Friday, October 30, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Lawrence O'Donnell Slams Liz Cheney For Criticizing Obama's Trip To Honor Fallen Soldiers (VIDEO) Top
On "Countdown" Friday night, host Lawrence O'Donnell called out Liz Cheney for criticizing President Obama's visit to Dover Air Force Base to honor the returning war dead. Cheney, speaking on Fox News Radio's "John Gibson Show" Thursday, suggested that Obama had made the visit simply for the publicity. Regarding her appearance on the radio show, O'Donnell noted, "she wasn't going to let the facts get in her way." As O'Donnell reminded viewers, President Bush and Vice President Cheney never went to Dover Air Force Base to honor fallen soldiers returning home while they were in office. O'Donnell then addressed Liz Cheney directly: "Liz, don't let your dad do this to you. Don't let him parade you on to the stage to defend the indefensible. Let him suffer the full weight of the shame that we know he must feel when he watches Barack Obama do what he never had the decency to do." Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Dick Cheney
 
Yoani Sanchez: In Cuba Power Only "Debates" With Itself [VIDEO] Top
I do not know where to begin to tell what happened in the debate about the Internet that took place yesterday, organized by the magazine Temas . Undoubtedly, the blonde wig I put on allowed me to slip through the controlled entrance of the Fresa y Chocolate Cultural Center. That and high heels, lipstick, shiny earrings and an enormous, painfully-bright purse, transformed me into someone sufficiently different. Some friends came to tell me that I looked better like that, with a tightly-fitted short dress, a sexy walk and square-framed glasses. My apologies to them, the person whose role I acted didn't last long and today I've returned to my disheveled and boring appearance. They didn't allow Claudia, Reinaldo, Eugenio, Ciro and other bloggers to enter. "The institution reserves the right of admission," and my cyberspace colleagues showed the impertinence of those who have already been excluded from other places, but didn't want to retreat, embarrassed and in silence. Inside, I managed to find a seat next to the panel of speakers. Some adroit eyes had already detected my reedy physiognomy and a camera filmed me with the insistence of one preparing a dossier. A young writer asked to speak and lamented that so many had been prevented from entering; then someone came and mentioned terms such as "enemy," "dangerous," and "defend ourselves." When finally I was called, I took the opportunity to ask what relationship there is between the limitations in bandwidth and the many websites censored for the Cuban public. There was applause when I finished. I swear I didn't collude with any of them. Afterward, a university professor came up and questioned why I had received the Ortega y Gasset journalism prize. I still haven't managed to find the relationship between my question and her analysis, but the paths of defamation are so twisted. At the end, several came up to me to give me hugs, one woman gave me just a touch of her hand and said "congratulations." The crisp October night waited for me outside. If all those not allowed access had managed to participate, that would have been a true space for debate about the web. What happened felt withered and shackled. Only one of the speakers mentioned concepts such as Web 2.0, social networks and Wikipedia. The rest was the anticipated vaccine against the perverse web, the repeated justifications for why Cubans cannot access it en masse. I took my phone and quickly Tweeted, "I think it would be best to organize another debate about the Internet, without the burden of censorship and exclusion." This morning, with dark circles from having slept only three hours, I was delivering technical manuals in the second session of our Blogger Academy. Some of the images in this video were taken by friendly hands in solidarity and are from inside the room. Yoani's blog, Generation Y , can be read here in English translation. More on Cuba
 
Andre Agassi On His Year Of Meth, His Hairpiece And His Marriage To Brooke Top
NEW YORK — Andre Agassi used crystal meth periodically for "a year or so," the eight-time Grand Slam champion revealed in an interview with People magazine. In his upcoming autobiography, Agassi admits he used crystal meth in 1997 and failed a drug test – a result he says was thrown out after he lied by saying he "unwittingly" took the substance. "If you're going to tell your story, you owe it to yourself to tell it honestly," Agassi told the magazine in its latest issue. "Especially if you're going to call it 'Open,'" New excerpts published Friday reveal Agassi wore a hairpiece that nearly fell off at the 1990 French Open, became jealous during ex-wife Brooke Shields' appearance on "Friends," and how Shields put a photo of Steffi Graf – now married to Agassi – on the fridge for motivation to get in better shape before their wedding. "It's a photo of the perfect woman, she says" Agassi wrote. "The perfect woman with the perfect legs – the legs Brooke wants." Agassi also explains how he and Shields begin dating shortly after Christmas 1993 and connected by sharing their experiences with pushy parents. He also reveals that he stormed off the set of "Friends," becoming jealous when Shields had to lick actor Matt LeBlanc's hand. "Have some more hand. I'm out of here," wrote Agassi, who said he consulted Shields on the book. "A lot of our recollections were the same, but not the interpretations," Agassi told the magazine. "I tried to turn a harder lens on myself than on anyone else." And it was the camera lens that haunted Agassi. The tennis star's brother was sent running around Paris to find bobby pins to keep Agassi's disintegrating spiked-mullet weave from coming off his head before a match in the 1990 French Open. "Of course I could play without my hairpiece. But after months of derision, criticism, mockery, I'm too self-conscious," he wrote. "Image Is Everything? What would they say if they knew? Win or lose, they wouldn't talk about my game. They'd only talk about my hair. I can close my eyes and almost hear it. And I know I can't take it."
 
James Zogby: J Street Again Top
On October 25th the Arab American Institute and J Street convened a joint meeting, that brought leaders and activists from both communities together as an expression of our shared commitment to advance a just and comprehensive Middle East peace. Two nights later, my wife Eileen and I had the pleasure of attending the J Street Gala Banquet. Because it was such an extraordinary event, I want to share some observations about the night. First and foremost was the size and composition of the assembled crowd. A week or so before their conference was to begin, with registration nearing 900, J Street leaders were still hoping to reach 1000, their announced goal. Then came a wave of attacks on the group from hardliners in the pro-Israel camp. When I asked a J Street leader whether the criticism was having an impact, he replied "a little negative, but a huge positive impact". Their event, for example, lost about a dozen of its 160 Congressional sponsors, but retained almost 150. And their registration swelled to 1,500! As we entered the room it was clear that spirits were high. Jewish activists from the left and center of the political spectrum had spent three days in packed sessions debating policy and program. They had differences, to be sure, but were of one mind in their commitment to project an alternative pro-Israel, pro-peace perspective, and to legitimize a U.S. debate on the way forward toward peace. As I looked around the room, I realized that I knew many of those present. Some from Middle East peace work we had done together in the 1990's, and others from civil rights and other progressive coalitions in which we had participated. In his opening remarks, J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami made the observation that while J Street is new, it is made up of thousands of Jewish political leaders and activists who have long been engaged in the struggle for peace and justice. What is new is that they have found one another, and have come together to challenge the status quo--that up until now has maintained that there is only one way of being pro-Israel I was reminded of a metaphor Jesse Jackson used back in the 1980's when he described the millions of unregistered voters he hoped to empower through his Presidential campaign. They were, he would say, like "so many stones laying around" needing only to be put together and built up to become a wall--an edifice that can provide strength. I was also struck by the Arabs and Arab Americans who were in attendance, and the profoundly respectful and gracious reception they (we) were given. Several Arab ambassadors were there, one of the evening's emcees was an Arab American, a video of a message from Jordan's King Abdullah opened the session, and our joint Arab American-American Jewish meeting was discussed by one speaker and greeted with wonderful applause. An Israeli friend, with whom I had both debated and worked during the 90s, commented on this Arab presence. She remarked that it was ironic that J Street was being attacked by hardliners because a few Arab Americans had contributed to the group, and some Arabs attended their function, at the very moment when these same hardliners are saying that the Arab world must reach out and declare their interest in peace. They say, she went on, "we have no partners" but here are the partners, and yet they criticize us. I think, she concluded, they don't want partners. The content of the night's program was also quite moving and worthy of note. The Rabbi who opened the dinner with a prayerful reflection spoke of his personal attachment to Israel, the members of his family who survived WWII to find refuge there, and how they had prospered but still lived in fear and insecurity. He then moved to include in his prayer concern for the Palestinian people noting that if Jews acknowledge one God then their compassion and concern for life must be extended to all mankind, Israelis and Palestinians alike. Other speakers developed this theme with one of the most eloquent moments of the night coming when J Street's Director Ben-Ami spoke of his group's resolve to be, "a voice that cares not simply about our people's destiny but about the future of the Palestinian people - not just because it is in our interest, but because Palestinian children deserve a future and freedom, hope and happiness every bit as much as Jewish children." His remarks, like those of the Rabbi, were greeted with applause. It was also important to note how significant the entire night was for the dozens of Members of Congress who were in attendance. For those who had long been advocates of a just peace, they found reinforcement, and for those who have been afraid to speak out, they were able to see, and hear, the emergence of an alternative voice that makes debate on Middle East issues possible. As one attendee noted, "without exaggeration, this is a revolution". The three days, beginning with the joint Arab American-American Jewish meeting, to the banquet at its conclusion, marks the birth of a movement and, one hopes, a transformation not only within the Jewish community's internal debate, but in Arab American-American Jewish cooperation. This effort will, no doubt, face obstacles and be challenged by those on all sides who are locked into old patterns of behavior and destructive ideologies based on fear of, anger at, and exclusion of "the other". But, what I and many others saw over the three days was that a powerful voice has been born calling for change. And it is new. In the 1990s, when we came together, we did so because leaders in the White House pressed us to work together and Israeli and Palestinian leaders on the White House lawn validated the effort. This time is different. We emerged and came together on our own, with a will not only to build a partnership, but to export its spirit to the Middle East despite the incapacity or unwillingness of Israeli and Palestinian leadership to do so. More on Israel
 
Tea Leoni: How UNICEF Became A Halloween Treat Top
I grew up under the impression that I was the best trick-or-treater in the whole wide world, because my grandmother invented it! More on Halloween
 
California National Bank Closed By Federal Regulators Top
NEW YORK — Regulators shut nine banks Friday, including Los Angeles-based California National, as the still-weak economy produces a stream of loan defaults. The banks were units of privately held FBOP Corp., a Chicago-based bank holding company. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said U.S. Bank in Minneapolis agreed to assume the deposits and most of the assets of the banks. The banks are mostly in the West and had combined assets of $19.4 billion at the end of September. The closings boost the number of failed U.S. banks this year to 115. The nine banks closed Friday were the most the agency has shut in one day since the financial crisis began taking down banks last year. In 1989, at the height of the savings-and-loan crisis, the FDIC closed 534 banks, or about 10 a week. Besides California National Bank, the banks involved in the latest round were Bank USA, NA, in Phoenix; San Diego National Bank; Pacific National Bank in San Francisco; Park National Bank in Chicago; Community Bank of Lemont in Illinois; North Houston Bank, Madisonville State Bank, and Citizens National Bank in Teague, all in Texas. Deposits as of Sept. 30, totaled $15.4 billion. The nine banks had 153 offices, which will reopen as U.S. Bank branches Saturday. FDIC spokesman David Barr said that because U.S. Bank assumed all the deposits, the plan will feel like a merger for customers. "It's not a merger, but it walks like a merger and quacks like a merger," he said. Failures have been especially concentrated in California, Georgia and Illinois. While the pounding from losses on home mortgages may be nearing an end, delinquencies on commercial real estate loans remain a hot spot of potential trouble, regulators say. If the recession deepens, defaults on the high-risk loans could spike. Many regional banks, especially, hold large concentrations of these loans. More on Banks
 
Abdullah May Pull Out Of Afghan Runoff Top
UNITED NATIONS — Talks between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah have broken down, and Abdullah is likely to pull out of next week's presidential runoff, a person with knowledge of the talks said Friday. An announcement could come as early as Saturday but more likely Sunday, the person said. Abdullah, who was once Karzai's foreign minister, put forward several conditions earlier this week for the Nov. 7 election to be credible, but intensive talks between the two candidates and their supporters over the past few days broke down Friday, the person, a Westerner, said on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. Abdullah gave Karzai until Saturday to agree to the conditions, the person said. The political stalemate in Kabul comes as President Barack Obama has been meeting with his advisers to try to determine U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, including troop levels. A weakened Afghan government will make it harder for Obama to get public support for his efforts. The runoff election in Afghanistan became necessary after widespread fraud in the first-round of voting in August resulted in thousands of Karzai's ballots being invalidated, pushing him below the required 50 percent margin to win. Concerns have been raised about a possible repetition of the ballot-box stuffing and distorted tallies in the second round. Abdullah complained Monday that there were no assurances that the November vote would be fairer than the first balloting. The story was first reported by CNN. One of Abdullah's demands was to fire the head of the Karzai-appointed Independent Election Commission, Azizullah Lodin, within five days. He said Monday that Lodin has "no credibility." But Lodin has denied allegations of bias in favor of Karzai, and the election commission's spokesman has already said Lodin cannot be replaced by either side. Abdullah also wanted changes in several ministries and a power-sharing deal, the person close to the talks told The Associated Press. Abdullah was pressing for a power-sharing agreement with Karzai instead of a vote, but Karzai refused, insisting instead on a vote and then a power-sharing agreement, the person said. A senior U.S official, speaking on condition of anonymity, wouldn't comment on the likelihood of Abdullah pulling out of the election. "The U.S. remains committed to working with the Afghans to conclude their Presidential election process. If the two candidates agree a solution that is acceptable to both of them, in the interests of Afghanistan and is constitutionally sound, then that is a matter for them," the official said. Despite the massive fraud and rejected ballots, Karzai's vote in the first round was far higher than Abdullah's and he is widely expected to win the runoff. This year's election – the first run by Afghans since the ouster of the Taliban – was supposed to affirm the government's credibility. Instead, the massive fraud raised questions about the Karzai administration just as U.S. officials are debating whether to send more troops. The Taliban, who threatened voters during the August balloting, have warned Afghans that they risk further attacks if they do not stay away from the polls next week. On Wednesday they targeted a U.N. guest house where 34 staff – including a number of U.N. election workers – were sleeping. Eight people were killed in the assault, five of them U.N. staff members. ___ Associated Press Writer Matthew V. Lee contributed to this report from Washington. More on Afghanistan
 
Sarah Granger: A Sad Day for Californians: Gavin Newsom's Withdrawl from the Race for Governor Top
I moved to California in 1995. Within a few months, I was versed in some of the problems in the state, such as homeless in Berkeley, tight budgets in the University of California system, and soaring real estate prices vs. rent control problems. One day, I was driving across the Bay Bridge listening to some talk radio show and I heard a man talking about some of the serious issues in the city of San Francisco. I had no idea who he was, but it was noted on the show that he was the youngest member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I liked his energy and common sense. He had a way with words, and I thought he was the freshest political voice I'd ever heard. I hoped he would continue fighting for the City of San Francisco. I kept listening and I found out his name: Gavin Newsom. That day, I began a journal of policy ideas and inspiration, and I wrote his name in my journal along with my thoughts from the radio show. I kept him in mind as I continued studying issues of politics and technology. I graduated and became entrenched in the start-up world, and one day I saw him speak at a Glasshouse for Startups small group event in SF. He was talking about his experience growing the Plumpjack business, and he alluded to his possible run for mayor. I shook his hand, knowing I was shaking the hand of the future mayor because I believed his talent and charisma and his knack for actually finding useful solutions both on the business and the municipal level was significant. I dove into working on new media for political campaigns on national and local campaigns, and during that time, Gavin Newsom was elected Mayor of San Francisco. Every so often, I would attend an event where I would see him talking to people, graciously listening to their concerns. We heard about his own personal problems, but somehow I knew he would rally. His popularity was soaring - the people of San Francisco loved him. When he announced his run for Governor, I think I was the fifth person to sign onto his Facebook page the first day it was setup, and I enjoyed watching it grow to over 59,000 supporters - even in the wake of Jerry Brown's candidacy. Now I want to make one thing clear: Gavin Newsom could have been a safe politician, a career California Democrat like many others, not rocking the boat, just towing the party line. He could have used his charisma and smarts to take the cautious road politically and follow the party line, moving up the ranks the way many others have, making small enough changes to get pats on the back and applause from the sidelines. But I believe he would not have been satisfied with that life. Instead he dared to dream. He's a man who has seen poverty, he's watched couples cry with joy when becoming married after being barred by it for several decades, and he's had his own struggles and triumphs within the education system in California. Newsom's someone who's not afraid to roll up his sleeves and do real work. In the early days of his Plumpjack restaurant while Newsom was on the Board of Supervisors, I heard that he would sweep the sidewalk in front of the restaurant himself because it allowed him to stay involved. It's not that I haven't heard worthwhile criticisms of his work as mayor. We all have our flaws. But he continued to listen to the people in the community and register their their concerns. He continued working hard for the city. And for a man to admit that it's tough to run a race for the state's Chief Executive due to his responsibilities both at home and in his current office - I believe that is daring too, even in the face of an uphill fund raising battle. So while I'm saddened he will not be continuing his run for Governor of California at this time, I feel lucky we still have Mayor Newsom in San Francisco to continue fighting the good fight, and I have no doubt he will run again for another statewide or national office when the time is right. He is a rare individual who could have provided the vision the State of California needed to pull out of a troubled recent past, and perhaps in the future he will still play that role or another of great importance. And for the national pundits who might use this as an opportunity to count him out, take heed: there's always a Comeback Kid.
 
US Sees Spike In Afghan War Casualties Top
More than 1,000 American troops have been wounded in battle over the past three months in Afghanistan, accounting for one-fourth of all those injured in combat since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. More on Afghanistan
 

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)