, commander of United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has also created a stir. Given the sharply rising number of coalition casualties and growing concern about the wisdom of an additional surge of foreign troops into Afghanistan, McChrystal's assessment is being closely scrutinized both in Europe and on Capitol Hill. Serious debate about the mission in Afghanistan is warranted. Public support for the war is waning and 76 coalition troops were killed in July alone. But skeptics and supporters alike should recognize and support a crucial tenet of McChrystal's assessment: the need to dramatically increase the number and quality of forces in the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP). From a strategic and financial perspective, the push to bolster the numbers and quality of the Afghan forces makes clear sense. On the strategic level, the coalition simply doesn't have enough troops to satisfy the "clear, hold and build" formula of the counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban. Earlier this year, the Director of National Intelligence, former Admiral Dennis Blair, told Congress that the Afghan forces were less than one-tenth the size necessary to defend country. And as McChrystal has noted, "The demand and the supply don't line up, even with the new troops that are coming in." The financial equation is equally apparent. In pure dollar terms, the U.S. can field and train 60 Afghans for the price of one deployed American soldier. Tactics and dollars are important criterion by which to evaluate the proposal; however, the real value of increasing the strength and size of the Afghan forces is less obvious. A successful counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan will require the coalition to protect the civilian population and win their support in the fight against the Taliban. With these goals in mind, strengthening the Afghanistan National Army and Police may represent the single most important aspect of McChyrstal's new strategy. Why? Because bolstering the Afghan security forces will not only restore trust in coalition forces, but also build Afghans' confidence in the future of the country. For many years, a counterterrorism-focused strategy in Afghanistan relied heavily on air strikes on Taliban and al Qaeda operatives. All too often, the strikes resulted in large numbers of Afghan civilian casualties. The dominant Afghan perception was that American investigations into the accidental bombings were mere public relations exercises. In a nation driven by conspiracy theory, few Afghans believe that international forces genuinely respect the value of an Afghan life. Many Afghans note, for example, that the US was incredibly efficient and precise in eliminating the Taliban via air strikes immediately after 9/11. They simply cannot fathom how the U.S. can continue "accidentally" to bomb wedding parties and funerals. Likewise, past security operations required U.S. and NATO troops to enter Afghans' homes in search of weapons, insurgents and contraband. The constant fear that foreign, non-Muslim forces will enter Afghans' private residences engenders disgust and suspicion. Although the U.S. military recently issued new guidelines on this previously standard practice, many public opinion polls continue to show that Afghans believe that only coalition forces from Turkey should be permitted to search their homes. Increasing the number and quality of Afghan security forces will provide a recognizable signal to Afghans that the U.S. and NATO genuinely want a durable and lasting peace in the country. With more and better Afghan troops on the ground, coalition forces will conduct fewer air strikes and possibly collect more reliable targeting intelligence. A professional, multi-ethnic military would put an Afghan face on the fight against Taliban insurgents and dramatically ease concerns about an occupying foreign force. Perhaps most importantly, the new and better force would build a sense of national pride and confidence that Afghanistan will eventually operate independent of coalition forces. Training and building the larger force will not be easy. Many in the current security force -- and the Afghan National Police in particular -- are corrupt and ineffective. Although a larger Afghan force is comparatively cheap by American standards, Afghanistan will need to find reliable funds to support the new force. Most experts believe that the Afghan military budget will need to increase from $365 million per year to more than $2 billion, nearly twice the current budget for the entire Afghan government. The campaign for Afghan hearts and minds is the single most important theme of General McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy. Demonstrating confidence in the Afghan people by strengthening their own security forces will bring the coalition closer to the most important strategic objective: Exiting a stable and secure Afghanistan. More on Afghanistan
 
Fred Silberberg: My Divorce is None of Your Business Top
If I get divorced in New York, the documents pertaining to my divorce remain confidential. If my spouse and I cannot agree on issues and we end up in court, the court proceedings that take place are not open to the public. If I get divorced in California, the documents pertaining to my divorce become a matter of public record. If my spouse and I cannot agree on issues and we end up in court, the court proceedings take place in an open courtroom wherein the public can be present. And so, depending upon the state in which you get divorced, your family business can either remain private, or you may find yourself unwittingly in the public eye. Why should anyone's family business become available to the public? When one enters into a marriage or a domestic partnership, they do it privately. While the parties get a marriage license, no one is privy to whatever agreements the parties may reach regarding refinances, domestic arrangements, childcare arrangements and the like. In fact, the law is even written in a manner to protect the confidentiality of the marital relationship. For example, a spouse can refuse to testify against his or her spouse in a legal proceeding, and the communications between the spouses are generally held to be confidential and not subject to disclosure. Even Federal law addresses this to some extent in keeping tax return information confidential. Yet, if parties end up in divorce court in some states, suddenly there is no confidentiality whatsoever. And divorces, being the nasty animals that they often are, dredge up all kinds of allegations and personal information. Suddenly, the dirty little secrets that one spouse confided in the other become the public disclosures that the entire world has a right to know. The proponents of public family law courts argue that somehow, keeping these matters open to the public, makes them subject to oversight and that public scrutiny insures the impartiality of the court. The biggest proponent of public family law proceedings in California is the media, fearful that if the New York system is implemented they will be cut off from information that leads to ratings and material for tabloid and other news programs. Think Britney Spears here. And apparently, in California the media lobby is much stronger than it is in New York. It seems somewhat absurd that one can make their own private arrangements regarding their marriage, but when it comes to a divorce, everything has to become public. More than the absurdity of it, is the potentiality for harm that exists by forcing divorcing parties to air their dirty laundry in public. The allegations then trickle down to all sorts of unintended recipients, including other family members and children. Financial information becomes available not only to those who are curious, but those who want to use the information to commit the crime of identity theft. While this information would remain confidential in New York, in California, the legislature has implemented a procedure requiring parties to jump through all sorts of hoops to try to get documents sealed, and the policy of the state, and hence the courts, is to deny those requests as much as possible. A few years ago, I sponsored a bill in the California legislature to try to allow divorce records to be sealed. The bill didn't make it very far in the legislature. It was immediately attacked in the press as intending to protect the very rich, when in fact, it would have protected every divorce litigant, rich or poor. The media insisted it had "a right to know", and there weren't too many members of the California Assembly wanting to challenge that. This approach was completely different than the one I experienced just a short time earlier when I appeared in New York Domestic Relations Court with a client who is a public figure. There, the court proceedings, and all of the documents filed therein remained confidential, much to the frustration of the media which was waiting outside of the courthouse, hoping to get information from myself or my client when we walked out at the conclusion of the proceedings. If a relationship does not work out, it should be a matter that the parties are able to resolve privately. The public does not have any real interest in hearing people's private problems. The only "public interest" is really a media interest in exposing private information. Unsubstantiated allegations are made all the time in divorce court. The public disclosure of these allegations can have long-term implications for the parties, including damage to the parties' reputation and the psychological well-being of children. The disclosure of financial information, especially in this age of technology, puts people at risk for becoming easy victims of criminal activity. The argument that public family law courts are subject to oversight is a fallacy. In New York and those states where the proceedings are not open to the public, there are procedures in place for oversight, including the courts of appeal. People should be able to get divorced in a private setting with dignity. Family business is just that.
 
Brad Friedman: FBI Whistleblower: Hastert, Burton, Blunt, Other Members of Congress 'Bribed, Blackmailed' Top
Breaking Down the Under-Oath Disclosures of the Formerly-Gagged Sibel Edmonds... It has now been over a week since the video tape and transcript from the remarkable 8/8/09 deposition of former FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds was publicly released . Previously, the Bush Administration invoked the so-called "state secrets privilege" in order to gag Edmonds, in attempting to keep such information from becoming public. The under-oath, detailed allegations include bribery, blackmail, espionage and infiltration of the U.S. government of, and by current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials and agents of the government of Turkey. The broad criminal conspiracy is said to have resulted in, among other things, the sale of nuclear weapons technology to black market interests including Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Libya and others. Even as many of these allegations had been previously corroborated to varying extents, by a number of official government reports, documents and independent media outlets (largely overseas), not a single major mainstream media outlet in the U.S. has picked up on Edmonds' startling claims since her deposition has been made fully available. Granted, last week was a busy news week, with the death of Ted Kennedy, the release of the CIA Inspector General's report on torture, and the announcement that Michael Jackson's death was ruled a homicide. And, it's true, a 4-hour deposition and/or 241-page transcript [PDF] is a lot of material to review, particularly given the wide scope of the charges being made here. Still, given the serious national security issues at stake, said to have the been among the most important matters of the past 8 years, one would think someone in the corporate MSM might have taken the time to go through the material, and report on it. Particularly as Edmonds' claims have previously been found "credible" "serious" and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review," by the DoJ Inspector General , and confirmed as such, on several occasions, by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and many many others. So for the benefit of the U.S. media, and other readers, who may find it helpful for this large body of newly-available information to be culled down into more digestible pieces, I will attempt to break down the deposition, a bit, into some of its subject matter-based component parts. I will try to go through the major disclosures from the deposition, one-by-one, in a series of pieces which might help others to further report and/or investigate these breathtaking disclosures from a former FBI official who, following 9/11, listened to and translated wiretap recordings made from 1996 through 2002, in the FBI's counterintelligence and counterterrorism departments, under top-secret clearance. In this first break-down article, we'll look at the answers given by Edmonds during her deposition in regard to bribery and blackmail of current and former members of the U.S. Congress, including Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA, deceased ) and an unnamed, currently-serving, married Democratic Congresswoman said to have been video-taped in a Lesbian affair by Turkish agents for blackmail purposes. In further breakdown articles, we'll look at her disclosures concerning top State and Defense Department officials including Douglas Feith , Paul Wolfowitz and, perhaps most notably, the former Deputy Undersecretary of State, Marc Grossman , the third-highest ranking official in the State Department. Also, details on the theft of nuclear weapons technology; disclosures on Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA front company Brewster-Jennings; items related to U.S. knowledge of 9/11 and al-Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001; infiltration of the FBI translation department and more. Though Edmonds was careful to not "discuss the intelligence gathering method by the FBI," she notes in her deposition that her claims are "Based on documented and provable, tracked files and based on...100 percent, documented facts." Among the specific charges she levels against current and former U.S. Congress Members in the deposition: Dennis Hastert: "[S]everal categories. The acceptance of large sums of bribery in forms of cash or laundered cash ... to make it look legal for his campaigns, and also for his personal use, in order to do certain favors ... make certain things happen for foreign entities and foreign governments' interests, Turkish government's interest and Turkish business entities' interests. ... other activities, too, including being blackmailed for various reasons. ... he used the townhouse that was not his residence for certain not very morally accepted activities. ... foreign entities knew about this, in fact, they sometimes participated in some of those not maybe morally well activities in that particular townhouse that was supposed to be an office, not a house, residence at certain hours, certain days, evenings of the week." Stephen Solarz: "[A]s lobbyist ... acted as conduit to deliver or launder contribution and other briberies to certain members of Congress, but also in pressuring outside Congress, and including blackmail, in certain members of Congress." Bob Livingston: "Until 1999 ... not very legal activities on behalf of foreign interests and entities, and after 1999 acting as a conduit to, again, further foreign interests, both overtly and covertly as a lobbyist, but also as an operative." Tom Lantos : "[N]ot only ... bribe[ry], but also ... disclosing highest level protected U.S. intelligence and weapons technology information both to Israel and to Turkey. ... other very serious criminal conduct." Unnamed Congresswoman: ( Though not identified as such during the deposition, Edmonds has since confirmed her to be a Democrat ) "[T]his Congresswoman's married with children, grown children, but she is bisexual. ... So they have sent Turkish female agents, and that Turkish female agents work for Turkish government, and have sexual relationship with this Congresswoman in her townhouse ... and the entire episodes of their sexual conduct was being filmed because the entire house, this Congressional woman's house was bugged. ... to be used for certain things that they wanted to request ... I don't know if she did anything illegal afterward. ... the Turkish entities, wanted both congressional related favoritism from her, but also her husband was in a high position in the area in the state she was elected from, and these Turkish entities ran certain illegal operations, and they wanted her husband's help. But I don't know if she provided them with those." Roy Blunt: "[T]he recipient of both legally and illegally raised donations, campaign donations from ...Turkish entities." Dan Burton: (And others) "[E]xtremely illegal activities against the United States citizens who were involved in [covert] operations that were ... against ... foreign government[s] and foreign entities against the United States' interests." Hastert, Livingston and Solarz, as Edmonds notes in her deposition, would all go on to become highly-paid lobbyist for Turkey and/or Turkish public interest groups after they left the U.S. Congress. * * * The startling key exchanges relating specifically to criminal corruption by members of the U.S. Congress, from the 8/8/09 Sibel Edmonds deposition in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case, currently pending before the Ohio Election Commission, are now excerpted here . The full deposition transcript is here [PDF] , and more details, including the complete video-tape of the entire deposition, can be seen in our original coverage of the deposition's release . More on Turkey
 
Caroline Myss: Crimes Against the Soul of America Top
There is such a thing as a crime against the soul of a nation. A person or a political party can deliberately incite actions that diminish the strength, the integrity, and the overall well-being of a nation's inner core. America's soul is in a fragile state. It has suffered severe violations over the course of this past decade and to lesser degrees, in previous decades. Through the years, the essential integrity of America has been eroded for various reasons but never was it so violated as during the Bush administration. The endless lies, the deceitful years of propaganda that flowed from the West Wing that fed the media, the bogus reasons for setting the Middle East on fire, and converting this country into a corporate state for personal gain are crimes that shattered the soul of this nation more deeply than we have even begun to realize -- if we ever will. The consequences of puncturing the soul of a nation are witnessed in countless ways. For example, there is a decline in the integrity of leadership and a growing apathy on the part of the public to care about keeping watch over its leaders. The nation ceases to produce statesmen or stateswomen. The best the public can do is to send semi-qualified individuals to Washington whose capacity to hold to their promises collapse within minutes of unpacking in their new offices. As for the old guard, they are worn out good old boys mixed in with a few new and not-so-new women on the block, who continue to fall into their same old patterns of deal making and breaking. But nothing of great significance ever happens unless motivated by a catastrophe. Any truly positive ideas for change baffle the Congress. What could this be, they wonder? But of all the crimes covertly and overtly committed by the Bush administration against the soul of America, none is as vile as the deliberate efforts they poured into turning American against American. We see that in the near hatred between the Republicans and Democrats, between liberals and conservatives, between free-thinkers and evangelicals that continues to fester. This crime was a strategic one, a well thought out plan to fragment the people of this nation in a type of contemporary replay of the Civil War. And sadly, the Republicans succeeded. Thank you, Karl Rove. The result is that the soul of America is exhausted, wounded, mistrusting, suspicious, fearful -- and compromised. This is not a soul that can rebuild a country, not if you know anything about the laws of nature and the fundamentals of healing. So let's apply this to the Republicans present attack on Obama and his plan to address the children in the classrooms of our schools. First, a comment on how education is respected in general by our Congress -- it isn't. And this crime against the soul of America is a travesty for which both Republicans and Democrats should hang their heads in shame. Consider, for example, how the education system through the years has corroded into little more than a mindless competition for grades. And the "No Child Left Behind" program (which should be left far, far behind) is nothing more than an insult to a true educational system that holds in high regard the passing on of knowledge and wisdom and not just technical skills and information. But such a program is in keeping with the insidious goal of the "dumbing down" of America plan that was consciously set in motion under the Reagan Administration (check out The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt). Aside from all the many travesties that have resulted and continue to result from the covert dismantling of America's educational system, let us consider the equally significant if not more tragic consequence of the clever removal of courses that provide students with the essential language required in order to learn how to navigate through the deep and profound matters of the soul. And note that my use of the word "soul" refers to that part of a human being that is more than matter, more than blood and bones. I am not using the word "soul" within the context associated with the politics of right-winged religious fanatics. Rather, I am referring to the essence of what makes a human being truly human, the inherent part of us that is more than meets the eye. Students on a path toward becoming high functioning human beings must be guided in matters of their soul, namely, how to recognize and respond to a moral crisis; how to formulate a personal ethical code and to withstand challenges to that code within a society that thrives on predator instincts; and how to form and maintain an honor code within a society in which any sense of honor is now held together by legal contracts rather than the integrity of a person's word. Giving our students a common ground for discussions of their fears and insecurities concerning emerging into adult life and how to cope with those difficulties is as much a part of their education as is math and the liberal arts (remember those?). If this is not the role of the classroom, then what is? Should they take their forums into the streets so as not to upset the righteous Right? Should they continue to leave their souls at the doorway of their school buildings, sending in only their bodies and minds to attend their classes? Where should they warehouse their consciences? Where should they store their moral crises that strike with such force during the teen-age years? Perhaps this is the comfort they find in drugs. It is through discussions such as these that skills of introspection are awakened and a foundation is put in place for the wisdom arts: personal reflection and accountability, discernment, personal virtue, and stamina of spirit. Is it any wonder that as a result of the horrendous decision of the American Congress to "dumb down" our educational system, we now have a public that cannot discern lies from truth? Are we really surprised that we are now living in a society in which the news media saturates us with entertainment instead of actual news and that most of America was too asleep at the wheel to even notice? Should we really have to wonder for more than three seconds as to why so many media reporters have turned into nothing more than gossip mongers and paparazzi, lacking all courage to do actual hard core news, substituting their own hysterical opinions for informed reporting? I'm not surprised at all. A conscious effort to "dumb down" the education of this nation qualifies as a crime against the soul of America. And dare I say this? If there was something as grievous as a mortal sin committed by a group against its own people, then the Republicans -- with Reagan at the helm -- and all the Democrats who stood by, or worse, backed this catastrophe -- committed that sin when they choreographed how they would dismantle the intellectual power and potential of our own children. (You should check your age -- you could be a product of this crime.) So is it really any wonder why the Republicans would stage this outlandish outcry over President Obama addressing the schoolchildren of America? You would think that everyone would support the President's desire to inspire our children to want an education. Who would not want to see their children enthusiastic about an education? Hum ... Well, could it be that education intimidates them? I mean, given their history with education and their experience with their recent president as well as their recent candidate for vice-president, you can appreciate that the education of President Obama would engender a bit of jealousy. Consider that when Bush showed up in a classroom, they gave him My Pet Goat to read to the students. Why was that, ya think? Perhaps his team feared a more sophisticated book would be a bit too much for him. Or maybe he was providing students with an example of how "dumbing down" works. Or maybe, just maybe, given Bush's overall success and reputation for brain-power, Republicans fear Obama would inspire students instead of generating the jokes and comedic responses Bush did every time he opened his mouth. I can't begin to count the number of times I listened to Bush joke about his own lack of intelligence before an audience. The audience members that included some now former as well as present members of the Congress and Senate, actually laughed as he made these comments. Whether they were laughing with him or at him, I couldn't tell. I know I was laughing at him, but I was also embarrassed and ashamed that this man was leading our country. How could he possibly joke about his lack of intelligence before a State Dinner? How could he laugh about his inability to comprehend matters of great importance? Why would he think that the public would find that funny? And if the public did find that funny, shame on them. The vice-presidential candidate that the Republicans ran in the past election against Obama was of equal educational quality. We all know who I mean, Miss Lipstick-on-a-Pig. Even her humor is low-class, in keeping with her intelligence. One has to ask, "So this was the candidate Republicans believed could handle the cosmic-sized dilemmas we now have facing this nation?" Sarah Palin? Are they nuts? Listening to those Republicans lie about their support of her in the face of the crises facing this nation was a crime against the soul of America. Why? Because they did not believe a word of what they were saying and that was obvious. Most of them could barely cough up their contrived words of support. How they could possibly live with themselves is beyond me. But that is the blessing, I suppose, of having no conscience whatsoever. You're free to say whatever is required in the moment. But if you want to talk about an educational violation, Palin is the poster child. She is a perfect example of the success of the "dumbing down of America" program. No wonder she is a Republican. Birds of a feather, as the saying goes. But you have to give credit where credit is due, yes? So no wonder they fear Obama coming near the classroom. Republicans have little experience with a refined intellect. (They probably are wondering how Obama escaped the, "dumbing down" system. They certainly didn't. Check out Eric Cantor. There's a "dumbing down" success story if I've ever met one.) I don't blame them for being upset, really. They actually owe America an apology for their actions and for their choices of candidates and for their overall quality control when it comes to who they believe qualifies for leadership positions. Truth is, the Republicans are embarrassed by their own actions and they are poor losers, not to mention unethical and immoral opponents. We just have to get them to own that, right? We have to hold all Democrats to the same standard as well. If a Democrat is unethical or immoral -- burn them at the stake. (That will probably clear out most of the Congress, but in the end, we'll all be better off.) There comes a time when we have to just stand up to these carnies (slang for carnival barkers) and tell them to stop polluting the soul of America with their constant and endless transmission of psychic free radicals in the form of lies, negative press, ridiculous criticism, overall lack of intelligent ideas and comments, and complete absence of creative thought. We should just blast them with emails and tell them to stop polluting the soul of our nation. Just stop it. We've had enough. I know I have. And I deeply believe the soul of our nation can't take much more of their strategy of deliberate division against the people of their own nation. That is a true crime -- and perhaps their greatest crime -- against the soul of this great nation. More on Barack Obama
 
Tom H. Hastings: Recovering to Death Top
Jumbo shrimp. Buy and save. Jobless recovery. Americans are on Full Oxymoron Alert these days, as we read and hear about this "jobless recovery." Recovery for whom? The unemployment rate is high and growing higher, nearing an official 10 percent--which is always lower than the reality of impoverished underemployed and "discouraged workers" who have stopped bothering to officially register. Since this recession began, seven million Americans have lost their jobs. Why aren't seven million of us big enough to fail? If stimulus packages for corporate sinkholes are good enough for the American taxpayer, why can't we find $5.4 billion to create minimum wage jobs, with full health care benefits, for the 216,000 Americans who lost their jobs in August? Coincidentally, $5.4 billion is the amount the Pentagon will spend next year on unmanned vehicles, such as the Predator, which is killing so many civilians in Pakistan and turning our friends into our sworn enemies. If the Pentagon "burn rate" for the dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is in excess of $40 billion per month, why can't we manage to staunch the outflow of jobs in public education? War spending doesn't include the wages or benefits for the 190,000 troops involved, since that expense is covered in the $900 billion DoD budget, a figure that includes items DoD leaves out, such as nuclear weapons and satellite costs, which are part of Department of Energy and NASA budgets, respectively. On September 4, Raytheon Missile Systems was awarded a $93,851,886 contract for a few missiles. Which Americans lost their jobs so some Raytheon executives and stockholders could make a killing? We also saw 90 killed by a U.S.-made, U.S.-launched missile in Afghanistan, many of them civilians. That $93,000,000 could have created almost 2,000 modest-paying, full health care jobs. Instead, it will create a handful of jobs (military spending creates fewer jobs than any sector of our economy), obscene war profits for a few wealthy people, more deaths overseas and thus more enemies who hate us. Many other Pentagon contracts amounting to many scores of $millions were awarded that same day, as they are every business day. The day before, September 3, McDonnell Douglas Corp. was awarded a $102,333,333 contract for contractors. Since it has been reported that contractors are often paid more than $200,000 per year, plus full benefits, we could generously say that contract creates perhaps 400 jobs for Pentagon contractors doing God-knows-what in Central Asia or the Middle East, making more people angry at the U.S. Instead, that same amount of money could have created another 2,000 moderate salary jobs in America performing sustainable, life-enhancing human services. This one contract on one day helps to lose more than 1,500 American jobs and generate hate against the U.S. No, I am not an economist. I am just a professor in the field of Conflict Resolution, trained to approach problems with an open mind and a brainstorming stance. We need some brainstorms in our country. People are hurting and our direction isn't changing. When I grew up in hockey country in Minnesota, my father was our Peewee coach. He told us, "Whenever we are losing, we are going to change how we play." Our team, the Tigers, won the Peewee championship that year. Surely we have some certified smart people who can think outside the Wall Street-Pentagon box and start spending taxpayer funds--few of which come from corporations, most of which come from hard-working middle-class Americans--so that we see some recovery where it counts. Always change a losing game. We are losing. Change is overdue. More on Afghanistan
 
Adam Dub: As Seen At The Open Top
It's Thursday evening and the tail end of the 2nd round. We depart the 7 train with throngs of other New Yorkers looking to put the work day behind them. For those who aren't regulars, you'd think by now the U.S. Tennis Center and Citi Field would have earned a sign from the Transit Authority, but no, Willets Point it stays. After reassuring tourists this is the Open stop, and pulling a sleeping man off my fiancee Carolyn's shoulder, it's only a matter of time before we bump into friends on the platform we'd just learned from Facebook were also coming. Tennis chatter ensues as we speculate on who we're seeing tonight. For some reason, I couldn't get the U.S. Open app to work on my phone. Rumor has it Roddick's playing some French dude and Sharapova is playing an American, which turned out to be accurate. We're happy at the very least we got some marquee headliners. Heading past the gates, we learn James Blake, no different than any other year, is battling in the 3rd set of an afternoon session match. For most ticketholders, that means spending a good hour and a half outside eating and drinking their way to a $100+ hamburger, garlic fries and Grey Goose tab. However, since we're fortunate to be guests in a private box, we gain access to the suite for bonus coverage. We're pleasantly surprised that Blake's annual posse, the J-Block, is spread out across different seats and not given their own suite. While still annoying and inappropriate, especially for a 2nd round match he should win, it's better than the suite block they usually form. We decide to forgo the balance of this match and the Block's "James, James, James" to dine inside with friends. Blake finally wins a match he should have won a long time ago, and we await Sharapova. The stadium's sound system kicks in and the now commonplace Thriller blasts to the delight of fans followed by a mix of Top 20 with the type of music that accompanies presidential candidates on the campaign trail. Then, to my surprise and delight comes Cotton Eyed Joe , normally reserved for the 7th inning stretch in the past at Yankee Stadium. I pine for a bag of peanuts I can make a mess with on the floor and look for Cotton Eyed in the broadcast booth but can't find either. Because I'm in the ad business I take a look at around to see which brands are here. It looks like the Open is pretty recession proof, with the same cast of characters give or take and couple new additions including SpongeTech, who it seems, has bought every piece of available inventory in Major League Baseball stadiums as well. I guess this is a company to watch. For some strange reason, I noticed Valspar wasn't there, but chalked it up to declining home sales. I'm about 3 drinks in now, when the towering Maria Sharapova, dressed like an America Gladiator from outer space, bedazzled silver headband and all, takes the court against her understated opponent Christina McHale, an 18 year old from nearby Bergen County. It seems these days that night time matches require a different dress code. McHale, despite her surname, looked like the girl I shared my Bar Mitzvah ceremony with, so I knew it would only take a few loud Sharapova grunts to eliminate her. Flipping through the program, I discover Maria's only 22 years old, but then I remember tennis players, like hockey players, start when they're like 15. The difference being, at 30 in tennis you're considered past your prime. We're into the second set and our minds have wandered elsewhere despite the mildly inspiring "let's go New Jersey" screamer from high above. Carolyn poises the question, why is it that most chair umpires have foreign accents? I thought that was a good observation and tried to Google it on my phone. Before Roddick's match commences, we engage in idle chatter with a suite mate. He's an early to mid 40-something man from Long Island who delighted us with tales of tennis anecdotes from his days as a journeyman on the tennis circuit. We're not certain if it was the junior or professional circuit, but he sure held our attention with stories about everyone and everything, from his days with Jay Berger at Clemson, to playing with Johnny Mac and bypassing ushers in the good old days at Louis Armstrong Stadium. Now, a professional photographer we think, he educated us on shutter speed, resolution, and pixilation. We asked him to shoot our wedding but he declined. Soon enough, we see him sneaking a few young Russians in that passed themselves off as a tennis player and coach, seriously. Back to the match, somehow we're a set in already. Neither player is yet to come to net, but Roddick is intense as ever and serving like a maniac. Once again, he tugs at his shirt all match because it just doesn't ever fit him. There seems to be a new found hope for Roddick amongst fans after his best match ever at Wimbledon. This was a blow out, so attention shifted to the celebs in the crowd including the ever present Alec Baldwin and Amanda Seyfried ( Big Love and Mamma Mia , the movie). I wished Big Love were coming back sooner and that they had the whole Hendrick's family in the box dressed in character. Of course, the stadium deejay pumped out Mamma Mia tunes to reinforce the obvious. For the record, I only knew of the Mamia Mia connection because it was the only in-flight movie shown during a flight I had taken a year ago. The evening was clearly fading. I'd consumed one too many Heineken's and Carolyn was on her third Evian, so I know it was time to head home. Before leaving the gates, Carolyn elected for a little retail therapy at the Ralph Lauren pop-up store. We encounter that despite a recession, the prices are obscene and there also seems to be runway show going on inside the store with a man and what looks like his Russian bride. Uninspired by the price to goods relationship at RL, we segue into the Official U.S. Open store. We become nostalgic at the throwback t-shirts from the 80's, but end up of settling for a set of modern day but washed out overpriced shirts. The night ends on a high note, when an older woman from Florida with her daughter repeatedly asks, "where are the shirts with the built-in SPF, why don't you have them?" Only at the Open, only in New York."
 
Peter Clothier: The Willing Suspension of Disbelief Top
When Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined this richly associative phrase nearly two centuries ago he was talking, of course, about literature. Specifically, he wanted to justify his love of fantasy, arguing that "human interest and a semblance of truth" would serve to seduce the reader into an imaginative compact with the author. The thought came to mind this morning as I searched for a way to respond to yet another skeptical correspondent who demanded to know why he should continue to believe in the good faith of President Obama and his ability to enact significant health care reform. Friends write to me to let me know of their distress. I get sometimes bitterly angry comments to my online posts. I read and hear what the left-wing prophets of doom assert: that Obama -- if he was really anything other than one more crass politician who deceived us into voting for him -- has already capitulated to the corporate oligarchy and the strident voices of the right. He should never have been so naïve as to put his faith in the mirage of bi-partisanship. He lacks strength and sense of purpose. He should have spoken out earlier and more forcefully. He should be out there, leading... I know. I hear these things, and I share the deep and troubling concern that gives rise to them. There is a whole big part of me that is ready to give up on all of it; to abandon hope in the weak-kneed Democrats who lack the vision and the conviction to come up with a plan they can agree on; and, yes, to blame a President who at times seems aloof from the fray and disconnected from the people who placed their trust in him as the last great hope for change. And yet... there are times when the willing suspension of disbelief seems appropriate and necessary, in order to remain true to my own commitment to do what I can do for my fellow-beings with whom I share this planet. I share the skepticism. Call it, perhaps, realism: the facts of this country's recent history and its current affairs speak loudly. Deadlock and acrimony confront us everywhere we look -- here in my own state, California, and in the nation's capital. We are addicted to the material comforts of our lives, to such well-being as each of us has attained; and despite the demand for change on the left side of our national discourse, it seems that great power still lies in the hands of those who are adamantly, fiercely resistant to it. We are like some old, weary Gulliver, unable to break free from the multiple bonds of the Lilliputians who hold us captive. In this circumstance, one useful strategy that stands between me and despair is the willing suspension of disbelief. I realize that it's a choice: it's "willing." But for the sake of my own sanity in a political culture that my more rational self deems utterly deranged and utterly beyond redemption, I make the active choice, for now, to suspend my disbelief. The act falls short of actually believing. I hold on to a small mental space where I acknowledge it to be a matter of intellectual and emotional choice rather than rational conviction. But the choice is still an empowering one, requiring that I not sink back into inertia. It's also a "suspension." The mind-space I'm attempting to describe is temporal and provisional. I find that by suspending my disbelief I can more easily watch and wait, and find the patience needed to allow change to happen and, insofar as I am able, to help it along the way. It provides me with a place from which I can continue to act, in the hope that we can still return to our senses as a country, and that we can collectively reconnect with traditional values like compassion and responsibility toward others as well as for ourselves, with a sense of common social purpose, and with that truly American vision of "a more perfect union" that Obama has publicly embraced. Call me naïve. Okay. An idealist. I'd rather be an idealist than an ideologue. But I'm constitutionally and temperamentally averse to succumbing to the kind of inaction and despair I might find myself accepting if I chose to surrender my willing suspension of disbelief. I'll settle for "human interest and a semblance of truth." And for believing, passionately, that acting as if something were possible can be the catalyst to make it happen. This, at least, is the path I choose. More on Health Care
 
Reverend Billy: Changing History Was Never Like This Top
Many of us believe that change comes from the marketing of a faster, bigger computer, a product that comes over us like a soft tsunami. More billions of us believe that the most basic change must come from a fundamentalist God, who will kill us or resurrect us. And so we live our personal lives resigned to these great forces. We assume that these forces are running history. Another force, one that we have not noticed, was always creating most of the change. It has surprised us by refusing to remain hidden, and now it is taking over history. As this new era becomes "the way things are," it is clear that we as individuals are being offered a much different kind of role in the making of history. It will take some getting used to. The application for this citizenship is coming at us like a surprise Natural Law, recited in a terrifying harmony by all that is indigenous. It feels like science fiction but it is actually happening. The whole thing has come as such a surprise that we don't have a traditional name for it yet. Is it "all of life?" All the things with roots and wings, the rocks and invisible odorless life too... have taken over the old role of the gods and monarchs and technologies. And what are they saying? All the life that isn't the human kind is flamboyantly reporting to us the impact of what we have done. The "feed-back loop" of the stately rising gasses of climate is also looping messages to the humans living here. Life doesn't seem to ask for guilt, doesn't have time for our tragic embarrassment -- it wants a direct response. It is making it simple for us. It is showing the way. This feels like a new kind of citizenship. You could call it a democracy with the earth as the government. We can vote by how we live. This utterly reverses how we usually look at ourselves through history, or say, in the news. How we lived was never historically crucial. Not like this. Now the smallest, closest and most everyday things we do must receive the glorious importance once reserved for the great Waterloos and Hiroshimas and moon landings. The human foreground, within our sensual range, the things in our hands, must be subject to the most careful deliberations. This includes everything, from our loving and communicating, to how we travel and clothe ourselves... How we live radiates out to history. "Great men," and the new solves-everything product and the gods with the swiftest swords - these actors will still struggle to hold their old spotlight in history. But the diary of a person who has this new citizenship will decide what is on that stage. Our personal reports about living add up to our history. Changing history was never like this. And -- our growing participation in this democracy of life hopes to make a future. It is happening now as the old commercial media dies out. With the new discoveries of how we can live, many practical communications are rising up and going out that change others who are also changing how they live and so they are changing us in return... "How are you living?" "How are you living?" "How are you doing it?" - that will be the main signal between political states. So, if change comes from how we live, then what a time to be alive! Everything we do matters. The old history never respected us like this. The earth gives us an outlandish storm and the storm passes and the sky and the sea are quiet again, awaiting our response. We stand there, our mostly-water bodies, and we make our first move. Is it a thought? Is it a step? Is it a caress? What we do changes our history. It is immediately written down in the water that flows to the horizon... (photo by CQ) More on Green Living
 
Andy Ostroy: The Obama School "Controversy:" Has America Gone Completely Insane, or Just Plain Racist? Top
On Tuesday President Barack Obama will address the nation's school children in a speech promoting education, ambition, perseverance and the need to become civic-minded. It's a terrific message designed to challenge and inspire today's youth. But as expected, the issue has been hijacked by the right-wing lunatic fringe that's either gone completely mad or lost all control of its racial bigotry. Either scenario is equal parts frustrating, infuriating, shameful and scary. Wild, unfounded accusations of "indoctrination" are flying at the president, and many children will be kept home from school to avoid the speech. It's "America's Parents Gone Wild." I try to understand the opposition's concerns--which has unleashed a torrent of emotion and vitriol from many parents--but I simply can't . Because there's nothing rooted here in logic or rational thought. To the contrary, it's based on ignorance, fear and, yes, racism . I suspect that a majority of the most fervent protests are originating in those parts of the nation where the black population is the smallest, and where blacks hold few positions of power. Is it possible that these "concerned" parents simply don't want their very conservatively-raised children getting the message that it's ok for a young black man to be so powerful? Maybe the thought of their children being "lectured" by a black man repulses them? Doesn't it seem ironic that, in an effort to prevent their children from being "indoctrinated" by supposedly radical views, these parents are perpetrating the biggest mind-fuck of all on their kids by censoring outside influences and instead heaping on them their own generations of intolerance and prejudice? So who then is doing the actual indoctrinating? It's just plain moronic all this talk of indoctrination and of Obama "spreading his socialist views" on school kids. I mean, after all, we're talking about the office of the United States Presidency for crap's sake. This isn't 50-Cent or Pamela Anderson addressing our kids. Have people simply lost their minds ? To be sure, the movement to prevent Obama's speech on the above grounds, and to boycott school Tuesday, is the single most unpatriotic event in modern history, and so disrespectful and offensive to the president and what the office stands for. In fact, on its merits, it's truly unfathomable . The people behind it should be ashamed of themselves. The people stirring up all this school-speech trouble are no different than the misguided tea baggers, the town-hall goons, the birth-certificate 'truthers' or those who say Obama's a radical, a terrorist, a socialist, a communist and someone who's out to destroy America. Nah...he's just black , people. Get used to it. Because, whether you like it or not, he's gonna be running things for another seven-plus years.
 
One For The Table: One for the Table's End of Summer Cocktail Extravaganza Top
Whether you're cooling off by the pool, by the beach, or on the patio....! Our summer drinks to help you on your way. Beach Martini Bermuda Rum Swizzle The Bootleg Cuba Libre Key Lime Martini Long Island Iced Tea Mai Tai Mojito POMtiki Smash Sassy Sangria Sea Breeze Tequila Sunrise Watermelon Falls
 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Obama Can't Thumb His Nose at the GOP, and Here's Why Top
The loud clamor from progressives, some liberal Democrats, and even a few self-described moderates for President Obama to get down and dirty with the GOP on health care and other big ticket legislative issues will always fall on deaf White House ears. There are good reasons why. Obama never had anything resembling the big and popular mandate that the press and Democrats believed he had to make sweeping change. He ran against an aging GOP candidate saddled with the colossal burden of a divided, corruption- and scandal-plagued GOP, a Saturday Night Live joke line vice presidential running mate, a tanking economy, an unpopular war, and a GOP president whose ocean bottom ratings made Hoover Hoover look like the second coming of Lincoln. Yet Obama still got trounced among white voters. A good chunk of whites voted for him less because of his message of hope and change, than because of disgust and loathe of Bush bumbles, fumbles, and miscues. Candidate Obama delivered carefully calibrated rhetorical toss away lines about ending the war, single payer health care, nailing Bush lawbreaking officials, cracking down on the Wall Street greed merchants, and jump-starting a new war on poverty. Yet he is and always has been a solid team-playing Beltway, centrist Democrat, and these political positions are anathema to centrist Democrats. To play the centrist political game correctly requires compromise, conciliation, and bipartisanship. Illinois Republicans, and that included some of the most conservative down state Republicans, repeatedly gave Obama high marks as the one upstate Illinois black Democrat who would continually reach across party lines to build consensus to get legislation passed. Obama learned early that this was the sure-fire way to bag the big financial and corporate dollars, stay in good stead with the Democratic Party regulars, and garner favorable ink in the mainstream media. He gave a bigger hint that compromise and conciliation would be the watchwords of his administration in his coming of political age keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. The punch line that brought swoons and wows was that Americans shouldn't be pigeonholed into Red States and Blue States, and that he would work hard to close the political and ideological rifts and divisions between them. This was a political template for a non-confrontational, don't-ruffle-the-GOP's-political-feathers approach to policy matters. Then there's the matter of race. The escalating GOP counterinsurgency against him is fueled by playing on the thinly veiled racial fears of a black liberal leaning president. A president who has an allegedly suspect birth status, religious ties, and patriotism, and who will subvert the liberties, and economic well-being of law abiding, patriotic hard working white Americans. This is pap and hogwash, but the scare tactic has worked. Polls show a big fall off in his approval ratings. Democrats are now inching up on Republicans in getting the blame for the mess in Congress. This makes Obama even more gun-shy about trying to ram health care reform, or any other part of his agenda, through Congress with Democrats only. This would draw not only howls of dictatorship but stir massive political and public disruption and unrest. This would open the door wide for Republicans to rebound and actually win back a few seats in the 2010 mid term elections. The specter of a rejuvenated, even more warlike GOP is Obama's worst nightmare. The low intensity warfare against him would severely hamper his efforts to better shore up the economy, pass immigration reform and revamped campaign reform law, and wind down the wars. Imploring Obama to thumb his nose at the GOP and go it alone with Democrats shows pure ignorance of who and what Obama is and how he got where he got. It just ain't going to happen. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is How Obama Governed: the Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press, January 2010). More on GOP
 
Salam Al Marayati: Closing Our Open Society is a Victory for Terrorism Top
The case of a diverted Air France flight involving Paul-Emile Dupret, a legal counselor to the European Parliament, is causing a stir over the Atlantic even though it's not a story in the US. Dupret opposes US policy on globalization, and for that reason, he is on the No Fly List. The case exposes a serious flaw in our national security programs--denying travel to political dissidents. The flight was detoured over the Caribbean and was delayed in Mexico. Many of the passengers missed their connecting flights. European hearts and minds were lost in this small incident. Some of you believe that if we want to catch the terrorist who wants to blow us up, then all of us have to deal with inconveniences. But let's make a distinction between inconvenience and insanity. The No Fly List may include suspects of terrorism, but the list also includes political opponents. Flawed or corrupted intelligence undermines our national security -- it makes us Americans look incompetent and/or arrogant. Other Europeans of Muslim background have been prevented from entering the United States. Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) is a citizen of the UK and was blacklisted. He has been recently cleared to re-enter the United States. Another high-profile case involves Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar who resides in Paris. His visa to enter the United States was revoked even though the University of Notre Dame offered him a teaching position in peacemaking studies. Both Yusuf Islam and Tariq Ramadan were accused of supporting extremist Palestinian groups. No evidence has undergone the scrutiny of the public eye. Yusuf Islam was cleared recently to enter the United States. Tariq's Ramadan case is under appeal and recently received a favorable opinion by a federal court. These exploitations of current anti-terrorism laws affect American citizens as well. In October 2008, the Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war. I have received several reports of harassment at airports of humanitarian workers or shutting the door on diplomats and scholars. The only common denominator in all these cases is that these individuals have taken stands that are non-violent but are politically controversial. None of their cases involved ties to Al-Qaeda or a connection to 9/11. They were victims of political profiling. For Mr. Dupret , it's about the right to dissent on the policy of globalization. On a positive note, the Obama Administration is opening up reviews to demonstrate more transparency in its searches and investigations of individuals traveling to and from the United States. Our input is needed . Yes we all need to be more vigilant and support our law enforcement in protecting our country, and even take off our shoes during airport screenings and cooperate with law enforcement. But to divert planes and stop people from entering the United States because they disagree with our government policies undermines the principles underpinning our open society. If we close our society, terrorism wins. Our government is concerned about global relations and the US global image. But in the words of Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, "To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate."
 
Ellen Snortland: Sicko Reprise, Please Top
Norwegians consider President Barack Obama to be a right-wing leader . I kid you not. My "people," the Norwegians, are out in front on so many social issues that even conservatives in Norway think Obama is too conservative. Nonetheless, when my husband and I were in Norway at the end of last year, our relatives and the people we met were absolutely overjoyed that Obama won. We literally had people in Oslo stopping us on the street (we were obviously Americans) and slapping our backs, shaking our hands and offering to help us with our luggage. AND they often reminded us they were flabbergasted at our primitive ways, especially about health care. Remember Michael Moore's movie, Sicko ? Moore and his editors decided to not use the footage they'd shot in Norway - it can be seen on the Special Edition DVD - because the Norwegian health care system is so pro-active and prevention oriented that it would strain credibility for many Americans to even know about it. I know this to be true. One of my relatives told me that Norwegian health care includes visits to shut-ins to play cards, read out loud, or just hang out. The government logic is that it's cheaper to keep a person company than it is to treat stress-related illness after the damage is done. I'm stunned at the Norwegian sense of generosity, common sense and ethics. Indeed, one of the Norwegian scenes that got omitted from the theatrical release of Sicko was an interview with a government "ethicist" whose job it is to make sure health care funds get invested in healthy - as in no harm to people - investments. How's that for goody-two-shoes government? Meanwhile, my husband and I have been wrestling with a health care plan here in the good ol' U.S.of A. that is generally pretty good EXCEPT that coverage is contingent on my husband working a minimum amount of time in an industry that has been socked by the recession... and guess what? They just raised the minimum. Oh, yeah, and then there's the "Big Brother" edict that came down the pike from the plan last month. Try to figure this out. I'm not quite sure why big pharmaceutical companies aren't fighting this. Here goes: we've now been told our plan will not cover prescriptions that we buy from our local pharmacies. We use Phoenix Pharmacy in Pasadena and Webster's in Altadena. We know the people who work there and trust them. We love our local pharmacies and make it a point to use them, even though we might be able to get a better price at a discount chain or online... maybe. We like to keep our local small businesses busy so they'll stay healthy and alive, with their employees employed, right? But now, we're told, we must get our pharmaceuticals ONLY via Medco - either submitted via mail or online, with the medications mailed back to us from Florida. In addition, if our prescription is not a generic they will refuse to fill it , even if the Doctor specifically asks for a brand name. I am facing dental problems I've had to put off because there's a cap on the amount of work I can get done within a year. I've been denied coverage on the replacement of a tooth that needs an implant, because Delta Dental has determined it is not close enough to the front of my mouth to warrant cosmetic considerations. In other words, they'd pay if I were losing one of my six most forward teeth. But the tooth that's giving me trouble is one that, if it's missing, will make me look like a Jack-o-Lantern, or in my case, a Jill-o-Lantern. A "partial" will also impact my ability to speak. Everyone knows an edentate woman performing a one woman show, or giving a keynote speech, is inspiring to other dentally challenged people! Sarcasm aside, since I am an actor and need to speak and sing in front of an audience, wouldn't a very visible tooth gap be considered a work related problem? No. I guess not. Thank goodness our problems are relatively non-catastrophic. I am grateful we are not contending with life-threatening conditions. Which brings me back to Sicko . As I watch the so-called health care "debates" and the ridiculous theater of town hall demonstrators , I can't help but wonder if there isn't some big pharmaceutical remedy for stupidity? Just as Viagra was originally developed for treatment of high blood pressure - it was discovered to have "side benefits" as a solution to erectile dysfunction (ED) - perhaps we should see if there are any drugs for flaccid minds , or mental dysfunction (MD.) This anachronistic paranoia toward anything that even remotely smacks of socialism or community welfare is deplorable, despicable and downright ridiculous. What can these yahoos demonstrating at town hall meetings be thinking? Oh, yeah, they suffer from MD. Someone get them a pill that helps get them some blood to their possibly shriveled, limp brains. Meanwhile, rent "Sicko," and give yourself a good reminder why the heck we need to emulate France, England and even Cuba... and someday perhaps, even Norway. More on Barack Obama
 
Barrett Brown: Stanley Kurtz Tries to Tie Gay Marriage to Divorce, Accidentally Proves Opposite Top
Does the legalization of gay marriage really contribute to the decline of heterosexual marriage? A good number of our fair republic's cultural conservatives seem to believe that it does, which is to say that it probably doesn't. But perhaps we should check anyway. "[I]n the Netherlands and places where they have tried to define marriage [to include gay couples], what happens is that people just don't get married," evangelical kingpin James Dobson told a typically credulous Larry King in November of 2006. "It's not that the homosexuals are marrying in greater numbers," he continued, although obviously homosexuals are indeed marrying in greater numbers since that number used to be zero and is now something higher than zero, "it's that when you confuse what marriage is, young people just don't get married." If what James Dobson says is true, several of the states which have been have been moving towards equal rights for gays are going to be in huge trouble, and Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, must already be. Of course, James Dobson is wrong. But where is the degenerate old fascist getting his disinformation from this time? The culprit in this case may be Stanley Kurtz, a regular contributor to the perpetually terrible Weekly Standard , the consistently amusing National Review , and the description-defying Commentary . A few years ago, Kurtz wrote a highly influential essay which set out to refute the work of William N. Eskridge, Jr., the John A. Garver professor of jurisprudence at Yale University, and Darren Spedale, a New York investment banker, who together had recently written a book called Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence . The authors discussed their preliminary findings in a Wall Street Journal op-ed before their work was more formally published (in fact, Kurtz weirdly dismisses it as "unpublished" several times in his article, as if it were somehow unseemly for a paper to exist between the time it is written and the time it is published). Denmark, the authors noted, began allowing for gay civil unions in 1989. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 10.7 percent. Norway did the same in 1993. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 12.7 percent. Sweden followed suite in 1995. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 28.7 percent. And these marriages were actually lasting; during the same time frame, the divorce rate dropped by 13.9 percent in Denmark, 6 percent in Norway, and 13.7 percent in Sweden. Confronted with statistics indicating that marriage in Scandinavia is in fine shape, Kurtz instead proclaimed that "Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to." Brushing aside numbers showing that Danish marriage was up ten percent from 1990 to 1996, our paper puritan countered that "just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark." He didn't bother to note that marriage rates they were down in 2001 for quite a few places, including the United States, which of course had no civil unions anywhere in 2001; presumably this was left out due to space constraints. In all seriousness, though, I'm not accusing Kurtz of being dishonest; it's evident that he is simply unable to anticipate very obvious objections to his muddled, demonstrably incorrect analysis even despite having spent some years at Harvard obtaining a degree in social anthropology, a degree which is apparently worthless. I will defend Kurtz further. Having not yet had access to the figures, he couldn't have known that both American and Scandinavian marriage rates had gone back up in 2002, a year after the dip he deemed to be apocalyptic in gay-friendly Scandinavia while completely ignoring it in gay-adverse America. As for Norway, he says, the higher marriage rate "has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples 'catching up.'" It's unclear exactly how old these "older couples" may be, but Kurtz thinks their marriages simply don't count, and in fact constitute a sign of "the institution's decline." And of course, it's clear from his phrasing that only a portion of the increase is attributable to these older citizens. So Kurtz's position is that Norwegian marriage is in decline because not only are younger people getting married at a higher rate, but older people are as well. I don't know what Kurtz makes per word, but I'm sure it would piss me off to find out. Kurtz also wanted us to take divorce. "Take divorce," Kurtz wrote. "It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married." This is true. It's also true that Denmark has a much lower divorce rate than the United States as a percentage of married couples, a method of calculation that makes the size of the married people pool irrelevant. Denmark's percentage is 44.5, while the United States is at 54.8. Incidentally, those numbers come from the Heritage Foundation, which also sponsors reports on the danger that gay marriage poses to the heterosexual marriage rate. Still, Kurtz is upset that many Scandinavian children are born out of wedlock. "About 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents," he says. He doesn't give us the percentage of second-born children who have unmarried parents, because that percentage is lower and would thus indicate that Scandinavian parents often marry after having their first child, as Kurtz himself later notes in the course of predicting that this will no longer be the case as gay civil unions continue to take their non-existent toll on Scandinavian marriage. Since the rate by which Scandinavian couples have a child or two before getting married has been rising for decades, it's hard to see what this has to do with gay marriage - unless, of course, you happen to be Stanley Kurtz. "Scandinavia's out-of-wedlock birthrates may have risen more rapidly in the seventies, when marriage began its slide. But the push of that rate past the 50 percent mark during the nineties was in many ways more disturbing." More disturbing indeed; by the mid-'90s, the Scandinavian republics had all instituted civil unions, and thus even the clear, long-established trajectory of such a trend as premature baby-bearing can be laid at the feet of the homos simply by establishing some arbitrary numerical benchmark that was obviously going to be reached anyway, calling this milestone "in many ways more disturbing," and hinting that all of this is somehow the fault of the gays. By the same token, I can prove that the establishment of the Weekly Standard in 1995 has contributed to rampant world population growth. Sure, population growth has been increasing steadily for decades, but the push of that number past the 6 billion mark in 2000 was "in many ways more disturbing" to me for some weird reason that I can't quite pin down because I'm all Kurtzing out over here. Of course, I'm being a little disingenuous - by virtue of its unparalleled support for the invasion of Iraq, the Weekly Standard has actually done more than its part to keep world population down. Why is Kurtz so disturbed about out-of-wedlock rates? Personally, I think it would be preferable for a couple to have a child and then get married, as is more often the case in Scandinavia, rather than for a couple to have a child and then get divorced, as is more often the case in the United States. Kurtz doesn't seem to feel this way, though, as it isn't convenient for him to feel this way at this particular time. Here are all of these couples, he tells us, having babies without first filling out the proper baby-making paperwork with the proper bureaucratic agencies. What will become of the babies? Perhaps they'll all die. Or perhaps they'll continue to outperform their American counterparts in math and science, as they've been doing for quite a while. Read more at True/Slant. E-mail me More on Wall Street Journal
 
Garrido Recorded Love Songs Suggesting He Was Fond Of Young Giirls Top
ANTIOCH, Calif. — Kidnapping suspect Phillip Garrido recorded love songs years ago that suggested he was fond of young girls, a former customer of Garrido's home-based printing business said. Former Antioch glass shop owner Marc Lister said Friday that he dug up the music after Garrido, 58, and his 54-year-old wife, Nancy Garrido, were charged in the alleged kidnapping and rape of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Both Garridos have pleaded not guilty. Lister said Garrido aspired to be a musician and gave him CDs containing about 20 songs three years ago because he knew people in the music business. In one song, Garrido sings, "The way she walks, yeah, subtle, sexy. What can I do? I fall victim too. A little child, yeah, look what you do." In another, he sings, "I will tell you about the only one. She's a dream, dream come true. With a note saying you're my baby blue." Garrido told Lister the songs were written while serving time in federal prison in 1976 for the kidnapping and rape of another woman. Lister, 57, allowed reporters hear portions of several songs on Friday at the Walnut Creek, Calif., office of his business attorney, Mark Mittelman. "The language, the lyrics, they're suggestive and they're provocative in a lot of songs," Lister said. Lister, who hired Garrido to print his business cards and invoices, said he plans to share the music with law enforcement if they want it but also hopes to raise money from it for abused women and children. It wasn't clear on Saturday if investigators had contacted Lister, El Dorado County Sheriff's Lt. Bryan Golmitz said. But authorities would be interested in reviewing the CDs, he said. "You can imagine the investigators have 18 years of material to review," Golmitz said. "They've got the initial portion done but there's going to be a lot of follow-up."
 

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)