Sunday, November 1, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Art Brodsky: Crack Open and Crowdsource AT&T's Anti-Net Neutrality Campaign Top
Let's take a little tour, to see what real lobbying looks like, up close and personal as they used to say on TV. It's one thing to read about the massive lobbying power that industries have. It's in the news every day. There are stories about how much money the big pharmaceutical companies are spending, and certainly there are tales about the heavy pressure the health insurance lobby is bringing during the current health care debate. It's all minor league compared to the telephone industry. Read on and you will get a first-hand look at the power of a real major league lobbying organization. It's not only the money and influence they generate in Washington, although they certainly do that . So do many other special interest groups, like big pharma and insurance. The power of the telephone lobby lies in the power and influence they generate outside of Washington. Telephone company representatives are in every Congressional district. They are in or around most communities. They are the ones who buy the tables at the Chamber of Commerce dinners, and the uniforms for the Little League. They support community organizations and know everyone in the Rotary Club. And when it comes time that the friendly AT&T or Verizon managers need a little favor from a local business person or public official, say to send a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about a proposal that could harm that favorite local company, well the people are happy to oblige. That was the basis of the unprecedented barrage that spooked the FCC in the weeks leading up to the Commission's October 22 meeting at which the Commission voted to approve proposed rules on a non-discriminatory Internet, which included letters from chambers of commerce, public officials, local businesses, retirees, among others. What other lobby could get the Graham Transfer and Storage Company of Meridian, MS, to send a letter opposing Net Neutrality as an example of a small business? AT&T said that it would be a mistake to assume all the people sending in letters are uninformed, and that they are concerned about jobs and the economy. The local people need to be filled in on the issue. One of those who sent a letter was Howell Moss, the mayor of Marion County, TN. Moss wrote the FCC, warning that Net Neutrality could jeopardize investment and innovation in these "dangerous economic times." In an interview, Moss said that the local AT&T representative explained to him that under Net Neutrality, "they would not be treated fairly in Internet and broadband." Moss said that he was told Net Neutrality would "prevent AT&T from providing us with services" and would "not allow them to compete." AT&T asked him to write a letter on the company's behalf, Moss said, and he did. AT&T (the former BellSouth) "has done a lot of favors in this county," Moss said. Moss's letter looks a lot like many others, like this one from Sock Enterprises of Biloxi, MS. The owner, Karen Sock, said she had a close friend who works with AT&T and who learned about Net Neutrality at a local Gulf Coast Business Council meeting. AT&T wants to make sure that their letter writers get the message right, so the company representatives provided form letters and talking points, like this one aimed at minority communities. Those are just a couple of similar letters. Here are a couple more of the many in the docket: Missippi State Senator Joey Fillingane; The Greenwood-Leflore County Chamber of Commerce ; The mayor of Coffee County, TN. Still, there is the question of how Net Neutrality could affect the residents of Marion County or Biloxi. Would a small business owner in either of those places want to reach their customers easily online, or would they prefer to be shoved aside in a non-neutral network in which the big companies pay extra for transmission to put aside the little guys. That's a good question, one you should ask. A little while ago, we promised you an up close and personal look at the power of local lobbying. Here's how you do it, and what you can do. Go to FCC.gov . Click on "search" on the Commission task bar at the top of the page. Scroll down to the sixth link on the page: Search for Filed Comments - ECFS Click the first link - "search for filings." In the first box, "proceeding" type in 07-52 Scroll to the end of the page and click the "search for comments" box When the list comes up, go to the "view" box in the upper right part of the screen and change the format to "expand." Don't be daunted by all of the documents. You don't want them all. Scroll down and see who filed. Marvel at the volume and variety. Then pick a couple that look interesting to you - maybe they are from a legislator or other public official in your state. Maybe they are from an affinity group or other that claims to represent you. Get in touch with the person who filed the letter (or group which filed) and ask them - Why did your company/group file this letter? Why are you against playing fair with Internet users? How can that fairness possibly hurt investment or cost jobs? Then tell them you want a neutral Internet. Let's not do that with private citizens who filed comments, please, unless you know them personally. One last step. Go back to the Comments home page . Go to the express " submit a filing " link. If 07-52 isn't listed at the top, click on the "click here" link, fill in 07-52 and tell the FCC why we need an open Internet. Let your voice be heard.
 
Palestinian Officials Criticize US over Israeli Settlements Top
JERUSALEM -- Palestinian officials on Sunday criticized the United States for what one called "back-pedaling" on demands that Israel stop settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, saying that the Obama administration's change of approach on the issue damaged the likelihood of a peace agreement. More on Israel
 
Larry McNeely: Congress: Stand with Small Business, Support Health Reform Top
While much attention has been focused on this year's health reform debate, there has been startlingly little of that attention paid to the plight of America's small business owners, like Miriam Malkovsky, owner of the Bombay International boutique in South Bend, Indiana. These businesses and their employees, as well as their owners and their families are on the front line of America's health care crisis. Below, I share with you an op-ed from Miriam that was recently published in the South Bend Tribune in South Bend, Indiana. With critical House and Senate votes approaching, it is vital that voices like Miriam's are heard above the drumbeat coming from the lobbying onslaught bought and paid for by powerful interests. That's why U.S. PIRG, Consumers Union, Small Business Majority, and Main Street Alliance have joined forces to fly in over 100 owners of small businesses to Washington this Tuesday. They will meet with U.S. Senators and with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and they'll discuss health reform legislation with their own members of Congress. Here's hoping that the House and Senate listen to them. If I ran my business like health care ... By MARIAM MALKOVSKY I am the owner of Bombay International in South Bend. I am proud to live and work in South Bend. As a small business owner, I do everything possible to run my business efficiently and to keep my own costs as low as possible. I do this because I think it is important to give my customers the best product for the price. It is unfortunate that the health care industry doesn't run itself this way. In fact, the health care system is filled with waste and inefficiency that drives up the cost of health care for everyone. So much so, that not everyone can afford care. My scarves cost between $19 and $24. I have not raised my prices since I opened the store 10 years ago. According to a recent U.S. Public Interest Research Groups report, premiums for Hoosiers have doubled in the past decade, and are on track to double in the next eight years. If I ran my small business like health care, I would be charging $14 to $18 dollars more today than last year, and would charge between $61 and $78 for the scarves by 2017. I do much of the bookkeeping to keep my finances in order. Last year, some health insurance companies increased their administrative costs four times the rate of inflation. If I ran my business like health care, I'd go out and hire four bookkeepers regardless of whether or not I really needed them, and pass those increased costs on to my customers. All of the items in my store have stickers and bar codes to indicate the price. Most other small businesses in Indiana do the same. Most hospitals, however, rarely post their prices, making it impossible to see if hospitals are charging a fair price and actually competing in the market. Because time is money, I try to keep paperwork at a minimum. Don't do the same thing twice if you can only do it once. My dealings with health insurance companies make me wonder if their motto is "don't do the same thing twice if you can make someone do it four times!" We need to get serious about health care reform -- in particular about making the system more efficient and delivering higher quality care at fair and affordable prices for consumers. We need to streamline administrative waste, ensure that doctors have access to the most up-to-date information about the treatments that work best, prohibit insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions and create real competition with a public option. I hold my business to a high standard of efficiency. Shouldn't we hold the health care system to that standard, too? Mariam Malkovsky is a South Bend resident. Ashley Fisher, U.S. Public Interest Research Groups field associate, assisted Malkovsky in writin
 
Bill Mann: HBO's Revealing Obama Film Goes Behind Campaign Scenes Top
If you need a rejuvenating Barack Obama fix to lift your spirits and remind you why you voted for the President, don't miss an insightful new cable documentary premiering Tuesday - almost exactly a year after Obama's election. "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama," airing Tuesday on HBO at 9 (repeated all month) is full of never-before-seen footage behind the scenes during the Illinois U.S. Senator's improbable run for the White House. After having previewed this upbeat and interesting doc, I give a lot of credit to filmmakers Amy Rice and Alicia Sams for producing a film that captures the elusive - the spirit and passion of the young Obama volunteers who added much of the energy to the campaign of the high-energy Obama. One scene shows a 9-year-old boy making calls for Obama in Iowa - and his face clearly registering frustration when the person he's calling doesn't know Obama's name. Throughout the film, we follow Iowa organizer Ronny Cho, who jumped on the Barack bandwagon in Iowa and works for the candidate across the country, calling his Mom regularly. Michelle Obama talks candidly about the tough family decisions that had to be made before she signed off on the long-shot campaign. The Obamas are seen here as a tight-knit family that remains close even with a whirlwind of activity around them. Even on the rare occasion when he loses a primary, Obama never seems downbeat during the grueling campaign. In one scene, he calls Hillary Clinton the night she pulls a surpise in New Hampshire, to congratulate her. He didn't have to do that. The New Hampshire primary loss could have deflated Obama's balloon, which was soaring after his shocking win in Iowa a few days before. But every primary loss (and there weren't many) seems to stiffen Obama's resolve. He seems unflappable here. That 200-watt smile didn't hurt, either. Other cool heads featured prominently are campaign strategist David Axelrod, campaign manager David Plouffe, and press manager Robert Gibbs , who all seem to possess the tranquil nature of their boss. Even when Axelrod concedes a race might go against Obama, he says it matter-of-factly. Rice's film underscores why he's called "no-drama Obama." This also goes for his staff -- not his high-spirited army of young volunteers. At the conclusion, Rice's cameras follow Plouffe and Axelrod as they make their way across a plaza toward Obama's hotel suite on election night. As they reach the door, a phone call comes in from a prime minister (we're not told which one) wanting to congratulate the President-elect comes in, and the leader is politely told Obama is busy. Grace under unimaginable pressure is what one sees here. It's amazing that this was the first Presidential campaign for most of Obama's people. "By The People: The Election of Barack Obama" could be a textbook on how to run a campaign. It shows a handful of composed, highly focused people at the top successfully harnessing a high-energy youthquake/campaign, calmly keeping it on track.. This well-made doc, which started filming before Obama even announced his candidacy, will also bring back some pleasant feelings from last year -- when these brash outsiders re-took the White House. More on David Axelrod
 
Dr. Orin Levine: World Pneumonia Day: Tipping point for pneumonia? Top
After years as the forgotten killer of children, pneumonia is finally going to have its day.  Literally.  Monday November 2 nd is the first ever World Pneumonia Day and by all appearances this could be the tipping point for this disease.  What makes me think so? For the longest time, no one knew pneumonia and few realized that it was global health’s most solvable problem. We had situation after situation where global health leaders discussed global health without ever mentioning the leading killer of children. But we’re beginning to see evidence of changes.  In the last week, we’ve seen that Bill and Melinda Gates know pneumonia (see their TV interview with ABC news’ Charlie Gibson ).  David Lane, president of ONE , knows pneumonia – and you know that if ONE works on it that U2’s Bono must know pneumonia.  Former Senate Majority leader Bill Frist and Rwandan Minister of Health Richard Sezibera – physicians who have become government leaders – published an editorial in this week’s issue of The Lancet calling for more emphasis on pneumonia.  On Monday in New York City, I’ll be joining international musical star Angélique Kidjo , ABC News’ Rich Besser , and international economic guru Jeff Sachs at a Global Pneumonia Summit where we’ll issue a call to action and highlight a three-pronged approach to pneumonia control and prevention that can dramatically reduce pneumonia’s impact worldwide. As nice as it is to have international leaders recognize pneumonia the reason I think that we’re at the tipping point is because of the response I’m seeing from the very countries where pneumonia is the leading killer of children.  In Shanghai, China, recently I was approached by a pediatrician from Bandung, Indonesia who detailed her plans for public events with the media on World Pneumonia Day.  A few days later I got an email from a colleague in Kinshasa who arranged a soccer match between local journalists and hospital staff that was followed by interviews that appeared on national TV in Congo.  Most recently, it’s the walk for pneumonia in the capital of Nigeria, Abuja. This list goes on and includes The Gambia, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Nigeria, and from India, a statement from the Health Minister! These countries represent the very places on earth where nearly all child deaths from pneumonia occur.  The range of innovative ideas is all the more encouraging because they come from the local voices that are key to sustaining any progress made on world pneumonia day.  And that is why it feels like the tipping point. Pneumonia takes the life of a child every 15 seconds.  You can make a difference on world pneumonia day by doing something different from your everyday routine.  You can send a letter to your elected officials, or let the leaders of your local church, synagogue or mosque know about pneumonia. You can wear blue jeans on Monday or get involved in the dodgeball tournament being organized by the Best Shot foundation .  Make a donation to the GAVI Alliance or Save the Children or sign the world pneumonia day pledge.  Or better yet generate your own ideas.  But in taking a few minutes from your Monday know that you’ll be joining thousands of people around the world – from Bandung to Brazil  - and who knows, maybe you’ll help make this the tipping point for pneumonia control and prevention.  More on Bill Gates
 
Thane Rosenbaum: Lincoln and New York at the New-York Historical Society Top
For a city that votes solidly for the Democratic Party (except, of course, when it comes to mayor), New York City's connection to Abraham Lincoln--Republican icon and father of the GOP--is a political and cultural curiosity. It is also the subject of Lincoln and New York , the marvelous exhibit that is running at the New-York Historical Society through March 25, 2010. Illinois is the Land of Lincoln, but Manhattan may ultimately have been more important in creating the legend of Lincoln. Indeed, it was on this island where Lincoln's presidency was truly launched--from his first visit to the city in February 1860, culminating in his historic speech at Cooper Union, to Mathew Brady's image-making photograph that established his look and introduced his face to the nation, to the scores of New York newspaper publishers (Horace Greeley, for one) who rallied behind him and convinced their readers that this uneducated Railsplitter actually possessed presidential timber, to the Draft Riots, which occurred in response to Lincoln's Civil War policies and was, before 9/11, this city's greatest tragedy, and finally, to the mass outpouring of grief that accompanied Lincoln's funeral procession following his assassination in 1865. It's not for nothing that New York memorialized the 16th president with Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and the Lincoln Tunnel. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln is very much part of the ethos of this city's identity as a commercial powerhouse and shaper of political destiny. After all, it was here that Lincoln was given a fresh look, cultivated new friends and financial backers and emerged transformed into a national public figure. The Beatles performed in Shea Stadium and at "The Ed Sullivan Show" and left New York as the first global rock band. Over a hundred years earlier Abraham Lincoln spoke at Cooper Union, dazzled the press and returned to the campaign trail as a political rock star. Lincoln and New York , the culmination of the New-York Historical Society's series of Lincoln Year exhibitions, events and public programs--all in connection with the Lincoln Bicentennial--is filled with entertaining exhibit spaces, original documents and artifacts, and various interactive showcases and short films. Not to be missed is a video re-creation of Lincoln's Cooper Union speech, performed by acclaimed actor Sam Waterston, who has, in fact, famously portrayed Lincoln on stage.
 
Michael Seitzman: Polanski To Offer Cash and Cuddliness For Release Top
It was either that title or, "Polanski Offers Release for Cash and Cuddliness." By the way, "cuddliness," for those who haven't read the transcript of the victim's testimony, is how the 13-year-old girl referred to Polanski putting his mouth on her vagina. Yes, according to The Hollywood Reporter , "A French lawyer for director Roman Polanski, imprisoned in Switzerland, says a new bail offer will be filed Monday and it will be a 'very, very significant' cash amount." This lawyer goes on to tell Switzerland that they shouldn't worry about Polanski running because he would "never behave like a fugitive." You mean he won't illegally flee prosecution from a country where he has a home and steer clear of that country's borders and authorities for thirty years? These people are in an irony-free zone. Polanski and his friends tell us that the most significant reason he should be freed is because it's been so long since the crime occurred. The fact that Polanski is the reason for that is completely lost on them. As retired Judge H. Lee Sarokin said so eloquently , "It would mean that the fugitive who is most successful in eluding capture gains an advantage over one who is less successful, which, in turn, would mean that the wealthier criminal would have a greater chance of avoiding extradition than the poorer one." It's also lost on Polanski and his supporters that the second crime, the flight from prosecution, is a very significant crime in and of itself and is not a crime that was committed thirty years ago. I'm no lawyer but common sense says that that crime was committed every single day that Polanski remained a fugitive. But, the greatest irony is the sheer audacity, the outrageousness, the tone-deafness, and the stunning arrogance of offering a "very, very significant" amount of cash for release, after the court has expressly denied bail. In America, we have a name for that. Bribery. But don't worry, Roman Polanski would never do that. More on Roman Polanski
 
Tom Engelhardt: Too Big to Fail?: Why All the President's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones Top
In the worst of times, my father always used to say, "A good gambler cuts his losses." It's a formulation imprinted on my brain forever. That no-nonsense piece of advice still seems reasonable to me, but it doesn't apply to American war policy. Our leaders evidently never saw a war to which the word "more" didn't apply. Hence the Afghan War, where impending disaster is just an invitation to fuel the flames of an already roaring fire. Here's a partial rundown of news from that devolving conflict: In the last week, Nuristan, a province on the Pakistani border, essentially fell to the Taliban after the U.S. withdrew its forces from four key bases. Similarly in Khost, another eastern province bordering Pakistan where U.S. forces once registered much-publicized gains (and which Richard Holbrooke, now President Obama's special envoy to the region, termed "an American success story"), the Taliban is largely in control. It is, according to Yochi Dreazen and Anand Gopal of the Wall Street Journal , now "one of the most dangerous provinces" in the country. Similarly, the Taliban insurgency, once largely restricted to the Pashtun south, has recently spread fiercely to the west and north. At the same time, neighboring Pakistan is an increasingly destabilized country amid war in its tribal borderlands, a terror campaign spreading throughout the country, escalating American drone attacks, and increasingly testy relations between American officials and the Pakistani government and military. Meanwhile, the U.S. command in Afghanistan is considering a strategy that involves pulling back from the countryside and focusing on protecting more heavily populated areas (which might be called, with the first U.S. Afghan War of the 1980s in mind, the Soviet strategy ). The underpopulated parts of the countryside would then undoubtedly be left to Hellfire missile-armed American drone aircraft. In the last week, three U.S. helicopters -- the only practical way to get around a mountainous country with a crude, heavily mined system of roads -- went down under questionable circumstances (another potential sign of an impending Soviet-style disaster). Across the country, Taliban attacks are up; deadly roadside bombs or IEDs are fast on the rise (a 350% jump since 2007); U.S. deaths are at a record high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly ; European allies are ever less willing to send more troops; and Taliban raids in the capital , Kabul, are on the increase. All this despite a theoretical 12-1 edge U.S., NATO, and Afghan troops have over the Taliban insurgents and their allies. In addition, our nation-building "partner," the hopeless Afghan President Hamid Karzai -- known in better times as "the mayor of Kabul" for his government's lack of reach -- was the "winner" in an election in which, it seemed, more ballot boxes were stuffed than voters arrived at the polls. In its wake, and in the name of having an effective "democratic" partner in Afghanistan, the foreigners stepped in: Senator John Kerry, Richard Holbrooke, and other envoys appeared in Kabul or made telephone calls to whisper sweet somethings in ears and twist arms . The result was a second round of voting slated for November 7th and likely only to compound the initial injury. No matter the result -- and Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's opponent, has already withdrawn in protest from the runoff -- the winner will, once again, be the Taliban. (And let's not forget the recent New York Times revelation that the President's alleged drug-kingpin brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, whom American officials regularly and piously denounce, is, in fact, a long-term paid agent of the CIA and its literal landlord in the southern city of Kandahar. If you were a Taliban propagandist, you couldn't make this stuff up.) With the second round of elections already a preemptive disaster, and foreigners visibly involved in the process, all of this is a Taliban bonanza. The words "occupation," "puppet government," and the like undoubtedly ring ever truer in Afghan ears. You don't have to be a propaganda genius to exploit this sort of thing. In such a situation, even good imperial gamblers would normally cut their losses. Unfortunately, in Washington terms, what's happened in Afghanistan is not the definition of failure. In the economic lingo of the moment, the war now falls into the category of "too big to fail," which means upping the ante or doubling down the bet. Think of the Afghan War, in other words, as the AIG of American foreign policy. Playing with Dominoes, Then and Now Have you noticed, by the way, that the worse Afghanistan gets, the more the pundits find themselves stumbling helplessly into Vietnam? Analogies to that old counterinsurgency catastrophe are now a dime a dozen. And no wonder. Even if it's obvious that Vietnam and Afghanistan, as places and historical situations, have little in common, what they do have is Washington. Our leaders, that is, seem repetitiously intent on creating analogies between the two wars. What is it about Washington and such wars? How is it that American wars conducted in places most Americans once couldn't have located on a map, and gone disastrously wrong, somehow become too big to fail? Why is it that, facing such wars -- whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican -- Washington's response is the bailout? As things go from bad to worse and the odds grow grimmer, our leaders, like the worst of gamblers, wager ever more. Why is it that, in obscure lands under obscure circumstances, American administrations somehow become convinced that everything -- the fate of our country, if not the planet itself -- is at stake? In Vietnam, this was expressed in the absurd "domino theory": if Vietnam fell, Thailand, Burma, India, and finally California would follow like so many toppling dominos. Now, Afghanistan has become the First Domino of our era, and the rest of the falling dominoes in the twenty-first century are, of course, the terrorist attacks to come, once an emboldened al-Qaeda has its "safe haven" and its triumph in the backlands of that country. In other words, first Afghanistan, then Pakistan, then a mushroom cloud over an American city. In both the Vietnam era and today, Washington has also been mesmerized by that supposedly key currency of international stature, "credibility." To employ a strategy of "less," to begin to cut our losses and pull out of Afghanistan would -- they know with a certainty that passeth belief -- simply embolden the terrorist (in the Vietnam era, communist) enemy. It would be a victory for al-Qaeda's future Islamic caliphate (as it once would have been for communist global domination). By now, the urge to bail out Afghanistan, instead of bailing out of the place, has visibly become a compulsion, even for a foreign policy team that should know better, a team that is actually reading a book about how the Vietnam disaster happened. Unfortunately, the citizenry can't take the obvious first step and check that team, with all its attendant generals and plenipotentiaries, into some LBJ or George W. Bush Rehabilitation Center; nor is there a 12-step detox program to recommend to Washington's war addicts. And the "just say no" approach, not exactly a career enhancer, has been used so far by but a single, upright foreign service officer, Matthew P. Hoh, who sent a resignation letter as senior civilian representative in Zabul Province to the State Department in September. ("To put [it] simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures or resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war... The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people.") More or Less More? In this context, despite all the media drama -- Is Obama "dithering" or not? Will he or won't he follow the advice of his generals? -- we already know one thing about the president's upcoming Afghan War decision with a painful degree of certainty: it will involve more, not less. It will up the ante, not cut our losses. As the New York Times put it recently, "[T]he debate [within the administration] is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed." In other words, we know that, in response to a war everyone on all sides of the Afghan debate in the U.S. now agrees is little short of disastrous, he will, in some fashion, feed the flames. Admittedly, President Obama himself has offered few indications of what exactly he plans to do (if he even knows). It's now being said, however, that, at the end of a highly publicized set of brainstorming sessions with his vice president, top advisors, generals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congressional representatives, and cabinet officers, he may (or may not ) announce a decision before he sets out for Tokyo on November 11th. Nonetheless, thanks to an endless series of high-level Washington leaks and whispers, beginning more than a month ago with the leaking to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward of Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal's report to the president, we do know this: Every option Obama is considering has the word "more" (as in the Vietnam-era term "escalation") attached to it. There isn't a "less" (a de-escalation) option in sight. Withdrawal of any sort has, so press reports tell us, been officially taken off the table. The most publicity has gone, of course, to the "counterinsurgency" or COIN option put forward by General McChrystal and clearly backed by George W. Bush's favorite Iraqi "surge" general and present Centcom commander, David Petraeus . According to this option, the president would significantly increase the number of American boots on the ground to "protect" the Afghan people. The actual numbers of extra troops urged on Obama have undergone a strange process of growth-by-leak over the last weeks. Initially, as the New York Times reported , the general was supposedly recommending three possibilities: a low figure of 10,000-15,000 ("a high-risk option"), an in-between figure of 25,000 ("a medium-risk option"), and a top figure of 45,000 ("a low-risk option"). More recently, it's been suggested that McChrystal's three choices are: 10,000, 40,000, and 80,000 (or even possibly 44,000 and 85,000 ) -- his preference, for now, reportedly being 40,000. These new American troops would, of course, be over and above the approximately 70,000 already slated to be in-country by the end of 2009, more than a doubling of the force in place when the Obama administration came into office. The striking increase to almost 70,000 has, so far, led to a more intense but less successful war effort. In a recent grimly comic episode, a meeting of NATO defense ministers put its stamp of approval on General McChrystal's robust COIN option -- despite the fact that their governments seem unwilling to offer any extra soldiers in support of such an American surge. (The only exception so far has been British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who agreed to send a paltry 500 more troops -- with hedges and escape clauses at that.) Beyond General McChrystal's ultimate "more" option, at least three other options are reportedly being considered, all representing "less"; think of these as "less more" options. They include: *An option to significantly bulk up the training of the Afghan army and police force, so that we might hand our war off to them ASAP. This is, in reality, another "more" option, since thousands of new U.S. trainers and advisors would be needed. It has
 
Martin Lewis: Chris Christie Rips Off Monty Python, Risks Copyright Infringement Top
Chris Christie, the Republican candidate for Governor of New Jersey in Tuesday's knife-edge gubernatorial election, has been called out as a copyright thief. The 47-year-old lawyer, who was controversially appointed by George W. Bush as a U.S. Attorney in 2001 on Karl Rove's recommendation after being a top Bush fund-raiser in the 2000 election, has created an election commercial that steals copyright-protected material from British comedy troupe Monty Python -- without permission or credit. The official campaign advert -- titled "Deja Vu" -- attacks incumbent New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine by using scenes from a famous skit on the "Monty Python's Flying Circus" TV show that features Michael Palin. The ad is on Christie's official YouTube campaign site , and has already aired on national TV. But neither Christie -- a lawyer for 22 years -- nor anyone in his campaign bothered to seek any permission for using the copyrighted material in his election spot. Alerted to the theft of their copyright, members of Monty Python are most unhappy. Michael Palin, who appears in the clip pirated for the advert, is especially displeased that his likeness is being used by the Republican candidate without permission. "I'm surprised that a former U.S. Attorney isn't aware of his copyright infringement when he uses our material without permission. He's clearly made a terrible mistake. It was the endorsement of Sarah Palin he was after -- not that of Michael Palin." Monty Python's Terry Jones says that the troupe is strongly considering suing the Republican for his copyright infringement: "It is totally outrageous that a former US Attorney knows so little about the law that he thinks he can rip off people. On the other hand -- another of Bush's legal appointees was Alberto Gonzales and he didn't seem to know much about the law either...," Jones said. There is a long history of Republican politicians stealing content by entertainers for their political advertisements and rallies. Three months ago, Jackson Browne won a financial settlement and apology from Senator John McCain for the politician's unauthorized use of his song "Running On Empty" in the 2008 election. Other musicians who have successfully protested the theft of their music by Republicans include Jon Bon Jovi, Don Henley, John Mellencamp and rock bands Foo Fighters and Heart. Christie is no stranger to the world of crime. As the New York Times reported on September 23rd this year, Christie has family ties to the notorious Genovese crime family. As a child, he mingled at family parties with Tino "The Greek" Fiumara -- the brother of his aunt's husband -- described by the Times as "a fearsome and ranking member of the Genovese crime family: twice convicted of racketeering, sentenced to 25 years in federal prison, and linked by investigators to several grisly murders, including one in which a victim was strangled with piano wire." (A United States Senate sub-committee investigating organized crime in the early 1980s attributed three murders to Fiumara, including the 1967 slayings of two brothers of one of his co-defendants in the 1980 trial. In 1983, Lt. Col. Justin Dintino of the New Jersey State Police called Fiumara "a callous killer who has resorted to violence with little provocation," and said Fiumara had ordered the murder of the godfather of one of his own children.) Asked what he had learned from his family connection to Tino "The Greek" Fiumara, Christie says: "It just told me that you make bad decisions in life and you wind up paying a price. Really, for most of my life, he spent his life in prison. That teaches you a lot." Asked in 2007 about the presence of organized crime in his home state -- such as the Genovese mob in which one of his family members is so prominent -- Christie said: "the Mafia is much more prominent on HBO than in New Jersey." With Monty Python about to sue Christie for his copyright theft, he may have more in common to discuss with Tino "The Greek" Fiumara at his family Thanksgiving this year. More on Monty Python
 
Andy Ostroy: One Year After Election Day: The Verdict on Obama Top
As America struggles to recover from an economic meltdown and is engulfed in two long-standing wars, the burning question now is, Has President Barack Obama done a good job in office since his historic election one year ago, or is he destined to suffer the same fate of Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush as unmemorable, ineffective, unpopular one-term chief-executives? I'm not going to get into Iraq and Afghanistan, wars which Obama's inherited and which have raged on for for eight and six years respectively. There's no quick fix, and it's going to take him some time to sort out strategy and future direction. It's simply too early to judge him here. But let's take a look at the economy. When Obama's predecessor George W. Bush took office in 2001, unemployment was at a respectable 4.2%. When he left office, it had nearly doubled to 7.6%. It stands now at 9.8%. Former president Bill Clinton left Bush with a $281 billion budget surplus, yet Bush left Obama with a $1.2 trillion deficit. The deficit is now $1.4 trillion. The national debt handed to Bush in 2001 was $5.7 trillion, and grew to $10.6 trillion by the time he left in 2008. It's currently $11.9 trillion. What does this all mean? A couple of things: first it says that Obama's economy has not materially worsened since he took office, especially as compared to the bashing it got under Bush. Next, and more importantly, it proves that Obama's $787-billion stimulus plan worked . What's critical in the analysis of Obama's performance is perspective . Let's not forget where we were last year at this time. The proverbial sky was falling. America's financial system was on the verge of collapse, a crisis not seen since the Great Depression. There was an unprecedented global economic meltdown, and for the first time in 75 years, Americans contemplated withdrawing their money from banks for fear of widespread default. Credit froze, borrowing ceased, and all economic activity stopped. One year later there's appreciable GDP growth, businesses are optimistic, earnings are up, inventories are down, orders are rising, credit is flowing, borrowing has resumed and stock markets have rallied. And, monthly job losses have gone down from an average 750,000 when Bush left office to the low-mid 200's. On the economy, it's pretty safe to say that Obama and his policies have been highly effective. On another domestic front, health care, Obama has not been so successful, largely due to his own indecisiveness and unwillingness to wage a bloody fight to push through his plan. Also, timing is everything, and with the struggling economy, war and terrorism to contend with, Obama's made a huge miscalculation and error in judgment in taking on the health-care issue so early in his presidency. It's served as a major distraction, and has handed Republicans something they can sink their venomous teeth into; something that, unlike the problems he's inherited , is all his. He has no one to blame here but himself. Exacerbating the struggle is his misguided quest to be bi-partisan despite a Republican minority that has zero desire and intent to help him pass reform on any level. A party that's hell-bent on bringing down his administration at every turn. He's been straddling the fence, trying to make everyone happy, including his enemies across the aisle. Consequently, he's lost control of the issue. Nine months after taking the oath of office, while it's still way too early to label his presidency a success or failure, it is fair to conclude that he's definitely on the right track, and as far as the economy is concerned, he's brought America back from the dead. For that he deserves credit. On the foreign stage, given all that Bush left him, he also deserves a little more time to intelligently assess strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan. We've already had eight years of catastrophic military ineptitude. It's actually quite refreshing to have a president who's carefully weighing all options before committing troops to battle. But these are definitely now his wars to wage and/or end, and time is running out on his honeymoon. He needs to formulate a plan, and soon. More on Afghanistan
 
Karzai Effectively Handed 2nd Term After Abdullah Drops From Afghan Election Top
KABUL — President Hamid Karzai effectively secured a second term Sunday when his only challenger dropped out of the race, and the Obama administration said it was prepared to work with the man it has previously criticized to combat corruption and confront the Taliban insurgency. President Barack Obama has been waiting for a new government in Kabul to announce whether he will send tens of thousands of new troops to Afghanistan, where the war has intensified October was the deadliest month of the eight-year war for U.S. forces. Now the country will likely be led for the next five years by a president chosen in an extremely flawed election. Former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah announced his decision to quit six days before the runoff election, after last-minute talks led by the U.S. and United Nations failed to produce a power-sharing agreement acceptable to Karzai, according to a Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. In an emotional speech, Abdullah told supporters that he could not accept an runoff led by the same Karzai-appointed election commission that managed the fraud-marred vote in August. The runoff was set for Nov. 7 after U.N.-backed auditors annulled nearly a third of Karzai's votes as fakes. "I will not participate in the Nov. 7 election," Abdullah said, because a "transparent election is not possible." The Obama administration, which had been critical of Karzai's leadership, appeared to accept the outcome. Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said most polls showed Abdullah would have lost the runoff anyway "so we are going to deal with the government that is there." "And obviously there are issues we need to discuss, such as reducing the high level of corruption," Axelrod said on "Face the Nation." "These are issues we'll take up with President Karzai." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton congratulated Abdullah for a "dignified and constructive" campaign and said the United States "will support the next president and the people of Afghanistan, who seek and deserve a better future." Axelrod said Obama would announce a war strategy "within weeks." A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press that Obama has still not yet decided what to do, and it remains unclear whether he will decide before he goes to Asia on Nov. 11. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to speak more frankly about Obama's decision-making process. About 68,000 American troops already have been ordered to report to Afghanistan by the end of the year. The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, wants the Pentagon to send him an additional 40,000 troops to prevent the Taliban from letting al-Qaida once again use Afghanistan as a haven – as it was in the days leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Despite misgivings over Karzai, the U.S. has little choice but to support a leader who was once the toast of Washington for his charm, his fluent English and his role as a conciliator in the wake of the Taliban collapse. Fluent in both major Afghan languages, he could reach out to different ethnic groups, including his fellow Pashtuns who also form the overwhelming majority of the Taliban. But critics say he has been reluctant to rein in some of the former warlords whose support he sought to bolster his own political power but who are allegedly responsible for much of the corruption that plagues the government. His own half brother Ahmed Wali Karzai has been rumored to be involved in the drug trade, charges that he vigorously denies. Karzai insists he fell out of favor in Washington when he openly criticized U.S. military tactics, including the heavy use of air power that has killed many civilians. McChrystal has ordered troops to use air power sparingly to avoid turning Afghans against the NATO mission. Abdullah stopped short of calling on supporters to boycott the polls – a move U.S. officials feared would have enflamed tensions. He also urged his followers "not to go into the streets" to protest the election. "The people have the right to have a fair election," Abdullah said. "But this election was a failure. It was not independent. It was not transparent." Karzai's campaign spokesman, Waheed Omar, said it was "very unfortunate" that Abdullah had withdrawn but insisted that the Saturday runoff should proceed as planned. "We believe that the elections have to go on, the process has to complete itself, the people of Afghanistan have to be given the right to vote," Omar said. Some analysts believed Karzai wanted a runoff as an affirmation of his leadership after the humiliation of having so many of his August votes stripped away. However, given the risk of Taliban attacks, the expense and the huge logistical challenge, it seemed doubtful that the second round would be held. "It's difficult to see how you can have a runoff with only one candidate," U.N. spokesman Aleem Siddique said. Abdullah's withdrawal was the latest chapter in a deeply troubled election, the first run by Afghans since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. The process has been marked by delays, fraud, Taliban violence and an internal dispute within the U.N. that led to the dismissal of the American deputy chief, who accused his boss of failing to prevent cheating. After the U.N.-backed panel confirmed massive fraud, Karzai accepted a runoff but only under intense U.S. pressure. The U.N.-backed panel challenged figures from the government election commission showing Karzai had won the August vote with an absolute majority in the 36-candidate race. Once the runoff was called, Abdullah put forward several demands, including replacing the top three officials in the election commission. When Karzai refused, Abdullah's supporters said last week he would quit the race. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and the U.N. chief Kai Eide negotiated with the two camps late into the night Saturday about a power-sharing deal, according to the Western diplomat. But the negotiations broke down early Sunday when Karzai refused a formula for dividing Cabinet posts. If the deal had been accepted, Abdullah would have conceded rather than simply withdraw his candidacy, the diplomat said. Abdullah's decision not to call for a boycott indicated he was open to future talks. ___ Associated Press writers contributing to this report include: Todd Pitman, Amir Shah and Rahim Faiez in Kabul; and Lara Jakes in Washington. More on Afghan Election
 
AP Poll Week 10: Texas Passes Alabama In College Football Rankings Top
NEW YORK — Texas is back to No. 2 in the AP college football poll. The Longhorns jumped Alabama and landed right behind top-ranked Florida on Sunday, a day after winning 41-14 at Oklahoma State in their best performance of the season. Florida, No. 1 for all but one week this season, received 38 first-place votes after a 41-17 victory over Georgia. The Longhorns started the season ranked second, but have been No. 3 behind the Gators and Crimson Tide the last three weeks. Texas received 13 first-place votes from the media panel. Many voters were swayed by the ease with which Longhorns handled Oklahoma State. Doug Lesmerises of the Cleveland Plain Dealer jumped Texas from No. 3 to No. 1, past both Florida and Alabama. "The Longhorns haven't had the same type of struggles that Florida and Alabama have experienced in some down-to-the-wire games, and a blowout win over their toughest opponent of the season finally added some heft to the Longhorns' schedule," he said. "But I still think Texas, Florida and Alabama are separated by very little at the top." Alabama, which spent a week at No. 1, slipped to No. 3 during an off week. The Crimson Tide received eight first-place votes. "Pretty easy decision for me: Texas is simply a more complete team than Alabama right now," said Craig James of ABC. Cincinnati and Boise State round out the top five. Unbeaten TCU is No. 6. In the BCS standings released Sunday, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa and Cincinnati were the top five, followed, by TCU and Boise State. In the AP poll, No. 7 Oregon moved up three spots after pounding Southern California 47-20 to take control of the Pac-10 race. USC fell eight spots to No. 12. It's the second time this season the Trojans have fallen out of the top 10 after a loss. The Ducks are the highest ranked team with a loss, one spot ahead of unbeaten Iowa. The eighth-ranked Hawkeyes slipped a spot after they needed a 28-point fourth quarter to beat Indiana 42-24. No. 9 LSU travels to Tuscaloosa to face Alabama in Saturday's biggest game. Georgia Tech moved up a spot to break into the top 10 for the first time this season. No. 11 Penn State hosts Saturday's other marquee matchup. The Nittany Lions will face No. 15 Ohio State in a game with Big Ten title implications. USC is followed by No. 13 Houston and No. 14 Pittsburgh. No. 16 Miami, Utah, Oklahoma State – which dropped five spots after losing to Texas – Notre Dame and Oklahoma finish the first 20. The last five include Arizona and Virginia Tech, which dropped eight spots to No. 22 after losing its third game of the season, and three teams that were not ranked last week. No. 23 California is back in the rankings after consecutive lopsided losses to Oregon and USC dropped the Golden Bears out Oct. 4. No. 24 Wisconsin is ranked for the first time this season, and No. 25 BYU moved back into the rankings. Falling out were South Carolina, Mississippi and West Virginia. Richmond became the first FCS team to receive a vote this season. More on College Football
 
Scott Mendelson: This Is It Becomes the World's Highest-Grossing Concert Film in History Top
First off, the facts . Michael Jackson's This Is It grossed $32.5 million in five-days, which gives it a surprisingly high 4.4x multiplier on its $7.4 million opening Wednesday. It's three-day weekend take was $21 million, more than enough to be number 01 for the weekend. In just five days, the $60 million acquisition has become the third-highest grossing concert film of all time, behind the $65 million gross of Hanna Montana: Best of Both Worlds and the alleged (via many releases) $50 million gross of 1970's Woodstock . Internationally, Sony is claiming a $101 million debut session. This Is It is now the highest-grossing concert film of all time in just five days, easily eclipsing the $71 million worldwide total of the 3D Hanna Montana film. This is a rock-solid debut, no matter what Nikki Finke tries to tell you. I've said this many times before . Box office punditry, with analysts, trackers, and armchair pundits trying to guess what the weekend's box office will be, is NOT anything more than a game. It is a fun game, one which I've partaken in for nearly twenty-years. But my predictions are not news. They are not measures for which to judge whether a movie opened successfully or poorly. They are a game. Taken any more seriously than that, box office pre-release punditry can be a dangerous tool for one studio to spread a narrative of failure based on nothing more than a random prediction. It's the same game that gets played in politics. For example, the GOP sells a narrative that Kerry or Obama will go up 15 points after the convention. The media bites, they fail to do the math, and then the official story is that the Dems are flopping when they only get a 7 point bounce. If I'm a rival studio, would it not be in my best interest to spread word that Michael Jackson's This Is It was sure to gross at least $90 million in its first five days? Then, after said prediction becomes the narrative of choice in the entertainment press, would it not be in my best interest to exclaim shock that said motion picture did not open to my completely made-up predictions? And it would be pretty easy, since when one of the most widely-read columnists in the business lives and breathes by proclaiming and reveling in alleged failure at every turn. This is something I've talked about for nearly a decade. I first noticed it during the run-up to Blair Witch 2 , when the pundits inexplicably predicted a $30 million opening. The myth that this was a possibility caused the film to be rendered a flop when it opened to a reasonable $13 million (why would anyone expect a sequel to a half-loved/half-loathed cult film to open higher than the much-anticipated original?). It happened in May 2001, when rival studio execs sold the lie that Pearl Harbor could top $100 million+ in four days, and then called the film a flop when it did $75 million. And it wasn't Universal that sold the myth that Peter Jackson's King Kong was a genuine threat to Titanic 's $600 million domestic gross. But they are the ones who got burned when the $200 million-budgeted film ended up being labeled an under-achiever despite grossing $550 million worldwide. And be sure to pay very close attention in the next two months as to who is hawking what box office predictions for James Cameron's Avatar . It sure won't be Fox tossing out pie-in-the-sky predictions of untold box-office glory. It will be 'unnamed studio execs' from Warner Bros ( Sherlock Holmes opens a week later) or Universal ( It's Complicated is the main adult-draw of the holiday season). Or it might be armchair pundits hoping to raise expectations so they can write juicy stories of failure when the movie doesn't live up to their arbitrary standards. Under normal circumstances, this numbers game would be harmless fun. The problem is that, especially after Titanic , box office punditry has become a mainstream sport, not just the cult game played by insiders and film nerds like me. And when (at best) glorified educated guesses or intentionally misleading pronouncements are taken as serious mathematics, then there are serious consequences for the films in play. It happened to Dreamworks, when business analysts couldn't understand why Madagascar hadn't performed like Shrek 2 (their stock took a major hit after Memorial Day 2005). It happened when Charlie's Angels was inexplicably expected to open to $70 million (nearly double the first film's $40 million opening) or Watchmen was absolutely expected to open to at least $70 million just because it had the same director as 300 . And it will happen to each and every new Marvel film because people who don't get it will expect every future Marvel film ( Thor , Ant Man , etc) to perform like Iron Man . And it will have serious consequences because the opinions of said know-nothings will be taken as news and/or gospel. That's not to say that those involved with This Is It are blameless in the potential 'under-performer' narrative now attempting to be sold. AEG stupidly proclaimed last month that the picture could gross $250 million in its first-five days based on pre-release online ticket sales. Of course, the rantings of a sports and concert company should have been taken every bit as seriously as sports predictions from Wolfgang Puck. This prediction was followed by the infamous 'unnamed rival studio exec' and his $90 million domestic prediction, which is turn led to stories about how every ticket would be sold out and every screening would be packed all weekend. I've always argued that the first five-day gross of Star Wars: Episode One: The Phantom Menace was hurt by know-nothing commentators swearing that every seat would be sold out over opening weekend. Little surprise that many of the casual fans did in fact attend during weekend two, contributing to a mere 20% drop. Yet it's 'underwhelming' first weekend ($64 million in three days, a then-record $105 million in five-days) led to the overall narrative that The Phantom Menace was a box office disappointment, despite eventually grossing $431 million. We saw a similar narrative with This Is It and, I'd argue, similar consequences. So now, having grossed $101 million in five days, Sony pictures must now fight the fiction that the picture was a relative disappointment. The most amusing part is that there was absolutely no way that anyone could have reasonably predicted how much this thing would gross. Yes, I'm sure lucky guesses abounded in the Box Office Mojo weekend derby, but anything other than gut-level intuition was impossible as there was no precedent to base this picture on. How many other 'hastily-edited-together 110-minute documentaries containing raw rehearsal footage of a concert that never happened released in order to cash in on the unexpected death of its star- arguably the most famous entertainer on earth' have there been? I'm not saying those who correctly guessed $32 million in five days and $21 million in three don't deserve a high-five, but there was no excuse for anyone trying to build any 'reasonable expectations' for this once-in-a-lifetime type situation. It's fine and dandy to have your own guesses, but it's quite another when random guesstimates are taken as actual news and/or the bar for minimum perception of success. Point being, any number that comes in before the actual opening day estimates is a guess, a prediction hopefully based on math or history, but often just based on either random thoughts or intentional misinformation. OK, enough with that mess, how did the rest of the box office do? Paranormal Activity grossed another $16 million, ironically showing its first (meager) signs of weariness over Halloween weekend. The Paramount acquisition that could has now amassed $82 million. If it makes it to $100 million, it will be the first R-rated horror film to cross said milestone since Hannibal back in February 2001. Expect a terrible sequel by next Halloween. Alas, one not-terrible sequel failed to gain any traction over the Halloween weekend, as Saw VI plummeted 60% for a $6 million second-weekend and a $22 million ten-day total. Amazingly, the sixth chapter of the long-running series may fail to match the opening weekend of the previous sequels ($30-33 million for parts II- V ). While direct competition from Paranormal Activity was likely the fatal factor, I must admit that the series has become so intertwined in its own continuity that one must absolutely have seen, followed, and vividly remembered each prior Saw film to actually comprehend this superior sixth chapter. Where the Wild Things Are cemented itself as a one-weekend wonder, as it dropped another 63% in its third weekend. Its new total is $61 million and now even $85 million is a pipe dream. Still, as I've said before, those that love this film really love it so it'll be a major player in the home theater arena. Couples Retreat has held up reasonably well as the second-choice of casual moviegoers, although the $70 million comedy won't get much farther than $100 million. Amelia added 200 screens and fell only 23% from its soft opening last weekend. The $40-million, critically-reviled Oscar bait has now grossed $8 million. The painfully stupid but occasionally fun Law Abiding Citizen (my two-year old knows more about the legal process) also held on strong, crossing the $50 million mark in its third weekend. Movies for grownups having legs? Lets not learn anything from this. There's not too much else to report. After this one-week respite from openings galore, the holiday season kicks off in full-force with FIVE major openings. We've got A Christmas Carol 3D (review coming Tuesday), The Box (which was supposed to open this weekend, and bloody well should have), Men Who Stare at Goats , and The Fourth Kind . Plus we have the limited release of Precious , the Tyler Perry/Oprah Winfrey pick-up that's already been proclaimed an Oscar front-runner and been denounced as victim of a backlash before a single paying audience member has seen it. Well, as my high-school journalism teacher always liked to say 'if we can't break the news, we'll make the news'. Scott Mendelson More on Oprah
 

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)