Sunday, September 27, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Arundhati Roy: What Have We Done to Democracy? Top
Cross-posted with Tomdispatch.com . While we're still arguing about whether there's life after death, can we add another question to the cart? Is there life after democracy? What sort of life will it be? By "democracy" I don't mean democracy as an ideal or an aspiration. I mean the working model: Western liberal democracy, and its variants, such as they are. So, is there life after democracy? Attempts to answer this question often turn into a comparison of different systems of governance, and end with a somewhat prickly, combative defense of democracy. It's flawed, we say. It isn't perfect, but it's better than everything else that's on offer. Inevitably, someone in the room will say: "Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia... is that what you would prefer?" Whether democracy should be the utopia that all "developing" societies aspire to is a separate question altogether. (I think it should. The early, idealistic phase can be quite heady.) The question about life after democracy is addressed to those of us who already live in democracies, or in countries that pretend to be democracies. It isn't meant to suggest that we lapse into older, discredited models of totalitarian or authoritarian governance. It's meant to suggest that the system of representative democracy -- too much representation, too little democracy -- needs some structural adjustment. The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now that democracy and the free market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be? What we need today, for the sake of the survival of this planet, is long-term vision. Can governments whose very survival depends on immediate, extractive, short-term gain provide this? Could it be that democracy, the sacred answer to our short-term hopes and prayers, the protector of our individual freedoms and nurturer of our avaricious dreams, will turn out to be the endgame for the human race? Could it be that democracy is such a hit with modern humans precisely because it mirrors our greatest folly -- our nearsightedness? Our inability to live entirely in the present (like most animals do), combined with our inability to see very far into the future, makes us strange in-between creatures, neither beast nor prophet. Our amazing intelligence seems to have outstripped our instinct for survival. We plunder the earth hoping that accumulating material surplus will make up for the profound, unfathomable thing that we have lost. It would be conceit to pretend I have the answers to any of these questions. But it does look as if the beacon could be failing and democracy can perhaps no longer be relied upon to deliver the justice and stability we once dreamed it would. A Clerk of Resistance As a writer, a fiction writer, I have often wondered whether the attempt to always be precise, to try and get it all factually right somehow reduces the epic scale of what is really going on. Does it eventually mask a larger truth? I worry that I am allowing myself to be railroaded into offering prosaic, factual precision when maybe what we need is a feral howl, or the transformative power and real precision of poetry. Something about the cunning, Brahmanical, intricate, bureaucratic, file-bound, "apply-through-proper-channels" nature of governance and subjugation in India seems to have made a clerk out of me. My only excuse is to say that it takes odd tools to uncover the maze of subterfuge and hypocrisy that cloaks the callousness and the cold, calculated violence of the world's favorite new superpower. Repression "through proper channels" sometimes engenders resistance "through proper channels." As resistance goes this isn't enough, I know. But for now, it's all I have. Perhaps someday it will become the underpinning for poetry and for the feral howl. Today, words like "progress" and "development" have become interchangeable with economic "reforms," "deregulation," and "privatization." Freedom has come to mean choice. It has less to do with the human spirit than with different brands of deodorant. Market no longer means a place where you buy provisions. The "market" is a de-territorialized space where faceless corporations do business, including buying and selling "futures." Justice has come to mean human rights (and of those, as they say, "a few will do"). This theft of language, this technique of usurping words and deploying them like weapons, of using them to mask intent and to mean exactly the opposite of what they have traditionally meant, has been one of the most brilliant strategic victories of the tsars of the new dispensation. It has allowed them to marginalize their detractors, deprive them of a language to voice their critique and dismiss them as being "anti-progress," "anti-development," "anti-reform," and of course "anti-national" -- negativists of the worst sort. Talk about saving a river or protecting a forest and they say, "Don't you believe in progress?" To people whose land is being submerged by dam reservoirs, and whose homes are being bulldozed, they say, "Do you have an alternative development model?" To those who believe that a government is duty bound to provide people with basic education, health care, and social security, they say, "You're against the market." And who except a cretin could be against markets? To reclaim these stolen words requires explanations that are too tedious for a world with a short attention span, and too expensive in an era when Free Speech has become unaffordable for the poor. This language heist may prove to be the keystone of our undoing. Two decades of "Progress" in India has created a vast middle class punch-drunk on sudden wealth and the sudden respect that comes with it -- and a much, much vaster, desperate underclass. Tens of millions of people have been dispossessed and displaced from their land by floods, droughts, and desertification caused by indiscriminate environmental engineering and massive infrastructural projects, dams, mines, and Special Economic Zones. All developed in the name of the poor, but really meant to service the rising demands of the new aristocracy. The hoary institutions of Indian democracy -- the judiciary, the police, the "free" press, and, of course, elections -- far from working as a system of checks and balances, quite often do the opposite. They provide each other cover to promote the larger interests of Union and Progress. In the process, they generate such confusion, such a cacophony, that voices raised in warning just become part of the noise. And that only helps to enhance the image of the tolerant, lumbering, colorful, somewhat chaotic democracy. The chaos is real. But so is the consensus. A New Cold War in Kashmir Speaking of consensus, there's the small and ever-present matter of Kashmir. When it comes to Kashmir the consensus in India is hard core. It cuts across every section of the establishment -- including the media, the bureaucracy, the intelligentsia, and even Bollywood. The war in the Kashmir valley is almost 20 years old now, and has claimed about 70,000 lives. Tens of thousands have been tortured, several thousand have "disappeared," women have been raped, tens of thousands widowed. Half a million Indian troops patrol the Kashmir valley, making it the most militarized zone in the world. (The United States had about 165,000 active-duty troops in Iraq at the height of its occupation.) The Indian Army now claims that it has, for the most part, crushed militancy in Kashmir. Perhaps that's true. But does military domination mean victory? How does a government that claims to be a democracy justify a military occupation? By holding regular elections, of course. Elections in Kashmir have had a long and fascinating past. The blatantly rigged state election of 1987 was the immediate provocation for the armed uprising that began in 1990. Since then elections have become a finely honed instrument of the military occupation, a sinister playground for India's deep state. Intelligence agencies have created political parties and decoy politicians, they have constructed and destroyed political careers at will. It is they more than anyone else who decide what the outcome of each election will be. After every election, the Indian establishment declares that India has won a popular mandate from the people of Kashmir. In the summer of 2008, a dispute over land being allotted to the Amarnath Shrine Board coalesced into a massive, nonviolent uprising. Day after day, hundreds of thousands of people defied soldiers and policemen -- who fired straight into the crowds, killing scores of people -- and thronged the streets. From early morning to late in the night, the city reverberated to chants of " Azadi! Azadi! " (Freedom! Freedom!). Fruit sellers weighed fruit chanting " Azadi! Azadi! " Shopkeepers, doctors, houseboat owners, guides, weavers, carpet sellers -- everybody was out with placards, everybody shouted " Azadi! Azadi! " The protests went on for several days. The protests were massive. They were democratic, and they were nonviolent. For the first time in decades fissures appeared in mainstream public opinion in India. The Indian state panicked. Unsure of how to deal with this mass civil disobedience, it ordered a crackdown. It enforced the harshest curfew in recent memory with shoot-on-sight orders. In effect, for days on end, it virtually caged millions of people. The major pro-freedom leaders were placed under house arrest, several others were jailed. House-to-house searches culminated in the arrests of hundreds of people. Once the rebellion was brought under control, the government did something extraordinary -- it announced elections in the state. Pro-independence leaders called for a boycott. They were rearrested. Almost everybody believed the elections would become a huge embarrassment for the Indian government. The security establishment was convulsed with paranoia. Its elaborate network of spies, renegades, and embedded journalists began to buzz with renewed energy. No chances were taken. (Even I, who had nothing to do with any of what was going on, was put under house arrest in Srinagar for two days.) Calling for elections was a huge risk. But the gamble paid off. People turned out to vote in droves. It was the biggest voter turnout since the armed struggle began. It helped that the polls were scheduled so that the first districts to vote were the most militarized districts even within the Kashmir valley. None of India's analysts, journalists, and psephologists cared to ask why people who had only weeks ago risked everything, including bullets and shoot-on-sight orders, should have suddenly changed their minds. None of the high-profile scholars of the great festival of democracy -- who practically live in TV studios when there are elections in mainland India, picking apart every forecast and exit poll and every minor percentile swing in the vote count -- talked about what elections mean in the presence of such a massive, year-round troop deployment (an armed soldier for every 20 civilians). No one speculated about the mystery of hundreds of unknown candidates who materialized out of nowhere to represent political parties that had no previous presence in the Kashmir valley. Where had they come from? Who was financing them? No one was curious. No one spoke about the curfew, the mass arrests, the lockdown of constituencies that were going to the polls. Not many talked about the fact that campaigning politicians went out of their way to de-link Azadi and the Kashmir dispute from elections, which they insisted were only about municipal issues -- roads, water, electricity. No one talked about why people who have lived under a military occupation for decades -- where soldiers could barge into homes and whisk away people at any time of the day or night -- might need someone to listen to them, to take up their cases, to represent them. The minute elections were over, the establishment and the mainstream press declared victory (for India) once again. The most worrying fallout was that in Kashmir, people began to parrot their colonizers' view of themselves as a somewhat pathetic people who deserved what they got. "Never trust a Kashmiri," several Kashmiris said to me. "We're fickle and unreliable." Psychological warfare, technically known as psy-ops, has been an instrument of official policy in Kashmir. Its depredations over decades -- its attempt to destroy people's self-esteem -- are arguably the worst aspect of the occupation. It's enough to make you wonder whether there is any connection at all between elections and democracy. The trouble is that Kashmir sits on the fault lines of a region that is awash in weapons and sliding into chaos. The Kashmiri freedom struggle, with its crystal clear sentiment but fuzzy outlines, is caught in the vortex of several dangerous and conflicting ideologies -- Indian nationalism (corporate as well as "Hindu," shading into imperialism), Pakistani nationalism (breaking down under the burden of its own contradictions), U.S. imperialism (made impatient by a tanking economy), and a resurgent medieval-Islamist Taliban (fast gaining legitimacy, despite its insane brutality, because it is seen to be resisting an occupation). Each of these ideologies is capable of a ruthlessness that can range from genocide to nuclear war. Add Chinese imperial ambitions, an aggressive, reincarnated Russia, and the huge reserves of natural gas in the Caspian region and persistent whispers about natural gas, oil, and uranium reserves in Kashmir and Ladakh, and you have the recipe for a new Cold War (which, like the last one, is cold for some and hot for others). In the midst of all this, Kashmir is set to become the conduit through which the mayhem unfolding in Afghanistan and Pakistan spills into India, where it will find purchase in the anger of the young among India's 150 million Muslims who have been brutalized, humiliated, and marginalized. Notice has been given by the series of terrorist strikes that culminated in the Mumbai attacks of 2008. There is no doubt that the Kashmir dispute ranks right up there, along with Palestine, as one of the oldest, most intractable disputes in the world. That does not mean that it cannot be resolved. Only that the solution will not be completely to the satisfaction of any one party, one country, or one ideology. Negotiators will have to be prepared to deviate from the "party line." Of course, we haven't yet reached the stage where the government of India is even prepared to admit that there's a problem, let alone negotiate a solution. Right now it has no reason to. Internationally, its stocks are soaring. And while its neighbors deal with bloodshed, civil war, concentration camps, refugees, and army mutinies, India has just concluded a beautiful election. However, "demon-crazy" can't fool all the people all the time. India's temporary, shotgun solutions to the unrest in Kashmir (pardon the pun), have magnified the problem and driven it deep into a place where it is poisoning the aquifers. Is Democracy Melting? Perhaps the story of the Siachen Glacier, the highest battlefield in the world, is the most
 
Kim Morgan: Roman Polanski Understands Women: 'Repulsion' Top
I'm not going to go into my Roman Polanski defense. I've been doing this all morning, nearly ranting and raving over my views on the matter, and have grown frustrated and depressed. But in short, I'm not happy about his arrest. So, I would rather discuss one of his greatest pictures, a brilliant portrait of female sadness, alienation, sexual neurosis turned to psychosis. A movie all women should watch. His masterpiece Repulsion. "I hate doing this to a beautiful woman." --Roman Polanski cameraman Gil Taylor Roman Polanski knows women because he understands men. He knows both sexes because he understands the games both genders play, either consciously or instinctively. He understands the perversions formed from such relations and translates them into visions that are erotic, disturbing, humorous and, most important, allegorical in their potency. One should not (as so many did with his misunderstood Bitter Moon ) take Polanski's films literally, for they are often heightened versions of what occurs naturally in our world: desire, perversion, repulsion. Film writer Molly Haskell said that at the core of Polanski's work is the "image of the anesthetized woman, the beautiful, inarticulate, and possibly even murderous somnambulate." Her observation is astute, but it's followed by the tired criticism that in all of Polanski's films, including  Repulsion , "the titillations of torture are stronger than the bonds of empathy." Of course. Polanski's removed morality is exactly why he is often brilliant: He is so empathetic to his characters that, like a trauma victim floating above the pain, he is personally impersonal. He insightfully scrutinizes what is so frightening about being human, yet he doesn't feel the need to be resolute or sentimental about his cognizance. He is also, consciously or subconsciously, aware of the darkness he explores, especially in his female characters, who could be seen as extensions of himself. 1965's Repulsion proves as much. Starring ice goddess Catherine Deneuve, Repulsion is one of the most frightening studies of madness ever filmed. Deneuve plays Carol, a nervous young manicurist who shares an apartment with her sexually active sister (Yvonne Furneaux). At first Carol goes about her days in the salon, where she quietly tends to bossy old ladies' fleshy cuticles; walking outside, where she unsuccessfully avoids the leering glances and advances of men; and languishing about the apartment, where, with disgust, she listens to the noises of her sister's lovemaking and silently despises the men who visit. She exhibits a pathological shyness and repression that slowly spiral into madness after her sister leaves on holiday. Carol's dementia creates perplexing hallucinations: sexual acts with a greasy man whom she simultaneously loathes and lusts after; greedy hands poking through walls and kneading her soft flesh; and the moving and cracking of walls. Left alone, she is able to act out what she is so afraid of: the dark sludge of desire. The obscure, slippery and decayed complexities of such desire are conveyed brilliantly in Repulsion . The diseased atmosphere of Carol's womb is meticulously created with Polanski's use of camera angles, sound effects and images of clutter. Though music is used effectively, Polanski relies more on amplifying the sounds of everyday life -- the ticking of a clock, the voices of nuns playing catch in the convent garden, the dripping of a faucet -- to convey the acute awareness Carol acquires in response to her fear. Polanski also dresses the film with pertinent details that further exemplify both Carol's madness and the aching passage of time: Potatoes sprout in the kitchen, meat (rabbit meat, no less) rots on a plate and eventually collects flies, various debris of blood, food and liquids form naturally around Carol. The film's inventive use of black-and-white film, wide-angle lenses and close-ups creates an unsparing vision of sickness, and Deneuve's performance is effectively mysterious. The viewer, however, is able to empathize with Carol, which is how she lures us into her web in the first place. As Polanski cameraman Gil Taylor muttered during filming, "I hate doing this to a beautiful woman." And yet, one loves doing this to a beautiful woman, especially one like Deneuve. Deneuve's loveliness makes Carol's madness more palatable (her unfortunate suitor thinks she is odd, but he can't help but "love" this gorgeous woman), but eventually it becomes horrifying. Carol is not simply a Hitchcockian aberration of what lies beneath the "perfect woman," she is the reflection of what lies beneath repressed desire -- in men and women. Polanski has a knack for casting women who are nervously exciting (Faye Dunaway in Chinatown is a blinking, twitching mess), and therefore dangerous to desire. He makes one insecure about longing for them. And Deneuve is certainly nerve-racking. She is so physically flawless that she often seems half human: An anemic girl, she can barely lift up her arm, yet at the same time she is highly sensual, an ample, heavily breathing woman with more than a glint of carnality in her dreamily vacant eyes. Deneuve makes one feel the confusion of a corrupted child: She is an arrested adolescent who, like an anorexic, cannot face her womanliness without visions of perverse opulence and violence. Carol is the personification of sexual mystery -- she is what lurks beneath the orgasms of pleasure and pain. What Polanski finds intriguing and revolting is perceptively female, making Repulsion a woman's picture more than women may want to know, or care to face. Read more Kim Morgan at Sunset Gun .
 
Navi Pillay: Improving Democracy Top
There has been remarkable progress in terms of the number of States that have adopted democratic governance over the past two decades, mainly through commitment to holding periodic elections. While this gives new hope and expectations to millions of people around the globe, the prospect of leading a fulfilled life, free from fear and want, remains elusive for millions who continue to suffer from injustice, war, poverty, social exclusion, and numerous forms of discrimination. These not only damage their lives and well-being, but also at times reach a level that jeopardizes international peace and security. Non-existent or inadequate democracy remains perhaps the single biggest barrier to widespread enjoyment of human rights. Likewise, the failure to respect fundamental human rights is a major impediment to the establishment of a smooth-running democracy. For this reason, action by the United Nations in providing technical cooperation to support national governments and actors seeking to establish, restore or improve democratic processes and institutions is of greater significance than is generally recognized. Chipping away at the impediments to democracy is long, slow, often unglamorous work, but when it produces results in the form of a freely and fairly elected government it is priceless. The failures in democracy - stuffed ballots and stolen elections, leading to protests, riots and sometimes even civil war - dominate the news and arouse anger and anxiety, whereas the fragile incremental successes that precede and accompany the establishment, or major overhaul, of a democracy rarely make headlines. In our efforts to establish true, smooth-running democracies on a wide scale we have come a long way - and we still have a long way to go. Democracy does not come alone, and it does not come cheap. If it is to be sustained, it has to develop in tandem with the realization of numerous basic human rights: for example the rights to universal education, gender equity, non-discrimination against all sorts of minorities, and a free and critical press and civil society. I would like to highlight four challenges to democracy that are particularly relevant today: Impunity, corruption, denial of access to justice for disadvantaged groups, and conflict and disorder. All States must uphold their human rights obligations even in the face of national emergencies, including outright conflicts. They are obliged to act within the law and do their utmost to ensure accountability for abuses and wrongdoing. Corruption is also a major impediment to democracy: all forms of corruption -- including the political, economic and corporate varieties -- undermine democratic values and institutions, degrade the enjoyment of rights, and impair the ability of the State to implement human rights, in particular, economic and social rights. Resources to combat corruption should be made readily and widely available at the national and international levels. In addition, there should be further focus on studying the particular needs of minorities and other disadvantaged groups in societies, such as women, children, and non-citizens The attainment and maintenance of democracy is a relentless, on-going process which deserves our struggle and sacrifices. And the same goes for the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the democracy-supporting norms and standards enshrined in the United Nations Charter as well as the wide array of international human rights treaties and other instruments. Democracy and human rights go hand in hand: if one stumbles, then so does the other. I call on all States to uphold their commitment to democracy and the rule of law. My office, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stands ready to provide the necessary cooperation and support to all countries striving to counter democracy deficits through the protection of human rights and the rule of law; access to justice by all, especially the most vulnerable segments of the society; the empowerment of disadvantaged groups and of civil society; and the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms. More on United Nations
 
Carol Hoenig: Staying Sane While Picking Up the Pieces Top
Divorce is a common theme in many works of fiction; probably because we have all been affected by it one way or another and need to examine how something we were sure was so right eventually went so wrong. I couldn't help but consider this while reading Irene Zutell's Pieces of Happily Ever After (St. Martin's Griffin). Alice not only has to face that her husband left her, but that he left her for a very famous celebrity. This in turn puts a glaring light literally, thanks to the hounding paparazzo, on Alice's failings as a wife, mother and woman. In spite of a marriage coming to an end and dealing with a mother with Alzheimer's, there are a number of humorous scenes that take place in this novel; for instance, when Alice discovers that her neighbors go over the top on cheesy Christmas decorating and she's expected to do the same otherwise she will also come up short in one other aspect of her life. Without a doubt, it is a frivolous concern in comparison to watching a loved one slip into a vacuum that sucks away any remnant of personality and I often kept wishing Alice would stop being the victim and learn to take control of her life. The strongest character in Pieces of Happily Ever After is Gabby, Alice's five-year old daughter. Unfortunately, this reader found the child to be far too precocious for her age. Had she been perhaps ten years old, it would have been easier to accept the mature diction and complete sentences the author implements via Gabby to help reveal Alice's moods, struggles and concerns. We are told early on just how bright the little girl is, but it would have been more believable seeing how a five-year old reacted to the upheaval in her home instead of hearing her state it so clearly. However, Zutell does a wonderful job giving Alzheimer's a face in the character of Alice's mother, a woman whose communication is economical but colorful, thanks to the affects of the debilitating disease. Eventually, Alice finds her way and this reader was grateful that Zutell didn't have a denouement wrapped in a tidy bow. This should give anyone experiencing drama in his or her life comfort to know that happily ever after comes in the moments between the disappointments, sadness and frustration. Pieces of Happily Ever After reminds us we just need to look for them.
 
Dr. Peter Breggin: Conference on Stopping the Psychiatric Abuse of Children Top
Millions of our children are being labeled with false and stigmatizing psychiatric diagnoses. Then their brains are being blunted and disabled by psychiatric drugs. Want to find a way to do something about the plight of our children at the hands of drug companies and misguided mental health professionals? Want to learn more about what our children really need from us? In less than two weeks, you can attend the annual meeting of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (www.icspp.org) at the Renaissance Syracuse Hotel. The two-day conference takes place on Friday and Saturday, October 9-10, 2009 in Syracuse, New York. It features international experts on the adverse of effects of psychiatric drugs and better ways of helping children and families. The public is welcome. For the sake of our children, please attend. This year's conference comes at a tragic turning point in the psychiatric abuse of children. In the past, the main threat has come from the widespread use of stimulant drugs like Ritalin, Dexedrine, Adderall, Focalin, and Concerta for children labeled with ADHD. These drugs work by crushing spontaneous behavior. Frequently this leads to depression, as well as insomnia, anxiety and psychosis. The stimulants suppress the growth of children, cause abnormalities in their brains, induce sudden cardiac death, and predispose children to cocaine abuse in young adulthood. As bad as this is, the situation of our children has recently become even more desperate. In the past year, the FDA has unleashed a crisis of epidemic proportions by approving lobotomizing antipsychotic drugs for the control of behavior in children. Diabetes. Pancreatitis. Pathological obesity. The abnormal growth of breast tissue and even lactation in young boys and girls. Heart disease. Permanently disfiguring tics and other abnormal movements (tardive dyskinesia). Agonizing muscle spasms that also defy treatment and last indefinitely (tardive dystonia). These are a few of the drastic disorders caused by antipsychotic drugs such as Zyprexa, Risperdal, Abilify, Seroquel, Geodon, and Invega. The antipsychotic drugs work by flattening the emotions and causing docility, so that the children no longer make trouble, at least for a while. With their frontal lobe function suppressed, the kids become more robotic in their behavior, and their mental and emotional growth is stunted. Often these drugs will turn them into lifelong mental patients whose enslaved brains will continue to deteriorate under toxic assault. Great speakers and workshop presenters will cover these and many other subjects about psychiatry and about how to help children and families in distress with caring and effective psychological, education, and social approaches. Stephen A. Sheller is one of the lead attorneys in two of the largest billion-dollar settlements ever made as a result of civil and criminal actions brought by the federal government against drug companies Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Both legal actions involved psychiatric drugs. I will be honored to introduce attorney Sheller at the conference. As the Founder Emeritus of ICSPP (I've passed the mantle onto younger professionals), I will be making two presentations, one on how to inspire the psychiatric reform movement and another on better approaches to helping children and families. Attorney James Gottstein from Alaska is the world's most active civil rights attorney on behalf of psychiatrically abused children and adults. Graham Dukes, a physician and a lawyer, is a leading expert on international drug regulation. Critiques of ADHD and better approaches to children and families will be presented by many experts in psychiatry, pediatrics, psychology, and education. Registration can be made on-line (www.icspp.org) or at the meeting at the Syracuse Renaissance Hotel, Friday and Saturday, October 9-10, 2009. Tickets are available for one or both days. For hotel reservations, call 315-479-7000. If you care about our children, this is the place for you to be. It's always a great and inspiring conference. Even if you don't know anyone else at the conference, you will feel at home. You will meet many new friends with similar concerns. Our children need our protection and support in these dire times. Peter R. Breggin, M.D. is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York. The observations made in this column are scientifically documented in his medical book, Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition (2008) as well as his popular book, Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Crime and Suicide (2008). Dr. Breggin's website, loaded with scientific information and interesting radio and TV reports, is www.breggin.com. On Dr. Breggin's website you can purchase a bonus edition of ICSPP's new book, The Conscience of Psychiatry: The Reform Work of Peter R. Breggin, MD (2009).
 
John Farr: Leniency for Polanski Top
The news of director Roman Polanski's arrest stirred me more than I might have expected, since I'd just screened Marina Zenovich's revealing documentary about this man's tortured life, entitled Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008). This documentary is must-viewing, particularly given breaking events. Confronting these developments, we must affirm the law's the law, right? And what Polanski reputedly did with a 13-year-old girl all those years ago was unquestionably the act of a sick individual. But the story of what Polanski suffered even before the unspeakable trauma of having his pregnant wife Sharon Tate butchered in the spooky twilight of the turbulent Sixties makes me believe that overall, he's as much victim as predator himself.  Can you imagine living in the Krakow ghetto during the Nazi Occupation, and at the tender age of ten watching both your parents shuttled off to concentration camps, only to have your mother die in one? These horrors by no means excuse his crime, but they are mitigating factors, are they not? This new arrest also smacks of a sneak attack on the now 76-year-old director, who's been remarried to actress Emmanuelle Seigner for two decades. (He's probably reformed by now , don't you think?) And unless there's something we don't yet know -- for instance, that he actually wanted to be arrested to gain some sort of late-life expiation of his past sins -- then it's clear he thought he was safe going to Switzerland to accept that award. Watching Wanted and Desired , I did not get the impression that the now-adult lady Polanski seduced, who after all bears the most right to carry a grudge, would herself want to see the aging director slapped behind bars at this stage. (Perhaps others who saw the film had a different impression.) So, with all due contempt for child molesters in general, I hope the case will be handled expeditiously, and that Polanski ultimately receives a measure of leniency. I can't help musing that here in America, we drove away Chaplin for all those years, and though Polanski's crime was much harsher and more defined, I, for one, would welcome having him back among us once he's paid his debt to society. Maybe he could even help us make better movies again. Of course, the diminutive Pole has had his share of stinkers (example: 1988's Frantic was most ordinary), but in my view, the following five features assure his screen immortality. Knife In The Water (1962)- Weird dynamics arise when a married couple impulsively invite a young male hitch-hiker on a boating excursion. The men each subtly vie for macho supremacy as a way both to impress and lay claim to the woman. A layered tale about mankind's baser instincts on display, the film catapulted the young director to fame in his own country. Repulsion (1965)- When Helene and her boyfriend leave her disturbed sister Carole (Catherine Deneuve) alone in their London flat one weekend, Carole's visceral contempt for men causes her to disintegrate emotionally. Pretty as she is, it's difficult for the opposite sex to leave her alone, including ardent admirer Colin (John Fraser). He has definitely picked the wrong girl. The director's first English-language film makes for a potent shocker, with Deneuve mesmerizing as the isolated, increasingly demented Carole. Rosemary's Baby (1968)- New York's famous Dakota apartment building houses a modern-day witches' coven, with designs on the unborn child of a young housewife (Mia Farrow). Is Rosemary really carrying the Devil's offspring, and if so, how will she get anyone to believe her... before it's too late? This subtly demonic tale builds to a shocking climax. The willowy Farrow embodies vulnerability as Rosemary, while John Cassavetes, in a rare mainstream role, delivers just the right amount of shaded menace as her too soothing spouse. Ruth Gordon also scores as a kooky older neighbor, and look for a young Charles Grodin playing a doctor in a pivotal scene. Chinatown (1974)- Hired by glamorous, mysterious Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) to tail her errant husband, private dick Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) thinks he's on a routine case of spousal infidelity. It turns out Evelyn is the daughter of shadowy industrial baron Noah Cross (John Huston), and the seamy revleations mount from there, plunging Jake into a hornet's nest of incest and corruption in 1930's Los Angeles. Unquestionably one of the best films about the "City Of Angels", it's also one of the most superbly crafted detective stories ever committed to celluloid. The two leads really click, and legendary director Huston delivers his finest acting turn as the wily, ruthless Cross. Watch for Polanski himself as thug with a grudge against nosy people. The Pianist (2002)- When the Nazis occupy Warsaw, a gifted pianist (Adrien Brody) feels his privileged world begin to crumble. Escaping the fate of his family,who are deported to a concentration camp, the man hides out in the apartment of a sympathetic friend, who then disappears. Desperate, he moves from one empty flat to another, determined to elude capture aa the city collapses around him. Polanski transforms this true story based on one man's memoirs into his most personal work. The acting in this shattering film is superb, with Thomas Kretschmann playing a Nazi officer partial to classical music, and Brody heart-rending in the title role, for he which he netted a richly deserved Oscar. For over 2,000 more outstanding titles on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com . And check out John's weekly film recommendations on video at www.reel13.org .  
 
Dawn Teo: Tea Party Founder Announces: "A Huffington Post Of Our Own" Top
Eric Odom, founder of American Liberty Alliance (ALA), the organization that launched and organized the tea party movement across the country, announced Friday what he calls a movement-minded news portal and his answer to the The Huffington Post. While the domain and branding are secret for now, Odom has given his news portal a temporary name, Project 73. Odom aims to create an online news hub/portal that aims to become the "gathering spot for all the news" for their "side" -- a "'movement' minded news portal." "I mean, I despise a lot of what is written at Huffington Post. But the reality is… they’re good at it. They cover very wide ranges of topics and they cover them well. On our side you need to visit a good ten sites in the morning to get the full web digest. On their side you just go to Huffington Post and you know about everything that’s happening." At the bottom of the Project 73 announcement, Odom says, "Not a single person involved with our organization, or any tea party movement related organization for that matter, is profiting off of the movement." However, it looks like Odom's Project 73 will be a for-profit model. Most political organizing outfits are registered as a 501(c)(4), meaning they are not a profit-making enterprise but contributions are not tax deductible (only deductions to charitable organizations are tax deductible). However, according to ALA's website, the organization is registered as a for-profit enterprise . The American Liberty Alliance is not a 501c3, 501c4 or a PAC. We are not registered as a non-profit and we do not raise funds as such. Our primary focus is on content. We publish information and sell advertising on our network of sites. We also occasionally seek contributions from our readers. These contributions are seen as 'gifts' to our network and are not tax deductible. A few lines above ALA's not-a-single-person-makes-money statement, they lay out their plans for a revenue-sharing model for bloggers who participate in Project 73, All bloggers/writers are required to submit two posts per week (minimum). There is a revenue sharing system in place that will help you earn revenue on the posts you get published. Unlike The Huffington Post, where bloggers and writers are given almost complete freedom over their own content (the HuffPost editorial team ensures accuracy but does not dictate point of view), Odom is setting up a "news" site that he admits will tell only his "side" of the issues. And bloggers get paid only if the editorial team approves their posts. In other words, bloggers will get paid only when their articles are in agreement with the site's founder. Eric Odom and Ken Marerro, the founders of the tea bagger movement and heads of ALA, have made their living by creating and managing profesional, well-funded websites that appear at first glance to be grassroots. The first third of the Project 73 announcement lays out Odom's professional credentials developing and managing websites, and the post ends with, "His profession is web strategy and online community development." More on Tax Day Tea Parties
 
Peter Diamandis: Gold Rush on the Moon Top
Last week brought us the exciting official news of water on the Moon . This news is scientifically critical and, more importantly, economically astounding. From a scientific point of view, we now know that the water is interlaced with the lunar soil in many locations, perhaps as remnants of comet collisions with the lunar surface. From an economic point of view, water on the Moon is the equivalent of finding "gold in the hills of California." Translation: there is the potential for a California gold rush to hit the space community in the years ahead, and the teams building robotic exploration vehicles in the Google Lunar X PRIZE are constructing the shovels and picks on the leading edge of this potential boom. So what's so interesting about water on the Moon? After all, it's in boundless supply on Earth. The value of water is it's actual physical location on the Moon, a place that is very expensive to travel to. The utility of the water is both as a propellant for rockets and for the maintenance of human life in space. With sufficient water on the Moon, solar energy can be used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is, of course, critical for humans to breathe and the water important for us to drink. As it turns out, hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) together are also one of the most efficient propellants we know. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (some of the most powerful rocket engines in existence), for example, burn O2 and H2 to blast our astronauts off the Earth into orbit. You can think of water as the petroleum of spaceflight. Rather than oil that powers our cars, H2 and O2 power our rocketships. Today's launch costs are, unfortunately, extremely expensive. On the average it costs something on the order of $20,000 per pound to get supplies into low-Earth orbit (where the International Space Station is located) and, optimistically, 10 times to 20 times that cost -- or approximately $400,000 per pound -- to land something on the Moon's surface. So the cost of transporting water to the lunar surface, or oxygen, or hydrogen, is about $400,000 per pound or $25,000 per ounce -- about twenty-five times the price of gold today! Revealing water in significant quantities on the Moon could truly be a turning point in space exploration. Who will set up the first water mining plants? Given low-cost availability of water, hydrogen and oxygen, what type of off-Earth economies and exploration will this enable? The question is not too dissimilar to those questions asked when oil was discovered buried deep under the Earth or under the oceans. We eventually designed the technology to mine and extract this precious resource. It's what we do as humans and entrepreneurs. I'm excited for all of the teams building vehicles for the Google Lunar X PRIZE . This is a $30 million competition funded by Google and operated by the X PRIZE Foundation. We've offered up a large cash bounty for the first team to privately build and land a robot on the surface of the Moon that can travel, send back photos and video. Think of these vehicles as a low-cost 'prospector' looking for information and valuable data. Thus far, over twenty teams from 11 nations have registered to compete. When they are successful they will demonstrate the ability to reliably travel to the lunar surface and explore for less than a tenth of the current costs envisioned by government programs. Everyone will benefit and these Google Lunar Teams will be on the cutting edge of a gold rush. Stay tuned for the next chapter of the story of water on the Moon, which happens on October 9th of this year. On this day, a NASA mission called LCROSS will collide (catastrophically) into the Lunar South Pole with the hope of discovering large quantities of water. This LCROSS collision is targeted on one of the permanently shadowed craters. At the same time a lunar orbiting observing satellite will be taking photos and searching for H20 in the plume resulting from the collision. If you've been wondering where the next gold rush is going to take place, look up at the night sky to our closest celestial neighbor. The next economic boom might just be a mere 240,000 miles away on the bella luna .
 
Catie Lazarus: A Review of The Cleveland Show: Cleveland's Got a New Mascot Top
"Can you come wipe me?" asks Cleveland Jr. a teenage schlub, who is sitting on the toilet, asks his pop, who is next to him, taking a bath. Cleveland Jr. isn't developmentally delayed, more of a man-child in the making, like father, like son. A similar parallel can be drawn about The Cleveland Show , a new 1/2 hour animated comedy the father-son team star in, which is a spin-off of The Family Guy. Like it's forefather, The Cleveland Show shares the same aesthetic and skewers the oafish, albeit well-intentioned, middle-America, middle-aged male. When asked at a screening at The New York Television Festival , what is different about The Cleveland Show, its creator Mike Henry said, "The show has more heart." As animated comedies go, it certainly has poignant moments, like a flashback to Cleveland's high school prom years prior, where despite his jerry curl worn non-ironically, he is rejected by his crush, Donna. She falls for the bad boy, Robert Tubbs, who slaps Donna on the ass and commands her to, "show your fat ass to the boys." Decades later, Cleveland stumbles upon Donna when he returns to his hometown in Virgina. Recently divorced, he is still starry-eyed over Donna, and the pilot episode (airing tonight at 8:30 pm EST) chronicles him wooing her back. I won't say whether he succeeds, only that at one point, Cleveland slaps Donna on her rear, and says that her, "nice fat ass is mine." As it's a cartoon made in Hollywood, all Donna does is smile. The Cleveland Show is not meant to offer a meta-analysis of the state of America's gender or race relations. It's a family comedy, with black characters, that doesn't shy away from off-color jokes, which is as progressive as Network TV gets. There is not one scene where a black character interacts with a white one without a racial joke played, as if it's some type of nervous tick. Still, creating leading black characters, even in 2009 and in a cartoon, is progressive compared to its non-animated and animated competition. Behind the camera, the talent is also mixed, not in terms of skill, but race. Seth MacFarlane was not as involved in the production as Mike Henry and Rich Appel, although he does voice the bear with the unidentifiable, maybe European-accent. Arianna Huffington plays the bear's wife. (If this seems odd, she's worn different hats, as this liberal champion once served as a Republican grand dame.) Ms. Huffington doesn't mug and keeps up with some incredibly talented voice-over actors, most notably Kevin-Michael Richardson, who plays Cleveland Jr. and the redneck neighbor Lester. Like with The Family Guy, there are celebrity cameos, including Kanye West, Earth, Wind & Fire, and Scottie Pippen. Stars aren't the only ones finding time for The Cleveland Show. Fox ordered a second season before the first one even aired. Based on the reaction from the packed crowd at The New York Television Festival's screening, Cleveland will be a welcome in many homes.       More on Family Guy
 
David Sirota: Denver Post: Obama Aide Messina Caught "Trying to Buy Off" Primary Challenger Top
I've made my position on the Emanuel administration's attempts to crush Democratic primaries pretty plain : Beyond it being a disgusting effort to crush the kind of local democracy Barack Obama used to make Rahm Emanuel president, it also makes Democratic legislative unity even tougher to achieve. Additionally, the aggressiveness of the effort reveals a double-standard: The Emanuel administration that categorically refuses to twist the arms of congresspeople to pass legislation is the same Emanuel administration that is more than happy to break the arms of Democratic primary candidates. As I said in my last column , that's the power-worshiping, incumbent-protecting country-club etiquette at work: Just like, say, Tim Russert, would ask upstart presidential candidate Howard Dean much tougher questions than sitting Vice President Dick Cheney, President Emanuel is willing to punch those outside of D.C., but not those inside. Now, the Denver Post gives us a sense of just how hard those punches are being thrown. The front-page Sunday story details how President Emanuel dispatched former Max Baucus aide and current Vice President Jim Messina to, as the Post says, "try to buy off" former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) with a job before he announced his primary challenge to appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D). There's probably nothing illegal about this - although you can't really say that for sure. Let's not forget that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was indicted and impeached for allegedly trying to horse-trade jobs for senate seats . But legal questions aside, it shows that while President Emanuel may do nothing to stop insurance and pharmaceutical companies write health care legislation, he's going to do everything he can to make sure that incumbents are not bothered by local primary challenges - even those that might create a dynamic that helps pass President Emanuel's legislative agenda. The danger for President Emanuel, of course, is that the big foot strategy make backfire, especially out here in the West: "It may make the situation worse for Bennet for them to play the game this way," said state Rep. Kathleen Curry, a Gunnison lawmaker who is supporting Romanoff. "People in Colorado have an adverse reaction to the external forces coming down and telling them how to think," she said. The timing of Messina's latest intervention sparked particular concern -- because of the appearance that the administration was trying to buy off a nettlesome opponent , to some; to others, because the timing made the effort appear so ham-handed. As I've said, I have no dog in the primary fight - I just want to see local democracy be allowed to run its course. Like Barack Obama said on the campaign trail, primaries and local democracy strengthen the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, President Emanuel and Vice President Messina don't subscribe to that belief.
 
Deane Waldman: "MediCare-for-All" -> No-Care-at-All. Top
People from Nancy Pelosi to daily bloggers are screaming "MediCare-for-All" as the answer to our healthcare crisis. Is MediCare the solution for us all? The answer is clear: no. Unlike MediCaid, MediCare was never intended as an entitlement. MediCare was supposed to be self-sustaining: people would pay in while working and take out as needed after they retired. It was sold as a Program that would pay for itself: no additional funds required. Hah! Inconvenient truth #1: MediCare quickly became a Ponzi scheme just like Social Security. Contributions of the presently employed are not saved for the future but are spent to pay for the expenses of the retired. According to the GAO, Medicare will run out of funds just like the house of cards called Social Security but sooner (2017). The addition of the President Bush's ill-conceived Drug Program For Seniors simply accelerated the slide to bankruptcy by adding another (unpaid for by the contributors) expenditure. When MediCare runs out of money , it will be No Care for All . MediCare tries to contain its costs in two ways: neither works, and neither is what patients want. First, it rations care . Yes, I said it. Many things your doctor would like for you are denied as not "cost effective." Let's just ignore inconvenient truth #2 that there are at present virtually no scientific cost effectiveness studies on which the government denies payment. Denying payment means denying care and thus again, MediCare-for-All is No Care for All. Inconvenient truth #2A: Beware of what President Obama is touting as cost effectiveness studies in the proposed Healthcare Reform Bill. Just like in Great Britain and Australia, what the government defines as effective is often not what patients and doctors want as positive effects. The second "cost saving" method used by MediCare is to reduce reimbursements. Put aside for a moment that this actually increases costs . Current payments to physicians are now below their marginal costs. The more MediCare patients a doctor sees, the quicker she goes broke. That is why fewer and fewer physicians accept MediCare patients: they cannot afford to. Those who still do so make up their losses on the ever-shrinking pool of privately insured patients - the infamous cost- or more correctly revenue-shift. I guarantee that your local hospital engages in money shifting. How do I know? It is still in business. Low payment schedules make it fiscal suicide for doctors to see MediCare patients. So what will Healthcare Reform (HR 3200) do to increase access to doctors for MediCare patients? Answer: it cuts physician reimbursements even further. Perfect! In a recent Letter to the Editor, a local resident complained that at age 65 he thought he had to choose between Medicare and carrying additional, supplemental insurance to cover those things that MediCare does not. The writer was wrong...for now. To add to the Perfect-Program-for-all-Americans called MediCare, Congress is now considering adding that very limitation to their "Healthcare Reform" Bill. Perfection indeed! Final inconvenient truth: Whether we get MediCare-for-All or the infamous "public option," under government payment schedules doctors will be paid less than their costs to stay in business. End result: no doctors. Then for sure, "MediCare-for-All" will be No-Care-For-All. PS. The last paragraph is intended to defend NEITHER the status quo nor the private insurance industry. Both need to change drastically. Okay, both need to...go. We need a totally new system, not tinkering with what we have. We could begin with a discussion of personal responsibility. Oops, I'm sorry. That phrase (I'm whispering) is political cyanide and will never come up for serious national debate.
 
Vivian Norris de Montaigu: Anti-Globalization Is Back! Police vs. the People and the "Pirates" Top
"A single ruler could, by fiat, decide which enemies were legitimate representatives of a state and which, by contrast, were mere 'bandits'..." - Daniel Heller-Roazen, The Enemy of All: Piracy and the Law of Nations In June of 2001, I was in Gothenburg, Sweden, to witness both then President George W. Bush's first European visit, as well as the EU meeting which followed, and the extremely well organized anti-globalization protests which took place over the several days of the events. The photos I have of that time show that journalists were allowed close to the then president, (though questions were few and had been pre-selected), and that there was a great deal of "action" in the streets on the parts of protesters and the police. These clashes grew out of the snowball effect of the anti-globalization movement which began with the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. In Gothenburg, plastic bullets wounded protesters, storage containers encircled a school where many protesters were staying, creating a fire hazard, and locked them in, and, as a result, a fringe group (the same thing happened in Seattle none of the real protesters knew exactly where these "anarchists" came from) changed the tune and banks were attacked, windows broken, fires set, and dogs and police with protective gear confronted both protesters and so-called "anarchists." By the end of that summer of 2001, a young man, Carlo Giuliani, a protester, had been killed in Genoa, Italy, and within a few weeks, the world would experience 9/11 and nothing would ever be the same. The anti-globalization movement would be basically pushed underground, to Porto Allegro, and heightened security at world events where heads of state convened, created a kind of Big Brother control of protesters, would lead to where we are today. More journalists have been killed in the past years since 9/11 than ever before, and the tactics used to police and control any form of dissent have become Orwellian to say the least. Many people have been scared to say, write and broadcast what they really believe and have experienced. But the anti-globalization movement is back, and it is taking forms that extend beyond the left of center radicals, to those who are out of work, out of money, losing what little they have left to the greed of a very few. The walls between "Us" and "Them" are taller than ever before and harder to penetrate, yet people are also angrier than ever before. It is symbolic that "pirates" would be making a comeback, not only on the high seas of the East Coast of Africa (perhaps not so ironically positioned precisely where the oil tankers head out to the rest of the world?), but to the internet, and technology in general. The controllers are trying to control more than ever, punishing those who "pirate," be it a Somalian bandit or a housewife who downloads a film or a simple student in Pittsburgh last week during the G20 meeting. ( See video here .) I would argue that we should be learning from the protesters and "pirates" instead of simply fighting against them. We should be coming up with new models for sharing the wealth, the resources, knowledge and content, as well as all benefiting from the distribution mechanism, so that the few do not only end up controlling the commodities, but also the pipelines through which they reach the rest of us. And it may very well be that in parts of the so-called "developing world" we will continue to see leapfrog technologies that can teach all of us about how to move forward in new directions. Microcredit, made popular by Nobel Peace Prize -winner Muhammad Yunus, can also be applied to legal, shared Content Micro-distribution (and indeed, is, in places like India where cablewallas divide up the neighborhoods to distribute "pirated" cable content). Content can be appropriately priced so that even the poorest people can have access to education and information, for example via the cell phones in rural villages owned by women who then can help villagers access educational and other content. This would mean a true democratization not only of content -- choice of what they and their communities receive -- but also job possibilities that can lift them out of poverty. Add to this content creation, be it local news, documentaries, or even entertainment, and local ownership of telecoms, and you have a situation which will help pull many of these countries out of poverty at an exponential rate. The new financial models need to be inclusive and participatory, not hyper-controlled, and regulations should serve the majority, not a minuscule part of the world's population. It is mostly those who are the elite, in power, and of a mostly older generation who want to adopt more controlling regulations against the "pirates" and protesters. In France, it is the Hadopi law that is slamming down on internet pirates. In the UK, there are CCTV cameras everywhere, and in many countries guards are capable of pulling aside a ten-year-old at a border crossing. The establishment and the wealthy are scared and the gatherings of the elite and heads of state have now become islands so separate from the people that they do not communicate anymore. Exaggerations and lies tend to circulate because there is no or little interaction. Someone needs to listen to the protesters and what they are saying. At least people are standing up for themselves and are getting angry. They should be angry. They feel as if they have been robbed. Those who are not standing up for themselves are the ones taking anti-depressants because anger turned inward is victimization and depression. Anger can bring about constructive results. Remaining vigilant means taking on the responsibility of becoming more aware. Listen to and develop your intuition. Talk to your friends around the country and around the world to hear what is really going on. Don't "buy" what mainstream media is telling you. Learn about other financial models that are working such as Microcredit and Social Business, which are also more sustainable. Look into alternative sources of information about the financial crisis, piracy and new models for media and the economy such as NGO websites, news sites such as www.demotix.com and www.maxkeiser.com . The protesters and the pirates are not menacing enemies, but mirrors reflecting a deeply disturbing society in which inequalities have grown to levels not seen since, well, the last Depression, the 1930s. And look where that brought us. More on India
 
Michael B. Laskoff: Spitzer & Bloomberg - Not again Top
Movie sequels prove that second acts are usually a terrible idea. The clever becomes dross; the dross becomes fetid, and so on and so forth, until all that's left if toxic landfill. What's true of cinema is also true of politics. If you stick around past your expiration date, then you probably stink. For the past couple of weeks, the rumor mill has been grinding out stories that Elliot Spitzer is planning another run for the governor of New York. I assumed that this was all nonsense until Friday night when I watched Spitzer on Real Time. Bill Maher, the host, didn't make a single crack regarding the prostitute, the money transfers, the resignation or the irony of a man who had cracked down on prostitution as New York District Attorney being revealed as a 'john' himself. The worst name that Spitzer was called was "the former governor." That's when it hit me: he's serious about running again. For the record, I agree with a lot of Spitzer's positions; I also don't get too exercised about the adultery - that's a private matter - or prostitution, which should be legal, taxed and regulated. None of that, however, mean's that a megalomaniac hypocrite who got caught with his genitals in the cookie jar should seriously consider running again. Stay on the sidelines. Leave it to others to take up the mantle. If you don't want to do it for the public good, then do it for your family who will have to survive rehashing all of all that political pornography. And then there's Mike Bloomberg, already the two-term mayor of New York. To his mind, the City needs him too much for him to step down. Unfortunately, getting the City Council to lift mayoral term limits allowed them to lift their own. And if there is one thing that America's largest city does not need, it's a mayor and council that can stay in office ad infinitum (or until they caught for something). So to the former Governor Spitzer and the current Mayor of New York: I plead, "Not Again." (The fact that my entreaties will fall entirely on deaf ears is another subject altogether.) Democracy is the best form of government not because of some mystical ideal but because it brings about regular change and, with it, new blood. In order for that to happen, some of the old warhorses need to step aside. In this case, that means you.
 
Lea Lane: "Turning," or, You Don't Have to Be Jewish (or a President) to Atone on Yom Kippur Top
Failure to repent is much worse than sin. One may have sinned for but a moment, but may fail to repent of it moments without number. Chasidic saying, from the book, Day by Day On Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, Jews around the world repent for the past year's sins, wiping the slate clean for another year. But you don't have to be Jewish to ask for forgiveness. This Day of Atonement would be a fitting time for non-Jews as well to show some true repentance, more than the standard "I'm sorry," often forced, and mumbled insincerely. Jews in almost all of the 800 or so Reform congregations in the States - almost a million people -- happen to worship using the book my late husband Rabbi Chaim Stern wrote and edited, Gates of Repentance. In 1998 President Clinton had offered a weak apology for the Monica Lewinsky situation. The public didn't buy it. So he offered a stronger, introspective apology at a prayer breakfast in Washington, with an acknowledgment of the need to change, He mentioned that a friend had given him a copy of Gates of Repentance , and mentioned some of his childhood traumas, and then quoted from one of the book's passages: Now is the time for turning. The leaves are beginning to turn from green to red to orange. The birds are beginning to turn and are heading once more toward the south. The animals are beginning to turn to storing their food for the winter. For leaves, birds and animals, turning comes instinctively. But for us, turning does not come so easily. A week later, on September 18, the President sent my husband the manuscript of that speech. As he wrote in the accompanying letter: "I deeply appreciate ... Gates of Repentance . As you know I was very moved by the passage on "turning," and I thank you for your wisdom and spiritual inspiration. (Read more about this in the NYT article here .) True repentance is more than an apology. It does require "turning," a real effort to change bad behavior. As Chaim wrote in the prayer book: "What is genuine repentance? When an opportunity for transgression occurs and we resist it, not out of fear or weakness, but because we have repented." Here are the sins, wrongdoings and transgressions we all commit at some time or another, listed from Gates of Repentance and read at Yom Kippur services: The sins of arrogance, bigotry and cynicism; of deceit and egotism, flattery and greed, injustice and jealousy. Some of us kept grudges, were lustful. Malicious, or narrow-minded. Others were obstinate or possessive, quarrelsome, rancorous, or selfish. There was violence, weakness of will, xenophobia. We yielded to temptation, and showed zeal for bad causes. I can think of many people in the news who have made weak apologies or none at all for wrongdoings this past year. So I suggest they follow President Clinton's lead, and atone in this season of change: --Joe Wilson can write President Obama a sincere note of apology and read it before the House of Representatives -- Kanye West can rap about his boorishness, and the proceeds would provide an annual musical scholarship in Taylor Swift's name. -- Ann Coulter can give the profits from all of her books to homeless shelters, and admit her arrogance on MSNBC. Well, we can dream. I know you can think of other notable transgressors this year, and suggest how then can resist repeating their offenses, by making amends and turning their behavior on this Day of Atonement. More on The Balanced Life
 
Dan Dorfman: Bulls Rule, But Watch Your Back Top
There's an age-old Wall Street saying: Don't fight the trend. For now, at least, the apparent trend is that equity prices are headed even higher after whopping stock gains of 53% in the S&P 500 and 46% in the Dow from their March lows. In this context, meet four bulls who share this sunny view, although some hasten to point out that the investment landscape -- like the bull ring -- is hardly devoid of significant danger. "I would be a buyer and certainly not a seller because the run in the equity market still has farther to go," institutional investment adviser Bill Rhodes says. Rhodes, head of Boston-based Rhodes Analytics, which doles out advice to some of the country's largest banks, mutual funds and hedge funds, offers a number of reasons to support his bullish thesis that the sizzling rally has considerably more staying power. In brief, based on his models, he sees the S&P 500, now at 1044, headed nearly 12% higher to 1067 between now and year-end. Chief among his reasons: A noticeable pickup in the economy, which is turning out to be not as bad as expected. A lot of liquidity on the sidelines, nearly3.6 trillion alone in money market mutual funds. No big rise in interest rates and reasonably low inflation. Ample liquidity in the banking system. A former Merrill Lynch strategist, Rhodes also points to significant plusses on the technical front, each of which, he notes, is indicative of higher stock prices. Noteworthy in this respect are: An improving advance-decline ratio (a reference to the number of advancing stocks, versus those that are declining), indicating the market is maintaining a broad advance. Declining volatility, meaning lower spreads between the bid and asked in stock prices. More than 94% of the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange are trading above their 200-day moving averages. Rhodes wouldn't discuss individual stocks, but he did pinpoint what he viewed as the strongest market sectors, notably consumer discretionary, financials, industrials and materials (such as steel, copper and non-ferrous metals like aluminum). Although gung-ho on the market, Rhodes took note of a number of concerns. One is the possibility the Federal Reserve could reign in liquidity by raising interest rates or pulling liquidity out of the system. Yet other worries: rising inflation down the pike, a further weakening of the dollar (leading to an exit of foreign capital from the U.S. markets), and the ominous implications of the Denver terrorist plot. Money manager Manny Weintraub of Integre Advisors, which runs $280 million of assets, raises another concern. At some point, he says, the Obama stimulus will be gone and the economy will have to stand on its own legs. Still, he's a steadfast bull, noting there's a lot of buying power still to come into the market even though he feels it's overbought. (Some economists argue that without another stimulus, the economic recovery will soon go the way of the black and white TV set). In any event, Weintraub argues "the market trend is up," and he expects another 5% to 10% gain before year end. "If a new client gave me $10 million, I would put 50% of it into the market immediately," he says. Weintraub, who tells me he's up 60% this year in his concentrated portfolio (the firm's 15 top stocks), focuses on out-of-favor names. His current three best bets: Kroger, Bridgeport Education and Yahoo. Geopolitical crises are generally ignored by most market pros. Not so Weintraub, who made a point of citing them as a distinct market risk. In particular, he pointed to the danger related to such countries as Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Another bull, San Francisco money manager Gary Wollin of Gary Wollin & Co., which sports asssets of just above $100 million, has mixed feelings about the market. Near term, he sees about a 5% to 10% pullback, reasoning "the market has come too far too fast." Still, based on an improving economy, he thinks little by little this is a good time to come into the market. There's enormous money out there to fuel a continued rally, he says, and at some point the scared investor will no longer be scared. Wollin sees that fright easing next year as a number of well-publicized problems linger, but begin to diminish in the face of a peppier economy. Chief among those problems: loads of adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) will be reset at higher rates. Likewise, the recent cash for clunkers initiative should steal a good chunk of next year's auto sales, commercial real estate difficulties will take their economic toll, and unemployment, a lagging economic indicator, should continue to rise for another quarter or two. As these and other problems begin to dissipate, Wollin expects investors to flock back to the stock market. And by the end of next year, he figures, the Dow (now at 9665) should reach the 12,000 level. His three favorite stocks for the next 12 months are Intel, Cisco Systems and ExxonMobil. Joan Lappin, head of Gramercy Capital Management (about $20 million of assets) also sees stocks headed to the upside. Boosting her confidence are growing signs the consumer is willing to shop again, renewed zip in the commodities market, the likelihood of no near-term increase in interest rates and the probability that third-quarter earnings report will not be as terrible as originally expected. Lappin sees a computer upgrade cycle ahead and favors such beneficiaries as Nvidia, a maker of graphic solutions for computers, and Dell. Rounding out her top three picks is Cablevision. Her big worry: "Third-quarter reports will have to show revenue increases; "we have to progress beyond earnings increasing solely on cutting costs or earnings being less terrible than we thought," she says, "or the market will stall and the rally will become suspect." The bottom line from our four bulls: Yes, the economy and the market look better, but keep your eyes open for the land mines. The bleeding could start again at any time. Write to Dan Dorfman at Dandordan@aol.com More on Financial Crisis
 
Raymond J. Learsy: Putting a Stop to Iran's Nuclear Ambitions Without Export Embargoes Top
On June 21st a Huffington Post submission (" Boycott Iran's Oil Immediatley ") called for the immediate boycott of Iran's oil. It was a seemingly draconian suggestion that was met with widespread skepticism. After all, what would happen to oil markets without Iranian oil? Well, on today CNN's State of the Union program, Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind), being interviewed by John King on the timely subject of Iran's nuclear pronouncements (or lack thereof), made a rather startling revelation. According to Senator Bayh, the Russians had informed their American interlocutors that the greatest fear of the current Iranian regime was that they would be denied access to world markets for their oil. Clearly the financial bounty generated by oil sales are key to maintaining their hold on government power and the funding of their nuclear and missile programs, not to speak of buying the loyalty of their goon militias giving them the wherewithal to terrorize their citizenry. Certainly now is the time to establish the kind of international cooperation needed to boycott Iranian oil. With recent revelations about Iran's nuclear deception, the growing and shared concerns of the major European states and a far more amenable Russia and China, the moment for an international boycott has come. The boycott would simply be a refusal to buy Iran's oil, either directly or indirectly (i.e. not lifting oil from Iranian ports nor from offshore storage facilities, nor turning a blind eye to third party exchanges). It would be analogous to boycotting Coca Cola (apologies Coca Cola) because of a nasty dispute with its management. No one buys Coke any longer. Soon their warehouse is full. Then their factories shut down. Then after a while one would hope the workers organize to oust the management so that business can carry on as before. Please recall that although Iran produces some four million barrels of oil a day, only some 2.1 million is exported. It is the one year equivalent to the of 700 million barrels plus being held in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Given the potential national crisis at hand, certainly the SPR should be considered for a strategic role in the current imbroglio. More significant, however, is the fact that currently, Saudi Arabia's excess, unused capacity is approximately 4.5 million barrels/day. That is more than twice the current exports of Iranian oil. It is probably more in the interest of Sunni Saudi Arabia to keep Shia Iran nuclear weapon free than virtually any other nation. Saudi Arabia should welcome the opportunity to play a role in defusing Iran's nuclear ambitions by declaring they will supply any and all oil to world markets caused by a consumers boycott of Iran's oil. A willing Saudi Arabia should be celebrated. An unwilling Saudi Arabia should be placed on notice that the nuclear defense umbrella proffered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (please see " Hillary Clinton's Nuclear Defense Umbrella for the Oil Price Gougers--Who Pays? ") will remain moot and tucked away in an umbrella stand in the halls of Foggy Bottom. By not buying Iran's oil the mullahs understand their sway over Iran's brave citizens will begin to crumble and the petro-potentates of Tehran will eventually have to cede governance to the Iranian masses without a foreign shot having been fired and without a blockade nor an embargo of goods and services(sanctions) having been put into place. More on CNN
 
Michael Shermer: Chill Out: An Economic Triage for Global Climate Change Top
Are you a global warming skeptic, or are you skeptical of the global warming skeptics? Your answer depends on how you answer these five questions: 1. Is the earth getting warmer? 2. Is the cause of global warming human activity? 3. How much warmer is it going to get? 4. What are the consequences of a warmer climate? 5. How much should we invest in altering the climate? Here are my answers. Global warming is real and primarily human caused. With questions 3 and 4, however, estimates include error bars that grow wider the further out we run the models because complex systems like climate are notoriously difficult to predict. I provisionally accept the estimate of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the mean global temperature by 2100 will increase by 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit, and that sea levels will rise by about one foot (about the same as they have risen since 1860). Moderate warming with moderate changes. Question 4 deserves even more skepticism. In his carefully-reasoned and politically-bipartisan book Cool It (Alfred Knopf, 2008), the "skeptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg notes that if global warming continues unchecked through the end of the century there will be 400,000 more heat-related deaths annually; there will be also be 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths, for a net gain of 1.4 million lives. This is not to say that global warming is good, only that its consequences must be weighed in the balance. For example, Lomborg sites data from the World Wildlife Fund that at most we will lose 15 polar bears a year due to global warming, but what doesn't get reported is that 49 bears are shot each year. What would be more cost-effective to save polar bear lives -- spend hundreds of billions of dollars to lower CO2 emissions and (maybe) the mean global temperature, or limit hunting permits? This leads to question 5 -- the economics of global climate change -- which I think needs a sound dose of skepticism, particularly since the collapse of our economy. Even if all countries had ratified the Kyoto Protocol and lived up to its standards (which most did not), according to the IPCC, at best it would have postponed the 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit average increase just five years from 2100 to 2105, at a cost of $180 billion a year! By comparison, although global warming may cause an increase of two million deaths due to hunger annually by 2100, the U.N. estimates that for $10 billion a year we could save 229 million people from hunger annually today. It's time for economic triage. Economics is about the efficient allocation of limited resources that have alternative uses. And after the U.S. government allocated a trillion dollars of our limited resources to shore up our flagging financial foundations, those alternative uses have never seemed so pressing. Should we (can we?) really allocate the equivalent of a Manhattan Project to lower CO2 emissions 50 percent by 2050 and 80 percent by 2100, as the IPCC recommends in order to divert disaster? My answer is no. Why? Because the potential benefits for the costs incurred are simply not warranted. If you had, say, $50 billion a year to make the world a better place for more people, how would you spend it? In 2004, Lomborg asked this question to a group of scientists and world leaders, including four Nobel laureates. This "Copenhagen Consensus," as it is called, ranked reduction of CO2 emissions 16th out of 17 challenges. The top four were: controlling HIV/AIDS, micronutrients for fighting malnutrition, free trade to attenuate poverty, and battling malaria. A 2006 Copenhagen Consensus of U.N. ambassadors constructed a similar list, with communicable diseases, clean drinking water, and malnutrition at the top, and climate change at the bottom. A late 2008 meeting that included five Nobel Laureates recommended that President-elect Barack Obama allocate his promised $150 billion in subsidies for new technologies and $50 billion in foreign aid be allocated for research on malnutrition, immunization, and agricultural technologies. For a cool Kyoto $180 billion you can buy a lot of condoms, vitamin tablets, and mosquito nets and rescue hundreds of millions of people from disease, starvation, and impoverishment. If you are skeptical of Lomborg and his branch of environmental skepticism, read the Yale University economist William Nordhaus' technical book A Question of Balance (Yale University Press, 2008). Nordhaus computes the costs-benefits of various recommendations for changing the climate by either 2105 or 2205, primarily focused on the cost of curbing carbon emissions. Economists like to compute future profits and losses based on investments made today, adjusting for the value of a future dollar at an average interest rate of four percent. If we spent a trillion dollars today (the equivalent of the recent bailout or the Iraq war), how much climate change would it buy us in a century at four percent interest? Nordhaus's calculations are compared to doing nothing, where a plus value is better and a minus value worse than doing nothing. Kyoto with the U.S. is plus one and without the U.S. zero, for example, and a gradually increasing global carbon tax is a plus three. That is, a $1 trillion cost today buys us $3 trillion of benefits in a century. Al Gore's proposals, by contrast, score a minus 21, where $1 trillion invested today in Gore's plans would net us a loss of $21 trillion in 2105. Add to these calculations the numerous other crises we face, such as the housing calamity, the financial meltdown, the coming collapse of social security and medicare, two wars, a failing public education system, etc. In my opinion we need to chill out on all extremist plans that entail expenses best described as Brobdingnagian, require our intervention into developing countries best portrayed as imperialistic, or involve state controls best portrayed as fascistic. Give green technologies and free markets a chance.
 
Roderick Spencer: Outrage from the Middle Top
It's time to carve out an area in between the screeders on the right, and the screamers on the left, in order to express some incautious outrage from here in the middle. With the usual distressed eyeroll re tea-party wingnuts, and downcast 'with friends like these' headshake at Maddow mouthers and Olberman dittoheads, let me remind the rest of us - aka. MOST PEOPLE that we don't have to spend all of our time defending, in no particular order; President Obama, Ted Kennedy's Legacy, the Democratic Party, every Environmentalist with a plan, Medicare, etc. etc. And we especially don't have to spend another minute defending Obama's
 
Julia Roberts' Indian Film Set Under Tight Security (PHOTOS) Top
(AP Text, Scroll for photos) MIRZAPUR, India — Young boys climbed trees and villagers crowded rooftops in a tiny dusty village in northern India Sunday to catch a glimpse of Academy Award winner Julia Roberts shooting her new film, "Eat, Pray, Love." Scores of policemen, armed with bamboo sticks, private guards and plainclothes security guards kept curious visitors at bay as the "Pretty Woman" star walked about the sets created at Mirzapur village, 65 kilometers (40 miles) south of the Indian capital, New Delhi. Huge black screens protected the sets from television crews and photographers. Roberts was dressed in a turquoise blue tunic and loose pajamas, the traditional clothes worn by millions of Indian women. In the film, she plays the part of an American woman who leaves behind a troubled marriage and sets out on a journey of self-discovery. Newspapers and television stations in India have been covering Roberts' every move since she arrived in India accompanied by her three children nearly 10 days ago. Security has been tight with about 50 local policemen and security officers guarding the star in the village and in the nearby small town of Pataudi, where Roberts is staying at a former palace converted into a heritage hotel. The shooting of the film began a few days ago, and started with prayers offered by a Hindu priest. The Times of India newspaper quoted the priest, Swami Dharam Dev, as saying he had given the names of Hindu gods for her three children. "I have named her twins Hazel and Phinnaeus as Laxmi and Ganesh, while Henry will be called Krishna Balram," he was quoted as saying. The movie, a Brad Pitt production, is directed by Ryan Murphy. It also stars Oscar-winner Javier Bardem, Viola Davis, Richard Jenkins and Billy Crudup. PHOTOS: More on Photo Galleries
 
Taliban's Diverse Funding Might Make It Impossible To Restrict Cash Flow Top
KABUL -- The Taliban-led insurgency has built a fundraising juggernaut that generates cash from such an array of criminal rackets, donations, taxes, shakedowns and other schemes that U.S. and Afghan officials say it may be impossible to choke off the movement's money supply. More on Afghanistan
 
Bachmann Refuses To Answer Question About Dead Census Worker Top
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) refused to answer a question this weekend on the death of a census worker in Kentucky. Bill Sparkman was found earlier this month hanged from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery had the word "fed" scrawled on his chest. The FBI has been investigating whether the killing was related to his job as a Census worker. Bachmann, who has proclaimed that she will not fill out her Census forms and suggested that the survey could lead to internment camps, did not bring up the issue at the conservative How to Take Back America Conference in St. Louis. David Weigel asked her about it but could not get an answer : I caught up to her as she headed outside and asked if she had any response to the murder of a Kentucky census worker, having noticed that the Census, a constant target for Bachmann, did not figure into her speech. Bachmann recoiled a little at the question and turned to enter her limo. "Thank you so much!" she said. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Michele Bachmann
 
William Safire Dead: Dies Aged 79 Top
NEW YORK — William Safire, the conservative columnist and word warrior who eagerly took on political figures and the English language, died Sunday at age 79. The Pulitzer Prize winner died in Maryland, assistant Rosemary Shields said. He had been diagnosed with cancer, but she declined to say when that had happened or what type of cancer he had. Safire spent more than 30 years writing on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times. In his "On Language" column in The New York Times Magazine and more than a dozen books, Safire traced the origins of words and everyday phrases such as "straw-man," "under the bus" and "the proof is in the pudding." Safire penned more than 3,000 columns, aggressively defending civil liberties and Israel while tangling with political figures. Bill Clinton famously wanted to punch the curmudgeonly columnist in the nose after Safire called his wife "a congenital liar." Shields said: "Not only was he brilliant in language and assessing the nuances of politics, he was a kind and funny boss who gave lots of credit to others." As a speechwriter in the Nixon White House, Safire penned Vice President Spiro Agnew's famous phrase, "nattering nabobs of negativism," a tongue-in-cheek alliteration that Safire claimed was directed not at the press but at Vietnam defeatists. Safire also wrote several novels and served as chairman of the Dana Foundation, a philanthropy that supports brain science, immunology and arts education. Along with George Will and William F. Buckley Jr., Safire's smooth prose helped make conservatism respectable in the 1970s, paving the way for the Reagan Revolution. Safire was a pioneer of opinionated reporting. His columns were often filled with sources from Washington and the Middle East, making them must-reads for Beltway insiders. Author Eric Alterman, in his 1999 book "Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy," called Safire an institution unto himself. "Few insiders doubt that William Safire is the most influential and respected pundit alive," Alterman wrote. Safire's scathing columns on the Carter White House budget director Bert Lance's financial affairs won him the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1978; in 1995 Safire was named to the Pulitzer board. Critics said Safire made loose accusations trumpeting various "scandals" by the Clintons that were never borne out by the facts. "Like a pioneering blogger, Safire years ago started grabbing bits of information and wrapping them in the tightest partisan, what-if spin possible," Eric Boehlert wrote in the Web site Salon in 2004. "When the accusation unraveled, he'd simply ignore the thud of his charges hitting the floor." From 2001 to 2003, Safire also published several columns pressing the case that Saddam Hussein was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks, calling it an "undisputed fact" that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in April 2001. The 9/11 commission said that meeting never happened. Safire's pun-filled "On Language" column exploring the foibles and abuses of the English language was far less controversial, winning him more admirers across the political spectrum. Safire lived in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Md., with his wife, Helene, a British-born jewelry designer; they had a son and a daughter. Safire, born Dec. 17, 1929, to a Jewish family in New York City, was the youngest of three boys. He attended Syracuse University but dropped out after two years to work as a legman for a Republican political strategist and publicist Tex McCrary, who had a column in the New York Herald Tribune. Safire started writing speeches for Nixon in 1965 and followed him to the White House. He left shortly before the Watergate break-in erupted into a full-fledged scandal. ___ Associated Press writer Derek Rose contributed to this story.
 
Daniel Bogden, Fired U.S. Attorney, Returning To Old Job Without Knowing Bush's Reasons Top
LAS VEGAS — Daniel Bogden never really got a good answer why President George W. Bush fired him from his post as U.S. attorney for Nevada in 2006. But it doesn't matter to Bogden anymore. He's got his old job back. "It's my decision to move forward as U.S. attorney and not dwell in the past," Bogden said as he prepares to become the only one of nine federal prosecutors ousted in 2006 to return to his appointed post. He expects to begin before Oct. 10. "I did not do anything wrong that merited my firing without notice," said Bogden, a 53-year-old career criminal prosecutor who measures words and their meaning and calls himself politically nonpartisan. Bush nominated him in 2001 at the suggestion of Republican U.S. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, wanted Bodgen to return to his old post to "right the wrong" of his dismissal, said Reid's spokesman, Jon Summers. President Obama gave his blessing, and the Senate confirmed Bodgen on Sept. 15. A Justice Department inspector general's investigation concluded that the 2006 purge of Bogden and top federal prosecutors in Arkansas, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Phoenix, Seattle, San Diego and San Francisco was "unsystematic and arbitrary." It blamed then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his top deputy, Paul McNulty. "We find it remarkable that Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General McNulty stated that they did not know why Bogden was being removed," the report said, adding that Bogden's ouster "demonstrates the flawed nature of their oversight of the U.S. attorney removal process." Jeffrey Stempel, a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law, called Bogden's reinstatement a positive. "All sorts of people were pretty appalled when they saw what the Bush administration was doing ... injecting political and loyalty considerations on Justice Department appointments," Stempel said. "In law enforcement, the focus should be on quality first, with things like party loyalty or politician loyalty or ideology well down the list," Stempel said. U.S. attorneys are presidential appointees who can be named and fired for any reason, or none at all. But Republicans and Democrats generally agree prosecution decisions should be nonpartisan – not influenced by political pressure. A federal prosecutor is still investigating whether Gonzales, other Bush administration officials, or Republicans in Congress should face criminal charges in the dismissals. The ousted U.S. attorney from New Mexico, David Iglesias, told the Hispanic National Bar Association annual conference in Albuquerque this month that U.S. attorneys could be appointed for six-year terms that overlap administrations to minimize the influence of politics. Iglesias has been reactivated in the Navy as a captain and is a prosecutor in the Office of Military Commissions. Bogden has been handling mostly commercial and employment law at a prominent Reno law firm. He said he still has to take the measure of the U.S. attorney staff. He had 38 prosecutors in Las Vegas and Reno when he left in January 2007, but the staff has grown to an all-time high of 52 under the man who replaced him, Gregory Brower. "The office is in very good shape," said Brower, a Republican former state assemblyman and general counsel to the federal Government Printing Office. Bogden said he never felt he had enough resources in the high-profile Las Vegas area, which has grown from about 1.4 million residents in 2000 to more than 2 million today. He termed it "a target-rich environment" for scams. Bogden's office won convictions and prison time for a strip club owner and four former Clark County Commission members in the 2006 "G-sting" political corruption case. The seven-member elected commission oversees the Las Vegas Strip and is considered one of the most powerful political bodies in the state. Bogden also acknowledged mistakes by prosecutors in another 2006 case that led to a mistrial and dismissal of federal racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud charges against three men accused of running a multimillion-dollar securities fraud. A federal appellete court upheld a lower court's ruling that U.S attorneys improperly withheld some 650 pages of documents from defense lawyers, calling it "prosecutorial misconduct in its highest form." Bogden this week noted that a Justice Department investigation concluded the misconduct was not intentional, and said that before he left the job he instituted an automated litigation support unit to assign paralegals and support staffers to cases involving voluminous documents. Bogden earned the ire of top Justice Department officials, according to the inspector general report, when he cited "severe manning and personnel shortages" and declined to assign a prosecutor from the Las Vegas office to head a task force targeting adult obscenity cases. Franny Forsman, who is nearing her 20th year as chief of the federal public defenders in Las Vegas, didn't fault Brower. But said she welcomed Bogden's return. "You need someone in that office who has visited a jail, who understands the role of defense counsel in a case," she said. Before being confirmed for his first U.S. attorney stint in October 2001, Bogden was a judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, a deputy district attorney in Reno and a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Reno. "What was different about Dan is that Dan doesn't appear to be politically ambitious," Forsman said. "I don't believe he ever approached it as a steppingstone to something else. Dan's interest has always been just prosecuting cases."
 
Obama Administration May Have Offered Romanoff A Job To Deter Senate Run: The Denver Post Top
WASHINGTON -- Not long after news leaked last month that Andrew Romanoff was determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff received an unexpected communication from one of the most powerful men in Washington.
 

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)