Thursday, September 17, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

William Bradley: Obama and Al Qaeda: New Moves Show Success May Not Depend On Afghanistan Top
While things are going quite ruggedly for America in Afghanistan, they may be going worse for Al Qaeda everywhere. Osama bin Laden's taunting 9/11 anniversary message was days late and very lame. And President Barack Obama's lethal approach to dealing with the organization that attacked America on 9/11 took a startling, and still more lethal, turn this week in Somalia. Which raises a central question: Are we not in fact much closer to achieving our central goal in Afghanistan than most imagine? Many more people know now that Afghanistan is going badly because it's going better than it was last year. Think about it. Until a few months ago, it would have been absolutely impossible to even conduct a presidential election there. The Taliban influence in southern Afghanistan was too great to allow any widespread voting. The election is what concentrated media and public attention on Afghanistan. Following Obama's Marine offensive there in southern Afghanistan, the election was able to be held on August 20th. And held it was. And held. And it's still going on, at least the counting. With charges of massive fraud, Afghanistan is preparing for a massive recount, as a third of President Hamid Karzai's votes are in question. He's claiming victory with 54% of the vote, but preparations are beginning for a run-off with his principal challenger, Dr. Abdullah Abdulla, the former Northern Alliance spokesman and Afghan foreign minister who fought next to the Taliban-assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud in the war against the Soviets while Karzai raised money outside the country. America's mission in Afghanistan is quite confused. The goal is to deny it as a base for Al Qaeda. But President George W. Bush, who buddied up with his pick for president, Karzai, turned it into a nation-building exercise even as he cast his gaze fatefully on the endless distraction that was Iraq. Obama, who promises to do better, and is, says the mission is to disrupt and deny Al Qaeda. Even as the mission slides, once again, into nation-building. There's much more to be said, but for purposes of this piece, let's condense it into one word: Whatever. The Pakistani Army, moving at the request of Obama, has done a good job of reversing major gains made by the Pakistani Taliban. Many sources say that Al Qaeda cadre -- increasingly decimated by drone aircraft attacks -- are beginning to flee Pakistan for Yemen and Somalia. It seems that with this kind of pressure, the ability of Al Qaeda to mount a strategic strike against America continues to decline. Which brings us to other major developments this week. On Sunday, Osama bin Laden issued a taunting statement marking the eighth anniversary of Al Qaeda's attacks on New York and Washington of 9/11. He called Obama "powerless" and said he can never stop the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. While the Al Qaeda icon intended this statement as a show of strength, it was actually a show of weakness. When Osama calls Obama powerless, he may actually be engaging in the psychological phenomenon of projection. Consider: * His statement was released two days AFTER the 9/11 anniversary. * It was an audiotape, not a videotape. * It had none of the chanting jihadist production values of the best Al Qaeda videos. * It was released on a secondary jihadist site because the major ones were recently knocked done by, ahem, unknown parties. If Osama bin Laden is unable to release even an audiotape to celebrate his 9/11 attacks in a timely manner, he seems to be under a great deal of pressure. He may even be on the run, as Yasir Arafat -- who for several years never spent the night in the same place twice in a row -- once was. Arafat solved his problem by turning to the peace process. I don't think that Osama bin Laden has that option. Indeed, the US drone attacks against Al Qaeda safe havens inside Pakistan appear to be better targeted than they used to be. The Pakistani government, which demanded their end last year and early this year on account of civilian casualties, hasn't been complaining lately. Sources say that it is providing US forces with better real-time intelligence against jihadist cadre. Which brings us to the other big development of the week with regard to Al Qaeda. On Monday, a flight of US helicopter gunships carrying special forces troopers struck deep inside Somalia -- the failed state which once again is becoming a jihadist haven -- against the convoy of a top Al Qaeda leader. Here's the way the Global Post report put it: The American gunships attacked a convoy of vehicles carrying Al Qaeda militants and killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an Al Qaeda leader wanted for the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 and an Israeli-owned Kenyan hotel in 2002. The raid shows U.S. President Barack Obama's administration does not intend to allow Somalia to remain a safe haven for Al Qaeda and it is determined to thwart the drive by Islamic militant group Al Shabaab to control Somalia. Al Shabaab has direct links to Al Qaeda and uses foreign troops in its battles to control Somalia. ... In recent years the U.S. has limited its actions in Somalia to attacks by long range missiles and drones. But this action was direct and put American troops, however briefly, on Somali soil. By successfully targetting Nabhan, the U.S. shows that it has precise strategic information. A further intelligence boon for the U.S. should come from the seizure of Nabhan's body, the two injured men traveling with him and whatever equipment or computers they might have. In Monday's raid, six U.S. helicopters swooped on a convoy of vehicles and strafed them with heavy gunfire. A Land Cruiser carrying Nabhan and at least four other senior militants was badly hit as were a number of "technicals," improvised battle wagons made from pick-up trucks loaded with heavy machine guns, according to eyewitnesses quoted by wire services. Then two U.S. helicopters landed and there was a brief firefight. Nabhan and other militants were killed. The U.S. troops jumped from the helicopters, went up to the vehicles and seized Nabhan's body and two other injured militants. They quickly flew off by helicopter to a U.S. Navy warship waiting nearby. Could it be that we are much closer to achieving our central goal in Afghanistan than most imagine? You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com. More on Afghanistan
 
Harry Shearer: Henry Gibson Top
Henry came on the national scene with a bang as part of "Laugh-In".  Everyone of TV-viewing age at the time remembers "A Poem, by Henry Gibson" as being an oasis of witty calm amid the frantic knockabout comedy of the hit show.  I got to know Henry years later.  I was casting a movie I had written and was to direct, and the part in question was about to go to an actor I'd long known and admired, when Henry walked into the audition.  He sent the message "This part is mine" not with swagger but with an easy sense of assurance and knowledge of the character, with wit and intelligence.  During the shooting, which was arduous, Henry was again an oasis of calm and, now, wisdom, gently suggesting very funny ideas almost all of which made their way into the final product. Since then, we had talked occasionally--too occasionally--by phone, and those conversations were wide-ranging, smart, and always tinged with Henry's gentle intensity.  In a business filled with frantic narcissism and aggressive neurosis, Henry was an island of adulthood.  If he wasn't a Buddhist, he could have taught them a thing or two.  My only regret is I didn't get to spend more time with him.  In a time of bad prose, Henry Gibson was  a poem.
 
Chris Hughes: WHERE IS THE MOVEMENT NOW? Top
If you paid any attention to the Obama campaign in the 2008 election, you heard a lot about building a movement. To the ears of the politically cynical, calling the campaign a "movement" was just a messaging maneuver to make it sound like Barack Obama had a broad base of support. But for the politically hopeful - and I'd say that term would encompass just about all of the campaign's staff and volunteers - building a movement meant something more. We weren't just organizing for a particular candidate or a particular moment in time, but instead, we shared a set of values and a vision for what America could be. Nothing could have embodied this approach to campaigning more than the technology that we built at the heart of the campaign. We chose to build and refine tools that helped everyday people tell their own stories, talk about their passions, and then take up the banner of the cause in their local community. We had our own tools on My.BarackObama to help us. But fortunately for the campaign, the Internet in general was transforming into a network where the majority of content was created by individuals rather than institutions. Structurally, it was becoming easier and easier for individuals to talk about their passions and then to use technology to self-organize. Even though they were resolutely non-partisan, sites like Facebook and YouTube made it easier for passionate people to share and self-organize, which greatly benefited our campaign founded on these values. But contrary to what a lot of people may think, it wasn't the technology that made the Obama movement possible. What went hand in hand with the technology was a resolute and unyielding focus on good-old-fashioned political organizing. As a movement, we measured our success by the number of doors knocked on, phone calls made, and dollars raised. The array of technology platforms that we used simply helped us extend our organizing capacity and refine our work. So where is this movement now? It's alive and well. The people who organized and fought so hard last year to elect Barack Obama as president still care just as much, if not more, about the issues that were central to the campaign. The values that we shared in common - a commitment to rethinking politics, to transparency and openness, to personal responsibility, to a socially and economically just society - are just as vibrant as they were a year ago. What's missing is the organizing leadership. To be clear, I don't believe it's up to Organizing for America--the organization that emerged from the Obama campaign that continues to run barackobama.com--to permanently employ thousands of organizers as the campaign did. An organization of that size inside the DNC would not be sustainable or desirable. But I do believe progressive organizations of all stripes have a responsibility to understand what happened in the Obama campaign in 2008 and adopt a similar strategy. Regardless of the issue that a given progressive group is organizing for, there is much to be learned. Some guidelines to start: * People are your biggest asset. They are not to be treated as a loose network of piggy banks spread across the country. Each person has her own passions, her own story, her own reason for caring. Listen to these stories, help these individual tell them, and make it easier for others to listen to them as well. * Give your supporters not just a cause, but a moment to rally around. Events are what galvanize people to action. Even for the causes that require long-term commitments, set a date and a goal to organize toward. * Embrace networking technology. The Internet is not just a platform to help you blast your carefully crafted and rigorously tested message as widely as possible. Whether it's on your own site, on Facebook, or on any other network, think about how you can use technology to encourage your supporters to speak and to spread their passion. Setting up a page and calling it a day is not enough. * Building support for a cause requires human contact. A slick online events platform will do you no good unless you have people on staff who know key people in key places who can get more people to host more events and turn out more attendees. State-of-the-art technology can only go so far. A good-old-fashioned conversation can take you the rest of the way. * Invest in technology and organizing. Neither of these things comes cheap, but when they have the proper budget, they can yield enormous returns. There are tens of millions of Americans who care about progressive issues that affect all of us. If progressive groups fail to take advantage of this energy and demonstrated capacity, they will waste a uniquely potent moment in American history.
 
Scott Mendelson: The surprising and unfair cinematic demise of Orlando Bloom. Top
The man has a record six movies that have grossed $300 million+ in the US, plus another two $100 million+ earners. His popularity was actually a factor in the success of several of those pictures. He has worked with such directors as Ridley Scott (twice), Cameron Crowe, Peter Jackson (thrice), Wolfgang Petersen, and Gore Verbinski (thrice). Counting all of his pictures, his eleven films have grossed an average of $207 million (he's averaged $253 million if you only count the mainstream studio pictures). His average opening weekend for said wide releases is $61 million. From 2002 until 2007, he was a big-league heartthrob whose poster adorned the walls of many a teenage girl. He was one of People's 'Sexiest Men Alive' in 2006. Yet Orlando Bloom is nowhere to be seen in today's filmmaking landscape. So what happened? Did he simply grow tired of fame and/or major scale Hollywood films? The back-to-back schedule of the last two Pirates of the Caribbean films allegedly took quite a toll, as I'd imagine did the back-to-back-to-back shooting schedule of the Lords of the Rings trilogy. Did he grow tired of the critical scorn and retreat to smaller projects that wouldn't be as much under a microscope? What is unusual about the rise and (relative) fall of Orlando Bloom is that his critical downfall was almost entirely due to two things: A) taking major roles in films that looked great on paper but ultimately floundered through no fault of his and B) becoming victim to critics' inexplicable expectations and/or inability to understand what a 'straight man' does in a big-budget adventure film. In essence, he was constantly attacked purely for doing his job, for being an actor first and a movie star second. Quite a few stars have been burned in the past for signing up for disappointing films that looked like winners on paper. Alicia Silverstone may have been adrift as Batgirl in Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin , but would any teenage girl in her right mind have the foresight to turn down such a seemingly golden opportunity? And what of all those knuckleheads who honestly blamed Jake Lloyd for the flaws found in Star Wars: Episode One: The Phantom Menace ? Did critics and geeks honestly expect young Lloyd to say "Well, as wonderful as the opportunity to play Anakin Skywalker seems on the surface, the script has pacing and exposition issues and I know Mr. Lucas is not the best director of actors, so I cannot trust him to properly direct me in a way that makes up for my inherent inexperience as an performer."? By the same token, no young male actor would consider for one second turning down the lead role in a coming-of-age story written and directed by Cameron Crowe. Yes, the film ended up being Elizabethtown , but is that really Bloom's fault? No actor could have survived a film that was filled with trite voice over and contained a first half which required the lead to talk to himself in monologue for nearly an hour. Nor is it Orlando Bloom's fault that nearly every critic went into Kingdom of Heaven expecting a sequel to Gladiator . Countless reviews complained that Balin de Ibelin, the thoughtful, war-wary blacksmith, was not the brooding, muscle-bound, vengeful Maximus Decimus Meridius and that Orlando Bloom was not Russell Crowe. Whether or not Kingdom of Heaven is a better movie than Gladiator (I think it so, no matter which cut you're watching) is irrelevant. What was troubling was how few critics (and audience members, few that there were) could comprehend that it was a different movie from Gladiator . If Ridley Scott wanted a Russell Crowe-type character in Kingdom of Heaven , don't you think he would have gone ahead and just cast Russell Crowe again? They've worked together on four occasions ( Gladiator , A Good Year , American Gangster , and Body Of Lies ), it's obvious that they get along. This also ties into the other problem that Bloom has faced... being critically torn apart not because of his acting, but because of the content of the character he was playing. In summer 2004, Orlando Bloom took the supporting role of Paris in Wolfgang Petersen's Troy . Once again, would you turn down a major role in a big-budget sword-and-sandals epic that allowed you to cross swords with Brad Pitt, have sex with Diane Kruger, and share scenes with onscreen father Peter O'Toole? Yet, whatever issues the film does have, I cannot count the number of reviews that criticized Bloom not specifically for his acting, but for his portrayal of Paris as a spineless, selfish, cowardly idiot, a boy who started an epic war because he couldn't keep his pecker in his pants. But guess what people? THAT's the character of Paris. Rather than try to make Paris into a more heroic and sympathetic character, Bloom played him as exactly the sniveling loser that he was. Bloom's tragic need to actually do his job haunted him even in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. What so many critics and audience members failed to understand is that it was Orlando Bloom's straight-man performance that allowed Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow to exist in the narrative in the first place. Yes, compared with Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, Orlando Bloom looked pretty dull. But that is the burden of the straight man. A lesser actor would have demanded that he be allowed to be larger-than-life and crowd-pleasingly comedic as well, but Bloom knew that it was his job to counter-balance the off-the-wall antics of Johnny Depp. Because Bloom's Will Turner fulfilled the genre requirement of having a straight-arrow heroic figure, and his relationship with somewhat more-complicated Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) fulfilled the demand for sea-faring romance, Johnny Depp was free to run wild and do whatever he damn-well felt like. If Rob Marshall and the makers of the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean: At Stranger Tides think they can craft a story completely around Jack Sparrow, they are in for a rude awakening. A Pirates of the Caribbean sequel utterly and completely dominated by Jack Sparrow would be no less grating than a Shrek sequel starring only Donkey. Even his star-making performance as Legolas Greenleaf in the Lord of the Rings trilogy speaks to his apparent onscreen generosity. After his screen-time-heavy and crowd-pleasing turn in The Two Towers , one might have thought that Legolas would have received more screen-time in Return of the King . Yet save for a single added action beat involve a single elephant, Legolas is barely featured in the third film. I certainly cannot say whether or not Bloom even tried to get more of his footage added to the final cut. But considering his track record, it is likely that Bloom knew that the third film was in no way about the Elfin warrior and thus added screen-time to appease the fan-girls would come only at the cost of the Frodo/Sam and Aragorn-centric narrative. Yet at the end of 2009, Orlando Bloom sits with not a single major film on the horizon. For playing the straight man in a blockbuster trilogy, he was rewarded not with thanks but with Razzie nominations. For daring to star in a Ridley Scott period-action film and not attempting to retread the more crowd-pleasing predecessor, he and Scott were besot by critical scorn and audience indifference. For having the gall to play a sniveling, sympathetic and unheroic schmuck as sniveling, unsympathetic and unheroic, he was criticized as if that was the fault of his performance rather than the original character. And finally for having the terrible luck to star in Cameron Crowe's worst written and directed movie, he was tainted as the cause of said failure. Orlando Bloom may not be the world's greatest actor, but he has suffered the fate even worse than that of many like him (Keanu Reeves, Kevin Costner, Harrison Ford) who dare to put the movie first and stardom second. By refusing to be larger than the character and larger than the narrative, he was tagged as a wooden performer and banished from Hollywood. For the sake of all who feel that serving the story should come before serving their own career, I hope to see Mr. Bloom back on the silver screen sometime soon. He may not have deserved Oscars, but he deserved more than just our scorn. Scott Mendelson For more essays of this nature, including defenses of Nicole Kidman and Nicolas Cage , as well as much-needed praise for Michael Wincott and Donnie Wahlberg , go to Mendelson's Memos .. More on Brad Pitt
 
Norm Stamper: Racism, John McCain and Other Republicans Top
Four in the morning, the town still slumbering. Mockingbirds warble at one another in the courtyard of the old San Diego police headquarters down on Market Street. I sit at a government-issue metal desk across from a uniformed police officer and ask, "Do you use racial or ethnic slurs?" It's spring, 1976. I'm a patrol captain, interviewing, one at a time, my graveyard cops who are assigned to Southeast San Diego, a predominately black community. "Yeah, I do," answers the 12-year veteran. His tone isn't defiant or proud, embarrassed or ashamed, just kind of matter of fact. "So does everybody else." He's got that right, almost: Thirty of my 31 Southeast officers confessed to on-the-job use of the most vile, inventive, racist language you can imagine. Offenders included the area's lieutenant, two of three sergeants, and the one black cop working a beat car (a three-year man who, with tears of shame rolling down his cheeks, admitted he went along to get along). I knew racism flourished in America, and that we cops were representative of the views and values of the citizenry at large. Moreover, I was acutely aware of my own behavior as a rookie some 10 years earlier when I had participated in racist jokes, ridiculed and baited young African American men, and made "attitude" arrests in their community. Still, I was stunned by my cops' candid replies to questions about their language and other behavior (which included excessive force, false arrest, a slower, apathetic response to crime and other forms of discrimination based on race, and class). Why the surprise? Because I thought our workplace culture had made more progress than that. Two years earlier a new chief had announced to his top staff, "These walls have heard the N-word for the last time." We spent many hours in the police academy stressing nondiscrimination, professionalism, common courtesy. When the "Southeast Investigation" went public a year later its findings surprised exactly no one in the black community. But it shocked the hell out of the (largely) Republican establishment in San Diego. Many corporate and civic leaders spoke up, expressing disgust, asserting their intolerance of intolerance--particularly among those charged with upholding the constitution. This development only added impetus to our internal campaign to once and for all end racial (and other forms of unlawful) discrimination within the ranks. Resolutely rejecting charges of "political correctness," we set about making it clear to our cops, at all levels: You want to keep your job, you'd best put an airtight lid on the kind of language we'd heard during the Southeast Investigation, and bring to a screeching halt those discriminatory habits. We had no illusions. We knew we weren't changing attitudes, much less deeply held beliefs. Not at first, anyway. Our theory was simple. Grab 'em by the shorthairs, and trust that their minds and hearts would follow. Over time, more and more of our supervisors--and peers at the officer level--enforced that standard, even when their own bosses were not looking over their shoulders. And the chief, true to his word, fired cops who couldn't or wouldn't refrain from racially biased conduct. Which brings us to the current dismal state of civic discourse, and the barefaced bigotry of racist-sign-toting, epithet-spewing teabaggers, birthers, and assorted other raging town-hallers. We've all seen the Obama-as-Hitler posters, the photos of the president of the United States dressed as jungle medicine man. We've watched as nasty hecklers, including members of congress, demean both the highest office in the land and the man who holds it. (I'd love to give Joe Wilson the benefit of the doubt, but my own beliefs and experience cause me to side with Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter. I can't shake the belief that Wilson would have seethed quietly, perhaps muttering under his breath if a white president had delivered that line on the intersection of health care and immigration.) And so what if people of my leftist political persuasion stooped to similar behavior in condemning George W. Bush? Two wrongs...you know the rest. We've witnessed radio and TV "personalities" impugn not merely the president's policies and priorities (which they've enthusiastically, and by all rights, done) but his citizenship, his religion, and yes, his race. Where are the sensible, decent Republicans whose parents taught them to play nice, who helped their Alex P. Keatonesque offspring grow into mature, responsible adults? No one's asking Republicans to inveigh against principles they hold dear, like free markets, corporate gluttony, or private health care. But when it comes to civilized behavior would it kill them to take a page from John McCain's playbook and speak out--in the here and now--against dangerously inflammatory rhetoric? True, McCain unwittingly disparaged folks of Arab descent when he responded to his red-shirted supporter in that celebrated October '08 exchange on the campaign trail. But he showed some real class when he immediately seized the microphone from the frightened, confused woman, and characterized his presidential opponent as a "...decent family man/citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with." Unless and until other prominent Republicans speak out with equal speed and weight against the growing forces of ignorance and intolerance, the GOP will come to be seen not only as a haven for "everybody does it" bigots but as the party of bigotry. More on Health Care
 
Johann Hari: We Must Stop the "Vulture Funds" That Feed on the World's Poor Top
Would you ever march up to a destitute African who is shivering with AIDS and demand he "pay back" tens of thousands of pounds he didn't borrow - with interest? I only ask because this is in effect happening, here, in British and American courts, time after time. Some of the richest people in the world are making profit margins of 500 percent by shaking money out of the poorest people in the world - for debt they did not incur. Here's how it works. In the mid-1990s, a Republican businessman called Paul Singer invented a new type of hedge fund, quickly dubbed a "vulture fund." They buy debts racked up years ago by the poorest countries on earth, almost always when they were run by kleptocratic dictators, before most of the current population was born. They buy it for small sums - as little as 10 percent of its paper value - from the original holder and then take the poor country to court in Britain or the US to demand 100 percent of the debt is repaid immediately, plus interest built up over years, and court costs. If they can't pay, the vulture fund goes after anybody who is paying the poor country money, trying to force them to give it to them instead. In one instance, a fund tried to get a court order freezing Belgian aid payments to the Congo, saying it should go into their bank account. Let's look at an example. In 1979 - the year I was born - the dictator of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda, took out a loan for $15m from the dictator of Romania to buy some tractors. Most didn't work. But after twenty years of non-repayment, the new democratically elected government of Zambia said it had no way to pay the loan, and negotiations began to cancel it. But a multi-millionaire called Michael Francis Sheehan, whose company Donegal International is based in a British tax haven, had spotted a chance. He bought the debt from Romania for $3m, and took Zambia to court in Britain for the full amount - which had now piled up to $55m. The Zambian government explained that they don't have the money. A fifth of their people are HIV positive, and there are only 600 doctors covering more than 12 million people. Most people are dead before their 38th birthday. The Zambian President's advisor, Martin Kalunga-Banda explained - and aid groups verified - that if the government had to pay out for the dead dictator's bills, "Medicines that would have been available to in excess of 100,000 people in the country will not be available.... [and] in excess of 300,000 children will be prevented from going to school." The people who will go sick or uneducated were not alive when the loan was taken out. The British judge who heard the case was clearly appalled, but he said the law gave him no choice but to require Zambia to pay $15m, a third of what had been demanded. Virtually all the debt relief the country had received that year - as a result of Jubilee 2000 and Make Poverty History - was wiped out. What happens to the money once it is redirected from Africa's schools and hospitals? Sheehan - who likes to be known as "Goldfinger" - is fond of vintage Cadillacs, and lives in a mansion in Virginia. Singer used the cash he took to become the biggest donor New York to George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign, and then went on to bankroll Rudy Giuliani's bid in 2008. Through the nineties and Noughties, there was an extraordinary campaign by ordinary Westerners demanding that Africa's debt be dropped. It had a huge effect: $88bn was cancelled. Malawi - to name just one - went from having to pay $95m a year to $5m. But these vulture funds are unpicking this progress with their long beaks, by grabbing the final threads of debt, and demanding they are all paid at once. For example, vulture funds have been demanding $130m from Liberia - a fifth of its entire GDP. I have been to two of the countries most aggressively targeted by the vulture funds - Peru, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I lived for a week in a gargantuan rubbish dump in Peru thirty-five miles north of Lima. It is home to more than five thousand children who have never stepped beyond its black writhe of flies and throat-choking stench. I found Adelina, a little eight-year old smudge, living there in a nest she had built from trash. She spends all day searching for something - anything - that she can sell. I asked her how often she eats, and she became bashful, and said: "I don't like to eat every much anyway." The vulture funds managed to get $58m out of Peru, on a debt they paid $11m for. A n hour's drive from Kinshasa, the capital of Congo, I found an orphanage filled with emaciated children. Hundreds sat in dank rooms, rocking silently back and forward. The orphanage had a staff of one: an elderly French woman. Since six million people have died in the war in Congo, these are the lucky ones: at least they have a roof. The vulture funds demanded $100m from this country. When the government couldn't - on a week's notice - produce an inventory of everything they own for an American court, they began to rack up fines of $80,000 a week. Most people, when they hear about this, ask - why is this lawful? Of course it's important for countries to repay their debts when possible so they can continue to borrow for investment where necessary - but not if the debts were taken out by thieving dictators generations ago, and not at a loan shark profit rate of 500 percent. As long ago as 2002, Gordon Brown said these funds were "morally outrageous", but only now are there tentative moves on both sides of the Atlantic against them. In the US, the Democratic Representative Maxine Waters has introduced a draft bill called the Stop Vultures Act. It would ban vulture funds from seeking "usurious" payments - defined as anything more than the purchase price of the debt plus 6 percent a year interest. In Britain, the Labour MP Sally Keeble introduced a Ten Minute Rule Bill with similar proposals. This pressed Brown to finally move. He says the British government will give a "debt relief discount" of 90 percent for any country in the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) programme. This would kill the vulture fund business model. It's good - but it doesn't go far enough. They are lots of poor countries that don't fall into the specific HIPC category, and they will still be carrion under these proposals. It's not yet clear whether Waters can get her Act through both houses of Congress, since the vulture funds spread campaign donations around. The energy that drove Jubilee2000 needs to be summoned again to pressure both governments hard. Any measures in Britain will have to be introduced very soon because David Cameron's Conservative Party is defending the vulture funds. Nick Dearden, the director of the Jubilee Debt Campaign: "At first, we had some Conservative MPs who supported us, but they were quickly silenced by Central Office. They have been saying action against vulture funds isn't worth taking." Ah, the sweet scent of compassionate conservatism. Is this who we want to be? Do we want to be a society that allows billionaires to sue the starving, the sick, and the stunted for pennies borrowed by somebody else, long ago? If not, we have to shut these funds - now. To join the campaign to stop vulture funds, click here . Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here . You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com To read Johann's latest article for Slate - about the "gendercide" that has killed more women than all the wars of the twentieth century - click here .
 
Teresa Rodriguez Williamson: My Lunch With Nancy Pelosi and Her Seven Pieces of Wisdom Top
After my lunch with Madame Speaker Pelosi, I know one thing for certain; she was nowhere near Bryant Park this week. Actually, fashion is not her gig. She hates shopping and prefers function over fashion. It makes sense. After all, she is the most powerful female politician in the United States. Mrs. Pelosi doesn't need to worry if her d'Orsay pumps match her handbag, and she doesn't care. The issues she deals with are much bigger than the latest styles gliding down the runways in New York, Paris, London and Milan. The only runway she cares about is the one her jet will be landing on in D.C., so she can get back to Capital Hill where 111th Congress has reconvened. So, while others were chatting about the top must-haves for next season, Madame Speaker was generously giving me seven pieces of advice that are substantially more important than the hottest styles. And, unlike the latest fashion trends, her words of wisdom are priceless and will never be out of season. Power. Darling, it is the best accessory of the year. And it goes with everything! She shared her power secrets with me, and now, let me share them with you: 1. Take Notes: That piece of advice was given to Speaker Pelosi by Norman Brokaw, the Chairman of the William Morris Agency. You can find the whole story in her book, Know Your Power (Doubleday 2008). So much information is thrown at us every second, and it is easy to get overwhelmed by everything we have on our plates. But if we just take a few seconds to jot down some notes, chronicle our priorities, and get our thoughts on paper, the weight of our responsibilities can lift from our shoulders and fall onto the paper. It is such a simple, yet powerful act. Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. 2. Have Faith: Faith is a conviction for something that you truly believe in. Because many ideas and dreams we have do not yet exist, it is only through our faith can we make it happen. Speaker Pelosi had faith that she could make positive changes as a Congresswoman. Later her steadfast faith got her sworn in as the first woman Speaker of the House. "Faith again was very much on my mind. I thought of all the women throughout American history who'd had faith that one day we would achieve equity with men." 3. Build Strategic Alliances: Earn others respect and know your boundaries. Speaker Pelosi shares, "We learn that leadership requires vision, judgment, action, and the respect of the American people. No matter how excellent the intellectual appeal, the emotional connection is essential for success." So much of our relationships are built on emotional bonds and it is important to honor those bonds and value the trust you create. It is vital to have teammates who trust and respect you. 4. Love Others: "Let Other Views Exist." Many of you reading this piece are not fans of Speaker Pelosi. And chances are you will want to post a message about all the terrible things that Speaker Pelosi has said to offend you. But, if you just let others' views exist, you'll have more energy for more productive activities, like spending time with the people you LOVE. She says that we need to recognize other people's views - through acceptance we can learn to understand them. She never said you need to agree or like their ideas. 5. Organize, Don't Agonize: When Speaker Pelosi ran for Chair of the Democratic National Committee, a few of the people closest to her did not support her - and some even attacked her. She lost. Two years later, congresswoman Sala Burton asked Speaker Pelosi to run for her seat in congress. So, instead of agonizing about her past loss and what others were saying about her, she organized. Speaker Pelosi knew that she had an opportunity to bring a woman's voice to the table as a congresswoman - and to her, that was more powerful than anything some naysayer could do to her. We tend to focus on the bad in our lives and not the wonderful opportunities we are given. Madame Speaker focused on her goals and opportunities and spent no time worrying about her failures. Oh, if we could all do that! 6. "Age Quod Agis": "Do what you are doing." With a career like hers, it would be easy to lose track of time, family, and important moments. But one of the tools Speaker Pelosi employs is "Do what you are doing." She shares, "Whether it is work or play, helping around the house, or entertaining the kids, focus on it." Focus. Such simple advice, but so powerful. If we all took her simple piece of advice, I believe we would find some space for connection and a solid sense of presence. 7. There is no Secret Sauce: When Speaker Pelosi first started in politics, there were only a handful of women in D.C. Because of this, there was a mystique about the "Old Boys Club." It was though these career politicians knew something that the newcomers-especially women-did not know. They had the "Secret Sauce." Well, there is no secret sauce! To succeed you need optimism, confidence, and a persuasive argument on the reasons why you are better than your opponent. It has nothing to do with a fabled "secret sauce." It has everything to do with hard work and commitment. Finally, I asked her, the Speaker of the House, loving wife, mother, and grandmother, what she hoped her book would achieve, and she said, with a beautiful, loving smile: "I hope that women will know their power, and take action with it!" Regardless of how you feel about her political maneuvering, you can't deny that she has some incredibly powerful advice that each of us can utilize in our daily lives. Not all of us can have lunch with Madame Speaker Pelosi. So, if you want to know more about how this mother of five from Baltimore became the most powerful women in politics, then you can pick up a copy of her book: KNOW YOUR POWER: A Message to America's Daughters. Many thanks to the Women's Leadership program hosted by IBM at the Metropolitan Club in San Francisco. Photos by Mona Brooks More on Nancy Pelosi
 
Natalie Holder-Winfield: Did Joe Wilson Cross the Line between Civil Disobedience and Incivility? Top
Over a week ago, Joe Wilson, the Congressman from South Carolina, hurled the heckle heard around the world--and we're still talking about it. Post outburst, he stands by calling the President a liar and believes that the healthcare bill would be wrong for the American people because of provisions that could allow undocumented immigrants to receive healthcare benefits. Henry David Thoreau's essay, "Civil Disobedience" advocated that people should not allow the government to make us agents of injustice and we have a duty to follow our conscience. Throughout history, we have admired courageous leaders such as Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King for employing the tenants of civil disobedience to eradicate government-sponsored discrimination. Is it possible that calling the President a liar was no different than a march through Selma or a lunch counter sit-in? Is it possible that Joe Wilson was engaged in civil disobedience? I would say no. Joe Wilson was not engaged in civil disobedience but incivility. His conduct was rude and egocentric. Sit-ins and marches have something in common: they advanced a cause and not a person. If you really believe that Joe Wilson acted in the best interest of the American people by heckling the President, then I challenge you to show me what he has done in the last two weeks to build a better and stronger healthcare bill. Just as I thought I was getting too old to watch the MTV Music Awards, the Kanye West and Taylor Swift debacle reminded me that personal conviction is not excuse for incivility. Mr. West told Jay Leno in an interview that he realized that his rude antics had consequences when he recognized that he had hurt Ms. Swift. His belief that Beyonce had a better video did not give him the right to obscure Ms. Swift's feelings. People hurt. As a result, he apologized--and he meant it. Wilson's heckle was a clear act of disrespect for the office of the President and the President. Disagreement is healthy and should always be encouraged, however, ad hominem attacks are savage and have the potential to hurt--people, processes, and civilizations. For this reason, Wilson should deliver a proper apology and continue his fight against the healthcare bill that would make Thoreau, Ghandi, and Dr. King proud. Until then, Kanye West would have exhibited more maturity than Wilson in the public apology arena. It's a sad day when a rapper serves as a better role model for giving an apology than a US Congressman.
 
David Dayen: Conyers Introduces Bill to End Health Insurer's Anti-Trust Exemption Top
John Conyers and some allies on the House Judiciary Committee have come up with a fabulous way to get the insurance industry in line -- by threatening to remove their anti-trust exemption. Many people don't know that the insurance industry, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, has a broad anti-trust exemption that facilitates regional monopolies. The Act allows states to regulate the insurance business instead of the federal government, but also allows that, as long as the state regulates the industry, federal anti-trust laws would not apply. As a result of this exemption, states have seen markets for health insurance where one or two companies predominate . In the state of Maine, Wellpoint controls 71% of the market. In North Dakota, Blue Cross controls 90%. Using the Herfindahl/Hirschman Index, a metric for market concentration, a 2007 study by the AMA found almost every health insurance market in the United States is highly concentrated . This edition of the study analyzed 313 MSAs. This compares with 292 metropolitan areas in the 2005 study, 84 in the 2003 study, 70 in the 2002 study, and 40 in the 2001 study. In terms of market concentration (HHI), the study found the following: In the combined HMO/PPO product market, 96 percent (299) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines. In the HMO product market, 99 percent (309) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines. In the PPO product market, 100 percent (313) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines. Here's the AMA study . Paul Rosenberg has a lot more on this. The point is that the concentration of the health insurance market among regional monopolies leads to higher costs for consumers, almost by definition. What the legislation by Conyers (D-MI), Hank Johnson (D-GA) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) would do is end that anti-trust exemption for health insurers, allowing for enforcement in all of these highly concentrated markets. The Senate has companion legislation: "This legislation would specifically prohibit price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation in the health insurance industry," said Conyers. "These pernicious practices are detrimental to competition and result in higher prices for consumers. Conduct that is unlawful throughout the country should not be allowed for insurance companies under antitrust exemption. The House Judiciary Committee held extensive hearings on the effects of the insurance industry's antitrust exemption throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. It became clear then that policyholders and the economy in general would benefit from eliminating this exemption. "The legislation we introduced today is intended to root out unlawful activity in an industry grown complacent by decades of protection from antitrust oversight. In doing so, we aim to make health insurance more affordable to more Americans. I want to thank my friend Senator Leahy for his leadership on the bill and for working with the House on this joint introduction." Many of the actions taken by the insurance industry over the years simply violate federal law. Repealing their anti-trust exemption would force the industry to end their criminal ways or face punishment. As a companion to insurance regulations designed to lower prices for consumers, but perhaps without the kind of enforcement necessary to maintain it, I couldn't think of anything better. And if nothing else, this legislation is a powerful whip to keep the industry in line as they try to extract more perks from the health care bill. Combine this with the multiple investigations into industry practices from Dennis Kucinich, Henry Waxman and others, and you have real pressure on the industry for the first time in a while. Good for John Conyers. More on Health Care
 
Joe Peyronnin: Anger in America Top
Former President Jimmy Carter has always had a knack to say things that are uncomfortable and ill-timed. With his remarks to NBC News, and repeated yesterday, he has highlighted a problem as old as America itself and, in so doing, has complicated the debate over President Obama's agenda. At issue has been the growing lack of civility in protests across the country and before a joint session of Congress directed at President Obama and the U.S. Government. Most appalling examples include signs carried by protesters comparing President Obama a monkey or a Nazi, or Congressman Joe Wilson's inappropriate outburst on the floor of the House calling the president a liar. They also include multimedia entertainer Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist toward whites, or radio show host Rush Limbaugh saying the president's birthplace is Kenya. Some of these acts and comments are so outrageous that they turn off many Americans, even conservative Republicans. So to broadly paint all dissenters with the malignant brush of racism will only drive the country further apart. "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," President Carter said. "And I think it's bubbled up to the surface, because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country." Sadly there remain plenty of people in the United States who are racists. And the fact that President Obama received less that 15% of the white vote in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is troubling. But it is a mistake to suggest that most of the 75,000 protesters who gathered in Washington last weekend were racists. It is equally wrong to say that most protesters who attended the recent "tea parties" were all racists. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell also sees it differently than President Carter. "The issue is not race, it's civility," Powell said, "This is not to say that we are suddenly racially pure, but constantly talking about it and reducing everything to black versus white is not helpful to the cause of restoring civility to public dialog." President Obama made history when he became the first African American elected to the nation's top office with 53% of the vote, or nearly 67 million voters. Early on in his presidency he enjoyed a 70% approval rating. That number has now fallen to about 50%. Is President Carter suggesting that the defectors are largely racists? The simple fact is that there is a lot of anger and frustration out there aimed squarely at Washington, and with good reason. Unemployment continues to grow, although the rate of increase is slowing. But unemployment is on track to surpass 10% in the very near future and many economists predict the nation is most likely to have a "jobless" recovery. At the same time the government has rescued the U.S. automobile industry with billions of American taxpayer dollars. One year ago Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail and then the world economy collapsed. Government regulators missed all of the obvious warning signs, as bankers over-leveraged their companies and were richly paid in return. This forced the government to pump billions of taxpayer dollars into the financial industry. Today the financial industry is stable, bankers are being paid bonuses (Goldman Sachs paid out $11 billion) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is approaching 10,000. But most banks are sitting on their toxic assets, there has been no meaningful regulatory reform and some experts warn we a poised for another economic crisis. Meanwhile, comparatively little help has made it to the people on main streets where stores are boarded up and business is awful. And a frighteningly huge number of homes face foreclosure across the country. Millions of Americans are "under water." As Rome burns members of Congress are mud wrestling over health care. Many proposals are confusing and complicated; take end of life counseling or a "public option." They lend themselves to demagoguery and preposterous claims, like "death panels," government run health care and cuts in Medicare services. Everyone agrees that health care costs are out of control, but insurance companies and their lobbyists are fiercely fighting to protect their profit margins. Adding to the noise and mendacity Glenn Beck accuses President Obama of favoring "eugenics" and Rush Limbaugh calls him a "Nazi." But it is "the economy stupid." Deficits from growing health care costs, government stimulus packages, bank and auto bailouts, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are adding trillions to the national debt. The last President to have a budget surplus was Bill Clinton and it there is no plan in place to repeat that rare feat. Can you name a single president who has actually made substantial cuts to the federal budget? They always speak of "waste, fraud and abuse" but nothing happens. Why do we still have troops based all over the world? Why do we still pay out so much in foreign aid? Huge deficits are likely to lead to serious inflation and higher taxes. They are being underwritten by China and Japan, and threaten to severely weaken America globally. Our children and grandchildren will be left with a legacy of debt and serious problems. "The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual." So said President Carter in a speech to the nation in July 1979. It was his so-called "malaise" speech, a word he never used but was successfully pinned to it by candidate Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, rather than talking about racism, President Carter might have been more constructive if he pointed to his comments given in that summer of long gas lines and high inflation. For instance: "What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends." Yes, sadly racism is alive in America and we have a long way to go, but conditions for most people of all races have improved and, with more minorities achieving influential positions, it will thankfully continue to do so. On the other hand Washington hasn't changed. It's the same old smash mouth politics. In fact, the explosion of media outlets, multi-platform distribution and instant bloggers and Twitterers has exacerbated the problem. Politicians are too focused on scoring short term political points and securing corporate donations for their campaign. This is the most serious political problem facing our nation today, and there is no incentive or willingness to change the status quo. No wonder everyone is so angry. More on Glenn Beck
 
Youth Radio -- Youth Media International: In Saudi Arabia, Praying (and Working) for Prosperity Top
Originally published on Youthradio.org , the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe. By: Ali Zafar Rippling-golden sand dunes and rocky fields surround the sleepy city of Al Kharj, located in the Riyadh province of Saudi Arabia. Everything shuts down here five times a day when the call to prayer blares from the city's many minarets as worshipers flock to mosques. These days, those flocks have grown larger with the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in full gear. Among those Muslims is 26-year-old Ryed Sunaid, a resident of Al Kharj who is using this month to pray for not only a place in heaven, but also for prosperity here on earth. Sunaid was born in Dilliam, a Bedouin village located just outside of Al Kharj. Sunaid comes from a large family with 10 siblings--five of them sisters who are all married now. His father is an elementary school teacher and his mother a homemaker. Paying the bills is a difficult task. Living in an economy dented by the global recession, Sunaid juggles college and a part-time job greasing agricultural irrigation machines, which he will go back to once the Ramadan vacation ends this Sunday. "Can you imagine greasing those machines under 120 degree weather? Wow. It's like hell," Sunaid says. He's been working this job for the past three years, earning $720 a month--most of which goes to his parents. Since such positions typically are held by South Asian or Filipino contract workers, Sunaid is an anomaly in the Saudi workforce, according to writer Saeed Al-Yami. In a recent op-ed in The Arab News, Saudi Arabia's most widely circulated English-language newspaper, Al-Yami discusses why young Saudi men continue to remain unemployed. "We have unemployed Saudis searching for the right job when the right job they are searching for does not fit them. Sadly this is a reality...Our fathers and grandfathers worked in cleaning, construction, farming and many other jobs that young Saudis these days deem unfit for them." According to a report compiled by the General Department of Statistics and the Saudi Ministry of Economy and Planning, 9.8 per cent of young Saudis remain unemployed, while unofficial estimates stand at 20 percent. "Saudi youth can't work as cleaners or drivers, the community won't accept them. I think it's a shame the way our society thinks because even the Prophet [Muhammad] said you have to work to live and not depend on other people, like how most Saudis depend on their parents even when they're old," Sunaid says. At the Al-Kharj Technical College--where Sunaid is studying accounting--student adviser Salah Alanzi says even though post-secondary education is free in the Kingdom, many students from poor households drop out simply because they can't afford to take a taxi to college everyday. This is besides the fact most students get a monthly allowance of $260 a month from the college, money that is instead used for paying the bills at home, Alanzi says, noting that for most students, school isn't seen as a way of getting a job. According to Alanzi, other more well-off students drop out because they don't want to wait three to five years for a diploma or a degree, choosing instead to remain unemployed and live off of their parents. "I can't do that. I want to have a good future, I want to study as much as I can--keep studying until I get my doctoral degree," Sunaid says, who has a GPA of 4.45 out of 5. He has a year and a half left until he completes his diploma. After that, he says he wants to study abroad to complete his degree in accounting. "When I want to do something, I do it no matter what it takes," he says, adding that this month of Ramadan is definitely giving him a boost in achieving his goals. "Without my faith, I would be hopeless to be honest. It feels good to pray, it keeps me optimistic." Also From Youth Radio: Hoping for Progress Between the Muslim and Western Worlds U.S.-Muslim Relations: The Elephant in the War Room Interview On Al Jazeera TV: Rappers Seek Islam 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 Youthradio.org More on Saudi Arabia
 
Paul Abrams: Ignored by All Media: Major Health Care Provider Organizations Testify in Support of House Bill Top
The most important meeting held thus far on health care reform was totally ignored by the media. I mean totally. Even Rachel, Olbermann and Ed. The meeting was the most important because the witnesses are the health care providers, representing those who actually deliver health care to patients. Imagine, this is America, and people who actually know what they are talking about were asked to inform policy decisions! The American Medical Association. The American Nurses Association. The American Hospital Association. The AARP representing all who consume socialist medicine, the Medicare population. Only that other socialist medicine group, the Veterans Administration, was not present. They all testified before the House Democratic Steering & Policy Committee. It was televised on CSPAN. They were asked relevant and intelligent questions by House members concerning the specifics of health care reform. Amazingly, they responded to the questions with cogent, concrete answers. They were addressing HR 3200, the bill portrayed by the 'news-as-Jerry Springer' outlets as the government "taking over" health care... and yet, and yet, they all supported it. The providers all support it. And, the AARP, there to defend Medicare, where some of the savings are to come from, also supported it. Certainly, there were comments about the bill's implications, that is why they were testifying. For example, the AMA pointed out that the Congress froze intern/residency positions in 1997; thus, while medical schools could -- and are -- expanding to produce more people with medical degrees, the critical part of physicians' training, when they learn patient care, is during internships and residencies that need to be expanded as well. That's a good, and very important point. [What party controlled Congress in 1997, hmmm?]. The American Nursing Association pointed out that there were insufficient numbers of Nursing faculty to train more nurses. That's another good, and very important point because HR 3200 has money to train more nurses, but the authors apparently did not realize the need for more people to teach nursing. [No one suggested that nursing faculty were too busy serving on death panels to attend to teaching]. I have been one of the most severe and persistent critics of Democrats' assuming that correct policies sell themselves, and I do not suggest that digging into these details would help the cause. But, people still trust their physicians and nurses. Imagine, therefore, a YouTube and TV ad, with the table of witnesses as they appeared identified by profession and organization -- with cutaways to nurses, doctors, hospitals and elderly patients -- using a key sound bite from each witness indicating support... something like that, done by a pro, could be very effective because the witness table and the House panel come across as genuine, and compare well to all the contrived, actor-laden pieces. And, it might do the media well -- from the major evening and morning news, to the Ed/Olbermann/Rachel cable groups -- to devote more than one segment, on more than one night, to the reality that the major health care providers and established patient organizations support the President's health care reform. If they need something startling and frightening and outrageous to enliven the presentation, try this: in 1999 health care costs were 8% of the median family's income, today they are 18% and, if nothing is done, will be 35% in less than a decade. Now, that's something to scream about.
 
Josh Nelson: Time Misses the Mark with Glenn Beck Cover Story Top
This week's Time Magazine cover story is dedicated to an in-depth profile of Glenn Beck . One could reasonably expect Time to do an accurate piece on Beck, documenting his endless lies and distortions , or perhaps even his history of anti-science rhetoric and blatant racism . Indeed, Time 's Managing Editor Rick Stengel hints at such an angle in the editor's note in the print edition of the magazine: "One of our jobs as journalists is to be the referee, the honest broker who sorts through the accusations and says, This is fact, and this is fantasy." Greg Mitchell has already taken on the piece as a whole , taking particular issue with the he-said she-said style of journalism Stengel implies the piece would avoid. I'd like to focus specifically on the short paragraph dedicated to Beck's recent -- and ultimately successful -- smear campaign against former White House green jobs adviser Van Jones. He is having an impact. Along with St. Louis, Mo., blogger Jim Hoft, whose site is called Gateway Pundit, Beck pushed one of Obama's so-called czars, Van Jones, to resign during Labor Day weekend. Jones, whose task was to oversee a green-jobs initiative, turned out to be as enchanted by conspiracies as Beck -- he once theorized that "white polluters and the white environmentalists" are "steering poison into the people-of-color's communities" and signed a petition demanding an investigation into whether the Bush Administration had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. Distortion 1: Van Jones "turned out to be as enchanted by conspiracies as Beck." This is absurd. Glenn Beck is a well-known conspiracy theorist. Here are a few examples of the crazy shit this guy believes: Cash for Clunkers was a secret plot to let the government take control of your computer. President Barack Obama is racist. The Obama Administration appointed the Dean of Yale Law School to be a State Department Lawyer as part of a secret plot to let international law supersede U.S. law. The goal of legislation to reduce the impacts of climate change is actually to allow the United Nations to "run the world." Media Matters has much more on Glenn Beck's history of promoting delusional conspiracy theories . Van Jones, on the other hand, is a well-respected activist and best-selling author. Time Magazine itself saw fit to name Van Jones an Environmental Hero of 2008 and one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2009. Distortion 2: Time 's justification for claiming Jones was "as enchanted by conspiracy theories as Beck" was a statement Jones made prior to joining the Obama administration: "The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities because they don't have a racial justice frame." This statement is largely true. United States history is filled with examples of corporations, state/local governments, and the Environmental Protection Agency -- all run by white people -- intentionally steering toxic and hazardous materials into impoverished communities of color. The Institute for Southern Studies recently documented some of this history . Here are just a few examples: Sumter County, Alabama (1974) In 1974, EPA nominated Sumter County, Alabama as a possible hazardous waste landfill site. The county, located in the heart of Alabama's Black Belt, is 71.8 percent is black. Over 35.9 percent of the county's population is below poverty. In 1977, Resource Industries Inc. purchased a 300-acre tract of land just outside of Emelle, Ala. where over 90 percent of the residents are black. The permit for the facility was approved by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) and EPA Region 4 over opposition of local residents who thought they were getting a brick factory. In 1978, Chemical Waste Management, a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc. bought the permit from Resource Industries Inc. and opened the nation's largest hazardous was landfill, often tagged the Cadillac of Dumps. Warren County, North Carolina (1979) Between June 1978 and August 1978, over 30,000 gallons of waste transformer oil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were illegally discharged on roadsides in fourteen North Carolina counties. The PCBs resulted in the U.S. EPA designating the roadsides as a superfund site to protect public health. North Carolina needed a place to dispose of the PCB-contaminated soil that was scraped up from 210 miles of roadside shoulders. In 1979, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) along with EPA Region 4 selected rural, poor, and mostly black Warren County as the site for the PCB landfill. In 1982, the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed suit in district court to block the landfill. The residents lost their case in court despite the fact that the Warren County PCB Landfill site was not scientifically the most suitable because the water table at the landfill is very shallow, only 5-10 feet below the surface and where the residents of the community get all of their drinking water from local wells. William Sanjour, head of the EPA's hazardous waste implementation branch, questioned the Warren County landfill siting decision. The first truckload of contaminated soil that arrived at the landfill in September 1982 was met protesters. More than 500 demonstrators were jailed protesting landfill, sparking the national Environmental Justice Movement. While an individual reporter for Time Magazine can be excused for complete unfamiliarity with the environmental justice movement , the magazine's editorial staff can not. Portraying an accurate expression of environmental justice concerns as a conspiracy on par with Glenn Beck's consistently hysterical lunacy is just not credible. Distortion 3: Van Jones "signed a petition demanding an investigation into whether the Bush Administration had a hand in the 9/11 attacks." Reporting on this claim without so much as noting the questions surrounding the claim's veracity is the height of irresponsible journalism. Consider these facts: Jones' statement on the petition : As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever. Several of the other supposed signatories of the petition have disputed the method in which signatures were collected. Rabbi Michael Lerner: "I did not authorize my name to be used for all the other stuff that I now see was included surrounding the letter." Howard Zinn: "I did not sign a statement suggesting that 'Bush had prior knowledge.' I signed a statement calling for an investigation." I will never cease to be amazed by the corporate media's ability to cram three blatant distortions into one short paragraph. I'd accuse Time of printing such distortions intentionally but they would probably respond by calling me a conspiracy theorist and comparing me to Glenn Beck -- a fate I'd rather avoid if at all possible. Looking for further evidence that the Time profile of Beck was way off the mark? Glenn Beck himself has deemed it fair . This alone should make it clear to the casual observer that it is in fact anything but. More on Glenn Beck
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)