Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Ginny Sloan: Swine Flu: A Danger to Your Rights as Well as Your Health? Top
Earlier today, the Constitution Project and the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security brought together a group of expert panelists at the National Press Club to discuss the civil liberties implications of the government's response to the H1N1 flu, more commonly known as swine flu. Moderator Sharon Bradford Franklin, Senior Policy Counsel at the Constitution Project, opened the event with a brief overview of recent news developments in the H1N1 outbreak. The panel featured Professor Michael Greenberger, Director of the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, Professor Wendy Mariner of the Boston University School of Public health, and Dr. Marita Mike, the Health Director at the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security. Dr. Mike began the conversation by offering a medical perspective on the unique health risks posed by the H1N1 flu, comparing the most recent outbreak with past public health crises in the United States. Professor Greenberger built on the doctor's introduction by outlining the remarkably broad executive powers that may be leveraged at the state and federal levels to combat the flu. Finally, Professor Mariner rejected the notion that emergency preparedness laws can prevent disease, and critiqued the post-9/11 focus on coercive public health tools that threaten individual civil liberties. Instead, she argued that the focus of the government's response to the H1N1 flu should be on creating a healthy, educated population that has plentiful access to information, vaccines, and other medical care. The discussion featured vigorous exchanges on the constitutional concerns raised by quarantines, mandatory vaccinations, and interstate travel restrictions. The panelists agreed that the federal government's response to the H1N1 flu has been timely and proportionate to the real dangers posed by the disease, but voiced concerns about how state and federal governments may employ existing executive powers if more virulent strands of the flu merge. The panelists encouraged members of the public to take appropriate health precautions, and urged a rational public dialogue on the tools state and federal governments need, or think they need, to effectively combat public health risks like the H1N1 flu. Today's event drew a diverse and engaged audience to the National Press Club's Murrow Room, including attendees from various print and radio news outlets, the Department of Homeland Security, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, congressional staff, as well as numerous other advocacy and health organizations. To see photos from this afternoon's event, please click here . A video of the discussion will be posted as soon as it's available. More on Swine Flu
 
Carolyn Rubenstein: How to Find Your Calling Top
"A man may fulfill the object of his existence by asking a question he cannot answer, and attempting a task he cannot achieve." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Many people ask how I became passionate enough to find my calling at such a young age. They often say that they feel unfulfilled. Many are willing to change careers and even have the courage and drive to do so, but they lack the vision. They become paralyzed because they aren't sure where their passion lies. In short, many people don't seem to know what they love. The question, "Where do I go from here?" is asked quite frequently. So where do I go from here? I don't believe there's a single answer. However, there is usually something that feels comfortable, which likely represents the natural next step in your journey, or at least a clue to it. For some, that may mean applying to graduate school or striving for a promotion at work. But sometimes, what at first seems comfortable can quickly feel very uncomfortable. When that happens, we berate ourselves by constantly resisting that feeling of uncertainty. Yet the solution often becomes apparent when we allow ourselves to ask a simple question, "Where do I go from here?" Of course, it often feels strange to think about what you want, but doing so really is worth those few seconds of discomfort. In that process, you are trusting your intuition and releasing the external pressure that keeps you boxed in along a single, winding road. Just imagine where your mind may lead you! Feel uncertain? Take two action steps instead of aspirin: ask questions and free your imagination. At a Crossroads Today, I've reached a crossroads in my life. For many years, I've been determined to write and then publish a book. Now that Perseverance is out, I'm focusing my efforts on what that accomplishment actually means to me. It's clear that the publication of Perseverance represents the end of one chapter of my life. In fact, the book has been a part of my identity for more than four years. Thus, it will soon be time for me to define that next chapter. Right now, I'm not sure where that installment will take me, which is exactly why I'm exploring my options. But along the way, I'm learning as much as I can. You could say that I'm passionate about discovering my next passion. Discovery in Action For instance, I signed up to take a daylong creative play workshop , which is certainly something I have never tried before. Because of that, I wasn't sure if I would even enjoy it. But while enrolling in the workshop was something I believed that I would not do normally, I did it anyway--and I loved it! I also took an online course about dreaming, Mondo Beyondo , and that experience really freed me to explore my imagination in new ways and meet incredible friends who were doing the same thing. I became interested in online workshops through Aby Garvey 's Simplify101 Workshops. Each one is empowering and allows me to explore something new about myself and my passions. I take all of these classes just to gain new and unique experiences. I realize that I might not enjoy them all, but then again, I just might. Now, I'm doing as much as I can to learn about the parts of myself I've never explored. Eventually, I hope this learning process will help me define that next chapter in my life. If you'd like to do the same, consider this: Give yourself permission to exit your comfort zone. Explore pursuits that you might not be good at, may well have never tried, and might not even like. Try low cost or free online classes. Thanks to the Internet, you can learn how to do just about anything online. Most online courses offer a few free classes that will allow you to get your feet wet. Go with how you feel. If you try something new and hate it, then it's not right for you. But if you try it and love it, well, you may have just stumbled across your calling!
 
Chris Weigant: From The Pentagon To Monty Python: The Internet Turns 40 Top
Tomorrow is the internet's fortieth birthday. Its creators are even throwing it a birthday party at the University of California, Los Angeles, the origin of the first message ever transmitted over what we know today as "the internet," on October 29, 1969. If you're wondering what the first message ever transmitted was -- the digital age's "Come here, Watson," statement, as it were -- it consisted of two letters: "LO." It was actually supposed to be "LOG," as in "LOG IN," but the receiving computer crashed after receiving just the first two letters -- not a very auspicious beginning, it must be admitted. Still, for poetic reasons, "LO" seems pretty apt: "Lo! The Internet was created!" The project, the first open linkage of two computers over a distance, was paid for by the Pentagon. Specifically, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. This was a Cold War agency created out of fear -- the fear that the Russians were ahead of us technologically. This fear was not unfounded at the time, since DARPA was a hasty response to the Russians launching the first man-made satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. Americans could tune in their ham radios to a little "beep...beep...beep..." signal that crossed over our skies, and thus know that the Russians had done something we hadn't managed to do yet -- which was not only downright ominous in those days, but also downright inconceivable to many Americans. This was the dawn of the "space race" between the two countries, which culminated with the landing on the moon in 1969 of two Americans. But it also culminated in the same year with what was then called ARPANET. The internet's birth was in the depths of the Cold War, created for scientists to exchange some very hot data -- the design and testing of nuclear weapons, for instance. Its transformation from its militaristic beginnings to where it stands now should be seen as the greatest "swords into plowshares" story in the history of mankind. Because today, while its origins are at best dimly remembered, what it has morphed into has gone far, far beyond the original intent -- and changed our planet and our way of life as a result. Technology has grown by such leaps and bounds since 1969 that it's hard to conceive how things were before we all had access to computers. The 1970s saw the dawn of the "personal computer" -- a phrase unthinkable a mere decade earlier, when computers had shrunk from boxcar-sized to merely pickup-truck-sized... but were not expected to shrink much more. But the rapid progress of the microchip ushered in a revolution in such shrinkage. The first small computers were merely hobbyist machines for scientists and tinkerers, but Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak saw their true potential, and changed the world with the introduction of what became the Apple II. IBM, while much slower to accept such a radical idea, eventually introduced its own version, the "PC," or "Personal Computer." Since then, computers have gotten faster and data storage has gotten much, much better, so that today the machine you are likely reading this on is more powerful than the machines they were designing nuclear weapons on back in 1969. Indeed, the computer in your cell phone may even be more powerful. The concept of linking computers together grew by leaps and bounds as well. In 1983, DARPA in essence split the net into two parts, the military component (renamed MILNET), and what became the commercial, public internet. Also at this time, TCP/IP protocols were introduced, which also fed the eventual explosive growth. The non-military net was also at this time opened up to much wider use within the universities where it had originated. Networking was fast growing in the early 1980s on two other fronts -- the Local Area Network (LAN) and the first subscription service for online access. It was the era of TokenRing, Ethernet, and AppleTalk; of AOL and CompuServe. It may stun younger users today, but back then people paid ten bucks per hour to access online services -- which were laughably crude by today's standards. Heavy online users would often pay hundreds of dollars a month to access text-only, non-web data over their phone lines. It was also the era of the beginnings of information overload. This led to the introduction of "bulletin boards" and automated file searching. The real beginnings of what we call "the internet" today were a message-posting area of the net called UseNet; and the beginnings of the Google-type search engine were the humble "gopher" software of the time. But the real explosion came about in the early 1990s, with two cornerstone events -- opening up the internet to commerce, and the introduction of the World Wide Web. The internet, now being called "the Internet" (previously the term had not been used -- the inventor of the concept, in an early-1960s paper, called his dream an "Intergalactic Computer Network," which I always thought sounded way, way cooler...) was about to grow beyond all conception. The World Wide Web, still known to us today in that "www" prefix in web addresses, was dreamed up a Swiss laboratory for (once again) nuclear research -- the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire , or CERN. For the second time, nuclear researchers came up with an idea which quickly outgrew its original scientific data-sharing purposes. The combination of hypertext (clickable links) and a common file format which included graphics (the HyperText Markup Language, or HTML) were soon exploited by the world's first truly effective graphic "browser," Mosaic. From Mosaic, Netscape was born, and the rest is history. Of course it hasn't all been wine and roses along the way. The internet (the term is now used increasingly without benefit of capitalization, a mark of how common an idea it has become) also gave birth to online fraud and other forms of online crime. Back when the internet originated, the Pentagon was interested in its advanced researchers having the ability to easily talk to each other, to better share information. This information had a goal -- to always always stay one step ahead of our foes. At the time, this was mainly the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent, China. These days, some of the most prevalent data attacks come from malware (Trojan horses, DDoS attacks, viruses, worms, botnets, and all the rest) which originate all over the world, with an unhealthy portion coming from (you guessed it) Russia and China. Which brings us, in a way, full circle. But for many of us, the internet will serve one very important function far, far into the future. I speak of the immortalization in digital history of Monty Python's Flying Circus . When contemporaneous comedy troupes will long have been forgotten, centuries hence, Monty Python will still live on in its anti-paean to a Hormel meats product -- the lowly "spiced ham" in a can known as Spam. Spam was widely consumed in Britain during World War II, due to it not being rationed as most meats were at the time (which alone says something). Spam became prevalent as a civilian wartime staple as a result. Which explains the origins of the Monty Python sketch, where a man and a woman argue over a cafe's breakfast selections which seem to contain far too much spam for the woman's liking (example from the menu: "Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon, and Spam"). The idea that spam is prevalent and unwanted was first applied in the infancy of online gaming, and in the early 1990s was used specifically to describe an unwanted email solicitation for money. Knowing the makeup of online gamers back then, it's easy to see that a Monty Python reference would have caught on quickly, as one thing all geeks unanimously agree upon (both back then and today) is the sheer awesomeness of Monty Python. Because the term spam is now so universally accepted to describe unwanted email (even Hormel has largely given up on trying to stamp such usage out), it follows that the story of its origins -- complete with the original Monty Python "Spam sketch" -- will live forever in the digital world. For which we have the Pentagon to thank. But in any case, tomorrow when you're reading your email, or deleting spam (90 percent of all email is now spam; an astounding figure, when you think about it), or browsing the web, or checking stock quotes, or doing your banking online, or reading an online news article, or writing a blog post, or researching a topic, or using a search engine, or playing an online game, or playing online poker for money, or even just looking at some porn -- take a moment to stop and raise your glass in a toast. Because the internet you are using to do all of these things is having a birthday, and it's the big four-oh. Meaning we should all mark the occasion with a hearty: "Happy 40th birthday, internet!"   [ Historical Note: For those interested, the very first "web page" is still available online, just to show how far we've come in less than two decades. It's pretty basic by today's standards, but the concept of "links" was brand new back then, keep in mind. ]   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Monty Python
 
John Amato: World Series Game 1 Liveblog: Yankees, Phillies Face Off Top
I know the Philly bloggers are against me, but that's OK. I'm up for betting a few bags of Cheetos with the Philly faithful. Much respect to them. Email me if you want to get it on... Because of the idiot, Bud Selig, we have baseball that will go into November so the weather is a big issue. I'm a typical "Obsessed Fan" when it comes to the playoffs and I love to call pitches like a catcher and manage the game like I'm the actual manager, so I'll be going nuts during the game. World Series: Yanks vs Phillies Here's a quick breakdown of the series as I see it. 1B) Howard vs Teixeira Howard has a monster bat, but his glove doesn't equal Tex's. Mark needs to have a good hitting series because they will pitch around A-Rod all series long. I do believe that Mark will have an impact on the field throughout, but it's really close. Edge: Even 2B) Utley vs Cano Utley is a far better hitter than Cano, drives in more runs and batting in the middle of the potent Philly lineup proves the point, but Cano did hit .320 and played excellent defense. Edge: Utley SS) Jeter vs Rollins This is an intriguing match-up because Rollins won the MVP last year for the NL, but if we look at comparing them in 2009, Derek had a much better year offensively. Rollins hit just .250 with an OBP of .296. Jeter hit .334 with an OBP of .406, but Rollins can still be deadly and he has more range than Jeter. However, Jeter has shown an incredible feel for the game especially in the playoffs that I have never seen before. His instincts are scary. Edge: Jeter 3B) A-Rod vs Feliz A-Rod has been playing out of his mind this post season so this isn't even close. Feliz does have a great glove and won't beat himself. Edge: A-Rod Outfield and DH: All three Philly outfielders are better than the Yanks. Every one of them can hit for power and for the most part field well. They out HRed the Yankee starting outfield by an 80-66 margin, but where the Yanks have the edge is in the DH department with Matsui. He hit 28 HR's out of the fifth spot for the Bombers so at Yankee stadium that will be an advantage. In Philly, the Yanks lose their 28 HR-man and replace him with a pitcher, so the Phillies have the power advantage when the Yanks come for cheese steaks. Edge: Phillies Starting Pitching: CC, AJ and Andy get the advantage over the Phillies. Lee is awesome, but Pedro and Hamels are question marks at this point. The fourth game will be interesting because Girardi has said he may use only three starters for the entire series if it goes seven games. It might be CC no matter what in game four, but I think Pettitte is the only pitcher that Joe would worry about pitching on three days rest. If he changes his mind and uses Chad Gaudin, then Manuel has the edge because he has Happ and Blanton to step up if he needs them. Here's where the weather comes in. If any game other than the first one is rained out then it makes it really easy for Girardi to stick with a three man rotation. Edge: Yanks Bullpen: The Yankee pen hasn't been as solid as it was for the second half of the season and that might have been due to fatigue. They use a lot of young, home grown pitchers in the bullpen, but the one man that gives the Yanks the ultimate weapon is Mariano Rivera. Even at 39 years old, he's still the best of the best and can go two innings if needed. Lidge is still shaky in my mind so I think if the games are close going into the ninth with Philly trying to close out the Yanks in a game, hold your breath. Edge: Yanks. Managers: Manuel is the reigning champion and Girardi is trying to get the crown. Charlie is a really likable man and makes it easy to root for him. They both make tons of moves during a game which could make them go on forever but until Girardi wins a championship, Charlie gets the nod. I think Girardi made a lot of bizarre moves in his playoff run so far, but they survived them. Will he use his instincts more or stick to his match-up/book mentality? I hope it's the latter. Edge: Manuel To me this series is a toss-up because of the strength of the Philly lineup and their toughness, but the Yanks are excellent at home and have Mariano. I'm hoping the Yanks win it in six, but what makes it a great sport is you never know who will step up and make the difference in a series like this. Who will be the surprise of the 2009 World Series?
 
Huff TV: HuffPost Editor Roy Sekoff On The Far Right's Political Porn (VIDEO) Top
HuffPost Editor Roy Sekoff was a guest on MSNBC's The Ed Show tonight to discuss the latest outrage from the far right - an attempt to encourage people to battle against health care reform by burning Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in effigy, as well as holding a contest - with prizes! -- to see who can create the 'best' "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi burn in hell" video. Sekoff denounced the effort as "political pornography" and "straight out of the Glenn Beck school of hate-filled buffoonery." He also noted that it's tempting to dismiss such outrages as irrelevant bleating by the lunatic fringe, "but then you think of George Tiller. You think of the doctor who was shot down in cold blood by someone who was following the likes of anti-abortion zealot Randall Terry. And that's when it gets really scary." WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Video
 
Richard Allen Smith: The CIA, The Brothers Karzai and Spinning our COIN Wheels Top
In what could be understated as a bombshell, Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen have reported a dubious connection between the CIA, the brother of the Afghan President and the illicit opium trade: KABUL, Afghanistan -- Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country's booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials. The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.'s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai's home. The whole article is really a fascinating read. My real question here is what impacts this has on the Afghan elections. Will Hamid Karzai be seen more as a U.S. puppet than he already is? If he wins the runoff anyway, will his government be seen as legitimate? Of course, locals tend to know more about our "covert" operations in their AO than we do, so there is a very likely possibility that this was already common knowledge west of the Durand Line. But the electoral and legitimacy ramifications really just scratch the surface. The Center For a New American Security's Andrew Exum discusses what it means, if true, for the NATO counterinsurgency (COIN) effort at Abu Muqawama : if this is true, and if the CIA is empowering Ahmed Wali Karzai at the same time in which NATO/ISAF is saying abusive local power-brokers are a threat to mission success, then this is yet another example of NATO/ISAF carrying out one campaign in Afghanistan while the CIA carries out another -- with both campaigns operating at cross purposes to one another. I should say here that I am in no position to confirm or deny this report. I can, however, say that numerous military officials in southern Afghanistan with whom I have spoken identify AWK and his activities as the biggest problem they face -- bigger than the lack of government services or even the Taliban. And so if AWK is "the agency's guy", that leads to a huge point of friction between NATO/ISAF and the CIA. Additionally, Spencer Ackerman notes the implications of the money cycle at the Washington Independent : CIA money funds a politically connected drug dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban? BLUF : This is a clusterfuck. If this is true, all of our COIN efforts thus far have been done wrong. Exum states, in more eloquent language than I have "you can be darn sure that if we think that AWK is the CIA's guy, the Afghans most certainly believe that to be the case." That's no way to win the trust of a population you are trying to protect. We are paying a symbol of the illegitimate national government which hinders our need for a legitimate partner. We are partnering with a symbol of government corruption, which undermines any trust we might receive from the population. We are funding the insurgency we are attempting to counter. This is the definition of wheel spinning. And is this just the tip of the iceberg? Is it really plausible that this is the only place in Afghanistan where we are doing this, where CIA activity is undermining counterinsurgency efforts? If the CIA is willing to do it in one area, I don't really think the agency would have qualms about doing it in any other place in the country. This raises the legitimate fear that in any AO in the conflict, we are fighting against ourselves, with American military personnel dying as a result. If COIN, on any scale, is really our answer for Afghanistan we need to figure out (at the very least) who the good guys and the bad guys are so that we aren't aiding both. That seems like a ridiculous statement, and it is. But the reports about AWK's partnership with the CIA renders a ridiculous question legitimate, which is more than we can presently say for the ridiculous Karzai government. More on Afghanistan
 
Rep. Earl Blumenauer: A Historic and Emotional Moment Top
One of the joys of serving in Congress is to experience moments when your hard work is actually enacted into law. You celebrate each little step along the way - a hearing, an amendment, positive floor action, the other chamber moving on your legislation, the conference committee coming to an agreement. Sometimes the dance of legislation can be long and frustrating. As a result, there's nothing like that feeling of finally passing a bill and having it signed by the president. No better feeling, perhaps, than being there to witness it. Today, after too many years of delay, President Obama signed into law a bill that makes it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation. A little while ago I hopped on my bike and made the ride up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House to celebrate the signing into law of the Hate Crimes legislation. I noticed on this ride that one of my colleagues, Congressman Mike Quigley (IL-5), also made the trek to executive mansion via bicycle. While I've experienced the thrill of being onstage next to the president when he signed my legislation, this is one of those rare occasions when I was happier to step back and watch President Obama put pen to paper surrounded by allies and people who have sacrificed so much to pass this vital bill. Seeing my good friend, great Oregonian, and co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign Terry Bean front and center gave me such satisfaction. He represents so many friends and allies who sacrificed so much, worked so hard, and who represented the people who had suffered so surrounding the President. Although Hate Crimes legislation is something I believe in and have worked strongly for, it seemed wrong to be sitting in the White House watching this historic and emotional moment without those at home who have worked so hard for this important measure. I wished they could have been there in my stead, but sitting back, taking this in, watching the spotlight shine where it belonged - on the people from the trenches of the GLBT community - was a profound reminder that in the dance of legislation, sometimes the harder, more controversial measures have as their champions not members of the House or Senate, but eloquent, determined, focused and ultimately victorious people from the community who refuse to give up. More on Barack Obama
 
Leslie Goldman: The Naked Truth Behind Binge Eating Disorder Top
Here in the blogosphere, we talk a lot about body image and eating disorders. About wildly airbrushed models and glamourized anorexia and bulimia and post-baby bods . But one topic we haven't lent much word space to is binge eating. Despite the fact that BED (Binge Eating Disorder) is America's most common eating disorder , affecting more people than anorexia and bulimia combined (1 in 35 women struggle with it, and those are just the ones who are diagnosed), the disease doesn't generate the kind of media coverage it deserves. Because it's messy. It's scary. It's complicated. Anorexia is nearly lionized by our society, representing the ultimate in strength and control. And the result is a thin woman which let's face it, is what grabs headlines these days . BED (and bulimia, to some extent) is pushed aside and ignored, like a suspicious-looking mole that we might pretend isn't really on our shoulder because if it was there, it might be cancer, and cancer is horrible and we just can't deal with such a thing right now. But just because you ignore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's where Sunny Sea Gold comes in. For you magazine devotees, her name will look familiar because she's the health editor at Glamour magazine. But what you likely don't know is that for years, starting around age 14, when her parents began the kind of fighting that ultimately ended in their divorce, Sunny struggled silently with BED. The kind of struggle that led her to sneak into her family's kitchen late at night, where she'd quickly slather multiple pieces of bread with butter and peanut butter or pile a plate high with chips and cheese for makeshift nachos. One night, she found herself perched on top of her "German shepherd's doghouse in the middle of the night, a can of frozen orange juice concentrate in one hand, a spoon in the other, crying and scooping the syrupy stuff into my mouth until it was almost gone." As she recalls on her new website, HealthyGirl.org , "I thought I was a pig, and a freak, because I couldn't stop this weird, secret, uncontrollable eating. I started wearing big, baggy sweaters or sweatshirts over leggings to hide what I thought was an unacceptably fat body. When I ate seven candy bars in a row one afternoon, I knew there was something desperately wrong. That's when my mom sent me to Mitch, the family counselor both she and my dad had been seeing throughout their divorce. He gave a name to what I had been doing: compulsive overeating-what's now also known as binge eating disorder." Sunny was kind enough to answer a few questions for Huffington Post readers; check out her answers below, then bookmark her website for your new go-to source for support and information if you have battled or are currently battling BED. If nothing else, I hope her bravery in stepping forward to break the BED silence opens your eyes to the fact that you are not alone in your struggle, and you absolutely can -- and deserve to -- get better. You've written that you don't believe looking at skinny models caused your eating disorder, as you were sneaking cookies and wondering if you were fat before you even knew what a model was. Now you work for Glamour , a major fashion and beauty magazine. What is it like now, as a real woman working in an environment where models are constantly walking by your office? "Honestly, I wish every single woman could spend a few days behind the scenes at a magazine like Glamour . Sure, I see lines of models walking in on casting days. And sure, they're beautiful. But I've learned that it's really just a job. Those girls are like any freelancer with a talent, trying to hustle up enough gigs to make ends meet in NYC. In other news, not all of the models who come through our office are super-thin -- I'm sure you've heard that we're including lots more sizes of models in the magazine these days! As someone who helps girls and women who overeat and as an advocate of body love, I'm so excited. But I won't pretend that it wasn't a bit hard when I first walked through the doors of Glamour magazine as a twentysomething girl with binge eating disorder. Surrounded by successful, interesting, smart women, I thought that I was certainly the only one who struggled with food this way. But the "glamorous" women who work here turned out to be just normal, nice girls with real bodies and issues of their own. " What was it like working for the magazine responsible for introducing model Lizzie Miller to the world ? "Fabulous! I was so proud of Glamour . We were all in love with that photo of Lizzie, so we weren't surprised that the readers loved that image. But we were surprised at just how strongly they reacted. That photo being in an iconic magazine like Glamour really hit a nerve -- and like our editor in chief said, the magazine is responding to what the readers want from us . What they need. Which is to see a wider variety of body types in magazines and all media." Recent research has shown that binge eating disorder is actually twice as common as anorexia and bulimia combined. Why do you think it still receives so little attention in the media? "I've got a couple of theories. One is that, let's face it, stuffing your face and gaining weight isn't glamorous. We're accustomed to seeing people who are disciplined and thin as strong and self-controlled. But there's a stigma about over-eaters and those who are overweight, as if they just "don't have enough will power" or are lazy. That is so not the case of course. There is a lot of emerging research which suggests that binge eating has a genetic component. Beyond that, emotional eating is a coping mechanism that some people develop in response to difficulties in life -- just like people pick up alcohol or drugs, obsess over relationships, or overspend. Throwing yourself into food makes you numb for a while, and can actually help some of us get through trauma. Gratefully, I don't need those binge behaviors anymore. They started hurting me more than they helped and I've replaced them with healthy coping tools like Pilates, group support meetings, writing and even a little meditation. And I've dropped 30 pounds in the process. That's why I started HealthyGirl.org , to help other young women get the support they need to start healing their minds and their bodies." What kinds of emotions used to fuel your binge eating? And how did you feel during/after the binge? Did the eating ever provide relief, or just continued the cycle? "For me it was mostly anxiety. I'm a driven person, and have high expectations of myself, care a lot about my work and my friends and my family -- I want to do everything right and be a good person. That means pressure. But it wasn't like something tough would happen at work and I'd immediately dive into a bag of miniature Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. The binges would sneak up on me. The little things would build up for a few days or even weeks until BOOM, I found myself eating frosting out of a can. (For real.) Right before a binge, my mind would sort of go blank, and I'd eat quickly and mechanically. I literally felt like an eating machine. After, I was too full and tired to feel much of anything except some heartburn and guilt. And that was the point: I used the food to delay feeling my real emotions. But eventually, the binging stopped working and I'd feel my emotions anyway, plus the queasiness and disappointment. I had to do something about it." Do you believe people can fully recover from eating disorders like anorexia, bulimia or binge eating disorder, or is it more like alcoholism, where you can abstain from the unhealthy behavior, but it's always, in a sense, ingrained in you? "I absolutely consider myself recovered from binge eating disorder, which by definition means binging on a large amount of food twice a week. But I'm still, by nature (and genetics I believe), an emotional eater. Sometimes when I'm stressed, tired or anxious, something deep inside me still cries "EAT!" But now I have the tools to be able to abstain from that unhealthy behavior -- and most of the time I use them. I will literally pick up the phone and call a friend or read a few passages in an inspirational book. Or spill my guts to my new husband! (We just got married five months ago.) Once in a great while, I do still slip and misuse food, but it's not destructive anymore. Just two weeks ago, for example, I was nervy about something or other and had a few errant spoonfuls of peanut butter straight from the jar. I didn't beat myself up over it -- but I also didn't throw my hands up in the air and say, "Oh, I slipped up, so I'm going to just go all out and binge now!" A few measly spoons of pb is nothing compared to what I used to consume during a real binge. When I was a hardcore binging teenager I used to dream about the day when I'd be at peace with food and my body. For the most part, I'm there -- and I am so incredibly grateful." To read more about Sunny and her HealthyGirl.org site, click here . For a list of Sunny's top picks for the best emotional eating or weight loss books, click here . For help with BED: Binge Eating Disorder Association National Eating Disorders Association Overeaters Anonymous More on Conde Nast
 
Rahim Kanani: Redefining the War in Afghanistan: The Case for a Change in Mission Top
Imagine a child born onto Afghan soil in 1990, one year after the Soviets withdrew their troops. A fresh face, thrust into a country reeking of bombs, bullets, and bodies. If he's lucky, he survives his mother's pregnancy, but his mother does not -- Afghanistan has one of the worst rates of maternal mortality ever recorded. Now, in 2001, and at 11 years old, he witnesses the first regiment of the greatest fighting force on earth propelling down on his homeland. The next 3000 days -- or 8 years -- are gruesome, fearful, chaotic, and tragically, extremely formative. Assuming the young man was not killed fighting against occupying forces or suffered the awful fate of being caught in the crossfire, he has, at minimum, most certainly mourned the death of family members over the years. Now, in 2009, he is 19, and tattooed with a level of resentment, anger, and hatred against the U.S. and its' allies palpable to the residual sting of 9/11 amongst the American people. 8 years of hell is a very long time, especially when you are most innocent, most curious, and even more importantly, most susceptible to concretizing a set of beliefs about the world that have deafening effects on the trajectory of your life. Ask yourself: how have all my years in teen-hood shaped the way in which I understand and engage the world? With this scenario emblematic of the situation on the ground, the U.S. policy in Afghanistan must fold in the harsh realities of the Afghan people while balancing their own interests of national security. The Taliban, while vicious in tactic and extremist in ideology, do not pose a direct threat to the United States. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, must be denied safe haven, disrupted in plans, and destroyed in both structure and leadership. With less than 100 Al Qaeda operatives left in Afghanistan according to U.S. national security adviser Gen. James Jones, President Obama must immediately shelf Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for an additional 40,000 troops and radically redefine the war effort from engaging the wrong enemy to engaging the right enemy. The policy towards Afghanistan should be an even lighter footprint -- primarily comprised of Special Forces and intelligence officers -- whose chief mission would be denying safe haven, disrupting plots, and focusing on the remaining Al Qaeda figures who pose a direct threat to U.S. national security. This policy should be more distinct than merged with that of the policy towards Pakistan, which is a very different beast, and requires a very different set of tools to carve out a solution. In Afghanistan, the only way to refocus the lens of the war back to 20/20 vision is to understand the intentions and capabilities distinguishing the Taliban from Al Qaeda. This change in mission is predicated on precisely this distinction, rather than defining the success of the effort on a seesaw balancing political progress with military benchmarks. Even with a merged enemy, whether intentional or unintentional, and despite an astonishingly uncoordinated strategy among the U.S. and its' international partners, Al Qaeda is essentially defeated in Afghanistan. Great news, right? Wrong. With the Obama Administration labeling the problem, and therefore the solution, under an "Af-Pak" framework, Pakistan must fit into the picture somewhere, right? Right. Now the United States lacks a legitimate reason to flood the war-torn country with more troops in hopes of scaring the lawless territories of neighboring Pakistan into surrender -- a strategy inherently flawed in its own right. In an area where Al Qaeda leadership including terrorist kingpin Osama bin Laden are said to be taking refuge, the U.S. must work with the Pakistani government to design a more creative policy that either smokes out or enables precise targeting of terrorists peppered throughout their ungoverned regions. In the case of Afghanistan, the United States must first understand who their true enemies really are. With no end in sight, the U.S. must realize the limits of intervention, both in tanks and treasure, and integrate the implications of their actions over the last 8 years into their policy towards the region. Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, such as the young man, now 19, and whose seminal years has been marked by death and destruction, cannot be achieved by deploying an endless torrent of camouflaged warriors. In a fight where the enemy has skillfully blurred the lines of their own intention and capability to harm the United States with those who simply do not possess a similar global reach, there is much work to be done, both intellectually and operationally. There are an unimaginable number of people around the world who wish to harm America; its America's job to separate their desire from their competence, and their will from their capacity. More on Barack Obama
 
Wednesday Martin: I'm Not Happy to Serve You: Authors and the New Publishing by Consensus Top
Perhaps I'm typical in that I became a writer because I don't feel like dealing with you. I certainly don't feel like doing what you say. Well, not you, but You. You know what I mean, don't You? Am I alone in my sense that writing for a living is partly about enjoying the act of writing, and partly about and inability (unwillingness?) to tether your efforts to the larger efforts of larger interests -- The Agency, The Firm, the Glossy Magazine -- for which you will not get credit? Unless you get a byline. In which case, you do it for the clip. But you do so grudgingly, if you are like most people who write; we (I hate to presume, but in this case I can) tend to play best alone. Sure, there are other writers and editors, and your agent and your publicist who are, thankfully, "people people." And I think I speak for a lot of people who write when I say, nothing personal, but that's enough. And so a recent article in the New Yorker about Alloy Entertainment nearly made me choke on my Skittles. These people are ruining the lives of extremely-non-bestselling authors everywhere -- by doing it all backwards. Instead of a writer deciding, "I'll spend the next three years writing about this topic that may compel millions, or may compel them to ignore me and buy the new Dean Koontz novel," then selling her agent and a publisher on the idea, Alloy dispenses with the quirky writerly obsessions all together. And the writers. They do this by figuring out what their audience wants to read, and then delivering it. Alloy -- which "packages about thirty books a year for publishers, and also generates television shows ... and ideas for feature films" -- starts with loads of market research about their audience (teen girls). Armed with that understanding, they have pitch sessions for books that are described as "a swine-flu-meets- Lord of the Flies scenario thing" and "a Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants version of Marley and Me " and "a reverse Taken and a dark, grounded Nancy Drew." Once a book that combines the best of Marley and Me and swine flu is approved for "production," the executives and underlings sketch out a detailed "treatment." Finally, those pesky details: they hire a writer to whip something up on spec. The writer is not a big idea person; the writer is not someone with a passionate desire to tell a story. The writer isn't even a craftsman. The writer is the content provider. Well, a content provider. It's not for me to say that this particular model is good for the publishing industry, or the way of the future, or Satan's spawn. All I can say is that it makes me want to throw up. Because I didn't become a writer so that I could be a market researcher who tailors my thinking and writing to the interests of the people who made fun of me in high school. I became a writer so I could try to bend people to my will -- Wow, this topic is so interesting! -- or at the very least work on something that I cared about enough to finish, to promote, and believe in sufficiently to spend my days talking to readers and potential readers about it. Meanwhile, I have sold something like 43 books while 18 of Alloy's 28 titles from last year became best sellers. So perhaps we should all try this writing by consensus thing, and maybe then J.K. Rowling and that woman who wrote Twilight will teach us the secret handshake and say, "Aren't you glad you came over to this side?" "Yesssss," my husband will shout with an arm pump. "Now I can be a househusband!" Oh, you're thinking, What's the big deal? Is the Alloy method so different from everyone sitting around at a woman's magazine meeting pitching features while the EIC shoots some down and farms some out and dreams of mega circulation? Or from the author who doesn't want to write a tenth book that nobody reads asking her agent, "Do you think X is a topic that might get some attention?" Maybe Alloy's formulaic approach is nothing new. And maybe it's against all logic and all realities of the current market that I want so badly to retain my admittedly romantic concept of book writing: that it is an undertaking in which the writer serves not exactly what she thinks others want, but also what she wants to write about. And she and her idea and the reader manage to find each other -- against the odds, online and in bookstores and thanks to the meddling of friends and siblings and mothers and book groups and rabbis -- because they are meant to. I imagine that this coming together as the torrid affair that turns into the passionate and committed love of a lifetime, to Alloy's cunningly arranged and cynical marriages. But then, I'm a writer.
 
Darya Pino: Nine Tricks to Make Halloween a Treat Top
Halloween is finally on a Saturday again. Woohoo! With extra candy, alcohol and fun everywhere, there is no point in pretending health will be your top priority by the time the weekend rolls around. But that's a good thing. Being healthy is important, but if you don't learn to make room in your life for fun too then what's the point? My challenge to you is to use this Halloween weekend as an opportunity to practice rational indulgence. That is, enjoy things you have a reason to enjoy (i.e. foods you like) in quantities that leave you satisfied, but don't abandon your health or get too obsessive about what you should or should not eat. This is not the same as practicing "moderation" (an overused word, in my opinion); instead I'm talking about a head change. Generally the term moderation is used to mean restraint for restraint's sake. On Halloween this might involve consciously eating only half a cookie or counting out pieces of candy for your allowance. Boring! Moderation is fine for daily life, especially when you are just learning to cook and eat healthy foods. But equally important is getting in tune with the real reasons you eat: taste, pleasure and enjoyment, and using this awareness to guide your behavior and create natural boundaries. Embrace Halloween as a special occasion for you to live and enjoy, while understanding that this is not the first nor will it be the last time you get to eat a cupcake. There is no need to go out of your way to be "good" or "bad." Just have fun and try not to think in terms of guilt or temptation. It is thoughts like these which lead to too many drinks and eating that entire bowl of peanut butter cups on your friend's coffee table. But, of course, for rational indulgence to mean anything it requires a context of healthy eating. If your typical daily food intake isn't already mostly healthy, then Halloween isn't really an indulgence so much as an excuse. But that doesn't mean this advice isn't applicable to you. No matter what your baseline, it is easier to indulge rationally if you are well-nourished and in the right state of mind. Strive for the general goal of eating healthy, nourishing and satisfying foods and feel free to add a few Halloween treats along the way. Here are 9 strategies to help make rational indulgence a little easier. 9 Tricks To Make Halloween A Treat 1. Leave your guilt at the door. Halloween will probably not be ideal for your health, but if you are going to indulge you may as well enjoy it. 2. Eat what you want, but not any more than that. Remember that indulgence is not a race. You don't need to eat everything in sight just because you allow yourself a couple days off. Stop occasionally and ask yourself if you are eating for pleasure or from compulsion. 3. Do not skip meals. Halloween usually involves late night parties and candy, things that should not interfere too much with your regularly scheduled food program. Trying to eat light during the day to compensate for eating junk food later will probably just cause you to eat even more junk when you find yourself starving at 2am -- not a wise strategy. 4. Have a healthy, satisfying dinner. You would be surprised how easy it is to skip the third mini-Snickers if you are not hungry or are even a little full. Better to be full of stir fry than trans fat and sugar. 5. Eat protein, vegetables and healthy fats before you go out. The main danger on Halloween is sugar. Too much sugar causes blood sugar to rise and insulin to skyrocket. Ultimately this leads to insulin resistance, weight gain and more hunger. To avoid this, slow down the digestion process by eating healthy foods first. 6. Easy on the carbs. You will probably be getting more than your fair share of sugars and starches this weekend. Minimize extraneous carbohydrates in your meals by skipping bread and rice completely. Limit carbohydrates to vegetables, fruit and legumes. 7. Keep moving. One easy way to make up ground if you are eating extra calories is to burn them off as you go. If you are out at a party, be sure to keep moving. Walk to your destination, play Halloween Twister and be the last to leave the dance floor. 8. Brush up. Toothpaste can make candy taste pretty bad, so be sure to brush and rinse with fluoride before you leave your house and as soon as you get home. Sugar is also really bad for your teeth. 9. Be safe. No matter what you do or do not eat, it is always important to make good decisions when you go out on the town. Be smart and make it home in one piece or none of this advice will do you any good. What do you think about rational indulgence? Darya is a scientist, foodie and advocate of local, seasonal foods. For more healthy eating tips visit her blog Summer Tomato . You can also connect with Darya on Twitter @summertomato and Facebook . More on Health
 
Derrick Crowe: Senator Kerry Finds A War With Which He Can Flirt Top
Senator John Kerry came back from Afghanistan calling President Hamid Karzai a "patriot" and supportive of a plan " closer to McChrystal than to Biden ," meaning he loves him some counterinsurgency, just not in the doses prescribed by Gen. McChrystal. Kerry's Monday speech to the Council on Foreign Relations shows that in sipping the COIN Kool-Aid, he's beginning to display the worst habits of internal contradiction prevalent among the counterinsurgency glitterati. Kerry proceeds from a nonsensical definition of success: I define success as the ability to empower and transfer responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible and achieve a sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an Afghanistan that is not controlled by Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Having the "ability" to do something is not success. Saying you're going to do something "as rapidly as possible" tells you nothing about how quickly you will do it. What, you think there's a plausible future where the president tells the American people that he screwed around a bit instead of getting Afghanistan done as "rapidly as possible?" Sloppy definitions make poor policy, and that's what we get from the rest of the speech. For example, take this goofy piece of self-contradiction: [W]e simply don't have enough troops or resources to launch a broad, nationwide counterinsurgency campaign . But importantly, nor do we need to. We all see the appeal of a limited counterterrorism mission-- and no doubt it is part of the endgame. But I don't think we're there yet. A narrow mission that cedes half the country to the Taliban could lead to civil war and put Pakistan at risk . What a mess. We don't have enough troop "for a broad, nationwide counterinsurgency," but we can't cede "half the country to the Taliban" without risking civil war. Following his warning about the dangers of ceding "half the country," Kerry calls for "narrowly focused" counterinsurgency operations in less than 40 percent of the country. As ex-CIA man and current Georgetown scholar Paul Pillar noted in his recent House Armed Services Committee testimony : Regardless of whether a renewed haven inside Afghanistan were attractive and useful to al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group, there is the question of whether a counterinsurgency would preclude it. A haven would not require a patron with control over all of Afghanistan, which has an area of 647,000 square kilometers, but instead only a small slice of it. As described in General McChrystal's assessment, a "properly resourced" strategy would leave substantial portions of the country--those portions not deemed essential to the survival of the Afghan government--outside the control of that government or of U.S. forces. In short, even a counterinsurgency that was successful, in the sense of accomplishing the mission of bolstering the government in Kabul and stabilizing the portions of the country where most Afghans live, still would leave ample room for a terrorist haven inside Afghanistan should a group seek to establish one. In other words, don't adopt the premise that you need counterinsurgency for counter-terrorism objectives unless you're willing to go whole-hog; otherwise you're just talking nonsense. If Kerry is right about his alarmist civil war scenario, he indicts even General McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy, which Kerry already told us in the speech "reaches too far, too fast." Kerry then opined about the importance of pairing a troop increase with development. As much as I hate to say it, Senator Kerry needs to take a page from COINmonger Anthony Cordesman, who recently said , "We need to stop talking about smart power as if we had it." Ann Jones' excellent piece on women's rights in Afghanistan notes : [M]ost American so-called development aid is delivered not by USAID, but by the military itself through a system of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), another faulty idea of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soldiers, unqualified as aid workers and already busy soldiering, now shmooze with village "elders" (often the wrong ones) and bring "development," usually a costly road convenient to the PRT base, impossible for Afghans to maintain and inaccessible to women locked up at home. Feinstein International Center's Andrew Wilder wrote that the military's "money weapon" is based on "wishful thinking" : [W]e have found little evidence that aid projects are "winning hearts and minds,'' reducing conflict and violence, or having other significant counterinsurgency benefits. In fact, our research shows just the opposite . Instead of winning hearts and minds, Afghan perceptions of aid and aid actors are overwhelmingly negative. And instead of contributing to stability, in many cases aid is contributing to conflict and instability. For example, we heard many reports of the Taliban being paid by donor-funded contractors to provide security (or not to create insecurity), especially for their road-building projects. In an ethnically and tribally divided society like Afghanistan, aid can also easily generate jealousy and ill will by inadvertently helping to consolidate the power of some tribes or factions at the expense of others - often pushing rival groups into the arms of the Taliban. In other words, military-controlled aid is a liability, not an asset, and if our dessicated diplomatic and aid services are supposed to save the day in Afghanistan, we are out of luck as long as we dump all of our funding on Defense and none on State and USAID. War generally involves spending, not accumulating, cultivated capabilities. We're not going to be able to revive our "smart power" while our military is grinding gears in Afghanistan. Kerry then went on to state the necessity of taking on corruption "at the highest levels" of the Afghan government immediately after he praised Karzai and Abdullah, the two greatest beneficiaries of election fraud in the initial August presidential elections, for their support for the runoff process. Excuse me, Senator, but since when did we not consider massive, million-vote election fraud "corruption at the highest levels?" And, the Karzai-picked head of the farcically named Independent Election Commission flat out said that Karzai is going to win the runoff election . That's exactly the kind of thing I love to hear from my nonpartisan election officials in the weeks before the election, man. Legitimacy, here we come. And here's another knee-slapper: Afghan women's groups have fought hard to have a seat at the table, and we should support these indigenous efforts because one of the easiest ways to empower Afghans is to empower Afghan women . I am whole-heartedly supportive of efforts to empower Afghan women, but this is throwaway, pandering, garbage language unworthy of the seriousness of the issue. "One of the easiest ways," Senator? Is there some switch you know of that we can flip that changes pervasive cultural attitudes ? You do realize that Karzai keeps his wife sequestered in the home, right? According to U.N. agencies, eighty-seven percent of Afghan women are beaten on a regular basis and rape is "an everyday occurrence in all parts of the country." The government which the U.S. supports with our money, blood and violence has been termed by women's advocates in Afghanistan as the Rule of the Rapists . But by all means, Senator, press that Easy Button and show us how omnipotent all that superpower super-powerful guns and butter can be. If you're looking for the man who once asked, "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" you better keep looking. The senator seems to have left him behind. You should probably check in with Matthew Hoh or any of the Vets for Rethinking Afghanistan instead. Note: Derrick Crowe is the Afghanistan blog fellow for Brave New Foundation / The Seminal . Learn how the war in Afghanistan undermines U.S. security: watch Rethink Afghanistan (Part Six) , & visit rethinkafghanistan.com/blog . More on Afghanistan
 
Dave Lindorff: America's Drug Crisis: Brought to You by the CIA Top
Next time you see a junkie sprawled at the curb in the downtown of your nearest city, or read about someone who died of a heroin overdose, just imagine a big yellow sign posted next to him or her saying: "Your Federal Tax Dollars at Work." Kudos to the New York Times , and to reporters Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen, for their lead article today reporting that Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Afghanistan's stunningly corrupt President Hamid Karzai, a leading drug lord in the world's major opium-producing nation, has for eight years been on the CIA payroll. Okay, the article was lacking much historical perspective (more on that later), and the dead hand of top editors was evident in the overly cautious tone (I loved the third paragraph, which stated that "The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raises significant questions about America's war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House." Well, duh! It should be raising questions about why we are even in Afghanistan, about who should be going to jail at the CIA, and about how the government can explain this to the over 1000 soldiers and Marines who have died supposedly helping to build a new Afghanistan. But that said, the newspaper that helped cheerlead us into the pointless and criminal Iraq invasion in 2003, and that prevented journalist Risen from running his exposé of the Bush/Cheney administration's massive warrantless National Security Agency electronic spying operation until after the 2004 presidential election, this time gave a critically important story full timely play, and even, appropriately, included a teaser in the same front-page story about October being the most deadly month yet for the US in Afghanistan. What the article didn't mention at all is that there is a clear historical pattern here. During the Vietnam War, the CIA, and its Air America airline front-company, were neck deep in the Southeast Asian heroin trade. At the time, it was Southeast Asia, not Afghanistan, that was the leading producer and exporter of opium, mostly to the US, where there was a resulting heroin epidemic. A decade later, in the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, as the late investigative journalist Gary Webb so brilliantly documented first in a series titled "Dark Alliance" in the San Jose Mercury newspaper, and later in a book by that same name, the CIA was deeply involved in the development of and smuggling of cocaine into the US, which was soon engulfed in a crack cocaine epidemic -- one that continues to destroy African American and other poor communities across the country. (The Times' role here was sordid -- it and other leading papers, including the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times -- did despicable hit pieces on Webb shamelessly trashing his work and his career, and ultimately driving him to suicide, though his facts have held up. For the whole sordid tale, read Alex Cockburn's and Jeff St. Clair's White Out .) In this case, Webb showed that the Agency was actually using the drugs as a way to fund arms, which it could use its own planes to ferry down to the Contra forces it was backing to subvert the Sandinista government in Nicaragua at a time Congress had barred the US from supporting the Contras. And now we have Afghanistan, once a sleepy backwater of the world with little connection to drugs (the Taliban, before their overthrow by US forces in 20001, had, according to the UN, virtually eliminated opium production there), but now responsible for as much as 80 percent of the world's opium production -- this at a time that the US effectively finances and runs the place, with an occupying army that, together with Afghan government forces that it controls, outnumbers the Taliban 12-1 according to a recent AP story . The real story here is that where the US goes, the drug trade soon follows, and the leading role in developing and nurturing that trade appears to be played by the Central Intelligence Agency. Your tax dollars at work. The issue at this point should not be how many troops the US should add to its total in Afghanistan. It shouldn't even be over whether the US should up the ante or scale back to a more limited goal of hunting terrorists. It should be about how quickly the US can extricate its forces from Afghanistan, how soon the Congress can start hearings into corruption and drug pushing by the CIA, and how soon the Attorney General's office will begin a grand jury probe into the CIA's drug dealing. Americans, who for years have supported a stupid, blundering and ineffective "War on Drugs" in this country, and who mindlessly back "zero-tolerance" policies towards drugs in schools and on the job, should demand a "zero-tolerance" policy toward drugs and dealing with drug pushers in government and foreign policy, including the CIA. For years we have been fed the story that the Taliban are being financed by their taxes on opium farmers. That may be partly true, but recently we've been learning that it's not the real story. Taliban forces in Afghanistan, it turns out, have been heavily subsidized by protection money paid to them by civilian aid organizations, including even American government-funded aid programs, and even, reportedly, by the military forces of some of America's NATO allies (there is currently a scandal in Italy concerning such payments by Italian forces). But beyond that, the opium industry, far from being controlled by the Taliban, has been, to a great extent, controlled by the very warlords with which the US has allied itself, and, as the Times now reports, by Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president's own brother. Karzai, we are also told by Filkins, Mazzetti and Risen, was a key player in producing hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots for his brother's election theft earlier this year. Left unsaid is whether the CIA might have played a role in that scam too. In a country where finding printing presses is sure to be difficult, and where transporting bales of counterfeit ballots is risky, you have to wonder whether an agency like the CIA, which has ready access to printers and to helicopters, might have had a hand in keeping its assets in control in Kabul. Sure that's idle speculation on my part, but when you learn that America's spook agency has been keeping not just Karzai, but lots of other unsavory Afghani warlords, on its payroll, such speculation is only logical. The real attitude of the CIA here was best illustrated by an anonymous quote in the Filkins, Mazzetti and Risen piece, where a "former CIA officer with experience in Afghanistan," explaining the agency's backing of Karzai, said, "Virtually every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade. If you are looking for Mother Teresa, she doesn't live in Afghanistan." "The end justifies the means" is America's foreign policy and military motto, clearly. The Times article exposing the CIA link to Afghanistan's drug-kingpin presidential brother should be the last straw for Americans. President Obama's "necessary" war in Afghanistan is nothing but a sick joke. The opium, and resulting heroin, that is flooding into Europe and America thanks to the CIA's active support of the industry and its owners in Afghanistan are doing far more grave damage to our societies than any turbaned terrorists armed with suicide bomb vests could hope to inflict. The Afghanistan War has to be ended now. Let the prosecution of America's government drug pushers begin. _______________ DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative reporter. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net More on Afghanistan
 
Chad Dobson: Civil Society Sounds Off on IFC Policies in Istanbul Top
On Monday, October 5, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) launched the first of several civil society consultations regarding the review and update of their Policy and Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability during the World Bank/IMF Annual Meetings in Istanbul. These standards govern how communities and the environment are protected during project implementation and stipulate what information is publicly available for IFC-financed projects. The IFC policy's influence extends beyond the organization itself as the Performance Standards formed the basis for the Equator Principles, which currently guide over 70% of project finance in emerging markets. The consultation provided an important platform for civil society to highlight on-going concerns within the IFC's policies and suggest areas where these safeguard policies can be strengthened. A broad range of views were presented by global civil society at the well attended consultation. Key concerns were raised around the issues of contract transparency, development impact reporting and how the notion of broad community support for IFC projects is determined, among others. Contract transparency is essential as the Performance Standards currently lack a meaningful requirement of extractive industry contract disclosure between IFC clients and the host governments. As the policy stands, IFC clients must disclose contracts only when the project generates 10% or more of government revenues. Civil society representatives attending the consultation raised the point that none of the extractive industry projects that have been approved since the 2006 advent of the Performance Standards has met this criteria. Civil society has consistently argued that any contract where the government is a party should be transparent and that public interest outweighs the need for contract confidentiality. The IFC's problematic method of development impact reporting was an issue of concern as well. Currently, the development impacts are not reported on a project-by-project basis, making it difficult to adequately evaluate the benefits from each individual project. One civil society representative pointed out that "the IFC's method of reporting leaves much to be desired; the IFC has the responsibility to evaluate and explain how people's livelihoods and future livelihoods will be affected by each and every project they finance." Broad community support was another key concern flagged by civil society at the consultation, especially from indigenous peoples representatives. IFC still does not recognize the practice of securing free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from communities for projects with potential significant impacts. IFC is currently relying on the less stringent "Broad Community Support," though it does not report how such community support is achieved. Reporting on how IFC ensures that communities express consent for projects would strengthen accountability by considering communities' opinions when approving risky projects. A Malian representative noted that "community involvement is not merely a matter of providing access to physical documents, but that the IFC must also ensure that information is communicated in a language and manner in which the community can comprehend and use to participate." The integration of gender into the Performance Standards and climate change were also prevalent issues raised by civil society. A German colleague perhaps summarized the day's session best when he said that "the IFC places all of the burden of environmental and social safeguards on the client...The whole world is re-regulating and you should too." Co-authored by Rebecca Harris To learn more about BIC's campaign on the IFC Policies and Standards Review, please visit our website at www.bicusa.org More on Transparency
 
Paul Peete: SEIA President Proposes a Solar Bill of Rights Top
On opening day of the Solar Power International '09 exposition in Anaheim, CA., Rhone Resch, President and CEO of The Solar Energy Industries Association, in his keynote address, proposed a Solar Bill of Rights to protect the Industry from unfair subsidies that give the Oil and Coal industries their advantages in competing and lobbying to suppress innovation. In a dynamic presentation including Powerpoint slides, highlighting the many accomplishments the SEIA has achieved in winning tax credits for investment and implementation, Mr. Resch made a compelling case for leveling the playing field in the competition for America's future energy needs. Read the full article here. 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. And here's our First Amendment: First, Americans have the right to put solar on their homes or businesses. Today's systems beautify and add value to communities and homes, and yet antiquated rules prevent many homes and businesses from going solar. From restrictive covenants to onerous connection, permitting and inspection fees these rules create fundamental barriers to solar. Utilities should not be allowed to restrict green power with red tape. Number 2, Americans have the right to connect their solar system to the grid with uniform national standards. This is as simple as creating a standard jack for telephones. Can you imagine buying a phone in Nevada and bringing it home to California and finding out it doesn't fit into the wall jack? Other industries don't stand for this and neither should we. Next, Consumers have the right to Net Meter and be compensated at the very least with full retail electricity rates. Call this solar's eminent domain--utilities use the power we make, and we expect to be compensated at its actual value. This is not just the cost, but the true value of solar including our security benefits, peak power benefits and environmental benefits - as well as the true price for carbon. And this right, for me and my family, is personal." The Exposition speakers will feature Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Tuesday's session to address the new energy paradigm. Wednesday evening, Oct. 28, from 5:30 - 8:30 p.m., Solar Power International presents "Public Night," a free opening of the expo floor to the general public. Southern Californians can tour a huge energy expo featuring 925 companies. They can see and learn about the latest solar energy technology for homes and businesses, talk to the experts and attend free workshops.
 
Stacey Radin: What Did We Learn From the Recession? Maybe Nothing Top
What Have We Really Learned From the Recession? Nothing! I really thought this time in our history, a national disaster would create impact. In fact, I was writing about how the recession will be an opportune time to rethink the way we do things, connect with passion, create sustainable change and innovate. The severity of our financial crisis was forcing us to broadly evaluate our lives, our national policies, how our government functions, Corporate America and business strategies and systems. I was convinced that this was the time and we were going to be led by a strong, passionate President who also believed in change. The problem that will always remain is the limited awareness of the change process. No matter whether Democrat or Republican, private or public sector, national versus regional-the challenge of change prevails. When Obama was running for President last year, the psychological state of most Americans was grim. People were disenchanted with previous leadership and what was taking place across the globe as well as in our own backyards. The idea of change was enticing. We all craved something new because we had hit rock bottom. In fact, a powerful impetus of change stems from despair and dissatisfaction. The questions that should have been posed were "Are we ready for change?" "How can we prepare for sustainable change?" "What can I expect once change is being initiated?" The idealization of what change would look like has led us to our current state. Did Americans expect that Obama would wave a magic wand at his inauguration and America would be transformed? Was there an expectation that change would come without sacrifice or cost? Or was it that we were not prepared for what change may look like and what to expect as we move into this transformation. To make dramatic changes is the easier part of the equation-it is the change process that is not. That is where our country repeatedly gets stuck no matter what the cultural shift may be. From the gender revolution to civil rights movement and now the financial crisis-our country takes the first few steps and then regresses to old paradigms of behavior and thought. Minimizing the process and the work that needs to be continuously done is dangerous. Superficially things may look differently but cut to the core and look at how beliefs, ideas and behavior remain the same. It is much more difficult for our culture to relinquish strategies that have been ingrained for decades and have become traditional approaches. Leaders always seem to start from the outside and work inward, stopping at a critical point necessary for sustainable solutions to occur. If one was to examine each reign of leadership it would look like a pendulum-a movement from one extreme to the other. There is an absence of transitions-a critical part of sustainable change. Psychologically, people are reactive versus proactive. There is a strong pull to get in and 'fix" the problem. Thinking about the problem systemically is perceived as a waste of time. We operate in crisis mode and want a quick answer. If our leadership fails to provide this quick fix they are criticized for being inadequate and their ability is questioned. What about working from inside out? Thinking about the issue at large in terms of stages and creating a process of change that supports the physical act. Real change does not happen overnight-it is gradual. What needs to be put in place to facilitate change is the real question. How can we keep people engaged, involve them in the solution, assess what is needed emotionally as well as concretely in order to move forward. Can we examine change efforts continuously and redirect if needed? Is our country taking a good look at who we are now, our vision for the future and what is getting in the way? Are we looking at establishing a foundation to support necessary changes? We can no longer slap a new coat of paint on the walls and call it innovation. Real inner work needs to be done in corporations, not for profits, government and education. I already witness businesses reverting back to old ways because they think the recession is ending-slashing costs and people to make it seem as if their business is doing better. We are too concerned about outward appearance and not worried enough about what is underneath the shiny new coat of paint. Guess what? The paint will be chipping in no time and then what?
 
Jonathan Kim: ReThink Interview: Josh Harris -- Nostradamus of the Net Tells Your Online Future Top
With the internet celebrating its 40th anniversary and increasingly making its way into our lives through sites like Facebook and Twitter, the timing is right for Ondi Timoner's excellent new documentary We Live in Public , which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance for best doc of 2009. That makes Timoner -- who won the same award in 2004 for her doc DiG! about the tense relationship and divergent paths of the Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre -- the first director to win the award twice. We Live in Public director Ondi Timoner with Joshua Harris We Live in Public follows a man named Joshua Harris, who is billed as "the greatest internet pioneer you've never heard of". Over 10 years ago, Harris correctly predicted that TV would move online (YouTube, Hulu) and that average people would volunteer intimate details about their lives and make them public on the internet (MySpace, Facebook). Then, through a series of experiments that were more like performance art pieces, Harris attempted to enact this prediction in an extreme form that put the sanity and safety of others, as well as himself, at risk. The first was called Quiet, where dozens of New Yorkers volunteered to live in an underground bunker with all amenities -- food, clothes, bed, chapel, interrogators, firing range (yeah, I know), etc. -- but they couldn't leave. In addition, their every move and word would be captured on video, streamed online, and could be viewed by the other Quiet participants. The second, called We Live in Public, involved Harris and then-girlfriend Tanya Corrin outfitting their New York loft with webcams and streaming their lives online, allowing viewers to comment and take sides on their relationship. It was this last experiment (and mounting financial problems) that cracked something in Harris, causing him to unplug and live on an apple farm for four years in an effort to reclaim himself. The trailer for We Live in Public explains it better I met Harris at the WLIP premiere in LA and emailed him some questions about the film, the future of the internet, and whether we really do or ever will truly live in public. In We Live in Public , a woman says that we've become "slaves" to our PDAs, computers, Facebook, etc., and I've heard many other people echo this sentiment. But doesn't this leave out the crucial aspect that we have control over how/how much we use our technology (unless your job forces you to be on call 24/7)? Like Brad Pitt says in Fight Club , don't we all decide our own level of involvement? For me it all boils down to "beak or beakless" (as in the Perdue chicken factory). Yes any of us can get off the grid and go live in a jungle somewhere but almost none of us make that choice. And why should we when the modern world feeds and protects us mostly through the use of a myriad of technologies that keep us alive and amused? In my view, evolution's master plan is to simply use technology to more efficiently cultivate and harvest humans. I go back to the my favorite Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man," where the guy finally figures out that the aliens who are "helping" earthlings by stopping war and introducing new technologies are in fact fattening us up for harvest on the home planet. In the end the earthlings decode the content of the alien bible and find out it is a cookbook. Do you think Facebook/Twitter is people honestly living their lives online and in public, or is it just a more public place to create a public persona? Isn't this what we've always done, but just to a smaller audience? Facebook and Twitter are simply utilities that have a limited shelf life (as they are now presented). They do not reflect the magic of the online medium nearly as well as Net Television will by late 2010. The key going forward is dynamic interaction (mostly in real time) of audiences. Facebook and Twitter are flat and thin in this respect. Going AOL old school: Facebook is simply a refined message board and Twitter is IM. The next big thing is chat on steriods or what I call Net Television. What was it about living in public in your New York loft that caused your breakdown? How did moving to the apple farm help you recover from it? (I lived on a goat and zebra ranch in Santa Barbara County for 3.5 years and it was one of the best experiences of my life.) The "breakdown" can better be described as an Exorcism. I attempted (successfully, I think) to do a self-excorcism on myself in order to compartmentalize "Luvvy" who is my virtual self. I spent four years alone on the farm (I only slept one night away in order for Luvvy to do a performance at the St. Marks church in the East Village of NYC) to just rest and recuperate. Josh Harris as his alter ego, Luvvy. You had a great quote in an interview where you said, "Orwell was wrong; the government doesn't impose Big Brother. Audiences demand it." But do you think people really care about the boring minutiae of people's everyday lives who aren't beautiful, celebrities, or contestants doing challenges to win prizes? People get sick of reality shows after a while. Orwell is wrong. We are going to demand "self surveillance." The key is the advent of the "home studio." Twenty years ago, "home theater" came along and recreated the theatrical experience from the comfort of the couch. Today's audiences are about to turn their homes into television studios (studio in a box). In essence the cameras, microphones and high speed net now available in most homes is simply going to be packaged, produced and monetized. As for celebrity, the Internet is distributing (commodifying) each person's 15 minutes of fame more equitably than film or television. Aren't the results of your Quiet and We Live in Public projects, along with the disintegration of most relationships followed on reality shows, and the fact that most bloggers quit after a few weeks prove that people only think they want to live in public, then quickly get bored/bothered by it? Would people actually put up with it if they didn't have to? First the problem with "reality broadcast television" is that it is really just a facsimile of reality. The advent of "net television" will be realer than broadcast since the cameras and microphones will be turned inward on hundreds of millions of participants, viewers, watchers or whatever they will eventually be called. The issue going forward is how to orchestrate millions of "home studio" feeds into a compelling entertainment experience (that has profit margins comparable to golden age radio, film and television). It is not so much a question of whether or not people will "put up" with self-surveillance but rather how well they can produce their lives for their virtual audiences. I am in Los Angeles to build an Internet television network called "The Wired City." Do you have any thoughts on what Web 4.0 might be? Net Television as described above. Web 5.0 will introduce us to "hive" or "borg" interfaces. When we hit Web 6.0 the Singularity will be reached and the human being will cease to be an individual. So you believe in the Singularity ? Yes. However Ray Kurzweil, the fella who coined the term, doesn't quite understand how it is presenting itself. For more ReThink Reviews, go to ReThinkReviews.net (a work in progress). More on Facebook
 
Kate Clinton: Sit on My Lapse Top
When people wonder to me about what I'll do without George Bush, I tell them that I'll always have the Pope. And of course, the Cheneys who are keeping America safe, but not from themselves. I could do a whole new ninety minute Pope show if it weren't so annoying to my never or now non-Catholic friends. We lapsed Catholics find ourselves endlessly interesting, but it is a special ring of hell for listeners. From his dubious just-following holy orders deep past, to his more recent past as Czar of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, under his old boss Pope John Paul II, who is beginning to look as benign as Mr. Magoo, Pope Benedict XVI's highlight reel of his four years pontificating is a doozy. Like a sandcastle basilica facing an incoming tide, the RCC is facing a sea of secularism, and the Pope is using his mitered shovel to dig a futile moat. Since attendance at confession is down, big time, he upgraded sins for the modern era: drug dealing, corporate greed, child abuse. He incentivized confession by bringing back indulgences. Think double coupon days. He got rid of Limbo, just when I was getting over the loss of Pluto. He went to Africa and recklessly said that condoms have nothing to do with stopping the spread AIDS. The Pope brought back the Tridentine face to-the-wall Latin mass. The mass looks like a time-out-corner punishment in kindergarten. He said protecting heterosexuality from the onslaught of homosexuality is as important as protecting the rainforests from destruction, making LGBT the clearcutters in the virgin forest of heterosexuality. First he tried to root gay men out of seminaries and lately he has been rooting out American nuns, for the sin of liberalism and tirelessly running the church's charities, hospitals, schools and cleaning up the altar after the mass. I have made our apartment a safe house on the underground railway for runaway nuns. Tell your friends. Password: Song of Bernadette. And fall membership drives are no longer just the province of Public Radio. In a bid to boost his numbers, and annex the Divineland, the Pope preemptively cancelled the 450 year old split with Henry VIII's old Anglican Church and welcomed them, individually, by parish or by diocese into the healing vortex of the RCC after just a wee bit of counseling in the sweat lodge. More hot rocks! He is one Spiritual Warrior. Acquisition details are still being worked out with uh, no one, certainly not the middling Archbishop of Canterbury and not so much with Episcopalians, that gay-bishop ordaining American League branch of the Anglican Church. Married Anglican priests with the impeccable het credentials of the wife and kids are welcomed. In your dreams is it the beginning of married priests. All reactionary, angry, misogynistic, homophobic Anglicans are also welcome. Meanwhile in upstate New York, my two brothers and their wives have been trying to keep their parish churches open. One brother from a small rural church first participated in prayerful sit-ins to forestall the closure and then occupied the church after the bishop ordered it closed. He went with his parish committee to Rome to plead their case. The church was shuttered. My other brother was in a liberal urban parish that welcomed the LGBT community, performed gay weddings and long participated in local anti-poverty and anti-war movements. He and his wife called their parish "The St. James Barely Catholic Church". The church was one of the first closed. As a lesbian I have very little tolerance for the Catholic Church. It has less for me. My Hindu girlfriend, with the cool belief in reincarnation and many-armed deities, urges me to have more respect for the Catholic Church. After this latest move by the Pope and the church's usual denial of what is really going on in the back room, I have less respect for the church, but greater admiration for my brothers, their wives and all those who have struggled to keep their church open to all who practice loving spirituality in a secular world. More on The Pope
 
eSarcasm: Science Says Sex With Others Is Better Top
Prepare yourself for a shocking revelation from the world of science. Ahem: Sex with a partner is better than doing it by yourself. The guys in the white coats, it seems, have finally realized what the rest of us learned at age 16: Sure, you can take matters into your own hands (helloooo, Internet porn ). But it's a hell of a lot more fun when someone else is involved. Researchers from the University of Oregon have just released a study into self-sexing and how it compares with the good old-fashioned in-and-out. Now, mind you, they aren't actually talking about humans -- they're talking about plants and animals able to reproduce both by themselves and with others . But that doesn't make it any less amusing. From the study: "Selfing populations don't have to deal with pesky males for reproduction. Because males do not produce offspring of their own, selfing populations avoid what biologists call 'the evolutionary cost of males.'" Yes, ladies: We males officially come with an "evolutionary cost." Go ahead, laugh it up. Because despite our "pesky" nature, even the prudest lady-plant fares better with our, er, input. Without it, things get all funky and mutated -- you know, inbred-style. "Traditional thinking has suggested that selfing populations are able to purge many of these mutations, but this study found that the ability to sufficiently purge was overwhelmed by slight increases in mutation rates," the researchers said. "Plus, those lady-plants are cock-craving sluts," they neglected to add. The best part of the study, however, is the incredible pickup line potential within its conclusion. Gentlemen, write this down. Rehearse it. Memorize it. Then recite it to that hot chick at the bar. If this doesn't get you laid, we're not sure what will.* "While males may be problematic for a wide variety of reasons, from an evolutionary point of view, their benefits outweigh their costs, which helps to explain why having sex with others is the rule rather than the exception." Suggested addition: "So, doth thy care to copulate in the name of science, m'lady?" May the forces of biology be with you. *Note: Hot chick may have to be total geek with no standards for this to work. She may also have to be not-very-hot. And not a chick. Crave yet more Geek Humor Gone Wild? Please come visit us at eSarcasm.com . You'll be glad uDid. More on Sex
 
Nelson Montana: Giving Credit Where Credit Will Do: How the Banks Have Changed the Rules Halfway Through the Game Top
Who knows this one? Here's my story, it's sad but true. It's about the banks that we all knew. They took our money and then skipped town. Now, when we need help, there's none to be found. That just about sums up how the credit card companies are working these days. The way it stands, you might be better off dealing with loan sharks. At least they'll warn you before breaking your legs. The banks sneak up behind you and do it. I used to believe in using credit - not to buy stuff I didn't need, but to get the things I needed to survive. I'd go as far to say that I have no sympathy for anyone who runs up too much debt by being frivolous. But it is no longer the reckless and the irresponsible who are paying the price of using a credit card. It's the average Joe and Jane who use credit in a prudent manner. It's the ones who run up more debt than they can afford to pay who seem to get the free pass. In its original intent, credit was actually a pretty good system. Aside from the convenience of not carrying cash and ordering purchases via mail and online, people can borrow money they need in the short run for things that will make money in the long run, after which, a fee is paid for the advance. That's fair. Everyone wins. But it no longer works like that. For years I used credit cards to stay ahead of the game. As an artist, I've never been a high finance guy. I live pretty much hand to mouth, I always hustle for work (being self-employed I can't even collect unemployment insurance), I don't play the stock market (with what ?) and to be honest, I never concerned myself much with elaborate fiscal manipulations other than to transfer the credit card accounts to the lowest interest rates. Over time, I always paid them off. My credit rating was excellent. They made just enough money off of me to give me a high limit and my payments were always on time, making me a good risk. But as of last year, it got a little out of control. I still paid on time but the payments were often the minimum. I just couldn't get ahead. Then, one day I realized why. Overnight, my interest rate went from 4% to 27%! They knew I was having a hard time so instead of cutting some slack, they lowered the boom. I was falling behind and it looked like there was no hope in sight. Sound familiar? With a few strategic moves and a bit of luck, I eventually managed to generate enough money to pay it all off. I kept just a Visa and one MasterCard and have paid in full every month. So what did I get for my efforts? They kept the 27% interest and lowered my credit limit from $10,000 to $1,000! And, just to add insult to more insult, they pulled a few more underhanded tricks. Like enrolling me in programs (that had an annual fee) without my consent. And double charging me on purchases - to which they gave a very sincere apology but asked me to contact all the vendors in order to straighten it out. (This was after hours of being shuffled from one representative to another.) They justify arbitrary alterations by saying the entire process was explained in that nine-page document with six-point font they sent last month. (Am I supposed to read that myself or is that when I'm required to hire a lawyer, investment analyst and a team of accountants? Because I have no idea what they're talking about.) You can never get anyone on the phone who can actually do anything. You can't pay over the phone either. That costs extra. Computers are always down. Administrators are always away from their desks. Apparently, money can be extracted from one's bank account based on what seems like little more than a reluctance to check their own records. I could have gotten a comparable deal if I just declared bankruptcy and paid only a portion of the fees. Thanks, guys. Anything else you need? What is probably most egregious in this entire debacle is the fact that credit card companies lose billions of dollars each year in fraud. When a card is lost or stolen, anyone can run up charges and they have to eat the loss. Wouldn't it make sense to have to use a pin number when charging, just as we do with debit accounts? That would make sense. But why should they bother when they can just keep slamming the people who play by the rules? The latest word is that in just the past few weeks, rates across the boards have been jacked up as high as 30% in anticipation of the impending crackdown by Congress that will restrict how much the creditors will be able to extort, um, I mean charge I've gotten to the point where my grandfather was. He didn't trust banks and kept all his money in a small safe in his bedroom closet. I used to laugh at his lack of sophistication. Now I realize he was pretty damn brilliant. He always knew how much he had and even though he was the sole earner in a family of four, he always had enough. I'm thinking of doing the same thing with my liquid assets. The only difference is, instead of a safe in the closet, I'm pretty sure it'll all fit in an envelope in the dresser. More on Interest Rates
 
Dan Dorfman: Watch Out for the Turkeys! Top
With Thanksgiving Day (November 26) less than a month away, let's talk turkey. No, not the turkey we can't wait to eat, but what some Wall Street professionals regard as the "economic turkeys." They're the ones operating on the delusional premise that the recession is history and that by mid-2010 the economic downturn, the real estate mess, rising unemployment, falling incomes and bashed banks will begin to become fleeting memories. Regarded as the more conspicuous economic turkeys,those who have openly signaled the death of the recession, are President Obama, Ben Bernanke and Warren Buffett. Likewise, an editorial turkey, as some economic trackers see it, is Newsweek magazine, which unequivocally declared on an early August cover that "The recession is over." Turkeys screech gobble, gobble; the economic turkeys, in turn, are spouting dribble, dribble, say the non-believers, some of whom offer compelling arguments why the recession is very much alive and kicking. One of them is Olivier Garret, the CEO of Casey Research, a national economic consulting service based in Stowe, Vt., who contends that "economically, we're still in the eye of the hurricane." The stock market rebound has people believing we're out of the economic woods, but that's just not true, he says. As Garret assesses the schizophrenic economic scene, "we're now in a deep recession, if not a depression, that's going to get progressively worse." Why such a gloomy Gus? Or should I say a gloomy Olivier? For starters, he sees a lot more chaos on the real estate front via a wave of defaults stemming from rate resets on adjustable rate mortgages and growing losses in commercial real estate, which has $3.5 trillion of loans coming due in the next two to three years. Here, values in recent years have tumbled 20% to 50%. In addition, he says, falling income will not let many commercial property owners repay their debt, which he thinks will be a big problem for all banks. One major economic problem, as Garret sees it, is a tapped-out consumer. Coupled with sharply rising personal bankruptcies, he says retailing will be affected in a big way, in particular, by a rough holiday season. Speaking of the consumer, Garret sees a great deal more suffering arising from accelerated job losses. As of now, we have a 9.8% unemployment rate, or, if you factor in the government's U-6 measure (part-time workers who can't get full-time jobs and people who have been dropped from the employment rolls because they've been out of work for a long period, say 24 months or more) the jobless rate climbs to 17%. Many economists see the 9.8% unemployment peaking at 10.3% to 10.5% in the first half of 2010. Not so Garret. Over the next 12 to 18 months, he expects a jump in unemployment to about 15%, with job losses averaging about 200,000 to 500,000 a month. As for U-6, he sees that measurement of the jobless rate ballooning to 23% to 24%. In arguing his case, he notes that most new jobs are being created by four sectors: retailing, services, housing and technology. Of this group, three, with technology being the exception, are in the job-creating doghouse. Given his dismal outlook, Garret thinks the 2010 economy will be much bleaker than most people expect. Wall Street's economic consensus calls for GDP growth next year of 2% to 3%. Garret thinks the Street has the numbers right, but, alas, in the wrong direction. His expectation: a GDP decline of 2% to 3%. Not only that, Garret doesn't see the rebirth of a positive economic environment for at least two years, and possibly five. As you might expect, our economic bear has grim expectations for the stock market, which, based on the state of the economy, he regards as highly overvalued. Not only does he believe that a 10,000 Dow is unsustainable at this juncture, but worse than that, over the next six months, he sees the Dow skidding to below 8,000 and possibly to as low as 7,500. So where would he have his money? Garret favors cash, gold, commodities and big-cap U.S. companies whose revenue growth is driven by foreign operations that can capitalize on the global recovery. What about those beaten-up financial stocks, such as Bank of America and Citigroup, that are attracting hordes of bargain hunters? "I would shun the financials," he says, "because of their poor accounting practices and delayed recognition of problem assets. When those assets are written down, he observes, these stocks, which are substantially overvalued, will tumble. What's not being recognized is that there is still a lot of risk in them." Overall, his bottom line is clear. "People buying stocks now are making an awful mistake." Likewise, watch out for the economic turkeys; they can give you a thick dose of financial heartburn. Meanwhile, in the market's last four trading sessions, three of them were slammed for Dow declines of more than 100 points. In other words, there are loads of investors out there who think the economic turkeys are for the birds. Write to Dan Dorfman at Dandordan@aol.com 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)