Thursday, October 1, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Jeff Kreisler: This Week In Cheating: Ken Lewis' Pension Top
Bank of America's Ken Lewis Gets A $53 Million Retirement Payment The Cheater Says : Guess his pension is just made up of all his employees and investors pensions. After all, what's a pension? A system wherein the employee gives the boss money for "safekeeping." Good luck with that. Might as well give your little kids to the Catholic Church for "safekeeping." You're not getting either back. Score another one for The Cheaters. -- Jeff Kreisler's first book, " Get Rich Cheating ," is a Boston Globe Bestseller and can be purchased in fine bookstores or online . "Just by reading this book you'll earn an asterisk next to your name. You'll be laughing all the way to the bank, assuming other cheaters haven't forced it into bankruptcy yet." - Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) "Catcher in the Rye for evildoers" - Penthouse Magazine "A very funny book with a very timely message." - Terry Jones (Monty Python) "This is THE book to read in the unemployment line." - Lizz Winstead (Co-creator of The Daily Show) "Laugh out loud - roaring!" - CNBC "A brilliant and brilliantly sustained satirical broadside. On just about every page, you'll find a pithy, pointed barb worthy of the late great George Carlin." - Tony Hendra (National Lampoon, Father Joe) More on Bank Of America
 
Twitter Introduces Lists To Organize Your Friends Top
According to a blog post from Twitter, a limited number of users in the coming days will be able to sort their friends into lists (much like Facebook's 'Lists' feature). Until now, users seeking more control over their followers had to use cumbersome solutions from third-party apps like TweetDeck (we love the app, but 'groups' management is still clunky). Too bad third party programs got the right idea before Twitter itself implemented group. More on Twitter
 
Anita Tedaldi: Woman Returns Adopted Child After 18-Months (VIDEO) Top
Anita Tedaldi, a woman who returned her adopted son 18-months into their relationship because she felt they hadn't bonded, appeared on the "Today Show" this morning to explain her decision. This story first came to light when Anita blogged about her situation on " Motherlode "--the New York Times parenting blog. She was accompanied on the "Today Show" by NYT editor Lisa Belkin. Anita explained in the blog that she had always wanted to adopt despite having five biological daughters. "I was attentive, and I provided D. with a good home, but I wasn't connecting with him on the visceral level I experienced with my biological daughters. And while it was easy, and reassuring, to talk to all these experts about D.'s issues, it was terrifying to look at my own," she wrote. After Anita made her decision, the adoption group found "D" a home with another family, and, according to Anita, he is doing well. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Today Show
 
Lesley Stern: How To Live On $0 A Day: Etiquette Advice For Those Who've Lost Everything But Their Manners Top
Judging by the letters from my readers, the new financial reality is creating a lot of social questions and issues that didn't exist the last time we heard from Miss Manners. I thought it might be helpful to answer some of the most common dilemmas here so everyone can benefit. HOSTESS GIFTS Dear Lesley, I usually try to avoid all social occasions because going out is just too expensive. But I've recently been invited to a lavish dinner buffet that I really want to attend. Last year they served lamb chop lollipops, shrimp, satays and an amazing array of finger food that fit neatly in the pocket and purse...I'm drooling just thinking about it. I figure if I play my cards right, this one dinner, could be a month's worth of meals. My problem is, if I don't bring a house gift, people will talk. But there's no way I can afford a bus ticket to the party AND a decent house gift. Help! --Anti-Socialite Dear Anti-Socialite, When I'm in your predicament, I always bring a lovely bouquet of fresh flowers gathered from the finest weeds in the neighborhood. My only words of warning are to read up on wild plants a little, so you don't make the same mistake I did. Last year for Bev Dwight's Labor Day clambake and barbecue, I inadvertently added some poison sumac to her bouquet (it was a nice contrast with the dandelions). I didn't get an invitation this year, and believe me, I could have used the protein. I found this helpful: Guide to recognizing poisonous plants. This guide can also be a lifesaver when foraging for food in the park. EMBARRASSING SHOPPING PROBLEMS Dear Lesley, I made the mistake of browsing in a Madison Avenue hardware store with impaired vision (I need new glasses, but can't afford them). I saw this really cute dish scrubber and put it on my card because I thought the price tag said $2.19 -- a total bargain. But then I got home and looked at the price with a magnifying glass and saw that it was $21.95!!!!! I don't need to tell you, that would buy a lot of Ramen. I'm just sick about it, but I'm embarrassed to return it. What if the sales ladies judge me? -- Sad Housewife Dear Sad Housewife, The way I see it you have two options. You can eat the expense (which is probably all you'll be eating for the next month). Keep the dish scrubber and use it as a make up brush ($21 for a good make up brush is a bargain) and avoid a confrontation. Your other choice is to bite the bullet, return the brush and risk an altercation with the sales ladies. If it were me, I'd probably keep the brush to avoid calling attention to myself at the hardware store. You never know when you'll need to shoplift there in the future. THEFT ETIQUETTE. Dear Lesley, What's the etiquette on stealing toiletries from the homes of friends, family and acquaintances? I'm going to my boyfriend's parents' house for dinner and they seem like the kind of family that would have nice toilet paper, possibly even quilted. We've only been dating a month, and I'm totally crazy about him. but I also know that any minute he could rip my heart out. If it's going to go bad, I'd hate to look back and think I missed out on free toilet paper and soap. But just in case he's the one, I've decided not to go through their medicine cabinets. But I'm really conflicted about the toilet paper and soap thing. What would you do? Thanks! --Practically in Love Dear Practically in Love, I think you already know the answer. Sooner or later he wil rip your heart out. Take everything that isn't nailed down so you don't have any regrets. OFFICE PARTIES Dear Lesley, I'm one of the lucky ones who still has a job. Unfortunately, with expenses, I'm barely breaking even. I'm hearing murmurings around the office that Shelly in human resources is pregnant again and they're going to be collecting for her baby shower. Again. Back in the days when my income actually exceeded my expenses, I chipped in to all those things gladly, even though I'm single and childless. But now it just pisses me off. That ten bucks is worth a whole 1/5th tank of gas or five bus tickets or half a prozac prescription co-payment, forgodsakes. When I think about all the gifts I bought or chipped in for over the years it drives me crazy. Heck, I've already shelled out 30 bucks on Shelly alone for her wedding and two baby showers. Aren't hand me downs good enough for her kid? That's what I've been wearing. These are tough times and I resent having to continually shell out for her life choices. I didn't ask her for a gift when my first, second and third cats had kittens. She didn't even congratulate me! I don't really KNOW Shelly, but I seriously doubt I'd like her. Clearly, she's selfish, self-centered and irresponsible. If she can't take care of her kids without asking us for a handout, maybe she shouldn't be breeding so prolifically. Aren't hand me downs from the last two kids' baby showers good enough for her kid? That's what I've been wearing. JEEEZ! Sorry for venting. Anyhow, my question is, how do I gracefully get out of donating when the time comes? I've considered tendering my resignation. It know that seems a little extreme, but that extra $10 could mean the difference between working at a profit or a loss. Not only that, but Trish in accounting is displaying signs of morning sickness. I can't take much more of this. --Barren, broke and bitter Dear Barren, Now might be a good time to get married and start your own family. Not a real marriage or family, mind you. The kind of marriage where you elope and take a nice honeymoon (right around the time of the upcoming baby showers). Then, after you receive all your wedding gifts and checks, but before he can meet your friends and family, your husband mysteriously dies. After his tragic "death" you'll be receiving a lot of casseroles and condolence gifts. It won't get you out of chipping in for the baby showers at the office, but you won't mind as much. Or you could just call in sick. THE THIRD DATE QUESTION Dear Lesley, I finally broke down and went out on a couple of dates with this guy because I was dying for a decent meal. I've agreed to a third date and I'm a little worried. My friend tells me that by accepting a third date with him, I've implicitly promised to sleep with him. The thought is almost enough to make me lose my appetite. What if I only order a burger? --Dinner Companion Dear Dinner Companion, Your friend is right. Whether it's a hamburger or oysters and Kristal, good manners dictate you'll have to sleep with him. You might as well order the oysters and Kristal (LOTS of Kristal -- it'll make the rest of the evening more palatable). Never cheapen yourself by sleeping with a guy for a hamburger. More on Satire
 
Reid Says Public Plan Will Be In Final Bill: Report Top
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who will have wide control over reconciling two versions of health care legislation in the Senate, told local constituents on Thursday that the final bill will include a public option for insurance coverage. The remarks, first reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal are destined to bring a wide smile to the faces of progressives who view the melding of health care legislation by leadership in the Senate -- and the subsequent melding between the Senate and the House versions -- as the best chance of ensuring the public option's passage. Reid had been skeptical of getting a government-run plan through Congress in recent days -- though aides say that the provision remains his personal preference. And after the defeat of two public option amendments in the Senate Finance Committee it seemed that the policy proposal was all but pronounced dead. But on Thursday Reid reportedly told a conference call of Nevadans that: "We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk." "I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," Reid added. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Joe Territo: Newark Mayor Cory Booker Bans Conan O'Brien From New Jersey Top
Newark Mayor Cory Booker knows how to take a joke. When Conan O'Brien poked fun at Newark last week, Booker responded with a YouTube video in which he banned O'Brien from Newark Liberty International Airport. That video apparently got a lot of attention, and politicians like attention. So Booker made another video, in which he has banned Conan from all of New Jersey. See the video and read more from The Star-Ledger on NJ.com . More on Conan O'Brien
 
Chicago Olympics Bid Looms Large For Embattled USOC Top
COPENHAGEN — They shelved long-awaited plans for a TV network after only a month, and made nice with International Olympic Committee members who think they're hogging the piggy bank. They even smoothed things over with the disgruntled staffers in their own organization. U.S. Olympic Committee leaders are on their best behavior as the host city vote for the 2016 Summer Games approaches Friday. If Chicago wins, a lot of the USOC's problems become more manageable. If Chicago loses, well, it's going to be a bumpy next few months, with tricky financial issues and questions of direction likely coming to the forefront. "What having the games in your country does, it enables you to go down a path where you can just create further opportunity for programs, for legacy building, for building international relationships, for the United States to demonstrate our commitment to the Olympic movement," said Stephanie Streeter, the USOC's acting CEO. The USOC's relationship with the Euro-centric IOC (almost half of the 106 members are European) is always a delicate thing. The IOC needs the United States – its biggest chunk of revenue comes from NBC's $2.2 billion broadcasting deal for 2010 and 2012 – and resents that it does. There also is lingering anger over the Salt Lake City bid scandal and, until recently, the USOC's history of acting more like a patrician than a partner. Add in the USOC's propensity for dysfunction – it went through six presidents and CEOs from 2000 to 2003 – and it's hardly a surprise the two bodies have had personality clashes recently. "In international sport, one of the hallmarks of it, for better or for worse, is the stability of the leadership," said Dick Pound, a longtime IOC member from Canada. "A lot of the folks in leadership positions have been there for a long time, so it's a mystery to some to have this revolving door in the United States." The main issue between the two bodies is money. The IOC shares revenue from its top sponsorship program and TV deals with the 205 national committees. The USOC currently receives 20 percent of the sponsorship money and 12.75 percent of the TV cash, and there is a lot of point-counterpoint as to why those figures are fair or unfair. It's been a flashpoint for years, getting so contentious earlier in 2009 that it threatened to derail Chicago's bid. Streeter and USOC chairman Larry Probst managed to negotiate a truce, agreeing to consider paying several million dollars to the IOC in the short term in exchange for delaying further talks until 2013. But the issue is far from settled. Should Chicago get the games, the USOC will be able to operate from a position of strength. Negotiations for U.S. TV rights for 2014 and 2016 will begin after the vote, and it's safe to say games in Chicago would be an attractive property to American broadcasting companies. In fact, media mogul Rupert Murdoch recently indicated that Fox wouldn't submit a bid unless the 2016 Games were in Chicago. Corporate sponsorships would likely be higher for a U.S. games, too. Former USOC chairman Peter Ueberroth said last year that revenues have gone up every time the games have been on U.S. soil, the logic being that American advertisers will pay more for an Olympics in their backyard. "It's a huge win financially, from a sponsorship standpoint," current USOC chairman Larry Probst agreed. If the games go to Rio or Madrid or Tokyo, however, the IOC could force the revenue issue again, knowing it will be getting more money from those markets and less from the United States. Then there's the question of influence. After almost 17 years with a seat on the powerful IOC executive board, the United States lost its spot in February 2006 in the post-Salt Lake City fallout. There was a long stretch in which building relationships with other IOC members simply wasn't a priority. Robert Fasulo, who took over as the organization's chief of international relations in February 2006, remembers going to the Asian Games that year and talking to a Lebanese Olympic official who, in 11 years, had never before met with a USOC member. Fasulo and Bob Ctvrtlik, the USOC's vice chair for international relations, have made strides to change that. Earlier this month, for example, the USOC announced it would again offer a training program for coaches from around the world. "It's a big world, we still have a lot of work to do and we can't do it all in a day," Fasulo said. "But I think we have made progress, and we're going to continue to do the work." Hosting a games would accelerate the process. "It would offer us a huge opportunity to build on what we've already done," Fasulo said. Then there's the simmering tensions back home. After going through CEOs and presidents like Kleenex in the early part of the decade – including two who were swept out in the USOC's own ethics scandal – the USOC found relative stability under the leadership of Ueberroth and CEO Jim Scherr, a former Olympic wrestler who was well-liked in the movement. But Ueberroth stepped down last fall, and the transition has been, to put it mildly, messy. Scherr was dumped in March and replaced by Streeter, a move openly questioned by leaders of the national governing bodies. While everyone is saying the right things now, it's not clear this is a permanent truce. Bring the games back to the United States for the first time since 1996, though, and it will be hard to argue with the direction Probst and Streeter have taken the USOC. "This is our long-term commitment," Fasulo said. "We have to be able to demonstrate we're just not the words but have actions behind the words and we believe in this. And we believe in this for the right reasons. "Chicago offers that opportunity." More on Olympics
 
Andy Ostroy: OMG, My 82-Year-Old Mother Just Friended Me On Facebook! Top
What do you do when your 82-year-old Jewish mother from Long Island sends you a friend request on Facebook? My first instinct is to take my laptop up to the roof and toss it off the building like an oversized Frisbee. Quickly. And cancel my Internet service. And never look back. My second instinct is to simply click "accept" and hope for the best. So I wonder now just what my Facebook relationship with mom is going to look like. Will I be receiving embarrassing status updates like, "Mildred is rinsing her dentures now?" Or, "Mildred just had a nice glass of tea?" Or maybe I'm going to be invited to her senior citizen's rec-room parties, or be forced to read the results of her "Which Sex Symbol Am I" test. Oy. Here's a very funny, and highly appropriate, video making the 'net rounds. It's about Twitter and why it's perfect for Jewish mothers. Perhaps it'll now apply to my Facebook life as well. Yeah, ma, I'm wearing my sweater...... More on Twitter
 
The Media Consortium: Daily Pulse: I Heart My Socialist Kidney [Audio Exclusive] Top
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger Lindsay Beyerstein interviews Jennifer Nix: Listen here. Nix is a journalist and the publisher of Guernica Magazine . She published an essay in Salon this week about her personal and political history with single-payer health care titled " I Love My Socialist Kidney ." To most Americans, single-payer health care seems like political science fiction; a bold idea that could never happen here. Most people don't realize that the U.S. already has single-payer options for certain groups of people. The familiar examples are Medicare (for the aged) and Medicaid (for the poor). My guest Jennifer Nix knows first hand about another group of Americans who get single payer health care: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who need dialysis or kidney transplants. In 2008, Nix learned that she had inherited the same cystic kidney disease that nearly killed her father in the early seventies. In 1972, Wayne Nix was a young schoolteacher with two small children, a new mortgage, and renal failure. Dialysis was astronomically expensive and private insurers refused to cover patients with ESRD. Luckily for the Nix family, activists successfully lobbied to create Medicare ESRD, a program that has since helped over 1 million Americans survive with ESRD since 1973, regardless of their ability to pay. Amazingly, the program enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the seventies. It was assumed that covering ESRD patients was just a stop-gap to tide them over until universal health care covered everyone. Even Republican president Richard Nixon was on board with the idea. As we all know, we're still waiting for universal health care. Luckily, when Jennifer Nix found out she needed a kidney transplant, the Medicare ESRD was still there for her. If single-payer works for one disease, Nix argues, why shouldn't all Americans enjoy the same health security? This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care and is free to reprint. Visit Healthcare.newsladder.net for a complete list of articles on health care affordability, health care laws, and health care controversy. For the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.Newsladder.net and Immigration.Newsladder.net . This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder . More on Health Care
 
Solar Panel Importers Hit By $70 Million In Suprise Tariffs Top
Companies that import solar panels to the United States are facing up to $70 million in unexpected tariffs. The bill comes at a time when the industry is already struggling and could hurt both foreign solar panel makers and foreign and American distributors. More on Green Energy
 
Ronald B. Robinson: Democrat Alan Grayson 'Calls Out Lying Repubs on CNN': Follow His Lead! Top
Take Note, Take Note Oh World! - Democrat Alan Grayson "calls out lying Repugs on CNN" - and truth tellers and seekers the world over must study him and follow his lead! This video is the real deal. Congressman Grayson tells it like it is and the way it needs to be told. His approach represents the prototype of how to promote a positive agenda and take on the U.S. Republichinis, as well as the fascist movement -- whether in the US, Italy, or elsewhere. It's also what Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain" has long been advocating for. And the CNN punks who tried to beat Grayson down never did this to the Republicans during all of their lying, predatory, death threatening, unethical actions, which continue to this very second. Grayson stood his ground against this onslaught of hypocrisy...and CNN needs to be taken to task for it. Especially since CNN spawned Glenn Beck and give refuge to Lou Dobbs who daily dishes out the Republichini lies and lines like he was an outpost for Fox "Fact Free" News on "Americas Most Trusted Name in News." Please study the vids and spread them around. I am adding the video of his comments on the floor of the Congress as well (shown on Keith Olbermann, including Keith's and Arianna Huffington's Commentary) since it also represents a prototype for how to confront Republichini predators and their predatory politics and economics. We need to rename the GOP the "Nagger Party" since it seems all these naggers do is nag. They've become nothing but a bunch of naysaying naggers with nothing to say but "NO!" Being progressives and promoting a positive agenda of Socio-Spiritual Liberation and Joyful Justice doesn't mean being wimpy. Nor do we need to seek a disembodied, abstract, "moral highground" when confronting these predators and naggers with their ACORN fetish . In other words, we don't need to pursue or preserve a fake image and idol of what it means to be progressive, positive, spiritual, and/or advocate Oneness and Unity - seeking security in platitudes and a false sense of spiritual or intellectual superiority. No! We need to be positively SPIRITED in the face of falsity and assert the truth with vigor and verve, seizing the joy of that moment without bitterness... like the cat in this video who finds a new way to drink and enjoy water while listening to some good jazz :-) and like Grayson. Come on folks. Lets follow Grayson's lead and get this done! More on Glenn Beck
 
Kofi Annan And Duran Duran's Climate Change Anthem (VIDEO) Top
Kofi Annan teams up with Duran Duran and other musicians to call for action against climate change with this video . The track acts as a petition and if you download it for free on itunes , it's like giving your signature to support the cause. Have a look and a listen. We'd love to hear what you think! Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter! More on Climate Change
 
Jim Gibbons: Goodwill Is Rad Top
I'm neither hip enough nor young enough to know where today's hottest young rock stars shop for their clothes. If I had to guess, I suppose I would think of New York City's trendiest boutiques or Beverly Hills' most expensive designer stores. Turns out, that at least in the case of one super-star rock band, I'd be wrong. I read recently that Paramore , the Grammy-nominated, pop-punk band, (I'll admit it--if it weren't for the teenagers living in my house, I would be oblivious to most of today's pop culture. I am confident that right now, wherever they are, my kids are rolling their eyes at me) do their shopping at a much more down-to-earth location: the Franklin, Tennessee Goodwill Store. In fact, when asked by MTV about her shopping habits at her hometown Goodwill store, Hayley Williams, the band's lead 20 year-old singer, explained: "When our band first started, we would always come and shop here for random outfits, little photo shoots that we had to do. One time in particular, we were shooting a Christmas card -- my mom took the photo -- and we came here and got sweaters and little Christmas candles and stuff. But more recently, for our album artwork, we picked up the props at this Goodwill.....a lot of little random gadgets that you can see in our artwork -- we got them all here. This place is rad." Of course, Williams may not realize that when she's picking up discarded Christmas sweaters or knickknacks to photograph for album artwork, she's also supporting programs for at-risk youth and job training their families. Goodwill is rad! Lots of people (in fact, millions) know that Goodwill is pretty great. More than 2300 Goodwill stores offer affordable, gently-used clothing and fund community-based job training and employment services to people facing challenges. Though Goodwill is more than 100 years old, Haley's comments demonstrate that Goodwill continues to be an innovative solution for shoppers of all ages and communities throughout the U.S. and Canada. When Hayley and her bandmates, and the millions of other teenagers, professionals and moms and dads, buy the coolest new outfits at their hometown Goodwill stores, they are supporting programs and services that assist people from all walks of life and strengthen the communities we live in. I think that's pretty rad! Thank you to Haley Williams and Paramore, and to the millions of other Goodwill fans (the young and old, the hip and the decidedly un-hip). As Haley makes clear, one person's donations are another shopper's inspiration, and more importantly, a community's opportunity. When I go home tonight I'm downloading Paramore's new album, Brand New Eyes. (Now if only my kids would stop rolling their eyes...).
 
Controversial South African Ad Melds Hitler And James Dean Top
South Africa's CNA Stores decided having just one celebrity's image on their latest ad was just not enough. Instead, as AdFreak reports , they decided to meld the faces of Adolph HItler and James Dean into a disturbing image that graces some of their new ad materials If you can believe it, CNA's Hitler-Dean ad is actually just the first in a series. Also, in the campaign are ads that combine the faces of John Lennon and Albert Einstein (John Einstein); Prince Charles and Buddy Holly (Prince Holly); Queen Elizabeth II and Mother Teresa (Queen Teresa); and Bill Gates and Elvis Presley. Finally, there's our personal favorite, a mash-up of Elvis Presley and Bill Gates ( Bill Presley ). The ad is sure to generate its share of outrage - and it's actually not the first Hitler-Dean spot. AdFreak put it this way: "Advertolog credits the work to ad agency Jupiter Drawing Room (Jhb), which should be getting outraged calls any minute, if past reaction to Hitler-themed ads is any indication." AdFreak has a gallery of all of the portraits here . What do you think? Is the Hitler-James Dean ad offensive? VOTE below. Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter ! More on South Africa
 
Sharmine Narwani: Netanyahu's 'Shame' And The Fiction He Weaves Top
Almost a week after the UN General Assembly speeches by various heads of state, where one statement after another was dissected and laid bare by the thousands of reporters and analysts covering the annual plenary session, one speech has almost universally been ignored. And something rankles. "Have you no shame," thundered Benjamin Netanyahu to the throngs of senior diplomats, heads of state and assorted dignitaries watching the Israeli prime minister admonish those who remained in the room when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered his speech a day earlier. Shame, indeed. This, from the leader of a nation that has a pitiful human rights record, standing accused by a United Nations body for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. A country that has an illicit stash of weapons of mass destruction which it refuses to subject to international scrutiny of any sort. A state whose very existence seems possible only through the systemic persecution of the non-Jewish population under its protection. Break down Netanyahu's speech and you have more fiction than fact, albeit fiction that has very adeptly been spun by successive Israeli governments into the lexicon of our political language. "For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks," accused Netanyahu, before the very audience he scorned in his speech. Fact: Between 2005 and 2007, Palestinian groups in Gaza fired about 2,700 rockets into Israel. Israel fired more than 14,600 artillery shells into Gaza during this same period, a statistic Israeli government officials always seem to omit. But the essence of Netanyahu's fiction remains that Palestinians, and specifically the resistance group Hamas, are the ones who initiate armed conflict. In a far-reaching and exhaustive study of the issue, MIT Scientist Nancy Kanwisher tracked the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians and Israelis by the other between September 2000 and October 2008. In an article right here on the Huffington Post , she draws some telling conclusions about ceasefires, lulls in conflict, and resumption of hostilities between the two sides: "It is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict: 79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern -- in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause -- becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days." Kanwisher's data goes on to contest the assumption popular with American and Israeli politicians that Hamas broke the ceasefire leading up to Israel's brutal December 2008 Gaza onslaught: "The ceasefire was remarkably effective: after it began in June 2008, the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero, and stayed there for four straight months...what happened to end this striking period of peace? On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire." But Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was just getting started, and with all the righteous indignation he could muster, proclaimed: "In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza." Oh. The withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated territories in the world, had become an impoverished hell-hole that nobody wanted to deal with - or that daily confrontations with Palestinian resistance groups and, well, school kids hurling rocks, had taken a toll on the battered Israeli Defense Forces. "Disengagement" from Gaza achieved several other objectives too. It reduced the growing non-Jewish demographic problem for Israel, and freed up resources to focus on carving up the West Bank and significantly increasing the population of Jewish settlers there. But again, the devil is in the details. Lost in the media euphoria over Israeli troops rolling out of occupied Palestinian territory, a vital fact was overlooked: the occupation of Gaza never actually ended. According to the United Nations, the US State Department, Amnesty International and a whole slew of other NGOs, Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. It "retains sole control of Gaza's airspace and territorial waters and does not allow any movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza via air or sea," says Amnesty International . And we have seen how often and easily the IDF tanks roll in and out at will. Back at the General Assembly podium, Netanyahu's fiction-spinning tirade was reaching a fevered pitch - the crux of his message, the thing that Israel most fears. Understand now, that the Jewish state's raison d'etre has always been based on the mass persecution and genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany - the nation was a gift, so to speak, to the victims who deserved a break. So what would happen if, even for an instant, the entire international community catches a view of Israel outside the parameters of victimhood, an image, if shattered, that could undermine its very premise as a safe haven for the persecuted? Never say. Netanyahu's two-fold mission at the UN last Thursday was firstly to whip up animosity against Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his alleged nuclear weaponization program, and secondly, to neutralize the damaging effects of the Goldstone Report on Israel's three-week military adventure into the Gaza Strip earlier this year. Selected by the UN High Commission for Human Rights to conduct an investigation into "Operation Cast Lead," Israel's code name for the Gaza War, Richard Goldstone was ideal for the role in part because he is a Jew, an acknowledged Zionist, and importantly, the well-respected former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In other words, beyond reproach. In a September 15 press release introducing his 574-page report , Justice Goldstone concluded that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity." Netanyahu at the UN: "Faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. " He fails to mention that given ample opportunity to participate in the investigation, his government not only refused, but also denied the Mission access to both Israel and the West Bank for interviews related to the inquiry. Palestinian authorities in both the West Bank and Gaza cooperated. The damning parts of the report undermine entirely Israel's assertions to the international community about its conflict with Gaza, Palestinians and Hamas. It states that "in the lead up to Israel's assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip." So much for disengagement. "Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way," claims Netanyahu. But Goldstone's Mission found instead "that the following grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by Israeli forces in Gaza: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." The Report continues: "The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them , and not the result of occasional lapses." Furthermore, "There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population." Yet with no hint of embarrassment whatsoever, Netanyahu insisted, ""Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians - Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers." Ah, yes. Human shields. During the carnage, our media and our politicians belted out the Israeli propaganda line that "barbaric" Hamas was using its own population as human shields. Instead, it turns out "the Mission investigated several incidents in which Israeli armed forces used local Palestinian residents to enter houses which might be booby trapped or harbour enemy combatants (this practice, known in the West Bank as "neighbour procedure", was called "Johnnie procedure" during the military operations in Gaza)." And so on and so forth. Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel once before - from 1996 to 1999 - has had a history of scandal plague him in office, even an indictment for which he was later acquitted. Former Clinton White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart, in his book "The Truth About Camp David" calls the Israeli prime minister, "one of the most obnoxious individuals you're going to come into - just a liar and a cheat. He could open his mouth and you could have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth." Netanyahu replaced former PM Ehud Olmert, who was brought down by corruption allegations, and indicted on three charges this past August. And that, just a month before former Israeli President Moshe Katsav's trial for rape and other sex crimes got underway. The apple is rotten at its core. The international community must turn the cries of "shame" back on Israel and its human rights record. And the US administration, which stands so staunchly behind Israel at every turn, must play fair with the Goldstone Report if it is to maintain any credibility in the Middle East as it attempts to launch yet another round of peace talks. More on Gaza War
 
Democrats Move Swiftly To Trash Pawlenty Top
Democrats moved swiftly on Thursday to frame potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty as a political creature cut from the same cloth as George W. Bush and the rest of the GOP. Just hours after news broke that the Minnesota governor was setting the stage for a White House run with a new leadership PAC and a host of new advisers, officials at the Democratic National Committee peppered reporters with opposition research and acid-laced quotes. The committee's press secretary, Hari Sevugan, accused Pawlenty of "recycling advisers from George W. Bush and relying on Washington insiders and lobbyists" to propel his political career. The push continued late into the afternoon, when the DNC sent over copy of a new web video, in which it went through the list of T-Paw advisers, tying each one either to the Bush administration or the 2008 McCain campaign. Coming more than three years before the votes will be cast, these early 2012 salvos are at once remarkable and a reminder that election season truly never ends. Clearly, Pawlenty's camp sees the benefit to getting an infrastructure in place early in the 2012 process - perhaps calculating that two other potential primary opponents, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, already have national recognition. Likewise, the DNC -- either driven by concern with a Pawlenty bid or simply sensing that the governor's a blank slate for many voters -- certainly sees profit in framing his candidacy in a negative light. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Jenny Darroch: What Do Social Media and the Printing Press Have in Common? Top
Alex Carey suggested that the 20th Century was "characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting the corporate power against democracy". To me, the first decade of the 21st Century will be remembered for the historic election of President Obama, the public distrust of large corporations and their brands as a consequence of the financial crisis and ensuing recession, and the role of social media in giving a voice back to the people. Just as the printing press of 1440 enabled democracy in the West, so too has social media enhanced the democratic process today, given a voice back to the people and restored the balance of power between governments and/or corporations and the masses. I want to focus the rest of this discussion on how social media can restore the balance of power between organizations and its customers, which then provides the potential to restore trust in brands and the organizations who own brands. I will do this by relating my discussion to the five principles of democracy: 1. Freedom of speech, debate and democracy: traditional mass communication channels involve one-way communication between the organization and its customers. Customers can become aggrieved that the organization has lost touch with customer needs and somehow doesn't value the importance of individual customers in keeping the organization afloat (remember: "customers are the reason you are in business"). With social media, consumers can communicate freely between themselves, seek recommendations from people they trust and/or people who position themselves as opinion leaders, and they can freely give opinions back to the organization. 2. Popular democracy: traditionally organizations have shaped and controlled their own messages, for example, messages about the brand and its value proposition. One characteristic of social media is that it is consumer generated. While many marketing managers fear losing control of the brand message, there are benefits with consumer generated media in that it provides rich insights for marketing managers, immediate feedback from the market on any aspect of its product, brand and marketing strategy, and quick identification of problems or misinformation. For consumers, one advantage is that they can mobilize and then put pressure on an organization to change a product, policy or part of the way in which the product is delivered to consumers. 3. Open accountable and diverse media: mass media should be open and transparent so that we can identify the source of news and individual, corporate or government agendas. In addition, mass media should be sufficiently diverse such that monopolies do not develop and dominate opinion. While on-going mergers and acquisitions can create an oligopoly structure within the communications industry, with social media the messages are many and not controlled by a few. 4. Economic democracy for the people: with this principle, power is decentralized and smaller communities can form. Social media has not changed the desire of consumers to join a club or community; it has simply made it easier for brand communities to form and consumers to engage. 5. Equality before the law: social media removes any hierarchy and allows consumers to be treated as equally important. What this means is that an organization does not know whether a consumer generated comment comes from say a small or large customer, or a recent or lapsed customer. Rather, the organization has to treat each customer comment as equally important. What does all this mean for marketing managers? There is plenty of evidence to show just how social media can facilitate the democratic process: think back to the election of President Obama, or the recent election in Iran. These examples also provide rich evidence of the willingness of the masses (or in the context of this post, consumers), to be heard. Yet, we know that many organizations struggle to know what to do with social media - for example, only 15% of Fortune 500 companies maintain a blog and most of these blogs are hosted within the organization's website. The low incidence of Fortune 500 blogs is likely to be a reflection of a generation gap (that is, the Chief Marketing Officers who make strategic marketing decisions being unfamiliar with terms such as Facebook, blogs, posts and Twitter) and an overwhelming fear of the consequences of losing control of the brand message. In addition, and at a time when organizations need to be more accountable for marketing expenditure and make more efficient decisions on how to allocate scarce marketing resources, social media poses substantive challenges because it is difficult to demonstrate a return on marketing investment for something so new, something for which we talk about "best known practice" not "best practice". But, times have changed and like it or not, social media is here to stay. Social media is not as a replacement for traditional media but should be seen as a compliment, as part of an integrated marketing communications strategy. To me what is interesting is watching different organizations embrace social media, leaders who are willing to learn and experiment in order to shape best practice, and be brave enough to recognize that they can no longer completely control the brand message. Jenny Darroch is on the faculty at the Drucker School of Management. She is an expert on marketing strategies that generate growth. See www.MarketingThroughTurbulentTimes.com
 
Hickenlooper Budget Cuts Run Into City Council Opposition Top
Denver City Council members expressed concern Wednesday over Mayor John Hickenlooper's plan to transfer management of four city recreation centers to nonprofits and his proposal to slash library hours.
 
Progressives Push Pelosi On Public Option Top
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus met with House Democratic leaders Thursday afternoon to reiterate their commitment to a strong public option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates. In her weekly press briefing Thursday morning, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she still personally supports the "robust" option but did not commit to its inclusion in the final bill. "We don't intend to move forward without a public option in our bill," Pelosi said. "What form that will take, I don't know." The progressive caucus has been whipping its members to find out how committed the bloc is to oppose any bill without a public option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates. CPC leaders delivered the tally, which co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) described as "significant," to leadership at the meeting. Co-chair Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said "the great majority of our caucus" stands behind a public plan that would reimburse at a rate 5 percent above Medicare, rather than a public option that must negotiate with insurers on its own. "We're not on negotiated rates," Woolsey said. Progressives said they believe their position is pretty clear. "We're just reaffirming what we say over and over again," Grijalva said. "We plan on Medicare plus five. There's a great deal of caucus support for it. They asked us to do this count, and we provided it." The discussion didn't end there, however. "No decision's been made," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a CPC member himself and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who had to bargain with conservative Blue Dog Democrats on his committee for a weaker public option with negotiated rates. Woolsey said she hopes to see a draft of the final House bill coalesce next week, but Progressive Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the latter of whom co-chairs the leadership steering committee, said no dates are certain. "They're not at that point," Waters said. In the meantime, some members are looking at a proposal from Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) for state-run public plans. Given that the federal health reforms on the table wouldn't take effect until 2013, "I've just been saying that I think we ought to be doing some pilots in that three-year period in order to see what best practices can be developed," Clyburn said, claiming that he's heard "a lot of receptivity" among Congressional Democrats. Progressives told the Huffington Post they were somewhat skeptical of Clyburn's proposal -- and a similar one offered by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) -- but many said they'd reserve judgment until they saw more details. "People are going to try to ferret out how it could work," DeLauro said. Single-payer crusader Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said he'd consider supporting any amendment that strengthens the ability of states to create a single-payer system, but he was unsure whether or not state-run public options would do so. Clyburn said he has not asked the White House to opine on a state-run public option proposal. "That's not my job," he said. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she expects President Obama to join Pelosi in pushing for cost reduction. "I feel confident that the White House will weigh in on a bill that makes health care affordable for the middle class," she said. "That's the Speaker's litmus test, I think that'll be his litmus test, and he will weigh in." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Nancy Pelosi
 
Richard Walden: Earthquake and Tsunami Strike Samoa: Aid Starts To Flow Top
Operation USA to send emergency medical aid to American and Western Samoa following earthquake and resulting tsunami Waves and quake bring devastation across the islands; Total loss of life still being assessed. LOS ANGELES, CA (September 30, 2009)-- Los Angeles-based International relief agency Operation USA announced today that it will send medical aid to both American and Western Samoa as part of the relief efforts following the tsunami that hit yesterday. President Obama has declared the situation a major disaster. At least 100 people are believed to have died and many more injured in the Pacific island nations of Samoa and Tonga after the powerful deep ocean earthquake and the tsunami waves that followed. Countless people are displaced from their homes with extensive damage to buildings throughout. The relief group is appealing for donations of funds from the public and corporate donations in bulk of health care materials, water purification supplies and food supplements which it will ship to the region from its base in the Port of Los Angeles. How to help: Donate online at www.opusa.org, by phone at 1.800.678.7255 or, by check made out to Operation USA, 3617 Hayden Ave, Suite A, Culver City, CA 90232. About Operation USA: Operation USA is an international relief agency that helps communities at home and abroad overcome the effects of disasters, disease and endemic poverty by providing privately-funded relief, reconstruction and development aid. Since 1979, the Los Angeles-based Operation USA has worked in 99 countries, delivering over $350 million for relief and development projects. Operation USA continues today to work on long-term projects as a result of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. The agency received over $4 million in donations from private citizens, corporations and foundations. Over $12 million more in products and transportation was also donated. Operation USA's extensive experience in Asia resulted in quickly mobilizing partners on the ground. Projects were funded in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand and India. Operation USA remains an active and dedicated part of the long-term recovery process, and numerous projects continue in a large number of these communities. Learn more at www.opusa.org
 
Obama: Iran Must Let Inspectors Into Nuclear Plant, "Our Patience Is Not Unlimited" Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Thursday called landmark nuclear talks with Iran a constructive beginning, then challenged Tehran to match words with deeds by giving international inspectors "unfettered access" to a previously secret uranium enrichment plant within two weeks. "Talk is no substitute for action," Obama said at the White House after talks ended earlier in the day in Switzerland. "Our patience is not unlimited." If Iran fails to live up to its promises of cooperation, "then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely and we are prepared to move toward increased pressure," the president warned. His reference to pressure was an allusion to tougher U.N. and other sanctions already under discussion. But Obama said that if Iran follows through with concrete steps "there is a path to a better relationship" with the United States and the international community. "Going forward, we expect to see swift action," Obama said. Several times he called on Iran to take "concrete steps," signaling his intention to keep pressure on Iran until it follows through on promises. Obama's comments were sharper and more specific than those earlier in the day by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said the talks had "opened the door" to potential progress on clarifying Iran's nuclear ambitions. But, striking a cautious tone, Clinton said in Washington it remained to be seen whether the Iranians would act decisively to address concerns about their intentions. The U.S. concern, shared by many other nations, is that Iran may be using its declared nuclear facilities – which it asserts are intended only for peaceful purposes – as cover for building a nuclear weapon. Obama said Iran should act in two areas to alleviate those concerns, and he implied that the country was on the right track. The first is what Obama called transparency. He said Iran must open the doors within two weeks to a newly disclosed facility near the city of Qom that is intended to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel. The senior European Union envoy at the talks, Javier Solana, told reporters that based on Iran's response on Qom he expected that they would grant access to international inspectors in "a couple of weeks." The second area where Obama urged Iranian action is building international confidence in the peaceful nature of the nuclear program. In this regard he said Iran had agreed in principle to ship low-enriched uranium to a third country to further process the material for use in a research reactor in Tehran. "We support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power," Obama said. "Taking the step of transferring its low-enriched uranium to a third country would be a step toward building confidence that Iran's program is in fact peaceful." Thursday's meeting, at a villa on Lake Geneva, marked the first time the United States and Iran have engaged in direct talks since the 1979 Iranian revolution. In April 1980 the U.S. severed formal diplomatic relations with Tehran. During a break in Thursday's talks between Iran and six world powers – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany – the lead U.S. negotiator, Undersecretary of State William Burns, had a rare face-to-face meeting with the Iranian delegate. Officials said Burns amplified the U.S. view of Iran's responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and urged Iran to take swift action to resolve the cases of three Americans who have been detained in Tehran since their arrest in late July for illegally entering the country from Iraq. State Department spokesman Ian C. Kelly said Burns also raised the case of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who went missing in Iran in 2007 while working as a private consultant. Earlier, Clinton said that at the talks "there were a number of issues raised, put on the table, and now we have to wait and see how quickly – and whether – Iran responds." She did not specify the issues or speak in detail about how Iran should respond. Clinton said she got a rundown on the substance of the talks in a telephone call from Burns. "It was a productive day, but the proof of that has not yet come to fruition, so we'll wait and continue to press our point of view and see what Iran decides to do," Clinton said. Asked whether the U.S. strategy of offering more direct dialogue with Iran was paying off, she said more than gestures and discussions are required. "I will count it as a positive sign when it moves from gestures and engagements to actions and results," she said. More on Nuclear Weapons
 
Nick Mwaluko: Try a Little Tenderness: Americans Give During Tough Times Top
"Strung out" is how Adam Kersten describes the homeless man who he sees every afternoon for lunch at his local deli. "We eat together then chat outside the deli while he tells me all kinds of stories. I never ask questions about his personal life or go there unless he wants to talk about that, which he rarely does." Kersten, a nurse based in Seattle, says the man frequented the deli in business suits when Adam first moved to Seattle nearly four years ago. Then he went missing for two years only to show up at the deli thinner, tired, anxious, restless. The next time Adam saw him, he had a sign strapped to his neck that read: "Give me money because my penis is small." "It was written to make people laugh--which it did, so they gave him money for their entertainment. But I couldn't help thinking there was a human being behind that sign, as self-deprecating and self-evasive as the sign tried to be," Adam says. Turns out he had lost his job, home, and marriage when the economy crumbled, traveled two years in search of work, food, and a place to sleep at night, and returned to Seattle when all hope was lost. Adam has a deep passion for giving and shared his resources, however limited. Adam's sensitivity to his friend's tragic circumstance informs his charity, an approach that doesn't undermine but celebrates humanity by making no assumptions. "If he shows up, I buy lunch; if not, I'll wait for him. Every day," Adam says. No question Americans have a solid reputation for giving in international circles. Peace Corps volunteers live in villages among communities throughout the world, adding manpower in support of local initiatives. No question Americans give most generously to those most in need. In late December 2004, when a tsunami devastated most land masses off the Indian Ocean, killing nearly 230,000 people in eleven countries, America was quick to pledge hundreds of millions of dollars plus military might and manpower for humanitarian relief. Such efforts reduce global poverty and disparity among people, adding to America's security abroad. But now that economic instability has visited the United States, hurting Americans through unemployment, homelessness, reduced incomes, most Americans are turning that drive to share their resources inward among local folks struggling to survive domestically. Doctoral candidate Tonia Poteat of John Hopkins University claims there is an inherent tension in American society that makes giving a must. "We are a Christian country that operates through capitalism. To be someone as a Christian is to deny oneself; to have an identity as a capitalist is to supply oneself. That creates an internal tension since Christianity places no one person above another but capitalism does. Guilt comes when someone accumulates wealth but doesn't feel worthy, which often results in giving." "Which doesn't mean you have to give money," Helen Hottner explains. Hottner was recently promoted to a full-time supervisor from part-time worker at a supermarket chain. When an employee kept arriving late for work, Helen felt it was insubordination and prepared to fire her. "I shut my office door, cleared my throat, ready to deliver a clipped speech about her sub-par performance when all of a sudden she started crying." Helen listened patiently as her employee explained that she recently left an abusive relationship for a homeless shelter and the move plus the trauma had made it difficult adjusting to a new routine. "I couldn't fire her, not with the economy the way it is and her trying to get her life back on track." So Helen sat down with her employee, readjusted her schedule for a later shift and longer hours in the evening for extra pay. Now she comes to work on time. When asked what she gave her employee, Helen says: "The evidence of things unseen: I listened. Didn't judge her. I showed compassion at a tough time. I'm not sure but I think that's what I gave her." Maybe she gave her a second chance. Or an ear, a meal, a conversation, a strategy, a small but much needed service at the right time--isn't that what we all can give? Get HuffPost Eyes&Ears on Facebook and Twitter! More on Bearing Witness 2.0
 
Annie Leibovitz Trailing President Obama Top
Annie Leibovitz has been trailing Preisdent Obama all day, according to a pool report. The Wall Street Journal's Elizabeth Williamson filed the following report: Photographer Annie Leibovitz zipped around behind the ropes, taking photos of POTUS as he spoke; was accidentally bodychecked (no injury!) by one of our corps. She's been on POTUS all day, took pix of him entering car to DGA luncheon motorcade at WH earlier today; she stayed behind on WH lawn. No information forthcoming thus far on what her assignment is. Leibovitz has photographed Obama before: she followed him on the campaign trail last spring, and she did a series of portraits on the Obama administration for the March issue of Vanity Fair . Leibovitz also photographed First Lady Michelle Obama for the March cover of Vogue. Leibovitz recently won more time to repay a $24 million loan to Art Capital Group, restructuring the deal to regain control of her assets. More on Annie Leibovitz
 
Padma Lakshmi Is PREGNANT! But With Whose Baby? Top
Padma's pregnant! A couple of weeks after she showed up at the Emmys in a belly-hugging purple dress, the 'Top Chef' host has confirmed to Us Weekly that she is expecting her first child: "Model, author, and Emmy-nominated Padma Lakshmi confirms that she is carrying her first child after years of struggling with endometriosis, a cause for which she has co-founded the Endometriosis Foundation of America. As a result of her condition, this pregnancy has been referred to by her physician as nothing short of a medical miracle, and due to its delicate nature, we ask/implore the press to respect Ms. Lakshmi's privacy at this time," the rep continues. The baby's father has not been announced. Padma, 39, was married to author Salman Rushdie from 2004-2007 and has recently been seen out with 27-year-old Manu Nathan, who works in Business & Legal Affairs at IMG talent agency. He is supposedly just a cousin. She has also been linked to IMG's CEO, billionaire Ted Forstmann. Here's a picture of Padma and Manu together in August of this year: Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Rick Smith: Why Some Ideas Take Flight, and Others Don't Top
It is one of the most important and elusive questions of our time; How can I ensure that my idea catches on, and spreads? It turns out that all ideas are not created equal. Just as some species share traits that make them more likely to spread through evolution--enjoyable orgasms is one, for obvious reasons--so some ideas have traits that put them at a distinct advantage to captivate and spread. My research (for The Leap: How 3 Simple Changes can Propel Your Career from Good to Great ) shows that ideas that grab people's attention and spread share a very distinct characteristic -- simplicity. Willie Nelson once said that the toughest song to write is the simple song. It's that very simplicity that makes such songs the most compelling. That applies to ideas, too. Simplicity has a tremendous impact on whether an idea takes flight or sits on the tarmac. Simple ideas spread quickly because they are broadly interpreted and easily translated into action by others. Because they are easy to grasp, simple ideas increase the odds that people actually will respond. In Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, author Robert Cialdini cites a study in which a group of randomly chosen people were shown two print ads for the same product. One ad scrimped on positive details about the product; the other was brimming with them. Amazingly (but really not so), the barebones ad was judged by the ad hoc panel to be far more persuasive than the one with a longer list of compelling attributes. Why? Because the less you tell people, the more they can write themselves into the story. As I write this, Apple is doing the same thing with its TV ad campaign for iPod. The music is neat. The dancing people are clearly happy. And all the viewer sees or hears or knows about the product is the logo that flashes briefly on the screen at the end. The ad is nothing more than an invitation to join the iPod party. What you bring, what you wear, what you play -- it's all up to you. Complex ideas, whether theories or promotions, engage the intellect and rouse contemplation, but they are rarely goads to immediate action. Simple ideas, by contrast, anchor themselves in our consciousness and memory. For example, lists of simple words are also easier to remember than lists of longer ones. In fact, the break-even point is about the same two seconds that we need to make buy-no buy, good-no good decisions. If a word takes longer to articulate than that, the memory bank tends to spit it out. Simplicity also allows action to be very easily and personally translated, which almost exponentially increases the chances of participation. Why? Because you're not asking people to fill a particular niche in a complicated response strategy. You are asking only that they take part. The absence of specific direction allows them to shape their response in accord with their own means, talents, and interests. In effect, participants can take possession of their own contribution to the cause. With ideas, less really is more. In a world of saturation communication, it's what isn't there that encourages participation and ultimately ensures that your idea will stand out, and spread. Other Popular Posts: - Take Your Career From Good to Great - How to Start a Business with No Money - Stripped! How Paris Hilton Caused the Great Recession Order your copy of the Wall Street Journal and Amazon national bestseller The Leap: How 3 Simple Changes can Propel Your Career from Good to Great , today!
 
Christina Pirello: Cure? They Don't Want No Stinking Cure! Top
It's October and we all know what that means. Pink! From ribbons, to kitchen appliances, workout wear to M & M's (ah, the irony...), we are bombarded with creating awareness of breast cancer (like there's one woman unaware of it), promoting mammograms and raising money for the Cure. For more than 25 years, we have been marketed the idea that if we just run one more race; write one more check; buy one more pink ribbon adorned tee shirt, they'll find the elusive cure they dangle in front of all women. Did you know that National Breast Cancer Awareness Month was created by a drug company (currently known as Astra Zeneca), who not coincidentally produces breast cancer treatment drugs? As women, we need to stand together and ask the question that no one wants asked (certainly no one at Susan G. Komen for the Cure). With all the money raised, why are we no closer to this Cure? The statistics tell the truth. This year, more than 192,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, accounting for more than one in four cancers diagnosed. And while it's true that from 1997 to 2006, there has been a steady decline in breast cancer deaths (1.9 percent a year), breast cancer rates have remained the same since 2003. A woman's chance of developing breast cancer sometime in her life is a little less than 1 in 8. With all the races, walks, climbs, crusades, relief funds, white water rafting events (yes, you heard me...) and even recycling for the Cure, you'd think we'd have raised enough money to actually, well, cure breast cancer. Yes, we have created improved treatments, more targeted therapies, better screening, better ways for a woman to detect her cancer early. But no one is really talking about preventing this plague in the first place! Not one discussion during October places the focus squarely on the lifestyle choices a woman can make to radically reduce her risk. Now before you get your pink panties in a twist, this is not an indictment of all the strong, courageous women who have been diagnosed; who have suffered through devastating treatments; who have walked or run in support of their own strength and survival or the strength and survival of another woman. Okay? I have been through my own struggle with cancer, so I know from whence I speak, as the saying goes. This is about organizations and corporations who prey on women when they are at their most vulnerable, when they're sick, frightened, about to lose a symbol of their womanhood. And we fall for it. I just spent some time on the Susan G. Komen for the Cure website. It's an interesting resource of information for women who have been diagnosed: what they can expect; how to handle the road ahead; what options exist. But there's not a lot of information on what a woman can do to prevent breast cancer in the first place. Yes, they pay lip service to the concept that women need to live healthy lives, eat a healthy diet and maintain a healthy weight. Healthy eating suggestions are bullet points as a side bar on the pages about prevention. But how can they really talk about healthy eating when they partner with the very kinds of companies that destroy the health of all people, not just women? Right on the home page one of the banner ads promotes 'sweet support' from Dove and M&M's. And yet if you click on the side bar about healthy eating, you'll see the bullet point advising that women 'eat fewer high fat foods and sweets' as a way to prevent breast cancer. And then there is the partnership called 'Pink Together' with General Mills. You know this one. You buy a product and send proof of purchase to the corporation so they can make a donation to the Cure. Sounds good, right? But check out the products in the line-up and you'll wonder if Komen really wants to find this elusive Cure: Cinnamon Toast Crunch Cereal, Hamburger Helper, Pillsbury Crescents, Sweet Rolls and Refrigerated Cookie Dough, Betty Crocker Ready to Spread Frostings, muffin mixes and Warm Delights dessert mixes, all processed foods that steal our health. But there's Total cereal and Green Giant Frozen Vegetables as a nod to healthy options. And to their credit, they did remove the rBGH (a growth hormone and suspected carcinogen) from their Yoplait Yogurt. But people get all in a snit when we talk about real healthy eating. I recently watched Paula Deen on The View online. She was promoting her new cookbook for kids, which is cover-to-cover calorically dense recipes that contribute to obesity and other lifestyle diseases in our children. Barbara Walters called her on the idea that cheesecake, chocolate cake and fried foods in kids' diets, all typically Paula Deen was questionable judgment. And Paula, in her breezy Southern style brushed off the criticism by saying that she wasn't encouraging kids to eat these kinds of things all the time...but the book has cheesecake for breakfast. But wait, that's not the part that got me. After watching the piece, I took a couple of minutes to read the comments that people made about Barbara Walters' criticisms of the book. I was nothing less than amazed. Irate comments told her to go back to her hotel room and eat her tofu; that she should take her skinny butt off the show; that Paula Deen promotes eating together as a family and maybe Ms. Walters should try it, if she has a family. They even ranted about her apparent affair with a Senator when she was young. All because she told the truth on television; that there is a certain level of responsibility that comes with putting yourself out there as an authority or a public figure that people revere. All because she said that with the staggering rates of obesity in our kids, we should be teaching them healthy habits, not etching in stone the ones that have gotten us into trouble in the first place. The fact that people get so defensive about the eating habits that make us weak, fat and sick is astonishing to me. Healthy eating creates vitality, well-being, strong immune function, glowing skin and hair, robust bodies. The fact that we can denigrate that and elevate the habits that create the very illnesses that require the founding of all the runs, walks and other awareness-raising events in the parade of the sick is at the root of what is rotting our society. Here's something you should know before you pin on your next pink ribbon. The history of this little symbol began in the early 90's with Charlotte Haley, a woman who made peach ribbons to create awareness that of the National Cancer Institute's $1.8 billion budget only 5% went to the prevention of breast cancer. When she refused to sell her idea for ribbons to corporations because she thought they would turn the idea 'too commercial,' they simply stole it and changed the color to the comforting, soothing pink that is everything that breast cancer is not. And women are encouraged to shop, drive, dress and cook in solidarity with their sisters in disease. Over 100 million dollars are raised each year for breast cancer research. That's big business. The corporations, organizations and industries that benefit from all these research dollars diminish or mask the extent of the problem, fail to protect women's health and divert attention from the importance of finding the causes of breast cancer and having real discussions about how to prevent it. But then again, I guess we wouldn't need all those walks, runs, recycling projects, white water rafting and other fund raisers if we really got to the bottom of this and found the Cure.
 
131 Walruses Trampled To Death In Stampede Top
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Federal scientists say trampling during a stampede likely killed 131 walruses on the northwest shore of Alaska. Most of the dead walruses were young animals. A team examined 71 carcasses and performed nine detailed necropsies, which showed extensive bruising. The walrus carcasses were spotted from the air Sept. 14 near Icy Cape on the shore of Chukchi Sea by U.S. Geological Survey researchers flying out for a walrus tagging project. About 3,500 walruses had been reported at the site, choosing the shore as a resting area because sea ice had again melted well beyond the relatively shallow continental shelf where walruses can dive for clams and other sea bed food. Calves and yearlings are more susceptible to trampling in stampedes. More on Animals
 
Gabriel London: Hey, World Leader! See You in Copenhagen... Top
The current deadlock in climate change negotiations is alarming for those of us who think "Copenhagen" - also known as this December's United Nations Conference of Parties - will be the Olympics of climate change. Copenhagen is where humanity should rise to the occasion and leaders should sign a fair, ambitious, binding climate deal. And here's why it's important now: The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will be the kind of event, not unlike those awe-inspiring, world-uniting Olympic Games, that only comes around rarely. And during the off years, though there may be other games, they are lesser, less conclusive, less important. That's the best analogy I can come up with for why the world should care about Copenhagen, and it's also why I just traveled the world filming people - climate change 'stakeholders' - for a campaign called See You in Copenhagen : we won't have another chance soon to set a world record for cooperation, nor a better moment to step up our climate game and usher in the clean energy future to replace our exhausted, unsustainable present state. Many people I know would also say this: this is our last chance to save the world from catastrophic climate change. So mark your calendars, set your alarms, this December, in Copenhagen, we need to be there, cheering on, as world leaders step up to the plate, run the race, go the distance, etc. That thinking is the reason the Secretary General of the UN, Ban ki-Moon, called leaders together last week at the United Nations for a Climate Summit. At the Summit, he laid down a challenge: Come to Copenhagen. A simple invitation. Me, you, all the other hot-shot leaders of Planet Earth in Copenhagen, this December. It'll be cold, but who cares? We'll toast when we seal the climate deal. And you know what's great? World leaders got on the Copenhagen page. Gordon Brown jumped on board. England, leading on climate change, who knew? And then this week, I hear Obama, yeah Obama! Obama's going to Copenhagen. And Lula, the Brazilian President, knowing how much is at stake: you know, only the world's biggest rainforest?! Only the fate of the lungs of the Earth, in Brazil's hands (climate change threatens to dry out huge swaths of rainforest, even as humans continue to slash and burn the rest of it). Well, Brazil's Lula is going to Copenhagen too! The news about Copenhagen, which is shaping up to be a true Olympics of Climate Change, just keeps poring in: all the greatest leaders will be there. But WAIT!!! There's just one really unbelievably ironic catch: the world leaders are going to Copenhagen now, this week, not in December (except, at this point, for lonely Gordon Brown). And they're not going to settle the fate of the world's environment, or to save us from the devastating effects of climate change, instead they're going to campaign like schoolchildren for their country's right to host the Olympics in 2016. It's like Ban ki-Moon started a bad game of "telelphone" and the world leaders got a garbled message: "Go to Copenhagen now". Instead of "Go to Copenhagen in December." Guys, major message drift. Ball-dropping on an epic scale. C'mon! You can do it! National politics are petty, change is a nice slogan not easy to accomplish in reality, I know, but the world is waiting. Well, let this at least show that leaders can easily hop on a jet to Copenhagen. Obama's going for less than 24 hours. Test the waters, come back in December, I say. The Olympics of Climate Change will go down this December in Copenhagen, with or without world leaders showing up. That much is sure. Anyone who cares about the environment should pressure them to be there and those of us without jets should all go in spirit: believe in global warming or not, the point is the world needs a clean, sustainable energy future that doesn't give the ranch away to oil companies and oil rich countries with bad governments, while flooding our coastlines and super-heating our backyards. So let's all go. See You in Copenhagen... FULL DISCLOSURE: SEE YOU IN COPENHAGEN is the name of the climate change campaign Found Object Films launched last week, in cooperation with the UN Foundation and tcktcktck.org. Enjoy the films ... More on United Nations
 
Rihanna Wears See-Through Stripes In Paris (PHOTOS) Top
Oooh, La La!! Singer Rihanna certainly gave French photographers an Eiffel when she showed up at a Fashion Week event in Paris in this revealing outfit. More on Rihanna
 
Is Meat Really That Bad For The Environment? Top
Nicolette [Niman] led a discussion focused on meat. Because there seems to be a growing perception that meat is inherently bad for the environment, she posed the question: Can meat be part of a sustainable food system? She led off with her own answer, an emphatic "YES!" It all depends on how and where animals are raised, and how meat is used. More on Food Politics
 
Michelle Obama, Oprah Visit Copenhagen Opera House: Belles Of The Ball (PHOTOS) Top
First Lady Michelle Obama capped off her second day in Copenhagen by attending the opening ceremonies of the the 121st International Olympic Committee (IOC) Session at the Copenhagen Opera House on Thursday night. She was with fellow Chicagoan Oprah Winfrey. The first lady wore a pumpkin colored dress while Oprah went for black ruffles. See photos of what Michelle was wearing in Copenhagen on Wednesday and Thursday . Scroll down for the pool report. From the pool report, written by the Washington Post's fashion writer Robin Givhan: Your pool was on hold on the second floor foyer of the Opera House at about 5:20pm when guests began to arrive to the strains of a chamber orchestra. The setting, Copenhagen's Opera House, home to the Royal Danish Orchestra -- among several Royal Danish musical ensembles -- was glorious. The building, with its central sphere-shaped auditorium, sits waterside. There were dramatically overcast skies with just a bit of early evening sun glinting off the water. Boats sailed along the waterway and historic buildings were visible in the distance. Inside, small tables covered in white linen were sprinkled throughout but the only munchies your pooler could see were breadsticks. Where pray tell were the canapes? Perhaps they arrived after your pool was ushered into the auditorium. The delegations arrived and sat grouped together stage right. Oprah Winfrey - hair smooth and pulled off her face was dressed in black (sorry, couldn't see the full frock) and seated to the right of Chicago mayor Richard Daley. They were up front although not in the front row. 7:02 Lula is in the house -- President of Brazil, that is. Waves. Hugs. Cameras focus on him. Michelle Obama arrives in a pumpkin satin cocktail dress - full skirt, sleeveless and with criss-crossing straps in the back. No, it is not a warm evening in Copenhagen. But there is no weather in a motorcade. She sits to Oprah's right. No sign of Valerie Jarrett, but alas, your pooler does not have bionic eyes. So to recap: We have in a row, Daley, Oprah, Mrs. Obama. We do not manage to eyeball other heads of state. Ceremony begins with the Danish National Anthem and that is followed by the Olympic hymn. Speeches ensue by various Olympic officials including IOC president Jacques Rogge. Welcoming remarks from Danish prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who manages to merge athleticim with global warming - referencing the upcoming summit on climate change that will take place in Copenhagen. Then the dancing began. First up was the Jockey Dance by The Royal Danish Ballet. Next was "Uncontaminated" a fabulously dramatic modern ballet performed by dancers in chocolate brown leotards and a perfectly exquisite lead ballerina. Next came a song about springtime in Denmark. Then more classical ballet. The Danish National Girls Choir sings "Plant a Tree." The song is all about uplift and what the individual can do to make the world a better place. A psychedelic tree grows on a video screen behind the girls who end their song by posing like trees. The Youth Ballet of the Royal Danish Theater performs -- ballet, hiphop, jazz -- and exude much youthful vigor and underscore a message that the youth are our future. Much charm oozed across the stage. The evening ends with a George Balanchine ballet "Symphony in C." It was performed by the Royal Danish Ballet. Music by Bizet. Your pool was hustled through the mingling and eating dignitaries. (The food arrived!!!) A Frank Sinatra song "The Lady is a Tramp" is being crooned as we make our exit. Want more Michelle Obama style? Visit the Michelle Obama Style Big News page. Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook ! More on Michelle Obama Style
 
Dennis Hopper Out Of The Hospital Top
NEW YORK — Dennis Hopper's manager says the veteran actor is out of the hospital and "feeling much better" after taking ill the day before. Sam Maydew said in a statement Thursday that the 73-year-old "Easy Rider" star had gone to a New York City hospital after showing severe flulike symptoms. Maydew says Hopper was treated for dehydration. The actor was in New York on a publicity trip and had been forced to cancel a number of interviews and TV appearances Wednesday. His current project is "Crash," a TV version of the Oscar-winning 2004 film. He plays maniacal music producer Ben Cendars on the series, which airs on the Starz network. Maydew says Hopper is grateful for the well wishes and looks forward to getting back to work on "Crash."
 
Save Money, Eat Organic: Join A Food Co-op Top
Many food cooperatives (co-ops) were formed out of necessity - natural foods and health food items were not readily available at the corner grocery store - but have survived because of the community-powered principles behind them. More on Local Food
 
Morgan Warners: GOP to retake House in 2010? Maybe. Top
When House whip Eric Cantor said the GOP would win a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections, I simply laughed out loud. Now, I am not a polling junkie or a professional political operative. But this tells me something: that if the GOP doesn't deserve a shot at retaking the House in 2010 it will be entirely due to playing political games of dubious merit that they'll even have the chance.  Not that, you know, we should expect anything else given the current state of politics. The GOP brand has polled badly.  Pollster.com, run by the National Journal just posted an article showing dire straits for brand GOP: The overall finding is simple -- the GOP's standing relative to the Democrats on both measures is worse than any opposition party in the sample. For instance, the Pew data show that the Republicans are currently viewed more negatively than any minority party in the previous four midterms in terms of both net favorables and the difference in net favorables between parties. Nevertheless, Cantor insists that people want to put some limits on the Obama administration's power, and on the power of Nancy Pelosi.  But the main components of the Obama agenda are overwhelmingly popular. The Public Option has been overwhelmingly popular, the ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions is popular, being able to take insurance with you when you change jobs is popular, etc.  The major reason the bills under discussion haven't been more robust is because of dissent within the Democratic party over their scope.  Doesn't sound like the intense, scary government bogeyman with control that Cantor's trying to live-up.  In fact I think the President will be able to make a more compelling case, that we had a discussion that Republicans decided largely to opt out of and that in their relative absence a broad coalition of Democrats spent a good amount of time haggling over even the broadest outlines of health reform.  So as far as I'm concerned there isn't much if any merit to Cantor's argument. And I think it can be argued pretty clearly. But of course Cantor's priming the media pump to generate the perception that his story may be plausible, which is step #1 to actually making it plausible.  If nobody believes that the GOP has any fight in it for 2010, they'll put up fewer resources to finance the battles that would be necessary to beat a large number of Democrats.  Indeed the GOP has a big enthusiasm problem, with a quarter-century low in the number of people self-identifying as Republicans. So I think we're seeing two things.  There's the current reality on the ground that the GOP is up you-know-what-creek with few prospective paddles, and the media reality where GOP leaders are trying to paint a picture of possibility for 2010. Now, the question that follows is, To what extent does the GOP have to do anything substantive, as opposed to just changing tone and message, in order to get big gains?  I think it depends. Right now you see a lot of talk from a wide range of people concerned about the "fringe."  This is for good reason. A while ago, the Department of Homeland Security warned of rising right-wing extremism. And a whole bunch of conservatives got offended.  And then some crazy showed up and shot someone at the Holocaust Museum.  The report especially warned against lone wolves. Yeah, report vindicated.  But I think the fact that the Glenn Becks and Michelle Bachmanns have generated so much noise, that the fringe is actually asserting itsef, actually presents a strong opportunity for people like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to take the spotlight by being minimally reasonable .  In other words, by repudiating or at least dissociating themselves from the hardcore crazies, mere every-day crazy could be made to look normal and perfectly vote-for-able. That of course depends on a number of factors, including the GOP leadership corralling its membership on board that particular Arc, which they've had trouble doing as the party split into the traditional Reagonomics camp and the more Tea Party-prone social conservative side. So the flood may not go the way Cantor says it's going to go. What do you think the GOP's 2010 chances are? More on GOP
 
Joseph Sebarenzi: Rwanda: Heeding History's Lessons Before It's Too Late Top
When it comes to doing business, Rwanda is the African nation to watch. The 2009 World Bank Doing Business report hailed the central African nation for its extensive fiscal and economic reforms aimed at attracting foreign investments. Rwanda has also been praised for its quick recovery after the 1994 genocide that cost nearly 1 million lives in only 90 days. Fifteen years later, Rwanda boasts one of the cleanest capital cities in the region, booming construction, and a per-capita income that outpaces neighboring countries. These improvements are no doubt attributable to Rwanda's hardworking culture, the influx of foreign assistance, and the leadership of its president, Paul Kagame. Yet while President Kagame may be partly responsible for the country's progress, his authoritarian rule is also its biggest threat. Under Kagame, freedom of speech is heavily restricted, opposition is strangled, and government institutions are no more than rubber stamps. Although economic and financial stability are key to peace and prosperity, they are not its sole components. Without rule of law, a strong system of checks and balances, and political reconciliation between the country's two major ethnic communities -- Hutu and Tutsi -- the foundation on which Rwanda's economic and financial gains are built can easily crumble. Sadly, history provides ample evidence of this. In the early 1960s, Rwanda suffered mass ethnic violence that left 20,000 dead. Yet in the wake of this, Rwanda enjoyed a semblance of peace under the leadership of President Grégoire Kayibanda. Rwanda was hailed to be a peaceful nation with an emerging economy until 1973, when more violence engulfed the country, eventually resulting in a coup d'etat. The violence surprised the world -- after all, wasn't Rwanda a peaceful and prosperous African nation? The major reason behind this unexpected crisis was the president's failure to bridge the gap between Hutu and Tutsi and to maintain the then-vibrant multiparty system. Instead, he established an autocratic regime that bred discontentment across the board. Unfortunately, Kayibanda's successor -- Major General Juvénal Habyarimana -- did not learn from past mistakes. He, too, focused on building a thriving economy and creating a country that, by all outward appearances, was peaceful. He, too, neglected a crucial ingredient of lasting peace and prosperity by refusing to allow Tutsi refugees who had fled Rwanda during the violence from returning. Furthermore, he failed to fully integrate Tutsi who lived inside Rwanda by denying them equal rights to work, education, and political aspiration. This was the Rwanda in which I grew up, as a Tutsi. Habyarimana was viewed as a "benevolent" dictator who suppressed dissent, yet achieved peace and economic growth. By 1987, Rwanda had the lowest debt, the lowest inflation rate, and the highest GNP growth rate of any country in the region. Habyarimana's regime was hailed as a model of development and stability in Africa. In fact, Rwanda was often referred to as the Switzerland of Africa. Yet because Habyarimana had failed to address key issues pertaining to political reconciliation and democracy, the order and stability he had achieved evaporated in 1990, when Tutsi refugees living outside Rwanda launched a war and internal opposition that had so long been suppressed flared. The four-year war that followed culminated in the horror of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Out of this chaos, Major General Paul Kagame, who led the Tutsi rebellion, emerged as the victor and hero who stopped the evil. Emboldened with this historic achievement, Kagame slowly and surely set on a path in the footsteps of his predecessors. Like Kayibanda and Habyarimana, he worked tirelessly to attract foreign assistance, to maintain strong order and security, and to grow the economy. Once again Rwanda is hailed as the Switzerland of Africa. At the same time, however, Kagame, like his predecessors, has ignored the importance of building rule of law and promoting political reconciliation. It is not an accident that U.S. State Department consistently describes Rwanda as a constitutional republic dominated by a strong presidency -- a euphemism for autocracy. The Economist was more explicit when it stated that Kagame allows less political space and freedom of the press in Rwanda than Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. This might be understandable in the few years following civil war and genocide, when the country was in chaos and a tenth of its population killed. But fifteen years later, it is unacceptable. It is deplorable that a decade-and-a-half later, "citizens are required to repeat platitudes about reconciliation, [while] hatred festers in many hearts." It is deplorable that people so terribly fear their president -- applauding government policies in public, yet complaining in private. For Rwanda to thrive, economic performance, for which Kagame deserves credit, must be coupled with political reconciliation and strong democratic institutions. History shows that stability and economic growth are durable not where strongmen reign but where institutions of governance are strong. Kagame needs to heed this lesson, or Rwanda could very well devolve into chaos again. Joseph Sebarenzi is the former speaker of the Rwandan Parliament and author of God Sleeps in Rwanda: A Journey of Transformation (Atria, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, 2009). More on Africa
 
Oprah, Michelle Obama Light Up Copenhagen: Star Power Enough For Chicago's Olympic Bid? (PHOTOS) Top
COPENHAGEN — (AP) Want a picture with Oprah? She's holding court in the restaurant. Interested in talking to a Dream Teamer or a Perfect 10? David Robinson and Nadia Comaneci are roaming the halls. How about a meeting with the first lady? If you're an International Olympic Committee member, it's a good bet Michelle Obama could work you in. With the hours dwindling before the 2016 games are awarded, Chicago leaders were doing another hard sell Thursday, trying to win over few more voters and hold onto those who already like them. "Everybody is thinking positively about their own city," said Anita DeFrantz, one of the United States' two IOC members. "The question is, can anybody make a better case for a better city?" Chicago is considered a favorite going into Friday's IOC vote, but plenty of front-runner cities have wound up watching someone else celebrate. Rio de Janeiro has a compelling argument, asking the IOC to take the games to South America for the first time while Madrid has the backing of former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, still a powerful figure. And Tokyo has pushed the safety and financial security of its proposal. "There are four great choices," Robinson said. "Obviously, we're here to talk about the merits of Chicago." And talking they were. The first lady arrived Wednesday and has spent much of her time meeting one-on-one with IOC members in a private suite at the official hotel. The sit-downs are brief but give her an opportunity to share her story – she grew up on the city's South Side, near where most of the venues would be – and assure IOC members that Chicago is sincere about its desire to use the Olympics to inspire children and transform their lives. It's the same message she gave Wednesday night at a dinner with Chicago supporters. "I was moved," Winfrey said. "And they already had my vote." While the first lady was closeted away, Chicago dispatched its big names to drum up support. As word spread that Winfrey would be arriving at the main hotel, the lobby filled and even IOC members seemed eager to catch a glimpse of the TV star. She couldn't take more than a step or two without someone snapping a photo – even the secretary of Carlos Arthur Nuzman, head of Rio's bid, who was there to take a photo for a friend posing with Winfrey. Moving into the restaurant, Winfrey chatted with IOC executive board member Gerhard Heiberg and Sam Ramsamy, an IOC member from South Africa. And posed for more pictures. "Whoever's there, I'll talk to them," Winfrey said. More on Olympics
 
Newsweek: Credit Rating Agencies Are Getting Off Easy Top
Moody's and Standard & Poor's, the two giants of the industry, are still around despite causing the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars by badly rating subprime-mortgage-backed securities. Not only that, they are basically doing business the same way, taking fat fees from the investment banks whose securities they rate. In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday, a former Moody's managing director, Eric Kolchinsky, alleged that the firm was criminally deceiving investors by purportedly inflating ratings on securities even into the current year, long after the subprime scam had been exposed and the market crash had occurred.
 
Dan Rather: Lawsuit "Not Over," I'm "Determined" Top
Dan Rather told Fox News/Fox Business' Neil Cavuto Thursday that his lawsuit against CBS "is not over." Rather called the case "a long, hard fight" and said, "despite what CBS and their lawyers would have you believe, it is not over. The New York Court of Appeals gets to decide. And they decide, not CBS' lawyers and their promotion and publicity team." Rather told Cavuto that his lawsuit is about much more than his dismissal from the network. "The most important principle and the basic reason I'm in it is, what kind of news are we going to have?" he said. "We have very large corporate interests working with powerful political interests to manipulate the news and the people who report the news, whatever their political persuasion. I don't think the American people want them, and what I have been seeking to do in this trial is to bring out the facts." He added that he's neither "bitter" nor "sad" but rather "determined," saying he believes "so strongly the public needs to understand that this effort by large corporations and partisan political people to manipulate the news and people who cover the news is not the American way." The interview aired Tuesday on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on Fox News at 4PM and will air at 6PM on Cavuto's Fox Business program. More on CBS
 
Steve Clemons: President Obama's Body Language on Iran is Just Right Top
Given the tumultuousness in many parts of America's foreign policy portfolio, it's easy to nitpick and criticize (which I do frequently), but I have to tip my hat to President Obama's measured and positive comments today following the conclusion of what are officially called the P5+1 Negotiations with Iran. P5+1 refers to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany. Note that the President does not even mention the word "sanctions." While the "strategic depth" in some corners of the President's national security team is weak -- I believe that there is strategic depth on the National Security Council nuclear non-proliferation/Iran teams. Here is the relevant section of President Obama's statement: Today, in Geneva, the United States -- along with our fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council -- namely, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, as well as Germany -- held talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran. These meetings came after several months of intense diplomatic effort. Upon taking office, I made it clear that the United States was prepared to join our P5-plus-1 partners as a full participant in talks with Iran. I extended the offer of meaningful engagement to the Iranian government. I committed the United States to a comprehensive effort to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear power -- provided that they live up to their international obligations. And we have engaged in intensive bilateral and multilateral diplomacy with our P5-plus-1 partners -- and with nations around the world -- to reinforce this point, including an historic U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed unanimously last week. The result is clear: The P5-plus-1 is united, and we have an international community that has reaffirmed its commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament. That's why the Iranian government heard a clear and unified message from the international community in Geneva: Iran must demonstrate through concrete steps that it will live up to its responsibilities with regard to its nuclear program. In pursuit of that goal, today's meeting was a constructive beginning, but it must be followed by constructive action by the Iranian government. First, Iran must demonstrate its commitment to transparency. Earlier this month, we presented clear evidence that Iran has been building a covert nuclear facility in Qom. Since Iran has now agreed to cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency, it must grant unfettered access to IAEA inspectors within two weeks. I've been in close touch with the head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, who will be traveling to Tehran in the days ahead. He has my full support, and the Iranian government must grant the IAEA full access to the site in Qom. Second, Iran must take concrete steps to build confidence that its nuclear program will serve peaceful purposes -- steps that meet Iran's obligations under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. The IAEA proposal that was agreed to in principle today with regard to the Tehran research reactor is a confidence-building step that is consistent with that objective -- provided that it transfers Iran's low enriched uranium to a third country for fuel fabrication. As I've said before, we support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. Taking the step of transferring its low enriched uranium to a third country would be a step towards building confidence that Iran's program is in fact peaceful. Going forward, we expect to see swift action. We're committed to serious and meaningful engagement. But we're not interested in talking for the sake of talking. If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely, and we are prepared to move towards increased pressure. If Iran takes concrete steps and lives up to its obligations, there is a path towards a better relationship with the United States, increased integration with the international community, and a better future for all Iranians. So let me reiterate: This is a constructive beginning, but hard work lies ahead. We've entered a phase of intensive international negotiations. And talk is no substitute for action. Pledges of cooperation must be fulfilled. We have made it clear that we will do our part to engage the Iranian government on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect, but our patience is not unlimited. This is not about singling out Iran. This is not about creating double standards. This is about the global non-proliferation regime, and Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy, just as all nations have it -- but with that right, comes responsibilities. The burden of meeting these responsibilities lies with the Iranian government, and they are now the ones that need to make that choice. More analysis later -- but these are good signals, though it's best to stay in the arena of low expectations for the next several rounds. -- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note More on Barack Obama
 

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)