7/23 The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Radovan Karadzic: How Serbian War Criminal Hid From World As A New-Age Guru July 23, 2009 at 1:07 am It was Mina Minic's wife who first opened the door, that day in 2005, to find a tall man inquiring if this was the house of "academic professor doctor Mina Minic." The tall man gave Mrs. Minic a bouquet of flowers and kissed her hand. When Mr. Minic, a short, chipper Serbian soothsayer with 19th-century-style mutton chops, came down to the door, he found a "very strange" man who introduced himself as Dragan Dabic Brad Pitt Doesn't Believe In God, Sex With Angelina "A Trade Secret" July 23, 2009 at 1:01 am Recently Brad Pitt sat down with BILD and talked about his career, his motorbike obsession and getting as well as fielding questions on God and his life with Angelina Jolie and their six children. Pitt was promoting his upcoming Tarantino WWII movie "Inglourious Basterds." BILD put the article online, as well as an English translation. Sex and God highlights below, whole English interview here. ON GOD: BILD: Do you believe in God? Brad Pitt (smiling): "No, no, no!" BILD: Is your soul spiritual? Brad Pitt: "No, no, no! I'm probably 20 per cent atheist and 80 per cent agnostic. I don't think anyone really knows. You'll either find out or not when you get there, until then there's no point thinking about it. ON HIS FAMILY: BILD: Angelina told me once about your giant bed where all eight of you snuggle up? Brad Pitt: "Yes we have a 3 metre wide bed, but even that isn't big enough. They all come crawling in in the morning. It's just about surviving! We all have sleep deprivation." BILD: Do you find the time to make love? Brad Pitt (looks puzzled): What? BILD: Is it sometimes just the two of you? Brad Pitt: "Yes we make time for ourselves. It's very important for every relationship." BILD: How? Do you fly off somewhere? Brad Pitt: "That's a trade secret!" "Inglourious Basterds" opens in the US on August 21st. More on Brad Pitt Hardee's Ads Rejected: Asked Customers To Choose Between A-Holes, B-Holes (VIDEO) July 23, 2009 at 12:39 am Another Hardee's promotion has been rejected as too racy for North Carolina's conservative consumers. Michael Likosky: Ed Rendell: Hardest Working Man in Infrastructure July 23, 2009 at 12:34 am At this year's National Governors Association (NGA) meeting, Governor Ed Rendell's tenure as Chair fittingly came to a close with a plenary session on infrastructure financing. For the last year, Rendell has highlighted the issue through a timely NGA initiative, "Strengthening Our Infrastructure for a Sustainable Future". Rendell has been a tireless advocate of an infrastructure-driven recovery within the NGA and also as co-leader of Building America's Future along with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as through his leadership of the State of Pennsylvania. He has made his case under a Los Angeles freeway overpass, at the White House and on Meet the Press. Invariably, Rendell has three main talking points: (1) our infrastructure is hopelessly degraded and in need of massive carefully planned investment; (2) given constrained budgets, we should explore innovative financing techniques like P3s; and (3) we should model our own projects on success stories abroad in China, the United Kingdom and Western Europe. The NGA plenary was no exception. It urged us to look to China and the UK. Rendell is not alone in his preoccupation with the need to import international best practices. President Obama made a similar argument on the campaign trail and on the Rachel Maddow Show. It is also a central aspect of two major pieces of legislation now in Congress: the National Infrastructure Bank and the Clean Energy Bank. Former Governor Howard Dean together with his colleague former Mayor Stephen Goldsmith are also pushing for shepherding international best practices into America. America's last great experiment with P3s was disastrous: the Gilded Age railroads. So, there's good reason to look abroad rather than to American history for good models. For thirty years, infrastructure projects throughout the world have been carried out through P3s. Policy makers within the US are now carefully debating whether this model is an appropriate one to meet urgent domestic needs. However, these policy debates about importing the international model are not grounded in an evidentiary assessment of overseas experience with P3s. The public policy debate would be well-served by close examination of this track record to ensure that the public purpose of our own projects is served by our chosen mode of financing and delivering them. For instance, every major advocate of P3s within America stresses the importance of accountability. A central lesson of P3 projects internationally is that civic participation drives project accountability, financial durability, and quality infrastructure. However, governments around the world have too often treated participation by citizens as oppositional to the interests of P3 projects. For example, the European Investment Bank P3 model, now being advocated with the US, has viewed meaningful civic participation as inherently contrary to its goals. Instead, the European Bank has identified participation by citizens as a financial risk to be mitigated. A recurring lesson with P3s internationally, documented at great length, is that citizen participation drives durable, accountable projects. This lesson must inform the debates over P3s generally, particularly the discussions of financing, regulatory, and contractual approaches. The first wave of transportation P3s within the United States over the last several years has not adequately addressed these concerns. As a result, projects have not been optimally structured and sufficiently considered. We should not only focus on emulating foreign P3 models. Attention should be paid to learning lessons from an international experience in which accountability has been the exception, not the norm. More on Meet the Press Norm Stamper: POTUS vs. Cambridge Police: Stupid Is As Stupid Does? July 23, 2009 at 12:24 am Nothing like a question from out of left field to elicit some bare-boned truths about policing, race, and stupidity. President Obama in a televised news conference, billed as an attempt to shore up allied support and win converts for his health care plan, turned to Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet for the final question of the evening. Did Ms. Sweet ask about universal health care? The ups and downs of a single-payer system? The heartburn of quaking Blue Dog Democrats over the cost of the Obama plan? Bill Kristol's blinkered, ideological suggestion that Obama's critics on the right sniff the blood and "Go for the Kill." No. She asked about the July 16 arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. By now, most know the facts. Last Thursday, the professor, just returned from China, cabbed from Logan International to his Cambridge home. Finding himself keyless, he stood on the porch of his lovely house and, with black taxi driver looking on, jimmied the door lock. Which prompted a neighbor to summon the cops. Who showed up after Professor Gates ("Skip" to his friend, the president) had worked his way into the living room. Words were exchanged, identification shown, an arrest made. That's right. Gates, who must have been beat and irritable from the long return flight, was busted. In his own home. By a white cop. For "disorderly conduct." And what, Ms. Sweet wanted to know, did the president think about all this? Acknowledging that he wasn't there, and that he was relying on "reports" of the incident, Obama proceeded to label the "Cambridge police," not the arresting officer, "stupid." He went on to give voice to what was in the hearts and on the lips of many black citizens (and all other Americans who give a damn about human rights and civil liberties), namely that race was a factor here. In my memory, only one other U.S. president ever made such a strong statement about police racism. In the aftermath of the Amadou Diallo police shooting in New York City, President Clinton condemned the actions of NYPD officers and asserted that Diallo would still be alive today were he white rather than black. Now, was it Obama's turn. I wish he hadn't used the word stupid. I wish he hadn't, in effect and however inadvertently, accused the whole police force of stupidity. Even raging critics of the institution will occasionally concede: There are more than a few fine, sensitive and caring cops who perform a critical function in society. Cops who are far from stupid. But what of Clinton's point? Would the Cambridge police officer who busted the renowned, revered professor in his own home done the same if the academic had been white? I don't believe so, not for a minute. Which is why, however imperfectly he may have expressed it, President Obama did the cause of improved community-police relations a huge service by pulling no punches this evening. Young, less poised and polished, less well off black Americans than Henry Louis Gates, Jr. or Baradk Obama just might benefit from the president's "stupid" remark. Rep. John Duncan's Ex-Aide Claims Co-Workers Sprayed Perfume On Her Lunch July 23, 2009 at 12:16 am A former employee of U.S. Congressman John Duncan Jr.'s Knoxville office has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming she was wrongly terminated because of her age. Fundraising While Shooting: Lawmakers Who Raise Money While Hunting July 23, 2009 at 12:10 am Today the Senate voted narrowly to reject a provision that would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons from state to state, a major defeat for the gun lobby. Here at Party Time we've long noted that a number of lawmakers like to fundraise while skeet shooting (click here to see invitations) or dove or pheasant hunting (Click here). SEC Orders Ex-CEO To Return Pay July 22, 2009 at 11:54 pm The Securities and Exchange Commission for the first time Wednesday ordered an executive to return compensation awarded during years the company misstated financial results -- even though the executive himself wasn't accused of wrongdoing. James Crowley, Policeman Who Arrested Gates, Won't Apologize July 22, 2009 at 11:45 pm NATICK, Mass. — A white police sergeant accused of racism after he arrested renowned black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home insisted Wednesday he won't apologize for his treatment of the Harvard professor, but President Barack Obama said police had acted "stupidly." Gates has demanded an apology from Sgt. James Crowley, who had responded to the home near Harvard University to investigate a report of a burglary and demanded the scholar show him identification. Police say Gates at first refused and then accused the officer of racism. Gates said Crowley walked into his home without his permission and only arrested him as the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant's name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment. Obama, during a prime-time news conference, said Wednesday he didn't know what role race played in the incident but added that police in Cambridge, a city neighboring Boston, "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates even after he offered proof that he was in his own home. "I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said. "Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three – what I think we know separate and apart from this incident – is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact." He said federal officials need to continue working with local law enforcement "to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias." Crowley said Wednesday he's disappointed by the heated national debate triggered by the incident and insisted he followed proper procedures in arresting Gates last week on a charge of disorderly conduct. The charge was dropped Tuesday. Officers were responding to the home Gates rents from Harvard after a woman reported seeing "two black males with backpacks" trying to force open the front door, according to a police report. Gates, who had returned from a trip overseas with a driver, said he had to shove the door open because it was jammed. He was inside, calling the company that manages the property, when police arrived. Gates was accused by police of "tumultuous" behavior toward the officers. But Gates countered by saying Crowley was clearly responding to racial profiling and "couldn't understand a black man standing up for his rights, right in his face." In a region with a tortured racial history, two overarching arguments have emerged about the incident. Police supporters charge that Gates, director of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, was responsible for his own arrest by overreacting. Those sympathetic to Gates counter that the officer should have defused the situation and left the home as soon as he established that Gates was the resident, not a burglar. Crowley said he's grateful he has the support of his police force. He said he's not worried about any possible disciplinary action. "There will be no apology," he said outside his home Wednesday. Cambridge police and the police officers' union have declined to comment. But there was plenty of blame being spread around by the public, through talk shows, blogs, newspaper online forums and water cooler chats. Even the hosts of a sports radio show in Boston spent much of Wednesday morning faulting Gates. Gov. Deval Patrick, who is black, said he was troubled and upset over the incident. Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons, who also is black, has said she spoke with Gates and apologized on behalf of the city, and a statement from the city called the July 16 incident "regrettable and unfortunate." What happened between Gates and Crowley at the professor's home remains in dispute. Police say Gates yelled at the officer, accused him of racial bias and refused to calm down after the officer demanded Gates show him identification to prove he lived there. Gates denies that he yelled at the officer, other than to repeatedly ask his name and badge number, and he says he readily turned over his driver's license and Harvard ID to prove his residence and identity. Gates said he was "outraged" by the arrest, wants an apology from Crowley and would use the experience to help make a documentary about racial profiling in the United States. "This isn't about me, this is about the vulnerability of black men in America," Gates said. He said the incident made him realize how vulnerable poor people and minorities are "to capricious forces like a rogue policeman, and this man clearly was a rogue policeman." Gates' supporters cite Boston's history as a city plagued by racism as an underlying reason why this could still happen to an esteemed scholar, at midday, in his own home. "That stain on this city – as far as persons of color are concerned – is a real one," television and radio commentator Callie Crossley said. She recalled the case of Charles Stuart, who caused a citywide manhunt in 1989, when he said a hooded black man shot him and his pregnant wife as they got into their car. The wife died, and Stuart eventually was labeled the killer, but not before a black man arrested on unrelated charges became the prime suspect. Stuart committed suicide the next year by jumping off a bridge. Perhaps nothing epitomizes Boston's struggle with race relations better than the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph taken during the uproar over forced busing of public school students in the 1970s. The photo shows a white man swinging a large pole with an American flag at a black man during a protest against the desegregation plan at City Hall. Black students and professors at Harvard have complained for years about racial profiling by Cambridge and campus police. Harvard commissioned an independent committee last year to examine the university's race relations after campus police confronted a young black man who was using tools to remove a bike lock. The man worked at Harvard and owned the bike. Michele Lamont, a sociology and African-American studies professor at Harvard, said she understood why Gates reacted angrily to the police officer in his home given that larger history of confrontations with police – as well as his own. "Certainly when someone like Gates finds himself in this situation, he has in mind this baggage," Lamont said. Crossley said many people criticizing Gates for overreacting or for losing his cool have never been profiled by authorities because of their race. Richard Weinblatt, director of the Institute for Public Safety at Central Ohio Technical College, said the police sergeant was responsible for defusing the situation once he realized Gates was the lawful occupant. It is not against the law to yell at police, especially in a home, as long as that behavior does not affect an investigation, he said. "That is part of being a police officer in a democratic society," Weinblatt said. "The point is that the police sergeant needs to be the bigger person, take the higher road, be more professional." ___ Associated Press writer Melissa Trujillo and Denise Lavoie contributed to this story from Boston. Warner Chabot: California is the Unwilling Star of a Slasher Film July 22, 2009 at 11:19 pm California is the Unwilling Star of a Slasher Film The details of the budget agreement negotiated between the Governor and legislative leaders are emerging, and the overall picture is devastating. Rather than including even modest proposals to raise revenues during the most serious recession since the Great Depression, the "solution" is all about cuts. The situation is no longer a "suspense movie," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger referred to the negotiations. It now resembles a slasher film -- full of deep and horrifying cuts. In this latest remake of the classic slasher film Psycho, Janet Leigh's character Marion is played by California. Sure, she's made some mistakes; she's ambitious and perhaps a little naive -- but no one deserves to be cut to shreds. California's children and young adults were early victims, with $6 billion in cuts to K-14 and $3 billion in cuts to higher education reported. Also facing the knife are health and welfare programs. Because so much of the general fund is dedicated to these programs, we could predict their fate during the opening credits of the budget negotiations. Environmental agencies and programs have survived, although they had to vigorously fend off their attackers. However, the quality of the state's environment will no doubt be left with some serious scars. Several of the proposals that were most damaging to the state's environmental programs were included in the budget deal, including allowing offshore oil drilling and closing dozens of the state's world-famous parks. (A note: these issues are still evolving, as the actual bill language is still being finalized; the following is based on available information.) Offshore Oil Drilling Legislative leaders accepted the Schwarzenegger Administration's proposal to override the State Lands Commission's rejection of new offshore oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast. The Governor's proposal removes the lease authority from the Commission -- which has performed leasing functions in state government for almost a century -- and instead gives it to a committee consisting of the governor's political appointments. The deal allows the approval of a lease despite the fact that there are no guarantees that the billions in alleged revenue for the state budget will be provided by the oil company. In a shocking plot twist, Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal is apparently weaker than the conditions the oil company was willing to accept at the State Lands Commission. State Parks The bottom line: Between 30-50 of the state's parks could be closed as a result of the budget deal. No, the park system didn't lose any vital organs, but it could lose a limb or two. Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to cut park funding and close 220 of the state's parks -- 80% of the country's largest state park system -- was one of the proposals that environmental voters opposed most vocally. As a result of this very public push-back, the vast majority of state parks appear to have been spared. However, approximately $70 million of the parks' general fund allocation will be eliminated, with other funding sources backfilling $62 million. The $8 million gap remaining for the Department of Parks and Recreation will likely mean dozens of park closures. I admit it's hard to see how this story has a happy ending. After all, we are facing a $26 billion shortfall, and no plot device is going to make every audience member happy. But there are still opportunities for our legislative leaders to be heroes and save California's safety net, quality of life and natural beauty from death by a thousand cuts. Notice that I have yet to say who's playing the villain. And that's because there are too many factors at play here to name just one. The greed and deregulation that led to the current economic crisis. The crippling two-thirds majority requirement for a budget. The warped budget process that results in just five individuals negotiating behind closed doors. The deep-pocketed polluters who leap at every chance to influence a broken process. The legislators who absolutely refuse to consider common-sense proposals to raise revenues in order to truly "share the pain." Just to name a few. I've never been a fan of horror movies (I'd rather see California in a romantic comedy). For now, please join me in writing a new script for the Golden State's future -- a sequel where the quality of education, public health and safety, and California's natural resources and environmental heritage would win out over knife-wielding psychos. More on Economy Morgan Stanley Sets Aside $3.9B To Pay Bonuses Despite Posting Loss July 22, 2009 at 11:04 pm Morgan Stanley is setting aside a huge sum to pay out bonuses despite posting its third consecutive quarterly loss and admitting it is disappointed with key departments. Patricia Handschiegel: The New Power Girls: Is Web 2.0 Putting Your Business at Risk Online? July 22, 2009 at 10:35 pm The scene is casual and chic as a group of female founders based in Los Angeles gather over mimosas at brunch. On the table is an array of iPhones and Blackberries, underneath a collection of designer shoes that would take the breath away from even the most seasoned fashionista. As they nibble on fresh fruit and scrambled eggs mixed with salmon, the conversation shifts from men and dating to upcoming events, and of course, the latest news and trends affecting business. The big topic, of course, was the story that rocked the web and media worlds just a week before: The popular web 2.0 blog TechCrunch was sent 300 confidential company documents stolen from the popular social network, Twitter. Shortly after, the hacker revealed how he snuck into the private email of the company's executives, sparking an even greater look at online security and privacy. In a world that encourages you to increasingly use web-based services like email and to share, share, share online, are businesses making themselves vulnerable to hackers and cyber criminals? The hacker that slipped into the email accounts of Twitter executives had said his efforts began with research online. There he was able to find who works for the company and a variety of personal details via their sharing on social networks, etc. to create a database of information that he later used to guess email configurations and passwords. Like a lot of web 2.0 companies, Twitter's company email was allegedly hosted online. It made it easy for the hacker to get in and move around. At one point, he hung out in an employees email undetected, watching and waiting to make sure he wasn't found out before moving to other accounts inside. It was enough to send chills around virtually every entrepreneur's spine. While many debated about whether or not media and blogs should publish sensitive, confidential and/or stolen goods, Power Girls were looking to the bigger problem: As our world moves to the web, are we more vulnerable to hackers? Click here for the rest of the article More on Twitter The Wrong Reporter Asks Obama A Question July 22, 2009 at 10:24 pm The chance to ask a question during a prime-time presidential press conference is treasured real estate in the world of journalism. So when the President called on Steve Koff of the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Wednesday night, it was not an insignificant moment for either him or his paper. And yet, as soon as the moment presented itself, it disappeared. Steven Thomma of McClatchy stood up as soon as Barack Obama said "Steve," not Koff. Within a matter of milliseconds the president's attention was on the wrong portion and journalist of the room. The question, like those beforehand, centered on the health care debate. But half the audience was distracted. Koff and the group of reporters around him were asking what exactly happened. When Obama, in the course of answering the question, mentioned that he'd been stopping in Cleveland the next day, bits of laughter erupted. "I thought, this isn't right," Thomma recalled after the press conference was over. "I gave him a quizzical look and he gave me a quizzical look." Luckily for him, the mistake was rectified. Koff stood up after Obama's answer was finished, explained politely that a mishap had just occurred, and asked his question - again about health care, though with a Cleveland-specific angle. "Mistakes happen," he would say after the conference. "Had he not addressed my question than I would not have been happy." Back in the press briefing room minutes later, Thomma was getting hazed both by his fellow reporters and the rest of the White House press corps. "I'm hard of hearing," he explained, sincerely. In no short order he had established a new policy for presidential news conference. "The next time the president says Bill, I'm just gonna stand up," quipped radio host Bill Press. Obama On Skip Gates Arrest: Police Acted "Stupidly" July 22, 2009 at 10:04 pm Near the conclusion of his press conference on Wednesday, President Obama was asked to respond to the controversial arrest of distinguished Harvard Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates. Obama acknowledged to questioner Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times that Gates "is a friend, so I may be a little biased." The President stepped lightly regarding any role race may have played in the situation, saying that he was not there so could not be certain, however he did note that racial profiling has "a long history in this country." Obama argued that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." Watch video or read the President's complete response below: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little bias ed here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys. He jimmied his way to get into the house. There was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. so far so good. Right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger in -- well, I guess this is my house now so it probably wouldn't happen. Let's say my old house in Chicago. here I'd get shot. But so far so good. They're reporting, the police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate what happens. My understanding is at that point Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words but my understanding is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to show that this is his house. And at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped. Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact. As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet, the fact of the matter is that, you know, this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause cast suspicion even when there is good cause, and that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be. More on Barack Obama Mark Goulston, M.D.: Education Is Wasted on the Young July 22, 2009 at 9:50 pm What good is trying to educate people who do not value learning for its own sake, are not curious (beyond the desire to feel excitement) and sadly have lost their sense of wonder? I see fewer children from fifth grade through college and beyond with a passion for learning, understanding or even reading. That passion was present before the Four Horsemen of the Intellectual Apocalypse -first movies, second radio, third television and fourth the Internet -turned the masses into passive excitement/adrenaline seeking observers after having been intellectually active participants that voraciously read Mark Twain, Horatio Alger, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allan Poe or even the daunting Herman Melville. People need to become educated more instead of less literate and almost proud to be so. However people don't do what they need, they do what they want. And what they want is to be stimulated, maintain that stimulant high and to avoid boredom at all costs. Thinking, contemplating, understanding and learning that are necessary for lasting satisfaction in life are alas no competition for the immediate gratification that seems to drive so many people. So consider the following proposal. Give people what they want in hopes that they discover what they need. If children beyond the fifth grade (it appears that many children will hold onto their innate curiosity through the fourth grade) are more concerned with and even obsessed with having, getting and then in high school and college with getting ahead; let's provide them with the training and skill sets to do just that. Don't waste education or even teaching on them. Instead offer teaching and education only to those who want it. This will often turn out to be future leaders, because such individuals appear to inherently know there is more to life than transaction myopia (find the deal, do the deal, next deal). It may even turn out to be bloggers that write on such topics as these, because I was one of those people who wasn't particularly keen on learning for its own sake, understanding things beneath the surface or even reading (even now I write with much more facility and enthusiasm than I read). I find it such an irony to have been a kid who once felt that the longest ten minutes in life were those that occurred just before a school day was over and now feel that the greatest luxury I could imagine -if I didn't have to earn a living as a provider -would be to go back to school (or even do this online) and listen to and savor the best lectures from the wisest and most inspiring speakers I could find. I wonder if it's too late to educate this old dog with some new tricks about the richness in life that is still out there for the learning. Bruce Nilles: The Climate Bill Shouldn't Give Coal a Free Pass July 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm Now that historic U.S. climate legislation - the American Clean Energy and Security Act - (ACES), has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate is debating its version of energy/climate legislation, let's talk about what must be fixed before it gets to the President's desk. Big Coal has long sought and enjoyed loopholes for their dirty industry - anything to keep the money rolling in as they avoid cleaning up. And now, over objections of our clean energy champions, this bill gives them another massive loophole that the Senate must correct. Although coal-fired power plants account for roughly a third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (making them our single largest source of global warming pollution), the legislation gives them a free pass to continue business as usual -- without making any serious reductions in heat-trapping CO2 for at least fifteen years, and bringing us increasingly closer to a climate crisis.   There is some modestly good news for new plants that don't yet have their construction permit: no later than 2025, they will have to cut their carbon emissions in half.  But the bad news is that the bill exempts a slug of plants permitted but not yet built, plus the huge fleet of America's oldest and dirtiest coal plants, from any requirement to clean up and cut their CO2 emissions. This is a disaster in the making, because it threatens to block the way for the U.S. to transition rapidly to a clean energy economy. These old dirty coal plants need to clean up or be retired. But the way the bill works right now, instead of encouraging investment in new industries and new plants that are subject to stringent standards, it leaves the door open to expand the old plants with no added safeguards. By "grandfathering" existing coal-fired capacity, which accounts for 44 percent of U.S. electricity generation, the bill repeats the mistakes of the 1977 Clean Air Act -- mistakes that we have been paying for in the form deadly air pollution ever since.  Three decades ago, Congress exempted older plants from soot and smog limits that applied to new units, on the assumption (and promise by the industry) that they would soon be retired. Instead, the industry took full advantage of this loophole to refurbish old plants and, in some cases, to expand their capacity and emit even more of the air pollution that causes tens of thousands of asthma attacks, hospitalizations, heart attacks, and premature deaths every year. We can't repeat that mistake. While ACES does make some good strides in reducing global warming pollution, Big Coal cannot be allowed to vent billions of tons of pollution without consequence. To close this huge loophole and level the playing field between coal and clean energy, the Senate must insist that the oldest, dirtiest plants will retire by a date certain or meet the same pollution standards as new plants. And, until they retire or clean up, existing plants must be prohibited from expanding their capacity and increasing carbon pollution.  These measures would create an incentive for industry to use cleaner technologies instead of continuing to lean on the dirty dinosaurs that generate too much of our electricity today.  Finally, if Congress cannot muster the backbone to clean up the nation's oldest and most dangerous coal plants, it ought to restore the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to do so. The stakes could not be greater.  We cannot let Big Coal get away with another massive loophole to continue polluting at the same level as today for 1-2 more decades.  Congress must close the coal loophole and make the coal industry slash its pollution. Our future depends on it. Chris Weigant: It's Time To Lead, Mr. President July 22, 2009 at 8:13 pm In a few hours from now, President Barack Obama will give a live press conference to the nation. This is part of a new and concerted media effort by the White House to make Obama much more visible in the debate on healthcare reform. But being visible is one thing, and showing leadership is another. Because President Obama has so far been unwilling to tackle the tough decisions on healthcare reform, at least not in public. And, as Obama is accusing his detractors of doing, this is nothing more than playing politics with the issue by avoiding personal political risk to himself. Disturbingly, Obama hasn't even been very good at this political cheerleading, although he has gotten better in the past few days. Obama's legislative style (as evidenced so far, on major bills) has been to vaguely define what he's for, introduce a plan that is quite obviously open to lots and lots of negotiation, and then sit back and let Congress work it out. The White House deploys Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel up to Capitol Hill, who twists a few arms and makes more than a few compromises. At the eleventh hour, Obama appears tough, and says things like "the time for talk is over." So far (see: the stimulus package) this has worked well for him. He has gotten 80 to 90 percent of what he asked for, without too much pushback from his own party. Perhaps he is (or, at least at the beginning, "was") serious about wanting bipartisanship, but in reality it matters little as long as bills get passed that he can sign. But this may not be enough on healthcare legislation. Obama is facing much stiffer resistance from within his own party, and Congress appears in danger of bogging down over the issue and not moving forward, or sacrificing so much of the core reform that whatever passes will be next to useless. Now, Obama can help on two fronts tonight, if he has the political willpower. In other words, if he shows the willingness to deploy leadership skills and take a few risks, to draw a bit of heat off his allies in Congress. The first of these fronts is to make some sort of "the time for talk is over" statement. He could actually reject some of the possibilities being discussed on the Hill by some Democrats. Conversely, Obama could draw a few lines in the sand by threatening a veto if he doesn't get this or that program he supports. This would make big news. The other way he could drive the media narration is to loudly reclaim the high moral ground in the debate -- and remind the news media the starkness of the problem he is trying to solve for America. In chilling detail. In the first instance, Obama needs to realize that when you're "for everything," you are to a large degree, "for nothing." Think about it -- Obama has offered varying degrees of support for just about every idea out there on healthcare reform at one point or another. And he has only denied a "seat at the table" to one very large idea -- single-payer. This is somewhat understandable both politically (Obama shows from the very start he isn't "captive to the far left") and practically (because single-payer is somewhat of an all-or-nothing choice, it leaves very little room for compromise). This also has absolutely enraged the single-payer supporters, as well it should. Because they were publicly and pointedly denied their "seat at the table," they weren't even provided an opportunity to make their case to the public. When Senator Max Baucus had some doctors arrested at a Senate committee hearing, the message could not have been clearer: "We do not even want to hear what you have to say." This was a public-relations mistake. If single-payer advocates had been allowed to make their case, and then had it wistfully rejected by the president, it would have made that bitter pill a lot easier to swallow. But Obama has so far been reluctant to shoot down any other idea, no matter how unworkable or obstructionist it may be. This is also a mistake, and it is what I meant when I said Obama is playing politics with the issue. Obama appears to be more concerned with his own political capital than he is with solving the problem. This may be a mistaken appearance, but it is nonetheless one that is taking hold, even from the left -- which is dangerous for Obama not just on healthcare reform, but for the entire rest of his term and the rest of his agenda. If Obama is seen as figuring that he can just sit on the sidelines and cheer for every idea out there; because -- no matter what eventually passes -- he comes out of it on the winning side, it will damage his standing with the public in the long run. Alternatively, if he throws his weight behind one idea over another, and if his side loses in the congressional wrangling, then he risks "Obama's Plan Defeated!" headlines -- something he has just not been willing to risk as of yet. If Obama pushes for one idea over others, and doesn't get it, he risks being seen as forced to compromise on the issue. Since there are a number of key issues with healthcare reform (how to tackle it in general, how to pay for it, and how to reduce costs), Obama could wind up winning a few and losing a few. But he would (it seems) rather float above the fray, so that whatever emerges he can then call his own. This is not leadership, it should be noted. This is political opportunism. Obama's fans will likely point out at this point that he has indeed been getting a lot more forceful on defending his vague goals and aspirations for healthcare reform. And he has actually drawn one sharp line in the sand in the last few days, with a veto threat for "anything which adds to the national debt," or demanding that any bill be "revenue-neutral." The White House is already doing a bit of fudging with Medicare reimbursements on this issue, but at least Obama's standing up for something in the debate, so he has to be given credit for that. But on the details, Obama appears much more willing to horse-trade away just about anything so that he can get a bill on his desk that he can sign, and then chalk it up as a significant legislative victory -- even if it is so watered down that it does little to "fix" the healthcare problem. He needs to (and most likely will) show some serious frustration at the way the process seems to be heading right now, and show some backbone towards getting it back on track. In plain language, Obama needs to show a lot better than he has yet that he cares about the actual result more than he cares about an empty political victory on healthcare reform. Sooner or later, he's going to have to say "no" to somebody, because not every Democrat is going to get what they want out of the bill. That's just the way the sausage grinds in Washington. Obama could score enormous political points by saying something along the lines of: "Some Democrats in Congress have taken an awful lot of money from the healthcare industry, and they need to make a decision -- vote with the special interests which funded your past campaigns, or vote for your constituents' needs." He could even back this up (which would also do wonders for him politically) by saying loudly: "Any Democrat who loses campaign donations as a result of voting for their constituents' interests over big donors' interests, I will personally raise money for and campaign for in your next election." This shows both the carrot and the stick at the same time. Which brings us to the second front he needs to be fighting on. Obama also needs to project a greater sense of urgency about the process itself, to counteract all the "whoa... let's not rush into anything" soft obstructionism we've been hearing of late. In Obama's recent media blitz, he has been doing a fairly good job of this, but he needs to hit it harder. This, in his defense, is an area where Democrats routinely fail to communicate well on -- and fail so prominently that there's a number of excellent books explaining exactly how Democrats fail in this regard, and how they should frame issues better. To reduce it to its core: you need to tell a story. People relate to stories. They relate to urgency if it is explained. They relate to politicians who "understand people like them." And if healthcare reform is not achieved this year, it is my firm belief that this will be the reason why -- because Democrats just aren't that good at indignantly taking the moral high road. Obama used to be, back when he was on the campaign trail, but that "fierce urgency of now" has been all but absent in the entire healthcare debate so far. Where are all the stories, for instance, of the millions of Americans who have gone bankrupt due to medical problems? Where are the stories of the millions who have seen their houses foreclosed upon due to medical problems? Where are the stories of people losing their life's savings to pay for something they thought they were covered for? Where are the stories of people being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions? Where are the stories of people who have been dropped by insurance companies because they had the effrontery to actually get sick and want care paid for? Where are all these stories in this debate? Why do we not hear at least one of these stories -- a brutal description of what some average American citizen had to go through due to sickness -- each and every time a Democrat appears on the mainstream media? All it would take would be one Republican to scoff at such a sob story, and the framing would be complete: Democrats care, Republicans don't. Statistics are just not good enough. Sure, it's fine to say: "over sixty percent of personal bankruptcies in America are due to medical problems," but it just doesn't have the same punch as saying: "I was talking to one of my constituents the other day, and she had worked hard all her life and paid medical insurance premiums for decades, but then had to have a hip replacement and was denied by her insurance company. She lost her home to foreclosure, she lost all her retirement money, and she still had to declare bankruptcy -- through no fault of her own other than needing treatment for a medical condition she thought she was insured for, and now she can't even afford the drugs she needs to keep her alive. This has to end! This is what we are trying to fix. This is why we're trying to fix it. And any bill I see which does not directly address her specific problem I can not and will not support." See how easy that is? This ain't rocket science. All you have to do is tell a story that is similar to the stories we hear from our parents, our friends, or even what we're personally going through ourselves. You can say "sixty-two percent of bankruptcies blah blah blah," or you can tell someone's story -- the content of the argument is exactly the same, but the emotional effect on listeners is vastly different. And as an added benefit, nobody can argue the other side of this equation, at least without leaving themselves wide open to charges of "defending the status quo." This isn't a debate on something like global warming, where scientists can dither about whether there's even a problem until the public stops listening. This is something that just about every American family either has faced, or is terrified of facing. It's not that hard to connect with the public on the issue, in other words. And it's also easy as pie to take the moral high ground in this case -- all you need to say is: "This must end." President Obama has been moving in this direction in the past week or so. But he's still not really there yet. He has not adequately shown enough moral indignation at the status quo. He has not projected the image that he is fighting for you in this fight. He has not shown nearly enough dudgeon in denouncing the abuses we currently accept in our system on a daily basis. Tonight's press conference may be his best (or even his last) chance to make this connection with the American public. Because even if Obama stayed away from the details, and politically rode above the fray in a risk-free manner, he could still "buck up" (as he said last week) the Democrats on the front lines of this fight who are actively fighting for Obama's goals in the congressional committees -- and who also are, at this point, fighting with other Democrats. Obama has shown some real frustration with the deterioration of the schedule he set for Congress, because he knows that the longer this fight drags on, the less chance there is of him signing anything this year. And if it gets pushed into next year, then Congress will start all over again, meaning he will have lost any ground (and any momentum) he now has. But Obama also has to start to crack the whip a bit. He could do this in a number of ways, both direct and indirect. He has already started running ads which tell a few healthcare horror stories in home districts of wavering Democrats. But he could also let it be known that if Congress takes five weeks off in August without passing anything, that he will personally appear in town hall meetings in each and every home district of Democrats who are blocking legislation -- and explain to that congressman's constituents exactly how many dollars their elected representative has taken from the healthcare industry, and exactly what they are now opposing. If you think this wouldn't motivate a few Democrats, then you don't know Congress very well. What Obama may be using as his giant lever tonight, though, is an issue that Nancy Pelosi may have just teed up for him, in the absolute guarantee that it would provoke a question for Obama: cancelling (or scaling back) Congress' five-week summer vacation, until they pass a bill. I have been suggesting using this lever for a while now, and will be interested to see if Obama firmly grasps this giant prybar tonight. Pelosi herself has shown (last year, mostly) that she is adept in this maneuver, having pushed through many tough votes and bills on the last days before congressional vacation weeks, and she has now given President Obama the gift of calling for such an action herself right before Obama's nationwide press conference, so I assume Obama's going to follow through on this tonight. I would love to see tomorrow's headlines scream: "No Vacation For Congress Until They Pass Healthcare Reform!" Or perhaps: "Obama Issues Veto Threats In Support Of..." (just about anything that finished that one up would probably be OK with me at this point). Or even: "Obama Threatens Blue Dogs," again, no matter what the subtitle read. Obama is unlike every other politician in Washington, because he owns the bully pulpit. He can grab an hour of television time, which nobody else can do. But if he refuses to say anything new, if he refuses to strongly support or strongly come out against this idea or that, then he will show he hasn't mastered the power of that bully pulpit. I'd even settle for the headline: "Obama Says 'This Must End!' To Healthcare Woes." Because each and every one of those headlines says, in essence, the same thing: "Obama Shows Leadership On Healthcare Reform." That is what has been painfully missing in this debate so far, and what is absolutely necessary for success at this point in time. Please, Mr. President, don't disappoint tonight. Show some frustration. Show some empathy for average Americans. Show some impatience. Show some backbone. But most importantly, show some leadership.   [Note: Possibly due to articles of this nature, I was not included in the White House's recent outreach to the liberal blogosphere on the healthcare issue. Just in case anyone was wondering, the opinions expressed in my columns on healthcare reform are my own, and have not been "encouraged" in any way from the current administration, or anyone else for that matter.]   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Barack Obama Brad Friedman: Irony: Palin Used Official State Website for Private Rebuttal to Latest Ethics Complaint July 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm PLUS: Did Palin attorney defame an ethics complainant in recent statement? A brief, two paragraph statement [PDF] by the private attorney of Alaska's very-soon-to-be-former Gov. Sarah Palin was posted on the governor's official public state website on Monday. Attributed to "THOMAS VAN FLEIN -- Personal Attorney for Governor Palin," the statement posted to the Governor's officially run state website at www.gov.state.ak.us decries the latest ethics complaint filed against Palin -- alleging the improper disclosure of gifts and the receipt of free services -- as an abuse of the state Ethics Act. That the official state website would be used to publicize the private response of Palin on Monday to another ethics charge is somewhat ironical, given Tuesday's leak of a preliminary independent report [PDF] from a state ethics commission investigator finding "probable cause" that Palin's "official" legal defense fund violated the Ethics Act in that it made use of her "official position for personal gain." Citing Alaska Statute 39.52.120(a) which states that a "public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain," the state's independent investigator, Thomas M. Daniel notes that "personal gain" is defined by law as "a benefit to a person's or immediate family member's personal interest or financial interest." Does the use of the state's website to publicize Palin's personal attorney's response to an official ethics complaint constitute the use of "an official position for personal gain"? Was the complainant allowed to post her attorney's response to the complaint, or to Palin's personal response to it, on the official Alaska state website? Of course not. Perhaps one more ethics complaint needs to be filed in Alaska before Palin quits her job as governor this weekend. We came across Monday's publicly posted private response via a Monday night tweet on Palin's personal Twitter page which linked to it: Re more frivolous ethics allegations today; shame good law is being abused for politicking. See http://tinyurl.com/mrtwcv   7:23 PM Jul 20th from web But, as still more irony would have it, Palin and/or her attorney may have also committed a legally actionable act of defamation in their response to the leak of yesterday's confidential "probable cause" finding. In attorney Van Flein's statement responding to the leak of the report, as posted on Palin's Facebook page yesterday, he may have defamed the complainant, Alaska resident Kim Chatman by declaring, as fact, some action of hers to have been "illegal." "All options are open in terms of legal remedies," Van Flein threatened, in response to his apparent belief, as ABC News characterized it, that Chatman is the one who leaked the confidential preliminary report. "It is a clear violation of Alaska law that Mr. Daniel explicitly reviewed with Ms. Chatman prior to her illegal actions. We will be contacting the appropriate authorities for review and action." It's unclear whether Van Flein was asserting that the alleged "illegal action" of Chatman was the leak of the preliminary report, as ABC implies, and, if so, what his evidence is for that. None is given. But he has very clearly stated, as a fact, that Chatman committed "illegal actions." That is, of course, what Palin, via Van Flein, had inaccurately alleged about Alaska blogger and radio host Shannyn Moore, after she discussed rumors of a coming "iceberg scandal" that might sink the U.S.S. Palin -- as we reported here at the time -- shortly after Palin announced she would be aborting her term as governor to, apparently, become a celebrity community organizer. Trouble is, neither Moore, nor anybody else to our knowledge, ever stated that the rumored "iceberg" investigation -- believed to be into whether or not Palin misappropriated funds and/or materials and/or labor from the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex for use in the construction of her Wasilla home on Lake Lucille, which was built during approximately the same period, as detailed last year by the Village Voice -- was a "fact" (other than the general assertion that it was a fact that local Alaskans had been buzzing about those rumors for several weeks leading up to Palin's surprise resignation announcement.) As Van Flein, who at the time described media reports of those allegations as "actionable," wrote in his July 4th legal threat letter [PDF] in response: To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. So while neither Moore, nor any other media that we're aware of, "claim[ed] as 'fact'" that Palin was "under federal investigation", Van Flein, on behalf of Palin, has now stated that a legal complainant, Kim Chatman, committed "illegal actions". Despite their widely reported threats and attempts at intimidation, as Moore and other local bloggers described it at the time, no lawsuits for "defamation" have yet to be filed by the Palin team to date. But it certainly seems that Chatman -- if, in fact, she did not leak the report, nor break any other laws -- might well have a very good case of "defamation" to file against Palin at this point. Cross-posted on The BRAD BLOG... More on Sarah Palin Jim Watkins: Have You Seen My Wallet, NYC? How About My Pride? July 22, 2009 at 7:25 pm Last week, just before taking my 7-year-old twin boys to my hometown of Cincinnati for a family reunion, I took care of something that's a rite of passage for little boys everywhere: I got them their first wallets. They recently "discovered" money, (actually, they've quickly become frighteningly obsessed with it), so I figured it was time to get them their own wallets; not just to give them a place to keep their cash, but to begin learning to handle and protect their money responsibly. I hiked over to Times Square to find something kitschy and colorful at a souvenir shop, and found a couple of wallets that, appropriately, had images of hundred-dollar bills on them. When I gave them to Luke and Jamie the next morning, you would have thought it was Christmas. I don't think they let them out of their hands for two days. Everybody we bumped into, from the airline ticket agents to my cousins were shown the wallets and told exactly how much money was in them. They would take their bills out and count them and recount them. Unfortunately, when they finally DID decide to put them aside for awhile, it would be on the floor or in the car, usually with the cash splayed out all around them, while they blithely went on their way to some other activity. So this is where dear old Dad stepped in. Each time they'd leave their new wallets lying around, I was there with a stern lecture on how a man has to protect his wallet almost above all else, how he should always know where it is, and how awful an experience it is when it gets lost. I went on and on about it. Life lesson, and all that. I got the feeling it was even starting to sink in with them. We got back from Ohio on Sunday night. On Monday, I lost my wallet. I think I lost it on my Metro North train heading home from work, probably left behind on the seat because I didn't take that last look back before getting off at my station. I didn't realize it was missing until I was ready to go back to work the next day, and I've pretty much been miserable and distracted ever since. I searched everywhere, from the surprisingly well-run lost and found at Grand Central (where all lost items from every line eventually end up) to the police department in my town, on the off chance that I dropped it closer to home and someone turned it in. Nothing. I'll eventually stop beating myself up over this, but one big question looms: what do I tell my boys about it? DO I tell my boys? I honestly don't know if they'll appreciate my honesty--my acknowledgement that I made the very mistake I had just spent three days preaching about--or if they'll think I'm a complete knucklehead. I'm leaning toward telling them; I don't think parents should try to pass themselves off as infallible. I guess I'll try to make it an extension of that life lesson, let them know that something like losing your wallet can happen to anyone if you don't stay on your toes. Let me know in comments if you have any advice for me. While you're at it, keep an eye out for my wallet. Derek Beres: Global Beat Fusion: Six Degrees of the Middle East July 22, 2009 at 7:11 pm As Amiri Baraka so poignantly noted in his latest collection of essays, Digging: The Afro-American Soul of American Classical Music, if you're standing in California, then Asia is west. This seemingly simple observation sheds light on many of our habitual appointments, the term "Middle East" being one of them. I recall studying "Ancient Near Far Eastern Religions" in college, as if an even more perplexing configuration needed to be concocted. The problem Americans currently encounter with the Middle East -- predominantly journalists, that is, who supply the rest of the country with information -- isn't necessarily geographical as much as cultural: Who in what country is our friend this week? What country needs a new government now? Which is allowing us to use their land as a surveillance base? These terms seem to switch quicker than you can say freedom fry. The problem is not only with us, however. I've met Iranians who prefer calling themselves Persian, to keep away from association with Iran, while I've met other Iranians who consider Persian to be a derogatory term. I've met people with Gypsy blood that wear it like a banner, while others prefer the term "Roma." More often than not, I've met too many people who think "gypsy" is a cute nomadic term and apply it to the most inane circumstances, usually in the marketing of their latest incense, organic clothing line, or terrible "world fusion" album. Point being: directions switch, like Istanbul bludgeoning Constantinople, for which I can thank They Might Be Giants (and not the Four Lads, personally) for informing me, or Mumbai routing Bombay. Right now, or perhaps for the last 4,000 years, the Middle East has been a hotbed of activity for more reasons than Jarred Diamond could probably cite. So for the moment, while the media focuses on the pronunciation of a Puerto Rican's judge's last name, I'll take this lull in Mid-East activity to highlight an aspect of this regionless region that deserves credit: the music. In fact, I only want to focus on one album, Six Degrees of the Middle East, as it was Six Degrees Records that hooked me on the electronic music of this region (or, better put, predominantly the music of ex-pats and fans of the music using Arabic instruments in their electronic recordings, as that comprises the bulk of this genre). 1. "Iman" by Niyaz. I liked Azam Ali in Vas, her previous collaboration with percussionist Greg Ellis, and I also dug her solo album, Portals of Grace. Yet it was meeting former Axiom of Choice member Loga Ramin Torkian and producer Carmen Rizzo that really made me fall in love with the music she was producing. This trio has created two exceptional albums thus far, propelling the traditional songs and poetry of Iran into a modern context with Rizzo's tasteful array of beats. "Iman" is one of their more "acoustic" tracks: no beats, just a backdrop of ambiance for Ali to be featured over. Like all of her work, that instrument alone will leave you spellbound. 2. "Sayat Nova" by Jef Stott. San Franciscan Jef Stott has indulged himself in the music of the Middle East for some time. He studied oud with Hamza El Din, and if there ever existed one man you'd want to study oud with, my money is on him. He founded Embarka Records and has produced a commendable array of records, including Algerian emcee MC Rai, Lumin, and Stellamara, the latter featuring a very Azam Ali-ish nature. Saracen was his Six Degrees debut, and while "Sayat Nova" was not on there, this downtempo gem was probably culled from those sessions. A beautifully sorrowful track. 3. "In 5" by Another Fine Day. Originally on the 2000 release Salvage, this is a dancefloor building track, something you drop when you are getting the crowd ready. Tom Green is a UK-based composer who dabbles in electronica, with this being a fine example of his work: heavy on the horns, a nice, rolling percussion, steady beat in the backdrop. The slightly synthesized sounds sound it, which is the only pitfall in an otherwise solid track. 4. "Exodus From Sonapur" by Tal M. Klein. I was a bit worried when logging onto the San Francisco-based Tal M. Klein's MySpace page. Their blurb states them as "Drunk Funk Champion Sound," which immediately made me think of Hoboken bar bands. And yes, it appears that most of their music is funk-based (albeit better than on the streets of North Jersey); perhaps this track was an experiment in Middle Eastern percussion. Whatever it was, they nailed it -- the kick and bass alone merit accolades. This is a huge midtempo dancefloor crusher with plenty of space and bounce, and will gladly be worked into my DJ sets. 5. "Madh Assalhin" (Makyo's Zen Breaks Remix) by Cheb i Sabbah. I can't stand the way that Microsoft Word always autocorrects the letter "i" to a capital when I type this Algerian-born DJ's name. And I've typed it often over the years, as he is one of my favorite producers. The lower-case letter is fitting for the man who steps out of his own way when exploring the traditional music of India, Morocco, and his homeland; this track features the Berber singing troupe B'net Marrakech. (Morocco certainly stretches the definition of "Middle East," even though the North African countries do share a similar temperament.) Makyo has been holding down the global chill scene in Japan for years, and this, perhaps my favorite remix from the La Ghriba: La Kahena Remixed album, is rife with the hypnotic, spacey sound he has developed. A beautiful midpoint to this compilation, with its peak that it never quite reaches, leaving you wanting more. 6. "Sani" by Zaman 8 & Hafez Modir. I dig this track a lot until the saxophone comes in. It's not bad; it's just that the flutes were working so much better. Yet I felt much the same about most of their Six Degrees collaboration; jazz electronica is a very tricky thing to pull off, and while they do it pretty well, I'm left wanting more. It reminds me of what would happen if John McLaughlin found a Mac in the early '70s (humor me on this one). I like the beats, and I like the sax, but as separate components, which is essentially self-defeating. Highlights, certainly, though I never really arrive anywhere, and don't necessarily go back for the ride. 7. "Spring Arrives" (Transglobal Underground Remix) by Azam Ali. See number one for my assessment on Azam. As for the U.K.-based Transglobal Undergound, never have I liked and disliked a project so much. They have so much talent it's ridiculous, yet usually squander it on mediocre global electronica. For some reason, though, they are very dependable on the remix tip (a recent Watcha Clan retake is a dancefloor favorite), and this track is no different. While I lean towards the Bombay Dub Orchestra mix on the Azam EP, this double-time beat with its tasteful flourishes of percussion is a great take on an already excellent song. 8. "Whirling Within" by Desert Dwellers. The pairing of Rara Avis and Amani Friend has resulted in many blessed tracks and three incredible records on White Swan. I once asked Rara how he finally added the bass to what is touted as "yoga" music, something I so desperately craved, and he told me about his experiments in the desert with innumerable frequencies. The scientific mind meets the passionate soul -- these guys embody it. This upbeat percussive cruiser does work in my yoga classes, as well as on the dancefloor; their rhythmic aesthetic is astounding. My favorite track on the compilation. 9. "Mystic Whomp" (David Starfire Remix) by David Starfire. I've been able to appreciate Starfire's work on a production level, ever since I came across him a few years ago. This is one of his better tracks that I've heard, with great usage of darbuka and flute. The progressive bass lines don't do it for me, which is generally my gripe with his work in the first place. Still, that's a stylistic choice; he does what he does magnificently. This song has a nice build and plenty of kick, making it a great mid-set track to smooth out the floor. 10. "La Mujer De Terah" (Ben's Alternate Wisch Mix) by Continuo. This track has gotten some legs, appearing on 6D comps before. You can feel the decade of age in it (a souped-up Enigma sound), which is meant as a compliment, as it holds up. The vocals are gorgeous, and there is a soothing use of piano amid a nicely produced beat and steady bass line. A track I'd return to in many situations. 11. "Egypt By Air" (Bombay Dub's Ambient Cinematic Remix) by Bombay Dub Orchestra. A fine closer to a great journey. Bombay Dub has been continually blowing my mind since their two-disc debut on 6D a few years back, and this track, from their most recent, 3 Cities, was one of my favorites already. Taking away the beats and highlighting the oud turned the track into a classically inspired masterpiece. The string section is heartbreaking. Andrew T. Mackay and Garry Hughes have come to define the term "ambience," and I don't foresee (or wish for) any sign of that slowing. More on Middle East Susan Smalley, Ph.D.: Garden Instead of Lawns in Beverly Hills: An Update July 22, 2009 at 7:01 pm My son planted a no-dig garden this summer as part of his Senior Thesis for the University of Vermont (posted June 25, 2009). Today we stood in awe at a 6' tall tomato plant (one of four) that have some 4-6 tomatoes ripening as I write this post. The garden has done so much more than I ever imagined it could or would. The sense of pride, care, loving kindness, and gratitude that flows from a little sprig of rosemary or a leaf of sage or an edible marigold flower is pretty palpable. It is as if we have added a family of sorts growing right in our backyard. I wander out there daily to just check in on the new seedlings (infants), the sprouts (childhood), emerging fruit (adolescence), mature plants (adulthood) and then their demise (aging) and ultimate death. The diversity of plants, their various stages of growth, the problems (aphids/slugs) and hazards (heat, infection, underwater, overwater) all reflect a metaphor for the life of our family and all families worldwide. On his balcony where my son 'starts' his seeds, some plants were placed too close together and suffered from a widespread plague of pests. Separated, sprayed with an organic solution my son concocted, they came back vibrantly to life. I know a garden has long been a metaphor of life yet growing it in my backyard made it ever so vivid. A garden has ups and downs like those of life that we each and all endure. And yet the garden is also a place of profound beauty, of nurturance, of peace, and of individual growth. My son planted certain plants to keep predators away (marigolds for example) and he's educating me on the ways to 'harvest' plants and the times to do so. A novice before this project, I'm discovering that I can care for ours now even without his direction (at least for a week or two). He was away for a week and I found myself checking the leaves, feeling the soil, making sure our plants were receiving just enough water and space and were being cared for and harvested just the right amount. I found the care I used to give my children when they were young (now in college or living away from home) being transferred right over to the arugula and swiss chard. It is a useful substitution of sorts for the 'empty nest' syndrome many mothers face as their children move away from home. And on top of all the love that has burst forth in honor of our garden, my other children and husband are attending to the produce and beauty it brings. Yesterday my daughter and son ate a peach off his peach tree and made pesto pasta from the basil. My daughter couldn't get over how incredible the peach was, juicy and ripe from the afternoon sun, while the pesto pasta was vibrant and green with immediate freshness. She's as sold as am I on the value of the garden, but my husband is too. He wasn't up for eating the marigold while my son was gone (didn't trust that I knew which one was the edible vs. decorative ones) but he cherishes its look and loves the arugula salads we make. And on top of all this, we have 3,000 worms creating rich compost from our leftover garbage - in a worm compost on the side of our house. I can't wait to see how attached I might get to those! Dave Pinter: Site Visit: Tesla Motors NYC Showroom July 22, 2009 at 6:40 pm This article originally appeared on PSFK.com. New York City's first Tesla Motors showroom opens today in a former art gallery in Chelsea. If the news of a new auto dealership opening in the midst of hundreds of others around the country shutting their doors seems like odd timing, for Tesla it's the perfect opportunity. We reported last year on the first ever Tesla showroom opening in California and since then the company has steadily been following through with expansion plans. The New York City area already has a solid base of Tesla roadster owners and the need for a facility in the area was clear. Rachel Konrad of Tesla told us that the search for a site within or around Manhattan took quite a while. There was a lot of debate whether the showroom should be located in the city or in the suburbs. Manhattan has an 'auto row' on the west side and Park ave, but Tesla eventually decided the site of a former art gallery in Chelsea was perfect and would set them apart. Rachel said that it was fairly easy to find a space in art gallery dominated Chelsea. The economic downturn has opened up many large spaces that used to show art. It is also adjacent to the west side highway which the company plans to use as part of the test drive loop for potential buyers to experience the car at speeds above the usual Manhattan traffic crawl. For a company that hasn't spent a dime on traditional advertising, clearly they have decided to go about business differently. The Manhattan showroom is reflective of this and is not in any way like a traditional car dealership. To read more articles by Dave, please visit PSFK.com. More on Green Living Stephanie Gertler: Euphemisms July 22, 2009 at 6:35 pm This past week, without a state occasion or major event, was the first time in as long as I can remember that my three children were at the same table at once. Stepping back, it's an interesting study. Have the dynamics changed among the three? In some ways, yes. The two men have become the best of friends in a way that is intrinsically male: This was something I never thought would happen, although there were glimmers of it when the younger was a senior in high school. Then, however, the older one postured himself more as protector. Now, they take care of one another. In terms of their sister, I used to call her "the rose between the thorns" -- in many ways she still is: her status as a middle child and only female is inescapable. The difference is that now there is tolerance, humor, acceptance and understanding -- but the teasing remains. She will possibly never escape that. I remember not caring when I was pregnant with the third child (having already had a boy and a girl) as to the child's gender -- although secretly, I hoped for a boy, giving my daughter an "only" definition that might override the "middle" definition. She is, I'm afraid, both: only female as well as in the middle. What can I say? I always wanted three -- my circle that I could draw beginning from the top, curving to the left, stopping at the bottom and bringing it round again to the top. That was the picture in my head. On Wednesday, before my daughter went back home to Massachusetts (how strange that is to say and embrace -- she came home here for a few days, went back home there), we stopped to see her older brother's apartment. She hadn't been there since his wonderful live-in girlfriend decorated. My daughter brought wine and a bouquet of flowers, and there I sat in the living room while my son showed her around...as she admired the touches that were clearly Kristin's, the sports souvenirs that once were in David's room in our old Victorian house. Ellie laughed as she loved how Kristin managed to blend David's plastic encased autographed baseballs next to her hand-blown vases, her artfully framed photographs and tapestries hanging with his Phish poster in the living room. I was sitting on the sofa as David and Ellie chatted, not quite knowing what to do with myself, not wanting to join in their conversation, wanting them, really, to have time alone, busying myself by erasing old messages on my cell phone. "We just had lunch with Papa," Ellie said, telling David about our lunch with my father. "When was the last time you saw him?" David asked his sister. "At the funeral," she said, matter-of-factly. "Ri-ight," he said. I'm not certain if a look came over my face at that exchange, if my breath caught just a touch. The Funeral. Of course, it was my mother's funeral -- the last time my three were together for an "event." It has always been my feeling that funerals serve three purposes: to celebrate the life of the person who has died, to comfort the living who mourn, and to give everyone a dose of reality that the person is truly dead. It is the following word I despise because I don't believe in it -- some form of "closure." The problem with closure (for me) is that regardless of what we absorb, forgive, forget, or accept, memory steps in: With memory, there is the comfort of a spiritual eternity under certain circumstances like the death of my mother...and then that haunting feeling because the memories are there, but the person is gone. Is there really, therefore, closure? I hate the euphemisms: She passed, she left, she's gone, she's in a better place. My mother would have hated them, too. She would have been the first one to say "I'm dead." Back to "The Funeral" -- it was so odd to hear it in quite that way. Truly, it took me aback. As though Ellie might have said, "at the gallery opening" or some other place that was defined as some, well, event. I was 24 when my mother's mother died. The same age that my daughter is now. I was extremely close to my grandmother -- far closer than my mother and daughter were to each other. My grandmother became ill shortly after I moved back north from Florida and left my first marriage. I recall telling her that I wasn't coming back as I took the plane to New York. I went to her apartment and confided that in her. She didn't try to talk me out of it. She took my face in her hands and said she would miss me, but that we would still see each other although not every Sunday as we did when I lived there. She gave me her blessing, if you will, atheist though she was. I've often wondered if I'd stayed, would I have seen the signs of her illness? Caught it early enough to buy her more time? At her funeral, I don't remember crying. I remember not wanting to deal with her death, not wanting to deal with my mother's grief, wanting to have my life, my youth, the good times that might lie ahead although I was getting divorced while my friends were planning weddings. It is three months tomorrow that my mother died...and on a Friday just like tomorrow. Just the other day, I was walking with my husband, crossing one of the narrow one-way streets downtown here where the bicyclists delivering food at break-neck speed always travel against the traffic. An old woman was crossing with a walker, looking for the cars when I took her arm and stopped her as the bicyclist flew by. She looked at me through glasses with lenses so thick her eyes looked three times their size. "Thank you, sweetheart," she said. And in that moment I thought of my mother and my grandmother, and to tell you the truth, I look for old women on the street these days -- ones whom I might save, or perhaps savor, just for a moment. Wendy Gordon: Smarten Up and Stop Idling July 22, 2009 at 6:28 pm Prenatal exposure to combustion byproducts lowers children's IQ, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH). New York City children, exposed to high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs,) the research (published in Pediatrics) showed, had full scale and verbal IQ scores that were 4.31 and 4.67 points lower, respectively, than those of less exposed children. Motor vehicles are a major source of PAHs -- idling cars and trucks in particular. Each year, long-duration idling of truck engines consumes over 1 billion gallons of diesel fuel and emits 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, 200,000 tons of oxides of nitrogen, and 5,000 tons of particulate matter into the air. Click here to read more. Tad Daley: Apollo or Extinction July 22, 2009 at 6:26 pm On December 31st, 1999, National Public Radio interviewed the futurist and science fiction genius Arthur C. Clarke. Since the author had forecast so many of the 20th Century's most fundamental developments, the NPR correspondent asked Clarke if anything had happened in the preceding 100 years that he never could have anticipated. "Yes, absolutely," Clarke replied, without a moment's hesitation. "The one thing I never would have expected is that, after centuries of wonder and imagination and aspiration, we would have gone to the moon ... and then stopped." Were Clarke alive today, he undoubtedly would have added, "and then lost so much interest that we erased the tapes of our epochal voyage because of a shortage of blank cassettes." This month, the 40th anniversary of Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong's first footsteps on the moon, you will hear many rationales for sending humans into space, many noble goals that the challenge of space can help humanity to fulfill. However, in cosmological consequence, one, and only one, stands paramount above all others -- human immortality. Space is the only place where we can ensure ourselves against extinction. Jonathan Schell, our great chronicler of the dilemmas of the nuclear age, has written often about the ascending gradations of extermination that human beings might commit. Genocide is an act aimed at annihilating all members of a particular human group -- defined by ethnicity or religion or some other perceived collective hatred -- Hitler's attempt to obliterate the Jews the most famous but hardly the only historical example. Specicide would be an act eliminating the whole of the human race. Ecocide, or perhaps biocide, or perhaps omnicide, would be an act exterminating not just all humans, but the entire circle of life on planet earth itself. An asteroid impact, or certain kinds of disruptions of our sun, or perhaps other cosmological cataclysms could probably pull all those off without even breaking a sweat. And our sun in any case has an expiration date, some 4 or 5 billion years down the road. A quarter century before the voyages of Apollo, the invention of the nuclear weapon gave life on Earth, for the first time, the capacity to bring about its own extinction by its own hands. It will not be long before biotech and nanotech and god-knows-what-other techs obtain the same capacity. And it is far from impossible to suppose that human-induced climate change may unfold so badly in the decades to come that it too could threaten to bring about the same result. This period, where we hold this capability to destroy ourselves but before we have found a way to save ourselves, might be called the human race's ultimate "window of vulnerability." But we also now possess a "window of opportunity," to endeavor, in, oh, the next five or ten centuries or so, to establish the human race permanently beyond the cradle of its birth -- first perhaps on our moon, then perhaps on Mars and in the asteroid belt and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and then beyond the bounds of our solar system itself. We have it within our grasp to venture slowly but inexorably outward, in tiny lifeboats afloat on an infinite sea, to explore and then to colonize and then to live our lives among the stars. Imagine our galaxy, a mere thousand years hence, with millions of homo sapiens who are born, who live, and who die without ever setting foot on planet earth. Once we achieve that, once we have indeed established an enduring and self-sustaining human presence off the planet of our origin, it becomes very difficult to envision any comprehensive catastrophe that could eliminate completely the progeny of Mother Earth. Then, it would seem, we would be as close to immortality as the universe itself. Does this mean we should not devote extraordinary efforts to the prevention of extinction-inducing catastrophes here on Earth? Of course not. We should abolish nuclear weapons, and endeavor to enact a universal, verifiable, and enforceable Nuclear Weapons Elimination Convention. We should impose serious transnational regulatory constraints on biotech and nanotech, before the development and proliferation of those technologies makes it much more difficult to do so. We should dedicate the kinds of resources and attentions to ameliorating the worst effects of climate change that the magnitude of the stakes requires. And we should even invest seriously in things like the monitoring of celestial bodies -- so that, with perhaps decades of warning about an imminent collision between a big space rock and ourselves, we might figure out a way to avoid it. Nevertheless, even people who eat right, exercise every day, and look both ways before crossing Fifth Avenue still take out policies for life insurance. Stephen Hawking, just before boarding his zero gravity airplane flight in April 2007, said, "Life on Earth is at risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus. ... I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space." Clarke, speaking from Sri Lanka on a huge video screen to aficionados gathered in Kansas City to commemorate the centennial, on 7/7/7, of Clarke's fellow science fiction giant, the late Robert A. Heinlein, said "I have no doubt that the great master will be revered by future generations -- if any." Heinlein himself, some years earlier, said that the actions of the thousands who worked to lift a fragile spacecraft off the surface of the earth, and set it down gently on the surface of the moon, "tend toward the survival of the entire race of mankind. The door they opened leads to hope that homo sapiens will survive indefinitely long, even longer than this solid planet on which we stand tonight. As a direct result of what they did, it is now possible that the human race will never die." But not if we wipe ourselves out before we have scarcely even gotten started. Not if we fail to dodge the bullet in the chamber in the gun in our own hands. Not if we lose so much interest in the fate of humankind that we erase not just the tapes of our most epochal achievements, but wind up erasing ourselves. Colonel Ilan Ramon was the first-ever Israeli astronaut, who perished aboard the space shuttle Columbia in February 2003. When he was training for his flight, he contacted officials at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, and asked if he might be allowed to carry along with him a relic of the Holocaust. Yad Vashem officials searched deeply through their archives -- and then suddenly came across the only possible answer to Col. Ramon's request. They provided him with an exact replica of a small pencil sketch of the landscape of the moon, with our beautiful earth looming above the far horizon, lonely and fragile and whole, suspended among the blazing stars. It was created by a 14-year-old Jewish boy named Petr Ginz. He drew it in 1942, more than a quarter century before the Apollo 8 astronauts became the first humans to witness that whole earth, while incarcerated behind the walls of the Theresienstadt ghetto in Czechoslovakia. Two years later, Peter Ginz was murdered behind the walls of Auschwitz. For that boy to sketch that sight, so long before any human had actually seen that sight and in the midst of the greatest degradation of the human spirit imaginable, can only be called a triumph of the imagination, and a triumph of the will. Petr Ginz did not survive the great holocaust of his era. Ilan Ramon did not survive his journey into the cosmos. But if we aspire now to equal the imagination and the will of Petr Ginz, and if we endeavor now to complete the mission on which Ilan Ramon embarked, then -- even if another great holocaust comes and even if despite all our struggles it brings to our fair planet not just genocide but specicide or omnicide -- we still can. Tad Daley is the Writing Fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Nobel Peace Laureate organization. His first book, APOCALYPSE NEVER: Forging The Path To A Nuclear Weapon-Free World, is forthcoming in January 2010 from Rutgers University Press. http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/acatalog/Apocalypse_Never.html More on Genocide Richard M. Benjamin: Drama in the People's Republic of Cambridge: Boston Has Two Faces July 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm Q: What do you call a black man with a PhD? A: Nigger Q: Where do liberal white people go to socially die? A: Cambridge These two jokes come to my mind when contemplating the horrific Skip Gates arrest. The Harvard scholar was handcuffed having been accused as a thief on his own property. The first joke reveals an age-old truism: All the credentials in the world do not protect black men from police abuse. The second joke, well -- that's the New York take on Cambridge. My friend Chester, a white, cutting-edge architect who had a cushy professorship at Harvard's graduate school, nevertheless fled Cambridge, since he feared he would die of either boredom or conformity. Chester complained that Cambridge's upscale, vanilla lifestyle would condemn him to a life-sentence of smug liberal orthodoxy. Chester noted that Cambridge is the most socially conservative politically liberal bastion in America: The town's p.c. doctrinaire ways of thinking and living -- oh, the dull dinner parties discussing The Nation -- exact a stifling, conservative effect. "Cambridge is where fancy white people go to spiritually die," Chester likes to say. Having lived in Cambridge for six months in the mid-1990s, and visited several times in later years, I have similar opinions of Cambridge. Liberals in Cambridge, in my experience, like to make big statements about improving the status of black people. But they don't have much use for ordinary blacks themselves. Hands down, Cambridge is one of the most racially hostile places I've ever lived. And I am not exactly imagining things. Sudhir Venkatesh, the William B. Ransford Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, and bestselling author of Gang Leader for a Day (Penguin Press), named Boston, in 2008, "America's Most Racist City." "The city puzzled me. I knew about the strong liberal sentiment among the populace, but I didn't have to look far to see that racism was part of its historical core. For example, school integration was violently resisted by many of its white ethnic residents. In sports, the city has been home to some of the most extreme forms of racism -- check out Howard Bryant's terrific book, Shut Out, in which he explores the longstanding bigotry in the Red Sox baseball organization." A paradox reigns: Next to the racism of theTom Yawkey Red Sox syndicate is the forward-thinking, inclusive racial legacy of Red Auerbach's Celtics. Even sports expose the two faces of Boston. Cambridge was ranked "The Most Liberal City in America" by a 2005 national study. Residents even call it "The People's Republic of Cambridge." Yet Skip Gates got reported by a neighbor and arrested by the police in an apparent bit of racial profiling. Gates's arrest revives Cambridge's, and greater Boston's, two faces: the bastion of liberalism and the fortress of prejudice. After all, Cambridge's mayor, E. Denise Simmons, is a black woman who even grew up there. Before that, Cambridge was the first city to elect an openly gay black man as mayor, Kenneth Reeves. What gives? Aggravating Boston's racial turmoil, of course, are class divides. The Cambridge police force that arrested Skip Gates is charged with keeping the upscale enclave "safe" from some decidedly downscale neighborhoods nearby. Wealthy communities abutting poor ones often produce a class anxiety that borders on paranoia. Gates' white neighbor who failed to recognize him works at Harvard magazine. This "neighbor" so evidently suffers from said class anxiety, at least as much as racism. Such community anxiety - every "outsider" is a suspect - often demands "tough" policing, which curdles into abusive policing. Poor Skip Gates. He likely experienced racial profiling. But the less discussed problem: How poor people, and perceived outsiders like him, get abused in a mini Police State where the wealthy get to write and enforce all the rules. Jonathan Richards: Blue Dog Democrats July 22, 2009 at 6:19 pm As Obama tries to reform health care, his Blue Dog companions may not be man's best friend. Frank Schaeffer: Goodbye Abortion Culture War -- Welcome To Obama's Bipartisan New Day July 22, 2009 at 6:19 pm All through the election I told my pro-life friends to trust (then Senator) Obama when he said he wanted to reduce the number of abortions while keeping abortion legal. I'd been-there-done-that on realizing that the Republicans and pro-life camp have wasted close to forty years raising money and getting votes but changing nothing. Time for a new day. As a former right wing pro-life leader, who, along with my late evangelical leader father Francis Schaeffer, and Dr. C Everett Koop did more than anyone to create the "pro-life" mood of intolerance and murder that recently led to Dr. Tillers killing, there is some good news -- at last! I'm feeling vindicated for my support of Obama who -- like me -- believes that abortion should be legal but that we should also work to find ways to help women keep their babies. Congressman Tim Ryan (OH) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT), are lead sponsors of the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, and will be joined by major pro-life and pro-choice leaders (Thursday, July 23), at a press conference announcing a unique new Obama-inspired approach to the abortion debate. In the spirit of President Barack Obama's call to find common ground between the pro-choice and pro-life communities, Congressman Ryan, a pro-life Democrat and Congresswoman DeLauro, a pro-choice Democrat, have written legislation that presents concrete progress toward the shared goal of reducing the need for abortion by preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting pregnant women and families. Representatives Ryan and DeLauro will be joined by supporters of the bill from across the abortion divide including Dr. Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor at Northland Church and board member of the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals, representatives from NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Pastor Derrick Harkins of the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church and board member of World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals. These supporters are among dozens of prominent pro-choice and pro-life leaders from the religious community and the secular advocacy world who are united in their support for this bill. (Who: Congressman Tim Ryan (OH-17) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Pro-life and Pro-choice leaders What: Press conference on common ground and a concrete path forward on reducing the need for abortions Where: Speaker of the House Dining Room, The Capitol, Room H-122 When: This THURSDAY, July 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM Audio of event will be available on Rep. Ryan & Rep. DeLauro's websites after the event.) Here's part of a summery (kindly provided by Kristin Williams Media Relations Associate at the Faith in Public Life Foundation Washington, DC) of this bill: (For more information contact Ms. Williams at 202-459-8625) Grants for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Comprehensive Education: Grants for pregnancy prevention education will be given to programs that encourage teens to delay sexual activity, provide information about contraception, including the risks and benefits of contraceptives as a means to prevent pregnancy and STDs, educate teens on the responsibilities that come with parenthood, encourage family communication, and teach youth how to develop healthy relationships and make responsible decisions. Support for After-School Programs: This section would reauthorize appropriations to various after-school programs, including the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, the Carol M. White Physical Education programs, Federal TRIO programs, and GEARUP. Teen Pregnancy Prevention Incentive Grants: For fiscal year 2010, any state which submits a plan to decrease teen pregnancy that involves parents or other caretakers, includes both young men and young women, and pays special attention to communities or populations experiencing higher teen pregnancy rates, may receive a grant. Grants to Encourage Creative Approaches to Teen Pregnancy Prevention: This grant program is designed to support creative approaches to reduce teen pregnancy. Grant recipients must provide a 25% match to the federal funds. A National Initiative to Enlist Parents in Preventing Teen Pregnancy: Competitive grants will be available to establish a national initiative to support parents of teens. The initiative will work to equip parents with information and resources to promote and strengthen communication with their children about sex, values, and healthy relationships; to develop and implement print, broadcast, internet and other new media campaigns to promote positive information and messages for parents about how they can help address teen pregnancy; and to provide challenge grants to states to promote parent education and involvement. Grants to Prevent Unplanned Pregnancy Among Community College Students: Community colleges will be eligible for demonstration grants to develop and implement innovative approaches to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Restoration of Medicaid Entitlement to Coverage of Family Planning Services: The Deficit Reduction Act, now passed into law, puts countless low-income women's access to family planning at risk through the creation of "benchmark" plans. Benchmark plans allow states to avoid federal requirements for required services in the Medicaid program, one of which is family planning. This provision would ensure that low-income women on Medicaid will continue to have access to contraception by restoring family planning to the status of mandatory for benchmark plans under the Medicaid program. Expanded Coverage of Family Planning under Medicaid for Low-Income Women: Federal law requires state Medicaid programs to cover pregnancy-related care for women with an income up to 133% of the federal poverty line, and gives states the flexibility to set the income ceiling even higher. Increased Support for the Nation's Title X Family Planning Program: This section would authorize increased funding for Title X of the Public Health Service Act, the only federal program dedicated solely to providing contraceptive and related reproductive health care services to low-income women. Expanded Medicaid and CHIP Coverage for Mothers and Children: This section provides states the option to expand postpartum care - from 60 days to one year - for pregnant women whose labor and delivery are covered by Medicaid and CHIP, increases the CHIP definition of a low-income child from 200% to 250% of federal poverty guidelines, and provides an outreach program to encourage those eligible for services to enroll. Coverage of Maternity Care: This section would close the gap in coverage of pregnant women who have individual coverage with private insurers and both remove pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, and require coverage of maternity care. Improved Access to Prenatal Ultrasounds: This section makes grants for the purchase of ultrasound equipment available to community health centers. A Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention Program for Women: This section creates a new violence screening and treatment program for women. Increased Support for Pregnant and Parenting Students: This section provides grants to educational institutions to provide support services to assist both pregnant students who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term and parenting students in continuing their studies and graduating. Grants for a National Information Campaign on Adoption: This section provides grants to establish national information campaigns to educate the public about adoption, including foster care adoption. Expanded Adoption Tax Credit Assistance: This section increases the adoption tax credit from $10,000 to $15,000 for all children and makes the credit refundable. Now here is something that anyone who wants abortion to remain legal, and anyone who wants women to have a real choice should support. This bill gives the lie to the ideologues who make a living off perpetual culture war. This is a first (and terrific) step in bringing all Americans back together. Sanity is about to break out! Frank Schaeffer is the author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back and the forthcoming Patience With God: Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion (Or Atheism) Romi Lassally: Naughty Mom and Proud of It July 22, 2009 at 6:10 pm When mothers fess up on truuconfessions, I take the position that they're venting about minor transgressions not bragging about bad behavior. But occasionally, a confession like this one bubbles up to the surface and makes me wonder: I just slapped an ignorant, judgmental, loudmouth spoiled selfish childfree bitch right in her mouth. My son came up to her and said HI and she said, 'ugh, your hands are dirty so don't touch me" and I came over there and told her shame on you for hurting my son's feelings, and then called her a bitch and walked away, she called me a "stupid breeder slut" and I turned around and SLAPPED her right across the fucking face! OMG that felt great. She called the cops, and they didnt' do ANYTHING because I know them. LOL dumb bitch! NO one hurts my son's feelings, or I will ATTACK. I confess that I, along with TMC readers responded with a collective gasp -- most, berating the mom for her irrational behavior and scolding her for being a terrible role model for her son. Readers acknowledged that yes, the woman insulted her (no one can argue that "ignorant breeder slut" isn't a verbal slap) but shouldn't a mom teach her child to respect personal space? Needless to say, this confession and the continuing conversation took the "is it ever ok to give another mom parenting advice" issue we discussed last week to a whole new level. And it also pulled back the curtain on a simmering tension between moms and the childfree that often comes up in the confessional (and runs rampant on a childfree forum on livejournal.com) What do you think? Do you sympathize with this mother who became violent in defense of her son? Could you imagine yourself going this far? Betwa Sharma: Another Hunger Strike? Is Anyone Listening to The Iranians? July 22, 2009 at 6:05 pm She came all the way from Switzerland to join the three-day hunger strike a block away from the United Nations. "They're my people and it is my cause," says Monel, a 60-year old nurse who did jail-time under the Shah and then clashed with the Islamic regime. A few years after the revolution, Monel fled the country after being beaten in a rally to protest the new regime's imposition of conservative clothing that forced women to don chadors. "The fundamentalism became too repressive," she says. "They stole our revolution from us," chimes in Essie Mohaddessi, 47, who landed from Sacramento last evening and hasn't eaten since the morning. The real estate developer left Tehran at 19 after becoming a nuisance for demanding the right to free speech. Both Monel and Mohadessi made long trips because they want the United Nations to crack down on the Iranian regime; this means that chief Ban Ki-moon needs to appoint an investigative team to probe into human rights abuses and put pressure on the mullahs to release all political prisoners. Do they really think that the UN is listening? So far, the world body has respected Iran's sovereignty by not interfering with the internal political turmoil and the treatment of its people. A medical resident from Seattle, Babak Roshanaei, says "UN can condemn but the Iranian regime would not give a damn." So did Monel come from Switzerland simply to go on a diet? "It is different this time because now the people decided to help themselves first," she says. "Contrary to popular perception I don't think the UN is ineffective," adds Mohadessi. Important Iranian figures at the protest compared the situation to the recent visit by the Secretary General to Myanmar where he called on the junta's leader to deliver free and fair elections next year. He was not allowed to meet Nobel peace prize laureate and political prisoner Aung San Su Kyi. After the visit, the Myanmar envoy told the Security Council that the military rulers were considering "amnesty to prisoners on humanitarian grounds" -- the details are still not clear. Let's see what happens. "If he could go to Myanmar then why not Iran," asks Akbar Ganji, the country's leading political dissident who was released after spending six-years in prison. Ganji also added that the regime was not immune to "symbolic gestures." "If there had been no international pressure they could have also killed me." Roshanaei has his own theory on the matter. "Ahmadinejad won't step down and there will be no big change in the short term." But, the 35-year-old medical student says that the current upsurge is a practice ground for the next push for democracy. "The 1999 student movement led to this movement and this one will lead to the next big change," he says. Everyone seems to be saying, "It's different this time" -- different because liberal and religious, rich and poor, old and young -- who have different ideologies -- bonded against a common enemy. "Previous movements have been undermined because of factionalism," explains Nader Hashemi who teaches international affairs at the University of Denver. While this opens the door for change, it does not spell out what that change should be. Fresh elections do not necessarily mean that there will be more democracy in Iran. "There are huge tensions in the way forward," noted Hashemi, also the author of Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies. The renowned professor from Denver invited cheers from the crowd when he asked America and Israel to cease using "the politics of militarization" against Iran. His point was that the Iranians fight for democracy showed that country was deeper than Ahmadinejad and foreign policy could not be confined to, "should US bomb Iran?" Most of all, the strikers came for the international media. The use of new media technology from Facebook to Twitter to You Tube, successfully turned the post-election turmoil into a live movie and getting past the government's attempt to create a news black hole. Would China look different if the students at the Tiananmen Square could twitter, asked Iranian scholar, Reza Aslan, at a recent journalist's awards dinner. "Tyrants stay in power by isolating their people," he said. A graphic designer who was updating his blog and twittering about the strike, Mehdi Saharkhiz, felt that that media had done a bad job of covering the post-election turmoil. "Michael Jackson's death became bigger than the Iranian people." he said. Until new media technology gets more organized, the rally highlighted the need for the good old TV crew and print journalists. "We are not just here for the UN but also the media," noted Saharkhiz whose father was kidnapped earlier this month and has not been heard from since. "Ahmadinejad and his people will be watching." So, where does the hungry group figure in the maze of geo-political realities and the Westphalian garb of sovereignty? What if UN and Ahmadinejad don't listen to the hunger strikers? No matter! The power of a gesture should not be undervalued. "It's not about them, this is about us," says Babak. More on United Nations Ferentz LaFargue: How Heavy The Load July 22, 2009 at 4:31 pm The first time that Henry Louis "Skip" Gates' name actually registered in my mind was when I saw a Vibe Magazine profile of Harvard's African American Studies Department. Dubbed the "Dream Team" the article included a picture of Gates standing alongside fellow professors Kwame Anthony Appiah, Lani Guinier, Cornel West and William Julius Wilson. As the profile suggested Gates was the maestro responsible for Harvard's unprecedented level of black star power. I remember marveling at that photo as an undergraduate at Queens College in New York, that photo was a turning point in my life as I was in the process of transitioning from a high school sports fanatic well versed in the original Dream Team, to a "budding scholar" with his eyes firmly poised on graduate school in the near future. It's been a decade since that article and while a number of the faces have changed in Harvard's African -American Studies Department, it's still the bastion of black star power in the academy and Henry Louis Gates is still the maestro. More to the point, Gates is a celebrity as much as he is a professor, and the recent incident in which he was arrested for "disorderly conduct" after refusing to cooperate with a police officer responding to an alleged break in-albeit at his own home-has more in common with Christian Bale's tirade from earlier this year than it does the Amadou Diallo murder for example. Yes, race played a role in this situation, but the American nightmare of a Harvard professor gunned down by cops while entering his own home was avoided during this encounter and Gates must bear a peculiar burden as a survivor of this incident to which so many are now bearing witness. Diallo was an unknown immigrant who became famous--and his death instructive of the tragic outcomes of overly aggressive police tactics. Gates' behavior in the aftermath of his arrest bears shades of survivor's guilt; with Diallo and Abner Louima having already set recent precedents of the harm that can befall black men in the hands of police, Gates finds himself once again beholden to what Hazel Carby once referred to in another discussion of Gates' life "as a particular anxiety of masculinity, an anxiety which is embedded in the landscape of a crisis in the social order." Here Carby was addressing Gates' struggles responding to the premature deaths of two of his classmates at Yale--experiences that caused him to steel himself so that he can continue doing his part to push along with the tasks that his generation was expected to complete. Carby cites Gates' own words where he professes: Ours was to be the generation with cultural accountability, and cultural security: the generation that would tell white folks that we would not be deterred--that, whether they knew it or not, we too were of the elite. Unfortunately, in Gates' lifetime the quest for elitism has become intertwined with the quest for celebrity. That so many people are simply famous for being famous makes people like Gates, and the aforementioned Christian Bale vulnerable to the engines propelling these vapid strains of elitism. In this particular instance, like Bale in his infamous encounter with a stagehand, Gates felt that his space had been invaded by the police officer. The officer was wrong for arresting Gates, but not for investigating the incident for which he was called to the scene, just as the stagehand was not wrong for being on set. Gates was inevitably flexing the same muscle, the same power that I found alluring in that Vibe photo when he shouted down the officer, and Bale's intensity dressing down the stagehand likely correlates with why he is now the star of two blockbuster movie franchises Batman and The Terminator. Neither Gates nor Bale were willing to concede that what they saw as an intrusion on their space, their antagonists saw as simply doing their jobs, and in both instances these stars were left to piece back together their shards of celebrity. The reason for this Bale comparison is because there's a strand in the threads of responses to this incident that infers that Gates should never have had to deal with this because he's an acclaimed Harvard professor. If this is the case, we cannot ascribe one facets of 21st century culture to Gates' arrest while conveniently disregarding the others. Getting closer to the point, I am saying that we can not cherry pick instances in which celebrities are to be treated differently from non-celebrities. As Duke University professor Mark Anthony Neal writes in a recent essay on this case: The attention that the case has attracted raises more troubling issues about which black bodies really matter. Few blacks--and fellow black scholars for that matter--are fortunate to have Charles Ogletree on their speed dial; or edit an on-line magazine in collaboration with The Washington Post and Newsweek Magazine. Indeed Antwi Akom, a professor of Sociology and Africana Studies at San Francisco State University didn't have such a profile when he was arrested in front of his campus office in October of 2005 while retrieving books. I still cannot help find it amusing however that early in this same essay Neal declares: That he is legitimately the most well known black person at Harvard University and Cambridge at large is beyond dispute. That any Cambridge police officer would not recognize Professor Gates or adhere to the confirmation by campus police that the figure he was arresting was indeed Professor Gates raises obvious suspicions--yet another iteration of the "uppity Negro" backlash that has reached a fever pitch in the Obama era. As a fellow academic, I can understand Neal's rendering of Gates' visibility. It has been virtually impossible to have a discussion about African American Studies in the last 20 years without mentioning Henry Louis Gates. That said, I would need more evidence to believe as Neal suggests that Gates is "the most well known black person at Harvard and Cambridge." Cambridge has recently elected two black Mayors, Ken Reeves who's second stint ended in 2007, and current Mayor Denise Simmons, both of have the distinction of being the first open gay and lesbian mayors in the city's history. Reeves, is also a Harvard graduate who remains in contact with legions of Harvard students, and Cambridge residents who worked on his campaigns. I would be hard pressed to believe that Gates can be better known in the area than either of these two elected officials. He may be Harvard's maestro, but he isn't Cambridge's mayor. I bring up this point because it touches on another controversial element festering in this case, the often-tense relationships between universities and the cities in which they reside. Harvard is not exempt from this especially in the eyes of non-Harvard affiliated Cambridge residents who have seen their rents rise, or pushed out of their homes altogether during Harvard's recent decade of expansion, a period that coincidentally coincides with Gates' own expansion from university professor to media entrepreneur. It is likely then that the irony is not lost on longtime Cambridge residents that a famous Harvard professor would be arrested while asserting his right to be in his own home. If this is truly to be an injustice committed against Gates' than we must be prepared to render Harvard professorship moot--and if not, then we should prepare ourselves to reconcile that this case may be less about an uppity Cambridge Negro, and more about a pretentious Harvard professor, a distinction well worth remembering because of the--dare I say it--double consciousness it invokes. Readers of W.E.B. Du Bois' seminal work Souls of Black Folk will remember a scene that DuBois is resurrects from his early life to show the bitter nature of racism. In this scene a young white female classmate he sought to give a card to rebuffs a young Du Bois in Great Barrington Massachusetts: The exchange was merry, till one girl, a tall newcomer, refused my card, refused it peremptorily, with a glance. The it dawned upon me with a certain suddenness that I was different from the others, or like, mayhap, in heart and life and long, but shut out from their world by a vast veil. Writing for the American Prospect blog Adam Serwer, paints an adult rendering evocative of the schoolhouse scene described by Du Bois a century ago: What really disturbs me though, is the fact that Gates' own neighbor didn't recognize him. Regardless of who is ultimately at fault in the encounter between Gates and Sgt. Crowley, the most frightening thing is that a Harvard professor could be mistaken for a burglar by his own neighbor. Gates, his neighbor and the arresting officer all seem to have been impaired by Du Bois' proverbial veil. Like the incident with Du Bois' classmate, Gates' imbroglio begins with a misreading of his intentions by his white female neighbor. The similarities quickly end there because the affronts against Gates are being played out in public, and not within the confines of a classroom. Surely, this incident may become an apt teachable moment for many scholars, and even I may have an opportunity to refer to it when I return to teaching in the fall. Along with the characters at play, it has the added bonus of occurring only a week after President Obama told the crowd at the centennial celebration of the NAACP (the organization Du Bois helped found) "no more excuses." If what we are to take away from this incident is that racial profiling is appalling, then we must be diligent in ensuring that training public servants to treat black people more humanely is a very different task than training public servants to teach black people more humanely because they might be Harvard professors. And while this incidents reiterates how heavy the load, as this saga unfolds, we must remember that Gates' dream has not been deferred. Paul Szep: The Daily Szep - The $tatu$ Quo July 22, 2009 at 4:30 pm Cash for Clunkers: Chrysler Campaign Offers More Than Government July 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm Don McNay: Playing the Hand that Life Deals You July 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm Ooo, I believe, fate, fate smiled And destiny laughed as she came to my cradle Know this child will be able -Natalie Merchant My father was a professional gambler. When faced with any kind of crisis, he would say, "you have to play the hand that is dealt you." A good philosophy. One that I have followed. In my career as a structured settlement and financial consultant, a number of my clients are brain injured or special needs children. I've been doing it since 1983. Many of the children I originally worked with are adults. I've watched the whole progression and they are usually doing well. One of the fascinating things I have seen is that the parents, almost universally, step up to the plate and do what they need to do to make it better for their children. Being the parent of a special needs child is one of the toughest jobs in the world. It is a lifelong assignment. You don't ship the child out the door at 18, or 30 or 50. Or ever. The parents need to be involved until the day they die. I've dealt with hundreds of parents of special needs children. They take the hand that is dealt to them. And usually turn that hand into aces. So much comes down to having a positive attitude. Any child, but especially a special needs child, forces parents to understand there is a world beyond themselves. One of my Facebook friends is the parent of a severely injured child and she summed it up perfectly in a post on my Facebook page: "I think a lot about the phrase from expectant parents "as long as the baby is healthy." No one wants their child to suffer or experience a handicap, but the love and bond you feel with that child that was not born healthy, is like no other. It gives you a whole new meaning and depth to life that honestly I would not trade." I think about the "playing the hand that is dealt to you" philosophy in terms of our economic crisis. From Wall Street, to Washington to Main Street, people were being dealt decent hands but kept trading cards in a quest to hit blackjack. We have a lot of people tapped out in a quest to chase the unrealistic. People on Wall Street were receiving millions in bonuses. They were given more money than a person could spend in a lifetime but looked for more. People in Washington had lobbyists whispering in their ear that the laws of economics didn't apply. People on Main Street were buying expensive houses and racking up credit card debt. None of them were playing the hand that was dealt to them. The decisions made were motivated by individual greed. The people were not looking at world beyond themselves. They were blinded into believing that a big bonus or a fancy new car was important to some aspect of life. They don't see the world that the parent of a special needs child sees. Realism trumps materialism in that universe. Having a special needs child could be a burden or a blessing. Parents with healthy children deal with issues like drugs, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases and children who grow up to be selfish, lazy and unmotivated. I see the parents with adult children living at home for no apparent reason. I see grandparents raising grandchildren when the parents are unwilling or unable. I've seen a lot of people who thought they had a winning hand with healthy children but wind up "busting out." To raise a special needs child requires a degree of unselfishness and level-headedness that the average person doesn't have. I would have loved for the parent of a special needs child to have been handling our economy for the past few years. Even without special training, they have the right attitude to make good decisions. If nothing else, they couldn't do worse than the gang on Wall Street and in Washington. Parents of a special child understand that you play the hand that God dealt to you. We need to get that message to the people on Wall Street, Washington and Main Street. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the founder of McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement consulting firm, in Richmond, Kentucky. He has Master's Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni. McNay is the author of Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You When The Lottery. You can write to Don at don@donmcnay.com or read his award winning column at www.donmcnay.com. You can reach him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/donmcnay and Twitter at twitter.com/Donmcnay McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table. More on Twitter Crisis: Nearly Five Million Adults Have Lost Insurance Since Sept. '08 July 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm As President Barack Obama prepares to address the nation tonight, a new survey provides a boost to his claim that the health care system is at a perilous place and in need of reform. Since September of last year, nearly five million adults have lost their insurance. A survey of more than 29,000 individuals in June by Gallup shows that 16 percent of Americans over the age of 18 are currently without health insurance. That number reflects what the survey's authors describe as a "small but measurable uptick in the percentage of uninsured adults." Indeed, the average number of uninsured adults recorded by Gallup in 2008 was 14.8 percent. In September 2008, the monthly total recorded was at a yearly low of 13.9 percent. While the difference in percentage may seem small, the aggregate number of additional uninsured is vast. According to 2007 U.S. Census data, the population of those 18 years or older stood at 228,196,823. By using that figure, in September of 2008, the number of uninsured adults would have totaled approximately 31.7 million. Today, the figure stands at 36.5 million -- meaning that 4.8 million adults have, in less than a year, lost their insurance coverage. That said, the percentage of uninsured adults stood at 16.6 percent in May 2009, meaning that the situation has improved slightly but still remains dire. Digging deeper into the numbers, one gets the sense of just how tricky a political situation the health care debate poses for both parties. The demographic that stands to gain the most from an increase in insurance coverage happens to represent the fastest-expanding voting bloc. More than 41 percent of Hispanic Americans are uninsured, Gallup reports, which is by far the largest segment of the U.S. population. The next highest groups are those who make less than $36,000 a year (28.6 percent uninsured) and those aged 18 to 29 (27.6 percent). It is hard not to see the benefits for the political party that steps up to help resolve the health care problems of millions of Hispanic and young Americans. Just as, conversely, it is conceivable that the party that is blamed for obstructing comprehensive reform could suffer serious consequences at the polls. It should be noted just how comprehensive the Gallup is in recording this data. Officially titled the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, the study involved conducting at least 1,000 tracking interviews each day and 178,000 since the beginning of the year. The maximum margin of sampling error is plus-or-minus one percentage point. Thomas Frank: A Conservative Sellout? Quelle Surprise July 22, 2009 at 4:18 pm "David Keene is no conservative." That is what I predict Mr. Keene's brethren on the right will soon be saying about the longtime chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU). Last week, Mr. Keene's ACU became embroiled in another of Washington's pay-to-play scandals, seeming to offer its services to an outside company for a cash consideration. And virtually the only way conservatives have of dealing with such an embarrassment is to declare the miscreant an "impostor," to find that the city changed him rather than the other way around, and to excommunicate him from the movement. But before that happens, I want to suggest that Mr. Keene, the head of an organization that has for decades judged the conservatism of everyone else on the scene, might just be the one who is truest to the cause. The story begins with one of those classic D.C. battles between big K Street spenders -- in this instance, FedEx and United Parcel Service -- that are thought to be matters of first principle to Beltwayers but that are completely uninteresting to almost everyone else. Employees of UPS are covered by one labor law -- the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) -- while employees of FedEx are governed by a different one, a law that makes it much harder for them to organize a union. Lots of UPS's employees are organized; few of FedEx's are. The House has passed a bill putting both companies under the NLRA and the Senate is considering similar legislation now. UPS reportedly approves of the measure, while Fedex is boiling mad. Last spring spokesmen for the latter company even threatened to cancel an order for 30 Boeing jets if Congress dared to give its employees more of a chance to have a say about work conditions. Toward the end of June, it seems that an officer of the ACU named Dennis Whitfield wrote a letter to an officer of FedEx proposing that the ACU organize grassroots opposition to the hated legislation. Mr. Whitfield outlined the steps that would be taken: The ACU would mobilize the troops by contacting voters, "participating in Hill meetings including key members of the Senate," and "producing op-eds and articles written by ACU's Chairman David Keene," who is also a columnist for The Hill newspaper. Then Mr. Whitfield quoted a price: All of this activity would commence in exchange for $2 million and up, depending on how far FedEx wanted to go. About two weeks later, with FedEx having evidently decided against the campaign, a group of conservatives wrote a letter to the CEO of the company taking UPS's side in the controversy and berating FedEx for -- yes -- using unfair tactics in the battle. One of the signers of the letter: David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. Last week, the letters were published and the story exposed by Politico under the headline, "Conservative Group Offers Support for $2M." In response, Mr. Whitfield issued a furious statement declaring, "ACU's positions on important policy issues have never been for sale." Public outrage has so far fallen mainly on Mr. Keene. But it's Mr. Whitfield's attitude -- "never been for sale" -- that should give pause to conservatives. What does he have against market-based exchange? Does he think that ACU talking points enjoy some lofty status above the free enterprise system? His organization, he might do well to recall, is supposed to be one of the nation's chief evangelists for the free-market gospel. In fact, he said it himself in his original letter to FedEx: "For more than four decades we have worked in support of lower taxes, free markets, limited government," and so on. And the last time I checked, sales were a basic element of free markets. Individuals don't determine the merit of things by dint of superior judgment; buyers do, by bidding the prices up and down. When applied to politics, the logic is the same: Ideas and legislation should live or die depending on how they satisfy the market's needs. Most conservatives in D.C. seem to know this; that's why their movement is fashioned along business lines, bringing prosperity as well as political success to the activist entrepreneur. The basic strategy is to apply market forces to the state: More money in politics, not less, is what will get the goods. Liberalism, on the other hand, is thought to be an inherently corrupt enterprise because it is driven less by good, honest market forces and more by the myopic whims of the millions. So when Democrats were threatening to pass the "card check" bill -- which would make it easier for workers to form unions -- back in March, Mr. Keene railed in The Hill against the obvious quid pro quo, as Democrats paid "the price for organized labor's support." "In politics," he concluded with a world-weary sigh, "it all depends on what one gets for selling out someone else's rights." What one gets for this kind of cynicism, on the other hand, are the very wages of righteousness. Read other articles at the Opinion Journal: Bashing Career Colleges Glancing at Facebook Commercial Real Estate: Inside The Crisis July 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm The residential housing market went into a tailspin over a burst housing bubble and a whole lot of bad mortgages. The commercial real estate market has suffered a different sort of one-two punch. Between the recession and the financial crisis, many commercial property owners were left struggling, and many banks were stuck with troubled loans on everything from shopping malls and hotels to office buildings. Exposure to commercial real estate has fueled losses at major banks such as Morgan Stanley, which reported a second-quarter loss of more than $1.2 billion on Wednesday. Experts say prospects for a turnaround in the near future aren't good, because the commercial real estate market's fortunes depend largely on free-flowing credit markets and cranked up spending by businesses and consumers – neither of which economists expect will happen anytime soon. That means more commercial property loan defaults are likely, and that could mean trouble for the still-recovering U.S. banking system. Here are some questions and answers on the problems facing the commercial real estate market, and what they might mean for the rest of the U.S. economy. Q: What types of properties are considered commercial real estate? A: Generally, there are five categories: office space, which can include several floors of a skyscraper or a single room in small building; industrial, which encompasses warehouse and factory space; retail, which ranges from a small storefront in a shopping center or mall, to a big-box space used by a large retailer like Costco; apartment complexes, typically with more than four units; and hotels. Q: Who owns commercial property? A: Much of it is owned by big public companies known as real estate investment trusts, among other large institutions. A lot of commercial property is also owned by smaller, regional developers. Q: How does the commercial real estate market fit into to the U.S. economy? A: By some estimates, the commercial real estate sector helps support more than 9 million jobs and generates billions of dollars in taxes. When the economy is growing, businesses' demand for space also grows. Consumers also tend to spend more, which boosts retailers and hotel operators, and stokes demand for more retail space. A healthy economy typically translates into more jobs, which helps fuel demand for apartments. When demand is up, landlords enjoy low vacancy rates and steady rental income, and are more able to hike rental rates. But when the economy slows or enters recession, as it did in the fall of 2007, the reverse happens. Businesses scale back their needs for office and industrial space and trim payrolls. People who lose their jobs may be forced into leaving their apartments. Retail chains see sales tumble as consumers rein in spending and may be forced to shutter locations or even go out of business. Q: How has the financial meltdown affected the commercial real estate market? A: Commercial property landlords face several problems due to the economy and financial crisis. The recession and rising unemployment have stifled demand for rental space, resulting in higher vacancy rates. Lenders have tightened underwriting standards, making it much harder for property owners to refinance and for would-be buyers to qualify for financing. Those factors are contributing to a dearth of sales, a spike in commercial loan defaults and falling property values. Q: What's happened to the value of commercial real estate during the economic downturn? A: So far, commercial property values have declined as much as 45 percent off their peak in 2007, Richard Parkus, an analyst with Deutsche Bank Securities, recently told a congressional committee examining the danger posed by rising commercial property defaults. Q: Where are vacancy rates projected to go? A: Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services projects U.S. vacancy rates this year will hit 17.6 percent for office space, 11 percent for retail, 12.6 percent for industrial and 8.2 percent for apartments. Two years ago, the vacancy rate for was 12.6 percent for office space, 7.2 percent for retail, 9.4 percent for industrial and 5.7 percent for apartments. Q: How do rising vacancies hurt owners? A: When vacancy rates rise, properties generate less income for landlords – a problem because the amount of income a commercial property generates after maintenance and other costs is a major factor in its market value. It's also a key consideration by lenders when an owner seeks to refinance, which is something commercial real estate developers often have to do to manage their debt load. A lender might be concerned that a high vacancy rate is a sign that the property might have trouble generating revenue, and might be hesitant to offer a new mortgage. Q: What has happens when commercial property owners aren't making money, and can't refinance their loans? A: Often, if they can't find a buyer to take the property off their hands or renegotiate an extension with the lender, they end up losing the property to foreclosure. Some, however, have filed for bankruptcy protection. Q: What impact could rising commercial property defaults have on the U.S. banking system? A: It could deliver a serious hit to the bottom line at banks that make commercial real estate loans. Delinquency rates on such loans have doubled in the past year to 7 percent, according to the Federal Reserve. Small and regional banks face the greatest risk of severe losses from the loans. Parkus estimates total losses in investments backed by commercial property loans could be as high as $90 billion in coming years. He projects losses on commercial real estate loans held directly by banks could hit up to $150 billion. Q: What's the government doing to help? A: Last month, the government opened part of the consumer lending program known as the Term-Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to commercial real estate loans. The hope is that will boost the availability of loans, helping to prevent defaults and facilitate sales. Industry groups are now pushing for the government to extend this program through the end of next year. More on Real Estate Reese Schonfeld: Just Like Old Times in the Rating Game July 22, 2009 at 4:11 pm Now that Michael Jackson's passing on has passed on, the cable news network ratings are pretty much the same as they used to be -- although FoxNews seems to be better than ever. Thanks to Cynopsis, I've learned that last week, FoxNews had more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in primetime, and in total day. In prime, Fox averaged just under 2 million; CNN and MSNBC totaled 1.68 million. Total day, Fox averaged just over a million, and CNN/MSNBC had 966,000. In the key demo, adults 25-54, Fox edged out the combo by 11,000 viewers in prime, in total day, the combo won by 33,000. If these numbers sounds small to you, it's because it's the midst of summer, everybody's out at the beach, and television viewing is way down, and pretty old. Well, more than half of Fox viewers are over 54, with CNN and Headline News slightly under. By now it's clear to all of us that cable news is an old person's game. I am slowly going back to my belief that cable news viewing does reflect popular attitudes about the left/right split in the US. The decline in CNN/MSNBC viewing probably does reflect the feeling among liberals that President Obama is not living up to the promise embodied in his campaign. FoxNews rating performance similarly may reflect conservatives' hopes that Obama was a just a flash in the pan, and they may well make major gain in Congressional elections next year. I know the President has a primetime news conference tonight, but I have a feeling he's been more than somewhat overexposed, so I don't know how much good that will do him. I'm eager to see this week's ratings next week. More on Michael Jackson "Alice In Wonderland" Trailer! Depp, Burton & More (VIDEO) July 22, 2009 at 4:09 pm A few weeks after the first official stills came out comes the teaser trailer for the Tim Burton version of "Alice in Wonderland." Out in March 2010, the movie stars Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway, as well as 19-year-old unknown Mia Wasikowska as Alice and it's in 3-D. WATCH: Get HuffPo Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter! More on Video Michael Reese Demolition On Hold Until Olympics Decision July 22, 2009 at 4:06 pm Preservationists got a temporary reprieve last night with a public statement that demolition of buildings on the Michael Reese Hospital campus won't begin until after October 2. Linda Buzzell: Fruit Trees Now Victims of War July 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm Have you been following the sad story of the Palestinian olive trees being attacked and destroyed by Israeli settlers? Just today there are new reports of chopping, slashing and burning these innocent, food-bearing plants -- some of them very ancient. This agricultural slaughter has been going on for over a decade. And yes, of course, I am also appalled by the human suffering in this dreadful conflict, but there is something really creepy about launching attacks on defenseless fruit trees. Perhaps this insane violence is just the latest symbol of humanity's ongoing war against the rest of nature. For some reason we humans don't seem to realize that we are part of nature and completely dependent upon it for life. So we fail to see the suicidal nature of the destruction of our own and our children's life support systems as we continue to chop down trees, contaminate our water and food, poison our atmosphere and pollute our own bodies. Not to mention the damage we do to the bodies and habitat of other species as well. This is truly insane behavior. As a psychotherapist, I know that if a patient came into my office who was destroying her own and her children's life support systems (suicide, child abuse), destroying the life support systems of her siblings -- humans, other animals and plants -- (homicide/fratricide/war crimes) and attacking and abusing her mother (matricide, ecocide), the law would require me to immediately report her to the police! The cure for this insanity is care for the rest of nature. Research now shows that the very act of planting and nurturing food-bearing trees and other plants is a healing act as well as a moral imperative. More on Israel Antonio Villaraigosa: Sacramento's Dangerous Shell Game July 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm On Monday night, California's state legislators emerged from negotiations to announce a so-called "landmark deal." Sacramento had finally agreed on a plan to close the state's perpetual budget deficit. But instead of addressing the fundamental problems that keep Sacramento hardwired for failure, lawmakers chose instead to balance their books on the backs of California's cities, counties and school districts. And although some in Sacramento are praising this deal, this is not a moment to celebrate. This is not a moment to hail a new day in state government. This deal -- and the system that produced it -- reflects a clear abdication of our state's responsibility to provide critical services to its taxpayers. The City of Los Angeles alone could stand to lose nearly $275 million in revenue and services this fiscal year. That includes up to $120 million in property taxes and $60 million in gas tax funds that the state is under no obligation to repay. The State also plans to confiscate $72 million of our funding for redevelopment projects. This will mean a severe setback in the progress we've made cleaning up the streets of Hollywood, Downtown LA and dormant sections of the San Fernando Valley and undermine the 2,300 construction workers whose livelihood depends on these projects. The State is not just taking $72 million away from our poorest neighborhoods. It's destroying the foundation we have built for economic recovery in this City. These cuts are simply unacceptable. They take aim at our City's purse strings while our local families get caught in the middle. They target our efforts to stimulate the economy, and gun down new investments in infrastructure, job creation, and the green economy. We will not stand for highway robbery, and we are currently evaluating every legal option at our disposal to ensure that Los Angeles does not suffer from the misguided priorities of this budget proposal. cross-posted at www.mayor.lacity.org More on Taxes Iran Nuclear Reactor To Be Switched On This Year, With Russian Help: AP July 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm MOSCOW — Russian news agencies quote the country's nuclear agency chief as saying a Russian-built nuclear power reactor in Iran is still set to be switched on this year. State-run RIA-Novosti and ITAR-Tass quote Sergei Kiriyenko as saying plans remain for a start-up of the reactor near the Iranian city of Bushehr by the end of the year. Russia is helping Iran build its first nuclear power plant as part of a program Iran says is purely peaceful. The United States and Israel say it is meant to develop atomic weapons. Officials in Russia and Iran had previously announced plans to switch the reactor on this year. But that was cast in doubt last month when reports quoted the head of the Russian company building the plant as saying there had been problems with financing. More on Iran Bryan Neal Vinas: Brooklyn Man Gave Al Qaida NY Subway Info Say Feds July 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm Authorities revealed Wednesday that an American -- charged with providing information to al-Qaida on the New York transit system and attacking a U.S. military base in Afghanistan -- has been a secret witness in the fight against terror both here and overseas. Court papers unsealed in federal court in Brooklyn identified the defendant as Bryant Neal Vinas, also known as "Ibrahim." More on Terrorism Sahil Kapur: Michael Steele's Transparent Ploys To Kill Health Care Reform July 22, 2009 at 3:45 pm After months of floundering as RNC chair, Michael Steele has found his calling card: kill President Obama's health care plan. That should help restore his credibility with the Republican party. To do this, Steele knows he can't afford to engage the issue honestly. And while he has a legendary arsenal of tried-and-tested weapons to gun down health reform, he seems clueless on how to use them tactfully. His recent media appearances attest to this. According to Steele, it simply doesn't matter what's actually in the Democratic reform bill, because "you can read and know where this thing's going," he said Tuesday on CNN. Steele is worried that Democrats are intent on monopolizing health care, and his concerns subsist "whether or not it's in the legislation." Without pointing to a shred of evidence, Steele declares that the Democratic plan will cause people to lose their health care. When CNN anchor Kyra Phillips clarified that under the proposal, "people will have a choice - they won't be told to go one way or another," Steele retorted: "I don't know that. I haven't seen the final bill. And you don't either." Also telling was his declaration this week that the moral question of tens of millions uninsured is not a concern for politicians, but for pastors. He dismissed the idea that Republicans should propose counter-legislation to prove they take this issue seriously. Most striking was when he said: "I don't do policy. I'm not a legislator. My point in coming here today was to begin to set a tone and a theme, if you will..." As that seems to be Steele's thought process: It doesn't matter what the reform legislation says. It doesn't matter how crooked the current system is, or how many people are suffering because of it. And there's no reason to believe the Democratic proposal will limit anybody's choice, but it just will. Steele admits he hasn't looked at the health care bill, nor does he "do policy," but that doesn't stop him from authoritatively making conclusions about it - conclusions that are unsubstantiated and convenient for his party. And seeing as how these conclusions weren't based on reality to begin with, we shouldn't expect his party's tone moving forward to be based on the reality either. It's become amply clear that Steele's version of the truth need bear no resemblance to the actual truth. To Steele's and his colleagues, it's unimportant that the health care bill on the table will merely increase choice by adding a supplementary option. That doesn't impact their allegations that Democrats want to limit choice and take over health care. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is doing its part to undermine health reform. They need catchy headlines, and Obama struggling is unique and interesting - Obama succeeding is stale. But he and the Democratic leadership are succeeding, and the country is highly supportive of their ideas. The approach that Steele and his Republican colleagues have adopted is to relentlessly enunciate a few key buzzwords and hope the effort falls through the cracks - use idioms like "government takeover," "socialism," "rationing," and "Europe," to try and scare people. It sounds comical, but only until you realize it has worked like a charm in the past. The real - but largely unnoticed - reason Republicans oppose a public option gets to the core of their survival. A functioning government-run program would disrupt their ideological narrative - that government is incompetent and incapable of effectively serving its constituents. Any victory for Democrats won't play well for them, but this issue is unique as it could deliver a fatal blow to their core philosophy. And that's the subtext of these desperate ploys by Steele and his cohorts. In order to remain politically relevant, Republicans need the country to believe government has to be inefficient, backward and corrupt. That's why they opposed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now the public option - because these are public programs that benefit the country. Republicans know that the moment Americans start to see that public policy can actually be a way of improving people's lives, they will face their own Waterloo. More on Health RJ Eskow: The Moon and Health Reform July 22, 2009 at 12:49 pm Yesterday we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the moon landing. What else? Oh, right. More pundits and politicians told us that meaningful health reform was impossible. In 1961 the President of the United States set the goal of landing astronauts on the moon and returning them home safely within 10 years. We did it in eight years -- and while we were at it we created Medicare and implemented the Civil Rights Act. Just how tiny have we become in the last forty years? The moon landing changed the way we thought about ourselves. It gave us pride, and a belief in our own abilities. It became a folk saying, common in everyday conversation and television commercials: "If they can land a man on the moon (it was always a man in these sayings; we've come a long way), why can't they make a cup of coffee I like without caffeine?" Forty years later, you can even get a decent cup of decaffeinated coffee at Starbucks or the Coffee Bean. If the President were to set a goal like President Kennedy's today, we would probably see Republican Senators saying that the GOP should "slow him down" because it would "break him." And Republicans who thought it might be good for the country to meet such a goal would be confronted by pundits like Bill Kristol, who said this of health reform: "(T)here will be a temptation ... to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible ... Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill." Meanwhile Blue Dog Democrats might be afraid that a bold stand on the issue could hurt them with swing voters. And yet polls still show that the public wants meaningful health reform with a robust public option. To paraphrase that line from Sunset Boulevard, the American people are still big. It's politics that got small. It's true that the recent Washington Post/ABC Poll shows weakened support for deficit spending to stimulate the economy (the question is phrased somewhat differently in the recent poll, which could skew the results, but the decline is dramatic). Hence the new, poll-driven concern about ensuring that health reform doesn't "raise the cost curve." The first response on the Democratic side has been to propose the partial taxation of employer-provided health benefits (a proposal which may not make as much sense as it seems to make). There's a bolder, smarter, better way to lower costs and improve health outcomes: Why not create a new national mission, on the scale of the mission to the Moon? Here's the outline for such a mission: To learn what medical techniques work best, for which people, so that we can have the most effective medicine in the world within ten years. That means we'll need to study, identify, and reduce the use of unneeded and harmful medical procedures within ten years. One good place to start is with the McKinsey study on excessive use of costly services in the US (although we should make more comprehensive studies of this problem a national priority). McKinsey estimates that we spend $480 billion more per year than other industrialized nations on medical services - a figure that's not justified by either our level of health or the results we get from our care. We've been hearing a lot about the $1 trillion cost of reform over a ten year period, but even a 25% dent in this excess spending would give usreform that saves money rather than spend it. Why not make it a national goal to use all our ingenuity to make those savings a reality? Some will say this is a form of rationing. That's not true. It's not 'rationing' to let people know that the painful and invasive operation they're about to undergo isn't necessary, and may even make them worse. You're not 'denying' them something. You're protecting them. The nation that launched a manned moon mission in eight years can fix this problem - but only if we stop tinkering with the small stuff and start looking at the big picture. In other moon-related news this week, the Indian state of Haryana announced that it would provide travel insurance for a million religious pilgrims. Fear of ill fortune brought by this week's eclipse might made travekers reluctant to come to the state for their ritual bath in the waters of Brahmsarovar, the pond of Lord Brahma. That could deprive Haryana of much-needed tourist revenue at a critical time. The lesson of Haryana state is this: Insurance is too often a reflection of what we fear, rather than what we can prevent. Americans should make it a national goal to learn the difference in the next ten years, and then manage their care accordingly. If we can land a man on the moon, and make a decent cup of decaf, surely we can do that. RJ Eskow blogs when he can at: A Night Light The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog More on India 'Kendra' Gets Renewed July 22, 2009 at 12:46 pm E! is ordering a 12-episode second season of its reality show Kendra, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The show focuses on Kendra Wilkinson's marriage to Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Hank Baskett More on Playboy Mark Matousek: The Dalai Lama's Secret: What Makes Us Good? July 22, 2009 at 12:41 pm Why do some people radiate goodness and hope? Is there a biological basis for what makes us good? I put this question to Daniel Goleman, the bestselling author of "Emotional Intelligence" at a Tibetan restaurant in Northhampton Massachusetts. "Emotions are contagious, first of all," Dan says, popping a morsel of yak sausage into his mouth. "We're actually catch each others' feelings like a cold. When we're in toxic relationships, this has actual physical consequences. When we're in positive relationships with people who make us feel good, this change our body chemistry for the better. You could say that there's a science to goodness." "A science of goodness?" "Absolutely," says Dan with a smile. He first learned this as a Harvard post-doc, studying meditation in India three decades ago. There, he noticed that seasoned meditation practitioners tended to exude what Dan calls "a special quality, magnetic in a quiet sense." Contrary to stereotype, these spiritual types did not seem otherworldly at all, but were "lively and engaged, extremely present, involved in the moment, often funny, yet profoundly at peace -- equanimous in disturbing situations. What's more, this quality was communicable, he noticed. "You always felt better than before you'd spent time with them," Dan tells me. "And this feeling lasted." Physicists and mystics agree on this point. The components of altruistic energy appear to be as measurable as photons and electrons, and are more palpable than a skeptic might imagine. One such skeptic, San Francisco psychologist Paul Ekman, found this out for himself after spending a week in Dharmsala with the H. H., the Dalai Lama. "At the airport afterward, my wife looked at me and said, 'You're not the man I married!'" Ekman (who is not a Buddhist) tells me with a laugh. "I was acting like somebody who's in love." The foremost authority on the physiology of emotion, Ekman detected four characteristics common to people with this contagious power of goodness. "A palpable goodness, first of all, that went far beyond some warm and fuzzy aura and seemed to arise from genuine integrity." Next, there was an impression of selflessness - a lack of concern with status, fame, and ego - a "transparency between their personal and public lives that set them apart from those with charisma, who are often one thing on the outside, another when you look under the surface." Third, Ekman observed that this expansive, compassionate energy nurtured others. Finally, he was struck by the "amazing powers of attentiveness" displayed by these individuals, and the feeling he had of being seen in the round, wholly acknowledged by someone with open eyes. If these qualities were unique to spiritual masters, they wouldn't be nearly as compelling. What inspired Ekman-the-scientist was the evidence that such energy is available to the rest of us. "It wasn't luck or culture or genes that created this qualitative difference," he tells me. "These people have resculpted their brains through practice." In a laboratory outside Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, a monk was monitored a few years back while meditating on compassion. Among other findings, scientists reported a dramatic increase in gamma waves (sparked in the part of the brain associated with positive emotions), while the monk focused on keeping an open heart. We can cultivate goodness, in other words, through gamma-bumping practices of various kinds - from meditation, prayer, and public service, to communing with nature, emotional intimacy, and creating art. "Everybody can draw, but not everybody's a Picasso," one healer tells me. "Some days you can't even find the canvas. But the source of goodness is always within you. You just have to keep tapping in." From his hermitage in upstate New York, 83-year old Benedictine monk David Steindl Rast agrees. "It is our daily dilemma" Brother David insists. "A spiritual energy flows through the universe, a super-aliveness - an active yes. Yet even though our greatest happiness comes from feeling this eternal connection, there's a tendency in all of us to close off from it. Those who counteract the tendency through practice deepen their sense of belonging and free this latent energy." In order to do so, Brother David recommends a simple practice: counting our blessings. "When we say 'count your blessings,' this is a very profound teaching," he says. "A stream of energy - of blessing - is flowing from the universal source as blood pulsates from the heart. Knowing this, I'm energized and pass the blessing along to my brother so it flows again to its source. We create a network of grateful living." This sounds a lot like the practice of love, I say. "It is love," Brother David assures me. "The love which passes understanding." This force could radically change the world, melt away borders, give hope for greater happiness. Another great Christian, Teilhard de Chardin, articulated this hope for all time: "Someday after we have mastered the winds, the waves, the tides, and gravity, we shall harness....the energies of love," the French paleontologist-priest wrote. "Then for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire." Paul Szep: The Daily Szep: GOP Chairman Michael Steele July 22, 2009 at 12:41 pm Rep. Patrick Kennedy: In Reforming Our Health Care System, We'd Be Crazy to Ignore the Mind July 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm Last year, a bill I introduced called the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act became law. On that day, a monumental victory was achieved for the over 25% of Americans who no longer have to face discrimination from their insurers when it comes to their mental health care. That day was a victory for Americans everywhere, as a civil rights gap was closed in this country, and a long standing form of discrimination was ended. I am proud to say that this victory was expounded upon in the health care reform bill currently before the House of Representatives. It is clear that the 113 million Americans with mental illnesses whose coverage was improved by mental health parity were heard loud and clear with the passage of mental health parity -- discrimination will no longer be tolerated, and our minds can no longer be treated as separate from our bodies. The health care reform proposal currently being debated in the House of Representatives expands the mental health parity protections to the newly created Exchange plans, regardless of plan size. Further, the House bill mandates that mental health and substance use disorder benefits be included in the essential benefits package of all qualified health plans. In a country where less than a third of people with mental illnesses get the care they need, and individuals with serious mental illness have a life expectancy of 25 years less than the general population, this victory is one which cannot go understated. It is because of the precedent set by the mental health parity law, fortifying the civil rights of those with mental illnesses, that lead to this clear recognition by the bill that optimal health cannot be achieved without the inclusion of mental health and substance-use disorder services. I am pleased to have worked with House leadership and the Committees to have accomplished this victory. I am also proud to have successfully worked on an amendment with my colleagues to ensure that screening for mental health and substance-use disorders are covered as a preventative service under this bill. Addiction, just like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, is a preventable and treatable chronic disease. Utilizing screening as a preventative, pro-active tool of medicine to detect mental illness and drug and alcohol use helps identify at-risk populations so we can intervene early and thereby significantly reduce the incidence of these diseases among Americans. Screening is an effective way to alleviate needless suffering while saving health care dollars. It is true representation of the transition from the current "sick-care" system to one which is patient-centered, collaborative, and focused on prevention and cost-savings. These successes cannot be over emphasized, yet I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that we make even further strides. I am currently advocating for the inclusion of education and training on mental health and substance-use disorders for all health care providers, so they are better equipped to provide whole-body care to all Americans. Given the shortage of pediatric and adolescent mental health providers in our country, I am also working to ensure that the loan repayment and grants portions of my Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act that will help enhance this crucial component of our nation's health care workforce are included in the House bill, as they were in the Senate.  I will continue to work with my colleagues to institute these critical changes to our nation's health care system, fighting to ensure that all Americans receive the care they need. In a nation where life and the pursuit of happiness are the central tenants of our very foundation, our citizens deserve nothing less.