The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- School Apologizes For Rosh Hashanah Football Game Conflict
- Gotham Chopra: One More for MJ
- Mika Brzezinski Struggles To Get Morning Joe Colleagues To Take Kabul Contractor Scandal Seriously
- Larry Flynt: Does Anybody Really Know What Time it Is?
- David Dayen: The "Insurance Companies Support Health Care Reform" Gambit
- Youth Radio -- Youth Media International: Investigation: Sailors' Abuse Kept Silent in Navy Canine Unit
- Ken Cook: SIGG Should Apologize, Offer Refunds to Consumers
- Cecile Richards: Virginia Women: Get Back in That Chastity Belt!
- Trucks Carrying Nuclear Weapons Around The Country Revealed (PHOTOS)
- Zandile Blay: BALENCIAGA UNVEIL'S FALL ADS STARRING JENNIFER CONNELLY
- Rep. John Conyers: Why David Broder Is Wrong
- House Progressives To Obama: No Public Option, No Support
- Mike Ditka To Own Piece Of Lingerie Football League
- Maine's Gay Marriage Law Now In Hands Of Voters, Ads Hit The Airwaves (VIDEO)
- Rep. Charlie Rangel Gave Campaign Donations To 119 Members of Congress, 3 Democrats On House Ethics Committee
- Jesse Jenkins: Wind in Wall Street's Sails: Investment Rushes Into Wind, But Can We Make It Last?
- Morgan Stanley CEO Buys $13.5 M. House
- Craig "Meathead" Goldwyn: On Labor Day, Make "Last Meal Ribs," The Best Barbecue Ribs You've Ever Tasted
- Treasury Backs Down In Clash With Bailout Watchdog
- Dr. Jon LaPook: Could the Obesity Fight Backfire?
- Patrick Barry: What It Might Look Like If the Bottom Drops Out on Afghanistan
- Robert Amsterdam: Kazakhstan's Human Rights Drop Through the Floor
- Josh Shahryar: Stand Your Ground, Obama
- James Hoggan: Public Support for Clean Energy Bill Shows the Deception in Bonner Astroturf Campaign
- Ian Gurvitz: The GOP Strategy: Operation Monkeyshit
- Joshua Keyak: Guess What Else Cost a Trillion
- Brooklyn Heights Secures $650,000 In Stimulus Money For Streetlamps
| School Apologizes For Rosh Hashanah Football Game Conflict | Top |
| The historic date for the Oak Park & River Forest High School's first Friday night football game under new stadium lights was to be a momentous occasion for the entire community. More on Religion | |
| Gotham Chopra: One More for MJ | Top |
| I thought long and hard about whether to go on CNN tonight and once again talk about my late friend Michael Jackson. Months ago when he died, I did a flurry of interviews, mostly on CNN and with Larry King and got a lot of positive feedback for some of the things I said about Michael. Viewers wrote to me in droves via email, facebook, and twitter; there were grateful that I had "humanized" him. It was natural to me to re-collect Michael more as a friend - I knew him from when I was just a kid on through my college years, my first few years out in the working world, getting married and becoming a father - rather than try to analyze the pendulum of his career from iconic rock-star to scandal plagued celebrity. I was close to him as he endured both phases and what was remarkable was that he stayed largely the same guy underneath, staggeringly intelligent and wildly irreverent, deeply spiritual but quintessentially cynical. Michael was cool, but he was also conflicted. He was forever a contradiction, a creative visionary that wanted to heal the world, but could barely keep his own life together. Part of the reason I was ambivalent about going on TV tonight was because I'm not attending the memorial service/burial today in which he is finally being laid to rest. The reasons for that were various. To tick off a few: frankly because it's really weird to me that he died 2.5 months ago and still had not been buried (in the Hindu tradition, the body must be disposed off within two days, and not that I am even very Hindu, but come on...); because I sensed the service would be more of the same - a circus of attention seekers and media - and I didn't really want to be a part of it; and because, well, I don't think I was really invited by his family or lawyers or post-death entourage, whoever is running the show. I'm not surprised, nor disappointed. I was good friends with Michael, not his parents nor many siblings, not his wonderful children, nor the many in his entourage who always seemed to be around, and appear just as plentiful and voracious in his death. On the former (the family), this has no doubt been a conflicted time for them as well. When I was with him the last few years, Michael intimated a deep respect for many of the members of his family, but he didn't profess a real intimacy with them in recent times. He loved his brothers deeply but he didn't ache to re-establish the famous fraternity the world once knew. Then again, what do I know? Still, today it feels like some closure is upon us. Michael gets to go underground which is perhaps a place he may finally find some peace. That said, I could have sworn he once told me he wanted to be cremated when he was all done. Strike that from the record though if it means now we have to go through another circus with him and his body. This is all turning a little to Thriller for me... In our Eastern traditions of course, we do actually draw a distinction between him and his body. To me, Michael left us a long time ago. His soul certainly lingers around us - our recollections of him, our celebrations of his art and our time with him - but his body is just some empty vessel, a symbol I suppose that others feel necessary to put through various rituals and sacraments so as to officially sign off on his death and departure. Even the sadness of the day - it's more for us than it is for him. Whatever the case, in the weeks and months and years ahead we will all celebrate Michael in different ways. I am working on something myself, a creative project he and I had started together a while ago and over the years were quietly nurturing with no certain deadline to show the world. After he died, I dove back into my archives and aggregated all the notes, the outlines, and sketches - okay I am giving too much away - and looked them over. I was overwhelmed. The story Michael was telling was both haunting and heartening. I'm committed to it now more than ever and hopeful it can be shared with the world someday very soon. Right, so I'm leaning toward a CNN appearance tonight because, well I like talking baseball during the breaks with Larry and because I've kind of enjoyed my role "humanizing" Michael Jackson, whatever that means. Final story (for now): a couple of years ago, Michael became briefly obsessed with an assortment of Indian saints - some living, other sdead - Gurus who gleaned pop-culture fame for their dissertations on things like meditation, consciousness, the art of happiness, critical mass effect, and other esoteric spiritual themes. More than their message, Michael was obsessed with the men. He'd call me in the middle of the night after having watched some obscure video on one of these guys. "They seem so at peace," he said in one of those calls, "so pure and happy." "It's 3 AM, man," I answered. My wife groaned: "It's Michael, isn't it?" She rolled over and went back to sleep. "Nobody is that pure and happy, Gotham." "If you say so," I croaked back. "Those guys eat cows, don't they?" He whispered. "What?" "Aren't cows holy in India? I bet those guys eat cows when no one is looking." He laughed. "You're strange and I'm going back to sleep." I said. "Okay Brown (one of his many nicknames for me), go back to sleep. I'll find out the truth when I see those guys in Heaven." He hung up. Now's your chance, Mike. RIP. Gotham Chopra blogs a lot at www.intent.com More on Michael Jackson | |
| Mika Brzezinski Struggles To Get Morning Joe Colleagues To Take Kabul Contractor Scandal Seriously | Top |
| Did you hear about that time a bunch of private security contractors went to Afghanistan to guard State Department facilities in Kabul, and turned it into a non-stop orgy of drunken insanity? Good times, people! And they were all documented in a letter that the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , which describes "a pattern of blatant, longstanding violations of the security contract, and of a pervasive breakdown in the chain of command and guard force discipline and morale" and a "climate of fear and coercion" because not every guard particularly wants to participate in what passes, among private security contractors in Kabul, as longstanding leisure activities: Numerous emails, photographs, and videos portray a Lord of the Flies environment. One email from a current guard describes scenes in which guards and supervisors are "peeing on people, eating potato chips out of [buttock] cracks, vodka shots out of [buttock] cracks (there is video of that one), broken doors after drnken [sic] brawls, threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity...." (Attachment 2) Photograph after photograph shows guards--including supervisors--at parties in various stages of nudity, sometimes fondling each other. These parties take place just a few yards from the housing of other supervisors. Over at Gawker, John Cook asked for and received from POGO the aforementioned pictures , and they are doozies ! And so it fell to MSNBC's Morning Joe Caramel Macchiato Players to take up this news story this morning. Sadly, not all of them took it very seriously. By which I mean, only Mika Brzezinski took it seriously . The rest of the gang thought it was a "stretch" to suggest that anything untoward was going on, and that criticizing the guards was tantamount to Puritanism. At one point, someone remarks that the photos were akin to photos of Willie Geist, in Las Vegas. So, note to self: never travel to Las Vegas with Willie Geist unless I've got the yen to eat Pringles out of his behind! [WATCH] I really could go on and on about the deep, deep grave Joe Scarborough digs for himself, against the rather good advice from Brzezinski that he should take the story seriously. It's like watching one of Ricky Gervais' characters come to life. But my favorite part is when Joe Scarborough asks, "Who is the fully blurred guy? What is he doing?" The answer is: He's a private contractor, tasked with guarding State Department facilities, standing naked and drunk, in Afghanistan. Anyway, I recommend you all post this on Twitter, so that mocking this becomes a trending topic, because that is what is called for here. Air America's Ana Marie Cox suggests the hashtag #springbreakinkabul. Have at it, people. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Morning Joe | |
| Larry Flynt: Does Anybody Really Know What Time it Is? | Top |
| The time is now. America is waking up. Resistance is the order of the day. I could feel it with growing certainty as I read the numerous and gratifying responses to my call for a national strike here on HuffPost . So many smart people offering so many good ideas. Even my detractors acknowledged the underlying issues I put forth. This notion was reaffirmed on August 28 when Bill Maher interviewed Bill Moyers on a special edition of HBO's "Real Time". "The Democratic Party has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money," Moyers said. A short while later he added: "You really have two corporate parties who in their own way and their own time are serving the interests of basically a narrow set of economic interests in the country." In other words, it's the people versus the corporate state. You hear it more and more, sometimes spoken in code, sometimes spelled out as clearly as a neon sign. We have reached the tipping point. The enemy has been identified. It's not left versus right it's democracy versus greed. This realization sits there like an unexploded bomb. We stare at it, waiting only for someone to light the match. That was the essence of the debate here on HuffPost. Who will set a strike date? What date shall it be? Some called for me to set it. I demur. It's not up to me. There are enough millionaires telling you what to do. And I'm not at risk. I say, let the people decide. That's what was so exciting about the discussion my essay evoked; it was all so egalitarian, so organic. Some who responded said they could not afford to stay home from their jobs; they were too vulnerable. Others suggested letting each participate in the way that is best for them. If you can't yell strike, or claim a sick day, then go to work but don't shop. That makes sense to me. Like it or not, we are a consumer-driven society. Each and every purchase we make is a political action. That's called the power of the consumer. We must learn to wield this power effectively. When it came to picking a date for the strike, some said September 11, others preferred October 1, and yet others favored November 5. I like all those dates. Why should there be just one? Or just three? We'll need a series of strikes. We'll need to build a movement. This isn't going to succeed overnight. Whatever date is chosen, or however many, I'll throw in my support. It will be a slow build, but we can win this battle if we remain focused on the prize: meaningful campaign finance reform and serious restrictions on lobbying activity. It's time to take back our government. Let the average person have an equal voice with the wealthy. For now, remember: The corporations do not control our government; they are our government. More on Economy | |
| David Dayen: The "Insurance Companies Support Health Care Reform" Gambit | Top |
| Angela Braly, the CEO of Wellpoint, called for health care reform at a meeting in Indianapolis. One of them most powerful women in the nation is calling for health care reform. Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly says she supports guaranteed coverage for everyone - as long as everyone gets and stays covered [...] "The high and rising cost of health care in America is just not sustainable," Braly said. She said the current system, including Medicare, which is administered by the federal government, was inefficient and promotes quantity over quality. She also said it posed "a real threat to the social and fiscal obligations of the government and to the health and prosperity of the American people." "We believe insurance companies have a role to play. We can and are making a difference," Braly said. She said Wellpoint's strategy was moving beyond processing claims and managing risk, noting employee incentives when customers get healthy. Braly says the what worries her most about the plan currently under consideration is the "public option." This is, essentially, the insurance company-approved argument for health care reform. They see it as forcing everyone to buy their coverage, making refusal to buy their insurance a crime, and offering no competition to their monopoly over it. I'm sure they don't want to see that anti-trust exemption of theirs lifted either, the one that has led to 94% of the individual insurance market becoming "highly concentrated" in the hands of one or two companies. Braly kept talking about how the current system is inefficient and leads to skyrocketing costs, as if she has no agency over that whatsoever. There are issues with how the fee-for-service system promotes quantity of medical care and not quantity, but that's due to the profit incentive, which is exactly the same in the insurance market. Braly's argument seems to be that it's doctors and hospitals at fault for chasing profit in health care, but insurance industry CEOs like her are good Samaritans and innocent bystanders who just so happen to do the same thing. If a profit-driven health care system is wrong, then it's pretty much wrong across the board. And she actually advocated for an outcome where insurers would be "free to offer a range of choices," while worrying about a public option ... which would just be another choice, one that could deliver quality coverage at a lower cost. Braly tried to argue that health insurance profits aren't all that big: According to Braly, the difference between the Medicaid or Medicare payouts and actual costs are shifted to the private plans, costing you $1,500 a year. Add that to the $1,000 a year shifted to the private plans to cover the uninsured and it costs you a total $2,500 a year. "Sounds a lot like the Fannie Mae for health care and I think we all know how that experiment is going," Braly said [...] "If you completely eliminated insurance company industry profits which is clearly the aim of some, you would pay for two days of health care in America and in the process you would eliminate the market mechanism to control costs and improve quality of health care being delivered," Braly argued. I don't know what any of this means. The market mechanism in health care has not controlled costs in America whatsoever, yet throughout the industrialized world we see public programs that control costs and provide better health outcomes. Private industry has begged off completely from limiting health care costs through any means other than denying coverage to their customers and rationing. Health care spending in Medicare and Medicaid is lower than spending through the insurance market. And insurers have used the employer market effectively to confuse employers and employees alike about the true cost of their service. Braly throws out "Fannie Mae" for health care, but the current system is clearly "Goldman Sachs" for health care - where the relentless drive for profit at the expense of people creates a spending bubble that nobody ever bothers to burst until it's too late. In the end, Braly calls Wellpoint a "supporter" of health care reform. That's funny, I would think that a company committed to health care reform wouldn't illegally force their employees to lobby against it . Consumer Watchdog in Santa Monica has asked California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to investigate its claim that UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint Inc. pushed workers to write their elected officials, attend town hall meetings and enlist family and friends to ensure an overhaul that matches their interests [...] WellPoint, whose Anthem Blue Cross unit is the largest for-profit insurer in California and employs 8,000, took a more overtly negative tack. "Regrettably, the congressional legislation, as currently passed by four of the five key committees in Congress, does not meet our definition of responsible and sustainable reform," Anthem said in a company e-mail last week. The proposals would hurt the company by "causing tens of millions of Americans to lose their private coverage and end up in a government-run plan." The appeals amount to illegal coercion under California law, Consumer Watchdog research director Judy Dugan said. "While coercive communications with employees may be legal, if abhorrent, in most states, California's labor code appears to directly prohibit them," said Dugan, citing sections forbidding employers from "tending to control or direct" or "coercing or influencing" employees' political activities or affiliations. Insurance companies like WellPoint support health care reform, all right - completely on their terms, and guaranteed to provide them a financial windfall. Anything else would be unacceptable, and they will take any tactic - no matter legal or illegal - to stop it. More on Health Care | |
| Youth Radio -- Youth Media International: Investigation: Sailors' Abuse Kept Silent in Navy Canine Unit | Top |
| Originally published on Youthradio.org , the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe. By: Rachel Krantz In the Persian Gulf, on the island of Bahrain, the U.S. Navy has a special division made up of bomb-sniffing dogs and the sailors who handle them. The Bahrain Military Working Dogs Division was featured in a Navy News spot highlighting the work involved in deploying these highly trained canines to sniff out narcotics and explosives coming through the Persian Gulf and into the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. ( See a Navy video of the dogs that can detect small amounts of explosives with a sense of smell "10 times greater" than their trainers'. ) Developing trust between the dog and the handler is at the core of what makes canine detection work, as together, their job is to step into situations that can be deadly at any moment. However, that trust between the individual sailor and dog does not necessarily extend to the overall culture of the unit. A Youth Radio investigation has found that between 2004 and 2006, sailors in the U.S. Navy’s Bahrain Military Working Dogs Division, or "The Kennel," were subjected to an atmosphere of sexual harassment, psychological humiliation, and physical assaults. It was inside that Bahrain kennel in July 2005 that Petty Officer Joseph Christopher Rocha, then 19 years old, says he was being terrorized by other members of his own division. "I was hog-tied to a chair, rolled around the base, left in a dog kennel that had feces spread in it." Rocha says that beginning six weeks into his deployment, he was singled out for abuse by his chief master-at-arms, Michael Toussaint, and others on the base, once Rocha made it clear he was not interested in prostitutes. "I was in a very small testosterone-driven unit of men," Rocha says. "I think that's what began the questioning-you know-‘Why don't you want to have sex with her? Are you a faggot?’" Youth Radio has conducted interviews and obtained documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing that the hog-tying episode was not the first or only case of harassment and abuse during Rocha's deployment. In another incident cited in the documents, Rocha was forced to appear in a twisted "training video." A member of the Working Dogs Division, Petty Officer Shaun Hogan, recalls the scene. "Petty Officer Rocha and another junior sailor…were instructed to go into a classroom by Chief Michael Toussaint, who orchestrated the entire training. And Chief Toussaint asked them to simulate homosexual sex on a couch," Hogan says. Next in the simulation, Hogan says a handler and his dog barged onto the scene, and that's when "one person…would sit up, kind of wipe off their mouth, the other would get up, and they would be fixing their fly." Rocha says Toussaint bullied him, "telling me I needed to be more believable, act more queer, have a higher pitched voice, make the sounds and gestures more realistic...I didn't think I had a choice…It made me feel that I wasn't a human being, that I was an animal, rather." Rocha says at the time, he had no gay friends, no male lovers, and wasn’t even fully out to himself about his sexuality. "The fact that I was starting to figure out that I was a homosexual, it was the most degrading thing I've ever experienced in my life." Still, eight thousand miles away from home, he was afraid to report the constant hazing. And Rocha was not the only one. [ Read More About Youth Radio's Investigation Into Hazing and Abuse, See Military Documents. ] Youth Radio/Youth Media International (YMI) is youth-driven converged media production company that delivers the best youth news, culture and undiscovered talent to a cross section of audiences. To read more youth news from around the globe and explore high quality audio and video features, visit | |
| Ken Cook: SIGG Should Apologize, Offer Refunds to Consumers | Top |
| SIGG CEO Steve Wasik called earlier today to discuss Environmental Working Group's (EWG) response to his recent announcement that SIGG water bottles did in fact contain the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in their liners until August 2008. Wasik's announcement has caused an uproar because the company led consumers and retailers to believe that its products were free of BPA. In doing so, SIGG capitalized and profited on consumers' clear preference in recent years to avoid products made with the chemical. Nothing Mr. Wasik said changed our view about SIGG's discredited efforts to mislead consumers and retailers about its products. We sent this letter today to the co-CEOs of The Riverside Company , the private equity firm that owns SIGG, asking for a public apology and a refund offer. The Environmental Working Group 1436 U St NW Washington, DC 20009 Stewart Kohl Co-Chief Executive Officer The Riverside Company Terminal Tower 50 Public Square 29th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 September 4, 2009 Dear Mr. Kohl: On behalf of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), I write to ask that you issue an unambiguous apology for misleading consumers and retailers about whether SIGG bottles contain the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). I further urge you to modify SIGG Switzerland CEO Steve Wasik's recent announcement of a SIGG voluntary bottle exchange program. Consumers should be able to take SIGG bottles that contain BPA to an authorized SIGG retailer and receive a refund for the full retail value of the product. The cost of the refund should be covered by SIGG. The announced exchange policy, which forces customers to accept a replacement SIGG bottle, puts them in the untenable position of having to trust Mr. Wasik and his team about the composition and safety of the replacement product. It is our view that SIGG's reputation will be difficult to restore while Mr. Wasik remains at the helm of the company. Sincerely, Kenneth A. Cook President Environmental Working Group CC: Béla Szigethy Co-Chief Executive Officer The Riverside Company 45 Rockefeller Center 630 Fifth Avenue Suite 2400 New York, NY 10111 Steve Wasik Chief Executive Officer SIGG Switzerland AG Walzmühlestrasse 62 CH-8501 Frauenfeld Switzerland | |
| Cecile Richards: Virginia Women: Get Back in That Chastity Belt! | Top |
| So just when you think you've heard it all -- meet Bob McDonnell, Republican candidate for governor in the state of Virginia. Turns out that Mr. McDonnell isn't your garden-variety anti-choice politician. He's a true believer -- railing against legalized birth control, public schools, childcare and, believe it, working women! His thesis at Pat Robertson's Regent University is just now seeing the light of day thanks to the Washington Post , and it outlines his views pretty clearly about those of us whom he believes are responsible for the demise of the American family, rising promiscuity and basically the breakdown of society. It turns out that Mr. McDonnell takes issue with the U.S. Supreme Court decision back in 1972, Eisenstadt v. Baird, which established the legal right of unmarried people to use contraception in America. Apparently, he believes that legalized birth control leads to all kinds of problems, which then leads to the breakdown of the traditional family unit where Dad worked and Mom stayed home with Dick and Jane and Puff and Spot. In his treatise, Mr. McDonnell opines that working women and "feminists" are the problem -- "materialistic" people who have made choices the government now has to support, who have broken their "perceived stereotypical bonds and seek workplace equality." He rails against child-care programs that subsidize and encourage women to work, and says that the participation of women in the work force is a symptom of the breakdown of society. It is hard to believe that a politician can possibly get elected with such a primitive view of a woman's role in the family and in society. Lest you think he was a young, impressionable student-type when he held these views, not so. He wrote this manifesto at age 34, already a married father of two. But Bob McConnell is not only a man of words: he is a man of action. In the two decades that McDonnell has been in office, he has sponsored or co-sponsored more than 35 anti-choice pieces of legislation -- in fact, his primary focus in elective office has been to restrict women's access to reproductive health care. "Working women" have gotten little or no help from him as well, since McDonnell voted against ending wage discrimination between men and women. While this thinking is pretty frightening, most frightening is that Bob McDonnell is now leading in the Virginia polls. Like other extreme-right candidates, Bob McDonnell is working hard to distance himself from his voting record, public statements and actions, and now, his dissertation at Regent. Polls indicate that Virginia women can and likely will make the difference in this election and their votes are very much up for grabs. Senator Creigh Deeds, 100 percent pro-women's health and 100 percent pro-working women, is gaining ground. Despite Bob McDonnell's predictions, working women have not been responsible for the demise of American society, but women may very well be responsible for the end of McDonnell's political career. | |
| Trucks Carrying Nuclear Weapons Around The Country Revealed (PHOTOS) | Top |
| The idea of nuclear weapons being carted around in our highways, cities and neighborhoods doesn't really put one's mind at ease. However, the government has been transporting seriously dangerous stuff like enriched uranium and plutonium secretly without public warning. Friends of the Earth through the Freedom of Information Act has forced the Department Of Energy to release color photos of the trucks used to transport weapons. According to FOE, these are the first of such pictures that have been released in many years. Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator with Friends of the Earth in Columbia, South Carolina made the following statement about the importance of the release of the photos. "The trucks carrying nuclear weapons and dangerous materials such as plutonium pass through cities and neighborhoods all the time and the public should be aware of what they look like. Release of these photos will help inform the public about secretive shipments of dangerous nuclear material that are taking place in plain view." Here's another photo that was just released. More on Nuclear Weapons | |
| Zandile Blay: BALENCIAGA UNVEIL'S FALL ADS STARRING JENNIFER CONNELLY | Top |
| For Fall 2009, Balenciaga's clothes are still fly. Jennifer Connelly is still the house muse - and I am still confused. Famed fashion photog Steven Meisel clearly had a busy summer. A quick scan of the top fashion books this month reveals that he's shot covers and fashion stories for a laundry list of international publications from Vogue Italia to W Magazine. We can now add campaigns to the list. Meisel snapped the Fall 2009 Balenciaga campaign starring Hollywood actress Jennifer Connelly. The brunette beauty dips, flexes and bends it like Beckham in Balenciaga's lux finery. (Please spare a few minutes to take in the towering glamazon heels.) Everything about these shots are perfect: the kinetic clothes which range from subdued wools to mettalic silks; the bold hair and makeup which lends an air of haphazard chic; and even the set which is comprised of pricey antique furniture strewn helter skelter. Oddly, that the only element that doesnt work so well is Connelly herself. Beautiful though she is, am I the only one that finds her a lack luster choice - literally - for a starring role in a haute fashion campaign? [Images via Fashionologie.com] Read more from Zandile on her daily blog, The Blay Report . | |
| Rep. John Conyers: Why David Broder Is Wrong | Top |
| In today's Washington Post , David Broder argues that the Attorney General should not have authorized special US Attorney John Durham to investigate the Bush interrogation program. While Mr. Broder apparently believes that public officials should generally be held to account for violations of law or breaches of the public trust, in this case he thinks the cost would be too great. Mr. Broder argues that the Attorney General should have weighed the various political and practical consequences of an investigation against the abstract principle of accountability and decided to stand down. I reject this idea completely. I understand the Washington habit of reducing all difficult questions to political calculations -- I am a politician myself, after all. But the decision whether to investigate possible crimes connected to our interrogation programs is simply not a political one. Our nation is obligated by treaty to investigate credible allegations of torture and similar breaches of law. The materials available to the Attorney General manifestly state such credible allegations of such violations -- he really had no choice to go forward, unless we were to breach our legal commitments. Does Mr. Broder have so little respect for the rule of law that he cannot simply commend the strength and dignity of a public servant like Mr. Holder carrying out an unpleasant duty? Beyond that basic point, Mr. Broder's column remains deeply flawed. As I read the piece, there are two asserted reasons we should shirk our duty to investigate. First, investigations will harm CIA morale, and second, if trials ensue, a "major, bitter partisan battle" would erupt and "the cost to the country would simply be too great." On the issue of CIA morale, even the limited public record makes clear that, within the CIA itself, there were individuals who resisted the interrogation program or particular applications of it. So it is simply not fair to ascribe a single view to the vast CIA community that serves our nation so bravely. Furthermore, if it is correct that CIA morale will be harmed by investigations, we must ask why that is so. In my view, the most likely source of morale problems is the rumored scope of the investigation. The record makes plain that this program was concocted, approved, and directed from the highest levels of our government. If reports that only frontline officers will be investigated are true, I can understand why agency personnel would feel hung out to dry. Artificially limiting the investigation to interrogators working in extremely difficult circumstances while immunizing the officials who directed and approved these acts could quite reasonably be viewed as unfair and unjust. (I note that such a limitation has been suggested in press reports but never confirmed by the Justice Department, and I urge the Attorney General to simply let the prosecution team investigate the matter and follow the facts where they lead.) Mr. Broder seems to agree when he argues that "if accountability is the standard, then it should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings." Yet, he rejects the logical implications of his point, asking "do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?" Without knowing all the facts, that question is impossible to answer. But for Mr. Broder the idea seems to be unthinkable. Why does he believe that? Is it not a basic principle of this country that no person is above the law? I do not know if Mr. Cheney broke the law, but I do know that, in my America, the law applies to him as it does to everyone else. Remarkably, Mr. Broder reports with pride that he called for Bill Clinton to resign after lies to his cabinet and the country about the Lewinsky affair. But where was his call for George Bush to resign after telling the country "We do not torture"? I have a difficult time understanding why Bill Clinton's misdeeds were more worthy of accountability than those of Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush. Mr. Broder's second point is that torture trials would cause a partisan maelstrom and impede our ability to meet the challenges of the day. I do not dispute that the right would treat such trials as partisan, political fodder best used to paint Democrats as weak on national security (indeed, this is why I have proposed an independent bipartisan commission to investigate these matters). But in a world where "conservatives" argue that the President's speech to schoolchildren amounts to brainwashing and that government reimbursement for voluntary end-of-life consultations are "death panels," I question whether it is realistically possible to avoid such partisan conflagrations regardless of the steps we take. It is not as if the right was working shoulder to shoulder with the Administration or Democrats in Congress on the great policy issues confronting us before Attorney General Holder announced the expanded Durham probe. Finally, there is another, far more insidious aspect to Mr. Broder's argument on this point. David Broder is a moderate, non-partisan journalist of enormous reach and authority in this country. As such, he has a very prominent voice in whether any prosecutions are seen as partisan. If Mr. Broder stood up for the principle that no person is above the law and acknowledged that our laws obligate investigation of torture, the right's effort to make this issue seem purely political would be less likely to take hold of the national conversation. On the other hand, when he argues that the decision to investigate is essentially political and presses the Attorney General to reconsider because the costs might be "too great," he validates the partisan voices that would breach our legal duties and sacrifice our national honor because they see torture as little more than a useful wedge issue. As the acknowledged "dean" of the Washington Press corps, David Broder is no mere observer of these events. He is an actor in the national debate, whose pronouncements help define what views are considered "reasonable." If he believes, as he claims, that accountability "should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings," he should reject those who would turn a fundamental issue of law into a "major, bitter partisan battle," not validate them as a fixed and appropriate part of the political landscape. More on Eric Holder | |
| House Progressives To Obama: No Public Option, No Support | Top |
| In a letter that was delivered to the White House moments ago, the two leaders of the bloc of House progressives bluntly told President Obama that they will not support any health care plan without a public option in it -- and demanded an opportunity to inform him of this face to face. More on Nancy Pelosi | |
| Mike Ditka To Own Piece Of Lingerie Football League | Top |
| Most fans might not make a connection between NFL Hall of Famer Mike Ditka and lingerie, but that's what the Chicago Bliss wants in anticipation of the team's first game Friday at the Sears Centre. More on Sports | |
| Maine's Gay Marriage Law Now In Hands Of Voters, Ads Hit The Airwaves (VIDEO) | Top |
| Governor John Baldacci of Maine has formally put the state's marriage equality law into the hands of voters after he signed a measure allowing a referendum on it in November. Anti-gay marriage supporters gathered nearly 100,000 signatures for their petition to get an initiative repealing the law on the ballot, far surpassing the number required However, gay activists are confident about the campaign to protect marriage equality. They are heralding the first ads to go on the air as extremely powerful. Another ad was released today by "NO on 1 / Protect Maine Equality." The campaign manager for the group, Jesse Connolly, blogged about the ad and the referendum on HuffPost. You can read it here . More on Video | |
| Rep. Charlie Rangel Gave Campaign Donations To 119 Members of Congress, 3 Democrats On House Ethics Committee | Top |
| CBS 2 HD has learned of more alleged back-door dealings and political power peddling by Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel. The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently "wrangling" other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles. | |
| Jesse Jenkins: Wind in Wall Street's Sails: Investment Rushes Into Wind, But Can We Make It Last? | Top |
| "The money is coming back." That's what Ethan Zindler, head of New Energy Finance Ltd, proclaimed to the Wall Street Journal in response to emerging evidence that the government's $3 billion dollar cash grant renewable energy stimulus program is successfully incentivizing private investment in the wind sector. After falling into the doldrums for the past six-months, the wind industry is roaring back to life thanks to direct public investments enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the stimulus bill. A Department of Energy and Treasury-funded cash grant incentive program is helping to grease the pipeline for private investors looking to finance renewable projects, particularly wind farms, slated to begin construction in 2009 or 2010. According to the WSJ , just four weeks into the program $800 million in grants have already been submitted and Wall Street bankers predict that figure to reach $10 billion by the end of 2010. The cash grant program was created to rescue the clean energy industry, a critical American growth sector, from the malaise of the credit crisis. The tax credits (PTC and ITC) that usually incite clean energy development are worthless in an economic climate where the big financial firms that typically absorb them, on behalf of project developers, are in crisis. The solution: Congress tucked a two-year cash grant into ARRA worth 30% of qualifying wind, solar, and geothermal project costs, replacing the normal production and investment tax credits. With the money from the program officially flowing since August, the grants are breathing new vigor into clean energy investment, speeding America's economic recovery. With big players like Morgan Stanley and Citigroup investing $120 million each to finance new wind farms, the wind sector is generating more than clean energy - it's producing clear evidence that public investment really does drive private investment. By covering 30% of a new project's cost, the cash grant program will spur more than two dollars in private investment for every public dollar, successfully leveraging taxpayer money to drive significant private investment in cleaner energy, greater energy security, and accelerated economic recovery. The projected success of the cash grants, which bankers calculate will lead to 9-15% annual returns per deal, suggests that perhaps, public investment is even more effective at driving private investment than setting an economy-wide carbon price, an oft-suggested strategy to motivate private financing in renewable RD&D. While this ARRA-funded program has already positively impacted the wind sector (and should have a similar but smaller impact on solar and geothermal), it is important to temper the excitement with prudent acknowledgment that this is a short-term stimulus. A graphic representation of the recent history of wind financing in the U.S. (see below) shows that as successful as the program is shaping up to be, it could prove a fickle friend in the long-term. Even though the stimulus program appears incredibly effective at coaxing Wall Street to loosen its grip on the capital coffer in the short-term, a long-term deployment strategy, focused on supporting the maturation and development of a suite of clean energy technologies, is essential to sustaining high levels of private investment in the clean energy sector. In the context of a struggling economy relieved by even the smallest signal that the market is on the upswing, it is difficult to envision the structure of a long-term deployment plan. But it is important to keep in mind three vital factors of any long-term clean energy deployment strategy. First , the strategy must set forth incentives targeted to individual technologies since all clean energy technologies are not created equal. Incentive levels must buy down the above-market cost of each individual technology so that maximum investment in each technology is possible. Clean energy sources are still more expensive than their entrenched fossil energy competitors - sometimes significantly more so - and private investment in these critical, emerging technologies and industries will always be limited without public investments to help level the playing field. The objective, however, should not be to create permanently subsidized industries, forever dependent on taxpayer dollars. Instead, clean energy deployment incentives should spur the continual improvement and development of a suite of emerging clean energy sources, driving down cost through economies of scale, learning and experience, and targeted R&D. If a technology fails to come down in price over time - in short, if it will never become cost competitive without permanent subsidy - incentives for that technology should cease. The goal: clean, cheap energy sources that can competitively and affordably power America's economy - and the world. Second , a long-term strategy must be consistent . The danger of short-term investments is that their inherent uncertainty has the potential to push renewable energy markets into scarcity mode. Because private investors are motivated to capitalize on what they perceive to be a short-term market, the subsequent rise in commissioned projects leads to high demand for parts. This demand spurt often cannot be met by manufacturers who are not experiencing corresponding capacity expansion. Component scarcity can lead to price increases for key parts, eventually negating the value of both government and private investments by making clean energy more expensive, not cheap, and discouraging additional investment. Scarcity mode, caused by short-term government investment strategies, has been symptomatic of the wind industry's frustrating boom-and-bust history. This new stimulus program, somewhat like a bad diet, is at risk for perpetuating the cycle because although it drives industry growth initially, it is not designed to make wind energy cheap through the kind of consistent, long-term deployment strategy described above, and thus risks making it more expensive in the short- and long-term. Finally , any long-term clean energy deployment strategy cannot focus on deployment alone. Unlike short-term stimulus objectives, which tend to revolve around immediate job creation and economic growth, a truly comprehensive strategy should be specifically designed to make a suite of low-carbon technologies cheap and abundant through continued innovation . Investments should be channeled to motivate innovation through sustained, robust R&D, consistently lower prices, and continued improvements in the product. Additionally, making clean energy cheap, depends upon feeding knowledge and experience gained through deployment, or "learning-by-doing," back into R&D efforts to continually improve the technology and drive down cost. This creates a far more productive cycle than the alternative (boom and bust), enabling further deployment, more learning and experience, and continued innovation. The learning-by-doing cycle is supported by government investments in R&D and targeted, long-term deployment incentives, both necessary catalysts for this process. The final output of this process: clean, cheap energy. Denmark's deployment of offshore wind is a perfect example of how learning feedback loops encourage both technology and deployment practice improvements, thus making clean energy cheaper. By capturing the experiential gains of "learning-by-doing" Denmark's coupled deployment and applied research programs are credited with driving significant advancements in wind turbine technology. No amount of time in the lab could replace the knowledge Denmark gained throughout the actual deployment process. Deployment of clean energy technology is certainly a smart avenue for short-term economic stimulus. But in order to keep high levels of private investment flowing into the wind and other renewable energy sectors, it is more realistic to view deployment as an evolving process instead of as an event. Building viable industries and new technologies capable of export around the world requires a more focused and sustained vision for clean energy technology policy. Long-term deployment policies to drive strong domestic markets, continued innovation, and ever-more-affordable clean energy technologies will be central to the nation's longer-term economic strategy, helping drive a robust clean energy growth sector. Thus, the current boom in private wind financing will only result in another eventual bust without any consideration for the long-term. While the ARRA cash grant program merits the enthusiastic response it has received from Wall Street and the wind sector, without a subsequent or concurrent long-term deployment strategy, today's gust of growth and profit is fated to turn disappointingly stale. For more on how to make clean energy cheap, view the Breakthrough Institute's policy recommendations here . Post written by Yael Borofsky and Jesse Jenkins, originally at the Breakthrough Institute More on Financial Crisis | |
| Morgan Stanley CEO Buys $13.5 M. House | Top |
| Less than a year after Morgan Stanley got its $10 billion TARP loan (and exactly two and a half months after the money was repaid), the mammoth firm's chief executive and chairman has bought a 33-foot-wide, 107-year-old limestone carriage house. It's in relatively bad shape, but might have the city's largest in-house garage. More on Real Estate | |
| Craig "Meathead" Goldwyn: On Labor Day, Make "Last Meal Ribs," The Best Barbecue Ribs You've Ever Tasted | Top |
| Here's how to make low and slow smoke roasted "Last Meal Ribs" on just about any covered grill and make slabs better than they do in restaurants. You'll never boil ribs again. That's because water is a solvent and it pulls much of the flavor out of the meat. When you boil meat you make soup. You wouldn't boil a steak would you? If you boil ribs, the terrorists win. There's nothing revolutionary in this method. Envision a proto-human tribe padding warily through the fragrant ashes of a forest fire as they follow a particularly seductive scent. When they stumble upon the charred carcass of a wild boar they squat and poke their fingers into its side. They sniff their hands, then lick their greasy digits. The magical blend of warm protein, molten fat, and unctuous collagen in the roasted meat is a narcotic elixir and it addicts them on first bite. They become focused, obsessed with tugging out the rib bones and scraping them clean between their teeth, moaning and shaking their heads. The aromas make their nostrils smile and the flavors cause their mouths to weep. They sing praises to their gods. Now imagine your tribe, your family and friends, moaning in ecstasy and praising your name in your own backyard. You can make it happen if you follow my step-by-step guide below. I share this with you after years of studying at the feet of the masters, judging at barbecue competitions including the Jack Daniel's World Championship International Barbecue, and sucking on a lot of bones. We're talking Southern ribs here, a style created by African slaves and as uniquely American as their other great contributions to our culture: Jazz and the blues. The ribs that win championships are a melange of flavors: Spice rub, hardwood smoke, tangy sweet sauce, all underpinned by the distinct flavor of pork. They are juicy and tender and they tug cleanly off the bone. They do not fall off the bone. They have the texture of other properly cooked meats, like steaks. Click here to see what I look for when I judge rib cookoff, what I consider to be Amazing Ribs . There may be a few more steps in this process than you like, but it's not hard and we're talking blue ribbon competition grade meat here. If you love ribs, follow these steps and you will thank me as so many others have. Serves . 2 adults. Preparation time . Overnight dry rub marinating is optional. Cooking time . We will be cooking low and slow, so allow 5 hours for St. Louis Cut ribs (my faves) and 3 hours for baby back ribs . Hardware 1 grill with a cover . You can use a dedicated smoker or any charcoal grill or gas grill as long as it has a cover. A tight fitting cover with adjustable vents like those on the Weber Kettle is best. 1 (18 pound) bag of charcoal for charcoal grills or smokers . You won't use all that charcoal, but because you will need more on cold, windy, or wet days than on sunny and warm days, have a full bag on hand. Hardwood lump is best, but regular briquets will do fine. Absolutely do not use the instant igniting stuff that has solvent in it. Chimney starters are by far the best way to start charcoal, especially for long slow cooking where the smell of the solvent in charcoal starter fluid can ruin the taste of the meat. 1 tank of propane for gas cookers . You won't need it all, but, until you get the hang of this technique, don't risk running out by starting with a partial tank. 8 ounces by weight of hardwood chunks, chips, or pellets . It doesn't matter how many slabs you are cooking, 8 ounces should be enough. I prefer chunks of apple, oak, or hickory for pork. Never use any kind of pine unless you want meat that tastes like turpentine. Never use construction lumber because it is often treated with poisonous chemicals to discourage rot and termites. You do not need to soak the wood. Wood does not absorb much water. That's why they make boats with it. 1 pair of long handled tongs 1 sauce brush , preferably one of those newfangled silicon brushes 12 feet of heavy duty aluminum foil , not the lightweight stuff 1 good instant read thermometer , preferably digital 1 six pack of beer (for the cook, not the meat) 1 lawn chair 1 good book Tunes Software 1 slab of fresh St. Louis Cut (SLC) ribs . That's 1/2 slab per adult. If you use baby back ribs, get a whole slab per person. You may have leftovers, but what's wrong with that? SLCs are the meatiest and most flavorful ribs. They are spare ribs with the tips removed so they form a nice rectangular rack. You can use baby back ribs if you prefer. They are smaller and cook faster. Country ribs come from the shoulder and are not really ribs, so don't use them for this recipe. Get fresh, not frozen meat if possible. Fresh meat has the best pork flavor and the most moisture. Ever notice the pink liquid when you defrost meat? You can't get that back into the meat, so buy fresh meat whenever possible. Ask the butcher to remove the membrane on the back side. 3 tablespoons vegetable oil 4 tablespoons of Meathead's Memphis Dust or a similar spice rub 1 cup apple juice 1 cup of your signature homemade barbecue sauce or a good commercial barbecue sauce Do this 1) Rinse . Rinse the ribs in cool water to remove any bone bits from the butchering and any bacterial film that grew in the package (don't worry, cooking will sterilize the meat). Pat dry with paper towels. 2) Skin 'n' trim . If the butcher has not removed the membrane from the back side, do it yourself. Insert a butter knife under the membrane, then your fingers (shown at right), work a section loose, grip it with a paper towel, and peel it off. Finally, trim the excess fat from both sides. Click here to see more photos of how to skin 'n' trim . 3) Rub . Coat the meat with a thin layer of cooking oil. Sprinkle enough Meathead's Memphis Dust to coat all surfaces but not so much that the meat doesn't show through. That is about 2 tablespoons per side depending on the size of the slab. Many of the herbs and spices in the rub are oil soluble, so the cooking oil will help them penetrate a little better. Spread the Memphis Dust on the meat and rub it in. Wash your hands. Wrap the meat in half the foil and let it sit in the fridge for at least 4 hours on a platter or pan to catch leaks. In addition to flavoring the meat, the salt in the rub pulls the juices to the surface and that will help form a crust during the cooking. If you don't have time to let the meat marinate in the dry rub, it's not the end of the world. Put on the oil and rub anyway and start cooking. 4) Setup for indirect 2-zone cooking . That means that one side is hot and the other is not. If you have a gas grill, use only one burner as described in my article setup for a gas grill . Put a disposable aluminum pan with water on top of the hot burner. Moisture and combustion gasses in a propane grill combine to create a seductive, baconlike flavor in the meat. If it has only one burner, put the water pan between the meat and the burner. If you have a charcoal grill, push the coals to one side as in the photo at right and as described in best setup for a charcoal grill . You can use a water pan, but it is not necessary. If you have an offset firebox smoker, follow my instructions for an setting up an offset smoker . If you have a bullet smoker like the Weber Smokey Mountain, read my article bullet smoker setup . 5) Adjust the temp . Preheat your cooker to about 225F and try to keep it there throughout the cook. Adjust the air intake dampers at the bottom to control heat on charcoal grills. Intake dampers are more effective than exhaust dampers for controlling the temp because they reduce the supply of oxygen to the coals. Take your time getting the temp right. Cooking at 225F will allow the meat to roast low and slow, liquefying the collagen in connective tissues and melting fats without getting the proteins knotted in a bunch. It's a magic temp that creates silky texture, adds moisture, and keeps the meat tender. If you can't hit 225F, get as close as you can. Don't go under 200F and try not to go over 250F. Click here for more about meat science and the thermodynamics of cooking . 6) Smoke . For charcoal or gas cookers, add 4 ounces of wood at this time. Put the wood right on top of the flame of a gas grill or on the hot coals. Resist the temptation to add more wood. Nothing will ruin a meal faster and waste money better than oversmoked meat. You can always add more the next time you cook, but you cannot take it away if you oversmoke. 7) Relax . Put the slabs in the cooker on the cooler side of the grill, meaty side up. Close the lid and go drink a beer and read a book. 8) More smoke . When the smoke disappears after 20-30 minutes, add another 2 ounces of wood. After the first hour, stop adding wood. Adding wood at the beginning of the cook allows better penetration before the meat surface seals itself. If you have more than one slab on, halfway through the cook you will need to move the ribs closest to the fire away from the heat, and the slabs far from the flame in closer. Leave the meat side up. There is no need to flip the slabs. Otherwise, keep your lid on. Opening the lid just upsets the delicate balance of heat, moisture, and oxygen inside your cooker. It can also significantly lengthen the cooking time. No peeking. If you're lookin', you ain't cookin'. 9) The Texas Crutch . Now we employ another secret of the champions, The Texas Crutch . After 3 hours of cooking St. Louis Cut ribs at 225F (1 1/2 hours for baby backs), take 6' of heavy duty foil and fold it into a 3' length. Lay the slab on the foil meaty side up. Fold up the sides making a boat and pour 1 cup of apple juice into the boat. Don't pour it on the meat or you'll wash off the rub. Now carefully fold the foil around the meat, sealing it tight and trying hard not to puncture the foil. Be careful, those bones can poke through. Put the packet back on the grill for 30-60 minutes. No more than 60 minutes. By creating a little steam, The Texas Crutch adds flavor, moisture, tenderness, and finishes cooking the meat. If you want to skip this step, feel free, you'll still have killer ribs. 10) Sauce . Now take the meat out of the foil, being careful not to curl your eyebrows with the steam when you open the packet, and place the ribs back on at 225F for another hour to firm up the surface. Then paint both sides with your favorite home made barbecue sauce or storebought sauce and move them directly over the hottest part of the grill in order to caramelize and crisp the sauce. On a charcoal grill, just move the slab over the coals. On a gas grill, crank up all the burners. On a water smoker, remove the water pan and move the meat close to the coals. On an offset smoker, put a grate over the coals in the firebox and put the meat there. With the lid open so you don't roast the meat from above, sizzle the sauce on one side and then the other. One coat of a thick sauce should be enough, but if you need two, go ahead, but no more! Don't hide all the fabulous flavors under too much sauce. If you think you'll want more sauce, put some in a bowl on the table. If you've done all this right, you will notice that there is a thin pink layer beneath the surface of the meat. This does not mean it is undercooked! It is the highly prized smoke ring caused by the combustion gases and the smoke. It is a sign of Amazing Ribs. Now be ready to take a bow when the applause swells from the audience. Optional . Instead of using barbecue sauce, make Vermont Pig Candy (shown at the top of this page). This is always a huge hit. Here's a summary of the process. Pour the apple juice from the foil into a sauce pan and mix it with 1/4 cup of real maple syrup (not artificially flavored pancake syrup) and cook it about 15 minutes on medium high heat or until it starts to foam. Watch it carefully and take it off the moment it foams. Then add 2 pinches of salt and 2 | |
| Treasury Backs Down In Clash With Bailout Watchdog | Top |
| WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department has decided not to challenge the independence of the government watchdog agency that Congress created to oversee spending of the $700 billion rescue package for the financial sector. The confrontation between Treasury and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, SIGTARP, had prompted congressional complaints that the Obama administration was seeking to restrain the work of inspector general Neil Barofsky. This week, Barofsky declared in a letter to lawmakers that Treasury had, in effect, acknowledged that he is not subject to Treasury's supervision. "We applaud Treasury's decision to bring to a close this needless distraction," Barofsky wrote. Barofsky, a former prosecutor, has been aggressive in his oversight and has clashed at times with Treasury officials over his demands for internal documents. He has criticized Treasury for not seeking more information from banks that have received rescue funds and conducted his own bank survey to prove that the data could be obtained. In April, the Treasury Department asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether Barofsky's office was subject to Treasury supervision and whether there could be limits on the documents that Barofsky obtained from the department. Barofsky argued that his office was an independent entity. Treasury apparently decided at least a month ago not to pursue the matter, but Barofsky said in his letter he only learned of the decision this week. In a brief letter dated Aug. 7, Treasury notified Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and the committee's top Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa that it was withdrawing its request to the Justice Department. Treasury would not comment on the matter Thursday. In a statement, Grassley, who has regularly pressed Treasury officials to acknowledge Barofsky's independence, said: "The inspector general is right. It's good that this needless distraction is over." | |
| Dr. Jon LaPook: Could the Obesity Fight Backfire? | Top |
| At a time when two thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese, health officials are correctly warning that most of us need to lose weight. But we may be setting ourselves up for a surge in eating disorders. The two main types of eating disorders are food restricting (commonly referred to as "anorexia") and binge eating and purging (commonly referred to as "bulimia"). The disorders typically begin in adolescence and affect women much more commonly than men. Statistics are tough to come by -- partly because of under-diagnosis and incomplete reporting -- but a recent review estimated that 500,000 women in the U.S. have anorexia and 1-2 million women have bulimia. The National Eating Disorders Association has a higher estimate, with " as many as 10 million females and 1 million males " suffering from either one of the two disorders. Recent reviews have reported that 90 percent of patients with bulimia are female but the rate in men appears to be increasing in recent years . A key feature of an eating disorder is the disparity between perception and reality. Over the past thirty years, obesity (BMI greater than or equal to the 95th percentile) in teenagers increased from 5.0 percent to 17.6 percent . While that rate has skyrocketed, it's still much lower than the perceived rate of obesity among students. Among children in grades nine through 12 , 10 percent of females were obese and 15.5 percent were "at risk" for becoming obese (BMI greater than or equal to the 85 percentile but less than the 95th percentile). Yet 38.1 percent of women described themselves as overweight and 61.7 percent were trying to lose weight. Put another way, more than half the women trying to lose weight were not overweight. Why do people who are not overweight think they need to lose weight? There's no simple explanation. Experts believe that genetic, environmental, psychological, and social factors can all play a role in eating disorders. Studies suggest that movies, magazines, and television contribute to eating disorders by idealizing overly thin women and exacerbating body dissatisfaction, especially in people with low self-esteem. Fashion magazines often feature models with obvious signs of anorexia. The theme is clear: less is more. My intuition tells me we're at a tricky point in the national discussion of weight. Since research suggests that the wrong public message can be especially dangerous for patients at risk of an eating disorder, we need to be very careful as we develop strategies against obesity. As they create their plans, agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should include experts in eating disorders. For this week's CBS Doc Dot Com, I talk to Leslie Lipton and her father, Roger, about how Leslie has successfully battled anorexia. Click below to watch the video: Watch CBS News Videos Online I also interviewed Dr. B. Timothy Walsh, a renowned expert on eating disorders and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center and author of the book, If Your Adolescent Has an Eating Disorder . Click below to watch the video: Watch CBS Videos Online For more information, check out the National Eating Disorders Association , the Academy for Eating Disorders and the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders . | |
| Patrick Barry: What It Might Look Like If the Bottom Drops Out on Afghanistan | Top |
| Helene Cooper observes that President Obama's reliance on GOP support for the war in Afghanistan could put him in a precarious spot should they withdraw that support. But what would that look like? I'm not sure that the danger is, as Lindsey Graham says, that some on the right will "do to Obama the same thing the left did to Bush with Iraq." Yes, George Will , Andrew Bacevich , and now Chuck Hagel have, to varying degrees, criticized U.S. policy toward Afghanistan. But judging by the state of Republican discourse these days, it seems unlikely that these paleoconservatives will carry the right's narrative on Afghanistan. What's far more likely is that hawkish conservatives in congress end up assailing the administration, not for doing too much, but for not doing enough. Suppose Obama approves a troop increase of somewhere between 7,000 and 14,000 (the low-end of what has so far been discussed by members of McChrystal's civilian advisory team) And suppose a year from now Afghanistan is in the same shape it is now, or worse. Its hard to imagine John McCain , John Boehner or anyone else in the conservative leadership doing a 180 and suddenly opposing the war. Instead, conservatives will likely do many liberals did on Iraq in 2004, and argue that the war effort is suffering due to insufficient resources\mismanagement\failure of leadership. Consider also the political incentives for Republicans to take a pro-war position on Afghanistan. Why, amidst increasing calls for withdraw from the left, and the absence of progress on the battlefield, would opportunistic conservatives refrain from accusing Democrats of being weak on national security? Whatever you think about the actual threat of terrorism from Afghanistan (and Pakistan), invoking that threat is still a pretty useful political tool. Any perceived schism between Obama and the military leadership on the strategy for Afghanistan would also play well with the right. No, it becomes pretty hard to imagine conservatives joining with the anti-war types on this one. Now, I could see this playing out in a variety of ways. One possibility is that a year from now, the Obama administration, still committed to Afghanistan, but lacking progressive support, is pulled deeper into the conflict by pro-war Republicans. On the other hand, if the situation hasn't improved at all, a new coalition, comprised of progressives and paleoconservatives could give Obama the cover he needs to re-position his policy toward disengagement. Spencer suggests a third possibility, which is that the administration resists both calls for increased escalation and outright withdrawal, with negative consequences to their domestic agenda (and I think, their foreign policy agenda as well). And finally, we shouldn't discount the chance that the administration's strategy could show signs of success, which would give them latitude with both the left and the right. Because everything in Afghanistan remain so fluid, it's tough to forecast what the political debate will look like in one year's time. But it probably won't be pretty. Cross-posted on Democracy Arsenal . More on Afghanistan | |
| Robert Amsterdam: Kazakhstan's Human Rights Drop Through the Floor | Top |
| Just a few years back, a savagely offensive and popular comedy starring Sascha Baron Cohen caused extraordinary embarrassment in Kazakhstan , as outraged citizens rightfully protested the portrayal of their country as a backward and ignorant third world hole. Kazakhstan actually does have a lot going for it, with enormous energy deposits, a powerfully growing economy, and an intelligent innovative class, but thanks to the ongoing conduct by the government of the Nursultan Nazarbayev, they seem intent on making Borat a self-fulfilling prophecy. Today a court outside of Almaty sentenced the country's most well known human rights advocate, Yevgeny Zhovtis of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, to four years in prison on charges of manslaughter and traffic violations related to a July 26 accident. The court had not even been in session for three full days, only two of which defense lawyers were present for, while numerous procedural violations were racked up right before observers from several embassies and international human rights organizations. As Zhovtis himself said before being hauled off to a prison colony, the proceedings were a "political setup" by the state. Many longtime Central Asia watchers will tell you that Kazakhstan has been a fairly terrible place for human rights for many years now , but with the conduct of the government in the past six months, especially in relations with the Austrian prosecutors in the case of the former ambassador and Nazarbayev son-in-law, Rakhat Aliyev , things have really gone off the rails. With the hasty conviction of Zhovtis, which comes on top of scores of other false cases, Kazakhstan is entering deeper and deeper into a human rights black hole, just months before Nazarbayev is meant to take over the Chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE). This judicial farce, aimed against one of the country's most important civil society activists, reeks of impunity, and the open and arrogant belief by the leadership that selling oil to the West means not having to observe the law. Zhovtis has a long history of prestigious advocacy work, which unfortunately was the cause of some embarrassment to the "Kazakhbashi." On May 12, 2009, Zhovtis spoke before the U.S. Congress Helsinki Commission on Kazakhstan's upcoming chairmanship of the OSCE, where he presented a long and detailed list of journalists and opposition politicians who had been jailed and persecuted on political grounds. Zhovtis, with typical restraint and measurement, remarked, " all the countries that have made this decision [Kazakhstan's Chairmanship of OSCE] to a certain degree are responsible for the democratization processes, the rule of law and human rights implementation. And I do hope that awareness of this responsibility will make it possible to positively influence the improvement of the current situation. " Working in close collaboration with George Soros's Open Society Institute, Zhovtis has been publishing similar defenses for human rights in Kazakhstan for many years. Ever since the recent authoritarian crackdowns by Nazarbayev's regime, especially following the constitutional changes in 2007 which now allow him to rule the country for life, civil society organizations have been squeezed from every side, leaving this NGO as one of the last practicing human rights advocacy. In fact, just days before the automobile accident, he had traveled to Vienna to give testimony on the situation. Regarding the accident itself, opinions are split over whether the government is just opportunistically prosecuting Zhovtis over a tragic accident, and others who suspect that the entire incident was a conspiracy - including the shocking sacrifice of a human life in order to jail a human rights leader (it should be noted here that neither Zhovtis nor his defense counsel have endorsed that theory). On the evening of July 26th, Zhovtis was returning home from a fishing trip driving along an isolated strip of highway, when two oncoming cars approached at a close distance, blinding him with the headlights. When Zhovtis could see again, immediately he saw a man in road, and unable to stop the car, the collision tragically claimed the life of the individual on the spot. I have spent the past two days speaking on the phone with one of Zhovtis's lawyers, Vera Tkachenko, to gather information for this article. Vera tells me that from the very first police reports, there were extraordinary irregularities and factual distortions. The indictment from the prosecutors attempted to suggest the presence of alcohol and/or impairment - the defense could prove that Zhovtis was sober as day. The auto-technical report, which included the speeds, distances, and other investigatory inventions which was the basis for the indictment, was almost pure fabrication - using "estimated data" provided by state prosecutors, rather than local witnesses. I asked Vera to explain to me the clearest signs that this was a biased, politically ordered trial, instead of an independent and fair judicial proceeding for a regular crime. First, there was the fact that the judge refused nearly every motion submitted by the defense (the only two motions admitted were to delay the trial until Sept. 2, and the addition of another lawyer). The defense counsel arranged to have two separate independent experts, one Kazakh and one Russian, examine the auto-technical expert testimony and provide corrections to all the distortions. The judge refused to admit these independent expert testimonies. Zhovtis prepared a 12-page motion denying the charges, and again, the judge refused to admit it. No exculpatory evidence was allowed into the court, and after a brief cross-examination, the judge announced that the trial would move into the final phase - which must have been a world record for speed in Kazakhstan justice. The shell shocked defense lawyers submitted a motion to recuse the judge, whose behavior they said obviously displayed that he did not have an impartial standing. The judge left the room for just a few minutes, only to return to say that the defense does not have this right. The defense then asked for just one more day to prepare for the closing arguments - the judge denied the request, and gave them only 40 minutes. Finally, after hearing the prosecutor's presentation, the judge spent no more than 25-30 minutes in deliberation, returning with a seven-page printed and stamped verdict - which is a procedural impossibility given the short amount of time. " It was incredible ," Vera told me. " There were representatives present from the embassies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands, as well as representatives from Human Rights Watch and the OSCE. I hope they are able to report to the world what happened in that court today. " This boldfaced attack on human rights will pose an interesting diplomatic test for Kazakhstan's partners and investors, but I fear that we might just see exactly how many barrels of oil a given dictator needs to export in order to flaunt the law. Given the extraordinarily high amount of grand corruption surrounding this administration, the only message they will understand will be the one to hit their pocketbooks. There are many competing theories as to why we are seeing so many opposition politicians, journalists, and activists facing an onslaught of cases from Nazarbayev. One rumor is that there is a serious behind-the-scenes power struggle to either remove the 17-year leader, or at least advance higher within his camp. These struggles often exacerbate the current corruption problems of the state, which most kindly could be described as hideous. But even veteran Kazakh analysts I have been talking to seem shocked by the severity of the sentence against Zhovtis, who unlike some, usually knew what was acceptable and unacceptable in order to keep working. The draconian sentencing clearly illustrates a high level of insecurity and panic in the leadership, which appears to be heightening as the OSCE chairmanship approaches. The result, so far, has been outrage. The supporters who crowded the courtroom are reported to have shouted " shame, shame " after the judge, and they're right. The people of Kazakhstan should be embarrassed by the conduct of their president, but for members of the OSCE, even more so. More on Barack Obama | |
| Josh Shahryar: Stand Your Ground, Obama | Top |
| As a journalist who has been covering the Iranian Election, almost every day for the past two months from my puny little computer, I was shocked and dismayed when I read Kaveh L. Afrasiabi's article on the Iranian Election Crisis. Published in the Huffington Post on August 20, 2009 and titled "Obama Should Congratulate Ahmadinejad," the article urges President Obama to accept the outcome of the election and congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory. It must be pointed out, that throughout his article, Mr. Afrasiabi misrepresents the truth, omits key details, and at times simply presents inaccurate or false information to support his point of view. Fortunately, we live in a time of 'information overload' where the truth is easy to find, and we all know that there are always two sides to any given story. Unlike Mr. Afrasiabi - who fails to mention on his Huffington Post profile that he has been a staunch supporter of Ahmadinejad for years -- I concede that I have been drawn to the plight of millions of Iranians. I am an insignificant 'International Green' who supports Iranians in their struggle to obtain their rights. After reading Mr. Afrasiabi's article, I had no other choice than to write a response - and I do so as an admirer and supporter of the Sea of Green - not as a representative. Extracts of Mr. Afrasiabi's article are included - without any touch-ups or rephrasing below in block quotes. My comments, rebuttals, and what I believe to be the "whole story" follow the extracts. There are several good reasons why president Barack Obama should join his White House guest this week, Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak, as well as the UN's Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, and dozens of other world leaders who have extended congratulations to Iran's duly re-elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not to do so reflects a poor judgment on the White House's part, particularly since Obama has yet to fulfill his own post-election promise of responding to Ahmadinejad's letter that congratulated him for his victory. Contrary to what was stated, neither UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, nor President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has congratulated Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon did send a letter to Ahmadinejad after the elections. His spokesperson, Marie Okabe, later clarified that the letter should not be construed, in any way, as congratulating Ahmadinejad. According to Ms. Okabe, "The letter takes advantage of the occasion of the inauguration to express the hope that Iran and the United Nations will continue to cooperate closely in addressing regional and global issues." She went on to add, "It is not accurate to refer to this as a congratulatory letter." In regards to Mr. Mubarak, the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran's website did report, three weeks ago, that Mr. Mubarak had sent a note to Ahmadinejad congratulating him on his re-election. However, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry has since denied the report. Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hossam Zaki's response to the media about the story was, "I cannot confirm the authenticity of the report." Furthermore, Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa's act of congratulating Ahmadinejad cannot, in all honesty, be considered as an endorsement by Arab League Members - including Egypt. Iranian media and government-run websites have claimed that the Japanese Premier, Taro Aso, has also congratulated Ahmadinejad. However, it comes as no surprise, that this report cannot be confirmed either. Notwithstanding the above, there indeed have been some world leaders who have congratulated Ahmadinejad. A closer examination, however, reveals that out of the two dozen or so congratulatory notes, the majority were sent either by countries without a democracy or by heads of countries that do not wish to upset Iran's Supreme Leader - given their geographic proximity and strong regional interests. It is ludicrous to think that the leaders of China, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Syria, Qatar and Tajikistan would be, in any way, concerned about the fairness of an election. Let us not forget that the above-mentioned countries are dictatorships, strong-arm monarchies or have national leaders whose own elections were considered controversial. The countries of Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Armenia and Iraq fall into the second category of "not wanting to upset Iran's Supreme Leader." Turkey - because of the Kurdish issue; Lebanon - to appease Hezbollah; Armenia - because Iran is one of the few neighbors with which it has friendly relations - and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - because their interests strongly demand good relations with Iran, regardless of the leadership. This leaves out Brazil, India, Russia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Yemen and Hamas-held Gaza. As for countries such as Japan, Nations in the EU bloc, Australia, New Zealand and Canada - all countries that rank at the top when it comes to democracy - none have congratulated Ahmadinejad. Thus, Obama's refusal to send a congratulatory note actually shows sound judgment on his part, as he heads a Nation that is a world-leader in democracy. First, with the dust of the post-election turmoil settling and the absence of any hard evidence of "rigged elections" becoming more and more transparent, time is actually on the side of Ahmadinejad, who has been much vilified in the western press, and maligned at home by his reformist challengers, as the grinch who "stole" the election. Unfortunately, the sum of evidence presented by Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi to corroborate their allegations of widespread fraud in the June 12th elections simply doesn't add up. This author has examined in depth both the official complaints of losing candidates, as well as the various reports issued by their "truth committee", and has found them to be dreadfully lacking in substance, contradictory, and thick on irrelevant innuendo, such as passing off such pre-election "irregularities" seen in television debates as evidence of election fraud. The description of, "'the dust of post-election turmoil settling" baffles the mind. The Iranian people have been protesting at every opportunity -- in spite of an extremely high security presence. They have been shot at, beaten, tear gassed, imprisoned, tortured, and in many cases brutally killed. How has the dust settled? In late June, thousands gathered at Ghoba Mosque and around Tehran. Thousands more turned out, facing the brutality of the security forces on July 30th. Hundreds were chanting in support of Karroubi, in front of Etemaade Melli's office less than two weeks ago, although he explicitly asked them not to. Nightly, people chant "Alloha Akbar" from their rooftops, despite the threat of being shot at, fined, arrested or imprisoned. When the opposition calls for a protest, the people of Iran protest, not only in Tehran. We must keep in mind the thousands that gathered around the country, whose voices cannot be heard because of the government's media blackout. The claim that, "The protests are over," can only be made, IF and WHEN: Protests are no longer illegal; meaning that people can protest without the fear of reprisal Opposition Leaders call for a protest No one shows up The truth of the matter is, if there are no "grand protests," it is not because people don't want to protest, but because the opposition has not called for one. Regarding the claim, "The elections were not rigged," the mere fact that 'defeated' candidates and reformist politicians - and their followers - were not the only ones to have cast doubt on the results should merit speculation. Many others have challenged the validity of the results, including former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who expressed his doubt during his sermon at Friday Prayer's, as well as Khatami, who released a statement calling for a "referendum" over the issue. For the sake of argument, let us set aside for a moment, that the previous Supreme Leader Rohullah Khomeini and the current Supreme Leader Seyed Ali Khamanei are dictators in the guise of religious sanctity. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani are all two-term heads of the Iranian Government. Even if we discount Mousavi as a stakeholder in the election, dismiss Khatami as a reformist, what about arch-conservative Rafsanjani? Then again, these people are politicians and you never know what Rafsanjani might be hoping to gain from this. Then what about a class of Iranian leaders who have little to nothing to gain by questioning the legitimacy of the government? Where do the clerics stand? In case anyone missed their comments here is what they have to say: Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri "No one in their right mind could believe the election results..." (One might say he has something to gain because he is a clear choice to replace Khamenei, if he is to be replaced, so let us proceed with the rest) Grand Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani "Every healthy mind casts doubt on the way the election was held..." Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi Golpayegani Called the election results announced by the government "a grand lie..." Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sane'ie Referring to the opposition leader, "God maintain unity with you gentlemen, that your victory is unity, the masses will also follow..." Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi Declared his intention not to congratulate Ahmadinejad on the announced results of the Presidential election. Grand Ayatollah Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardebili "We do not have to pacify the protest by force" in a meeting in late June with the Guardian Council, according to widely-quoted story from the Iranian Labor News Agency. "Let the people decide who is right and who is not." Ayatollah Jalaleddin Taheri Called the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "illegitimate" and "tyrannical..." Ayatollah Hossein Zarandi Posted a letter in support of opposition leader Ayatollah Rafsanjani's Friday sermon. Ayatollah Sayyed Hossein Mousavi Tabrizi Praised Rafsanjani's sermon, declared that the Guardian Council was biased [in regards to the elections] and that people have a right to demonstrate. Ayatollah Hashemzadeh Harisi "Distrust of the people is a fact and it must be confessed." Ayatollah Haj Shaykh Ebrahimi Amini "Errors had occurred" during the election, said Amini in a June 12 on KhabarOnline. Of course, there are Ayatollahs who have supported the elections' results, but not a single Grand Ayatollah is on that list, except for Khamenei himself. These are Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Thalami, Ayatollah Abolghasem Khazali, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi and Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani. That is six Grand Ayatollahs and four Ayatollahs - not including Rafsanjani - directly questioning the legitimacy of the election against one Grand Ayatollah and seven Ayatollahs. Clerics-wise, the opposition is a clear winner. As for the media, most of the reformist media outlets have been banned. But even among Iran's government-owned media, there is dissent. Press TV's website has recently started to insert the word 'disputed' before the word 'elections.' In such circumstances, how could one possibly assume that everything has gone back to normal? I am going to take the liberty of answering comments with similar claims or arguments together. Arguments written by Dr. Afrasiabi are in blockquotes: Second, lest we forget, Mousavi alone had more than forty thousand representatives at nearly ninety percent of the voting centers and, yet, his complaint to the oversight Guardian Council refers only to the few hundreds who were not allowed to monitor the balloting, without bothering to mention that nearly all his eyes and ears who monitored the process failed to report and document any major irregularities. According to the election officials, Mousavi had lodged complaints about merely 89 centers, indeed a minuscule number compared to more than forty-five thousand such centers throughout Iran. Fifth, compared to the past, the 2009 election was more transparent, as the government has published all the ballot box data pertaining to more than sixty thousand boxes receiving nearly forty million votes -- on average each box contained some 875 votes, making it easy to tally; hence the rapidity of the vote count, thanks in part to the system's electronic upgrade. Unlike the US - where election results are announced by thousands of officials from precincts at county and then state levels - in Iran, you simply get a final spreadsheet, prepared for your convenience, by the Ministry of Interior. It is unnecessary in Iran to stuff ballots, buy voters or duplicate voting cards - because the checks and balances, found in the US system, are simply absent. The equivalent of this in the US would look like this: The Department of Homeland Security, in close coordination with the FBI, sealing ballot boxes as soon as voting ends, tallying the votes behind closed doors, and then publishing the results. There are no other sources to corroborate the results that the Ministry of Interior publishes. It just needs a stamp from the Guardian Council. This makes "rigging the vote" a much easier reality than possible in the US. You simply need the Ministry of Interior on your side to achieve the desired result. The way in which the Ministry of Interior has collaborated with security forces in brutally suppressing peaceful protesters, clearly signals where their allegiance lies. Third, by all indications Mr. Mousavi, who improperly declared himself the "definite winner" exactly one hour after the voting had stopped, put the cart before the horse by first challenging the election results and then fishing for evidence, a hopeless cause as his own truth committee has undermined the argument that Ahmadinejad did not win the rural votes, by complaining that Ahmadinejad "purchased votes" by distributing cash and food to some 5.5 million villagers, as well as raising salaries, in the weeks ahead of election day. Mousavi has repeatedly said that he received news from multiple sources that the results would likely be rigged on Election Day. But here is a good reason as to why Mousavi might have declared himself the winner: Fatemeh Rajabi, who is considered the lead female-backer of Ahmadinejad in Iran, and who runs Rajanews.com, published quotes on RajaNews - which many consider a rather embarrassing slip of the tongue. Rajanews.com quotes an anonymous Iranian Member of Parliament as saying, "Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, called Mousavi on the evening of the elections and congratulated him on his victory." Larijani is a conservative and is also the father-in-law of Khamanei's son. The website further quotes the MP by stating this about a Larijani: "What he did on the afternoon of Election Day, by calling Mousavi and congratulating him on the finalization of his presidency, cannot be overlooked. As the head of a branch of power, he is considered to have access to firsthand and classified information and news. When he congratulated Mousavi, at a time when voting hours had not even ended yet, it made him delusional and encouraged him to take the seditious and provocative positions and behaviors which disturbed people's security and calm and significantly harmed the might and honor of the system." | |
| James Hoggan: Public Support for Clean Energy Bill Shows the Deception in Bonner Astroturf Campaign | Top |
| A recent poll sponsored by the Center for American Progress goes another step toward revealing the duplicity of Astroturf c ampaigns like the one that Bonner & Associates was running while representing the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) . The CAP poll shows that, in swing states, 63 percent of voters support the climate change legislation currently being considered in the Senate. And yet the Bonner crowd was fomenting a "grassroots" campaign specifically designed to make it look like the public was taking quite a different position. Environmentalists have to declare themselves when they knock on your door, or contact your political representatives, advocating for better protection for the natural world (and for green jobs). Lobbyists also have to register - declaring the purpose for their political intervention and identity of their clients. Once again, before PR firms like Bonner push their way into the public conversation, they should have to meet the same standard, especially when the opinion they represent favours their (usually anonymous) corporate sponsor and runs contrary to the will of 63 percent of the people who sincerely represent America's "grassroots." More on Climate Change | |
| Ian Gurvitz: The GOP Strategy: Operation Monkeyshit | Top |
| The current debate over health care has nothing to do with health care, any more than the TARP debate was about the economy. This is about one thing and one thing only: the GOP's apoplexy over losing power, and their pathological desire to get it back. They despise Obama's popularity, they detest his intelligence, his compassion, even the smile on his face. This is 21st-century Clinton hatred with a side order of racial resentment. Thinking there was ever any chance at bi-partisanship was as reality-challenged as picking up a rattlesnake thinking you could tame it as a house pet. The GOP's goal from the second the president took office was to bring him down. Their strategy: Operation Monkeyshit. Just like a monkey in the zoo will wildly fling his shit at tourists, the GOP started flinging their shit with the sole intention of diminishing the president's popularity, tarnishing his image, and hurting his brand, all to lay the groundwork for the 2010 midterms and 2012 presidential elections. Tea parties. "Mortgaging our children's future." "The TARP didn't work." "Death panels." "Killing grandma." Birthers. "He's going to take your guns and house terrorists in your neighborhood." "He's weakening the country." "He's going to give Bin Laden the keys to your city where he will take your job and sleep with your daughter." Now it's the professional tailgaters in town halls holding Hitler signs, screaming about Fascism and Socialism -- as if they could either define those ideas, or spell them. It's Rove 101. Take your opponent's biggest strength and turn it into a weakness. John Kerry the veteran fabricated his injuries. Obama is Hitler. Of course it's insane, but getting out the hicks provides the sound bites for the party's media flacks and congressional representatives to hit the talk shows and smugly fob off these contrivances as spontaneous expressions of national outrage, as opposed to insurance- and drug company-created street theater. As if a few hundred illiterate screamers in a nation of several hundred million constituted a popular uprising. People with legitimate concerns don't reach for Hitler signs and mob chants as if the increased volume gave them some sort of collective higher intelligence. These are not outraged citizens. These are the great unwashed with too much free time on their hands, and access to their children's crayons. The GOP has no platform. They don't care about the economy, unemployment, jobs, the deficit, the wars, or their cost either in dollars or human life. Just witness their current leader -- Mr. Potato Head look-alike, Michael Steele -- and his reaction to a woman in a wheelchair talking about her medical horror story. His response was pure Republicanism: disdain in the face of human suffering. All these people care about is regaining power by diminishing the president's image, and defeating his every initiative. And to accomplish that they will throw all the shit they have to. The health care debate is just the latest venue. But unless the president calls them out and takes them down in his speech to Congress, the shit-flinging will continue. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out too many times, historically, Democrats just don't know how to fight. They think this is a dinner party discussion, faculty mixer, or a robust exchange at a debating society, where your opponent is the "loyal opposition." This is not a debate. It's not a salon. It's a street fight. Case in point: Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, recently replying to Palin's comment tying him in to "Obama's death panels" saying: "there's no basis for that claim either in any of my writings or the legislation. It has no grounds in reality. It's surreal and Orwellian, the idea that this legislation or my writings suggest that her son Trig shouldn't get health care." His comment was eloquent. Passionate. And filled with the appropriate moral outrage. But "surreal," and "Orwellian" are lost on the people who need to get the message. All Democrats, up to and including the President, have got to begin using the right words: these are lies. They're not "gross exaggerations," "myths," "fantasies," "fabrications," or "hyperbole." They're lies. Lies so sinister that they've got the very people who might benefit from universal health care carrying signs and screaming what is essentially: "Don't help us! Don't give us choices! Let us suffer and die the way we were meant to - poor, destitute, and being denied coverage from our insurance companies!" (As a side note the town hall screamers, heed the sage advice of Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.") The glow of last November's victory faded before anyone could get too intoxicated over a Democratic mandate, or lost in the illusion that the GOP was going to roll over and die. Sure, they lost, but only because they were sunk by the weight of their own incompetence as the economy careened toward a meltdown and McCain took out his trusty revolver and repeatedly shot himself in the foot. He tried the flag-waving bullshit: "The state of our economy is strong." Didn't work. He tried the patriot game: "I'm suspending my campaign for the good of the country." Didn't work. He stunt-casted a GOP MILF and smirky, ambitious moron as his running mate. Worked for a second with a post-convention bump, then ran aground in the wake of her profound stupidity. Obama's victory was directly proportional to McCain's implosion. These people won't make the same mistake twice. To the blue dogs in the Senate and the progressives in the House: Start working on intra-party bi-partisanship. Get united, and start kicking the GOP in the teeth. Get mean. Get ruthless. Twist their arms or break their kneecaps for the good of the country. They want to slit their wrists, hand them the knife. Beat them senseless with the best bill you can get. Do it in the memory of Ted Kennedy, but with the balls of Lyndon Johnson. What's the point of gaining power if you don't know how to wield it? Not every Republican great white hopeful is going to get busted with an Argentinian mistress. Get it together, now. Unless anyone's in the mood for President Romney. Or President Bachman. More on Health Care | |
| Joshua Keyak: Guess What Else Cost a Trillion | Top |
| Health care reform seems to be the issue du jour. Everyone’s talking about it, whether for or against any particular bill. It is hard to ignore something when it has an initial price tag of over a trillion dollars. However, health care isn't the only issue that needs attention. There’s another sector that costs Americans hundreds of billions of dollars and affects everyone’s quality of life. The energy and transportation sectors are in great need of help. Not only do they need to become more efficient for economic reasons, it also affects our health. Pollution has been linked with numerous health problems such as asthma, respiratory illnesses and even cancer. In Ontario air pollution adds over $1 billion to their health bill while in California the cost of pollution’s adverse affects on health cost $28 billion annually. While it is the responsibility of governments and corporations to enact policy to reduce this cost we also have the responsibility to improve our behavior. We must live more sustainable lifestyles, not only for our own individual health and pocket book but also for the wellbeing of others. Americans spent $921 billion on fossil fuels in 2006. That number is growing from over a trillion now and it’s estimated that between 2010 and 2030 $23 trillion will be spent on fossil fuel in the US. In 2007, the average American spent $2,384 on gasoline and $3,477 on utilities. Additionally, the price of almost everything we buy from food to airline tickets are affected due to the cost of transportation and energy. As a general trend, these costs are growing and will continue to grow until we take steps to reduce our use of fossil fuels. I am not suggesting that we should focus on the energy and transportation sector instead of healthcare. I am positing that reform of the energy and transportation sector is important and beneficial to the future of America. Policies like Obama’s push to increase the fuel economy standards to 35 MPG by 2016 could save consumers tens of billions of dollars. Large initial investments will be necessary to update our outdated dirty energy and transportation sectors. By investing now we will be investing in a cleaner, healthier, more efficient future. More on Health Care | |
| Brooklyn Heights Secures $650,000 In Stimulus Money For Streetlamps | Top |
| Let there be light - expensive light - on the streets of Brooklyn Heights, some locals say. The upscale neighborhood is getting 65 new streetlamps this fall at $10,000 a pop - paid for with federal stimulus money. | |
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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment