Monday, October 26, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Blog Alert
Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

China Executes 2 Tibetans For The Roles In 2008 Riots Top
BEIJING -- Two people have been put to death for their roles in deadly protests last year in the Chinese-controlled region of Tibet, the first known executions for the violence, an overseas monitoring group said Tuesday. Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak, who goes by one name, were sentenced to death in April on charges relating to "starting fatal fires," according to the International Campaign for Tibet, a Washington-based advocacy group. The group said the Tibetans were executed in the regional capital of Lhasa but did not say when. Other Tibetan rights groups have said the executions were carried out last Tuesday. Tibetans attacked Chinese migrants and shops in the regional capital of Lhasa in anti-government riots in March 2008 and torched parts of the city's commercial district. Chinese officials say 22 people died, but Tibetans say many times that number were killed. The violence in Lhasa and protests in Tibetan communities across western China were the most sustained unrest in the region since the late 1980s. Tibetan resentments against Chinese rule have been fueled by religious restrictions and competition for resources with migrants from the Han Chinese majority. Similar grievances fed ethnic rioting in the adjacent heavily Muslim region of Xinjiang this year that left nearly 200 dead. In comparison with the slower pace of prosecutions in Tibet, Chinese authorities in Xinjiang have already sentenced 21 people, with nine sentenced to death. The official China Daily newspaper said Tuesday three of those sentenced to death will not appeal the rulings. In Tibet, according to New York-based Human Rights Watch, authorities have made thousands of arbitrary arrests, and more than 100 trials have gone through the judicial system over the unrest. Lobsang Gyaltsen was sentenced to death for setting fire to two garment shops in downtown Lhasa on March 14 that killed a shop owner, according to a spokesman for the Lhasa Municipal Intermediate People's Court, cited by the official Xinhua News Agency in April. Loyak received the death penalty for setting fire to a motorcycle dealership in Dechen township in Lhasa's Dagze county on March 15 last year, which led to the deaths of five people, Xinhua said. Many Tibetans only go by one name. The court spokesman said the two defendants who were sentenced to death have committed very serious crimes, and only their executions can appease the anger of the public, according to the April 9 report by Xinhua. The article did not give the spokesman's name. China says Tibet has historically been part of its territory since the mid-13th century, and the Communist Party has governed the Himalayan region since Communist troops arrived there in 1951. Many Tibetans say they were effectively independent for most of their history. More than 950 people were detained and 76 were sentenced following last year's riots, according to state media, but the government has never given a complete accounting and details of punishments continue to trickle out. Officials at Lhasa's public security bureau and People's Court have repeatedly said they have no information on the executions. British Foreign Office Minister Ivan Lewis condemned the executions in a statement Friday. "We respect China's right to bring those responsible for the violence in Tibet last year to justice. But the U.K. opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, and we have consistently raised our concerns about lack of due process in these cases in particular," he said. Lewis also called on China to urgently review the cases of others sentenced to death. (This version CORRECTS ADDS background on sentencing for Xinjiang riots; corrects 76 sentenced sted 80 over Tibet riots) More on Tibet
 
Kevin Grandia: Solar Power Boss to Announce "A Solar Bill of Rights" Top
It has always baffled me as to why the renewable energy industry has never really pushed back on the fossil fuel sector's major lobby and misinformation efforts; but by the looks of a speech to be delivered tomorrow by the head of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) , the gloves are finally coming off. In an advanced copy of his speech (obtained by yours truly) to be given tomorrow morning to the Solar Power International Conference in Anaheim, California, the CEO and President of the SEIA, Rohne Resch will call for a "solar bill of rights." All we seek is the freedom to compete, and all consumers want is the freedom to choose their energy source.  Instead, the full promise of solar power is being restrained by the tyranny of policies that protect our competitors, subsidize wealthy polluters and disadvantage green entrepreneurs. And Americans know better than anyone else in the world that there’s only one way to overcome tyranny—by declaring our rights and fighting for them with a united and determined voice.  That is why, today, SEIA is asking you to enlist in the fight to secure a policy environment that allows solar to compete and empowers consumers to choose. So let’s make today solar’s Fourth of July —the day we declare our independence from policies that prevent greater use of solar energy which Americans so urgently need.  Today, we’re declaring a Solar Bill of Rights. The clean energy sector fights an unfair battle against the artificially cheap electricity produced from dirty fuels like coal. A recent report by the Environmental Law Institute found that the fossil fuel sector receives about $70 billion fro taxpayers in the form of subsidies every year, the renewable sector gets only about $12 billion. Next time you hear a coal executive or one of his lobbyist tell you that coal is cheap and solar remains too expensive, remember that renewables have been forced to compete on an unfair playing field. One of the reasons for this unfair playing field has been that the clean energy sector has never been too good at playing hardball, while the coal and oil companies can play Congress with their eyes closed. It's good to see Resche and the SEIA stepping up to the plate because as Reshce wil rightly tell the crowd tomorrow, "the solar industry differs from our competitors not in status but in substance.  We are an industry in ascent; they are sectors in decline.  Our source is clean and limitless; theirs are toxic and scarce." More on Sustainability
 
George Bush Motivational Speech Draws Almost 15,000 Top
After nine months of being nearly invisible -- a big outing has been to a Dallas hardware store for flashlights -- George W. Bush made his debut Monday in his latest incarnation: motivational speaker. Nearly 15,000 people heard the former president, known more for mangling the English language than for his eloquence... More on George Bush
 
Richard Graves: Climate Witnesses: A voice from the Cook Islands Top
Today, I wanted to highlight one of the TckTckTck campaign 's Climate Witnesses, Ulamila Kurai Wragg, a mother and a journalist, she has seen the impacts of climate change worldwide and has a perspective we could all do well to listen to: My name is Ulamila Kurai Wragg and I am from the Cook Islands. When invited to speak about how climate change is impacting my island home at the United Nations General Assembly and Climate Week in New York in September, I did not know what to expect.  But I felt positive because I was going to be part of this great team of people working to ensure that a fair, ambitious and binding deal is locked and sealed in Copenhagen come December. I met the media and (as a journalist) I got a taste of my own medicine. Plus, I was more careful with my second language, English, and did my best to captivate whatever audience I had. But nothing prepared me for what I felt when I encountered three inspirational women – Sharon Hanshaw from Biloxi, Mississippi; Constance Okollet from Uganda; and Ursula Rakova from the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea. I came with an open mind and I absorbed as much as I could from them. We were part of the ‘ TckTckTck Campaign ’ as climate witnesses. The diversity in our representation gave life to our agenda to get global leaders to act and they must act fast. They have to sign that moral deal because as climate witnesses we are testifying that we are now living and regularly dealing with rising seas, hurricanes, eroding shorelines, vanishing islands, flash floods and much more in our daily lives. Constance’s story of hunger, Ursula’s fear of her island now ‘a paradise no more’ and Sharon’s life of rebuilding after ‘Hurricane Katrina’ moved me to tears. I could feel their fears and aching hearts because I am a mother of four children living on an island with receding shorelines. My mother told me stories that I cannot repeat to my children because there is nothing here to prove that there was a creek that meandered around some swamp where they would catch little fish and feed eels. All we see today are dry beds half eaten away by the waves. I live on the beautiful Vaima’anga beach in the Cook Islands, my fears are now mounting as we enter into the cyclone season. Yesterday we put extra nails into some new roofing irons and are stashing away emergency boxes in case we have to vacate our house. We have learnt to always “prepare to expect the unexpected”. Proactive rather than reacting. We are teaching our children what to do when cyclones hit us, we are also warning them to stay away from the shores when they see big waves crashing pounding the lawns. After New York, I felt that there was still more work needed to drive home the issue that leaders have to work on a fair deal and seal ASAP. I now see that there are many layers to this issue of climate change but I am proud to hold up my corner as a climate witness. But I am not seeing the leaders working on theirs. I will moan about the leaders and their moral obligations but I refuse to be a victim of the situation. We are standing up to do our own bit making sure that we stay alive to see this through. 
New York taught me that to be heard is to be seen. Ulamila Kurai Wragg (Cook Islands).  Ulamila is a veteran journalist who has worked for the past 20 years in Fiji and the Cook Islands, witnessing first-hand the diverse impacts of climate change in both island countries.  She is the interim coordinator for the not-for-profit Pacific WAVE Media Network and heads its Climate Change team. WAVE (Women Advancing a Vision of Empowerment) is a network of Pacific women media practitioners focused on empowering Pacific women as leaders in and through media.  Ulamila lives with her husband and four children on Vaimaanga beach in Rarotonga. More on Climate Change
 
Maurice Greenberg Building "AIG Two"; C.V. Starr & Company May Make It Harder For AIG To Repay Debt Top
While America generally loves stories of entrepreneurs making a comeback, Mr. Greenberg's success may be at the expense of taxpayers. People who work in the industry say that if he is already luring A.I.G.'s people, he may soon be siphoning off its business and, therefore, its means to repay its debt to the government. More on AIG
 
The Women's Conference Top
 
House Democrats John Adler, Carolyn Maloney Move To Weaken Investor Protection Bill Top
Two House Democrats are planning to introduce amendments Tuesday to exempt small- and medium-sized companies from a key post- Enron reform. Consumer advocates and investor groups say that the proposed exemptions would severely undercut protection for investors and increase the chances for financial fraud. Reps. John Adler of New Jersey and Carolyn Maloney of New York will attempt to amend the Investor Protection Act of 2009 -- a bill designed to beef up investor protection -- by adding in provisions that will undermine the Sarbanes-Oxley Act , the 2002 law designed to increase investor confidence that was enacted after accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom rocked investors. The law was supposed to improve the accuracy, reliability, and transparency of corporate financial reporting by requiring firms to audit their financial statements and internal controls. A member of the pro-business New Democrat Coalition , Adler's amendment would exempt publicly-traded firms with market capitalization less than $700 million from a provision of Sarbanes-Oxley mandating an external audit of the firm. Specifically, Adler's provision calls for "less stringent requirements" for these firms, and would require the Securities and Exchange Commission -- the federal watchdog overseeing the capital markets -- to develop rules that would ease the "burden" on these firms. But until the SEC developed those rules, firms worth less than $700 million would be completely exempt from mandated external audits. "With the nation once again suffering the devastating effects of a financial scandal in which poor financial reporting played a significant role, investors should be able to trust that their representatives in Congress will pursue reforms that strengthen, rather than weaken, investor protections," wrote Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, in a letter to Adler obtained by the Huffington Post. In addressing Adler, Roper writes, "Your...amendment fails that test." A former high-ranking official at the SEC was even more blunt. "What Adler is really doing is dialing for dollars," said Lynn E. Turner , chief accountant for the SEC from 1998 to 2001. "He's got a job that he wants to keep, and he has to run for that job every two years. So this is probably a strong indication that Adler couldn't care less about investors, and cares much more about getting the money so he can keep his job." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been fighting for just such a reprieve for its member companies for years, arguing that one such post-Enron provision -- requiring public companies and their independent auditors to publicly disclose the effectiveness of the company's internal controls -- has been implemented in a way that creates "extraordinary and unnecessary burdens that are disproportionate to identified benefits." Adler's spokeswoman, Kathryn Prael, released the following brief statement in response to questions from the Huffington Post: "Congressman Adler's amendment will exempt small businesses from cost prohibitive regulations. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economies and this necessary reform will help keep and create jobs for hard working Americans." "Small businesses" are not mentioned anywhere in Adler's amendment. And under the Congressman's definition, "small businesses" can be worth up to $700 million. Investor groups, though, argue that Adler's amendment will have the opposite effect. The lack of a reliable, independent outside opinion on a firm's financial health will undermine investor confidence, "whose trust in the markets is an essential ingredient in any financial recovery," wrote representatives of the Council of Institutional Investors and American Association of Individual Investors , among others, in a letter to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (the chairman of the subcommittee on capital markets) and the committee's two ranking Republicans. Moreover, the investor groups write, "we believe the costs have often been exaggerated by...opponents, particularly with regard to the costs for small companies, and that the benefits more than outweigh those costs." In fact, costs have been decreasing, the groups note, citing a September SEC study , because as firms have gotten used to the new regime, their costs to comply have gone down. Also, the groups note, the cost to comply is lower than the cost to investors when companies are forced to restate earnings. Since these are public companies, investors' concerns should be paramount. "The cost to the companies is probably a drop in the buck to what [restatements] cost investors," Turner notes. "And investors are willing to pay for it because it costs them less." Americans for Financial Reform , a coalition of 200 groups pushing for an overhaul of banking and financial regulation, wrote in their letter to Frank that "given the enormous costs associated with restatements, small public companies, and those who invest in them, have a great deal to gain by improving the quality of their financial reporting." Maloney's amendment is also causing headaches for investors. Her amendment, co-sponsored with Rep. Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican, would exempt from the independent audit requirement entirely those publicly-traded firms with market capitalization less than $75 million. But it's just those firms that need the extra set of eyes checking their numbers, investors argue. "The need for strong internal controls is particularly important for the generally riskier smaller public companies that would be the beneficiaries of any exemption," wrote Jeff Mahoney, general counsel for the Council of Institutional Investors, a nonprofit association of public, union and corporate pension funds with combined assets that exceed $3 trillion. Roper of the Consumer Federation of America said the amendment is "worse than I would have expected from [Congresswoman] Maloney." Maloney could not immediately be reached for comment late Monday. Though required to obtain outside audits, the SEC has granted these firms annual deferrals from complying with the law for the last seven years. The latest deferral was granted earlier this month , though the SEC said, in effect, that this was the last one. "Why would anyone come out and propose that we keep this hidden?" Turner asked. If enacted, the amendments would shield "thousands of companies across the U.S." from effective oversight, he added. "It makes all the sense in the world to make sure these companies have good internal controls, and to have a different set of eyes to make sure it really does exist," Turner said. "Why would you want to hide that from investors?" More on Financial Crisis
 
Chamber Of Commerce Sues Yes Men Over Climate Change Policy Prank Top
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a civil complaint on Monday against members of a liberal activist group who staged a news conference to falsely announce that the 3 million-member business federation had reversed its stance on climate change legislation. "The defendants are not merry pranksters tweaking the establishment," said Steven Law, general counsel for the chamber. "Instead, they deliberately broke the law in order to further commercial interest in their books, movies and other merchandise." The chamber said it filed the complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington to protect its trademark and other intellectual property from unlawful use by members of the group known as Yes Men and others involved in the group's commercial enterprises. The activists misappropriated the chamber's logo, created a fraudulent Web site and falsely claimed to be speaking as the chamber under the group's copyright, the chamber said in a statement. As part of its hoax on Oct. 19, Yes Men announced at the National Press Club that the chamber would stop lobbying against the Senate's 800-page climate bill. Reuters moved a story based on the false press release, and both CNBC and Fox Business Network reported it – with the anchors correcting themselves mid-story upon learning it was false. The chamber has taken heat from some of its members because of its position against the climate bill. Some companies have defected from the group, including Apple Inc., Exelon Corp., Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and the Public Service Co. of New Mexico. More on Climate Change
 
Global High Wealth Industry Group Created: New IRS Unit Will Target The Very Wealthy Top
WASHINGTON -- A new Internal Revenue Service enforcement unit targeting the very wealthy will help the tax agency decode partnerships, offshore trusts and other complex techniques used to hide income, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said Monday. More on Billionaires
 
Evan Handler: Now Is the Time Top
Now is the time to let Senators and Congressmen/women know you support and insist upon a public option for your health insurance purchases. It's an "option," remember, and the more options, the better. Everyone is still free to purchase what they like. It only means there'll be a government subsidized option that can be purchased, should insurance companies not offer a plan that meets your needs. (Meaning, insurance companies will experience some pressure to offer plans that do meet your needs.) Incredibly, Democrats in the Senate are showing some actual backbone, some nerve, some daring, by offering the American public a tiny sliver of something that might one day grow to resemble what they already enjoy, in terms of their health care coverage. That's a monumental shift from anything that's happened before. So, if you agree with the philosophy, please let your feelings be known widely, and loudly. There's no guarantee it'll succeed. And my best guess is that the "courage" being demonstrated on Capitol Hill might not be impervious to puncture. Make sure those on the fence, and those resistant, realize that most Americans want and insist that a public option be included in health care reform. Your voice needs to be heard. Now is the time. Now. Right... now.... EvanHandler.com More on Health Care
 
William Bradley: Mad Men: "The Gypsy and the Hobo" -- HuffPost Review Top
"The Gypsy and the Hobo" is a great episode of Mad Men . For those who've been thinking that the pace of the show was more than a bit slow earlier in the season, that's certainly not the case now. As always with these reviews, there be spoilers ahead, so you've been warned. This is a most consequential episode which contains the big confrontation we've been waiting for from the beginning. It also contains some very fine acting. I'd say it's time to polish up an Emmy for Jon Hamm. And perhaps for January Jones. Incidentally, this review is delayed for two reasons. First, because my Chinatown /Polanski piece was still featured on Huffington Post. Second, because a technological glitch deleted the 3000-plus word piece I was just about to post as I finished polished it up, fixing typos. Apparently I hit the wrong combination of keys. But I think we can get by with a review in lieu of a long moment-to-moment recap, which was on this occasion even more so than most as I took detailed notes on the episode, which I hadn't done before, to have the precise tick-tock in place. The A story is Don and Betty Draper, with Betty confronting Don about her knowledge of the contents of his long-locked drawer. The principal B story concerns Roger Sterling meeting a rich, beautiful old girlfriend who wants to bring the family dog food business (Soylent Green is ... horses!) back to Sterling Coo, and hook up anew with Roger. Annabelle's theory is that Roger has married "a teenager" and she's sure she can snag him by likening their pre-World War II Parisian romance -- it seems that Roger tried to live the Hemingway myth, boxing and partying his way along the boulevards -- to Casablanca . The other B story is Joan and Greg. Or Dr. Blockhead, as I've come to think of him. He's trying to be a shrink because he can't be a surgeon, at least, not in New York. Violence enters their relationship again, though not in the way that fans expected. Of corse, it may be, speaking of relationships, that the principal B story is that of Don and Sally's beloved former teacher, Miss Suzanne Farrell. They've become very cozy, especially with Betty taking the kids -- no, she didn't go to California to confront Anna Draper -- to her late dad's house. Ostensibly to work out its disposition with ever whiny brother William and the family lawyer. But also to get the lawyer's advice on what to do about what she's discovered about Don. Or, perhaps more accurately, Dick Whitman. He tells her to stay in the marriage, because New York state law favors the hsband in divorce. Roger's view of New York divorce law, of course, is exactly the opposite. Does she take the lawyer's advice? In a way. Betty decides to confront Don. Catching him ust as he's coming by to pick up a few things for his week-long getaway with Suzanne. Not knowing that Betty and the kids have returned early, Don leaves Suzanne, with her bag packed, outside in his Cadillac while he pops into the house. Only to find the kids and ... a notably displeased Betty. I was anxious throughout, thinking that Suzanne would, after a time, get out of Don's car and go in and see what happened to him. Had he fallen down the stairs? Instead, she waits, slumped in the front seat, while Don and Betty's scene plays out. And what a scene it is. It's a tour de force for both actors. Don tries to bluff his way through -- at first, amusingly, saying he has to go back to the Caddy to get his hat! (and, you know, drop Suzanne back at her flat) -- but Betty's having none of it. She bores right in through his defenses, even as he looms over her whining about his privacy. She sees that he's caught and sees that he knows he's caught as soon as he realizes that she has seen the contents of his long-locked drawer. He's certainly shaken, so shaken he has trouble walking and can't even fix his own drink, which Betty suggested and ends up making for him. Perhaps, as she suggests, he even wanted to be caught. The burden of such a massive set of fundamental deceptions has weighed him down since the show began. And so, with her prodding, as is his way he goes through his sad set of photos and tells the story of Dick Whitman. It's like a pitch at Sterling Cooper. Absent the pitch. Explaining the characters, rather pathetically noting of his step-mother's de facto husband that "he was nice to me." The only bit of grace in the tale. When it comes to his brother -- "the little boy in all the pictures" as Betty calls him -- he at first says that Adam died, but then admits that he killed himself. Not because he wanted help from Don but because he wanted to be in Don's life. And Don couldn't risk it, not without risking "all this." Don visibly deflates during this like a magnificent balloon in the Thanksgiving Day parade skewered by a lamp post. When he awakes the next morning, he's alone. After putting on his usual Don Draper costume -- it's Halloween morning but, unlike the kids, he's working -- he ventures downstairs and finds Betty and the kids. And all is, if not swell, fairly well. Sally notices that her parents are, if rather tentative with each other, also interested in each other. Perhaps they're seeing behind the facades. Prompted by the kids, they make plans to go trick or treating. Which leads us back to the title of this episode. Sally goes as the gypsy, while little Bobby is the hobo. Now I'd thought, when I saw this episode title, that it referred to proto-hippie/itinerant teacher Suzanne as the gypsy and that rambling man Don Draper/Dick Whitman as the hobo. Perhaps in a way it does. Both directly, as above, and indirectly, in the sense that Sally caught the inspiration from her beloved former teacher and Bobby intuited his father's real background. In any event, the sort of happy family is out in the neighborhood and rings a neighbor doorbell. It's answered by the frequently annoying Carlton. "I see a gypsy and a hobo," he says, grasping the kids' costumes. Very nice. Then he looks at Don and Betty. "And what are you supposed to be?" What, indeed? They'll have to figure that out as the '60s get rolling in earnest. The credits roll with a song from Oliver! playing over them. That's the hit Broadway musical of 1963, based loosely on Dickens. "A tragedy with a happy ending," as Lane Pryce observed several weeks ago. It's about a poor orphan who finds a family of a sort when he falls in with a pack of thieves. Speaking of which, the next two episodes -- last two of the season -- look to be heavily Sterling Cooper-centric. We do have some good Sterling Coo action in this episode. But before getting to that, let's talk about our Miss Farrell. Prior to the Big Reveal, it was clear that Don had fallen fairly hard for her. And that she had really fallen for him. They play house while Betty is away with the kids, with Suzanne cooking her favorite meal for an appreciative Don while noting that she can't share it with him in her favorite restaurant. Which leads to Don's brilliant idea of going away with her while Betty's away with the kids. If only he hadn't had to stop off at his house while heading out of town. But he did, leaving her waiting in his car while Betty forced their showdown. This made me anxious throughout for Don. I've never bought the notion that Suzanne is a psycho stalker type. But it wold have been reasonable for her, after a time, to barge into the house looking for Don. She waits and waits and then finally gets out of the car. And walks away, slumping as she carries her bag, looking dejected. Perhaps she knew that Betty was there. We don't see that. We also don't see psycho behavior from her. When Don finally wakes up after his big catharsis, he calls her from the office. She's very accommodating. She knows it's over, though Don leaves a crack in the window. Then she worries abot her job. Evidently Don is not her first married man. Their conversation is entirely reasonable, if quite sad. The conversation in the other misfiring affair, that of Roger and Annabelle, is far more tart. She is really quite insistent on hooking up with Roger again, though that's not what I meant by tart when I typed it. He agrees to dinner with her, at another of his snazzy bistros -- does he know any other kind? -- and over the bordeaux takes a stroll down memory lane with his old girlfriend. It's a much fonder memory for Annabelle than for Roger. After she pushes it a bit far by telling him that he must have thought of her when he saw Casablanca , Roger points out that the heroine in that story left Bogie with the guy who was going to end World War II, not run her father's dog food business. Annabelle tries a trump card as they part. "You were the one," she tells him. "You weren't," Roger replies. It's so good to have Roger Sterling back. He's been moping and sniping, largely at Don -- who dislikes Roger because his marriage to Don's ex-secretary led to the sale of Sterling Coo and because Roger, unlike Don, does seem happy -- through most of this season. Roger gets in on the action also by helping Joan. After Greg, or Dr. Blockhead as I've come to think of him, the thumb-fingered surgeon who wants to be a shrink, blows his psychiatry interview despite Joan's shrewd advice, he's breaks out his bottle of whine. "Stop acting like you know everything. You don't know. You don't know what it's like to want something your whole life, and to plan for it and count on it and not get it." Since she most definitely does, she bashes her very own Exhibit A over the head with a vase of flowers. She'd already figured out that she needs work other than selling dresses at Bonwit Teller, so she'd asked Roger for help landing a new job. When Joan, her pride in play, turns down his offer of a return to Sterling Coo, he agrees to help her find another good position, and sets about doing just that. Roger had better hurry because Joan's one-time dreamboat hubster has come up with a new master plan. Arriving home the next day with flowers for Joan, who's a bit abashed about bashing him over the head, Dr. Blockhead says he'll buy her a new vase and lots more cool stuff besides. Because he's solved their problems. He's gone and joined the Army. And he can be a surgeon in the Army, too. (Remind me never to get shot in his theater of operations.) And he's going in as a captain. So Joan won't have to work at all and he's going to keep her in high style. On an Army captain's salary? Do you have to take math to get through medical school? Of course, he may have to go overseas for a few years. "To West Germany, or Vietnam, if that's still going on." "Forget the soup tonight," he tells Joan, "We're going out to celebrate!" I don't think dyed-in-the-wool New York girl Joan ever saw herself as an Army wife. Wait till Roger hears about this. It definitely tops anything from Annabelle, though perhaps not her family firm's little PR problem. Actually, it's a big PR problem. It seems those folks out in Hollywood, as Bert Cooper points out, have made big trouble for the dog food business with a movie called The Misfits . That was the last completed film for both Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe. Gable had a heart attack a day after it wrapped. He died a week later. Monroe was a mess throughout the shoot. She was so into pills and booze they had to send her to rehab. After the wrap, she went to a sanitarium. She's a bundle of nerves in the movie, and her hysterical reaction when her character learns that Gable and Monty Clift and Eli Wallach are catching wild Nevada horses for their meat is shocking in its rawness. It's directed, incidentally, by John Huston, the indelible villain of Chinatown . People hadn't realized that horses were killed for dog food, and Annabelle's Caldecott Farms is a big part of the backlash. Don suggests the obvious -- the name is poison, so change it (which, incidentally, Blackwater recently did, end of digression) -- but she doesn't want to do it. They stage a focus group, with Annabelle watching from behind the glass. The participants talk about their dog's characteristics and then watch as the pets sample the dog food. The dogs love it! They scarf it down, and their owners are very happy. Then the participants are told it's Caldecott Farms dog food. Oh, no, it's evil! Grim scene. Pollster Paul Maslin, an old friend who's a great fan of the show, has done about a thosand focus groups. He e-mailed, saying: "I love Draper's line 'Is this your first group?' when the guy comments about how the people are describing themselves and not their dogs. Candidates, too? Sort of, but EveryConsultant Draper has identified another eternal truth as is his wont. With the grand task of opening a potential client's eyes accomplished, Don takes off for his getaway with Suzanne. We know the rest. Only two episodes left in the season. With much of the personal side resolved, at least for now, in non-soapy ways, look for big happenings in and around Sterling Cooper and the changing advertising business. Which, along with the rest of America and the world, is going to have a mega-seismic shock to the system three weeks from the end of this episode. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com. More on Mad Men
 
Jillian York: Facebook Wants You to Reconnect: With Dead Loved Ones Top
When a favorite site rolls out a new feature, users are supposed to ooh and ahh , not cringe. One of Facebook's latest features has me doing just that - After logging in recently, I peeked at the ubiquitous "suggestions" box on the right side of the screen, only to see that Facebook had asked me to "reconnect"...with a dead friend. The feature is apparently intended to remind users to comment on the walls of users with whom they haven't recently been in touch (on Facebook, anyway). So far, however, it has succeeded only in creeping out the users it intended to "help." Some users' experiences have been mildly amusing, such as that of gsorenson, who tweeted , "Facebook just suggested that I reconnect with my dad." Other users, such as Twitter user exohcaroline , have received much more cryptic-seeming messages, suggesting they reconnect with friends or loved ones who have passed on. On Twitter, she said: Speaking to a number of friends about the latest Facebook tweak, the overarching sentiment was sheer annoyance. I, for one, am sick of Facebook fixing things which aren't broken while features which actually need improvement (such as the standard photo uploader) are left in the dust. More on Death & Dying
 
Art Levine: AFL-CIO's Trumka Reminds Dems: No "Reform for Reform's Sake" on Health Care Top
On the same day that Senator Harry Reid announced that the Senate would consider an "opt-out" public option, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka reminded Democrats to hold to basic progressive goals in pushing for reform. He told reporters Monday in a conference call, "We cannot be in favor of reform for reform's sake. This is the moment to make sure that it's real and will relieve the daily stress of Americans in paying for health care." To that end, he promoted a labor-wide "Day of Action" on November 5 in which the AFL-CIO in cooperation with the Change to Win coalition will be promoting the lobbying of Congress through organizing and leafletting in workplaces. As The New York Times summed up: The A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s new president, Richard L. Trumka, announced Monday that the labor federation would make Thursday, Nov. 5, a nationwide "Day of Action" for union members to press their members of Congress to back sweeping health care legislation. "We hope to flood the halls of Congress with calls from working families that want to see real reform," Mr. Trumka said in a telephone news conference. The Nov. 5 effort, he said, will involve a letter-writing and phone campaign at thousands of work sites, where union members will contact lawmakers in Washington to urge them to support a "public option" -- creation of a new government-run health plan that would compete with private insurers. "We're at a pivotal point as the Senate leadership continues to craft a bill to go to the Senate floor and the House leadership works on combining their three bills," Mr. Trumka said. "Many of us have spent our lifetimes fighting to ensure that all Americans have quality and affordable health care, and there will be no bigger ally in that fight than organized labor." On two key issues, Trumka, representing the largest labor organization, staked out liberal positions that are more progressive than the proposed Senate bill. In his view, the "opt-out" version that allows states to exclude a public option was not the sort of "robust" public option his group favors. "It's on its way. It's not there yet," he said. And he was especially harsh on the excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans (more than $8,000 for an indvidual) that union members and a Congressional budget committee see as unfairly penalizing middle-class families. But he didn't draw a "line in the sand" saying his organization would oppose legislation that contained any form of taxation of plans, such as the hard-line stance taken by AFSCME (public workers) president Gerald McEntee last week. As In These Times labor writer David Moberg explained : "I don't think we're going to have to face that," Trumka said Monday during a press conference. "We'll see when we get to that time if it's close enough." Indeed, he said it would be "fine" to tax Goldman Sachs executive plans. But many so-called "Cadillac" healthcare plans offer normal coverage but just cost more for various reasons, such as an older workforce, more dangerous working conditions, a high-cost state, or a small employer with one very ill employee. If the legislation includes a public option to control prices, Trumka argued, the government will need to tax less to provide subsidies, which in any case could be more fairly provided through a surtax on rich people who most benefitted from Bush tax cuts. Even as he crititized taxing high-cost plans, a top White House economic adviser defended the approach as necessary to health-care savings. As ABC News reported: President Obama's chief economic forecaster went to bat on Monday for a tax on high-priced insurance plans, the so-called "Cadillac tax," calling it "probably the number one item that health economists across the ideological spectrum believe is likely to stem the explosion of health-care costs." "The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a tax on high-priced insurance plans, suggested by Senator Kerry. A policy along these lines, designed carefully, will encourage both employers and employees to be more watchful health care consumers," said Christina Romer, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, in a noontime speech to the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. "It will discourage insurance companies from offering high-priced plans that would otherwise eat up larger and larger shares of workers' wages," she continued. "A policy such as this is probably the number one item that health economists across the ideological spectrum believe is likely to stem the explosion of health care costs." Romer's full-throated endorsement of the "Cadillac tax" keeps the Obama administration at odds on this issue with some of its closest allies... As usual in media coverage of this issue, it's been largely framed as pragmatic policy wonks versus those self-serving union folks. In fact, as the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, many House Democrats and a broad array of progressive groups in Health Care for America have pointed out: The 40% tax that kicks in after a plan exceeds $8,000 for an individual or $21,000 for a family will get passed down from insurance companies to consumers. The tax is projected to affect up to 40% of health plans by 2019 - just six years after it takes effect - according to a preliminary analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and will fall on workers who live in high-cost states, who live in states with few insurers, or who are a part of an older workforce. Health Care for America Now instead is urging Congress to raise revenues from people making more than $250,000 a year. Taxing health care plans has been rejected by the public in polling, and an earlier version of this same proposal would have directly taxed workers' benefits, as opposed to passing along the costs to workers by taxing the insurance companies with an excise tax of 40%. However it's done, it's a fashionable "solution" to health-care costs that seems unlikely to fly in final legislation, especially in the House, unless it taxes only the true Cadillac plans -- more accurately, the Rolls Royce plans -- of overpaid executives. Even so, Trumka's blend of insistence on core principles combined with hints of flexibility led one Washington paper, The Hill , to declare: " AFL-CIO President Declares Room for Compromise ." But it's not the sort of compromise that would sell out real health care reform, a possibility that still looms among Democrats as Congress moves closer to finalizing a bill. He's hopeful that Congress will ultimately pass a bill closer to a House version that covers more people than the Senate Finance Committee version and significantly lowers health care costs. He declared, "What gives me optimism is that the American public really senses that health care is possible. They want health care, and they're demanding that it be real health care." And a recent ad by Health Care for America Now underscores what "real" reform would look like, and it's not penalizing middle-class and working class families:
 
Are Womb Transplants The Next Frontier In Fertility? Top
Doctors in Britain have announced that they have figured out a process to transplant wombs that could result in healthy pregnancies -- and they estimate they could do their first successful transplant within two years. More on Health
 
Matthew Hoh Resigns: State Department Official Quits Over Afghan War Top
A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed. But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency. More on Afghanistan
 
Huff TV: Arianna Weighs In On The Senate Health Care Bill And The Challenges Ahead Top
Arianna appeared on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann Monday evening to discuss news that the Senate's health care bill would include a public option for health insurance. While Arianna considered the bill's inclusion of a public option to be a step in the right direction, she also pointed to the troubling aspects that remain in the legislation. "There's is still a lot in the bill which is very troubling. There is the concession to Pharma, which means we cannot negotiate for lower prices because of economies of scale that the government has. There is the fact that the public option would only really reach about 10 million people. It would not affect anybody who already has insurance through their employer. And there is of course the opt out, which means that many, many, millions of people potentially, may not be able to have access to the public option. So There is a lot that is troubling, but it is definitely a step in the right direction with many road blocks remaining." Arianna and Keith went on to discuss the possibility that Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska may not support the Senate health care bill. WATCH Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Health Care
 
Robert Reich: Breaking Up the Big Banks, and Why Congress Won't Do It Top
And now there are five -- five Wall Street behemoths, bigger than they were before the Great Meltdown, paying fatter salaries and bonuses to retain their so-called"talent," and raking in huge profits. The biggest difference between now and last October is these biggies didn't know then that they were too big to fail and the government would bail them out if they got into trouble. Now they do. And like a giant, gawking adolescent who's just discovered he can crash the Lexus convertible his rich dad gave him and the next morning have a new one waiting in his driveway courtesy of a dad who can't say no, the biggies will drive even faster now, taking even bigger risks. What to do? Two ideas are floating around Washington, but only one is supported by the Treasury and the White House. Unfortunately, it's the wrong one. The right idea is to break up the giant banks. I don't often agree with Alan Greenspan but he was right when he said last week that "[i]f they're too big to fail, they're too big." Greenspan noted that the government broke up Standard Oil in 1911, and what happened? "The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that's what we need to do." (Historic footnote: Had Greenspan not supported in 1999 Congress's repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, which separated investment from commercial banking, we wouldn't be in the soup we're in to begin with.) Former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, whose only problem is he's much too tall, last week told the New York Times he'd like to see the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act provisions that would separate the financial giants' deposit-taking activities from their investment and trading businesses. If this separation went into effect, JPMorgan Chase would have to give up the trading operations acquired from Bear Stearns. Bank of America and Merrill Lynch would go back to being separate companies. And Goldman Sachs could no longer be a bank holding company. But the Obama Administration doesn't agree with either Greenspan or Volcker. While it says it doesn't want another bank bailout, its solution to the 'too big to fail' problem doesn't go nearly far enough. In fact, it doesn't really go anywhere. The Administration would wait until a giant bank was in danger of failing and then put it into a process akin to bankruptcy. The bank's assets would be sold off to pay its creditors, and its shareholders would likely walk off with nothing. The Treasury would determine when such a "resolution" process was needed, and appoint a receiver, such as the FDIC, to wind down the bank's operations. There should be an orderly process for putting big failing banks out of business. But this isn't nearly enough. By the time a truly big bank gets into trouble -- one that poses a "systemic risk" to the entire economy -- it's too late. Other banks, competing like mad for the same talent and profits, will already have adopted many of the excessively-risky banks' techniques. And the pending failure will already have rocked the entire financial sector. Worse yet, the Administration's plan gives the big failing bank an escape hatch: The receiver might decide that the bank doesn't need to go out of business after all -- that all it needs is some government money to tide it over until the crisis passes. So the Treasury would also have the authority to provide the bank with financial assistance in the form of loans or guarantees. In other words, back to bailout. (Historical footnote: Summers and Geithner, along with Bob Rubin, while at Treasury in 1999, joined Greenspan in urging Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall. The four of them -- Greenspan, Summers, Rubin and Geithner also refused to regulate derivatives, and pushed Congress to stop the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation from doing so.) Congress is cooking up a variation on the "resolution" idea that would give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation authority to trigger and handle the winding-down of big banks in trouble, without Treasury involvement, and without an escape hatch. Needless to say, Wall Street favors the Administration's approach -- which is why the Administration chose it to begin with. If I were less charitable I'd say Geithner and Summers continue to bend over bankwards to make Wall Street happy, and in doing so continue to risk the credibility of the president, as well as the long-term financial stability of the system. Wall Street could live with the slightly less delectable variation that Congress is coming up with. But Congress won't go as far as to unleash the antitrust laws on the big banks or resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act. After all, the Street is a major benefactor of Congress and the Street's lobbyists and lackeys are all over Capitol Hill. The Street obviously detests the notion that its behemoths should be broken up. That's why the idea isn't even on the table. But it should be. No important public interest is served by allowing giant banks to grow too big to fail. Winding them down after they get into trouble is no answer. By then the damage will already have been done. Whether it's using the antitrust laws or enacting a new Glass-Steagall Act, the Wall Street giants should be split up -- and soon. Cross-posted from Robert Reich's Blog. More on Financial Crisis
 
Virginia M. Moncrieff: Look Who's Not Talking. Bono! Top
During U2's live streaming from the Rosebowl it seems that the unthinkable has happened. Bono has started editing himself. There was still some of that naff self righteous patter but I remember U2 concerts when you could retire to the back stalls for a bit of a snooze between songs while Bono rabbited on about Burma, or Mandela, or whales, or the memory of Martin Luther King or the Troubles......whatever. Don't get me wrong. Among many of my friends I am often the only one who thinks dear Bono is actually doing something incredible during his days off (unlike those people lounging on sofas criticising him, for it seems, working to alleviate world hunger and poverty) but I now prefer my live music served up sans manifesto de half baked. Now this wasn't always the case. I once saw Courtney Love eat up most of Hole's set slurring her way through an unintelligible stage patter. She was talking total rubbish but yes, it was utterly mesmerizing. At the same festival Iggy Pop spent a great deal of time talking about his dick and then thought the best thing to do was show it to us. (I was too far from the stage to now give an honest assessment of the appendage). And at the same festival Rage Against The Machine table-thumped against a grab bag of causes that left me totally addled. Cuban refugees, the arms race, Africa, Republicans, pseudo-Republicans, gay Republicans, gay hating Republicans, gay Cuban refugees. Zack de la Rocha raved on ..........and on, and the gaps between the songs were so long that I could have completed a sophomore political science thesis and had time to spare. This was a very long time ago. Several generations ago in rock years (which if you add up rock years like you do dog years, you begin to feel creakingly old at oh, about 30). There was nothing unusual at all about the amount of time The Ig , Courtney and Zack blathered on. Now granted, even in the loosey goosey world of rock and roll Courtney Love is the exception to just about every rule, but don't you think that times have changed? No longer are we content to hear the tin pot half-baked undergraduate political ramblings of some bloke who just happens to have the mic. What in the hell would he know? And why is he breaking up the set like that? Start with your first song and don't stop paying until the final bar of your last. Thank you, money well spent. I realised I was over the political science lessons one night in a gigantic pub venue where some of the best alternative bands were playing. Granted, I was older than most of the audience, but in my defence so I was still pretty young (it was a long time ago). A band with members that I knew quite well played, and the lead singer - a lovely guy who fancied himself a bit of a political activist - chatted between songs from a seeming shopping list of pet causes including the right wing governor of his home state. His diatribe went like this (and I am fairly sure I am recounting this word perfectly). "Now listen, this dude is, you know, like a bad man and yeah! Like yeah! We gotta you know...yeah right! .......it's like bad news man, and he's a fascist and man, he's just bad news, I'm here to tell you......so like wow.....". In fairness this chap was a fan of John Pilger which would dull anyone's political acuity but honestly, I was hoping that he would just shut up and get on with the set. The last big concert I saw was Nine Inch Nails. Now Trent really knows how to shut up. The band walked on stage and cranked it up. About an hour later Trent spoke for the first time. "Thank you" he said. Then off they churned again with their industrial strength boil-in-the-bag assault. My skull was catapulted onto the back wall of the arena and I didn't want to have to stop for a minute to hear Trent crap on about many of his causes. And he does have them. We all know that Trent is an ardent animal rights activist and musician's rights advocate. Last week he came out all guns blazing about the use of music as torture at Gitmo. But did he give us a lecture and a bit of finger wagging in between Head like a Hole and March of the Pigs? Thankfully, no. Toward the end of the set, Trent mumbled the names of the band with a bit of an arm wave in their direction. Didn't catch the names, didn't care. I was waiting for more songs with naughty words in them. Maybe I'm just more grown up and going to more grown up concerts although my desire to hear naughty words in NiN songs may be an indication that this is not entirely true. But the need to fly your political colors, or just ramble about the addled state of your brain (refer: Iggy and Courtney) or have meaningless discussions with the audience about how- is everyone-feeling-this-great-day seems to be receding. Is it because rock is the mainstream? Or is it because as esteemed music critic Greil Marcus famously once said, (and I am paraphrasing here) we are just too grown up to get our political education from some numbskull with a guitar? Like I said, I have lived my life in love with numbskulls with guitars, but now it seems cooler than ever to just shut up.
 
Diane Dimond: The Crime Clock And You Top
The official "Crime Clock" is counting down the odds that you or a family member or a friend will be touched by violent crime in the coming year. Think it can't happen to you? The Crime Clock doesn't recognize race or age or gender. It's all about statistics. The figures are compiled each year by the National Center for Victims of Crime. The numbers come from various government and private agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The Crime Clock might easily be dismissed as just a bunch of numbers but it really isn't. It's the scoreboard on which America keeps track of all the criminal ugliness that happens in our country. Take the individual crimes committed and divide by the number of citizens we have and you get numbers that will leave you numb. While I'm usually skittish of statistics that can be easily manipulated or interpreted in biased ways I really think you can take these stats to the bank. Ready to digest some mind boggling figures? There are so many homicides in America every year it extrapolates to this: One person is murdered every 31 minutes in America. One person, woman or man, is raped every 1.9 minutes. One child is reported abused or neglected every 35 seconds! Stop for a minute and imagine the true impact of these statistics. The agony of men, women and children left behind in the wake of these crimes, their scars carried for a lifetime. And that's not all. The Crime Clock tells us one person is killed in an alcohol related traffic accident every 40 minutes in America - that's more than four dozen people every single day. One woman is victimized by an intimate partner every 52 seconds; one man is similarly assaulted every 3 and a half minutes. Just imagine the number of people crippled by domestic violence every single day. It's mind boggling! One American home is burglarized every nine seconds. So what do you think your chances are of coming home one day to find your home has been violated, your belongings gone? One elderly person falls victim to a violent crime every 4 minutes in the United States and every single hour of every single day someone reports they have been victimized as part of a hate related crime. What are we doing to each other? Last week in this space I wrote about a wonderful organization called Crime Survivors (www.CrimeSurvivors.org) based in Orange County, California, founded and maintained by crime survivor Patricia Wenskunas. The group struggles to make sure victims of crime are not forgotten in a system that gives so much benefit of the doubt to criminal defendants. I'm not knocking the idea of "innocent until proven guilty," I just think we should give equal consideration to those left victimized. Patricia's mantra is that victims are blameless, that they can rise above their victimhood into true survivor status with the proper support. Reading mere numbers can sometimes fog the brain. It's not until we hear individual stories about specific victims that we can truly begin to focus on the plight of victims and their families who suffer through the crime with them. For every high-profile media case - think Matthew Sheppard, Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Dugard - there are hundreds of thousands of others each year you never hear about. I doubt you heard about Patricia Wenskunas's terror. She had suffered an eating disorder since childhood molestation by an uncle. As an adult, a single mother, she decided to hire a trainer to get her on a healthy path. Nine months into the program her trusted trainer invited himself to her home where he surreptitiously drugged her, beat her black and blue, bound her and suffocated her with layers of saran wrap. She survived, she told me, because when he threatened to kill her son if she screamed she leaped off a balcony to find help. At that point Patricia the victim became Patricia the survivor. None of us should be complacent or fall into the trap of thinking crime happens to someone else. The Crime Clock says otherwise. The Crime Clock shows us the odds are not necessarily in our favor of getting through life without being touched by the constant swirl of crime that infects our country. I've met a lot of victims in my line of work. None of them want to suffer with the burden of what they've been through. I come away thinking there has to be a way we can help those of our fellow citizens most deeply damaged by violent crime. Patricia, and groups like hers, can't do it alone. Diane Dimond can be reached through her web site at: www.DianeDimond.net -30-
 
Bill and Melinda Gates To Share "Impatient Optimism" Via Webcast Top
Although the U.S. sends billions of dollars to other countries in foreign aid each year, Bill and Melinda Gates understand it's hard to wrap our minds around what that means for a single person on the other side of the world. That's why they've launched " The Living Proof Project: U.S. Investments In Global Health Are Working " through the B ill and Melinda Gates Foundation . The project comprises an ongoing collection of personal stories, multimedia and progress sheets that document the success of the U.S.'s global health initiatives. "Our hope is that if more people see this impact they will be moved to share these compelling stories and support America's continued leadership in global health," Melinda Gates wrote in a blog post on Monday. "I know that for Bill and for me, these stories have had a profound impact on the way we look at the opportunities in the years ahead. At our foundation, we have come to believe that sharing stories of success is one of the most important things we can do to motivate and inspire others. Through our work, especially our visits to the field, we have been deeply touched by personal stories of lives changed for the better." To launch the project, Bill and Melinda Gates will speak via webcast tomorrow, October 27. Tune in at 7 p.m. EDT to watch their presentation, " Why We Are Impatient Optimists ," which will highlight some of the remarkable success stories from U.S. global investments and outline those that are yet to come. Impact will feature the webcast here in real time tomorrow. Don't forget to add this special event to your calendar so you don't miss the broadcast. If you're an impatient optimist who can't wait until tomorrow to learn more about this campaign, you can visit The Living Proof Project right now to start learning more about global heath success stories. More on Bill Gates
 

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.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment