Monday, September 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Blog Alert
Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

James Arthur Ray: A New Form of Capitalism: Dealing with the Cause Versus the Effect Top
Michael Moore's new movie on capitalism, like all of his movies, is thought provoking to say the least. I like Moore, not because I necessarily agree with everything he says or does, but because he's got the courage to make waves. In that sense, we're kindred spirits. It's those throughout history who have the courage to go against collective agreement (or collective apathy as the case may be) who often make the largest impact. But I'm not writing today about Michael Moore, or his movies per se. What I want to address is his idea that capitalism is the grand evil and express how I strongly disagree. Understanding the Different Systems The first thing we must clarify is the frequently misunderstood concepts of democracy, communism, socialism and capitalism. Generally speaking, democracy and communism are political systems, while capitalism and socialism are economic systems. However, communism is unique in that it tends to be both economic and political. With this understanding, Moore's comment that "the solution to capitalism is democracy" is flawed. A democracy can be socialistic or capitalistic. However, a democracy cannot be communistic. To further clarify, let's take a closer look at socialism, capitalism and communism for a moment. Traditional capitalism states you earn what you earn based upon how much and how well you produce. All assets in a capitalistic society are owned individually. Conversely, both socialism and communism believe all assets should be owned publicly and these assets should be directed and distributed by a centralized agency. The major difference between socialism and communism is that socialism believes assets should be allocated according to individual production, while communism believes assets should be allocated according to individual needs. A further distinction is that socialistic theory can work in a democracy, and they believe as many people as possible should have a say in how assets are allocated. Communism, on the other hand, cannot work in a democracy for they limit the control to a very small and elite group. The major question and problem in both socialism and communism is, "Who decides what individuals or groups are in charge of allocating assets?" Although it seems the question currently needs to also be asked of our so-called democratic capitalism. Capitalism? What are the rules? Reflect a few months back on the $700 billion bailout that was given to our top financial institutions. The number is so astounding that it's hard to even get your mind around, but let me give you some comparisons: If we wanted to pay down a billion dollars of the US debt, paying one dollar a second, it would take 31 years, 251 days, 13 hours, 34 minutes and 53 seconds. About a billion minutes ago, the Roman Empire was in full swing. One billion minutes is about 1,901 years. About a billion hours ago, we were living in the Stone Age. One billion hours is about 114,079 years. About a billion months ago, dinosaurs walked the earth. One billion months is about 83 million years. If we began paying off the $700 billion debt right this minute, and we paid one dollar a second every single second going forward, we would pay it off in approximately 22,182 years! As you can see, this is some serious debt. And who's paying off this debt? You are! And me too! But how did it happen? Did you agree to it? Were you even consulted? Moore makes the point poignantly that the bailout money was denied by Congress and then somehow was magically doled out anyway. Now you may or may not like this, but please keep an open mind and consider it. Doesn't it seem that what just happened with Henry Paulson (a former Goldman Sachs employee by the way) and was allowed by the Bush administration with our bailout money, was contrary to capitalistic principles? To me, it sounds like an elite few in power deciding what to do with our assets. Now while none of us wish to believe we live in a society where communistic principles are enacted, the facts are hard to ignore. I realize the argument may be made that allowing the banks to fail would've had vast implications on the entire country, and in theory, that may be a valid consideration. However, the problem with the bailout was (and still is) twofold. First and foremost, no regulations were placed upon these elite few bank leaders as to what to do with this hefty gift. Secondly, it goes directly against the capitalistic tenant of, "you grow what you eat." That you are rewarded according to the value you provide to the marketplace. Where is that money? It's in the pockets of the elite few that ran their business in the ground in our capitalistic democracy and then never took personal responsibility. I'm sure you realize like I do that if you screw up in your personal finances or business, no one's going to bail you out. Let's Deal with the Cause So do we need a new system as Moore states? No. No matter how idealistic socialism may sound to some, it currently won't work. And it won't work for many, many years to come. Again, with socialism, we're dependent upon those in power to be consciously aware enough to utilize and share assets correctly and not fall prey to greed. This takes a certain level of evolution and awareness. And we're not there yet. However, our current unique brand of democratic capitalism doesn't work either for the same reason stated above. From a limited awareness of broader implications, we're changing the rules as we play. However, it's not the system that's the cause. Rather, the system is the mere effect of a much greater cause we still fail to understand and rarely (if ever) address. The cause of irresponsibility is the fundamental consciousness of mankind. And unless and until it shifts, no system is going to be implemented to our greater good. Emile Durkheim so aptly stated, "When mores are sufficient laws are unnecessary. When mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable." What's needed is not a new economic or political system in this world... What must occur is a critical and massive shift in our individual and collective consciousness. What happened at Goldman and with the bailout was irresponsible. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the consciousness level of the individuals using the system. It's the consciousness that much change. To blame the system would be like blaming a knife for a murder. A knife can be used to cut bread for the masses or it can be used as a lethal weapon. The meaning of the knife is the intent with which it's used. Likewise, money (a frequent topic in the capitalistic/socialistic discussion) can be used to do tremendous good or it can be used for pure greed. Any tool is neutral. And once again, the meaning of any tool is the intent with which it's used. Change the intention of the user, and the tool changes accordingly. Three Points of Personal Identity In my book Harmonic Wealth: The Secret of Attracting The Life You Want , I speak about seven different ways in which we construct or define our personal identity and hence all our actions and our outcomes. For sake of time, I'll group these into three basic categories: egocentric, ethnocentric and world-centric. The understanding of each of these is vital to understanding the consciousness that must be developed to move our society and our world forward in a productive and sustainable way. Let's discus each... Egocentric is a consciousness level that basically focuses on me and my personal needs. When it comes to making a decision, the only point of consideration is, "What's best for me?" This level at the extreme thinks very little of the needs of anyone outside of self. The next level is a bit more aware of implications on a broader scale and we'll call it ethnocentric. When making decisions with an ethnocentric consciousness the consideration is, "What's good for me, and good for those like me?" Realize that at the ethnocentric level, those "like me" are defined as: me and my family, or me and my race, me and my buddies at Goldman Sachs, or me and all other Christians, me and all other Jews, me and all other Muslims, me and my gender or me and my country. Basically, my "community" is all those who I perceive to be like me, but outside of that group there's very little if any consideration. While ethnocentric is a higher level of decision making than egocentric, it's cultish and still focuses on a small part of the whole. Finally, the highest level of conscious evolution and awareness is world-centric. A world-centric level of consciousness makes decisions based upon, "What's best for me and best for my community and best for the entire world." This level of consciousness understands we're all connected. And like a spider web, if you pull one strand, the entire web is shifted. Likewise, in the vast web of all sentient and non-sentient beings, what one does affects all. No one or nothing operates in isolation. While you may believe that what you do today has little effect on me, I'd encourage you to not judge by appearances. In physics, there's a concept called Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions. While this is a mouthful, what it tells us is that everything affects everything. The most common example is called "The Butterfly Effect," which states, "If a butterfly flaps its wings in Japan today, it may cause a tsunami of the coast of New York tomorrow." A New Form of Capitalism So what system do we need? I submit capitalism is the only viable option. Yet a new type of capitalism must be adopted, a type that I call Conscious Capitalism. From a consciousness rooted in a world-centric approach, we must make decisions and take actions that are "best for self and best for the community and best for the entire world." You see, all humans have an innate need to contribute, improve and grow. And Conscious Capitalism allows for that. Only in a capitalistic system is it possible to sow what you reap and get what you give without anyone but the market itself to determine the value you're providing. I know in a true capitalistic model that the more resourceful I become, the more resources are afforded to me. He or she who is most resourceful will always access and acquire more resources. In a communistic or socialistic society, I must rely upon a chosen few (regardless of how many) to hopefully make conscious choices with the assets and resources of the whole. I must hope they will not fall prey to greed. This, as we see historically, has never worked. Nor has a capitalistic model worked either when laws and rules are not enforced or when the consciousness is grounded in egocentric or ethnocentric values. The capitalistic approach I'm advocating takes a much broader and long-term perspective than the capitalism of the past. In a consciously capitalistic society, there are basic tenants that we all must adopt and practice: I'm responsible first for my own actions, my own growth and my own results. I must take full advantage of all resources afforded me to learn and expand my own awareness and ability. I realize for my results to grow, I must grow. I must consistently focus on ways to improve my own value and the value I provide through my work in the world. I must pursue my goals and intentions in a way that allows and encourages all others to do the same. As an employer and leader, I must encourage the ability for education, growth and awareness for all, and remove roadblocks that may get in the way of this objective. As an employer and leader, I must not enable individuals in their own disempowering behavior but rather educate and inspire them to be empowered and to stand on their own. I must teach them to fish versus giving them a fish. As an employer and leader, I must institute and enforce rules, guidelines and penalties for any who choose to operate from a more egocentric or ethnocentric view. Finally, I must do all of this is in a harmonious and sustainable way with nature and the planet. Recognizing that what I do has far-reaching effects on the entire human race as well as the ecosystem. How Do You Change the World? In an environment of Conscious Capitalism, the primary objective is to support and encourage all individuals to educate and advance their conscious awareness and thereby awaken the innate spirit and ability of man. We must create a society and a world in which all unique belief systems are respected and embraced. We must focus upon inclusion versus exclusion. We must realize that what we do to nature and each other, we do to ourselves. Do you think I'm a dreamer? Well, in the words of John Lennon, "I'm not the only one." It's happening. In fact, it must happen! I'm an optimist, yet I'm not a romantic optimist. Rather, I'm an active optimist. I realize that for these things to come to pass, it's going to take work. I realize it's not going to be easy because for anything new to live, something first must die. But it doesn't take long to realize that the death of the old is apparent all around us. While some choose to hang onto the carcass of the past and fear death, I suggest we embrace the apparent death so new life may spring forth. We must allow the phoenix to rise from the ashes and like the Christian prophet stated, "Let the dead bury the dead." We live in the most exciting time in history. A time in which future generations will look back upon us and recognize that, in mankind's hour of greatest trial, we made the wisest choices. I believe future generations will look back upon us and say, "Thank God they were here... They figured it out." Stephen Jobs stated, "Anyone who is crazy enough to think he can change the world probably can." Well, call me crazy, but there's an ever-growing awareness and awakening in this world. As I stated, I'm an optimist and an activist. At some point in time, you must choose what you're going to stand for. I encourage you to stand on the side of activism and optimism toward an awakening of consciousness. And together, we'll deal with the cause versus the effect. With truly Conscious Capitalism, we'll realize that the gifts we receive are a direct measure of the value we've given. Together, we'll build a society that values and supports education, growth and giving for all. Together, we'll awaken mankind. Together, we'll change the world. More on Capitalism: A Love Story
 
Paul Snyder: Public Enemies and the Invention of Video Top
It's 1934. Johnny Depp and Christian Bale are very serious about committing and stopping crime, respectively, flanked by every other handsome, gruff-faced man in Hollywood, plus a wealth of tommy guns and Marion Cotillard. Sounds good; sounds like a lot of movies made between then and now. Recounting the last few months in the life of bank robber John Dillinger, as Public Enemies does, has been done at least four times before. Michael Mann's version isn't historically definitive, nor narratively the most cohesive, but it looks and feels a lot different than any predeccesor--or any of this summer's other blockbusters. Its raw aesthetic evokes a violence not of John Dillinger's time, but of ours: the movie looks, arguably, cheap. There are many economic and production-related reasons that filmmakers choose to shoot digital, but its flat uncorrected look, muddy, half-visible blacks in low-light and clipped overexposures in the sun, are considered its flaws and carefully avoided. These days the technology can so closely approximate the look of film, telling the difference has become a matter of trivia (did you know that Benjamin Button and Superbad were shot digitally?). Public Enemies , shot with the Thomson VIPER, brings digital production's unique--some would say, ugly--qualities to the fore. The elaborate nightclub is nearly invisible. Cotillard's bathtub is eaten up by glare. Aside from the cast, you'd be forgiven for thinking it didn't cost $80 million. Production value be damned, this is the Great Depression--er, Recession. But there are advantages to shooting this way, too, and these are the audience's surprises. With simultaneous multiple cameras, the editors often find unflattering, unusual and sublime angles. In a car chase the cameras nearly scrape the dirt road, as likely to fall out of the car as the gangsters. Distant pursuers appear in a deep focus impossible with a film camera. Pretty Boy Floyd is gunned down at such a static angle, it looks like Purvis set up the tripod himself. That's the conceit: a renegade production for a renegade's biopic. Hushed dialogue strains the ear, and sudden, unsweetened gunshots blare. These might be flaws, but it's hard to argue that the volume, in the life of a gangster on the lam, ought to be normalized, or that gunfights ought to be prettier. The raw video aesthetic would be less jarring were Public Enemies not set in 1934. The documentary style makes the action seem more real; the impossibility of video cameras during the Depression makes it all the more unreal. At its best, the movie uses this tension to great effect: paparazzi invade crime scenes, conflating Dillinger's celebrity and Depp's. When a police interrogator abuses Cotillard, the anachronism emphasizes his barbarity, while the verisimilitude makes it strikingly familiar. Anachronism enters Dillinger's life within the film, too. The outlaw was famously gunned down on his way out of the film Manhattan Melodrama , and the final aria in Public Enemies is a montage of Dillinger reflecting on his jailed lover in the smiles of Myrna Loy. One has to imagine that as dated as it seems in the middle of a 21st century crime picture, for a man who'd lived so hard for so long as Dillinger had, the fighting between Gable and Powell was impossibly cute. For all its aesthetic sophistication, the film's spontaneity runs roughshod over a lot of true history. There's the false premise that John Dillinger was made a priority after Purvis killed Floyd; in reality Floyd and Baby Face Nelson were shot after Dillinger. It's glossed over, but the women were prostitutes whom he took to the movies that night, and Dillinger never sauntered into the Dillinger squad, pining for his lost love. Michael Mann sides with Dillinger on the standing question, at the heart of the film's title--whether he was a friend or an "enemy" of the public good--and transforms him into a sentimental hero whose death was sort of a careless martyrdom. Public Enemies doesn't confront Dillinger with questions or historical nuance; it doesn't makes his heists nor his love life seem very sexy. It tells the story, true or not, of a man who tries and fails to escape a construct he'd made of himself. The history and melodrama are a lot of pretense--independently unsatisfying--but the spirit of the film, taking aesthetic risks and chasing what elsewhere would be considered flaws, manages to produce something nearer the spectacle--or that construct, however anti-spectacular--of John Dillinger. More on The Recession
 
Maria Rodale: The End of GDP: A New Economic Model Closer to Nature Top
I hate it when I have an idea, and then Nobel Prize-winning economists get all the credit for thinking of it first. That's what happened last week when I read in the New York Times about Joseph E. Stiglitz and Amartya Sen (my all-time favorite economist) recommending that we do away with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the ultimate measure of the health of a country and its economy. The truth is, recessions are fairly predictable. Since the founding of America, we've had one at least every 20 to 30 years, and in the last 50 years, we have had at least one, maybe two, every DECADE. If they are so predictable, why are we so shocked whenever they happen? My theory is that we are so disconnected from the cycles of the economy that it's equivalent to being stunned when summer is over and autumn comes. Rather than FREAKING OUT and making it worse, we should prepare for it, the way we do for the winter. Stock up and preserve the fruits of summer for the inevitable dark days that come EVERY YEAR. Younger countries, just like younger children, grow fast. Can you imagine if doctors still plotted our growth on charts when we were in our 50s? The sad fact is many of us do keep "growing," but instead of healthy growth, it's called obesity. America has been economically obese for decades--hogging the majority of the world's resources to feed the desperate hunger for more "growth." Now it's China and India who are the growing "babies." Ironically, they are the oldest civilizations on the planet. But civilizations have seasons, too. They rise, they fall, they rise again. (I remember that the first time I went to Rome, I kept thinking that it didn't look "fallen" at all!) What is the true measure of health? Strength and security: Are we strong enough to keep ourselves and our families secure? But strength isn't just military might, it's also the spiritual strength to make it through tough times, the strength to find new solutions to old problems, and the strength to do what's right. And security isn't just the idea that we can protect ourselves and keep our families safe and well fed--it's the ability to educate ourselves to be leaders in a world that is changing faster than a growing baby. It's time to look to nature as our model, and adapt our thinking and planning to what we are a part of, what we can't be separated from, no matter how much we try, in our high-rise, air-conditioned skyscrapers and pinstripe suits. Because nature always gets the last laugh. More on Economy
 
Sophia A. Nelson: Why Creigh Deeds Lost My Vote in the Virginia Governor's Race Top
Over the past nine months I don't think I have been coy about the fact that as a black moderate republican ( does such a thing exist) I voted for President Obama and that I have not been pleased with the overall direction and tone of my own political party of over 20 years (the GOP). After some of the stunningly offensive, and I believe racial statements and vitriol that we all have witnessed coming from the extreme right and from extreme conservative personalities on talk radio and TV, as well as Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst I decided that I simply could not register as a Republican anymore. I also decided rather quickly that becoming a Democrat was not a viable option for me either because I simply don't agree with the Dems on issues of foreign policy, national security, and taxes. Instead, I decided to register as an Independent in my home state of Virginia. Like most Virginians I plan to vote in the upcoming Gubernatorial election this November. Given my new found political "Independence" I decided that Deeds and McDonnell were essentially the same person, with similar records (except on the CHOICE issue). The two went head to head four years ago with McDonnell winning the context by less than 900 votes for the statewide Attorney General's Race. And I suspect that this year will be close also. As a Northern Virginia resident I decided that I would most likely vote for Deeds as are many of my female neighbors because he is pro-choice. However, the commercial that Creigh Deeds is running about McDonnell's 20 year old thesis has really turned me off . It turns me off because it is a sad commentary on Deed's inability to articulate his own vision for Virginia, and his ideals for how he will move the Commonwealth forward in a productive way that puts people back to work, and lessens the burdens of Government. Whether or not Bob McDonnell is a conservative, pro-life, pro-family guy has never been in dispute to my knowledge. I for one, was not surprised by his thesis. However, we have to ask ourselves as Virginia voters if we want to vote for someone (Deeds) who feels he has to tear the other guy down based on something that person wrote over 20 years ago. The other thing I hate is that once again the black vote will be prevailed upon by national democratic leaders (including the President) to save the sorry, lackluster democratic candidate from himself. I think Gov. Doug Wilder is right on this rebellion against his party. When will black democrats stop allowing themselves to be used in such a way? More ironic, is that Deeds himself said in March of 2009 that he "reserves the right to change his opinions and grow as a person" when he was questioned during the democratic primary debate about some of the shifts he has made on issues such as abortion policy, taxes and guns. What ticks me off about this is that it is so typical of what I think is the Achilles heel of the democratic party: "Do as I say, not as I do" and, of course, rely heavily on the black vote to save us in each election. Deeds is a hypocrite in short. He is allowed to grow and change his mind on issues, but Mr. McDonnell is not?? I think Bob McDonnell's daughter (an IRAQ war vet and Officer) is a great testament to McDonnell and his wife's view on how to raise a young woman in the 21st Century. I am sick of the commercials with the darkness and scary music--blasting the opposition for some secret in his past or some other so-called sinister motives. I am simply over it. Bottom line: I will be voting for Bob McDonnell for Governor of Virginia. More on Iraq
 
Carl Pope: What a Wonderful Week! Top
Last night was the opening segment on PBS of Ken Burns's six-night celebration of our national parks -- America's Best Idea. Beginning with the spectacular opening quote from John Muir superimposed over some of the most gorgeous outdoor images ever shown on television, it was a heart-stopping and inspirational two hours. Given the phenomenal job that PBS, Burns, and organizations like the Sierra Club have done in getting the word out about this series, my guess is that it might capture the largest PBS audience ever -- and the benefits of having as many as 10 million Americans spend an entire week deeply emerged in our natural treasures is tremendously exciting. The Sierra Club is devoting this entire week to helping use America's Best Idea to build a new generation of activists for the national parks -- we're seeking to build an army of 100,000 champions to help us ensure that the legacy of our National Park System is not only preserved but also prepared to meet new challenges from climate change and global warming. So watch, enjoy, and sign up. A cousin in Chicago sent me an email last night saying, "We own this magnificence in common ... I love it. A burst of pride here in Chicago." I think you'll share his sentiment.
 
Kyle G. Brown: Beyond the Tobin Tax: End the Free Ride for the Financial Sector and Impose Fees to Revive the Economy Top
Michael Moore acted out a near-universal fantasy when, in his latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story , he pulled up to a bank in a Brinks truck, stepped out, and announced to security guards: "We're here to get the money back for the American people." As effective as it must have seemed at the time, there are ways to get our money back that don't require moneybags and get-away cars. Taxing trades in financial markets is one of them. But it's been hastily dismissed thanks to a sketchy exaggeration of the difficulties to ensue, a reluctance to take on Wall Street, and a failure to appreciate just how broke the nation is. Let's face it, America: the rest of the world is not going to forever finance your mountainous debt, as it reaches into the stratosphere. Your health care costs will continue to soar, whatever plan you decide on. Afghanistan, Iraq and other foreign adventures won't pay for themselves. Private capital flows, though thickening, are still in short supply, and invariably fail to filter to the rest of society. The answer is to raise capital for the public sector. A lot of it. Like a Tobin Tax, but Better Just weeks ago Britain's financial regulator, Adair Turner, the Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, proposed a global tax on financial transactions to curb excessive speculation and executive pay. It would go beyond the Tobin Tax on foreign currency exchanges, which the late Nobel-prize-winning economist James Tobin had recommended in the 1970s to penalize short-term speculation. The resistance that met Lord Turner's -- and indeed every such proposal -- comes predictably from apologists of unfettered finance, for whom the idea of regulation and additional fees, are anathema. This sector of society, largely untouched by the travails of a still struggling economy, prefers that the excesses of the financial sector go unnoticed, and untaxed. But as the world of finance returns to eye-watering profits, unemployment and poverty levels are on the rise, and the national budget teeters on unsustainably narrow tax revenues. The most reliable way to expand those revenues would be to impose a modest fee on every stock, every bond -- in short, every financial transaction. According to one study, a fee of just 0.5% would raise more than $100 billion a year, in US markets alone. That would defray health care costs, and help struggling states restore social services that have been axed over the past two years. Making it Work Critics opine that such a tax would be unworkable. Not so. A stamp tax of 0.5% is currently imposed on stock trades in the United Kingdom. Far from suffering from subdued trade, it's the home of the London stock exchange, one of the largest in the world. The claim that taxing finance would drive investment elsewhere is part of Corporate America's all-purpose Anti-Tax mantra. By its logic, we shouldn't really tax anything, should we? Why tax cars or clothes? Buyers will just go elsewhere! But unlike other taxes, this levy could be periodically altered, in the same way the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates: according to market activity. Most individuals or small firms make medium or long term investments -- a pension fund of $10,000 on behalf of a retiree, for example. At a rate of 0.5%, the investor would pay only $50 in fees. The tax would bear more heavily on traders, who make countless infinitesimal trades per day. As their business is based on fine margins, a tax would indeed affect profits. But because of years of falling costs and productivity gains from cutting-edge software, the impact would be minimal. The tax would discourage excessive speculation and casino-style trades, which do little to contribute to the wider economy, and in fact tend to undermine it. Traders may be unenthusiastic about these kinds of proposals, but they're not likely to pack up and go home. There is simply too much money to be made for a half-percent dent to scare them off. Swedish Bonds Critics point to Sweden which, for a short time, imposed taxes on stocks and bonds before abandoning the policy. Some investors avoided fees by trading in alternative financial products. But that is the point: taxes were not applied to all financial products, so investors could trade in some, and avoid others altogether. This is why for maximum effect, all of the major financial markets would have to impose a levy across the board. Perhaps you're thinking, "We could never tax financial transactions here." You already do. The US government imposes a tax on new equity issues, the proceeds of which finance the operations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It's a minuscule tax to be sure, but this, and the U.K. stamp tax show a levy is not only feasible, but potentially lucrative; it could help replenish desperately dwindling public coffers. Tax is Not a Four-Letter Word The key would be to raise the levy to an international scale. Several countries, including France and Belgium, have already proposed or passed legislation seeking to tax financial transactions worldwide. The German Finance Minister made a similar proposal earlier this month . And at the G20 Summit , a smaller, global tax for development assistance was discussed, but omitted from the final communiqué. Such timidity cannot continue. For any plan to take flight, it would need American support. President Obama must provide it, lest millions more be abandoned by the 'jobless recovery,' and be tempted to take matters into their own hands, with Brinks trucks and moneybags. Kyle G. Brown is a writer and journalist based in Toronto, Canada. More on Banks
 
Holly Robinson: Midlife Crisis Shoes Top
Last month I took my son Blaise out to lunch at his favorite diner."Wait!" I implored as I teetered across the parking lot after him. "I can't go that fast. Walking in these new shoes is like walking on stilts." Blaise turned and glanced down at my feet, encased in a pair of brand new embroidered espadrilles with 2-inch wedge heels. "What are those, your midlife crisis shoes?" Definitely. With four kids in college and one in junior high, it's high time for my midlife crisis. Shoes are cheaper than a boob job, a tummy tuck, or a new car. That was my rationale, anyway, when I decided to spring for a pair of comfortable heels. Except that now I had to wonder if "comfortable heels" was an oxymoron. Imported from Spain, those ankle-twisting espadrilles had called my name from the top shelf of a boutique while I was shopping with my daughter, Taylor. Taylor's blond curls, blue eyes, and perfect runner's body make her look runway ready in anything from flip flops to Gortex boots, but she's a sucker for pretty shoes. When she spotted these exotic espadrilles, she had to try them. "These are the most comfortable shoes I'll ever own," she declared. Since I was footing the bill, Taylor urged me to buy a matching pair. "You'll love them," she said. I didn't. As it turned out, my luncheon foray in espadrilles was a near-death experience when I tipped over into a pothole, then had to curl my toes like Aladdin so I wouldn't fall out of my shoes while climbing up the diner stairs. I came home feeling old. I grew up in the age of platforms, kind of like the ones Meryl Streep struts around in during Mama Mia , and I loved how they made me look leggy, hip-swishing, and, well, taller. I'm 5'3" on my best posture days, so wearing heels in my youth was a guarantee that I could reach the wine glasses on the top shelf. Besides my platforms, I owned red stilettos, pointy black boots, and working women's pumps. As a young woman I always chose beauty over comfort: I had lethal chandelier earrings that scraped my neck, tummy-tightening pantyhose and underwire bras that could come unleashed at any moment and stab me through the ribcage. God, I looked good. Then, somewhere between motherhood and deciding to work in a home office, I took off my earrings and kicked off my heels in favor of sensible flats. My favorite shoes are black, round-toed Merrills that make me look like a nun, no matter how often I tell myself that they make me look like a British mystery novelist hiking the moors. The night after my espadrilles escapade, I modeled the Merrills for my stepson Drew, who just finished a film internship in Los Angeles and is the family's resident fashionista. "What do you think of these shoes?" I asked. "They scream 'unavailable','" he said at once. "But at least they're one step up from Crocs." That did it. I set out on a mission. There had to be comfortable heels out there. After all, I am no reality show virgin. I've seen Dancing with the Stars . Those people don't just walk in heels, they dance in them! Even intellectual women manage to get around in heels. Sure, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor fell and cracked her ankle while rushing to board an airplane in heels. But there she was, just minutes later, filmed using crutches but wearing a sexy black high heel on her good foot! For my next foray into the upper reaches of footwear, I went with a pair of cute gray El Naturalista shoes stamped with abstract ivory designs. They had a respectable heel, just under two inches of comfy looking cork. I fell in love with the little frog label, too. The woman in the shoe store gushed. "Naturalistas are made of all natural materials, so they're not just good for your feet. They're good for the environment!" "Great," I said. "But can I walk in them?" "You'll never need another pair of shoes," she vowed. Okay, maybe she didn't mean to say that. What shoe clerk would ever tell you to put your wallet away? The point is, I bought that pair of shoes for philosophical reasons: I wanted to be a Naturalista! According to the company's web site, "Naturalistas start their journey observing everything that surrounds them. They travel through the world and observe it, becoming impregnated by its textures, its colors, its lines... and after a thousand journeys, real and imaginary, they discover that a single idea brings us together. Whatever our race or culture... we all walk in search of happiness. Movement is El Naturalista´s reason to exist. That is why we enjoy creating comfortable and attractive footwear, that helps us to move along the amazing journey of life." Formerly impregnated with children, as a Naturalista I could now bravely move along in my amazing journey of life in environmentally correct high heels! I was ready to become impregnated anew with textures, colors, and lines. Alas, my journey proved to be a short one. I wore my new Naturalistas to a marketing meeting - they went perfectly with my swishy gray mid-calf skirt and slinky black sweater - only to tear them off the minute I was out in the hallway an hour later. "Cool shoes," my colleague Laura remarked as I was limping back to the car. "Are they comfortable?" "Sure," I said through clenched teeth. "It's kind of like not noticing you sprained an ankle because your feet are on fire." Maybe I was going about this all wrong. Maybe wearing high heels was like learning to ride a bike: I should start with training wheels before navigating stairs on a unicycle. On my next shoe store odyssey, I opted for black leather Ecco pumps with a 1.5" heel. These were more streamlined and less Croc-ish than my Merrills, more pilgrim than nun. Their motto was good, too, or at least shorter: My world, my style, my Ecco! Alas, my world, or at least my foot, was too wide for an Ecco. After half a morning these shoes made my feet feel bound in baling twine. "High heels that don't fit are a torture chamber all their own," I complained to my husband. "Why are you even bothering?" he asked. "Men don't notice a woman's shoes. To me, women in heels look like hooved animals." If my husband didn't care about high heels, why did I? I thought about the waitress who had served me in one of our local restaurants recently. She was French and wore high heels to serve scrambled eggs, along with dangling earrings and a beautiful bell-sleeved wrap dress. I wanted to look that put together at least sometimes. Over the next few weeks I went through all of the shoe outlets north of us. I started with Ariats, Clarks, Danskos and other brands that advertised sensible comfort and offered chunky, clunky heels. The problem was that these shoes might be tall, but they were undeniably ugly. I might as well go back to Merrills. I moved on up to the pointiest, tallest dancer shoes, some of which had wraps and ties that made me feel like I should wear a toga with them. At one point, I fell head-over-heels for a pair of gold Elites close to three inches high; these shoes had a gold patent leather upper and special cushioning inside that looked and felt like bath mats, with all of those little dots. I'd gotten smarter, however, and wasn't about to buy any of the shoes I tried on if they felt even a little bit uncomfortable. A shoe that's too snug or slips on your heel in the store will feel like a snake is biting your toes or a dog is chewing your heels when you wear it doing anything other than sitting down. I really wanted those Elites. I visited them three times, walking for fifteen minutes up and down the shoe store aisles during each of our encounters, willing them to be comfortable. Eventually, I had to give up. The straps around my heels weren't enough to keep me from sliding around. Even Cinderella, with her fairy godmother tailoring her shoes to keep her stepsisters out of them, couldn't have danced in those. Finally, I went to the swankiest shoe store within an hour of my house and explained my situation to the patient clerk. What I needed, the clerk said, were heels made of top quality leather, because those would be softer. A pillow insole would be a good thing, too. "Here," she said. "Try these." She handed me a white box with an abstract design in bright green and yellow green. Inside it snuggled a pair of black Joy Chen shoes with 2 ½-inch heels. The shoes had a closed back, an open toe, a wide elastic strap, and a snazzy gold interior. The heels were thick but not wedged. In fact, the shoes were shaped like an elegant bridge, or even a piece of art. I was instantly in love. I tried them on. I walked around. My feet didn't seem to notice. I looked in the mirror and still saw a middle-aged woman in jeans, only this woman was elegant and lanky. I saw me, only better. "Let's try one more thing," the clerk suggested. She ripped open a packet of little gray rubbery things shaped like clouds, called "Tip Toes," and thrust them into the Joy Chen shoes. I put the shoes back on. "Wow," I said. I walked. I jogged. I pranced in place. I had found my shoes! And the best part? They were on sale. The next day, I had a meeting with an attorney over a house sale. I wore my Merrill's as far as the lawyer's parking lot, not wanting to chance driving in heels. Another obstacle presented itself as I got out of the car: a gravel path leading to a steep set of stairs made out of rough timbers. Could I do it? I cast a wistful glance at my abandoned Merrill's, but squared my shoulders and got out of the car in my heels. There was nothing to it! I could have run up those stairs! I shook hands with the lawyer, and I swear to you that he looked me in the eye, then did one of those looks men do when they think you're not noticing. It might not have been the shoes. After all, the shoes had inspired me to wear earrings and lipstick, too. But after the meeting, I drove home in my Joy Chen's with the windows down and the radio on, feeling like it was spring all over again. More on Fashion
 
Mike Robbins: Speak Your Truth - Three Tips for Communicating Authentically Top
Speaking your truth is an essential aspect of living a life of passion, fulfillment, and authenticity.  However, for many of us, myself included, it is much easier to talk about speaking our truth than it is to actually do it. I was talking to my friend Greg a few months ago and he told me a poignant and powerful story about speaking his truth.  He was in a grocery store and saw a woman yelling at her kids in a cruel way. He walked over to the woman and said, “Excuse me, would you please treat those children with kindness and love.”   She looked at him and said, “Mind your own business, these are my kids.”  Greg replied by saying, “If you were doing this in your living room, it would be just your business, but you're doing it here in front of me.  I'm standing over here with my heart aching for these children as I hear you speak to them like that – so I decided to come over and say something to you about it.” The woman then told him to stick it up his “you-know-what,” grabbed her kids, and rushed out to the parking lot to drive away.  Greg then said to me, “Mike, I don't know if I did the right thing or the wrong thing.  My legs were shaking as I talked to her.  I was so scared, upset, and emotional.” "But," Greg said, "I'll tell you what - when I walked away I noticed something interesting, I wasn't blaming anyone.  Normally, I wouldn't have said anything and I would've blamed myself for not speaking up, the woman for treating her kids like that, or our culture for creating the environment where things like that happen and no one does anything about it.  However, since I spoke up I was at peace and not wasting any time or energy blaming anyone.  I have no idea if what I said made an impact on that woman, but I don't have to live with her, I have to live with myself.” I sat there stunned when I heard Greg tell me this story.  I said to him, “Wow, that was bold.  I'm not sure I would've had the courage to say that to her, but I'm glad you did.” What if we had the courage to speak up like that in all areas of life – our work, our relationships, our family, with people in public, and in general.  Imagine the freedom and power we would possess.  This is not all about getting in people's faces and challenging them, although sometimes it might take that form. An important distinction for us to remember is the difference between our “opinions” and our “truth.”  We all have opinions; lots of them (have you noticed?).  Many of us think our opinions are actually "facts;" they're not!  There's nothing wrong with having and expressing our opinions.  However, many of our opinions are filled with righteous judgment and an arrogant sense that we're “right” and those who don't agree with us are “wrong.” Our “truth” runs much deeper than any of our opinions.  Truth is about how we feel and what is real for us.  Truth is not about being right, it's about expressing what we think and feel in an authentic, vulnerable, and transparent way. For example, I might have an opinion that you are rude.  I'm entitled to this opinion and I may even have specific evidence of times you have done things that I think are rude.  There may also be other people who agree with me that you're rude.  However, this opinion will probably not help our relationship, bring us closer, or have us be in honest conversations with each other. My “truth,” however, might be that when you're around me I get scared because I worry you might say something that will hurt my feelings.  Or, I get angry because I don't like some of the things you say and do.  In other words, I sometimes don't feel safe or comfortable around you. This distinction is not just about semantics or words, it's a total shift in perspective and context.  When we let go of being “right” about our opinions and take responsibility for our experience, we can speak our truth from a much deeper and more authentic place.  Speaking this deeper truth will not only liberate us, but it has the potential to make a difference for others and bring us closer together with them. How do we enhance and deepen our capacity to speak our truth with kindness, love, and authenticity?  There are lots of things we can do to accomplish this – here are three to think about: 1)  Stop managing other people's feelings.   I know this one well myself, as I can be the king of trying to manage other people's feelings.  It's arrogant, manipulative, and somewhat ridiculous to think that we have the power to manage other people's emotions.  We also use this idea as a cop-out or an excuse to not really speak our truth.  We can be aware of and mindful of other people and how they might feel (so we don't end up being mean and hurtful on purpose), but when we let go of taking care of others in a condescending way, it frees us and them up to be grown-ups and have adult conversations, which sometimes can get a little sticky or tense when we're speaking our truth. 2)  Be real, not right .  This is huge when it comes to speaking our truth.  When we focus on winning or being right, we no longer can access the deepest places within our heart, which is where our real truth comes from.  When we let go of our attachment to the outcome of a conversation, what the other person thinks, and our erroneous obsession with always having to be right, we give ourselves the opportunity to get real.  Being vulnerable and transparent are the key elements of speaking our truth, not dominating the conversation and the person (or people) we're talking to. 3)  Practice.   Like anything and everything else in life – the best way for us to get better, deepen our capacity, and grow, is to practice.  In this case as we're talking about speaking our truth, it's not about “role playing” per se (although if that helps give you the courage to have a difficult conversation, go for it), it's about speaking up and stepping out into your life with your truth.  Will you mess it up?  Of course!  Will you say the wrong thing sometimes?  Yes.  Will people get upset, offended, or defensive at times?  Absolutely.  This isn't about being perfect, it's about being yourself and speaking authentically. Have empathy and compassion with yourself as you practice – this is not easy for most of us.  And, even for those of us who have really worked to expand our capacity to speak our truth and have had many experiences of doing it in a powerful way, we have to remember that each situation is always new and different.  Also, in certain areas of life (or with specific people), speaking up can be incredibly scary and challenging for us.  Even if your legs shake, your voice quivers, or your heart races (all of which usually happen when we get real and vulnerable) – take a deep breath, dig down for the courage you have within you, and be willing to speak your truth.  When we do this, we can watch our relationships and lives literally transform. More on Relationships
 
Michelle Renee: Grey's Anatomy Sheds Light on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Top
The reminder on my TV had been set for a week. My daughter and I were settling in for our favorite show premiering on Thursday night and ready for two hours of Grey's Anatomy drama. Last season they introduced us to a new character, Owen -- a doctor suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to his stint in the military during war time. His girlfriend, Christina, was the unsuspecting victim of a horrific nightmare he was having related to his trauma. However, he was never able to talk to her about his symptoms of PTSD nor was he able to discuss the trauma itself. This storyline was of particular interest to me due to my own, and my daughter's, acute PTSD diagnosis after surviving a devastating home invasion kidnapping, hostage, and bank robbery ordeal. I was so in tune with what this character was going through and could literally feel his pain in some of the scenes. Why? Because I know just how real PTSD is. But I also know it is possible to heal and move forward. When I watched the big premiere, riveted by Izzy's gutsy "get a life" chat with the woman on the bench, I was also wonderfully surprised by the direction Owen's character was taking and the inclusion of a female therapist and Christina joining them. "His Post-Traumatic Stress is fed by his avoidance of talking about it," the therapist said. (I can relate.) "If he is going to heal he MUST learn to talk about his trauma to you and to me (referring to Christina). Does he talk about his trauma? Does he talk about the incident?" One of the 10 keys to healing from post-trauma that I discuss in my presentations is giving yourself permission to talk about your trauma and letting go of any shame related to your symptoms. When we talk to our friends and family members about what we are going through emotionally after violence, abuse, or trauma, we are educating them. It may be the only time they ever hear about what the symptoms actually are and what they can do to support you. They may not understand if they have never experienced it, but education and awareness is a great place to start. I was also impressed that the show put the girlfriend in the therapist office with the client. Involving friends and family is a critical piece of the positive recovery puzzle. More treatment centers need to incorporate family and friends into the treatment process, even if it is a once a month orientation. I know what many of the treatments sites will say ... budget issues. I say baby steps now combined with leaps of faith is a great way to begin. The plot came full circle when near the end of the show Owen not only shared his nightmare with Christina, but also went in to help a patient who had lost a limb and lost her will to live. He said, "I have been THERE. I know what it is like to want to die and as impossible as it was, I'm back. You have to do the work." When someone like me can speak from a place of "I've been there," I know how powerful it can be and how it will inspire positive change in someone else. I want to applaud Grey's Anatomy and share a message with others who have survived violence, abuse, and trauma: Do the work. As impossible as it may seem, talk about your symptoms without shame and give those around you the opportunity to support you. The simple truth is ... there really is light at the end of the dark and frightening PTSD tunnel. Michelle Renee speaks to universities and mental health professional/organizations on the topic PTSD is REAL and Hostage No More: 10 Keys to Breaking Free from Emotional Pain and Trauma. www.michelle-renee.com More on Wellness
 
Jerry Cope: COP15 in Copenhagen Critical as Tipping Points Reached; Global Rise of 6.3 Degrees Now Forecast Top
Climate Week 2009, as celebrated in New York at the UN, failed to produce a much needed breakthrough in negotiations leading up to COP15 in Copenhagen this December where the successor to the Kyoto Protocols will be finalized. The meeting of world leaders in New York did not result in any significant forward movement on international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which are driving global warming. President Obama continues to proclaim the urgency of addressing anthropogenic climate change while offering no specific goals, targets, or policies to reduce carbon emissions. His administration is sending signals that there will be no consensus agreement in Copenhagen, placing the blame on the US Congress which has yet to pass any legislation to regulate GHG emissions. In light of the new United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium Report 2009 (UNEP) 2009 , it is imperative that a consensus treaty be reached in Copenhagen. The UNEP report confirms what many of the world's leading climate scientists have been saying with ever increasing urgency; climate shift mechanisms are accelerating at a far faster rate than anticipated just two years ago. We are witnessing the rapid deterioration of the earth's biosphere and a global temperature increase of 6.3 degrees this century is now likely, unless aggressive action is taken immediately. The consequences for life on this planet will be devastating. A maximum rise of 2 degrees is generally accepted as the limit before catastrophic climate change is certain. The scientific evidence is incontrovertible; the life support systems which have created a stable global biosphere now signal a cascading collapse, caused by GHGs and other human activity. The sixth great extinction is gathering momentum and it would seem human political systems are incapable of action which could prevent the worst case scenarios from happening. The UNEP 2009 report indicates that climate tipping points, which will result in irreversible accelerating changes to the planetary ecosystem, have already been been reached and possibly surpassed. The range of 1.4 to 4.3 degrees Celsius in the committed warming overlaps and surpasses the currently perceived threshold range of 1-3 degrees Celsius for dangerous anthropogenic interference with many of the climate-tipping elements such as the summer Arctic sea ice, Himalayan glaciers, and the Greenland Ice Sheet. Researchers suggest that 0.6 degrees Celsius of the warming we committed to before 2005 has been realized so far. Most of the rest of the 1.6 degrees Celsius total we have committed to will develop in the next 50 years and on through the 21st century. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4 degrees Celsius ( Ramanathan and Feng, 2008 ). Governments, business, and citizens continue to operate under the false model that we can continue with business as usual and react quickly if these end-of-the-world forecasts prove accurate. This is foolish in the extreme for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that the world's oceans require over 1000 years to cycle temperature increases due to CO2 and climate warming. Susan Solomon and the team at NOAA in Boulder provided conclusive evidence of the ocean's long term retention of temperature increases earlier this year. Continuing carbon dioxide emissions in the future means further irreversible effects on the planet, with attendant long legacies for choices made by contemporary society (Ramanathan and Feng 2008). We have already committed our civilization to considerable deficits in how Earth Systems respond. These dangers pose substantial challenges to humanity and nature, with a magnitude that is directly linked to the management practices we choose to retreat from further tipping points and irreversible changes from GHG emissions (Lenton et al. 2008, Solomon et al. 2009). COP15 may very well be the last chance for the world to reach a consensus on measures to reduce GHG emissions and avoid climate chaos for the next millennium. Bill McKibben whose organization 350.org is advocating for the reduction of CO2 concentration levels in the Earth's atmosphere to a "safe level" of 350 Parts Per million (PPM) from present levels of 390PPM, said " The political system is not producing at the moment a result which has anything to do with what the science is telling us." One of the world's foremost climate scientists James Hansen (who first sounded the alarm on climate change 20+ years ago) said, "Those who lead us have no excuse -- they are elected to guide, to protect the public and its best interests. Only in the past few years did the science crystallize, revealing the urgency. Our planet is in peril. If we do not change course, we'll hand our children a situation that is out of their control. One ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks." It is abundantly clear that the world's leaders must take action to reduce anthropogenic climate change while there remains some chance of averting all out apocalypse. The time for preventive measures has passed, it is now time for emergency action. More on Climate Change
 
David Ormsby: Will Obama Intervene in Illinois Gov. Primary Between Pat Quinn and Dan Hynes? Top
Will President Barack Obama choose between Pat Quinn or Dan Hynes in the 2010 Illinois Democratic primary for governor? Perhaps. In the last week, both the New York Times and the Washington Post report that the Obama White House political operation is picking sides in primaries across the country, and -- most notably -- trying to push politically enfeebled New York Governor David Paterson out of his state's primary altogether. Paterson's job approval rating is hovering at 18% and disapproval at 80%. Ouch. Here in Illinois, Governor Pat Quinn's job approval rating is at 39% and disapproval is at 26%, while 35% have no fixed opinion, according to a recent Chicago Tribune poll. Quinn is not now in a Paterson-like danger zone. But with a 39% approval and a 35% "no opinion" Quinn -- who inherited his job after the Illinois legislature ceremoniously booted Rod Blagojevich from office -- must have landed on some political health "watch list" in the White House. Most informed Illinois political observers -- including the Quinn and Hynes campaigns -- expect, however, Obama to remain neutral. "Governor Quinn does not expect the President to get involved in this race," said Elizabeth Austin, Communications Director for Quinn's campaign. The Hynes campaign agrees but leaves the door ajar. "Dan has tremendous regard for the President, and wouldn't dare put any expectation to him regarding the campaign," said Matt McGrath, Hynes' Communications Director. "Dan would be honored to earn and accept his support, just as he's earning support from people all across Illinois." State Sen. and Evanston Township Democratic Committeeman Jeff Schoenberg states Obama will not butt in. "The White House obviously showed great interest in an alternative to a [Alexi] Giannoulias U.S. Senate candidacy through its public courtship of Attorney General [Lisa] Madigan, but that's the extent to what we've seen here in Illinois. So, no, I don't expect any White House play in the Quinn-Hynes primary race." More colorfully, political communications strategist Thom Serafin of Serafin & Associates says: Home state primaries are like offering an opinion of your sister's new boyfriend from 'Mars.' It's very hard to escape damage of some sort when you get involved ... in a home state primary. Dan Hynes has made a point of being a friend since the D[emocratic] Senate primary; and Pat Quinn has been a friend and colleague for many years with his guys as well as the President. So I do not expect them to get involved. In fact, in 1990, Quinn was elected Illinois state treasurer with presidential adviser David Axelrod's help. Political strategist Kevin Lampe, executive vice president at the political consulting firm Kurth-Lampe , also expects the President to take a pass in the Quinn-Hynes slugfest. "It would be nice if Quinn got the endorsement, but I don't think he expects it or is reliant on it, " said Lampe. "I think Quinn is very interesting," Lampe added. "He has got endorsements from a variety of players from the Cook County Democratic Organization to Jan Schakowsky." But what if Hynes begins to bloody Quinn in the weeks to come and pushes that 35% of general election voters who currently have "no opinion" of Quinn to the disapproval category. What then? Will the White House attempt to show Quinn the door à la Paterson? Again -- perhaps. But if Hynes were to follow that route -- savaging Quinn in general election voter eyes -- he would need to act fast before petitions are filed on Nov. 2, 2009. And would he need to calculate carefully how many Democratic primary voters might thank him with their votes. Risky. Meanwhile, as long as Quinn's 29% disapproval rating -- somewhat remarkably and thankfully low for a governor who is pushing a 50% income tax increase -- remains relatively steady, President Obama is unlikely to back Hynes. But if conditions change, the Hynes campaign is ready. "We will make sure absentee ballots are made available to the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, in any event," said McGrath of the Hynes campaign. More on Barack Obama
 
Sal Nunziato: Compact Reviews Of This Week's Compact Discs, For Those Who Still Care #5 Top
PICK OF THE WEEK. 7 WORLDS COLLIDE- THE SUN CAME OUT The brainstorm of singer-songwriter and New Zealand pop legend Neil Finn, 7 Worlds Collide first came about in 2002, when Finn and a stellar group of musicians that included Eddie Vedder, Johnny Marr, Ed O'Brien & Phil Selway of Radiohead, and Neil's brother, Split Enz founder Tim Finn, put on a series of concerts to benefit the international medical humanitarian organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres . This time, sans Eddie Vedder, but including Wilco, the concerts happened again, as well as this 2 CD studio LP, that is just remarkable from top to bottom. This year the benficiary of all proceeds will go to Oxfam, which you could read all about HERE and the full roster of musicians can be found HERE. ALICE IN CHAINS- BLACK GIVES WAY TO BLUE First studio album in 10 years with new vocalist William DuVall filling in for the late Layne Staley. Sounds a lot like Alice In Chains WITH Layne Staley. Elton John guests. (Really) ELVIS COSTELLO- THE COSTELLO SHOW (LIVE AT THE EL MOCAMBO, 1978) There are few I respect as much as Elvis Costello for his brilliant songwriting and his relentless work ethic. Not everything hits the mark- "North," his heavy-handed love letter to Diana Krall and "My Flame Burns Blue," his clumsy live record with the Metropole Orkest, both come to mind--but you can't blame the guy for trying. This new series of reissues about to be released over a period of time, sounds like a great idea; live concerts from the vaults. But why the hell start with something most Costello die-hards have in one form or another? "Live At The El Mocambo" was a famous, promo-only LP that many of us had a hard time getting our mitts on back in the day. 30 years later, it finally gets a separate, commercial release after being packaged as a bonus CD in the first boxed set of Rykodisc reissues , which in all fairness to the UMG, is now out of print. But after countless reissues where the die-hard E.C. fans were made to buy the same records over and over again for the bonus material--"My Aim Is True" and "This Year's Model," at my count have been released 6 times-- it would have been nice to see something we had never seen before. DENNIS DIKEN WITH BELL SOUND-LATE MUSIC New Jersey legend, Smithereens' drummer, and pop music connoisseur Dennis Diken, releases his first solo album with help from some of his pop music buddies, Pete DiBella, Andy Paley, Jason Falkner, Andrew Sandoval and The Wondermints. Diken's got a great voice, and the songs and arrangements will hit that soft spot you have reserved for all your fave 60's bands. Great stuff! COREY HARRIS- BLU.BLACK I can't remember Corey Harris ever releasing a bad record. No artist has been as consistent with his forays into blues, reggae and African roots music, and on Blu.Black, Harris once again hits the mark. Blu.Black is a collection or originals, save one cover, Burning Spear's "Columbus," that focuses on the "African-American story of earlier centuries and connects it to present day and future generations." Harris has always remained true to his heritage and its music and this new record does not disappoint. IAN HUNTER- YOU'R NEVER ALONE WITH A SCHIZOPHRENIC (2 CD 30TH ANNIVERSARY REISSUE) 2009 remaster of Ian Hunter's US commercial, solo breakthrough, now features 6 bonus tracks and a full disc of live material featuring the late, great Mick Ronson on guitar. Nicely done. TRACK LIST Disc: 1 1. Just Another Night 2. Wild East 3. Cleveland Rocks 4. Ships 5. When The Daylight Comes 6. Life After Death 7. Standin' In My Light 8. Bastard 9. The Outsider 10. Don't Let Go - Demo 11. Ships [Take 1] 12. When The Daylight Comes - Early Version 13. Just Another Night - Early Version [aka The Other Side Of Life] 14. Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On Disc: 2 1. F.B.I. - Live In Cleveland 18/6/79 2. Once Bitten Twice Shy - Live In Cleveland 18/6/79 3. Life After Death - Live In Cleveland 18/6/79 4. Sons And Daughters - Live At The Hammersmith Odeon 22/11/79 5. Laugh At Me - Live At The Hammersmith Odeon 22/11/79 6. Just Another Night - Live At The Hammersmith Odeon 22/11/79 7. One Of The Boys - Live At The Hammersmith Odeon 22/11/79 8. Letter To Brittania From Union Jack - Live In Berkeley 7/7/79 9. Bastard - Live In Berkeley 7/7/79 10. All The Way From Memphis - Live In Cleveland 18/6/79 11. Cleveland Rocks - Live In Cleveland 18/6/79 12. All The Young Dudes - Live At The Hammersmith Odeon 22/11/79 13. When The Daylight Comes - Live In Cleveland 18/6/79 14. Sweet Angeline - Live In Cleveland 18/6/79 KRIS KRISTOFFERSON- CLOSER TO THE BONE Kris Kristofferson returns to the essentials of his finely honed craft on his new album 'Closer To The Bone." This album is produced by Grammy Award winner Don Was and includes a bonus CD recorded live at the Olympia Theatre (Dublin, Ireland 3/21/08). MADNESS - THE LIBERTY OF NORTON FOLGATE The first album of original material in 10 years from the UK pop/ska legends will remind fans and critics just how much fun this band used to be and how much they were missed. Yet another fine release from the good people of Yep Roc records. MADONNA- CELEBRATION 2 CD anthology with all the hits. 37 in all. The ultimate collection. 'nuff said. (Really) ROD STEWART- SESSIONS: 1971-1998 (4 CD set) "For the Rod Stewart Sessions 1971-1998, Warner Bros. goes deep into the vaults to reveal the secret studio history of this very public performer with a boxed set of unreleased recordings chosen from sessions spanning 1971-1998. Encompassing more than 25 years, this collection's 63 songs, outtakes, and ephemera provide extraordinary insight into the studio work of one of rock's legendary figures and paints a picture of what might have been. Many of these performances are more stripped-down and intimate than their released counterparts, so the set becomes an illustration and a showcase of Rod's creative process." TRACK LIST # Maggie May (Early Version) # Seems Like A Long Time (Alternate Version) # Italian Girls (Early Version) # You Wear It Well (Early Version) # Lost Paraguayos (Alternate Version) # I'd Rather Go Blind (Alternate Version) # Angel (Alternate Version) # Think I'll Pack My Bags (Early Version of "Mystifies Me") # Farewell (Early Version) # Girl From The North Country (Alternate Version) # (You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Man (Alternate Version) # So Tired (Early Version) # This Old Heart Of Mine (Alternate Version) # To Love Somebody (Early Take) # Sailing (Alternate Version) # Tonight's The Night (Gonna Be Alright) (Early Take) # The First Cut Is The Deepest (Alternate Version) # Rosie (Acoustic Version) # Innocent (The Killing Of Georgie Part III) # Hot Legs (Early Take) # You're In My Heart (The Final Acclaim) (Acoustic Version) # I Was Only Joking (Early Take) # Scarred & Scared (Early Take) # When I'm Away From You # Oh God, I Wish I Was Home Tonight (Early Version) # Time Of My Life # TV Mama # Maybe Baby # Stupid # Guess I'll Always Love You (Alternate Version) # The Great Pretender (Acoustic Version) # Thunderbird # Dancing Alone (Alternate Version) # I Wish You Would # Sweet Surrender (Alternate Version) # Show Me # Ghetto Blaster (Early Version) # Satisfied (Alternate Version) # Hard Lesson To Learn (Alternate Version) # Heaven # In My Life (Piano Version) # Love Is A Four Letter Word # Forever Young (Piano Version) # My Heart Can't Tell You No (Alternate Version) # I Go To Jail For You # A Good Lover Is Hard To Find # Let The Day Begin (Alternate Version) # The Groom's Still Waiting At The Altar (Alternate Version) # Windy Town (Piano Version) # In A Broken Dream (1992) # This Wheel's On Fire # I Wanna Stay Home # I'm A King Bee # Looking For A Love # Kiss Her For Me # The Long Journey Home # Now That You're On Your Own # Dylan's Day Off # On And On # Rockin' Chair # Sugar Lips # The Changingman # May You Never BARBRA STREISAND- LOVE IS THE ANSWER A new Babs record produced by Diana Krall must be very exciting for fans of both. Also, comes as a 2 CD version, with the second disc featuring "acoustic versions" of the songs. (I guess the guest spots by Lemmy and Trent Reznor must be on the first disc.) Please check out my blog, BURNING WOOD , for more.
 
Michael Schwartz: Netanyahu: Israel Will Never Withdraw from Occupied Territories Top
Netanyahu says Israel will never withdraw to 1967 borders. It is so annoying that the U.S. corporate media decides that big news doesn't exist and non-news is big news. The New York Times, for example, has gone six days without any news from Iraq (where the U.S. is spending 10 billion dollars a month). But more immediately, the coverage this week about Israel and Palestine includes an article about the start of former Israeli President Ehud Olmert's corruption trial, but not even a reference to current Premier Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement that Israel will never withdraw to the 1967 borders. In fact, I could only find a report of the interview in the Turkish Weekly. Recall what Obama said after his meeting with Netanyahu in Washington: that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestine crisis must include "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967." This has been broadly interpreted as a call by the U.S. for Israel to ultimately withdraw from the occupied territories. In response to this, Netanyahu told Haaretz : "The things he [Obama] said about the occupation are not new. He also said them in Cairo, and in fact that is the formula adopted by the road map and it does not say we have to go back to the 1967 borders. "This is the formula adopted by [Israeli] governments before the one I head, which did not agree to go back to the 1967 borders. We certainly would [also] not agree to that. In the matter of the settlements he also said nothing new. These disagreements should not prevent the beginning of the process which, among other things if it is successful, will also decide this issue." This is convoluted, but very clear: Neither the earlier Israeli governments, nor Netanyahu would ever agree "to go back to the 1967 borders." They are going to keep all or part of the land they seized, despite the world consensus that this seizure, occupation, and ethnic cleansing was illegal and immoral, and an ongoing devastation to the lives of Palestinians. It is simply staggering that both the U.S. government and the U.S. media simply ignores these provocative and incendiary commitments, while continuing to condemn any little provocative statement by any Palestinian political grouping. In some sense, this is a litmus test for the Obama administration. With Netanyahu drawing a line in the sand, will Obama do something to challenge this? Or will he tacitly or explicitly support an Israeli policy that guarantees years or even decades of further misery, violence, and instability. I am afraid to reach the obvious conclusion suggested by the deafening silence in Washington and in the U.S. corporate media. More on Israel
 
Ben Cohen: Labour Party Fighting For Life Against Conservatives in U.K Top
Things do not look rosy for Gordon Brown in the U.K. Having inherited the mother of all messes from his predecessor (which he admittedly helped to create), Brown never really had a chance to begin with. The Tories look set to win the next election, and Labour really have no one to blame but themselves. Two botched wars, a monstrous economic mess and very little in the way of 'change' , Labour doesn't exactly have a record to be proud of. The worst thing about Labour's inevitable loss to the Tories is what the U.K will be subjected to under a Conservative government. The Tories believe they are the party in waiting, and are busy preparing themselves for power.  I had a long chat with a friend of mine from the U.K who is well connected to the Conservative party, and he revealed the long list of cuts the Tories would enact once in power. David Cameron is clever enough not to overtly talk about these cuts, particularly in a time where the public sector is vitally important for people's welfare, but is using catch phrases like 'streamlining', 'efficiency', and 'fiscal responsibility'. The Conservatives are obsessed with debt and controlling public spending, (as are the Republican Party in the U.S.), but the problem is, cutting down government spending during an economic crisis is the exact prescription to make it worse. In the 19080's, the IMF told troubled developing countries that the path towards economic growth involved deep public sector cuts and whole scale privatization. The ensuing disaster was spectacular to say the least, as every country the IMF dealt with virtually collapsed . When the Conservative Party talks about cutting costs, it isn't talking about hurting the rich. The poor will bear the brunt of the new 'streamlined' government as cuts are made to education, health care and welfare. The Tories will also use the economic crisis to enact the privatization of much of the public sector, telling everyone they will get the same services for less money. Of course the history of public sector privatization isn't exactly one to be proud of , but Cameron and his party are hoping everyone will forget the disastrous legacy of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Once in power, they will set about dismantling the state and handing over more and more power to private institution. Wealth inequality will increase, the poor will get poorer, and the prospect of a fairer, greener society will dissolve as corporations make the rules and not the government. We've seen the results of deregulation and privatization, and it nearly brought the world to economic collapse. With the Tories, we can only expect more suffering. I am a British citizen, and I will most certainly vote in the next general election. I had fully intended to vote for a third party given my disgust for the Labour Party, but as the prospect of Tory rule looms and the reality sets in, I may have to reconsider. Ben Cohen is the Editor of TheDailyBanter.com
 
John R. Bohrer: Chris Christie's 'Macaca Moment' on Health Care Top
New Jersey's off-year gubernatorial race has been pretty boring for outsiders, except for maybe the TV ad accusing Chris Christie, the Republican nominee, of "throwing his weight around." (Christie's on the heavy side.) The ad was supposed to draw attention to the fact that Christie got away with some pretty obscene driving offenses, but really, no one cares about that stuff. New Jersey's race isn't about driving, it isn't about corruption, it isn't about President Obama -- it's about the state economy and taxes. The inability of Governor Jon Corzine, a Democrat, to find his footing on the economy has made him deeply unpopular for a long, long time. Pundits believe he's a surefire loser. So do national Republicans. According to U.S. News & World Report , GOP strategists in Washington will milk a Corzine loss for all its worth, trying to delay the vote on health care reform in order to "[scare] moderate Democrats away from the Obama plan as they worry about their own re-election in 2010." But like a lot of other outsiders, the Republicans in Washington haven't been watching this race closely enough. If they had been, they'd know that the Christie camp is deeply concerned about the health care debate hurting their candidate. A little more than a week ago, while the rest of the country was buzzing about the ' Look At That Fat Guy ' ad, Corzine also started airing a TV spot informing voters that Christie supports health insurance companies who deny coverage for mammograms. The ad must have hurt in the Republicans' polling, because in no time at all, Christie -- long the frontrunner in this race -- was forced to play defense. In light of Christie's response, the Star-Ledger says Corzine's ad "happens to be true." Final word on this? No way. Christie, when questioned by a cancer survivor, was emphatic when explaining why insurance companies should deny mammograms to young women. The cancer survivor tells him that in fact she had been diagnosed with cancer in her twenties. To that, Christie continues to defend the health insurance companies -- and even gets nasty and dismissive with the woman -- insisting that dropping mammograms is A-OK because "that's an exception." This is Christie's ' macaca moment ,' unleashing his nasty side to show people what Republicans really think about providing all Americans with decent, quality health care. He's saying that insured or not -- if you're a young woman who wants a mammogram, a health insurance company shouldn't have to pay because "that's an exception." Christie's nasty attitude and dismissive tone toward the cancer survivor only makes it worse for him. In July, I wrote that Republicans were endangering Christie -- perhaps their only rising star in the Northeast -- by stalling the health care reform vote and carrying the debate into October. That was before the rancor and lies of August. New Jersey is still a very blue state, with many more Democratic-leaning independents than Republican ones. The GOP's angry rhetoric toward the President and his efforts to reform the health care system do not endear Republicans to these voters -- voters Christie needs to win this election. Now Christie is on film, getting short with someone for daring to question the whims of the health care industry. He's going to have a tough time not looking like just another anti-reform Republican, disdainful for the economic concerns of average citizens just trying to stay healthy. If Corzine plays his cards right, Christie will have a hell of a time keeping voters focused on the issues he wants. Christie will win this race if GOP opposition to health care reform doesn't become the leading issue; he may even win it if it does. But if Republicans in Washington believe they can continue their antics without paying the price for it, they may soon think again. More on Health Care
 
237 Reasons Why Women Have Sex Top
Meston and Buss have interviewed 1,006 women from all over the world about their sexual motivation, and in doing so they have identified 237 different reasons why women have sex. And what are they? From the reams of confessions, it emerges that women have sex for physical, emotional and material reasons; to boost their self-esteem, to keep their lovers, or because they are raped or coerced. More on Relationships
 
Disney Prepares To Replace Johnny Depp In 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Franchise Top
Following the recent departure of Disney studio chief Dick Cook, Johnny Depp admitted to being less enthusiastic about returning to the role of Captain Jack Sparrow for "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" ("Pirates" part 4, for those who lost count). And the fans in turn admitted that they'd give up on the franchise without him in it. That apparently isn't stopping Disney though. According to a tip received by Cinema Blend, the studio is preparing to replace Depp if/when he decides to abandon ship. This may not happen with "On Stranger Tides," as Disney is likely prepared to offer him as much money as it takes to keep him aboard. The actor, who is said to be aware the last two movies "sucked," will definitely not be sticking around for the fifth and sixth installments if the tipster is to be believed.
 
Are New York City Runoffs Superfluous? Top
Still, the city's Board of Elections will spend about $15 million to mount the runoff, and the four candidates competing in the election can legally spend a total of nearly $8 million. Fewer than 10 percent of registered Democrats are expected to vote. So the question among some government watchdog groups is whether runoffs, at least in New York, are superfluous.
 
LAX: Two Men Removed From New York-Bound Flight In Los Angeles Top
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -- Authorities removed two men from a United Airlines flight at Los Angeles International Airport for suspicious behavior on Monday, but later called the incident a false alarm.
 
Why Charlie Rose Is Business' Favorite Interviewer Top
Over 18 years of broadcasting, the hardest-working man in TV news has made his show a national salon and, as the economic crisis unfolded, the place for business leaders to talk about it.
 
Clinton Global Initiative Raises Over $8 Billion For Philanthropic Efforts Top
NEW YORK - The Clinton Global Initiative gathered more than $8 billion in pledges at this year's summit, surprising its organizers who had worried that the recession would lower the level of support. The philanthropic effort started by former President Bill Clinton aims to tap wealthy donors for funds to try to solve some of the world's most pressing problems, from poverty to climate change. More on Bill Clinton
 
Bats And Wind Turbines: Scientists Find A Way To Protect Bats Top
Scientists at the University of Calgary have found a way to reduce bat deaths from wind turbines by up to 60 percent without significantly reducing the energy generated from the wind farm. The research, recently published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, demonstrates that slowing turbine blades to near motionless in low-wind periods significantly reduces bat mortality. More on Animals
 
Jason Wu Celebrates 27th Birthday With Midnight Supper Top
A choice group of New Yorkers gave new meaning to late night dining Saturday when they celebrated Jason Wu's birthday at the St. Regis' Adour Alain Ducasse with a meal in the style of a midnight supper.
 
Paterson Wastes His 'Meet the Press' Moment: Politicker Top
Watching David Paterson play dumb on "Meet the Press" on Sunday called to mind a favorite scene from "The Naked Gun," when Leslie Nielsen's Lt. Frank Drebin tries in vain to dissuade shocked passersby from staring at a truly spectacular explosion by shouting: "Nothing to see here! Please disperse! Nothing to see here!" More on Meet the Press
 
Annual Bank Bonuses To Be Banned In U.K. Top
British Treasury chief Alistair Darling said Monday that annual bonuses for bank executives will be outlawed in an attempt to curb excessive risk-taking in the country's huge financial sector. Darling told the governing Labour Party's annual conference that new legislation to restrict how the payments are made will be introduced in Parliament within weeks. More on Banks
 
Aaron Thompson Jury Reaches Decision On 51 of 55 Charges Top
CENTENNIAL -- The jury in the trial of Aaron Thompson, charged in the death of his daughter, Aaroné, this morning returned to court to inform Judge Valeria Spencer that they have reached consensus on 51 of 55 counts in the case. Spencer instructed the jurors to return to the deliberation room and work toward consensus on the remaining four. Thompson originally faced 60 charges, but some have been dropped.
 
"Kill Obama" Facebook Poll Investigated By Secret Service Top
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Secret Service is investigating an online survey that asked whether people thought President Barack Obama should be assassinated, officials said Monday. The poll, posted Saturday on Facebook, was taken off the popular social networking site quickly after company officials were alerted to its existence. But, like any threat against the president, Secret Service agents are taking no chances. "We are aware of it and we will take the appropriate investigative steps," said Darrin Blackford, a Secret Service spokesman. "We take of these things seriously." The poll asked respondents "Should Obama be killed?" The choices: No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care. The question was not created by Facebook, but by an independent person using an add-on application that has been suspended from the site. "The third-party application that enabled an individual user to create the offensive poll was brought to our attention this morning," said Barry Schnitt, Facebook's spokesman for policy. Because the application was disabled, the responses to the nonscientific polls are not available. "We're working with the U.S. Secret Service, but they'll need to provide any details of their investigation," Schnitt said. More on Facebook
 
Coal Power Plant: EPA To Reconsider Navajo Nation's Permit Top
Opponents of coal-fired power plants around the country were buoyed by a decision Friday to send the proposed 1,500-megawatt Desert Rock facility near Shiprock, N.M., back to the Environmental Protection Agency for a new air-pollution permit, according to the Durango Herald.
 
Joseph Rios: Ronnie Holloway Beating Cop Indicted Top
Police officer Joseph Rios, who was caught on surveillance tape beating a disabled man, has been indicted on misconduct and assault charges. Rios stopped Ronnie Holloway in front of Lawrence's Grill and Bar in Passaic, NJ on June 6th. After demanding the 49-year-old schizophrenia-sufferer remove his sweatshirt, Rios can be seen slamming him into the hood of his car and hitting him with his nightstick. NBC New York has the shocking footage: View more news videos at: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video . More on Video
 
Allison Kilkenny: ACORN Chief Executive: "We're Not Afraid" Top
This morning, I interviewed Bertha Lewis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Organizer of ACORN, the largest community organization in the country. ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, helps poor people register to vote, fight for fair wages, find affordable housing, and improve the conditions of their local schools. Naturally, Republicans want to destroy them. I asked Lewis how it feels to be a GOP target, about Congress's decision to defund ACORN, and the recent revelations about the source of funds for the infamous ACORN videos created by John O'Keefe. O'Keefe has repeatedly said that he is "absolutely independent" and received no outside funding to make his films. However, the Village Voice reports that he actually has heavyweight conservative backers including Peter Thiel, one of the founders of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook. Depending on who you ask, Thiel invested anywhere from $10,000 (according to his representatives) to $30,000 (according to early Voice reports) into O'Keefe's ACORN project. Thiel is a gay man who has railed against the evils of "multiculturalism." He now lives in San Francisco and runs a hedge fund. With the help of his sugar daddy, O'Keefe made the now infamous ACORN videos, an illegal act in itself, says Lewis. "You cannot secretly tape someone without their permission, and so he broke the law," she says. Though she calls the behavior of the former ACORN employees "inexcusable" and "indefensible," and immediately took action to fire them when she learned of the videos, Lewis also called O'Keefe a man of "questionable character." ACORN has brought a lawsuit against O'Keefe and his partner, better known as the woman who will forever be the ho (her parents must be thrilled) to O'Keefe's pimp, Hannah Giles. The videos are edited very creatively -- if I'm being generous -- to show only the ACORN employees who engaged in shady behavior, and not the dozens of other ACORN offices from which O'Keefe and Company were ejected, and in a few cases, ACORN employees called the police on the duo. In no instance was the paperwork for the fictional pimp and prostitute successfully filed. The cases were all red-flagged as soon as employees in higher echelons noticed the suspicious details of their story. I'm sure you heard all about that part on FOX (...or maybe not.) Lewis believes O'Keefe was motivated by a desire to stop ACORN's successful process of registering poor and minority people to vote. "Mr. O'Keefe... actually admitted that one of the reasons he did this was because ACORN was organizing poor people, making sure that they voted, and most of those folks, generally, would not vote Republican. And he wanted to put a stop to this because too many minorities were voting. He actually said this." A September 19 article about ACORN in the New York Time s reads: James O'Keefe, one of the two filmmakers, said he went after ACORN because it registers minorities likely to vote against Republicans: ''Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization,'' O'Keefe told the Washington Post . ''No one was holding this organization accountable.' While Lewis is the first to admit ACORN isn't a perfect organization, she worries that the targeting of ACORN will leave other community groups susceptible to the whims of a certain political party that really, really doesn't want poor, black, and brown people to vote Democrat. ACORN recently lost their federal funding under the Defund ACORN Act, which essentially punishes the organization for allegations that have never been examined in court. The Defund ACORN Act states that an organization should be banned from receiving federal funding if it "employs any applicable individual, in a permanent or temporary capacity" or "has under contract or retains any applicable individual" who has "been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration." This standard is only being applied to ACORN, and not, say, Blackwater. Because of the highly selective, targeted nature of the vote to defund ACORN, many critics have declared the act unconstitutional. Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald writes , "The irony of all of this is that the Congress is attempting to accomplish an unconstitutional act: singling out and punishing ACORN, which is clearly a 'bill of attainder' that the Constitution explicitly prohibits -- i.e. , an act aimed at punishing a single party without a trial." ACORN is most definitely being singled out and targeted by Republicans. For example, Karl Rove sent emails while he was in the George Bush White House that show ACORN was targeted because of the group's successful voter registration campaigns. Rove specifically sent David Iglesias and others to find some sort of prosecution for alleged voter registration fraud. When Iglesias came back and said there was no evidence that ACORN had committed fraud, he was fired among other attorneys, and that led to the Alberto Gonzales Attorneygate scandal in which then Attorney General Gonzales was dismissed. "We now have those emails going back to 2004 where you clearly see that ACORN was targeted politically for our actions because we actually were very effective in making sure that poor people, people of color, especially minorities in this country, have a voice," says Lewis. Apparently, the media and the American people have forgotten this very clear example of political targeting, and quickly joined the ACORN witch-hunt once again even though Republicans are attacking ACORN in the exact same fashion. ACORN is a convenient scapegoat for the Republicans, who desperately needed to distract attention from the fiery train wreck known as the Bush administration, which systematically destroyed America's reputation, military, and economy for eight long years. In the hysterical rush to condemn ACORN, the GOP (with an assist, as always, from FOX News) has successfully distracted Americans from the real culprits of government bailouts and contract scandals, specifically government defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, both major donors to the Republican and Democratic Parties. Lockheed Martin has been forced to pay at least $68 million for getting caught 11 separate times committing government contract fraud. Northrop Grumman has had to pay around $500 million for getting caught nine times for contract fraud. Then there's the gold standard for corruption, Blackwater, the private mercenary company that was recently found to have defrauded the government of $55 million. And as Rachel Maddow points out, that's just one Blackwater contractor, and they've got lots of contracts. This doesn't even count Blackwater's little murder problem. Five Blackwater employees have been charged with murder during the course of their government contracted duties in Iraq. Yikes. But you like your scandals to involve prostitutes, you say. Fear not! The government contractor known as ArmorGroup has you covered. ArmorGroup personnel, who are the recipients of taxpayer money, were also allegedly engaged in a prostitution ring in Kabul. Oh, and there's also DynCorp, which sent at least 13 DynCorp employees home from a U.S. government contract in Bosnia after they were found to be taking part in a Bosnian sex slave ring involving underage girls. Double Yikes. Yet, somehow, we're being sold the lie that ACORN is the big villain here. In an interview on Salon Radio , Grayson said, "The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day during the war in Iraq." Halliburton was accused of unlawfully receiving special treatment for work in Iraq, Kuwait and the Balkans, and was caught overcharging the Pentagon for fuel deliveries into Iraq. But nevermind. Former Halliburton CEO, Dick Cheney, gets to parade around television as the "serious voice" of Conservatism, while ACORN is publicly flogged for the behavior of a few bad employees. Of course, neither Republicans nor Democrats are in a rush to defund Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or any of the other major defense contractors because these companies are extremely bipartisan in their campaign donations. It's smart business to buy off both parties, so that way the entire government works for the company, and not just one political party. Big money can buy big access to political power. Once corporations control politicians, those elected officials will then vote to uphold the structure facilitating their corporate donors. This is true for defense contractors, but it's also true for the giant financial institutions (also major donors for both political parties,) which have been happily raiding the Federal Reserve with the blessing of the government. I asked Lewis if it annoyed her a little bit that Goldman Sachs employees got fat bonuses from taxpayer dollars for helping to destroy the economy, while Congress stripped a group finding houses for poor people of its federal funding. "Absolutely," says Lewis, "People can say what they want, but I know this is such a true right wing, Conservative campaign against us, and it's not fair, it's not just, and it's not the American way. Why start to attack those at the bottom? Start with the big guys at the top." Perhaps ACORN was fighting for the wrong people. The poor and people of color don't have huge lobbying firms working on their behalf, and they can't buy the right friends in Congress. "We know that we're being used a symbol and a target. And it is frustrating," says Lewis. However, she plans to keep fighting. "This has happened to other civil rights organizations in the past, and we know that this goes along with doing this kind of work. We're not afraid, we are determined, and we will be around for the next 40 years." Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog . Also available on Facebook and Twitter . More on Blackwater
 
ProPublica: The Foreclosure "Rescue" Boom - Pt. 2 Top
By Paul Kiel , ProPublica. Last week, we (ProPublica) published a story examining the boom in "foreclosure rescue" companies , firms that promise — in exchange for a large up-front fee — to persuade lenders to modify desperate homeowners’ mortgages. The story was done in collaboration with American Public Media’s Marketplace and resulted in two reports that aired last week. You can listen to them here and here . We focused on one company in particular, Southern California-based 21st Century Legal Services. As we reported, four different states obtained court injunctions barring the company from operating there, but those actions did little to slow the company down. Since then, however, we’ve learned that the company is under investigation by the FBI. Last Wednesday, the FBI executed search warrants at eight different locations in the Rancho Cucamonga area, said Laura Eimiller, spokeswoman for the FBI’s Los Angeles office. Both business and residential addresses were searched, she said, but would provide no other details about the continuing investigation. Kathleen Moreno, the lawyer for 21st Century president Andrea Ramirez, confirmed that Ramirez’s residence was among those searched. The FBI searches seem to have finally stopped the company from operating. Its Web site is down, and no one answers the phone. But as for whether its unhappy customers can hope to recoup their money, it’s far too early to tell. Paul Kiel is a reporter for ProPublica, America's largest investigative newsroom.
 
Joe Territo: Change at the helm of New Jersey's largest newspaper Top
Jim Willse, editor of The Star-Ledger for the past 15 years, today announced that he will retire next month. Willse will be succeeded by Kevin Whitmer, who currently is managing editor of the Ledger. Willse has been editor of the Ledger for the past 15 years, during which the newspaper has been made more vibrant than ever and earned a host of awards, including two Pulitzer Prizes. When Willse became editor of the newspaper, he succeeded Mort Pye, who had been in charge since 1957. Whitmer worked with Willse at the Daily News in New York before they both made their way to The Star-Ledger. Whitmer's roles at the Ledger have included sports editor and supervising business and financial coverage as well as the Sunday edition of the newspaper. The Star-Ledger announced the news on NJ.com , the online home of The Star-Ledger. I have also posted a blog item on NJ.com as content director of the web site about having worked with both Willse and Whitmer and what it means for our shared online future.
 
Indonesia Fights Against "Creeping Fundamentalism" Top
JAKARTA, Indonesia -- Aceh, Indonesia's northernmost province, has this month been compared to Somalia, Nigeria and even Iraq. So it goes when lawmakers decide that death by stoning is an appropriate punishment for adultery. More on Indonesia
 
Wireless Industry Lobby Steps Up Fight Against Net Neutrality Top
The Washington Post's Post I.T. Blog reports that wireless industry lobbyists are on a "charm offensive" to ward off newly proposed net neutrality regulations. The new regulations from the FCC would prevent carriers from blocking technologies such as Google Voice or Skype on Apple's iPhone, which currently only runs on AT&T's network. The CTIA-The Wireless Association, which represents carriers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Nextel, says the industry's status as one of the most vibrant sectors in the economy could be compromised by regulation. Reports the Post: So why pick on us? That's the message by carriers by CTIA's six-member team assigned to lobby the FCC (and the 5-8 outside law firms hire to work on net neutrality and other wireless issues). "All people are focusing on our industry, but it can get worse," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, CTIA's vice president of regulatory affairs. "By no means it this a perfect industry but it does offer a pretty amazing consumer experience." Read the rest here . More on Lobby Blog
 
Jet Stopped At LAX, Two Men Removed By Police Top
A plane was stopped from taking off from Los Angeles International Airport, and two men on board were taken into custody, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. LAPD Lt. John Romero said the men, who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, were acting suspiciously. More on Terrorism
 
Nancy Snow: William Safire's Passing and the Decline of American Journalism Top
Today's Google News has the wedding of reality TV star Khloe Kardashian and LA Lakers' forward Lamar Odom getting more hits than the passing of New York Times columnist, William Safire. Now granted, Khloe and Lamar have more blogger followers, including Perez Hilton's "wedding deets" to share with those not privy to be in LA. This suggests, albeit unscientifically, that the death of an esteemed giant in American journalism is less newsworthy than a secondary tier celebrity wedding. The media weren't reporting the wedding of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, but two people who have been dating for a month and decided to get hitched before basketball season begins. We're so awash in infotainment sludge that we can't distinguish the truly irrelevant from the significant. Safire, 79, was a conservative columnist for the New York Times . He was a fish out of water, to say the least, and many of the Times reporters were not happy with his swimming around for thirty years at the liberal newspaper of record. The Sulzberger family knew better. Part of journalistic appeal, especially in opinion writing, is to provoke reader interest through saying something that jolts a reader's perspective out of somnolence. Safire did just that with his political columns that undoubtedly raised the blood pressure of some liberal readers, and with his "On Language" columns, which soothed the souls of etymologists and grammarians. I recall a most memorable political column he published in the Times shortly before he retired. It was called "You Are a Suspect." It was against type for this former Nixon speechwriter. The date was November 14, 2002, a year after 9/11, and before the invasion of Iraq. The U.S.A. Patriot Act had already passed with barely any debate. I immediately shared Safire's column with my journalism students at Cal State Fullerton. I told them, "This matters to you." Here is what Bill Safire wrote in part: If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you: Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database." This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks. Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua. A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing. That Safire column sparked Congressional action that stopped Poindexter's push for a big net approach to data collection. Safire didn't always get his facts right. He was pilloried for his many columns that linked al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq. (See David Corn's "The Propaganda of William Safire" ) Safire attended Syracuse University and gave its commencement speeches in 1978 and 1990. I now teach public diplomacy and global communications at the Newhouse School here at SU. Safire's relationship with Richard Nixon began at a public diplomacy venue. In 1959 Safire was a publicist and his client Herbert Sadkin, president of All-State Properties, built the famous modern American home featured at the American National Exhibition in Sokolniki Park, Moscow. Safire coaxed Vice President Richard Nixon into attending the exhibit opening on July 24, 1959, also attended by Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev. The two men got into some back-and-forth conversations about the merits of Soviet communism versus American capitalism that came to be known as the "The Kitchen Debate." Nixon's proud defense of American know-how raised his public profile both at home and abroad. He later asked Safire to join his inner circle, and Safire served the president in the White House, along with Patrick Buchanan, Diane Sawyer, and David Gergen. In 1973 Safire began writing for the New York Times , where he remained a columnist until 2003. If you want some advice for what to pay attention to in the news, read more about the "life deets" of self-proclaimed libertarian conservative Bill Safire and not about the wedding of Khloe and Lamar. Relevant knowledge is good and powerful. Dr. Nancy Snow is the author of six books, including Information War and Propaganda, Inc. She teaches in the S.I. Newhouse School at Syracuse University, New York. Reach her at www.nancysnow.com More on Richard Nixon
 
Dan Brown: Grading the Big Tests: A Study in Madness... and a Really Good New Book Top
High-stakes testing has become so prevalent in American public schools that the terms "student achievement" and "test scores" are used interchangeably by pretty much everybody. Much muck has been raked about how the high-pressure exams don't assess students' abilities and learning fairly or accurately. The extreme emphasis on test prep de-motivates students and distorts curricula. Teachers become disillusioned and leave the profession. Elected officials and contract-hungry test-making corporations have vested interests in getting favorable stats. Last month, Diana Senechal at gothamschools.org proved it was possible to guess randomly on New York State exams and pass. Now, a new bomb has been tossed into this discussion, and this time it's coming from within the testing industry. Todd Farley, long-time test-grader at multiple testing companies, has penned Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry , a highly readable memoir of dysfunction in the land of the Big Test. Todd's book comes out this week. I read it over a year ago in manuscript form and it blew my mind; my blurb is on the back cover. I think it's a must-read for anyone connected to education. In an op-ed in today's New York Times , Todd shares a few darkly humorous tidbits. Here's one: A couple of years ago I supervised a statewide reading assessment test. My colleague and I were relaxing at a pool because we believed we'd already finished scoring all of the tens of thousands of student responses. Then a call from the home office informed us that a couple of dozen unscored tests had been discovered. Because our company's deadline for returning the tests was that day, my colleague and I had to score them even though we were already well into happy hour. We spent the evening listening to a squeaky-voiced secretary read student answers to us over a scratchy speakerphone line, while we made decisions that could affect somebody's future. As Todd demonstrates in his book, irresponsibility and arbitrariness in grading students' important "open-ended responses" were the rules, not the exceptions. In the No Child Left Behind era, pretty much every pillar of our education system rests on the presupposition that standardized tests are accurate indicators of how our kids are doing. Todd Farley helps to bring into even clearer, starker focus that this is a flawed ideology. In this week's New York Times Magazine (the school issue), Diane Ravitch hammers home the problems with the narrow-mindedness of testmania: Students can get higher scores in reading and mathematics yet remain completely ignorant of science, the arts, civics, history, literature and foreign languages. Why do we educate? We educate because we want citizens who are capable of taking responsibility for their lives and for our democracy. We want citizens who understand how their government works, who are knowledgeable about the history of their nation and other nations. We need citizens who are thoroughly educated in science. We need people who can communicate in other languages. We must ensure that every young person has the chance to engage in the arts. Amen! Dan Brown is the author of The Great Expectations School: A Rookie Year in the New Blackboard Jungle .
 
Andy Borowitz: U.S. Could Get Olympics in 2016, Health Care in 3016 Top
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - President Barack Obama attempted to quell criticism that his mission to secure the Olympics for his hometown of Chicago was a distraction, telling reporters that the U.S. was "on track" to get the Olympics in 2016 and health care reform in 3016. "I know that some say I have too much on my plate with this health care plan to go running after the Olympics," Mr. Obama said. "But I am more determined than ever to get health care done in the next thousand years." Some reporters noted that by setting a 3016 deadline for passage of a plan, the President was prioritizing the Olympics ahead of health care, but Mr. Obama denied that this was the case. "As President, you have to do a lot of things at the same time," he said. "For example, I also intend to force Iran to submit to weapon inspections by 4016." Responding to the President's 3016 deadline for passing health care reform, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, "Let's not be hasty here." More here . More on Barack Obama
 
Robert Reich: The Public Option Lives On Top
Tuesday is a critical day in the saga of the public option. Democrats Charles Schumer (New York) and Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) are introducing an amendment to include the public option in the bill to be reported out by the Senate Finance Committee -- the committee anointed by the White House as its favored vehicle for getting health care reform. Before you read another word, call and email the Senate offices of Democrats Max Baucus (Montana), Tom Carper (Delaware), Robert Menendez (New Jersey), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), and Ben Nelson (Florida) -- telling them you want them to vote in favor of the public option amendment. And get everyone you know in these states to do the same. Hell, you might as well phone and email Republican Olympia Snowe (Maine) and make the same pitch. Background: Every dollar squeezed out of Big Pharma and Big Insurance is a dollar less that you'll have to pay either in healthcare costs or in taxes to cover healthcare costs. The two most direct ways to squeeze future profits are allowing Medicare to use its huge bargaining leverage to negotiate lower drug prices, and creating a public insurance option to compete with private insurers and also use its bargaining clout to get lower prices and thereby push private insurers to offer lower rates. But last January, the White House made a Faustian bargain with Big Pharma and Big Insurance, essentially scuttling both of these profit-squeezing mechanisms in return for these industries' agreement not to oppose healthcare legislation with platoons of lobbyists and millions of dollars of TV ads, and Pharma's willingness to cut drug prices by some $80 billion over the next ten years. The White House promised these industries they'd come out way ahead -- getting tens of millions of new customers who'd be buying private health insurance policies and thereby paying for an almost endless supply of new drugs. Healthcare reform would be, in short, a bonanza. Big Pharma and Big Insurance have so far delivered on their side of the deal. In fact, Big Pharma has shelled out $120 million in advertisements in favor of reform. Now the White House is delivering on its side. Last Thursday, for example, the Senate Finance Committee rejected Ben Nelson's amendment to require Big Pharma to give some $160 billion in discounts to Medicare -- thereby reducing the bonanza Pharma would reap from the healthcare bill. Not surprisingly, all Republicans voted against the amendment. But it was defeated only because Dems Baucus, Carper, and Menendez voted with the Republicans. Carper later explained to the New York Times why he voted with the Republicans. The amendment, he said, would "undermine our ability to pass" health care reform, because the White House had made a deal with Big Pharma by which the industry wouldn't oppose healthcare reform -- and White House officials had told him "a deal is a deal." The Times described the vote as a "big victory" for the White House. Schumer voted for the amendment. He said he was "not at the table" when the White House and Big Pharma made their deal so didn't feel bound by it. But even if he had been at the table, he wouldn't be bound. No member of the Senate is bound to a deal made between industry and the White House. Congress is a separate branch of government. Big Pharma and big insurance hate the public insurance option even more than they hate big Medicare discounts. And although the President has sounded as if he would welcome it, political operatives in the White House have quietly reassured the industries that it won't be included in the final bill. At most, the bill would allow the formation of non-profit "cooperatives" that wouldn't have the scale or authority to squeeze the profits of private industry, or a "trigger" that would allow states to form public insurance options eventually if certain goals for cost savings and coverage weren't met. But the public option lives on, nonetheless. It's still in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension bill. It still headlines the House bills, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she's still committed to it. The latest Times/CBS poll shows 65 percent of the public in favor of it. Now, Schumer and Rockefeller are introducing a public option amendment in the Senate Finance Committee. Carper, Menendez, Baucus, and other Dems on the Committee should vote for it, or be forced to pay a price if they don't. Cross-posted from Robert Reich's Blog. More on Health Care
 
Dave Zirin: Obama's Olympic Error Top
Recently Barack Obama criticized planned protests at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh because, as he knew from his Chicago days, "focusing on concrete, local, immediate issues that have an impact on people's lives is what really makes a difference and...having protests about abstractions [such] as global capitalism or something, generally, is not really going to make much of a difference." Well, on September 29 at Chicago's City Hall a protest will take place that will focus on a "concrete, local, immediate issue," putting the protesters across the barricades from Barack and Michelle Obama as well as the all-powerful Democratic political machine of the city. The issue is the 2016 Olympic bid and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's political pact with the Obamas to see the Games come to the Windy City. Mayor Daley, rocking a 35 percent approval rating, says that the Games would be "a huge boost to our economy, raising it to a new level. The Games will help us recover sooner from the recession that still grips our nation and enable us to better compete in the global economy." There is only one problem with this argument: the history of the Olympic Games almost without exception brands it as a lie. In fact, the very idea that Chicago could be the setting for the Olympics could have been hatched by Jon Stewart for a four-year supply of comedic fodder. To greater or lesser degrees, the Olympics bring gentrification, graft and police violence wherever they nest. Even without the Olympic Games, Chicago has been ground zero in the past decade for the destruction of public housing (gentrification), political corruption (it ain't just Blagojevich; I can't remember the last Illinois governor who didn't end up behind bars) and police violence (the death row torture scandals). Bringing the Olympics to this town would be like sending a gift basket filled with chardonnay to the Betty Ford Clinic: overconsumption followed by disaster. It's also difficult for Chicago residents to see how this will help their pocketbooks, given that Daley pledged to the International Olympic Committee that any cost overruns would be covered by taxpayers. This is why a staggering 84 percent of the city opposes bringing the Games to Chicago if it costs residents a solitary dime. The Obamas, former Chicago residents, should be standing with their city. Instead, Michelle Obama is preparing a presentation for the International Olympic Committee's decision-making meeting in Copenhagen on October 2. And amid a roiling national debate on healthcare, President Obama will be there to join her. Would he be risking presidential prestige if Chicago wasn't going to get its place at the Olympic trough? Not very likely. Maybe Obama wants the Olympic fairy dust enjoyed by Ronald Reagan at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles or Bill Clinton at the 1996 games in Atlanta. He wants the glitz, glamour, and he wants it for the Daley machine. What the people of Chicago want doesn't seem to compute. But we shouldn't be surprised at this point that Obama is tin-eared to the concerns of Chicago residents. As Paul Krugman wrote September 20 on the banker bonuses, "the administration has suffered more than it seems to realize from the perception that it's giving taxpayers' hard-earned money away to Wall Street." Shoveling taxpayers' money into the Olympic maw is no better, especially in these tough times. The people of Chicago are feeling this acutely, and it's why they are going out to protest against the will of a ruthless political machine and a popular president. No Games Chicago organizer Alison McKenna said, "I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because instead of putting money toward what people really need, money will be funneled to real estate developers who will be tearing down Washington Park and other important community resources. I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because the nonprofit child-welfare agency that I work for had to sustain budget cuts and layoffs, while Chicago has spent $48.2 million on the 2016 Olympic bid, as of July 2009." At this point in history, the right wing is shamelessly adopting populist rhetoric and the power of protest to sell an agenda of racism and fear wrapped in taxpayer protection. The left looks immobilized and fears that its man in Washington will be offended if it raises more than a peep (the LGBT community being a welcome exception to this dynamic). The protest on September 29 will be an ideal opportunity to offer a pole of attraction on the left for people furious at corporate greed amid a recession. This needs to happen, and not just for the Windy City. It's about building a vibrant protest movement that believes in social justice not bigotry. Obama likes to say that change comes from "outside Washington." It's time to take him at his word. (a version of this piece appeared at thenation.com) [Dave Zirin is the author of "A People's History of Sports in the United States" (The New Press) Receive his column every week by emailing dave@edgeofsports.com. Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com.] More on Barack Obama
 
Mom Goes Blind So Her Daughters Can See (VIDEO) Top
As part of the Huffington Post's efforts to bear witness to the effects of the current economic environment on ordinary Americans, we're rounding up some of the most compelling stories reported by local news organizations around the country. Monique Zimmerman-Stein has been nearly blind for the last two years from Stickler syndrome, a rare genetic disorder. She recently decided to forego her own treatment to save funds to treat her two daughters , who also suffer from the condition, reports Lane DeGregory of the St. Petersburg Times. The family is covered under husband Gary's Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, but that coverage only pays for 80 percent of medical expenses. She will no longer get treatment to preserve that last slice of light. The injections that might help cost $380 after insurance, and she needs one every six weeks. She could be spending that money on her daughters' care. If forgoing treatment might help them see, she said, "That's a choice any mom would make." No one should have to make such sacrifices, said her husband. He hopes the new health plan will include a public option and won't exclude people with pre-existing conditions -- like his wife and daughters. The expensive care has already forced the family out of their home, which was foreclosed, and forced them to sell their furniture and to cash in their life insurance. Tampabay.com put together an excellent video to accompany the story: ****** A family fallen on hard times after their 12-year-old daughter was diagnosed with a brainstem tumor has been served foreclosure papers , reports Elizabeth Prann of local NBC affiliate WJHG. Amber Howard underwent surgery that could only remove part of the tumor. Her father, Neil, is the only member of the family who is able to work. Amber's weak immune system requires home-schooling. But the Howards don't let the situation keep them down. The Howard family is fascinatingly optimistic, each one picking up the other when he or she is down. "When she has a good day, that's when we charge our batteries!" And if it's one thing none of them is lost is hope. Amber is living proof. "She said to me, God came to me mom. He told me, it's not my time. But I said, you can't remember Amber, you were asleep. She said no Mom, I remember! He came over, God came over and he talked to me, he said everything would be OK, it's just not my time," Shawn said. ****** Kenneth Hoagland, of Nashville, Tenn., was put in jail for getting a cold , reports Janell Ross of the Tennessean. Hoagland, previously bankrupted by a week-long stay in a hospital for his diabetes, was on a health insurance waiting period for a new job when what started as a cold landed him in a hospital for two days with a $1,200 tab. He could not pay, was afraid to miss work to show up in court, and was arrested on what's known as a "body attachment." "They fingerprinted me, took my picture and asked some questions about my medical history," he said. "When the guy who tested (my blood sugar) asked me why I was there and I told him ... he said, 'I didn't know we did that in this country.' I told him, 'Until now, I didn't either.' " The Tennessean reports that "Hoagland, 36, is one of the hundreds of thousands of Americans -- insured and uninsured -- facing collection suits, wage garnishments and, more rarely, trips to jail because of medical debt." HuffPost readers: Seen a good local story? Heard about a heroic judge, neighbor, or doctor helping people stay in their homes? Tell us about it! Email jmhattem@gmail.com . More on Bearing Witness 2.0
 
Una LaMarche: Romper Madness Top
Until recently, the fashion world rarely enraged me. Saddened me, yes, with its constant parade self-esteem crushing, sandwich-needing emaciated models who arrived each season sullenly bedecked in heel-less high heels , metal corsets , and tartan bloomers. Confused me, yes, by dictating that approximately six different colors were "the new black" at any given time and needling me to pluck my eyebrows into a state akin to follicular anorexia only to welcome back the bushy splendor of 1980s-era Brooke Shields a few months later. But in general I just dismissed high fashion as kind of kooky and went on with my life. I never thought that it was an evil empire until the arrival -- and subsequent multi-season reign -- of the adult romper. Who let this happen? Rompers are specifically designed for people too young to know how to keep their pants on . Has it really come to this? Look, I get the allure of a one-piece outfit. I call it a dress. It's easy -- you don't have to coordinate anything, just throw it on with some flip flops and you're done. But there are a few key differences between a dress and a romper. To wit:

 1. Only one of these items is not defined as "a loosely fitted, one-piece garment having short bloomers that is worn especially by small children for play." 2. Only one of these items looks good on women who possess thighs, a stomach, or breasts or buttocks that are respectively larger than two silver dollar pancakes. If you have any of these things and think you look good in a romper, you don't. A romper might look good on a disembodied male mannequin torso, but even then it would depend on the lighting. 3. Only one of these items is appropriate evening attire. Oh, wait, scratch that last one. Even more distressing than the existence of what one might call "play rompers" is the rise of the formal romper. Because nothing says chic like an outfit that you must remove completely in order to urinate. In doing my corneal-burning Internet research for this piece I found an About.com section titled "How Do I Wear Rompers?" Unfortunately, the answer was not "Shut the fuck up." In fact, the romper trend shows no sign of slowing. Now we are just encouraged to wear our rompers over woolen tights and long-sleeved tops! Oh, the humanity! I realize that there are plenty of women who enjoy wearing adult rompers, and I mean to take no joy away from them (this is, after all, a free country, though I might argue that your right to wear rompers stops with my eyes). But I must make a plea to the sartorial powers that be: Make clothes for women, not overgrown toddlers. What's next, onesies with crotch snaps? Actually, that's not a bad idea, as it would be much easier to pee in those. And while you're at it, stop it with the peep-toe boots. If it is cold enough for boots it is too cold for bare toes. Thank you.
 
Shirin Sadeghi: Poland and Polanski: Chemical Castration in the News Top
In an irony that will not be lost on him, Roman Polanski chose a rather ill-timed moment this week to get arrested for the 1977 incident that closely follows most biographical descriptions of the Oscar-winning director. Polanski, having avoided the United States for 31 years allegedly because he doesn't want to deal with a 1978 U. S. arrest warrant against him for having sex with a 13 year old girl (he would have been 44 years old at the time of the incident), apparently failed to realize that Switzerland has had an extradition treaty with the United States for around 60 years now. The Polish-French film director was detained by Swiss authorities before he could participate in a tribute to him at the Zurich Film Festival. Coincidentally, Poland has been in the news this week for approaching a status as possibly the first European nation to mandate chemical castration for sexual offenses against, amongst other things, children under the age of 15 . Sounds like Polanski might have to add Poland to his list of countries to avoid in the near future. That is, of course, depending on the eventualities of this weekend's Swiss arrest and the Polish legislative system. Unintentionally, however, Polanski's arrest brings world attention to an issue that the Polish government deems rather straight forward: adults having sexual relations with children is not merely wrong in a way that is rather obvious to most people, but steps should be taken to prevent repeat offenses by known individuals. If the allegations against Polanski are true, as many people -- including many of those who have awarded and lauded him over the years -- would seem to believe, then it is a sad commentary on the double standards of fame and fortune that an individual who allegedly turned his back on the basic decencies of civilized society has managed not only to evade lawful repercussions but has had apparently reputable institutions uphold him despite this. Human nature may not be so forgiving, but human institutions have unfailingly demonstrated time and again that they are. So the question is begged: can the person be separated from the talent, and if so, should they be? This isn't about a personality issue being associated with a revered talent -- Picasso was a well known misogynist according to many accounts, but it would have been just as strange to condemn him and his art as it would have been to condemn Wittgenstein's writings because he was rude. What this is about is a criminal act that is cruel, inhumane and damaging to a child, because no matter what anyone says or said about the 13-year-old girl who was involved in this incident, she was a child and by definition an innocent victim of what allegedly was done to her by someone who was well into his adulthood. This is also about evading justice. Polanski may be a talented film director, but according to his 1978 arrest warrant and his own admission, he did have sex with a 13 year old child when he was in his 40's. Most people would call him a pedophile or a child molester, or both. We don't know if he ever repeated this offense, or if in fact this offense was a repeat of earlier such behavior, but what we do know is that this type of behavior is too often not an isolated incident in the lives of the individuals who engage in it. What the Polish government is saying -- and what many people worldwide agree with -- is that perpetrators of this crime can no longer be trusted to make the right decision when it comes to their sexual urges. There is one certain way to prevent recurrences of this type of assault and that is to remove the urge entirely. Chemical castration disables the urge by suppressing the hormones that drive sexual urges. It is a life-long process of regular administration of the chemicals that suppress these urges and would no doubt carry with it the complications of ensuring that the chemicals are actually administered properly, the long-term costs of administering them, and so forth. A more cost-effective and certain prevention is old-fashioned castration: the irreversible excision of an offender's testes or ovaries. While centuries of knowledge on the issue of castration (consider stories of the Mughal-era eunuchs who protected harems but had affectionate relationships with each other) would suggest that it does not entirely remove human sexual instincts, it certainly dramatically reduces the sexual urge that in the case of sexual offenders is apparently uncontrollable. Many people argue that castration of any kind is cruel and unusual punishment, that it is unfair to someone who may never commit this crime again. But it seems likely that the victims, potential victims, and even the perpetrators themselves would be better off with such a solution in place under the law. While some states in America agree with the Polish government -- California, for instance, also mandates chemical castration for a two-time sexual offender -- not all do. Do states not think it is important enough to warrant prevention of repeat sexual offenses or is it a more deep-rooted problem of forgiving men -- and the vast majority of convicted sexual offenders are men -- their sexual urges? Thus, a third element is added to the issues of double standards for the famous and ineffective punishment of sexual offenders: that of the gender bias. It's not difficult to imagine how different Polanski's life and career might have been if he were in fact a 44 year old woman who had engaged in sexual relations with a 13 year old child. Nobody is perfect, no doubt about it, but some imperfections seem more forgivable than others. What the Polish government is saying about the kind of behavior that allegedly took place between Polanski and a 13 year old girl is that, at the end of the day, there simply is no excuse for it, and not only that, but that it is a problem that must be prevented from recurring and that decision cannot be made by someone who has already crossed a line that most people have the physical and mental resources not to. Changing people's attitudes about the rich and famous, or their ingrained gender biases, is a slow process, but that's where laws come in handy: some problems do have solutions. Roman Polanski has admitted to a sexual crime against a child and spent three decades evading justice for it -- this is not admirable or laudable. This week, the Swiss Ministry of Justice has again brought attention to this fact. It's just a shame that it has taken 31 years and an extradition treaty for Polanski to head down the road toward responsibility and decency. More on Poland
 
Laura Chapin: Forgetting Sarah Marshall's Generation - Why the 'lost decade' of young workers may fare worse than their parents Top
If you're a parent whose post-college graduate child has returned to sleeping at your home, you're not alone. And if you're a recent college graduate who has been out there beating the employment bushes and finding them beating you right back, you are also not alone. According to recent University of Colorado graduate Scott Neu from Castle Rock, "For the most part a lot of my friends got a degree, and are struggling to find jobs," he says. "...a bunch of my friends are going back for grad school, or med school, because they know they won't find a job." The sure economic ladder for 18-35 year olds that used to exist is no longer there, or at least is a lot more rickety. Based on a survey by Peter D Hart Research Associates for the AFL-CIO , right now there's a 'lost decade' of young workers struggling to gain a foothold in the economy. The new information dovetails with 1999 Hart study and a 2008 Demos report that that this may indeed be the first generation to do worse than their parents. The outlook has grown bleaker for young worker over the last ten years - wages, access to health care, and retirement security have all declined. More than a third of young workers are living at their parents' house, according to the 2009 Hart study. More than half of young workers report making less than $30,000. Fully half of these low-income young workers live with their parents rather than living on their own. Almost 70% don't have enough saved to cover two months of expenses. They are gloomy about their economic prospects. In 1999, more than half of young workers reported that their job gave them enough to pay their bills and put some money aside. In 2009, only a third say they make enough live on and save both. In 1999, three-fourths of young workers felt mostly hopeful and confident about their future, but now it's just over 50%. And for young workers of color, almost half have put off furthering their education because of cost. So what's the answer? Surprisingly from this group, they favor more public investment, even if it means higher taxes. By a 22-point margin, young workers back expanding public investment to create jobs, even if it means increasing the deficit. They are skeptical of the right-wing mantras of reducing taxes, cutting government spending, and lifting regulation on business, putting those at the bottom of the priority pile. They support President Obama and the direction he's taking the country by a 12-point margin over older workers. Scott Neu agrees. "I've applied for some government jobs, and when I followed up with the HR person, she said they had 487 applicants for one job," he says. "I think the government could, and should do more, even if it meant higher taxes." Colorado's unemployment rate recently declined to 7.3%, some two points below the national average, but in a state where public spending is severely constrained and higher education has no dedicated funding stream, budget analysts are concerned about the long-term effects. "Colorado's budget has been tight for years," said Wade Buchanan, president of the Bell Policy Center , a Denver-based policy research center. "We'd only started to recover from the recession of 2003, and now the state has been forced to cut deeply in last year's and this year's budget." Buchanan continues, "In 1982, the state paid 62 percent of the revenue per full-time college student, and 38 percent came from tuition. By 2007, the figures almost flipped: 42 percent from the state and 58 percent from tuition." So young workers in Colorado are squeezed on both ends: an economy that shuts out less-experienced recent college graduates, and a higher education system becoming increasingly unaffordable. President Obama's economic stimulus was just a start - we must continue to invest in our young people so that the economic next generation doesn't become the economic lost generation.
 
Karthika Muthukumaraswamy: Why Press 5 for Customer Service When You Can Twitter? Top
A few weeks ago, while having issues with my cable service, Comcast became my rightful target for a string of disapproving tweets. They didn't go unnoticed. " @ComcastBill " responded to my complaints, and asked if there was any way he could help. I did not seek his advice or counsel, but a survey around the blogosphere vouches for his legitimacy. ComcastBill's offer of help came on the heels of another from one of my Facebook acquaintances, also an employee of Comcast. Social media portals are changing the ways in which companies are doing business, thanks to one-on-one interactions between consumers and employees, either within or outside the professional sphere. There is no denying that big corporations, including the telecommunications giant, are successfully using Twitter to respond to customer concerns and grievances. Gone are the days of merely using Internet monitoring and public surveys to find out what consumers want. Today, all retailers have to do is "listen" to conversations on social networks. That social media are catching on in the business world is clear from Business Week 's recent list of 50 CEOs on Twitter , from Virgin Atlantic's garrulous Richard Branson to the very influential Kevin Rose, founder of Digg. It is not merely about having a presence on social media, however. Some companies use Twitter to simply send out a deluge of messages about products and services . Launching a Twitter page and letting the technology fend for itself is not what social media is about. Companies have to invest time, resources and personnel in order to do social networking right . As Soren Gordhamer writes in this post on Mashable , businesses would do well to start embracing Twitter to increase accessibility and add a personal touch to their consumer interactions. And it works both ways. Customers can spread the word about both their good and bad experiences to hundreds of followers in an instant. This further emphasizes the need for corporations to address issues in real time. Little wonder, then, that some CEOs are surveying the Twittersphere, and directly responding to people's tweets about their company's products. Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, which was recently acquired by Amazon , is a great example of this, known as he is to personally respond to tweets from his over 1 million followers. This is also a great way for smaller companies to establish their brands. That's how Loic Le Meur, CEO of software startup Seesmic, reinforces his commitment to consumer interaction. The important thing about Twitter use by these CEOs is that it is clear they are not just tweeting to push their products or applaud their companies. Their tweets about consumer goods come interspersed with those about the wines they like and the television shows they watch. Why do I care if Tony Hsieh plans to run 12 miles today? Quite simply, personal touch. This merely shows the human face behind the company, and increases trust and authenticity. It would be appropriate here to make a distinction between "prosumer tweeters," such as Hsieh, who tweet as individuals on behalf of a company, and brand tweeters, such as Comcast, whose employees predominantly use Twitter as a channel to serve customers. Regardless of the purpose, interactivity is paramount. While Dell is best known to have promoted its sales on Twitter and amassed $3 million in revenue in the process, its Twitter page is mostly filled with @replies to customer questions. It also seeks suggestions and ideas for new products. Another important aspect is content. Content in a 140-character tweet, you ask? Some of the most successful businesses on social media post tweets linking to material (preferably on their own Web sites) that their follower base would find interesting. A classic example is Whole Foods, which links to informative articles about healthy eating and organic lifestyles through its Twitter page. Twitter is also a great channel to transmit real-time information that might affect customers, especially in the case of companies that provide services. For instance, Comcast used Twitter to communicate news of a power outage that had caused loss of transmission during a Stanley Cup playoff game in April. While many businesses allocate specific PR personnel to manage their Twitter pages, the most successful tweeting companies, notably Zappos, have a freewheeling approach to social networking . Employees are allowed to tweet under the company's umbrella, and there are no set guidelines, which really is in keeping with the general philosophy of social media. This distributed nature of online communication also means that bad news about a company is going to circulate as quickly as good news, as Starbucks found recently, when its Twitter ad campaign was seized by film director Robert Greenwald to spread word about the company's own anti-labor practices. However, as with everything else Web 2.0, transparency and authenticity win out in the end. Organizations that are opening up their businesses to social networks are doing better and better with customers. This is more important now than it has been in the past, as people place higher priorities on customer service when purse strings are tighter. Social media portals allow endless channels of communication. As long as businesses can find creative ways to use them, the possibilities, too, are endless. More on Twitter
 
FarmsReach.com: Local Produce Site Connects Restaurants, Schools To Farms Top
With the popularity of locally grown vegetables soaring, a new Web site hopes to make it easier for chefs to find farmers in their area and have produce delivered to their restaurants. The idea behind FarmsReach.com is to provide one-stop-shopping for fresh produce from many farms at once. More on Local Food
 
Banks Still Trading In Risky Derivatives Top
Derivatives is one of the dirty words of the financial crisis. Though these often risky bets were blamed by many for helping fuel the credit crunch and the downfall of Lehman Brothers and AIG, it seems that Wall Street has yet to learn its lesson. U.S. commercial banks earned $5.2 billion trading derivatives in the second quarter of 2009, a 225 percent increase from the same period last year, according to the Treasury Department. More than 1,100 banks now trade in derivatives, a 14 percent increase from last year. Four banks control the market: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Citibank account for 94 percent of the total derivatives reported to be held by U.S. commercial banks, according to national bank regulator the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The credit risk posed by derivatives in the banking system now stands at $555 billion, a 37 percent increase from 2008. "By any standard these [credit] exposures remain very high," Kathryn E. Dick, the OCC's deputy comptroller for credit and market risk, said in a statement . The complex financial instruments, which take the form of futures, forwards options and swaps, derive their value from an underlying investment or commodity such as currency rates, oil futures or interest rates. They are designed to reduce the risk of loss for one party from the underlying asset. Trading in an unregulated $600 trillion market, they were partly blamed for igniting the financial crisis a year ago. The New York Times reported earlier this month: Derivatives drove the boom before 2008 by encouraging banks to make loans without adequate reserves. They also worsened the panic last fall because they inherently tie institutions together. Investors worried that the collapse of one bank would lead to big losses at others. The Obama administration has included oversight of derivatives as part of its overhaul of financial regulations. Wall Street is fighting back and seems to have returned to its much-criticized practices, . Last Thursday former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who now heads the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board, warned lawmakers about the danger lurking behind such "financial weapons of mass destruction," using a term coined by famed investor Warren Buffett . Testifying on Capitol Hill, Volcker discussed how "opaque trading in complex derivatives [have] become so large relative to underlying assets" and how "more and more complex financial instruments limit the transparency of markets," he said. "As a general matter, I would exclude from commercial banking institutions, which are potential beneficiaries of official (i.e., taxpayer) financial support, certain risky activities entirely suitable for our capital markets," he added. But the OCC argues that derivatives trading is not inherently risky, explaining that banks are trading these instruments every minute of every day with institutions more credit-worthy than a typical borrower. "The system has always worked on derivatives," said Kevin M. Mukri , an OCC spokesman. "You have higher-quality counterparties -- higher quality than in any other line of business." Furthermore, "the purpose of derivative trading to to mitigate risk -- not increase risk," he said. "Without derivatives it would be a very hectic marketplace." Yet some well-respected investment banks seem to be exposed to significant risk judging by their credit exposure from derivatives contracts. Goldman Sachs, formerly a pure investment bank, is now a bank-holding company regulated by the Federal Reserve. It owns Goldman Sachs Bank, an FDIC-insured depository. The bank has about $20 billion in total risk-based capital -- in short, the money it has to cover creditors in case they go belly-up. But the bank has about $186 billion in total credit exposure from its derivatives contracts. Much of that $186 billion could be backed up by collateral -- banks with at least $100 billion in assets held a combination of cash, bonds and securities against 63 percent of their total net credit exposure as of June 30. But the OCC doesn't break that down by institution, and Goldman Sachs doesn't disclose it either. Nonetheless, the bank's exposure to derivatives losses is about nine times the amount of capital it has set aside. "It's extraordinary for a commercial bank," says Dean Baker , co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research , a Washington D.C.-based think tank. "And it really gets down to the central point with Glass-Steagall -- what's the separation here between government-insured deposits and speculative investment banking activity? You'd be very hard pressed to find out with Goldman right now." Glass-Steagall, a Depression-era banking law that prohibited commercial banks from engaging in the investment business, was essentially repealed in 1999. Some economists have pointed to the repeal as the central cause behind the financial crisis. Goldman Sachs announced that it would become a bank holding company last September, less than a week after Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. Coming under the Federal Reserve's protective umbrella gave the firm "access to permanent liquidity and funding," Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, said at the time. Baker says that now that the firm is a bank holding company, the bank's exposure to losses from derivatives contracts (compared to available capital) poses particular problems. Now, "the public is on the hook for that. If they run into trouble they could go to the Fed and borrow at the discount window [and] they have access to the FDIC's special lending [program]," he explains. Goldman Sachs had issued about $25 billion in FDIC-backed debt as of June, according to regulatory filings . "You're having the protections for what's supposed to be relatively boring commercial banking applied to risky investment banking. It's a real serious problem," Baker says. Last October Goldman received a $10 billion taxpayer bailout, which it repaid in June. The federal government earned $1.4 billion on its investment. JPMorgan Chase has about three times the amount of their capital exposed in derivatives deals; Citibank about double. For comparison's sake, if all commercial and industrial loans held by U.S. banks went bust (like zero) the banking system has just enough capital set aside to cover those losses. Not all banks are so heavily invested in derivatives. PNC's exposure (relative to capital) is at 28 percent, and U.S. Bank, the country's sixth-largest by deposits, comes in at seven percent. "It's tough to think of the world without derivatives," Mukri said "And it's not a pleasant world either." More on Financial Crisis
 
Cute/Ridiculous Animal Thing Of The Day: Dog Walks On A Ball (VIDEO) Top
Why is this adorable dog walking on a ball? No idea. But he's shockingly good at it and so very very sweet. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Cute Animal Videos
 
'The Hills' Salaries Exposed: $90-125k Per Episode Top
Cavallari is being paid $90,000 an episode, which is almost as much as Conrad was making: $125,000 an episode (or $2.5 million a year), according to a person with knowledge of the show's contracts. Conrad's deal stipulated that no other star's salary could match hers while she was on The Hills, but those of supporting cast members Audrina Patridge, Lauren "Lo" Bosworth, and Montag come close: $100,000 a show. As for Pratt, his rate is a slightly less at $65,000 per show, because he only joined as a regular in 2008. (In comparison, the stars of The Real Housewives series receive a reported $30,000 a show.) In the case of Brody Jenner, Conrad's BFFWB (Best Friend Forever With Benefits), he takes in $45,000.
 
Connected: New Book Says Humans "Behave Like Flocks Of Birds" Top
The interconnected web of our friends, family, neighbors and acquaintances may dominate our lives more than we know. They've always been there, making up our social support systems. But now, largely thanks to the burgeoning popularity of online social networks like Facebook, researchers are discovering what a powerful influence our connections -- both online and off -- really have over our lives. More on Books
 
Start-Ups: Business Creating Takes Sharp Drop During Recession Top
New companies will be crucial to the strength of any economic recovery. Businesses in their first 90 days of life accounted for 14% of hiring in the U.S. between 1993 and 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But this recession is taking a particularly heavy toll on business creation, as sources of small-business funding dry up and would-be entrepreneurs become more risk-averse More on The Recession
 
Roman Polanski's Films: Which Is Your Favorite? (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
It's hard to bring up Roman Polanski without acknowledging his recently aggravated legal problems, but he remains one of the world's best known directors. Polanksi began his career in Poland, where he grew up, spent some time in France and then came to Hollywood. He moved back to Europe after his wife's brutal murder by the Manson gang in 1969, returning to shoot 1974's 'Chinatown.' After fleeing the US for France in 1978 to avoid his statutory rape sentencing, Polanski continued to make movies in Europe. His career stagnated somewhat until 'The Pianist' in 2002, for which he received a directing Oscar in absentia. Take a look back at the movies Polanski has directed and vote on his biggest hits and misses. PHOTOS: Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Yahoo Commercial: $100 Million "Y!ou" TV Ad Launched (VIDEO) Top
Yahoo recently launched a $100 million marketing campaign with a new slogan, a new angle, and now a new TV commercial, all focused on one thing: "Y!ou." "Watch and wonder in new ways -- in you ways," the ad tells viewers as several thousand clubbers do a Bollywood-style dance in a giant "Y-O-U" formation seen from above. Yahoo, according to the peppy commercial, is a place that will launch "a billion yodels." We have to wonder: is that really such a good thing? WATCH: Follow HuffPostTech On Facebook And Twitter! More on Yahoo!
 

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)