 |
 |
| Personalize your own free digital slideshow |
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Happy Eid al Adha!
May peace prevail on earth!
Monday, November 8, 2010
Update: Olbermann is Back!!
The Muckraker is back! MSNBC announced late last night that Keith Olbermann's "indefinite" suspension will end tomorrow after only two days. Thanks to the over 300,000 people who signed petitions demanding his reinstatement, Olbermann will host his show at his usual time Tuesday evening.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Save Keith Olbermann
While Fox news unabashedly raises money for Republican candidates, Olbermann gets suspended for doing less than O'Reilly or Hannity's habitual behavior. MSNBC made its point - now help get Olbermann back on the air.
Sign the petition sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:
"Keith Olbermann made your network a success. If you want your viewers to keep tuning in to MSNBC, put Keith back on TV now!"
Well over 250,000 have signed so far. Click here to add your signature.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Quran Burning Story: This Is How The Media Embarrass Themselves
This week, the media has been giving credibility to a loon and his loony ideas. The Quran burning story was not simply reported once, but over and over, every hour on the hour, from every possible angle and with an endless procession of talking heads. This is why I have been watching the Weather Channel for the last few days.
However, this isn't the first time this has happened. In fact, it's the story of the last year. The screechy right shouts ("Obama's health care plan is going to bankrupt America, kill grandma..." etc.) and the media obediently turns it into a legitimate story, no matter how incredible it is. And now, when we need another stimulus, America is convinced that it is going bankrupt, thanks to the hysterical screeching magnified by the media.
The media has dropped the ball and lost all credibility. Only when we vote with our remote controls will they change. The media wouldn't cover this Qur'an burning idiocy if TV-viewing America didn't turn up their TV volume when it comes on the news. Turn it off, I say, and send a message to the media that their nonsense is truly nonsensical. We won't put up with it any more.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Hate to Say 'I Told You So"
The Economist reports:
And, I might add, not finding WMD, the major premise for the invasion, was a bit of a problem for public opinion.
See that lower left-hand corner of the chart, where some 20 percent or so of the population thought invading Iraq was a mistake? That was me. And a small minority of others who were mercilessly ridiculed as anti-American or dangerously naive about Saddam's intentions. Particularly in this case, after more than four thousand American deaths, countless thousands of Iraqis dead, it gives me no pleasure to say "I told you so."
US public opinion on Iraq: Big mistake | The Economist
"Over seven years after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, America's direct military involvement is now coming to an end. President Barack Obama will set out his new policy in a speech from the Oval Office on Monday August 31st. American public opinion on the war has changed enormously during that time. When George Bush prematurely declared an end to major combat operations in May 2003 most Americans were behind the war, with only a quarter saying it was a mistake according to Gallup polling data. But the public's mood turned when allegations of torture by US soldiers came to light in early 2004. The bloody terror campaign by Sunni militia groups, which began in earnest in 2006 and killed Iraqis by the thousands and American troops by the hundreds, also had a profound effect on opinion."
And, I might add, not finding WMD, the major premise for the invasion, was a bit of a problem for public opinion.
See that lower left-hand corner of the chart, where some 20 percent or so of the population thought invading Iraq was a mistake? That was me. And a small minority of others who were mercilessly ridiculed as anti-American or dangerously naive about Saddam's intentions. Particularly in this case, after more than four thousand American deaths, countless thousands of Iraqis dead, it gives me no pleasure to say "I told you so."
US public opinion on Iraq: Big mistake | The Economist
Friday, August 27, 2010
Sh*^%t my Kids Say
My kids must be the weirdest kids on the planet. Every minute of the day they amaze me with their truly strange but imaginative conversations. But they really get things in a different way, different than us adults.
Here's my latest example from yesterday, when we discovered gigantic hornworm caterpillars voraciously munching my tomato plants. My 7 year old son LOVES caterpillars, so under no circumstances could I get rid of the creatures eating my veggies.
My husband (to son): "Watch out, that caterpillar might sting you. It has a stinger on its back."
Me (quoting from one of the zillions of caterpillar/butterfly/bug books I read at night to the boys): "Are you sure that's a stinger? Many caterpillars have harmless horns that they use to scare away enemies."
Husband: "Yes, I'm sure. Don't touch it!"
Son: "It looks like Alan [my husband] is the caterpillar's enemy."
Very clever, yes? And he didn't even mean to be.
 |
| Hornworm Caterpillar |
Here's my latest example from yesterday, when we discovered gigantic hornworm caterpillars voraciously munching my tomato plants. My 7 year old son LOVES caterpillars, so under no circumstances could I get rid of the creatures eating my veggies.
My husband (to son): "Watch out, that caterpillar might sting you. It has a stinger on its back."
Me (quoting from one of the zillions of caterpillar/butterfly/bug books I read at night to the boys): "Are you sure that's a stinger? Many caterpillars have harmless horns that they use to scare away enemies."
Husband: "Yes, I'm sure. Don't touch it!"
Son: "It looks like Alan [my husband] is the caterpillar's enemy."
Very clever, yes? And he didn't even mean to be.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Hysterical Anti-Mosque Phobia is Destroying Our Chances in Afghanistan
How Fox Betrayed Petraeus - NYTimes.com
I have avoided writing about the "ground zero mosque" because
2. I don't want to contribute to the overexposure of this non-controversy.
But today I read an op-ed written logically and lucidly by Frank Rich in the NY Times about the controversy, highlighting the damage done to our national security.
"the consequences [of the controversy] will be far more profound than any midterm election results or any of the grand debates now raging 24/7 over the parameters of tolerance, religious freedom, and the real estate gospel of location, location, location" he says.
The opposition to the Islamic community center "is demolishing America's already frail support for that war."
"So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus's last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?"
After 9/11, President Bush praised Islam as a religion of peace and asked for tolerance for Muslims not necessarily because he was a humanitarian or knew much about Islam but because national security demanded it. An America at war with Islam plays right into Al Qaeda's recruitment spiel. This month's incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing is a national security disaster for that reason — Osama bin Laden's "next video script has just written itself," as the former F.B.I. terrorist interrogator Ali Soufan put it — but not just for that reason. America's Muslim partners, those our troops are fighting and dying for, are collateral damage. If the cleric behind Park51 — a man who has participated in events with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, for heaven's sake — is labeled a closet terrorist sympathizer and a Nazi by some of the loudest and most powerful conservative voices in America, which Muslims are not?
Of course, it helps to point out that a front-page article by the New York times on the project December 9, 2009 was ignored by the hysterical right, and the project was even praised by Laura Ingraham on Fox news, gaving the project her blessing when interviewing Daisy Khan, the wife of the project's organizer, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf two weeks after the NY Times article came out.
For all the deficit hawks out there, just think of all the dollars flying down the drain (and even worse, lives lost!) as we send more and more forces and equipment to do a job that can't be done without the support of the people we are trying to help. Victims of the August slow news cycle.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Amazing Health News about Beer: Yes, it Can be Healthy!
- Beer increases longevity. Drinking one beer per day is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. In addition, "other studies have found that women who consume one beer each day have improved mental health. Drinking beer and other alcoholic beverages in moderation may also improve bone density." Unfortunately, drinking more beer doesn't mean more health, so drinking three (or six!) beers a day doesn't promote the beneficial effects. Bummer.
- Beer is better than water for rehydrating after a workout. Yes, it's true! Get rid of that Gatorade and reach for the Guinness! According to MadeMan blog, researchers at Granada University in Spain conducted a study testing water against Spanish lager. The beer drinkers recovered better than those only given water. It is thought that the carbohydrates in beer may replace calories, and the carbon dioxide quenches thirst more quickly. Woo hoo! I'll make sure my next marathon training run ends at my local bar.
- Drinking beer may be more healthful than wine, the alcoholic drink with the best reputation for heart-healthy properties. "Beer contains vitamin B6, which prevents the build-up of amino acid called homocysteine that has been linked to heart disease. Those of us who have high levels of homocysteine are usually more prone to an early onset of heart and vascular disease. A new study performed at the TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute in Utrecht indicates that those who drink beer had no increase in their homocysteine level but those who drank wine or liquor had an increase of up to 10%. Also noted was the fact that those who drank beer experienced a 30% increase in vitamin B6 in their blood plasma, thereby proving that beer (in moderation) is actually healthier to drink than wine and other liquor." So there.
- According to (who else) the Beer Academy, beer is "one of the healthiest alcoholic drinks available." According to a report commissioned by the Academy, beer "is a rich source of vitamins, fibre, minerals and antioxidants and has a relatively low calorific value compared with many other alcoholic beverages."
Friday, July 30, 2010
Where is all the Oil?
Where is all the oil?
That is the question of the day. Now that the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil well spewing thousands of barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico has finally been capped, the visible signs of the oil spill are starting to recede. The friends of oil companies have started to crow "we told you all along" - the oil will dissolve, disappear, disperse, whatever, and we don't need to worry any more. No need to change our habits, no need for more regulations on the oil industry, and no need for a drilling moratorium.
So where did all the oil go?
According to Dan Froomkin's report, the oil indeed may have been dispersed, by the millions of gallons of toxic dispersant Corexit BP poured into the ocean to try to make it appear as if the oil spill wasn't doing any damage to the ecosystem. Of course, dispersant doesn't make the oil go away, it just breaks it down into smaller droplets, so that it can't be seen by humans. It can be seen by small animals, however, like shrimp larvae and small fish, who may mistake the small droplets of mixed dispersant and oil for food and eat it.And into the food chain it goes.
So where is the oil, we ask?
It is under the shells of blue crab larvae, as the scientists in Froomkin's report are finding. It is in the tiny stomachs of shrimp larvae and young fish. It is floating in millions or billions of droplets, mixed with toxic dispersant, under the surface of the Gulf where it can wreak its damage unseen by humans for a long time to come. And perhaps, it will be coming to a dinner plate near you. Bon Appetit, BP!
So where did all the oil go?
According to Dan Froomkin's report, the oil indeed may have been dispersed, by the millions of gallons of toxic dispersant Corexit BP poured into the ocean to try to make it appear as if the oil spill wasn't doing any damage to the ecosystem. Of course, dispersant doesn't make the oil go away, it just breaks it down into smaller droplets, so that it can't be seen by humans. It can be seen by small animals, however, like shrimp larvae and small fish, who may mistake the small droplets of mixed dispersant and oil for food and eat it.And into the food chain it goes.
So where is the oil, we ask?
It is under the shells of blue crab larvae, as the scientists in Froomkin's report are finding. It is in the tiny stomachs of shrimp larvae and young fish. It is floating in millions or billions of droplets, mixed with toxic dispersant, under the surface of the Gulf where it can wreak its damage unseen by humans for a long time to come. And perhaps, it will be coming to a dinner plate near you. Bon Appetit, BP!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Israel demolishes Bedouin village - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Israel demolishes Bedouin village - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Al Jazeera reports:
Bedouins comprise 25 per cent of the northern Negev's population, but live on only 2 per cent of its land. Nevertheless, this sort of demolition has been occurring with increasing regularity in recent years. Bedouin, who have lived on their land in the Negev since before the establishment of Israel in 1948, are said to be "squatters" who are "endangering state lands" and must be removed, by force if necessary. Their settlements have never been incorporated into any state planning and therefore have been left out of infrastructure and development planning.
According to a 2009 report by the Israeli Health Ministry, Bedouin children suffer more from growth disorders, nutritional deficiencies, and underweight conditions that could cause serious damage. In the first and second grades some 13% of Bedouin children suffer from growth delays, while 17% are underweight.
Over half (56%) of Bedouin infants at the age of six-months-old suffer from anemia, and about a tenth of them have zinc deficiencies. At the average age of 18-months-old 27% of Bedouin children suffer from anemia, while 11.5% lack zinc, 5% lack Vitamin A and 3% have Vitamin E deficiencies. In comparison, various studies conducted in Israel showed that only 10% of Jewish infants suffered from anemia.
Small wonder that the Bedouin are said to be "radicalizing," or at least, becoming much less friendly to the state of Israel. Many sympathize with the growing Islamic Movement in Israel, which preaches non-violent self-reliance and autonomy from Israel. Can the Bedouin be blamed for not playing nice when the rules of the game are stacked against them?
 |
| Unrecognized Bedouin Village, Negev, Israel by Paulhrob (flickr) |
Al Jazeera reports:
Israeli authorities have demolished the homes of about 300 Bedouins in a village in the southern Negev desert.
Al-Arakib, which had about 40 homes, is one of 45 Bedouin villages not recognised by Israeli authorities.
Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld confirmed the early-morning operation, saying the homes had been "illegally built" and were destroyed in line with a court ruling issued 11 years ago which was never implemented.
Noach said Israeli authorities had first given residents of al-Arakib a notice to evacaute on June 15, but that no action had followed, so the residents began to doubt that the demolition would occur.
But this morning, Israeli police arrived and forced residents to leave their homes within minutes, Noach said.
According to the Negev Co-existence Forum, around half of the 155,000 Bedouins in the Negev - all of whom are Israeli citizens - live in villages that are unrecognised by the government, without municipal services like water and electricity.
Bedouins comprise 25 per cent of the northern Negev's population, but live on only 2 per cent of its land. Nevertheless, this sort of demolition has been occurring with increasing regularity in recent years. Bedouin, who have lived on their land in the Negev since before the establishment of Israel in 1948, are said to be "squatters" who are "endangering state lands" and must be removed, by force if necessary. Their settlements have never been incorporated into any state planning and therefore have been left out of infrastructure and development planning.
According to a 2009 report by the Israeli Health Ministry, Bedouin children suffer more from growth disorders, nutritional deficiencies, and underweight conditions that could cause serious damage. In the first and second grades some 13% of Bedouin children suffer from growth delays, while 17% are underweight.
Over half (56%) of Bedouin infants at the age of six-months-old suffer from anemia, and about a tenth of them have zinc deficiencies. At the average age of 18-months-old 27% of Bedouin children suffer from anemia, while 11.5% lack zinc, 5% lack Vitamin A and 3% have Vitamin E deficiencies. In comparison, various studies conducted in Israel showed that only 10% of Jewish infants suffered from anemia.
Small wonder that the Bedouin are said to be "radicalizing," or at least, becoming much less friendly to the state of Israel. Many sympathize with the growing Islamic Movement in Israel, which preaches non-violent self-reliance and autonomy from Israel. Can the Bedouin be blamed for not playing nice when the rules of the game are stacked against them?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Primary Election Day in GA
It is primary election day in Georgia, and do you know who your candidates are? Primary elections are notoriously low-profile and confusing for voters, which explains their traditionally low turnout rate. Here are a few tools for those of you who are motivated to get informed about the candidates in today's elections.
1. An interactive voter guide by the AJC and League of Women Voters. Here, you can customize the ballot by zip code/address and by political party. The LWV questionnaires filled out by the candidates are available for side-by-side comparison for each race. At the end, you can print out your sample ballot to bring with you to the polling place.
2. PolitiFact Georgia, the Georgia edition of PolitiFact.com, attempts to sort through the political rhetoric by labeling political claims made by politicians on their "Truth-O-Meter" somewhere between "true" and "false" - including "half true," "mostly true" and "barely true."
3. For local information, the Athens Banner-Herald has its Election Central webpage, which is quite simple compared to the AJC. It mainly lists the candidates by race and includes some basic information (age, education, campaign website). However, the sidebar lists recent election articles by the ABH, many of which have a local flavor.
Happy Voting!
1. An interactive voter guide by the AJC and League of Women Voters. Here, you can customize the ballot by zip code/address and by political party. The LWV questionnaires filled out by the candidates are available for side-by-side comparison for each race. At the end, you can print out your sample ballot to bring with you to the polling place.
2. PolitiFact Georgia, the Georgia edition of PolitiFact.com, attempts to sort through the political rhetoric by labeling political claims made by politicians on their "Truth-O-Meter" somewhere between "true" and "false" - including "half true," "mostly true" and "barely true."
3. For local information, the Athens Banner-Herald has its Election Central webpage, which is quite simple compared to the AJC. It mainly lists the candidates by race and includes some basic information (age, education, campaign website). However, the sidebar lists recent election articles by the ABH, many of which have a local flavor.
Happy Voting!
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Paul Broun Comes Home to Roost
and click on the "Paul Broun" tag or pull-down filter option. (Yes, he has his own!)
Examples: Broun claims a Muslim-American advocacy group is planting spies ("interns") in Congressional offices; Broun warns the "socialistic elite" might plan to "declare martial law" and "establish an authoritarian government"; Broun claims the public option part of the proposed health care reform "is gonna kill people."
This is the same Paul Broun who made national headlines last year for comparing Obama to Hitler.
Fortunately, I can make the claim that Broun did not carry my part of his congressional district - his challenger Bobby Saxon won nearly twice as many votes as Broun in Athens-Clarke county in November 2008.
Crazy? Yes, but not my kind of crazy.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The 24 Types of Libertarian
I couldn't resist - it's just so appropriate. With half-hearted apologies to my libertarian friends, here is a cartoon from leftycartoons.com:
The 24 Types of Libertarian
The 24 Types of Libertarian
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Donovan's Shot Heard 'Round the World
My previous post notwithstanding (see below), believe me when I say I am a huge soccer fan and supporter of team USA. I watched the game yesterday at The Globe, and collectively enjoyed the Moment of Goal - the "shot heard 'round the world."
Apparently, many thousands or millions of people did similarly, and posted YouTube videos of their Moment of Goal. I didn't have that much foresight (as apparently the man watching alone in his living room did), but I'll post the funny compilation from CNN's Jeanne Moos.
Enjoy!
Apparently, many thousands or millions of people did similarly, and posted YouTube videos of their Moment of Goal. I didn't have that much foresight (as apparently the man watching alone in his living room did), but I'll post the funny compilation from CNN's Jeanne Moos.
Enjoy!
Landon Donovan's goal may be a watershed moment for U.S soccer | NOLA.com
I'd like to believe the writer is correct, that soccer may finally become a popular sport like baseball, basketball and football now that our national team is succeeding. But I find it hard to believe that advertisers will line up to support a sport that has a reputation for being boring, but actually has NO stoppage in play for commercials.
With no TV time, how can soccer succeed?
Read the article:
Landon Donovan's goal may be a watershed moment for U.S soccer | NOLA.com
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Rachel Maddow: Oil plumes, Gulfs unseen disaster
Rachel Maddow: Oil plumes, Gulf's unseen disaster
"The science of the plumes hanging in the water doesn't feel right."
- Robert Dudley, BP Managing Director
BP is trying very hard to discredit the scientists who have found evidence of huge underwater plumes of oil and methane gas caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But Dr. Samantha Joye, of my own University of Georgia, is defending the science behind the plume discovery in this clip from yesterday's The Rachel Maddow Show.
Way to go Mandy! :-)
"The science of the plumes hanging in the water doesn't feel right."
- Robert Dudley, BP Managing Director
BP is trying very hard to discredit the scientists who have found evidence of huge underwater plumes of oil and methane gas caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But Dr. Samantha Joye, of my own University of Georgia, is defending the science behind the plume discovery in this clip from yesterday's The Rachel Maddow Show.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Way to go Mandy! :-)
Monday, June 7, 2010
Israel: Hasbara, Lies, and Videotape
Unfortunately, Israel's "hasbara" seems to be working in the US as well as Israel. Most Americans simply swallow the Israeli line - hook, line and sinker. Only the few who noticed the lack of opposing voices in the first few days after the flotilla incident - because of Israel's detention of the activists and confiscation of most footage - had much of a reason to be skeptical. Israel's defenders flooded the airwaves with the "lynch" footage and related "head-talk
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
What's Missing? The Real Issue in the Peace Flotilla Controversy
What's missing here?
Israeli naval commandos stormed a flotilla of ships carrying aid and hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists to the blockaded Gaza Strip on Monday, killing nine passengers in a botched raid that provoked international outrage and a diplomatic crisis. Dozens of activists and six Israeli soldiers were wounded in the bloody predawn confrontation in international waters.
Israel said it opened fire after its commandos were attacked by knives, clubs and live fire from two pistols wrested from soldiers after they rappelled from a helicopter to board one of the vessels. Late Monday, it released a grainy black-and-white video that it said supported its version of events.
Click here to watch video from aboard the ship.
However, there were conflicting accounts of what happened early Monday, with activists claiming the Israelis fired first and Israel insisting its forces fired in self defense. Communications to the ships were cut shortly after the raid began, and activists were kept away from reporters after their boats were towed to the Israeli port of Ashdod.
The activists were headed to Gaza to draw attention to Israel's blockade of Gaza, which Israel and Egypt imposed after the militant Hamas group seized the territory of 1.5 million Palestinians in 2007. Israel claims that sufficient food and humanitarian supplies reach Gaza residents, though Israel retains the right to control all entry and exit to the Strip and inspect all goods entering it, despite Israel's withdraw from Gaza in 2005. Other agencies claim that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has deepened since Israel imposed its blockade. Unemployment, food insecurity, and infrastructure atrophy have increased yearly, and dangerous water and sanitation infrastructure deterioration has led to health consequences for Gaza residents, a recent UN report indicates.
Missing from the finger-pointing over the ship boarding is the message that the flotilla was attempting to bring to the world: the Gaza blockade is an international crime in slow-motion, collectively punishing the people of Gaza for "choosing" the wrong ruling party, Hamas. Gazans cannot build or rebuild homes destroyed during Israel's December 2008 "Cast Lead" operation due to the ban on construction materials; they cannot export goods on the international market; they cannot leave Gaza to find work or education elsewhere, even to go to the West Bank. Effectively, Israel has trapped about 1.5 million people into one of the most densely populated areas on earth, leading to an unemployment rate estimated at at least 40 percent, leading to 70 percent or more living below the poverty line.
Israel's handling of the flotilla obviously has been faulty. If indeed peace activists attacked soldiers, even if their ship was fired upon first, that is an act that tarnishes the nonviolent reputation of peace activists everywhere and undermines their effort to get their message out. But let's not forget the message, because the people of Gaza are depending on it - the blockade of Gaza must be lifted, and the sooner, the better.
Israel said it opened fire after its commandos were attacked by knives, clubs and live fire from two pistols wrested from soldiers after they rappelled from a helicopter to board one of the vessels. Late Monday, it released a grainy black-and-white video that it said supported its version of events.
Click here to watch video from aboard the ship.
However, there were conflicting accounts of what happened early Monday, with activists claiming the Israelis fired first and Israel insisting its forces fired in self defense. Communications to the ships were cut shortly after the raid began, and activists were kept away from reporters after their boats were towed to the Israeli port of Ashdod.
The activists were headed to Gaza to draw attention to Israel's blockade of Gaza, which Israel and Egypt imposed after the militant Hamas group seized the territory of 1.5 million Palestinians in 2007. Israel claims that sufficient food and humanitarian supplies reach Gaza residents, though Israel retains the right to control all entry and exit to the Strip and inspect all goods entering it, despite Israel's withdraw from Gaza in 2005. Other agencies claim that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has deepened since Israel imposed its blockade. Unemployment, food insecurity, and infrastructure atrophy have increased yearly, and dangerous water and sanitation infrastructure deterioration has led to health consequences for Gaza residents, a recent UN report indicates.
Missing from the finger-pointing over the ship boarding is the message that the flotilla was attempting to bring to the world: the Gaza blockade is an international crime in slow-motion, collectively punishing the people of Gaza for "choosing" the wrong ruling party, Hamas. Gazans cannot build or rebuild homes destroyed during Israel's December 2008 "Cast Lead" operation due to the ban on construction materials; they cannot export goods on the international market; they cannot leave Gaza to find work or education elsewhere, even to go to the West Bank. Effectively, Israel has trapped about 1.5 million people into one of the most densely populated areas on earth, leading to an unemployment rate estimated at at least 40 percent, leading to 70 percent or more living below the poverty line.
Israel's handling of the flotilla obviously has been faulty. If indeed peace activists attacked soldiers, even if their ship was fired upon first, that is an act that tarnishes the nonviolent reputation of peace activists everywhere and undermines their effort to get their message out. But let's not forget the message, because the people of Gaza are depending on it - the blockade of Gaza must be lifted, and the sooner, the better.
Gulf Oil Spill: Massive Underwater Plumes Spell Disaster, Scientists Say
The results of this spill are disastrous, and will be felt for years to come. I suspect the worst damage is below the surface, where news cameras don't get their striking visuals of oil-soaked otters and cranes. But the food chain will be irrevocably damaged. Thanks BP.
Let's hope a teaching moment will come out of this disaster - perhaps an effective way to re-align the incentives of off-shore drilling. As it is now, oil companies do not take on associated risks with drilling but go away with the profits - much like the "moral hazard" problem in the banking system. Big oil can gamble with someone else's fragile ecosystem, profiting when it works and washing their hands when it doesn't. Obviously, this needs to change, starting with removing the $75 million damage cap for oil spill cleanup.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Frustration Mounts As Oil Seeps Into Gulf Wetlands
Where's Scotty? I keep getting flashbacks of Star Trek episodes, where "we need warp speed in 5 minutes or we're all dead." Scotty (or someone) always pulls through with some jury-rigged contraption that no one knows will work. No testing necessary, just put it on and go. Of course, that is Hollywood, not real life, but one can wish that we had faster action from the morons at BP who didn't have the foresight to put advance plans into place.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Friday, May 7, 2010
Legislative proposal to revoke citizenship of accused terrorist called unconstitutional
Legislative proposal to revoke citizenship of accused terrorist called unconstitutional
I hope this is the last we hear of this.
Senator Lieberman's bill is intended to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of engaging in terrorism against the United States or its foreign allies.
According to the Post, concerns of lawmakers include that the bill is "too broadly worded" to pass constitutional scrutiny in this context and may be ineffectual. "There are much better ways of obtaining information from terrorists" Senator Charles E. Schumer (D - N.Y.) reportedly said through a statement issued from his office.
This could mean that another attempt to introduce a bill thought to have a chance at passing constitutional muster may be coming soon. I hope not. I can't believe that we would try to strip people of yet another civil right in order to punish alleged terrorists. I thought we were over that. Then again, maybe not...
I hope this is the last we hear of this.
Senator Lieberman's bill is intended to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of engaging in terrorism against the United States or its foreign allies.
According to the Post, concerns of lawmakers include that the bill is "too broadly worded" to pass constitutional scrutiny in this context and may be ineffectual. "There are much better ways of obtaining information from terrorists" Senator Charles E. Schumer (D - N.Y.) reportedly said through a statement issued from his office.
This could mean that another attempt to introduce a bill thought to have a chance at passing constitutional muster may be coming soon. I hope not. I can't believe that we would try to strip people of yet another civil right in order to punish alleged terrorists. I thought we were over that. Then again, maybe not...
Thursday, May 6, 2010
More Scary News
Lieberman Unveils Bill to Strip US Citizenship of Terror Suspects Arrested Abroad
"Sen. Joe Lieberman introduced legislation on Thursday that would strip Americans of their citizenship if they are arrested overseas for their affiliation with a foreign terrorist organization.
Under the bill, Americans captured overseas and found to be connected with a foreign terrorist organization would be stripped of citizenship and could be hauled before a military commission.
"I believe that anyone apprehended and charged with attempt to commit a terrorist act against the United State is effectively a prisoner of war and should be tried by the military system of justice," the Connecticut independent senator said at a news conference flanked by other lawmakers supporting the bill, including Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., who is introducing a companion bill in the House.
"The reason we're doing this, being an American citizen means something," Lieberman said. "To me, somebody who takes up arms against the United States, whether they wear the uniform of a foreign country or associate with a foreign terrorist organization, has given up their right to be an American citizen."
The man officials say admitted trying to bomb Times Square is a Pakistani who recently became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
A slim 51 percent majority of Democrats would treat the suspect like a criminal defendant, while just over half of Republicans (51 percent) and independents (52 percent) would treat him like an enemy combatant.
Click here to see the poll.
Click here for the raw data.
Here's the "enemy combatant" argument rearing its head again from the right wing of American discourse. It seems like our justice system isn't good enough for them; "bad guys" - especially when they are Muslim and darker-skinned - don't deserve our rights and can't possibly be tried in our judicial system. Arguments like these don't even deserve to be discussed in public. Just giving them credibility skews our public debate towards the kooky right. Let's banish it to where it belongs - to the dustbin of history.
Drill Baby Drill: Majority Still Favors Offshore Drilling
An alarming poll from Fox News reports that a majority of Americans still support offshore drilling, even after the disastrous April 20th oil spill still leaking thousands of barrels of crude oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico.
According to the report:
"Though support for offshore drilling has dipped in the wake of the recent oil spill in the Gulf, a majority of American voters still favor increasing drilling in U.S. coastal waters, according to the latest Fox News poll.
The new poll finds 60 percent of voters favor increasing offshore drilling in U.S. coastal areas, while 33 percent oppose it. Last month, 70 percent favored it and 22 percent were opposed, and previous Fox News polls showed just over 7 voters in 10 favored increasing offshore drilling (71 percent favored it in 2008, and 72 percent in 2009)."
(See the poll results here and the summary statistics here.)
Since the oil slick the size of Delaware hasn't yet hit the Gulf coast, heart-rending images of dying otters and oil-saturated wetlands have not hit the media airwaves. Public outrage has apparently not been stoked by the abstract descriptions of looming disaster in the absence of concrete images. Even the idled fishermen have not provoked sympathy, perhaps because of their apparent business (funded by BP) in cleanup and prevention efforts.
It's a wonder what oil-company funded PR can do to a country.
Side note: Have you noticed one month after the coal mine disaster at the Upper Big Branch mine that "clean coal" commercials are nearly ubiquitous on TV? Just sayin'...
Friday, April 30, 2010
Dear Dr. Maddow,
Dear Dr. Maddow,
For the first time, I was disappointed in your show today. You interviewed Dan Stein, president of FAIR, on your show, pressing him about his organization's reputation for moderation. As always, I am glad when you have guests from differing points of view on your show. Your respectful but sharp interview style is always informative. You did not depart from that style in addressing Mr. Stein. You brought up important points about individuals that FAIR is associated with - that they are not as moderate as the image FAIR projects of itself. I am glad that this information was aired, but I am nonetheless disappointed. Here's why:
First of all, you took this issue way too far. Was that the best information you could get? Some of it was from 25 years ago? Much of it looked like a case, as Mr. Stein said, of "guilt by association." If indeed one is guilty by association, could you not have made a stronger case? I didn't see anything that convinced me that FAIR could not still be overall a moderate organization with a few kooks here and there or someone who said something kooky 25 years ago.
Since you have a PhD in political science, you of all people should know that political institutions like FAIR are not unified and monolithic or representative of a single point of view. Mr. Stein alluded to this when he said that his organization represents a "big umbrella" and has a diversity of opinions. You could have pressed him on this... how can a "moderate" organization include so many apparent immoderates? It would be interesting to hear how he would reply to that. It is an important political question given FAIR's moderate reputation and position as backer/writer of the new Arizona law that you are calling the "papers please" law.
Perhaps more importantly, you did not discuss with Mr. Stein, the supposed "moderate" on immigration, an important issue - the "papers please" law. Mr. Stein was presenting himself as a bipartisan, moderate spokesperson on immigration and yet he said that the Arizona law was NOT racist. I'd like to hear how he justifies that. Perhaps he'd convince me. More likely, you would simply be giving him the rope to hang himself.
You made a weak case, and in the process, came off looking overly partisan and obnoxious.
I am saying this in all sincerity, as a huge fan of your show. However, for this one time, I think you blew it. I hope next time I will not be so disappointed.
For the first time, I was disappointed in your show today. You interviewed Dan Stein, president of FAIR, on your show, pressing him about his organization's reputation for moderation. As always, I am glad when you have guests from differing points of view on your show. Your respectful but sharp interview style is always informative. You did not depart from that style in addressing Mr. Stein. You brought up important points about individuals that FAIR is associated with - that they are not as moderate as the image FAIR projects of itself. I am glad that this information was aired, but I am nonetheless disappointed. Here's why:
First of all, you took this issue way too far. Was that the best information you could get? Some of it was from 25 years ago? Much of it looked like a case, as Mr. Stein said, of "guilt by association." If indeed one is guilty by association, could you not have made a stronger case? I didn't see anything that convinced me that FAIR could not still be overall a moderate organization with a few kooks here and there or someone who said something kooky 25 years ago.
Since you have a PhD in political science, you of all people should know that political institutions like FAIR are not unified and monolithic or representative of a single point of view. Mr. Stein alluded to this when he said that his organization represents a "big umbrella" and has a diversity of opinions. You could have pressed him on this... how can a "moderate" organization include so many apparent immoderates? It would be interesting to hear how he would reply to that. It is an important political question given FAIR's moderate reputation and position as backer/writer of the new Arizona law that you are calling the "papers please" law.
Perhaps more importantly, you did not discuss with Mr. Stein, the supposed "moderate" on immigration, an important issue - the "papers please" law. Mr. Stein was presenting himself as a bipartisan, moderate spokesperson on immigration and yet he said that the Arizona law was NOT racist. I'd like to hear how he justifies that. Perhaps he'd convince me. More likely, you would simply be giving him the rope to hang himself.
You made a weak case, and in the process, came off looking overly partisan and obnoxious.
I am saying this in all sincerity, as a huge fan of your show. However, for this one time, I think you blew it. I hope next time I will not be so disappointed.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Andy Worthington: Seven Years of War in Iraq: Still Based on Cheney's Torture and Lies
Seven years later, Dick Cheney's exaggerations and untruths are still circulating, many of them unchallenged, as the impetus for war against Iraq. However, as the political leader of the screaming right's opposition to President Obama's agenda, particularly on national security, Cheney remains an outspoken supporter of the torture that brought us the misleading intelligence meant to convince the world that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat to global security. Like a hound dog protectively gnawing a grizzled bone, Cheney refuses to let go of his delusions. Unfortunately, his delusions led to thousands of American and Iraqi deaths. When will he be brought to account?
(see Andy Worthington's excellent discussion of the torture-based evidence here.)
Friday, April 9, 2010
George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent' - Times Online
George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent' - Times Online
According to the Times newspaper of London, leaders in the Bush Administration, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, knew the vast majority of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay detention center were innocent, but estimated that it was "politically impossible" to release them. If hundreds of innocent people were swept up and detained in the effort to capture a few hard-core terrorists, then the effort was worth it. One of the justifications for the detention operations, according to the Times, was to obtain intelligence on a potential al-Qaeda link to Saddam Hussein in order to justify the impending American invasion. In the Guantanamo detention center, hundreds of prisoners have been held without legal recourse to challenging their detention. Many were subject to various forms of "enhanced interrogation" in an effort to extract "actionable intelligence" from them (whether or not they actually knew useful information or not).
Together with today's revelation that President Obama's nominee to the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department withdrew from consideration because of Republican objections to her strong criticism of Bush Administration torture policies, it is apparent that American public opinion and political power is turning away from traditional concerns for human rights and justice. A jingoistic rhetoric unconcerned with the rights of others now dominates the political landscape.
When our highest officials demonstrate a lack of concern about the rights of the innocent, it is time to re-examine the direction of American public policy.
According to the Times newspaper of London, leaders in the Bush Administration, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, knew the vast majority of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay detention center were innocent, but estimated that it was "politically impossible" to release them. If hundreds of innocent people were swept up and detained in the effort to capture a few hard-core terrorists, then the effort was worth it. One of the justifications for the detention operations, according to the Times, was to obtain intelligence on a potential al-Qaeda link to Saddam Hussein in order to justify the impending American invasion. In the Guantanamo detention center, hundreds of prisoners have been held without legal recourse to challenging their detention. Many were subject to various forms of "enhanced interrogation" in an effort to extract "actionable intelligence" from them (whether or not they actually knew useful information or not).
Together with today's revelation that President Obama's nominee to the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department withdrew from consideration because of Republican objections to her strong criticism of Bush Administration torture policies, it is apparent that American public opinion and political power is turning away from traditional concerns for human rights and justice. A jingoistic rhetoric unconcerned with the rights of others now dominates the political landscape.
When our highest officials demonstrate a lack of concern about the rights of the innocent, it is time to re-examine the direction of American public policy.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Making Cheap Coal Safe
While it is too soon to say with certainty the cause of yesterday's blast that killed 25 and left 4 missing (as of this writing), but the history of the coal industry does not inspire confidence and many are asking questions. How much longer will coal miners pay with their lives?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Mullen: Give ‘Soft Power’ a Chance
Mullen: Give ‘Soft Power’ a Chance:
Danger Room Blog Reports:
"The top U.S. general in Afghanistan has placed heavy restrictions on the use of force, limiting air strikes and artillery support. In a major speech March 3, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen had a message: This is the new American way of war, so get used to it.
But Mullen was also making a larger argument about the outsize role of the U.S. military in foreign policy. He seemed to be suggesting that the military shouldn’t continue to do the heavy lifting around the globe unless the diplomats and the development experts are willing to step up to the tasks of nation-building and stability ops.
“Secretaries Clinton and Gates [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] have called for more funding and more emphasis on our soft power, and I could not agree with them more,” he said. “Should we choose to exert American influence solely through our troops, we should expect to see that influence diminish in time. In fact, I would argue that in the future struggles of the asymmetric counterinsurgent variety, we ought to make it a precondition of committing our troops, that we will do so only if and when the other instruments of national power are ready to engage as well.”
It’s a remarkable speech, and worth reading in full. But reduced to a bullet point, Mullen’s seems to be arguing that avoiding wars is as important as winning them."
Could it be the beginning of a new era of cooperation between the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom? One that does not, unlike during the Bush era, require the military to dominate all aspects of foreign policy, including the traditional State Department domains of development and nation-building?
[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]
"The top U.S. general in Afghanistan has placed heavy restrictions on the use of force, limiting air strikes and artillery support. In a major speech March 3, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen had a message: This is the new American way of war, so get used to it.
But Mullen was also making a larger argument about the outsize role of the U.S. military in foreign policy. He seemed to be suggesting that the military shouldn’t continue to do the heavy lifting around the globe unless the diplomats and the development experts are willing to step up to the tasks of nation-building and stability ops.
“Secretaries Clinton and Gates [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] have called for more funding and more emphasis on our soft power, and I could not agree with them more,” he said. “Should we choose to exert American influence solely through our troops, we should expect to see that influence diminish in time. In fact, I would argue that in the future struggles of the asymmetric counterinsurgent variety, we ought to make it a precondition of committing our troops, that we will do so only if and when the other instruments of national power are ready to engage as well.”
It’s a remarkable speech, and worth reading in full. But reduced to a bullet point, Mullen’s seems to be arguing that avoiding wars is as important as winning them."
Could it be the beginning of a new era of cooperation between the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom? One that does not, unlike during the Bush era, require the military to dominate all aspects of foreign policy, including the traditional State Department domains of development and nation-building?
[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Glenn Beck Urges Listeners to Leave Churches That Preach Social Justice -- Politics Daily
Reason #1 why I believe many churches today have lost touch with the original teachings of the ancient christian church: conservative takeovers of many evangelical and fundamentalist churches had led to the mindset that Glenn Beck is illustrating. Forget the teachings of Jesus that emphasized taking care of the poor, forget the fact that Jesus hung out with some of the people that were among the least appreciated in his society - many of today's Christians believe that we should make war on countries without mercy and allow the poor in society to fall behind "because it's their own fault." Social justice? That's just a code word for things we don't like - communism and fascism.
Did Jesus teach that one should "sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (Luke 18:22)? Or, was that simply a way to slip a socialist agenda into the unsuspecting Christian flock?
The Christian right has convinced much of America that Jesus would vote Republican...
Which is exactly why I refuse to believe it. And so should you.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Rep. Paul Broun not sure if Obama is citizen - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said Thursday that he does not know if President Barack Obama is either a citizen or a Christian.
Broun made the claim during an interview with Sirius XM host Pete Dominick, which was first flagged by the liberal blog Think Progress.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Unfulfilled Promises and Arab Expectations; Or, the Obama Administration's Other Credibility Problem
When President Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, however, Arabs took him seriously. More than one year later, however, they are still waiting. And their jaded attitude has returned. As Zogby comments, "credit must still be given to the President's good intentions, but it is now clear that it will take more than a year to undo the damage of the last eight."
Closing GITMO may indeed be complicated by issues of jeopardizing classified information or risking the release of dangerous individuals whose conviction cannot be secured on the basis of evidence obtained though torture. However, even if we put aside issues of justice, we would do good to think of an important question: for every individual NOT released from GITMO, how many actual NEW dangerous individuals do we create and encourage to join or assist dangerous organizations? Although this question is ultimately unanswerable, the thought exercise may help us to determine a major cost of violating the principles upon which our country was founded.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Monster We Created in Iraq
It is the second time the Prime Minister has shown his willingness to use force to impose his political will. This most recent intervention involved a dispute over the provincial council’s legal powers to appoint a governor. As a result, Mr. Maliki ordered in the military to exert executive power.
An earlier intervention appears to be even more suspect. According to the New York Times:
"Mr. Maliki’s government has acted with, at best, disputed legal authority.
In Diyala Province, a leading candidate from one of the main blocs challenging Mr. Maliki’s political coalition, known as State of Law, was arrested Sunday night by special forces sent from Baghdad only days after he took part in a recorded debate in which he criticized the security forces.
Warrants are said to have been issued for five other members of that province’s legislature on charges that remain unclear."
The reasons for the interventions stem from weak democratic institutions and values.
NY Times: "The political turmoil convulsing Iraq stems not just from suspenseful elections in which Mr. Maliki, a Shiite who has allied with several Sunni politicians, appears to be losing popular support and potentially his chances for re-election.
It also stems from an untested separation of powers, opaque back-room agreements and a loose fidelity to the country’s laws, whose interpretation often depends on who is reading them.
“Iraq is like a sick person,” the speaker of Parliament, Ayad al-Samarrai, said at a recent news conference. “All its organs are ailing.”
One only hopes for a successful democracy in Iraq. Iraqis are certainly capable of democracy, despite the "culturalists" who argue that only a strong dictator can hold together Iraqi's "madly warring" factions. However, well-intentioned (I hope!) Americans created institutions and initial conditions that favored sectariansim and weak government. Now, Iraqis have to live with the consequences.
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Party of No: Fiction or Reality?
I know the filibuster (and threat thereof) is used by both parties, but it has seemed to me that it has taken a much more prominent role in politics lately. My impression has been that Replubicans have taken a particularly active role in blocking Obama's agenda in the last year. However, as a social scientist, I know that impressions are merely a place to start inquiry, not the end.
So, I have been wondering if the threat of filibuster has been used more often lately, or if that is just my (admittedly somewhat partisan) biased impression.
Well, I will wonder no longer.
Alternet and Talking Points Memo have posted an illuminating set of figures about the use of cloture, or filibuster, in recent years.
The most instructive figure is for the number of cloture motions filed since the Democrats took control of the Senate. Close to 140 motions on cloture and over 140 votes on cloture took place during the first session (2007-08) in which Democrats were in control of the Senate. Compare this to previous sessions, none of which experienced over 80 votes or motions of cloture, with the exception of the 1995-1998 session - another highly partisan era in American politics. (It still did not come even close to 100!)
Somehow, only 1 in 4 Americans know that 60 votes are required to break a filibuster in the Senate. I don't know how anyone in America could miss the hype over the formerly "filibuster-proof" Senate and its loss upon the election of Scott Brown in the special election to fill former Senator Ted Kennedy's seat. But if they did manage to miss it, they would not know that only 40 votes block any legislation in the Senate, and therefore in the entire government.
Apparenly, Republicans have learned how to appeal to the less educated and lower classes. Otherwise, how would they figure out how to (over)simplify their messages into tiny packages like "socialized medicine doesn't work, ever" and "free markets are more efficient than regulations" (despite our horrific experience with unregulated markets in the last couple of years!!). In short, they have the mentality of the American folk tradition down pat. Stragtegic use of sound bites can really get traction, especially on Fox News.
The end result of this lop-sided competition is that fifty percent of independents say Obama has done “too little to compromise with the Republican leaders in Congress on important issues.”
In short, the GOP has every incentive in the world to block everything as long as they don’t pay a political price for it. Which is exactly what they have been doing.
So, I have been wondering if the threat of filibuster has been used more often lately, or if that is just my (admittedly somewhat partisan) biased impression.
Well, I will wonder no longer.
Alternet and Talking Points Memo have posted an illuminating set of figures about the use of cloture, or filibuster, in recent years.
Somehow, only 1 in 4 Americans know that 60 votes are required to break a filibuster in the Senate. I don't know how anyone in America could miss the hype over the formerly "filibuster-proof" Senate and its loss upon the election of Scott Brown in the special election to fill former Senator Ted Kennedy's seat. But if they did manage to miss it, they would not know that only 40 votes block any legislation in the Senate, and therefore in the entire government.
Apparenly, Republicans have learned how to appeal to the less educated and lower classes. Otherwise, how would they figure out how to (over)simplify their messages into tiny packages like "socialized medicine doesn't work, ever" and "free markets are more efficient than regulations" (despite our horrific experience with unregulated markets in the last couple of years!!). In short, they have the mentality of the American folk tradition down pat. Stragtegic use of sound bites can really get traction, especially on Fox News.
The end result of this lop-sided competition is that fifty percent of independents say Obama has done “too little to compromise with the Republican leaders in Congress on important issues.”
In short, the GOP has every incentive in the world to block everything as long as they don’t pay a political price for it. Which is exactly what they have been doing.
Monday, February 8, 2010
School Lunch Health is a No-Brainer! (But tell that to the Republicans!)
It's about time!
The New York Times reports:
"The Obama administration will begin a drive this week to expel Pepsi, French fries and Snickers bars from the nation’s schools in hopes of reducing the number of children who get fat during their school years.
In legislation, soon to be introduced, candy and sugary beverages would be banned and many schools would be required to offer more nutritious fare."
Fantastic! This sounds like a no-brainer. Why would we want to subject our kids to increased advertising, sugary and fat-filled foods, and greater risk of obesity and health problems?
But wait...
The New York Times report continues:
"Republican support is far from certain.
Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican and the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, met at the White House with Mrs. Obama on Tuesday to talk about childhood obesity. And while Mr. Chambliss released a statement saying that “schools play an important role in shaping nutrition habits of young children,” an aide refused to say whether he would support a ban on junk foods."
Why am I not surprised? Potential Republican opposition, from my own state (!). These days, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans opposed heaven itself if it could be dressed up as socialist or if it was supported by corporate lobbyists.
With this one, they are opposing their own future.
The New York Times reports:
"The Obama administration will begin a drive this week to expel Pepsi, French fries and Snickers bars from the nation’s schools in hopes of reducing the number of children who get fat during their school years.
In legislation, soon to be introduced, candy and sugary beverages would be banned and many schools would be required to offer more nutritious fare."
Fantastic! This sounds like a no-brainer. Why would we want to subject our kids to increased advertising, sugary and fat-filled foods, and greater risk of obesity and health problems?
But wait...
The New York Times report continues:
"Republican support is far from certain.
Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican and the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, met at the White House with Mrs. Obama on Tuesday to talk about childhood obesity. And while Mr. Chambliss released a statement saying that “schools play an important role in shaping nutrition habits of young children,” an aide refused to say whether he would support a ban on junk foods."
Why am I not surprised? Potential Republican opposition, from my own state (!). These days, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans opposed heaven itself if it could be dressed up as socialist or if it was supported by corporate lobbyists.
With this one, they are opposing their own future.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
On the Wrong Side of History
I am starting to get worried about the direction this country is taking. The Obama administration is getting hammered for its decision (which should be an automatic non-decision, by the way) to charge 
and try Nigerian Christmas day bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian court and provide him access to a lawyer.
The criticism comes mainly from Republicans, who argue that it is wrong to "treat Abdulmutallab as if he were an ordinary criminal," and that the administration should not grant "new rights" to terrorists. According to newly elected senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, "tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."
For its part, the Obama administration argues that civil rights should be a central part of anti-terrorism efforts. Cooperation by Muslim communities in the US and abroad can only be secured when a degree of trust can be established. To state the obvious, would Abdulmutallab's father have come forward to report his son as a potential threat to the United States if he feared his son would be tortured in US custody or "disappeared"? (see Andrea Prasow's excellent discussion of this in the Huffington Post a couple of days ago)
In my opinion, I believe America is losing its soul. At one time in history, America was at the forefront of human rights and democracy. Kings and the forces of tradition feared our "radical" ideas of equality and civil rights. Although there were many imperfections in the implementation of these ideals (and the imperfections were huge - slavery, "manifest destiny" and so on), the ideals became the seeds of important liberation movements in the US and around the world.
Now that the US is a global hegemon, power, not freedom, is its most important concern. The direction that is taking us should concern us all.
The criticism comes mainly from Republicans, who argue that it is wrong to "treat Abdulmutallab as if he were an ordinary criminal," and that the administration should not grant "new rights" to terrorists. According to newly elected senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, "tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."
For its part, the Obama administration argues that civil rights should be a central part of anti-terrorism efforts. Cooperation by Muslim communities in the US and abroad can only be secured when a degree of trust can be established. To state the obvious, would Abdulmutallab's father have come forward to report his son as a potential threat to the United States if he feared his son would be tortured in US custody or "disappeared"? (see Andrea Prasow's excellent discussion of this in the Huffington Post a couple of days ago)
In my opinion, I believe America is losing its soul. At one time in history, America was at the forefront of human rights and democracy. Kings and the forces of tradition feared our "radical" ideas of equality and civil rights. Although there were many imperfections in the implementation of these ideals (and the imperfections were huge - slavery, "manifest destiny" and so on), the ideals became the seeds of important liberation movements in the US and around the world.
Now that the US is a global hegemon, power, not freedom, is its most important concern. The direction that is taking us should concern us all.
Ian Frazier: Easy Cocktails from the Cursing Mommy
I have found my alter ego!
From the New Yorker:
Ian Frazier: Easy Cocktails from the Cursing Mommy: "Those high-priced bartenders in their red vests and white shirts who your caterers recommended to serve at your last party may know a thing or two, but for entertaining on a smaller scale—for parties of seven people, four, or even just one—a few simple steps to the perfect cocktail are all you’ll ever need. Take, for example, this drink I’m drinking right now. Where the hell did I put it? I just set it down five minutes ago. I had it when I was watching the news, I know that. Now what in hell could I have done with it? O.K.—I found it, thank heavens. I must have set it here on the stairs when I went to throw away the mail. Anyway, as I was saying, making this particular drink, which happens to be a vodka gimlet, is simplicity itself, once you know how..."
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2009/09/14/090914sh_shouts_frazier#ixzz0eaAEMvGF
I feel like I have met a kindred spirit! I have to admit, however, unlike the Cursing Mommy, I rarely drink vodka gimlets. If I mix something up, it will be Sangria. Otherwise I will stick to wine or beer. Usually beer. It goes down soooo smoothly and easily, especially after a long day at work. And it makes my kids so much nicer. And quieter. Too bad it doesn't make them less hungry. Oh well. Two out of three isn't bad.
From the New Yorker:
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2009/09/14/090914sh_shouts_frazier#ixzz0eaAEMvGF
I feel like I have met a kindred spirit! I have to admit, however, unlike the Cursing Mommy, I rarely drink vodka gimlets. If I mix something up, it will be Sangria. Otherwise I will stick to wine or beer. Usually beer. It goes down soooo smoothly and easily, especially after a long day at work. And it makes my kids so much nicer. And quieter. Too bad it doesn't make them less hungry. Oh well. Two out of three isn't bad.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Deficit Reduction and National Priorities
Something is very, very wrong here. Why are we getting a spending freeze, now, when unemployment is at 10%? When home foreclosures are still taking place at a record rate?
What about Econ 101: government spending creates jobs in a slow economy, slashing spending eliminates jobs? Hmmm.
A few days ago, Obama endorsed the creation of a bipartisan deficit-reduction panel with "fast-track" authority to create legislation that can only receive a yes/no vote in both houses of Congress, therefore avoiding tricky amendments and reconciliation. Much like the BRAC panel that recommended unpopular military base closures in 1989-95 and 2005, only such a bipartisan panel can administer the bitter medicine of spending cuts and tax hikes. It's such a good idea that it has been recommended by the Economist magazine, among others, as a way for the US to chart a course out of the deep deficit hole it has dug itself into. (See my earlier post on this issue.)
Indeed we have dug ourselves into a pretty deep hole. This year's budget deficit is projected to be $1.35 trillion, one of the highest since WW II. Even under relatively optimistic assumptions, the CBO projects that
interest payments on the debt will more than triple over the next
decade, rising from $207 billion this year to $723 billion in 2020.
But should we start slashing the budget now?
It seems like what is needed is a careful plan, a road map, so to speak, that charts a course out of the economic abyss of unemployment and low growth, and, once there, sets a course to fiscal responsibility. If we rein in spending too quickly, we risk undermining the economic recovery now in its early stages. But if we go back to business as usual, after the recovery has worked its magic, it is possible that global confidence in the American economy (and the dollar, especially) will quickly erode. With the CBO projecting the national debt to be somewhere between 67 and 100% of the overall economy by 2020, something will need to be done. The world will need to see our plan, and need to see that we are serious, in order to restore confidence in the future of our national economy.
Since spending money gets politicians re-elected, deficit budgets are common in good economic times. But we need to stop this practice (hence the bipartisan panel) and focus on what is important. That is why I recommend - crazy as it sounds, particularly right now - a discussion of national priorities. When we get out of this economic disaster we are in, there will need to be some belt-tightening. But does this mean that the poor need to suffer more? That more people need to go without health insurance? Should we continue to belch greenhouse gasses into the air? Should we let down our guard against terrorism? What do we want: guns or butter?
It seems like Americans are more polarized than ever. But we are going to have to communicate to our politicians clearly and effectively from now on what we want them to spend our hard-earned tax dollars on. Talking to each other first and deciding what our priorities are can really help streamline what will be a difficult process.
A few days ago, Obama endorsed the creation of a bipartisan deficit-reduction panel with "fast-track" authority to create legislation that can only receive a yes/no vote in both houses of Congress, therefore avoiding tricky amendments and reconciliation. Much like the BRAC panel that recommended unpopular military base closures in 1989-95 and 2005, only such a bipartisan panel can administer the bitter medicine of spending cuts and tax hikes. It's such a good idea that it has been recommended by the Economist magazine, among others, as a way for the US to chart a course out of the deep deficit hole it has dug itself into. (See my earlier post on this issue.)
Indeed we have dug ourselves into a pretty deep hole. This year's budget deficit is projected to be $1.35 trillion, one of the highest since WW II. Even under relatively optimistic assumptions, the CBO projects that
interest payments on the debt will more than triple over the next
decade, rising from $207 billion this year to $723 billion in 2020.
But should we start slashing the budget now?
It seems like what is needed is a careful plan, a road map, so to speak, that charts a course out of the economic abyss of unemployment and low growth, and, once there, sets a course to fiscal responsibility. If we rein in spending too quickly, we risk undermining the economic recovery now in its early stages. But if we go back to business as usual, after the recovery has worked its magic, it is possible that global confidence in the American economy (and the dollar, especially) will quickly erode. With the CBO projecting the national debt to be somewhere between 67 and 100% of the overall economy by 2020, something will need to be done. The world will need to see our plan, and need to see that we are serious, in order to restore confidence in the future of our national economy.
Since spending money gets politicians re-elected, deficit budgets are common in good economic times. But we need to stop this practice (hence the bipartisan panel) and focus on what is important. That is why I recommend - crazy as it sounds, particularly right now - a discussion of national priorities. When we get out of this economic disaster we are in, there will need to be some belt-tightening. But does this mean that the poor need to suffer more? That more people need to go without health insurance? Should we continue to belch greenhouse gasses into the air? Should we let down our guard against terrorism? What do we want: guns or butter?
It seems like Americans are more polarized than ever. But we are going to have to communicate to our politicians clearly and effectively from now on what we want them to spend our hard-earned tax dollars on. Talking to each other first and deciding what our priorities are can really help streamline what will be a difficult process.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
When the Media Is the Disaster: Covering Haiti
It is so easy to rush to judgment when those being judged are poor and black. How many times do we see "heroes" doing exactly the same thing in Hollywood blockbuster movies that the media is calling "looting" in Haiti? No condemnation for Hollywood characters, simply admiration for the determination of someone to save their family. The idea that poor blacks will simply take advantage of chaos to steal whatever they can draws upon centuries of American racism. It works too, in the sense that it allows the media to sell advertising. The worst thing is, the cynical pandering of the media to the African American audience by sending every single black reporter to Haiti is merely revealed for what it is: a money-making opportunity.
About Haiti Earthquake
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
About Haiti Earthquake
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Monday, January 18, 2010
Remembering the Little People: Accounting for Kids
'The New York Times reports:
Remembering the Little People: Accounting for Kids: "An economist asks why the United States spends so much less money on children than on the elderly, and what the consequences for the economy might be. "
It shouldn't be a mystery why this happens - kids don't vote, and they certainly don't have the clout of the AARP on capitol hill. However, we know that you get more bang for your buck with spending on childrens' education and health (sorry grandma) - early education and healthy initiatives can go a long way to help the kids for the rest of their lives, creating healthy lifestyles and giving kids an educational headstart. Not that we should stop spending on the elderly. But spending more than twice as much on the elderly as on children is absurd and doesn't reflect rational priorities. According to the Times article, public spending on children amounts to about 2.2% of GDP while spending on the elderly is about 5.3% of GDP.
At the same time that we are spending enormous amounts to subsidize (rightfully so, I would argue) health care and retirement benefits for the elderly, (unsubsidized) child care costs more than public university tuition in 44 states - and, child care workers obtain near poverty-level wages. Young children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of poverty, but 19% of children in the US lived in poverty in 2009.
I think most people would argue that this is a case of misplaced priorities, until, that is, we tried to do something about it. Change is difficult in this political system, in great part because so many have such an enormous - mostly financial - stake in the status quo. It will take a great efforts and yes, even courage, by the nation's parents and others who care about the future to cure this distortion for our children's future.
Remembering the Little People: Accounting for Kids: "An economist asks why the United States spends so much less money on children than on the elderly, and what the consequences for the economy might be. "
At the same time that we are spending enormous amounts to subsidize (rightfully so, I would argue) health care and retirement benefits for the elderly, (unsubsidized) child care costs more than public university tuition in 44 states - and, child care workers obtain near poverty-level wages. Young children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of poverty, but 19% of children in the US lived in poverty in 2009.
I think most people would argue that this is a case of misplaced priorities, until, that is, we tried to do something about it. Change is difficult in this political system, in great part because so many have such an enormous - mostly financial - stake in the status quo. It will take a great efforts and yes, even courage, by the nation's parents and others who care about the future to cure this distortion for our children's future.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Obama: Software Flaws Let Christmas Bomber Get Through
We are being told that institutional failure or human failure (i.e. "someone needs to pay") is responsible for the inability to connect the dots between intelligence fragments, and therefore a dangerous person with explosives being allowed to board Northwest Airlines flight 253. But according to Danger Room blog, it is really a simple matter of crappy software:
Obama: Software Flaws Let Christmas Bomber Get Through: "
Crappy government software — and failure to use that software right — almost got 289 people killed in the botched Christmas day bombing.
“Information sharing does not appear to have contributed to this intelligence failure; relevant all-sources analysts as well as watchlisting personnel who needed this information were not preventing from accessing it,” the White House noted in its review of the incident. The problem was in the databases, and in the data-mining software. “Information technology within the CT [counterterrorism] community did not sufficiently enable the correlation of data that would have enable analysts to highlight the relevant threat information.”
You bet it didn’t. Government search tools weren’t even flexible enough to handle simple misspellings. As the White House review notes:
This is a problem that commercial software firms largely solved years ago. (Try typing “Noa Schactmann” into Google, and see what comes up.) How it could persist in the CT community, I just don’t understand.
In a memo to his agency chiefs, President Obama ordered the Director of National Intelligence to “accelerate information technology enhancement, to include knowledge discovery, database integration, cross-database search, and the ability to correlate biographic information with terrorism-related intelligence.”
All of which will be helpful. But analysts have to actually use the tools. That didn’t happen in the Christmas attack. “NCTC and CIA personnel who are responsible for watchlisting did not search all available databases,” the White House noted.
The Department of Homeland Security did run Northwest Airlines flight 253’s passenger manifest against terrorism databases. But only after the flight took off. Ugh.
[Photo: U.S. Marshalls]"
Is there some reason we can't get this right??? Do we need to point our fingers in the wrong direction in order to score political points? Let's fix this problem and get it right this time.
Obama: Software Flaws Let Christmas Bomber Get Through: "
Crappy government software — and failure to use that software right — almost got 289 people killed in the botched Christmas day bombing.“Information sharing does not appear to have contributed to this intelligence failure; relevant all-sources analysts as well as watchlisting personnel who needed this information were not preventing from accessing it,” the White House noted in its review of the incident. The problem was in the databases, and in the data-mining software. “Information technology within the CT [counterterrorism] community did not sufficiently enable the correlation of data that would have enable analysts to highlight the relevant threat information.”
You bet it didn’t. Government search tools weren’t even flexible enough to handle simple misspellings. As the White House review notes:
A misspelling of Mr. Abdulmutallab’s name initially resulted in the State Department believing he did not have a valid U.S. visa. A determination to revoke his visa however would have only occurred if there had been a successful integration of intelligence by the CT [counterterrorism] community, resulting in his being watchlisted.
This is a problem that commercial software firms largely solved years ago. (Try typing “Noa Schactmann” into Google, and see what comes up.) How it could persist in the CT community, I just don’t understand.
In a memo to his agency chiefs, President Obama ordered the Director of National Intelligence to “accelerate information technology enhancement, to include knowledge discovery, database integration, cross-database search, and the ability to correlate biographic information with terrorism-related intelligence.”
All of which will be helpful. But analysts have to actually use the tools. That didn’t happen in the Christmas attack. “NCTC and CIA personnel who are responsible for watchlisting did not search all available databases,” the White House noted.
The Department of Homeland Security did run Northwest Airlines flight 253’s passenger manifest against terrorism databases. But only after the flight took off. Ugh.
[Photo: U.S. Marshalls]"
Is there some reason we can't get this right??? Do we need to point our fingers in the wrong direction in order to score political points? Let's fix this problem and get it right this time.
Underwear Bomber Renews Calls for ‘Naked Scanners’
More from Danger Room Blog:
Underwear Bomber Renews Calls for ‘Naked Scanners’: "
Underwear Bomber Renews Calls for ‘Naked Scanners’: "
After an alleged terrorist unsuccessfully tried to detonate his explosive underwear on a Christmas Day flight to Detroit, current and former American officials are now using the failed attack to push for more airport scanners to spot such explosives — and a lot more.
The Transportation Security Administration in recent years has tried out a series of “whole-body imagers” to look for threats that typical metal detectors can’t find. These systems are the only way that smuggled explosives, like the one officials say was brought on the Christmas flight, can be reliably found.
“You’ve got to find some way of detecting things in parts of the body that aren’t easy to get at,” former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff told The Washington Post. “It’s either pat-downs or imaging.”
The problem, privacy advocates say, is that a zap from one of the devices amounts to a “digital strip search” from a system “designed to capture, record, and store detailed images of individuals undressed.”
TSA has worked with two basic technologies to upgrade its passenger screening systems. Millimeter-wave sensors emit radio frequencies, and measure the differences in radiated energy. The result is a detailed, 3-D image of the passenger that looks sort of like a photo negative.
The TSA currently has 40 of these machines installed at 19 airports. Six airports have a machine each for primary screening. The other 34 are used for follow-up searches at 13 airports. The agency handed out a $25 million contract to Rapiscan Security Systems in October for 30 more of the machines.
Similarly, backscatter x-ray scanners send out low-intensity beams, and watch how the x-ray photons get reflected back. (Old-school machines simply sent the x-ray through the object.) “Elements with lower atomic numbers (fewer protons) on the periodic table scatter X-ray photons very powerfully, while elements located farther down on the periodic table tend to absorb more photons than they scatter.
Most organics are located closer to the start of the periodic table. So backscatter systems are very good at imaging organic material — much better than dual-energy systems.
They easily pick up the scatter patterns of drugs and explosives and body parts,” notes one helpful description. TSA has ordered 150 backscatter units, after 46 of the sensors were used at 23 airports in a pilot project.
But it’s unclear how far the TSA will be allowed to go in deploying these systems. Because the same technology that allows the scanners to find explosive underwear can also provide some rather revealing glimpses of passengers’ bodies.
The agency says there’s no privacy problem. “Facial features” (and, presumably, other body parts) “are blurred when our officers see the images,” the TSA insists. Nor will the agency “keep, store or transmit images. Once deleted, they are gone forever…. For additional privacy, the officer viewing the image is in a separate room and will never see the passenger, and the officer attending to the passenger will never see the image.”
“These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool. Heck, it could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody,” the TSA noted on its blog.
But privacy groups aren’t exactly comforted by the agency’s assurances. TSA has already reversed earlier stands on the scanners, the groups say.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security on Nov. 9, to force it to give up information about the scanners. “TSA has stated that whole-body imaging would not be mandatory for passengers,” the Center noted in its complaint. “On Feb.18, 2009, TSA announced that it would require passengers at six airports to submit to whole-body imaging in place of the standard metal detector search, which contravenes its earlier statement.”
The House of Representatives voted 310 to 118 in June to pass a measure that prohibits the TSA from using whole-body imaging as a primary means for screening passengers. The legislation’s prime sponsor, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, said Sunday that he stands by the measure. “I believe there’s technology out there that can identify bomb-type materials without necessarily, overly invading our privacy,” he told the Salt Lake Tribune.
“Yes, there is some brief violation of privacy with a full-body scan,” Rep. Peter King, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, told Face the Nation. “But on the other hand, if we can save thousands of lives, to me, we have to make that decision, and we have to come down on the side of saving thousands of lives.”
But that logic makes about as much sense as the TSA’s new rules forcing passengers to stay in their seats for the last hour of a flight, says security guru Bruce Schneier. “It’s the same magical thinking we’re used to getting from the TSA,” he tells Danger Room. “Descend on what the terrorists happened to do last time, and we’ll all be safe. As if they won’t think of something else.”
Photo: TSA
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
