Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Rethink Afghanistan

 

Dear Friends, Colleagues and Supporters,

Watch the video


Eight years have passed since Laura Bush declared that "because of our recent military gains, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes" in Afghanistan. For eight years, that claim has been a lie.

The fact is that life for women in Afghanistan has gotten worse since the Taliban were removed from power. Once they chafed under the slavish conditions the Taliban imposed on their daily lives. Today they suffer under the exact same conditions, this time under the rule of the regime of warlords put in place by the U.S.-led coalition. And in addition to this oppression, women in Afghanistan are forced to cope with war.

Share this video with others by Digging it and Re-Tweeting on Twitter: RT @afghanistandocu Bombs wont liberate #Afghan women http://bit.ly/NxmBW Give RAWA $15 for 1 family's food, blankets http://bit.ly/4BrUBm

Some well-meaning Westerners believe that the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan benefits Afghan women. But the truth is that American military escalation will not liberate the women of Afghanistan. Instead, it will bring only more war - the hardships of which are always suffered disproportionately by women. With the risk of death outside their doorsteps, Afghan women are confined to their homes to an even greater extent than under the Taliban. More and more women are being forced by war into prostitution, often for a clientele of foreign troops. Self-immolation among Afghan women today is at an all-time high. This war is doing more to destroy women's lives than the Taliban ever was able to.

For years, the Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan has raised funds to help relieve Afghan families from the violence and displacement of war. There are 1,000 displaced families in a refugee camp in Kabul. It costs US $15 per family for each to receive the minimum relief necessary for their survival. In total, that adds up to $15,000 to help all of these families.

A few weeks ago, Brave New Foundation supporters gave generously to RAWA's effort to provide that relief; collectively, you gave $6,000 to families suffering from lack of food and blankets. RAWA needs $9,000 more to take care of ALL of these 1,000 families.

This is what your help will buy for suffering Afghan families:

  • 5 kg (11 lb) ghee = $5.00
  • 4 kg (8.8 lb) rice = $3.00
  • 50 kg (110 lb) flour = $22.00
  • A middle quality blanket = $10.00
  • A middle quality tent carpet = $40.00

You have done a great service to Afghan families by joining with Rethink Afghanistan to call on the U.S. government to bring this destructive war to an end. Now please help the families victimized by the war - give what you can.

Yours,

Sonali Kolhatkar,
Co-Director of the Afghan Women's Mission
writing on behalf of the Brave New Foundation team

Follow us:
Brave New Foundation | 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
Sphere: Related Content

Palin Resignation Changes Nothing: Nutters Will Always Love Her

by Meg White

The punditry over the Fourth of July weekend was intensely focused on the announcement that Republican Palin's Twitter picGov. Sarah Palin will not only not be running for reelection, but that she is resigning with a year and a half to go in her first term as Alaska's momma-bear-in-chief.

Every political analyst willing to say what they really think has called this move disastrous and confusing coming from a woman who has made it abundantly clear that she wants to be the nation's first female president.

News reports cite Palin's loss of support from conservative kingmakers across the spectrum as a result of the resignation.

But they're wrong. Not that strategists are supporting Palin's recent decision. Psychopaths such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh aside, most on the right are calling this political suicide.

It's more that Palin never had the "support" of Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee, George Will and others who are denouncing her now. Conservative strategists had always been willing to use Palin to bring in her particular brand of voter to the booth, but only as long as she didn't turn off the rest of the voting-age population.

Even GOPUSA President Bob Eberle (whose reaction to the news was basically, "What is she thinking?!") was before probably more of an opportunistic cheerleader than a real Palin lover. After all, his organization's goal of "promoting the grassroots conservative philosophy" is only aided by Palin while she can attract more voters to the Republican fold. Presently, she is treading water at best.

This seemingly recent change of heart does not mean these people are cold-hearted liars. They're strategists and fundraisers; they act from PAC pocketbook balances and polling numbers, not the heart. But the reason the media is so enraptured with what conservatives have to say about the Palin resignation is that their words have a direct bearing upon Palin's ability to follow a "higher calling," as she put it.

Meanwhile, Palin is quick to warn against those nasty critics, "spinning" their "false info," and urge her supporters to "hang in there" via her handy TwitterBerry and various other social networking avenues that are becoming more and more popular with her base.

And it works. As David Corn points out on CQ Politics, Palin's true believers are still with her.

The hardcore Palin supporters (the only kind she has nowadays) seem to be the same type you saw in the disturbing rallies at which Palin appeared as Sen. John McCain's running mate. They're religious "hockey moms" who see Palin's rapid ascent to power as both a palatable brand of feminism and as proof that they too can have prestige without all that hard work that gives you those nasty wrinkles.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/849

Sphere: Related Content

Palin says winning White House will shield her from ethics charges

Refers to nonexistent 'department of law'

By John Byrne

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has a new plan for dodging "spurious" ethics charges — if winning the White House is considered a plan.

In an ABC News interview released Tuesday, the onetime Alaska commander-in-chief signaled that if she succeeded in a presidential run, life would get easier.

"I don't think it will be the day after day after day of ethics violation charges that are frivolous, that are ridiculous," she quipped. "I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at this, the things we have been charged with, and automatically throw them out, not make somebody hire their own personal attorney to get out there and fight."

Wrote ABC's Kate Snow and Rick Klein wryly, "There is no 'department of law' at the White House, though Palin appears to have been referring to the White House counsel's office."

She could also have been referred to the Justice Department.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/07/palin-says-winning-white-house-ethics-charges/

Sphere: Related Content

Pez Candy Inc sues Museum of Pez Memorabilia for copyright infringement

3124991813_47985a455b.jpg
(Photo by Plug1 of whatimseeing.com)

Oh, this is stupid and sad. Pez Candy Inc., makers of pixel-y candy dosed out in those iconic character dispensers, is suing the Burlingame Museum of Pez Memorabilia for copyright infringement. Doctor Popular blogs about it over at Laughing Squid:

The suit, filed last week, claims that the museum deceives the public into believing they are operating under the authority of Pez and asks that the museum's 7 foot tall replica of Pez dispenser be destroyed. The lawsuit also takes issue with the museum's sales of toy truck Pez dispensers which had been modified with Obama and McCain logos during last years elections. The museum has been opened since 1995 and is said to be the only place in the world were you can see every Pez dispenser ever made.
Pez Suing Burlingame Museum of Pez Memorabilia (Laughing Squid)
 
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/06/pez-candy-inc-sues-m.html
Sphere: Related Content

More female veterans are winding up homeless

VA resources strained; many are single parents

 
Angela Peacock spent years with no home after serving in Iraq.
Angela Peacock spent years with no home after serving in Iraq

WASHINGTON - The number of female service members who have become homeless after leaving the military has jumped dramatically in recent years, according to new government estimates, presenting the Veterans Administration with a challenge as it struggles to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

As more women serve in combat zones, the share of female veterans who end up homeless, while still relatively small at an estimated 6,500, has nearly doubled over the last decade, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For younger veterans, it is even more pronounced: One out of every 10 homeless vets under the age of 45 is now a woman, the statistics show.

And unlike their male counterparts, many have the added burden of being single parents.

"Some of the first homeless vets that walked into our office were single moms,'' said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "When people think of homeless vets, they don't think of a Hispanic mother and her kids. The new generation of veterans is made up of far more women.''

Overall, female veterans are now between two and four times more likely to end up homeless than their civilian counterparts, according to the VA, most as a result of the same factors that contribute to homelessness among male veterans: mental trauma related to their military service and difficulty transitioning into the civilian economy.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/06/more_female_veterans_are_winding_up_homeless/?page=full

Sphere: Related Content

Stoned wallabies make crop circles

Australian wallaby - file picture
Wallabies have been observed acting strangely in poppy fields

Australian wallabies are eating opium poppies and creating crop circles as they hop around "as high as a kite", a government official has said.

Lara Giddings, the attorney general for the island state of Tasmania, said the kangaroo-like marsupials were getting into poppy fields grown for medicine.

She was reporting to a parliamentary hearing on security for poppy crops.

Australia supplies about 50% of the world's legally-grown opium used to make morphine and other painkillers.

"The one interesting bit that I found recently in one of my briefs on the poppy industry was that we have a problem with wallabies entering poppy fields, getting as high as a kite and going around in circles," Lara Giddings told the hearing.

"Then they crash," she added. "We see crop circles in the poppy industry from wallabies that are high."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8118257.stm

Sphere: Related Content

Entire New 13-Story Building Tips Over in Shanghai

 
Sphere: Related Content

Reading an obit with great pleasure

By Joseph L. Galloway

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." —Clarence Darrow (1857–1938)

Well, the aptly named Robert Strange McNamara has finally shuffled off to join LBJ and Dick Nixon in the 7th level of Hell.

McNamara was the original bean-counter — a man who knew the cost of everything but the worth of nothing.

Back in 1990 I had a series of strange phone conversations with McNamara while doing research for my book We Were Soldiers Once And Young. McNamara prefaced every conversation with this: "I do not want to comment on the record for fear that I might distort history in the process." Then he would proceed to talk for an hour, doing precisely that with answers that were disingenuous in the extreme — when they were not bald-faced lies.

Upon hanging up I would call Neil Sheehan and David Halberstam and run McNamara's comments past them for deconstruction and the addition of the truth.

The only disagreement i ever had with Dave Halberstam was over the question of which of us hated him the most. In retrospect, it was Halberstam.

When McNamara published his first book — filled with those distortions of history — Halberstam, at his own expense, set out on a journey following McNamara on his book tour around America as a one-man truth squad.

McNamara abandoned the tour.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/71328.html

Sphere: Related Content

Sour Grapes Obituary: How Karl Malden ruined my life

by Michael Dare
 
It's completely personal. Between me and him. Karl Malden fucked up my life, he really did. No matter how much I dig his talent - and I certainly do, he's a Strasberg acting God, and I studied with Strasberg in New York in 1970 where he was treated as such, so I know - Malden is still the premiere putz in my professional life. Or was. He's dead now. Great. Now I get to be pissed off at a dead man.
 
I know you're sick of celebrity obituaries in this horrible week of death and chaos, but this one's different. At this point I've got to pin you to the wall like a drunk in a Hollywood bar, slurring my speech, hot breath in your face, "You don't understand, no matter how good he was in Baby Doll, I'm glad he's dead, that bastard..."
 
Luckily, I'm not that drunk. Here's what happened 20 years ago.
 
 
The 80s was my decade as film critic for the L.A. Weekly. While trashing their films in print, I met most of Hollywood, and I considered it my duty to photograph and distort it all. In a storage locker in Desert Hot Springs there are thousands of ridiculous SX-70 Polaroid portraits of the famous, the insane, and the dead. They've never been published and rarely been seen by anyone except the subjects themselves - who usually expressed either glee or abject horror. Due to copyright law, or maybe just good old fashioned good taste, I've had an incredibly hard time getting my work shown in public.
 
In 1989 a horrible mistake was made and I was voted in as a member of the Los Angeles Film Critic's Association. Meetings in the incredible homes of other film critics was truly inspiring. I was in a profession that could lead to the good life. One day, just for fun, I brought a book of my Polaroids to a meeting where it was eventually passed to Doug Edwards, who turned out to be the curator of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the ones who give the Oscars. I had no idea. He asked me if I'd like to have a show in their lobby. Holy shit. The Academy lobby leads to the Samuel Goldwyn Screening room, which is used almost every night for preview screenings and premieres of major films. It's a perfect location to be seen by all of Hollywood. Total legitimacy at last. You bet I said yes.

We picked 250 images for a mammoth show. Fifty would be blown up to poster size, the rest displayed in eight groupings of 25 original Polaroids. My opening date was Sept. 18, 1989. I met with their PR firm and they drew up a press release.
 
 
The Polaroid Corporation agreed to sponsor the opening night party, and we expected the press to show up to photograph celebrities standing in front of their portraits. Entertainment Tonight, here I come. My career was made. The anti-Annie Liebowitz.

Then the Academy voted in a new president, Karl Malden, who took one look at my pictures, cancelled the press release, and said "Wait a minute. Do we have releases from all of these people?"

Of course I didn't. I was a film critic for a local paper. The subjects of the show were public figures whose pictures I was literally invited to take at press conferences. I've been assured by the constitution of the United States that nobody needs permission to display a public figure's image on their wall. Nevertheless, Malden decided that my pictures were weird and that some people might not like them. He declared that no pictures would be shown without signed releases from the subjects.

Okee doke. No problem. That week, the Academy sent out black-and-white Xerox copies of my pictures to all of the subjects themselves, along with a letter asking for permission to display the picture in their lobby. The Xeroxes were atrocious so I knew this was a bad idea, but I couldn't stop it.

Some of my subjects know my work. I was sure that Emilio Estevez would say yes because one of my photos was once spied on his refrigerator. But I was concerned about people like Ted Turner or Hugh Hefner or Menachem Golan. To them, I would have been just another schmuck paparazzi who took their picture one day and disappeared into the crowd. What would they think when they opened their mail to find ugly Xeroxes of their faces distorted into hideous mutants, along with a letter asking permission for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to make an enormous blow-up of the monstrosity to display in a popular public place where all their friends went?
 
66 people said yes, 22 said no, and 72 didn't respond. A lot of the answers surprised me. Hefner said yes! Golan & Turner both said no. Steve Martin and Whoopi Goldberg said yes.
 
 
 
 
Robin Williams said no, even though he's handsome and not distorted at all in the picture.
 
 
Don Siegel said yes, Clint Eastwood said no, and they were both in the same shot! (Not this one.)
 

But what did it matter who said no. My reaction was "Great, let's go. 66 pictures is plenty for a show." When's the last time you saw a gallery show with 66 goddam photographs. More than enough. Doug Edwards agreed and the blowups were actually ordered, but then the word came down from Malden. The whole thing was cancelled. 66 yeses somehow confirmed in his mind that the show must not go on. It was a question of whether the glass was half empty or half full, though 22 noes is only a third of the yeses. He was worried about the people who didn't respond. (Huh? Maybe they wouldn't like the ugly pictures of other people who gave their permission?) Also, some of the negatives were big negatives. Harry Dean Stanton not only said no, he threatened to sue the Academy if they displayed my picture of him. (On what possible grounds? Malicious surreal facial reconstruction of a celebrity in an artwork?) Here's the shot.
 

In any case, Doug and I got the runaround. The Academy was enthusiastic about the show, they looked forward to doing it, some time, maybe the next spring, unless they got that new air conditioning system, which would mean the lobby might be torn up, so they might do the show in another location, or possibly later in the year.

Doug had a suggestion. "Let's just wait for the Academy to vote in a new president," he said.
 
Two years later, it happened, Malden was out on his ass, and Doug re-submitted the show to the new president, Robert Rehme, and he assured me it was a shoe-in, asking me to call the following week.

The very next Monday, I opened the Los Angeles Times and was stunned to read Doug Edward's obituary. He had died of AIDS. I didn't even know he was sick.
 
Doug Edwards' Obituary
 
 
The Academy was in turmoil. Nobody knew who would replace him or where my portfolio was, and so I waited. On March 10, 1993, four years after the whole process got started, I got my portfolio back from the Academy along with the following letter.
 
Dear Mr. Dare,
 
I recognize your frustration in losing the chance for an exhibition of your work, but I've discussed the situation with Bob Rehme and Ric Robertson and we really don't see a place here for your show. The problem isn't just the anticipated emphasis on in-house-generated exhibitions in the near future. Call us Philistines, but the hard fact is that no one here but Doug had ever been able to generate much enthusiasm for your photos as a subject for the Academy's lobby. With Doug gone, you've lost your only real advocate. However disappointing this news is, I'm hoping you'll find a straightforward assessment of the situation more useful that one that might encourage sure-to-be disappointed hopes. I hope you'll find another venue.
 
Sincerely,
 
Bruce Davis, Executive director
 
 
I could blame Bruce Davis or Bob Rehme or the Los Angeles Times for delivering the bad news. Harry Dean Stanton, you got some splaining to do. Hell, I could even blame AIDS. Stupid fucking disease that ruined my career. But I tend to blame Karl Malden because everything was fine till HE butted in his potato proboscis. Even though Harry Dean Stanton's reply proved he was right in starting the vetting process, that's no excuse for cancelling the whole show. You just drop the offending photo.
 
Somewhere in the Academy archives there are 66 signed releases from major celebrities giving the Academy, and ONLY the Academy, permission to display my pictures in public. Yeah, that's right. I can't even use them to get a publishing deal. Nobody else will ever be able to compile such a list. You got Baryshnikov's address?
 
 
It's not often you can point your finger at an individual who deliberately called your career as a celebrity dickwad to a grinding halt. Maybe that's a stupid thing to aspire to, but I can't help imagining the photos I'd be cranking out now if things had gone another way. Maybe I wouldn't have gained all this weight. It's Karl Malden's fault!
 
Sorry Karl. Yeah, you were in On the Waterfront, and you and your method pals got me to New York for a whole series of adventures, but now when Marlon Brando says "You don't understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody instead of a bum, which is what I am," it's got a whole other meaning. It's me talking to you.
 
Sphere: Related Content

Preview of the new Michael Bay film

Sphere: Related Content

Scientists claim breakthrough in growing human sperm from stem cells

by Karen McVeigh

A microscope image of IVD spermScientists claim to have created human sperm for the first time, in a breakthrough they say could lead to new treatment for male infertility.

The sperm was grown in a laboratory in Newcastle from embryonic stem cells. Led by Professor Karim Nayernia, researchers developed a method of growing early-stage sperm from human embryonic stem cells by using retinoic acid, a vitamin A derivative.

They found that about 20% of the cells produced early-stage sperm cells or spermatagonia and, after further culture, they could see a number of cells continue to split and divide.

The breakthrough came when some cells continued to grow, elongating and growing a tail which caused them to move, and forming recognisable sperm cells.

Nayernia, of Newcastle University and the North East England Stem Cell Institute (Nesci), described the cells as "fully mature, functional" sperm, which he called In Vitro Derived (IVD) sperm.

He said: "This is an important development as it will allow researchers to study in detail how sperm forms and lead to a better understanding of infertility in men – why it happens and what is causing it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/08/sperm-grown-stem-cell-fertility

Sphere: Related Content

New climate strategy: track the world's wealthiest

* World's richest emit about half of Earth's carbon
 
* Tracking the wealthy could break climate impasse
 
* New method would follow individual greenhouse emissions

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries -- including fast-growing economies China and India -- are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.

Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person's emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion "high emitters" in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.
 
Sphere: Related Content

Sarah for President

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Draw the Curtain Close

Sphere: Related Content

Wall Street’s Toxic Message

Illustration by Edward Sorel
Illustration by Edward Sorel.
 
When the current crisis is over, the reputation of American-style capitalism will have taken a beating—not least because of the gap between what Washington practices and what it preaches. Disillusioned developing nations may well turn their backs on the free market, warns Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, posing new threats to global stability and U.S. security.

By Joseph E. Stiglitz


Joseph E. StiglitzEvery crisis comes to an end—and, bleak as things seem now, the current economic crisis too shall pass. But no crisis, especially one of this severity, recedes without leaving a legacy. And among this one's legacies will be a worldwide battle over ideas—over what kind of economic system is likely to deliver the greatest benefit to the most people. Nowhere is that battle raging more hotly than in the Third World, among the 80 percent of the world's population that lives in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, 1.4 billion of whom subsist on less than $1.25 a day. In America, calling someone a socialist may be nothing more than a cheap shot. In much of the world, however, the battle between capitalism and socialism—or at least something that many Americans would label as socialism—still rages. While there may be no winners in the current economic crisis, there are losers, and among the big losers is support for American-style capitalism. This has consequences we'll be living with for a long time to come.

The fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, marked the end of Communism as a viable idea. Yes, the problems with Communism had been manifest for decades. But after 1989 it was hard for anyone to say a word in its defense. For a while, it seemed that the defeat of Communism meant the sure victory of capitalism, particularly in its American form. Francis Fukuyama went as far as to proclaim "the end of history," defining democratic market capitalism as the final stage of social development, and declaring that all humanity was now heading in this direction. In truth, historians will mark the 20 years since 1989 as the short period of American triumphalism. With the collapse of great banks and financial houses, and the ensuing economic turmoil and chaotic attempts at rescue, that period is over. So, too, is the debate over "market fundamentalism," the notion that unfettered markets, all by themselves, can ensure economic prosperity and growth. Today only the deluded would argue that markets are self-correcting or that we can rely on the self-interested behavior of market participants to guarantee that everything works honestly and properly.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/third-world-debt200907?currentPage=1

Sphere: Related Content

The Crooks Get Cash While the Poor Get Screwed

By Chris Hedges

AP photo / Amy Sancetta

Children leave a Chicago homeless shelter on their way to school. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, more than half of children in low-income families have at least one parent who works full-time.

Tearyan Brown became a father when he was 16. He did what a lot of inner-city kids desperate to make money do. He sold drugs. He was arrested and sent to jail three years later for dealing marijuana and PCP on the streets of Trenton, N.J., mostly to white kids driving in from the suburbs. It was a job which saw him robbed at gunpoint and stabbed in the chest. But it made him about $1,400 a week.

Brown, when he got out after three and a half years, was done with street life. He got a job as a security guard and then as a fork lift operator. He eventually made about $30,000 a year. He shepherded his son through high school, then college and a master's degree. His boy, now 24, is a high school teacher in Texas. Brown would not leave the streets of Trenton but his son would. It made him proud. It gave him hope.

And then one morning in 2005 when he was visiting his mother's house the cops showed up. He saw the cruiser and the officers standing on his mother's porch. He hurried down the block toward the home to see what was wrong. What was wrong was him. On the basis of a police photograph, he had been identified by an 82-year-old woman as the man who had robbed her of $9 at gunpoint a few hours earlier. The only other witness to the crime insisted the elderly victim was confused. The witness told the police Brown was innocent. Brown's friends said Brown was with them when the robbery took place.

"Why would I rob a woman for $9," he asks me. "I had been paid the day before. I had not committed a crime in 20 years. It didn't make any sense."

He was again sent to jail. But this time he was charged with armed robbery. If convicted, he would be locked away for many years. His grown son and his three young boys would live, as he had, without the presence of a father. The little ones—11-year-old twins and a 10-year-old—would be adults when he got out. When he met with his state-appointed attorney, the lawyer, like most state-appointed attorneys, pushed for accepting a plea bargain, one that would see him behind bars for at least the next decade. Brown pulled the pictures of his children out of his wallet, laid the pictures carefully on the table in front of the lawyer, looked at the faces of his children and broke down in tears. He shook and sobbed. It was a hard thing to do for a man who stands nearly 6 feet tall and weights 210 pounds and has coped with a lot in his life.

"I didn't do nothing," he choked out to the lawyer.

He refused the plea bargain offer. He sat in jail for the next two years before getting a trial. It was a time of deep despair. Jail had changed since he had last been incarcerated. The facilities were overcrowded, with inmates sleeping in corridors and on the floor. The gangs taunted those who, like Brown, were not affiliated with a gang. Gang members knocked trays of food to the floor. They pissed on mattresses. They stole canteen items and commissary orders. And there was nothing the victims could do about it. 

"See this," he says to me in a dimly lit coffee shop in downtown Trenton as he rolls up the right sleeve of his T-shirt. "It's the grim reaper. I got it in jail. I was so scared. I was scared I wouldn't get out this time. I was scared I would not see my kids grow up. They make their own tattoo guns in jail with a toothbrush, a staple and the motor of a Walkman. It cost me $15, well, not really dollars. I had to give him about 10 soups and a package of cigarettes. On the street this would be three or four hundred dollars."

Under the tattoo of the scythe-wielding, hooded figure are the words "Death Awaits."

He had a trial after two years in jail and was found not guilty. The sheriff's deputies in the courtroom said as he was walking out that they "had never seen anything like this." He reaches into his baggy jeans and pulls out his thin brown wallet. He opens it to show me a folded piece of paper. The paper says, "Verdict: Defendant found not guilty on all charges." It is dated Jan. 31, 2008.

But innocence and guilt are funny things in America. If you are rich and guilty, if you have defrauded banks and customers and investment firms of billions of dollars, as AIG or Citibank has, if you wear fancy suits and have degrees from elite universities that cost more per year than Brown used to make, you get taxpayer money. You get lots of it. You maintain the lavish lifestyle of jets and spas and million-dollar bonuses. You live a life of unchecked greed and have too much in a world where most have too little. If you are moral scum in America we take care of you. But if you are poor, if you are, say, Tearyan Brown and African-American and 39 years old with four kids and no job and you live in the inner city, you are in trouble. No one comes to help you. You don't get a second chance. This is what being poor means.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090706_the_crooks_get_cash_while_the_poor_get_screwed/

Sphere: Related Content

Financial lobby gears up effort against Obama plan

 
By Silla Brush

A coalition of financial services interests is in the process of organizing a major lobbying campaign against the Obama administration's plan for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The plans are not yet final, but among the groups and firms in the discussion are the American Financial Services Association, Financial Services Roundtable, Mortgage Bankers Association and Community Bankers Association, according to two industry sources familiar with the plans.

The budget could be as high as several millions of dollars to organize grassroots opposition to the plan, launch an advertising campaign and contact congressional offices, according to one source.

The groups are hoping to get the effort up and running quickly because the administration and congressional leaders have set a tight timetable for passing legislation. They were listening to proposals on Wednesday from several advertising and grassroots advocacy firms.
 
Sphere: Related Content

Bill Threatens Congress’ Shield From Insider Trading Laws

Current Law Allows Congress to Profit From Valuable, Non-Public Information Floating on Hill

By Mike Lillis

Reps. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) (house.gov)
Reps. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) sponsored a bill to prevent members of Congress from trading on information gleaned from working on the Hill. (house.gov)

Illustration by: Matt MahurinIn November of 2005, then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) took to the upper-chamber floor with a major announcement. The Senate, he revealed, would soon put its full weight behind legislation creating a multi-billion dollar fund to settle lawsuits from victims of asbestos exposure — lawsuits that had already bankrupted several building supply companies.

"I am pleased to inform my colleagues that asbestos reform will be the first major legislation that we consider in late January when we return," Frist said at the time.

For most of the country, Frist's speech was the first notice of that strategy. But for some Wall Street investors, his plan was old news that translated into big money. Indeed, shares of the world's largest sheet-rock company, Chicago-based USG Corp., jumped more than $2 — and trading volume nearly tripled — the day before Frist delivered his announcement.

Somehow, someway, the message that Congress was moving to help companies like USG had dribbled onto Wall Street before the rest of the world knew a thing about it. And trading on such leaks, it turns out, is perfectly legal.

Now, a small group of Democrats, backed by a host of public-interest groups, wants to prevent the use of similar non-public information to guide investment decisions. Under the bill, sponsored by Reps. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), lawmakers and their staffs would be prohibited from trading in stocks, bonds and commodities markets based on insider knowledge gleaned from their everyday duties on Capitol Hill. The proposal would also prohibit the transfer of such information to other parties — a spouse; a brother-in-law; a political intelligence firm — who then use the information for trading purposes.

In a telephone interview last month, Baird said there's no clean evidence that such insider trading is endemic in Washington. "But in a town that trades on information," he added, the likelihood that it's happening is "almost a certainty."

http://washingtonindependent.com/49636/bill-threatens-congress-shield-from-insider-trading-laws

Sphere: Related Content

Hitler Finds Out Sarah Palin Resigns

Sphere: Related Content

SORRY, MR. BUSH

by Ted Rall


I miss Bush.

Stop the presses and shut off the RSS feeds: the bashiest of the Bush-bashers is starting to appreciate the Exile of Crawford.

I haven't forgiven George W. Bush for stealing two elections, starting two wars, bankrupting the treasury and doing his damnedest to turn the U.S. into a fascist state. He deserves one of hell's hottest picnic spots for refusing to lift a finger to bring the 9/11 murderers to justice. Bush was stupid. He was vicious. He should be in prison.

He was the worst president the U.S. had ever had. Until this one.

On major issues and a lot of minor ones, Obama is the same as or worse than Bush. But Bush had an opposition to contend with. Obama has a compliant Democratic Congress. Lulled to somnolent apathy by Obama's charming manners, mastery of English (and yes, the color of his skin), leftist activists and journalists have been reduced to quiet disappointment, mild grumbling and unaccountable patience.

I don't care about window dressing. Sure, it's nice that Obama is intelligent. But policies matter--not charm. And Obama's policies are at least as bad as Bush's.

Guantánamo was but the beginning of Obama's betrayals. First he ordered the camp closed--not immediately but in a year. Now he's expanding the U.S. concentration camp at Bagram--where 600 innocent men and children are being tortured--so he can send the 245 Gitmo prisoners there. In the Bush era, Gitmo POWs received legal representation. Obama has ordered that the POWs sent to Bagram not be allowed to see a lawyer.

You saw the headline: "OBAMA BANS TORTURE." But it was a lie. Obama's CIA director told Congress that there's a "review process that's built into [Obama's] executive order" that allows torture to continue. Leon Panetta said the Obama Administration will keep using at least 19 torture techniques against detainees. In addition, Team Obama will "look at those kinds of enhanced techniques to determine how effective they were or weren't and whether any appropriate revisions need to be made as a result of that."

As editorial boards of liberal newspapers tut-tut and the feds convene committees, the screams of the victims pierce the night.

Bush was the biggest spender in history, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit with wasteful wars and tax cuts. But next to Obama, Bush was a tightwad. Glamour Prez hasn't been around six months, yet the Congressional Budget Office reports that he already has quadrupled the deficit by an extra $8.1 trillion. "The total debt held by the public [will] rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent (!) of GDP in 2019," reports U.S. News & World Report.

Obama is sinking us into financial oblivion 72 times faster than Bush.

Where'd the money go? Mostly to insurance companies. Banks. Brokerage firms. Who used it to redecorate their offices and give themselves raises.

Against logic and history Obama claimed his bailout package would create jobs. Instead, unemployment has risen by 1.3 million. Has Obama's plan saved a single homeowner from foreclosure? Reporters can't find any.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

Sphere: Related Content

The amount of United States arms sales in 2009 exceeded $40 billion

Volume of U.S. arms sales to other states is increasing rapidly and is likely in the current year will exceed the amount of $40 billion, reports Reuters , referring to Pentagon officials.

Vice Admiral Jeffrey Wieringa (Jeffrey Wieringa), who heads the Agency for Security Cooperation and Defense Pentagon (Defense Security Cooperation Agency) said at the Paris Aviation Show in Le Bourget, that it is not yet clear whether the permanent increase quantity sold to U.S. weapons. Wieringa said that this was possible because of the desire of many countries to upgrade their weapons because of the obsolescence of existing.

Sales weapons is at "unprecedented levels" since the beginning of 2000, he consistently grew at $8 billion – $13 billion per year., said Vice-Admiral. In I half of this year sales of arms from the United States totaled $27 billion. It is about 60% of the expected annual turnover of U.S. $40 billion, "he said.

http://bnott.com/15562.html

Sphere: Related Content

Will My Video Get 1 Million Views on YouTube? A Slate investigation reveals: not a chance.

Illustration by Charlie Powell. Click image to expand."Charlie Bit Me," the fourth most-viewed YouTube clip of all time, is a viral video in the truest sense of the word. In May 2007, the father of two British tykes uploaded a home video he wanted to share with the kids' godfather in Colorado and a few American colleagues. After three months, only a few dozen people had seen the video, and he considered taking it off the site. Then, something strange happened: On Aug. 24, 2007, the video was viewed 25 times in California. Three days later, that number was up to 79, with a dozen more coming in from Washington, Texas, and Wisconsin. The number of daily views doubled roughly every week as "Charlie Bit Me" spread around the country and through Europe. On Nov. 5, a couple of guys in Canada filmed a frame-by-frame remake. Two weeks later, CollegeHumor.com linked to the video, and by January it was on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. A year and a half later, it's been watched 104 million times.

This is the great promise of YouTube: Your video can soar in popularity through sheer word-of mouth—or rather, click-of-mouth—until eventually people are making T-shirts about it. No one ever said this was going to happen for everyone. So, what are your chances of achieving YouTube stardom? I crunched the numbers to find out what percentage of YouTube videos hit it big, cracking even 10,000 or 100,000 views. The results: You might have better odds playing the lottery than of becoming a viral video sensation.

On Friday, May 22, I used Web-crawling software to capture the URLs of more than 10,000 YouTube videos as soon as they were uploaded. Over the next month, I checked in regularly to see how many views each video had gotten. After 31 days, only 250 of my YouTube hatchlings had more than 1,000 views—that comes out to 3.1 percent after you exclude the videos that were taken down before the month was up. A mere 25, 0.3 percent, had more than 10,000 views. Meanwhile, 65 percent of videos failed to break 50 views; 2.8 percent had zero views. That's the good news: Your video is slightly more likely to get more than 1,000 views than it is to get none at all.

http://www.slate.com/id/2221553/

Sphere: Related Content

Playing Whack-A-Mole With Data: The Pirate Bay Lives On

by J.J. King

Responses have been overwhelmingly negative to the news that The Pirate Bay will soon be sold to Global Gaming Factory. But what if there is a method to the apparent Pirate Bay madness — one that, as Peter Sunde has hinted, could actually be good for the P2P community?

kopimiLike everyone else I've been reading, talking to friends and thinking about this for the last couple of days. What I'm about to say is the result of that — my own opinion and nothing more.

Let's start with a great fact: that, as Rasmus Fleischer of Piratbyran points out, the entire Pirate Bay could fit on a single USB stick. This got me thinking: what if someone was to simply scrape and copy all The Pirate Bay's torrents over to a new tracker and Mininova and all the other indexes currently using the TPB tracker were to change their listings to point to that? OpenBitTorrent.com for example, an independent open tracker which started recently.

What if someone else — it could be anyone; it could be you! — decided to make a new index of these torrents. Call it 'The Pirate Ship', 'Brand New Pirate', whatever. I'm sure someone has already got a domain ready and waiting for this.

This new index would be functionally equivalent to The Pirate Bay. By the magic of copy-and-paste, TPB would have transplanted itself somewhere new. The corporate 'buyers' are free to run the old site into the ground with whatever specious business models they care to waste their shareholders' money on, while The Pirate Bay's new foundation uses it to fund interesting, new projects.

Think about it for a moment. What would be the downside of the sale here?

Privacy, possibly — a serious concern. Had The Pirate Bay been keeping logs of seeders and leechers, the acquiring company could — after flailing about for a few months trying to sell bits and bandwidth — auction this to the highest bidder. But TPB have been scrupulously failing to keep such logs. So provided people switch at the right time — as I'm sure they'll have the intelligence to — there will simply be nothing to sell.

Let's not be glib about it: after the shenanigans with insider trading, who knows if the deal goes through. But if it does, those behind TPB may have managed to square the circle, sliding out from behind the old, compromised identity while handing-off everything of value (tracker, torrents, users) to the community.

The very fact that this is possible should give those backing business models based on copy-restriction something serious to think about. Not only is this not a blow for P2P, it's a signal of something very worrying for the MPAA and Co. Spend years going after the world's most prominent pirate site, only to find that when you get it, it dematerializes and by the magic of copy-and-paste, reappears elsewhere in a different guise. It's like Whack-A-Mole with infinite holes, infinite moles, and just one hammer. Your odds: not good.

The feelings of betrayal and being 'sold out' by the TPB founders are natural. We believe(d) in The Pirate Bay; The Pirate Bay was 'forever'. But in one way, an important way, this belief was right: what made The Pirate Bay possible is forever.Even if I'm wrong, and a service like OpenBittorrent doesn't immediately get populated with all the torrents from the old database, the 'community' should learn some lessons from this:

(1) Big != Good

Let's face it: The Pirate Bay itself had become a huge focus of attention for those trying to preserve the old copy-restriction model of the culture industries. By some accounts TPB's tracker has been responsible for 50% of all Internet traffic, and its founders have been looming larger and larger, waving their pirate flags more and more visibly, for quite a few years. They are international celebrities and, love them as we might, that made them and TPB targets. It's not a secret that quite a few peers on the TPB trackers today are 'spies', there to gather data on legitimate peers — a real danger to Bittorrent users. And as well being feted, Brokep, Anakata and Tiamo have been followed, spied on, raided, arrested, maligned, sentenced and, now live under a real threat of imprisonment.

The bigger we get, the more of a target we are. Mininova, isoHunt and TPB have all been under siege these last years. We need to stop thinking about 'one stop shops' for our media. Distribution and aggregation point the way: think 'separation of powers'. Clients like Miro can aggregate feeds from a variety of sources according to the needs of the user. TPB may have represented the needs of the community for half a decade or more, but we don't need them. We are our own media infrastructure!

(2) We are all The Pirate Bay now…

… and this is why we have to amend our idea about what being a 'pirate' is. In the P2P world, as in that of Web 2.0, it's us and our sharing that makes the value. Hopefully some of the indignation leveled at The Pirate Bay in the last few days will cause us to think not only about the weirdness of entrusting all this value to TPB, but about all those corporate behemoths — Facebook, say, or Twitter or YouTube — who play fast and loose with the value that we create for them every day. Make no mistake, we'll wait a thousand years for the Mark Zuckerbergs of this world to start a foundation with the billions they have made from us and our interactions.

We're all The Pirate Bay now because we all make media; we all copy media, we all redistribute media and because the 'war against piracy' has criminalized us. Young or old, middle or working class, any of us could expect that letter from the RIAA or MPAA at any moment. Our online activities are routinely surveilled in the attempt to preserve a paradigm that is manifestly outdated. That fits well with the totalitarian mentality of many of our governments and it isn't to be accepted casually.

http://torrentfreak.com/playing-whack-a-mole-with-data-the-pirate-bay-lives-on-090703/

Sphere: Related Content

Street Fighting Men

by

Book Cover I actually lived through and participated in the era unimaginatively referred to as the Sixties—there was war and drugs and madness and dancing in the streets, assassinations and a presidential resignation and Woodstock and Watts, the Black Panthers, the White Panthers, the Grey Panthers, and, well, you know, a lot of action. And there were some heroes and villains. Recently, a few books have been published that add some small pieces to the incomplete historical jigsaw puzzle. In 1968, Mark Rudd, author of Underground: My Life With S.D.S. and the Weathermen (William Morrow, excerpt) was a Columbia undergraduate and a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society. Rudd soon transmogrified into a more militant radical—one who founded the S.D.S. splinter group Weather Underground, which was responsible for the post-1968 "Days of Rage" and a string of bombings.


The Baader-Meinhof gang (Red Army Faction) were '60s era radical Germans-turned-lethal terrorists who continued operating into the '70s and '80s, keeping various European intelligence agencies fully occupied. The monograph Baader-Meinhof: The Inside Story of the R.A.F. by Stefan Aust and Anthea Bell (Oxford University Press) fills in the huge blank spaces behind the newspaper accounts.


Chesa Boudin's parents were radicals who were imprisoned in the early 1980s and entrusted his upbringing to Weatherman William Ayers (you know who he is) and Bernardine Dohrn. As a response to his parents' (real and surrogate) beliefs on issues of economic and labor justice, Boudin crisscrossed Latin America. In Gringo: A Coming of Age in Latin America (Scribner, excerpt), Boudin travels through 25 countries and melds his personal hegira with perceptive observations of the ongoing ecological devastation, intermittent economic crises, and the development and struggles of various indigenous movements.
 
Sphere: Related Content

Senator Franken

Sphere: Related Content

Bush Library Foundation President: Saddam’s Gun A Symbol That Bush ‘Disarmed Him Literally’

george-bush-cowboyThe New York Times reports today that when President Bush opens his library at Southern Methodist University in 2013, "visitors will most likely get to see one of his most treasured items: Saddam Hussein's pistol."

The Times notes that when visitors came to the White House, Bush often liked to show off the gun, which was found on Saddam when he was captured by U.S. special forces in December 2003. Referring to the gun's historical value, Bush Library Foundation President Mark Langdale presented an interesting twist on its symbolism:

Mark Langdale, the president of the George W. Bush Foundation, said the library would use items to highlight 25 of Mr. Bush's presidential decisions. "The gun is an interesting artifact, and it tells you that the United States captured Saddam Hussein and disarmed him literally," Mr. Langdale said. "How we fit that into the decision to go to war, we haven't gotten to that point yet."

"Disarmed him literally"? Saddam was already disarmed before the U.S.-led invasion. Maybe if the U.N. team that disarmed Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War had possession of the gun, then Langdale's metaphor would make sense. Moreover, when Bush said he wanted to "disarm" Saddam, he was referring to the Iraqi dictator's non-existent WMD — not his personal handgun.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/06/saddam-gun-disarmed/

Sphere: Related Content

'Aye' for getting more Americans registered to vote

 
by Keith Myers
A large crowd of Republicans caucusing at the Matt Ross Community Center, 8101 Marty in Overland Park, streamed through the registration area as they prepared to cast their vote on Saturday morning, Feb. 9, 2008.  KEITH MYERS/The Kansas City Starcutline: A large crowd of Republican voters streamed Saturday morning through registration in preparation for caucusing at the Matt Ross Community Center in Overland Park.Here's how voter registration should work: You move, your registration moves with you. You turn 18, you're added to the voters' logs. You pay taxes, get a license, sign up for state or federal benefits, and registration is automatic.

But here's a dose of sad reality on the heels of another Independence Day: America, the world's shining beacon of democracy, does about as bad a job registering voters as any democracy on Earth.

A study released this week by the New York University's Brennan Center for Justice studied voter registration, rating 17 democracies. The nations surveyed had available information and "face the same fundamental challenges in maintaining accurate voter rolls."

America was dead last.

The United States registers 68 percent of the voting age population. All but three nations studied register 91 percent or better, including France and Burundi. That's right — despite being a new democracy, surviving a period of genocide, facing massive AIDS death tolls — this central African country was able to register 23 percent more of its voting population.

http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/1307316.html

 

Sphere: Related Content

Medals

Sphere: Related Content

Blog Archive

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search This Blog

Subscribe Now: standard

Add to Technorati Favorites