All Global News on One Page

The series Carlos premiered on Sundance channel during the second week of October 2010.
Writing a critique about this Canal Plus drama is agonizing. The cast is perfect. The historicity of events is closest to the known record. Drama buildup is impeccable, despite the length of this three part series.
The only problem is that this great production leaves viewers in love with Carlos, a shallow demagogue, a Marxist-turned-Islamist and a gun for hire who worked for the world’s most notorious secret police forces of Iraq, Syria, and Libya, among other oppressive regimes.
From his prison in France, Carlos today praises 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, a stance that is absent in this movie, which shows the man more of a sexy Don Juan than a human beast who justifies wholesale killings of civilians as being part of an ongoing world revolution against capitalism and imperialism.
It should be noted, however, that Carlos’s brutal behavior surfaces from time to time. In Part III, he cold-bloodedly ordered the killing of a Lebanese journalist who had previously interviewed him.
The handsome Edgar Ramirez skillfully plays Carlos, the nom de guerre of Illitch Ramirez Sanchez. Born to a Marxist Venezuelan father, Carlos was studying in Moscow when he was deported and found himself training with Palestinian guerilla groups in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley. Carlos was recruited by Palestinian Wadih Haddad (played by Lebanese composer and singer Ahmad Kaabour), member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the mastermind of its militant network responsible for dozens of bombings and plane hijackings throughout the 1970s.
Carlos became Haddad’s man in Paris, where the Venezuelan militant organized several attacks that culminated in his killing of two French police officers. Carlos was forced to flee and rejoin his master in Aden, then the capital of the Communist Southern Yemen. While there, Haddad tasked Carlos with kidnapping OPEC oil ministers at their meeting in Vienna in 1975. The operation did not go according to plan, and Haddad and Carlos departed ways thereafter, with each of them maintaining his own militant network.
Haddad died in 1978 and his network eventually disbanded. Secret services from the Soviet bloc and a few Arab countries found in Carlos a useful tool to settle scores with their opponents, and sometimes with each other, as in the case of Iraqi and Syrian rivals.
With the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1990, however, the world changed, the Soviet bloc was disbanded and Carlos lost his friends. He went into hiding in Khartoum, Sudan. But his hosts eventually caved to French pressure and handed him over in 1994. He was tranquilized and flown to Paris, where he was tried and sentenced to life in prison.
Carlos the movie is also a good history account of events in, or related to, the Middle East. The producers understandably air a disclaimer that, despite their research, they were forced to fictionalize part of their movie.
Still, the movie highlights several aspects of the currents that underlie the so-called liberation movements in Arab countries. More often than not, violence employed by the dictator regimes of Iraq, Syria and other tyrants aims at improving their bargaining positions with Western nations, or at settling scores with each other.
Perhaps one of the most telling similarities between then and now is the Syrian unwavering campaign to sabotage a French documentary that showed Damascus’s involvement in the killing of French Ambassador to Lebanon, Louis De Lamar, in 1981.
Like in 1981, when Syria employed whatever violence at its disposal to prevent any leveling of accusations against its involvement, Syria in 2010 still uses all kinds of possible terror to derail a UN-created tribunal to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria is widely believed to be involved in the crime, along with Lebanese partners such as Hezbollah.
Also telling is the way the Middle East changed at the time, which still apply today. Syria housed Carlos for several years. But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 while the US stood on the verge of recreating a new Middle East, Syria changed course and kicked Carlos out. This should stand as a reminder to all those who believe today that Syrian troubling behavior can be changed that, absent any cataclysmic changes in the region, such as an eclipse of the rising power of Iran — Syria’s staunch sponsor and ally — Damascus will never change course.
In terms of production and for those who like to dig into details, there are certainly find glitches. War-time Beirut had a different infrastructure than the one depicted in the movie, thus different sidewalks and airport landscape. And while the movie makes sure to reprint the famous red Middle East Airline ticket, for instance, actors carry the new series Lebanese passports in scenes depicting the 1970s. Also, the Sudanese police do not drive Harley Davidson motorbikes or US-made Jeeps. Lebanese security personnel do.
Such details should not derail viewers. After all, even the best-funded of Hollywood movies depicting the Middle East (such as Robert Redford and Brad Pitt’s Spy Games, George Clooney’s Syriana, or Steven Spielberg’s Munich) commit errors. Compare Syriana, with its $50 million budget and barely comprehensible spoken Arabic, to Carlos, its $20 million budget and nearly impeccable use of several languages and attention to detail.
Crossposted on News from Washington.

Follow Hussain Abdul-Hussain on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/hahussain

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Congressional passage earlier this year of the comprehensive health reform law not only creates the opportunity to insure an estimated 32 million Americans who are now without coverage, but lays the foundation for providing higher-quality, more affordable and accessible care for everyone.
The law, however, is just a start. Now the hard work of fulfilling the promise must take place, and that will require a significant transformation in the way healthcare is delivered in this country.
For this transformation to be successful, nurses must play a major and expanded role that matches their education and capacity to practice. Nurses are positioned to provide healthcare services to the newly insured and to coordinate increasingly complex care for a wide range of patients.
Unfortunately, there are many major obstacles blocking the nursing profession’s ability to provide and improve both primary and advanced care. These include restrictions on scope of practice, reimbursement-related limitations, existing governmental policies, professional tensions over turf and some current limitations within the nursing profession itself.
Change is not easy. It can be disruptive and threatening, and enhancing and expanding the roles and responsibilities of nurses could meet with uninformed resistance. But changing the way healthcare is delivered in this country by ensuring that nurses play a more prominent and crucial role is not an option, it is a necessity.
Nurses represent the largest sector in the health profession, with more than three million registered nurses in our country today. Nurses are in regular and close proximity to patients, are well prepared to provide the full continuum of care and can and do partner with other health professionals in hospitals, schools, health clinics, long-term care facilities, and community and public health centers.
A report issued this month — “The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health” — by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — persuasively makes the case that a new model of healthcare delivery must accompany healthcare reform, and that model will depend on nurses to deliver quality care to a growing number of Americans.
The report lays out a blueprint for the new role for the future for the nursing profession, outlines the barriers to change and has a series of recommendations for action at all levels to match the needs for healthcare within the agenda of healthcare reform.
This report should be mandatory reading for policymakers and the healthcare community, and its recommendations need to be taken seriously and adopted.
As the study notes, the nursing profession must make strides in making the educational system seamless to ensure the best evidence-based education for nurses. It calls for 80 percent of all nurses to have baccalaureate degrees by 2020 and proposes doubling the number of nurses with a doctorate by 2020 to add to the cadre of nurse faculty and researchers.
It also recommends that the healthcare system provides residencies and that nursing associations and nursing schools and government healthcare decision makers should also provide nurses greater opportunities to gain leadership skills.
But the report rightly points out that the nursing profession cannot institute many other necessary changes by itself, meaning that federal agencies, the states, businesses, healthcare institutions, professional organizations, the insurance industry and other health professionals should consider revising their reimbursement policies.
Among other recommendations, the report calls for the elimination of regulations and institutional limits on what nurses are allowed to do, within the “scope-of-practice” rules that limit the care they are well qualified to give. This includes allowing nurses to perform hospital admission assessments, certify patients for home healthcare, hospice and skilled nursing care, and provide additional primary-care services.
Among the rich evidence upon which the recommendations are built, some come directly from work done by professors and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, including the benefits of nurse-led teams to manage the discharge of chronically ill adults to avoid revolving-door re-admissions; the role of nurse practitioners in community-based coordinated care; the appropriate government payment polices for nurses; and the realigning of Medicare funds to support nurse residences.
The report and the future role of the nursing profession will be discussed during a symposium at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing on Oct. 14, and hopefully it will become a topic for serious discussion around the country in the weeks and months ahead.
The role and importance of nurses in healthcare certainly will grow in the coming decades, but there are significant challenges to making it happen and doing it right. Yet, along with the challenges and obstacles come a tremendous opportunity and a chance to turn many of these important recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation into reality.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The successful rescue of 33 trapped miners in Chile is but another manifestation of the might of human determination. People can do anything if they have the will power and support of their loved ones — and their government — as was evident in this evacuation. Add sheer determination to the old adage of “love conquers all” and you will have the perfect description for the mine rescue.
So does that mean that countries with poor mine safety standards have no love for their citizens? It’s hard to reach a conclusion but one can infer that in some cases without much difficulty, especially if one is discussing China.
CNN reports that 2,631 Chinese coal miners lost their lives in 2009, citing figures from the China Daily. The worst year was 2002, when 6,995 miners succumbed to poor safety standards. The United States, on the other hand, saw 34 deaths in mine collapse and other accidents in 2009.
The Strait Times of Singapore quoted a Chinese user on popular web portal sohu.com saying, “Lucky people who were born in Chile… If it was us, we would definitely have been buried alive and died.” One of the worst mining disasters in this decade came in September 2008 when a mudslide caused by the collapse of a mine waste reservoir in northern China killed 254 people.
Accidents are also common in other parts of the world, including India, but not at par with the Chinese disaster zone. They would have been significantly higher in Pakistan, too, had there been a large number of coal mines in this country. But we could still have used the lame excuse of being a dirt poor country with no resources to carry out the rescue.
How is it that China, the world’s second largest economy, is unable to rescue its miners and loses thousands of people each year in those accidents?
According to 2009 data of the UN Human Development Index, Chile has a value of 0.878 and GDP per captia of $13,880 with an adult literacy rate of 96.5%, and life expectancy of 78.5 years.
By comparison, China has an HDI Index of 0.772 and GDP per capita of $5,283 with an average literacy rate of 93.3%, and life expectancy of 72.9 years.
According to World Bank data, China had a GDP of $4.98 trillion in 2009, with Chile earning $163.7 billion in the same period. While the latter has been able to improve the lives of its citizens with the money earned, the former is not doing enough to provide its citizens with good quality of life.
This begs a question. If China can spend billions of dollars on defense — $78 billion according to latest reports — and space programs, then shouldn’t it allocate a few hundred million dollars for its beleaguered miners? Chile has truly set an example and the world will closely watching China, and other countries, when — God forbid — the next mining disaster happens.

Follow Saad Khan on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Real_opinion

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Dear Dr. Politics: I have a wonderful job in an important American institution, with lots of influence and a great big office. (I even get a gavel!) I’m surrounded every day by more than 200 — actually, more than 218, but who’s counting? — very supportive colleagues who help me accomplish great things for the American people.
Lately, though, I feel that my influential position might be slipping away from me. The polls get uglier every week, and my opponents keep looking at me like I’m a dead woman walking. There’s even been a man with orange skin stopping by to measure the drapes in my office. Is there anything I can do to stem the tide?
Nervous Nancy
Dear Nervous: How about those miners? Wasn’t that the most amazing thing you’ve ever seen?
Dear Dr. Politics: I’m angry. It’s OK to be angry. In New York, there’s a lot to be angry about, so why shouldn’t I be angry? I’m mad as hell, to tell you the truth. I say what’s on my mind. If I offended anybody, I apologize.
So here’s my question: Why am I losing by 20 points?
Cranky Carl
Dear Cranky: They got all 33 of them out alive! Absolutely unbelievable!!
Dear Dr. Politics: I never dreamed I’d be writing to you for advice, but here goes: I’ve got a dingbat on my trail, and I just can’t shake her!
It’s bad enough having a title like “Majority Leader” when being in the majority isn’t enough to actually do things. But now I’m not even sure I can hang onto my own seat. I’m running against someone who doesn’t know anything about anything, and I still can’t pull away from her! Doesn’t experience count for anything anymore?
Harried Harry
Dear Harried: The part where the capsule came down through the ceiling the first time? I just about wet my pants!
Dear Dr. Politics: I’m not a witch. I’m you. So why do people keep insisting I talk about evolution and stuff? Do you have to talk about evolution and stuff?
Daffy in Delaware
Dear Daffy: What about that guy with his wife and his mistress fighting over him, and which one would get to be there when he came out? Dude would’ve been better off staying underground!
Dear Dr. Politics: I’m going through a pretty frustrating time right now. I won my current job on a great national wave of hope and optimism. People expected great things from me, and so did I. But now it’s only two years later, and people seem to have lost faith in me, and in my ability to change things here in Washington. They used to talk about me being another Lincoln — now they’re talking about me being another Jimmy Carter.
I’m sure I bear some of the responsibility myself. I make some comments I shouldn’t make, and then there are other times when I don’t talk enough, where I stay quiet instead of telling people about all the progress we’re making to improve their lives.
The hardest part has been realizing that there are certain people out there who want me to fail, and will do everything in their power to make that happen. Was I nave? Have I tried to do too much? And isn’t there some way I can turn things around again before it’s too late?
Barack, Besieged
Dear Barack: I’m sorry — were you saying something? I had the TV on.
# # #
Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.

Follow Rick Horowitz on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Rick_Horowitz

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Monday, Oct. 11, was National Coming Out day. Congratulations to anyone and everyone who came out of the closet that day.
How about y-o-u? Have you “come out”? Or did you think “coming out” is only for gay people? You might not be in a closet concerning your sexual orientation or gender identity, but as a human being, you’re likely to be in some kind of closet.
Here’s a good way to know if you are: Ask yourself the question: What am I pretending not to know about myself? If you spend the time and look deeply, you’ll discover that there are thousands of answers to that question. This could be an inquiry worthy of a lifetime’s contemplation. Every time you discover an answer, a new closet door opens and another piece of freedom bubbles up.
Here are a few closets you might discover in your inquiry:
1) The closet of unworthiness — believing yourself not deserving of having loving relationships or being successful or abundant or having what you truly want. The result? Scarcity, lack and limitation, money issues, dysfunctional relationships, isolation, depression, are all evidence to prove yourself right. Are you ready to free yourself from that one?
2) The closet of self-judgment or self-condemnation — holding yourself hostage to a belief that you’re inferior, not capable, a failure or somehow broken — you cancel your own vote before even getting started. The result? Health issues like heart disease, insomnia, weight gain or other body related issues, eating disorders. Is this belief moving you in the direction you want to go? Have you suffered enough yet? Isn’t it time to let go and move on?
3) The closet of arrogance, superiority, self-righteousness — which is really masking deep feelings of inferiority and insecurity. None of this is who you are. Why keep pretending? What is it costing you to be so hidden from yourself?
4) The closet of fear and mistrust — Life is full of betrayals, and you’ve had your share of them. If you’re in this closet, you keep yourself closed off, protecting that which you think you are, which is really an ego identity. F.E.A.R. is “False Evidence Appearing Real.” You’ve fallen for the illusion. Isn’t it time to get clear about the truth?
5) The closet of shame and guilt — This is the mother of all closets. It’s the one that holds all the rest and keeps the doors closed. Chances are extremely high that sometime in your past, you’ve done something that violated your inner sense of right and wrong. You knew better at the time, but you crossed a line within yourself and perhaps now you carry shame about it. The result? If you’re holding on to either of these emotions, you’ve got yourself buried deep in the closet. Isn’t it time you forgave yourself and came out? Are you ready to be free yet?
What does it mean to “come out”? And what does one “come out” to?
In the context of the National Coming Out Day, the Human Rights Campaign describes coming out as “the process in which a person first acknowledges, accepts and appreciates his or her sexual orientation or gender identity and begins to share that with others.”
Let’s expand that definition for the rest of us. And our gay brothers and sisters are welcome and included in this expanded definition as well. Try this on for size and tell us what you think:
Coming out is an act of personal liberation in which a person affirms and lays claim to the absolute truth of who he or she is. It is an act of acceptance, forgiveness, and gratitude for the gift of one’s life and the courage to live it boldly, authentically, freely and passionately in alignment with one’s highest good.
In that we are all connected, when one of us has the courage to lay claim to the truth of who we are, when we claim our personal liberation from all that has bound us and kept us hidden in the closets of our own making, when we come out, we inspire and empower others to do the same.
Just as we have been glued to the TV, watching those 33 Chilean miners gain their freedom after 69 days of being trapped underground, all of us feel freed. (An interesting observation on the recuse operations: the miners arrive in a desert as they reach the top. Given our discussion of “Crossing the Spiritual Desert” in last week’s post, what do you make of that?)
Your liberation sets off ripples in the lives of those around you. Isn’t it time you came out? Here’s a little “booster” to help you take the first step. Complete this statement:
Today, I declare myself “out.” I choose to liberate myself from _____ [type of closet] and lay claim to my _____ [highest good].
Let us hear your proclamation of liberation and coming out. Please leave your comments and share your stories below, or pay a visit to my personal website and blog at Rx for the Soul.
May I be the first to greet you as you emerge from the closet and on to your rightful path.
Many blessings,
Judith
Click “Become a Fan” at the top of this page and be notified when new posts appear. I’m a fan of fanning!
A new eight-week session of Life Fitness Coaching Boot Camp begins on Oct. 26. This is a group tele-coaching experience at an affordable price. Registration information will be available on my website shortly. You may inquire by emailing me at judith@judithrich.com.

Follow Dr. Judith Rich on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/dr_judithrich

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Since we launched the Drop the I-Word campaign, thousands of people and numerous media outlets have pledged not to label immigrants criminals and to affirm their humanity and dignity. Of those thousands, some are immigrants, both undocumented and with papers, who are asking us to stand up for our values, not just bear witness to their demise. Others are allies who recognize that this is an historic moment to support a resilient community. Still others are motivated by the simple recognition that journalists and everyday people alike can no longer allow fear mongers to dictate the parameters of our conversation.
We have also encountered skepticism, notably from progressive reporters. While our colleagues agree that “illegals” is a slur, they’re okay with its longer version, “illegal immigrant.” Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, for instance, dismisses “word games” that “paper over” the issue. But Klein picks the wrong target. As long as we use the word “illegal” in connection with immigration or immigrants, it papers over the fact that our laws are unjustly applied. It creates the illusion of simplicity, when that could not be further from the case. The only thing that should be simple is that immigrants are real people, not problems.
There’s no conflict between honest reporting and dropping the i-word. I use undocumented and unauthorized regularly, as this is a matter of permission represented by a piece of paper. I never obfuscate how a source came to be in the United States, whether they overstayed a visa or crossed a border. Dana McCourt weighs in on the debate with a call for more precision, not less, by recognizing that the U.S. government treats immigrants differently based on their specific situations. McCourt avoids the term “largely because the bare ‘illegal’ is used as a slur and the longer ‘illegal immigrant’ doesn’t reliably pick out a specific class of people or what’s wrong with their legal status.” In other words, because it’s imprecise.
At The American Prospect, Adam Serwer calls the phrase a “facially neutral term that advocates don’t like.” But if we agree that reducing a person to a crime is racist and dehumanizing in one form, isn’t it so in all forms? We have to look at the framework from which the term emerges.
Serwer has reported a lot on the ways in which race gets manipulated in our nation’s politics, so I was surprised to see him exempt the language of immigration from its political context. That context, simply put, is this: authorized immigration is impossible for some people, yet those same people are regularly hired as cheap, exploited labor with a limited ability to protect their own rights. That cheap labor is comprised almost entirely by people of color, not because they just happen to be the ones overstaying visas and crossing borders, but because the system is fundamentally rigged against them. No one else who benefits from the set up, including the employers who recruit and hire these migrants, is slapped with a similar label. Reason.org illustrates this well with a chart of “Our Nation’s Broken Immigration and Naturalization System.”
The repetition of the i-word in conjunction with images of brown-skinned people, particularly Latinos, popularizes the notion that individuals are to blame for our systemic challenges. It reinforces racial fear and economic anxiety, creates a hateful environment, and increases the American public’s tolerance for daily violations of human rights. The i-word limits the conversations we are able to have about immigrants, their rights and their mobility in this globalized economy. In Operation Gatekeeper, geographer Joe Nevins points out that language matters in immigration and always has. “Wetback” was the preferred official term in the 1950’s. When it fell out of favor, “illegal” took its place. The word, whether as a noun or a modifier, was the rhetorical core of a discursive shift on immigration. News outlets increasingly reported that immigrants were flooding the border and overwhelming services, and began coupling immigration with criminality. All of this drove a policy shift, too. Over the last 30 years, legislatures have stripped most immigrants of access to vital social programs, built up the enforcement infrastructure to unprecedented proportions and ultimately brought us to a point where the country deports a record 393,000 people a year. In this politically charged environment, even green-card holders are swept up in the deportation dragnet. As Serwer himself notes in his analysis of Arizona’s SB 1070, there has been a severe impact on communities of color: “The reason you can pass a law that encourages racial profiling in spirit while prohibiting it in letter is that everyone has a concept in their head of what an ‘illegal immigrant’ looks and sounds like.”
So the problem is not that the discourse makes the work of pro-immigrant advocates harder, but that it renders untenable the lives of people who contribute to American culture and economy miserable, along with those of the people who love them and look like them. At the center of this debate are human beings. Not illegal beings, but human beings. Discourse reflects the way that people think about themselves and the country thinks about us. The word homosexual, for example, is clinically correct but experienced as dehumanizing by gay and lesbian people, and so they pushed for journalists to drop it. As the discourse changes, so does the culture and policy affecting gay people—not nearly fast enough, but significantly nonetheless. Some may say, “But being gay isn’t a choice.” Well, neither is escaping poverty, drought or war. That millions of people wind up in the country without permission comes about for many reasons, only a very few of which have to do with the choices individuals made.
In the end, every journalist and media outlet has to decide which language to use. I once interviewed a source related to the Federation of American Immigration Reform who insisted that I use “illegal immigrant” throughout my story, not just when quoting him. Well, I get to choose my own words, and for all the reasons above, I choose not to use FAIR’s language.
I’d encourage others also to consider their language, and its source. Where did it come from? What is the effect, intentional or not? How does a reductionist and biased lexicon thrive? There are alternatives that meet our needs, not just for varied vocabulary, but also for thoughtful, accurate journalism that recognizes the fundamental humanity of the people about whom we are reporting.

Follow Rinku Sen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ARC_RinkuSen

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Probably not the person the White House wanted to see in the news — Steven Rattner, the individual once in charge of Obama’s initiative to overhaul the auto industry, was reported to have agreed to a $5 million settlement and a partial ban on participating in the securities industry.
The story of Mr. Rattner is quite striking. Worth hundreds of millions of dollars, founder of the powerful Quandrangle Group and long-time industry insider, Mr. Rattner certainly had everything that one could have wished from a career in finance. Yet, these most recent charges are not the first time he has been caught pushing the boundaries of ethical behavior. After being promoted to the job of auto industry overseer, it was revealed that Rattner had been an investor in the hedge fund powerhouse Cerberus, which had significant stakes in Chrysler and GMAC.
At the same moment, the S.E.C. and New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo were investigating a case involving Rattner’s alleged “pay to play” deals with the state’s pension fund. Pension funds are massive organizations that require the services of highly skilled financial professionals in order to meet their annual goals. The boards that run the funds will often hire independent advisors to help management the fund’s assets. Yet, the fairness of the selection process can be undermined in two ways, both of which are often referred to as “pay to play”:
First, independent advisors looking to gain access to these funds may bribe the elected officials in order to skew the selection process. Second, these board members may require under-the-table contributions as a prerequisite for the advisors to work for the fund.
The recent rise in pay to play schemes has touched pension funds around the country, most famously CALPERS, the California behemoth that admitted to working closely with such insiders. They were forced to settle with prosecutors for a crippling $895 million in 2008 and recently announced that they were severing ties with a different private equity group, Pacific Corporate Group, after the group’s recent settlement with Cuomo.
Things have not been pretty for the $125 billion New York pension fund, either. Alan G. Hevesi, the former state comptroller, pleaded guilty just last week for steering money to an organization that had contributed to his campaign. David Loglisci, the former chief investment officer, pleaded guilty last March on claims that he often conceded control of the fund to Mr. Hevesi’s top political officers.
The problems for Mr. Rattner began in 2004 when, upon hearing that pay to play was common industry practice, he reached out to Mr. “Hank” Morris, Mr. Hevesi’s top political advisor, and soon Quadrangle became the happy recipient of a cool $100 million from the pension fund. Afterwards, it was revealed that Rattner had been involved in the distribution of a film made by the brother of the fund’s chief financial officer, a clear conflict of interest. When the movie allegations first arose, Rattner was accused and later acquitted following information supplied to prosecutors claiming that he was in no way involved in the movie’s distribution. Soon after, however, information surfaced that contradicted these claims, and Rattner was brought back into court.
Yet, the consequences of this behavior are very marginal in the scheme of things. A $5 million fee for a man worth hundreds of millions is certainly not the message that the S.E.C. should be sending to others who engage in this elicit behavior. While securities fraud in the past has often been a game played with rich people’s money, investment firms have been creating ever more elaborate schemes in the pursuit of squeezing profits out of the average individual (think the most recent mortgage crisis).
Playing with pension funds, however, is much more dangerous, and the recent rise in pay to play settlements should send a clear warning signal not only to the federal government, but to those putting their money in these organizations. The incentive for investment firms to enter the market is clear, as public pension plans alone hold approximately $2.9 trillion in assets. Yet, workers place their complete trust in these organizations to do what is right with their money. When pension funds are caught up in the scandals, it is not the embarrassment of the funds that should be making headline news, but rather the fact that they are playing with future security of millions of workers. Unlike the mortgage crisis, where many individuals bought outside their means and failed to read the fine print, pension funds become embroiled in conflict of interest scandals without ever consulting those from which they take money.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Is the possession of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan the second big “successful” deterrence story after the Cold War?
There are those who believe that nuclear proliferation on the part of India and Pakistan has deterred not only nuclear, but conventional war between the two hostile states. Sumit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur debate this in a new book, India, Pakistan, and the Bomb (Columbia University Press, 2010). Ganguly falls under the heading of “nuclear optimists,” who, the authors write, “tend to stress the ultimately stable outcomes of past crises between nuclear powers.” Meanwhile, “nuclear pessimists,” such as Kapur, “focus on the potentially catastrophic processes by which the crises erupted and escalated.” Of that flashpoint of a region, Kashmir, Ganguly writes:Others, however, believe that it was Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons that prompted it to pursue said “limited probe.” On top of that, both sides received information, however flawed, that the other was moving nuclear missiles to the border.
Further evidence of the tenuousness of nuclear peace between India and Pakistan is provided by Jason Fritz in his 2009 paper for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control.”Furthermore,The close proximity of [India and Pakistan] significantly reduces the transit time of an incoming missile, making the rush to react even greater. Further, India’s delivery systems can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads. Under heightened circumstances, a traditional missile launch could be mistaken for a nuclear strike.
Additionally, India has stated that it will retain the option of using nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, thus providing another way for terrorists to provoke a nuclear response.For the purposes of this argument, we’ve avoided the subject of Islamic extremists attempting to seize Pakistan’s nukes or, the actual subject of Fritz’s paper, terrorists hacking nuclear systems. Here’s more from Ganguly, the Little Miss Sunshine of Indian subcontinent nuclear programs.Multiple crises subsequently wreaked havoc in Indo-Pakistani relations since their mutual acquisition of nuclear weapons… But despite intense tensions, none of these crises have culminated in full-scale war. Decision makers in both countries have steadily and increasingly realized that the initiation of a major conventional conflict could… tempt one side to consider the use of nuclear weapons. Consequently, both sides have exhibited considerable restraint and have chosen to eschew horizontal escalation and not to violate certain tacit thresholds.In the case of Kargil, it might be said that an optimist’s positive outcome — the avoidance of nuclear war — was achieved via a pessimists’ “process” — nuclear brinkmanship. To believe, though, that nuclear brinkmanship will continue to produce positive outcomes is truly delusional.
First posted at Focal Points.

Follow Russ Wellen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/http://twitter.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

We asked dozens of Haitians from different social sectors how they felt about the November 28 elections, and what they want or expect from a new government. Here are some of their responses.
Louisiane Nazaire defines herself as a peasant. She is a member of a local peasant farmer group in the Grande-Anse, and is coordinator of the National Commission of Peasant Women.
Suze Jean is a primary school teacher, a university student of electronics, and a self-described revolutionary. An elected member of the management committee of her internally displaced people’s camp on the grounds of an evangelical church, after she and others put out a press release about camp conditions in September, Suze was evicted and her tent and belongings were destroyed by the pastor’s son. She now lives on the streets, and is eight months pregnant.
Wilner Jean-Charles was a marketing student until political upheaval in 2004 forced him to leave school. Wilner now serves as a guide and driver for tourist groups.
I’m not into politics. But I believe that if someone had a really good, long-term program for youth, we could have real development. If that candidate had an education program to get all the street children to school, and gave them the opportunity for a good university education, and developed good employment for those kids once they get out, they’d be building a different kind of citizenry. Just project 50 years out to what kind of people those kids would be.
What candidate do I support? I haven’t taken the time to read up to see if any of the candidates have a program for Haiti’s education program. But if I found one that did, and if that person had a minimum of credibility, I’d vote for him.”
Jocie Philistin is a human rights advocate. She coordinates a network of women’s organizations for the Bureau of International Lawyers in Port-au-Prince.
Once we have the candidate we need, someone who can hear and respond to the rights of the people, you’ll see the majority accompanying him or her to the elections. You saw that in 1990, when all the Haitian people decided they wanted a candidate [Jean-Bertrand Aristide]. They [67% of the electorate] voted him in. Naturally, the people would have to continue to make sure their demands are applied even if that candidate wins.
Meanwhile, what I see with the elections is that Parti Unit [President Prval's party] is just looking to validate a selection that’s already happened. They’ve already stolen the presidency and the parliament. Selection isn’t election.
I know the international community always plays a big role in elections. If they just back up a selection, the people will just stay as they are in their camps and in their insecurity. One word: block any selection.
Josette Prard is director of Fon Lanbi Haiti, the Haitian counterpart of the Lambi Fund. Trained as a social worker, Josette runs a program to train, build capacity of, and get grants to women’s and small farmer organizations in rural areas.
It wasn’t long ago that a small group of people used French as a way to isolate everyone. People couldn’t participate in anything because they didn’t speak French. They couldn’t even understand what was being said on the radio. Today, everyone says what they think, they want to participate, to enter into the debate. It’s a movement.
The people will have to be a part of any change of the state. Otherwise, it won’t work. But for that, [the president and government] will have to trust the people. I hear candidates open their mouths to speak of ‘the people.’ They talk about what they’ll do for the people, but never what they’ll do with them. Nice vision and nice speech from the president aren’t enough. The only way for us to have a change is if the people are part of the process.
Ludovic Cherustal is a young database technician working for a humanitarian aid NGO from Canada. He hopes for a more stable job so he can start a family.
People would be interested in the elections if they saw that the outcome would have an impact on their needs. But the candidates are all gwo manj, big eaters, from the same group of people who always exploit us. Most of them have been the system, benefiting from it, for a long time. They’re not going to do anything for us, the little poor people.
Alina “Tibebe” Cajuste was a slave as a child, and now is a children’s rights activist and poet. Her dreams in life are to become literate and to see an end to child slavery.
I lost my electoral card in the earthquake [when my house was destroyed] and it’s so hard to get a new one. I have to vote but I don’t know how I’m going to do that.
But a new president can come to power and Haiti will still be the same, especially if all he sees are his pockets and not the people. If a new president doesn’t give us primary schools, professional schools, and business in the countryside, it’ll be just like washing your hands and drying them in the dirt.
If we don’t have a change in consciousness, we can have all the elections we want and Haiti will remain as fragile as a crystal.
Beverly Bell has worked with Haitian social movements for over 30 years. She is also author of the book Walking on Fire: Haitian Women’s Stories of Survival and Resistance. She coordinates Other Worlds, www.otherworldsarepossible.org, which promotes social and economic alternatives. She is also associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

My first attempt to win him over was with a giant vat of homemade ravioli that I kindly offered to feed all his friends. I did it because I was trying to show off and because Sir Thomas Moore once said that “a man taking basil from a woman will love her always.” We sat in his back garden and listened to Miles Davis. I was charming, I was generous, I was starving when I left.
In her book The Gastronomical Me, MFK Fisher writes, “It seems to me that our three basic needs, for food and security and love, are so mixed and mingled and entwined that we cannot straightly think of one without the others.” So I have been known to purvey my seasoned kitchen experience to men I wanted to stick around even after dessert. There was the time I turned all of Adam’s leftover vegetables into a frittata, or the rosewater cupcakes I had “laying around” when Paul came over to watch a movie. My best was the Saturday afternoon I spent filling my refrigerator with bowls of fresh fruits — black plums, pluots, figs — he was a yoga instructor. These little successes left me feeling like a masterful woman, skillfully bewitching all senses of those who enter my home. But this guy wasn’t biting.
My friends call him “is-this-a-date guy.” Either my charms weren’t working or he wasn’t interested in anything more than my knife skills, but things weren’t progressing at all. One memorable meal we shared was in the springtime — he paid for the entire thing. We started with a dozen oysters and finished with a bottle of amaro. Over dinner we discussed the wonders of wagy beef and his admiration for the chef. There was no talk of girlfriends or spring fever. I believe that night ended at a bar and then his departure — “I’ve gotta go see a friend who just got back into town.” Unable to digest properly, I started thinking, was my free meal an act of kindness or of consolation? Three months later I saw a facebook photo of him sitting in the same spot (the decor is easy to distinguish) with another girl.
My friend Sam asked me why I was putting up with this, and I responded that, frustrating as it always was, I was having some fun. I’ve had loads of experiences in which the line between love and friendship blurs. Plus I am still mystified by the dating etiquette that is so specific to New York — a city that conflates public and private life. I should mention that I met this guy at a bar in the middle of winter. I was the bartender and he, alone, charming and thirsty, returned twice before asking for my phone number. Needless to say he appreciated my attention, which was stronger than the cocktail he kept coming back for. I must have made him hundreds of drinks over the course of our friendship, though they never amounted to more than a couple hours staring at the moon, or a night of watching movies together.
I tried cooking, I tried dining out, I tried just drinks, but nothing was working. I decided to put an end to it one exceptionally hot afternoon in August, over a couple grilled cheese sandwiches. He made them. Not well. For an hour we sat at the kitchen table while he waited for his lunch, and I tried to muster up the courage to tell him how I felt. Finally, months and months of pining would at least be put to rest, for better or worse. I sat there nervously watching him place his food into a frying pan. The sizzling sound of butter melting distracted me for a moment but finally I said, “Hey so I have a crush on you.”
Is-this-a-date guy grabbed my hand and looked in my eyes and just as he was getting ready to speak, to inevitably let me down, the smoke alarm went off and I told him it was time for me to go. It was in this very illuminating moment that I realized the truth of my convictions. I was not in love with this man, I was infatuated with the idea of impressing him with my palate. And he was no-doubt offering the same intriguing challenge to other women, sharing endless meals and drinks with them. Suddenly my entire culinary identity felt pathetic, generic, cheap. I was a gastronomic whore like Amanda Hesser, trying to cook my way into a man’s heart. And worse, a grilled cheese man.
Robert Byrne once said, “anybody who believes that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach flunked geography.” I see is-this-a-date-guy around occasionally, mostly at parties where there is no opportunity to suck oysters out of shells or dip strawberries into chocolate. I imagine he is still bringing all sorts of fancy women to all kinds of fancy restaurants. But I am also pretty sure that he spends every afternoon having lunch alone.

Follow Pascale Boucicaut on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/pascaleeeee

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Eco Age’s front window
During my most recent trip across the pond, I stopped by London to check out London Fashion Week and visit my best friend, Jenn, who lives in my second-favorite city in the world (the first is NYC baby!). And thanks to a fortuitous hookup by the lovely Rachel Sarnoff over at Ecostiletto, I got a chance to connect with Livia Firth (yep, wife of Colin!) who runs Eco Age, a fabulous boutique in the Chiswick section of London.
And talk about walking the talk; Livia, as the wife of a Hollywood star, (Colin recently starred in Tom Hanks’ directorial debut, A Single Man), is expected to turn up at red-carpet events looking fabulous, and this past Spring she took up Vogue UK’s ‘Green Carpet Challenge’ – and came off beautifully, exploring all the ways of being sustainably stylish, from repurposing to seeking out designers who use ethical fabrics and dye techniques. Eco fashion at the Golden Globes and the Oscars? Livia did it!
Thanks to Livia Firth for the awesome tour of her store in London!
Livia gave me a tour (see video above) of her store, which carries her own carefully edited (and strictly vetted) selection of eco fashion, home decor, and great gifts, and in the basement, an eco-materials consultancy (which I had no idea of until I was on the tour!). The amazing thing is that with the breadth of categories she covers with what she sells in the store, her awesome recycled furniture initiatives for London Design Festival, and the learning space and consultancy for eco materials (think flooring, tiles, fabrics and wallcovering) Livia’s doing so much besides running a store.
Livia’s bringing great green resources to London, showcasing how eco fashion can absolutely be gorgeous, and getting people to think about who (and what) their non-ethical stuff comes from.
Starre Vartan, editor of Eco-Chick, at Eco Age in London
Designers that Livia carries at Eco Age (and are mentioned in the video above) include:
Stewart+Brown
Joe Komodo Green by Nature
Anatomy Ethical and Organic Fashion
Junky Styling Timeless, reconstructed and re-cut and completely transformed clothing.
Made Jewelry
Veggie-tanned leather bags
See more about Eco Age’s consultancy for homes, businesses, and schools here.
Shop Eco Age’s awesome online store here!

Follow Starre Vartan on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ecochickie

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Over the last month, our country has reflected on the many contributions Latinos have made both to the United States and society as a whole. But as National Hispanic Heritage Month comes to an end, it’s time we focus our attention on an equally important, if less cheerful issue: the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS on Latino communities in the United States. Addressing this critical issue is not only important for the health of Latino communities, its imperative for the health of our nation as well.
The last day of National Hispanic Heritage Month, October 15, is National Latino AIDS Awareness Day, and an important opportunity to examine the needs of this underserved population. While Latinos account for only 15 percent of the American population, they make up 18 percent of people living with HIV and 19 percent of new AIDS diagnoses. In fact, the rate of AIDS diagnoses among Latino men and women is three and four times higher, respectively, than their white counterparts.
There are several factors that contribute to the disproportionate impact of AIDS on Latinos, some of which apply to other communities of color such as poverty, increased incarceration rates, access to quality health care, and others like language barriers, which mostly affect communities with high immigrant populations. And while there is no singular “Hispanic culture,” the general premium placed on a sense of machismo may also serve to further stigmatize risk factors within the Latino population, particularly same-sex encounters.
Considering these factors, it is critical that we work to address the disparate impact HIV/AIDS has on Latinos, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because the health of our nation depends on it. As of 2008, more than one in five children in the U.S. under the age of 18 was Latino. This ratio is even greater (one in four) for children under five. The current rate of population growth in the United States is actually being driven by the Latino community, and their numbers will continue to grow.
The relative youth of Latinos serves to exacerbate other risk factors already facing the community. We know that young people are at increased risk of infection, partly because of a sense of apathy and partly as a result of a general sense of invincibility. The truth is, 13 percent of new infections in the U.S. are among young people, aged 13 to 24. A recent survey of 21 major American cities found that among gay Latino youth (aged 18 to 29) infected with HIV, 6 out of 10 were unaware of their status.
As more than one-third of Latinos in America are under 18, this confluence of risk factors poses a serious public health concern, but also offers hope. Because so much of the population is school age, there’s considerable potential for comprehensive and culturally appropriate sex education programs to have a significant impact on HIV prevention efforts. Because children of immigrants often serve as translators and cultural liaisons for adults in their homes, these programs could assist in the dissemination of information to adult populations as well.
What’s more, reaching out to young Latinos and educating them about the indiscriminate nature of HIV and AIDS may also serve to further remove the stigma associated with the disease among this already more tolerant demographic. This cannot be done without engaging in a public dialogue about both this disease and its effects on our Latino brothers and sisters. On this National Latino AIDS Awareness Day, I hope we will continue this dialogue.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Today in every entertainment medium it seems to be less about the “show” and more about the “business.” This is, of course, true of movies, where rising production costs and changing technology appear to have impacted the number of movies made in the US, the type of film made and how those that are made are viewed.
With an already tough business getting tougher each year for those who want to break in, there may be some help at hand. The help will come from a panel called “Breaking Through & Being Heard In Hollywood” and is made up of producers, attorneys, screenwriters and a music producer. The discussion — followed by a question-and-answer session will be one of the features of the Bel-Air FIlm Festival this Saturday, October 16, 7:30 pm at the James Bridge Theater at UCLA.
The panel was assembled — and will be moderated — by Mitra Ahouraian (left), an attorney specializing in entertainment, film finance production legal and music issues and intellectual property. She is a member of the Bel-Air Film Festival Board.
An attorney with the LA firm of Linzer & Associates, Ahouraian says she decided to put on the panel “because I am inspired by people who are young and accomplished. Young people come to me for advice and guidance. In fact, so do more experienced people. I find that, in this era of fast-changing technology and changing audience expectations, that their questions are often the same.”
The questions range from those that deal strictly with business — finance and options, for example — to questions about how to start a career in any facet of movie making. One of her goals in doing the panel, Ahouraian says, is to help people who wish to work in the industry attain and maintain balance. “Entertainment is a world of excess. You have to be able to handle extremes and maintain who you are. The excess is glorified so it’s always a struggle,” she believes.
Ahouraian adds, “Today there are three major shifts in the industry from just a few years ago. First, because of distribution channels, there is more money to be made internationally than domestically. Distribution is key to success. Second, even the creative team has to know the business plan so you have to assemble the right team. You have to think about all this before you think about optioning a script.
“Finally, you have to be aware that today it’s much more difficult than ever before to get theatrical distribution so you have to consider other possibilities — the internet, online distribution, TV and, perhaps, distribution abroad first.
“What sets some people apart and gets them attention and a long career?” she asks. “It is business sense and ability to change with the market.”
With the panel’s focus on the business side of film making, Ahouraian says she assembled the best people she could find to respond to the needs and questions of those who attend. Among those she chose is Palak Patel (left), president of production of Joe Roth’s company, Roth Films.
Patel readily acknowledges his good fortune, as his career has been a steady climb up in the film industry since his first job in 1999 as a production assistant on The Sixth Sense.
Since then he’s combined an enviable list of credits. He was west coast story editor at Focus Features where he worked on Traffic, Gosford Park, Nurse Betty, Deliver Us From Eva, Possession, The Kid Stays In The Picture and The Man Who Wasn’t There. As president of production at Paula Weinstein’s Spring Creek Productions, he produced a dozen films including Monster-In-Law, Blood Diamond and the HBO film Recount about the 2000 presidential election. With Roth he worked on Tim Burton’s 2010 version of Alice In Wonderland. Now he is in pre-production on XXX3, starring Vin Diesel for Paramount and Oz The Great and Powerful for Disney. The latter will be directed by Sam Raimi and, Patel says, “Robert Downey, Jr. Is looking at the script.”
Patel says that if asked to advise a young person who wanted to go into the film business he “would strongly discourage” that inclination.
“Getting a movie made today,” he says, “especially a small film or a romantic comedy, is very difficult. The financing is not there.
In addition to Patel, the panel includes music producer Salaam Remi; Mills Goodloe, a producer, screenwriter, director and actor; attorney Bianca Bezdek-Goodloe, an attorney specializing in film finance, intellectual property, entertainment and corporate law and
Tickets to the panel discussion are $35, but the use of promotion code “filmmaker” will get you in for $20 instead of $35. Those who arrive early will have to opportunity to indulge in some services from Bliss Spa and, after the panel, may attend the screening of the documentary I Am Comic with Jeff Foxworthy, Kathy Griffin, Sarah Silverman, Carrot Top, Margaret Cho, the late Greg Grialdo and a host of others.
Tickets are available here.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

San Francisco — I’m going to let you in a secret — a dirty little secret — but in a fun way. Before you read any more of this post, listen to this new version of an iconic Texas song.
That clip explains a lot. In some ways it’s kind of puzzling. Just as the Obama administration announces its support for a massive wind-turbine project in Eastern Oregon, and Google and other partners launch a proposal for an enormous, game-changing offshore wind and transmission system for the East Coast, the Republican House Campaign Committee launches an all-out ad war on the whole concept of a clean-energy economy. The National Republican Congressional Committee has launched a blitz attack on ten members of Congress who have voted for the very federal funds that will make wind projects like the Oregon and East Coast initiatives possible.
The NRCC’s claim is that since some of the wind-turbine components are manufactured in China, this was actually a vote to create jobs in China. Setting aside the fact that only three out of the 33,000 wind turbines installed in the U.S. were manufactured in China, it’s odd that Republicans, who generally advocate much freer trade and fewer restrictions on sourcing imports from China, should suddenly have changed their tune. Indeed, back in the spring, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell strongly opposed the limited “Buy American” provisions included in the stimulus package by the Obama administration.
So why are the Republicans going after clean energy so strongly, since polls consistently show tremendous public support for exactly that? Perhaps it’s because, as the saying goes, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” And the media assault on the Obama administration and the Democrats has been funded, overwhelmingly, by coal and oil interests trying to maintain their monopoly as America’s energy suppliers. This has been widely reported — from the incredible Jane Mayer expose of how Koch oil has funded the Tea Party, among other anti-Obama assaults, to more routine reporting on where big oil and coal money is flowing this year. But if you want to see the most impressive visual representing of how dirty energy is paying for this year’s election — think back to the “Valero Oil of Texas” ditty you just heard — take a look at this very cool graphic showing the funding base of the efforts to stop California’s clean-air programs, the infamous Prop 23.
If we don’t do everything we can during the next 20 days to get everyone we know to vote, we run the risk of handing this country over the oil and coal — and we know how good a job they will do from the eight-year run they bought for George Bush. How about sending the cool song and the graphic out to all your friends to start?

Follow Carl Pope on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/CarlPope

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Oprah Winfrey devoted the Oct. 7 episode of her talk show to HIV/AIDS. But instead of it being about anything substantial, eye-opening or educational, Winfrey decided to focus on issues that distort the epidemic.
“Why She Sued Her Husband for 12 Million Dollars” opened with beautiful, educated Bridget, who had met and married the love of her life. It was a fairytale — until the day that, 10 years ago, she found out that she was HIV positive. Later, she found out that her husband was HIV positive, too. And that he slept with men without condoms. And that he was the one who had given her HIV. She later sued her husband for $12 million and won.
Yes, it’s the “woman as innocent victim duped by the sinister gay down-low brother” narrative again.
To be clear, I don’t want to undermine or devalue Bridget’s experiences, because what happened to her is horrible. Putting your trust (and your health) in the hands of a spouse, only to be lied to and later diagnosed with HIV, is devastating. And I admit that it’s hard to create and implement condom negotiation strategies geared for married women and women who believe they are in monogamous relationships.
But why does the down-low continue to dominate most media stories about HIV in America, when study after study shows that closeted gay men having unprotected sex with both men and women are not fueling the epidemic?
Of course, Oprah didn’t have any expert to talk about that. Nor was there an expert to jump to Bridget’s defense when gasps of horror in the audience greeted her announcement that she had remarried and was pregnant — despite her accurate assessment that because she was on antiretroviral treatment, the risk of her baby of having HIV was extremely low. Given the immense stigma surrounding a positive woman’s right to have children, a doctor’s insight would have been nice.
And just when you thought the show couldn’t get any worse, J.L. King, the Godfather of the down-low, came out. Literally. King — whose 2004 book On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of ‘Straight’ Black Men Who Sleep With Men, catapulted this phenomenon into American pop culture — finally admitted that he officially identifies as a gay man. Yet he still warns heterosexual women that not knowing your man’s sexual orientation can kill you. (Note to King: The LGBT community might not accept you if you keep falsely blaming them for AIDS.)
The only saving grace of the episode was when Bridget became “pissed off” when Oprah used Magic Johnson as an example of how everyone living with HIV can be healthy and life with HIV can be easy. Bridget jumped in and said, (The video was removed from YouTube after Oprah’s production company sent a copyright warning.)
This moment was powerful — not just because Oprah’s guest rarely ever correct her, but because for too long Magic has been the poster child of this epidemic, when in fact his access, power and privilege is a rarity among those living with HIV/AIDS.
To be fair, there are times when Oprah has gotten it somewhat right on HIV. Her 1987 episode about AIDS in a small West Virginia town opened the country’s eyes to the ignorance around this disease and the need for compassion. And in a 2006 episode, an intimate roundtable with women living with HIV in America was endearing and humanized the epidemic.
But those shows are few and far between. Shows like Bridget’s story and last year’s HIV criminalization fiasco (read the show recap, or an open response letter from Jack Mackenroth of Project Runway fame) does more harm in educating the public than good.
That is frustrating, because there are so many different entry points from which Oprah could talk about HIV responsibly. In 2010 alone, the White House announced the first-ever National HIV/AIDS Strategy; the HIV travel ban was lifted in the U.S.; there was a resurgence of people on AIDS Drug Assistance Program waiting lists; the HIV/AIDS documentary The Other City debuted; and there was plenty of important news from the XVIII International AIDS Conference this summer, particularly the excitement around a potentially effective microbicide.
Why not report on some of that? Or better yet, why not show what it’s like to really live with HIV by letting people living with the disease tell their own stories? Show them raising their families; addressing societal stigma; dealing the difficulties of treatment adherence, side effects and the reality of drug resistance; overcoming addiction; battling housing and economic stability issues; dealing with dating, sex and love; navigating homophobia, racism, and gender issues. You know, all that good stuff.
Given that this is the last season of The Oprah Winfrey Show — and given her power, access and influence — I think Ms. Winfrey owes America that much.
For actual interviews of people living with HIV, please visit TheBody.com’s This Positive Life video series. Our series gives you the opportunity to gain firsthand knowledge from people of all walks of life on what it means to live — and live well — with HIV. Watch them discuss their struggles, hopes and triumphs.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The US administration has asked a judge to stay her order lifting a ban on gay people serving openly in the US military, pending an appeal.
District Judge Virginia Phillips issued an injunction forbidding the military from enforcing the 17-year-old ban.
In another development, the Pentagon said it had issued guidelines to troop commanders to comply with her order.

TWITTER: @GreenNewsReport.
The ‘GNR’ is also now available on your cell phone via Stitcher Radio’s mobile app!.
IN TODAY’S RADIO REPORT: Obama lifts the ban on offshore oil drilling, even as oil continues to wash up on beach in the Gulf; Google goes offshore too – with wind; A new solar project on public lands in Nevada; Seattle says goodbye to the big yellow phone book … PLUS: Good news for a change: all 33 Chilean Miners are rescued … All that and more in today’s Green News Report!
Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.
IN ‘GREEN NEWS EXTRA’ (see links below): T. Boone Pickens’ wife may save U.S. wild horses; EPA to increase ethanol requirements for gasoline; Australia joins other countries in banning pesticide endosulfan; Photo shows apparent leak before Hungary spill; Big Oil spending big bucks on university research programs; UN urges African leaders to tackle climate change; UN also urges rich nations to make largest emissions cuts; Climate change denial industry pounces on physicist’s resignation; Study: world’s two largest ice sheets melting faster than predicted …PLUS: Canada declares plastics chemical BPA to Be Toxic …
‘Green News Report’ is heard on many fine radio stations around the country. For additional info on stories we covered today, plus today’s ‘Green News Extra’, please click right here…

Follow Brad Friedman and Desi Doyen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/TheBradBlog

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Take this, constitutional “patriots.” Read the 9th Amendment to our Constitution. The founders were smarter than we think, for they knew they had not thought of everything and wisely included this provision bestowing rights even they had not imagined. Health care? Reproductive rights? It’s all there if we so choose:
– Bill of Rights, Number Nine
Craig blogs daily for CQ-Roll Call

Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/craig_crawford

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Two years ago, a bunch of men sat around a big fancy table in some huge government building and scrambled to save the nation’s financial institutions. They — the institutions, not the men — were deemed “too big to fail.” That’s what she said. We imagine there were a lot of phone calls, emails, memos, fists pounding the table and cursing. Possibly Jack Daniels.
Four days ago, something similar and perhaps more historic occurred around a much smaller table. A table designed not for economists and industry leaders, but for people who still occasionally make in their pants (assuming they’re not the same thing). This was a table in a preschool classroom where our kids go. It was convenient.
The reigning leaders of MommyLand, Kate and Lydia, who share power in the bi-partisan manner of the UK’s Cameron and Clegg, invited two daddies to participate in the summit (for the purposes of equal representation). Our task? To create the next step of the bailout plan, the one that’s actually meaningful to American families: The MommyLand Bailout Plan.
So we sat down at the tiny table, knees crammed up to our chins and sorted out just who and what institutions are too big to fail for American Family. We’re not suggesting these institutions actually need bailing out; we’re simply suggesting that if they ever do falter, a nation’s worth of parents will lose their collective Schmidt.
Let’s start with an illustrative example:
Who They Saved: The Detroit Three. Following dramatic drops in automobile sales throughout 2008, the Big Three automakers — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — asked for emergency loans. Seems they were out of cash. Cue the cavalry. Oh! And the Mounties! Both the U.S. and Canadian governments controversially provided unprecedented financial bailout support to allow the companies to restructure and “jettison legacy debt.” We’re pretty sure that means “pretend it doesn’t exist anymore…”
GM is now owned by the United States Treasury. Chrysler is now owned primarily by the unions and Italians. And, Ford got a HUGE line of credit from secret people. We suspect elves. Or Ryan Seacrest, whom we suspect may possibly be an elf.
May We Suggest: The MommyLand Big Three: Look, we like our cars, but we’ve long ago given up on anything fancy or name-brandy. If it transports us to school, Target and the grocery store, we’re happy to drive a yak. Frankly, the yak probably smells better. There is something more inviolate to the American family than its vehicles: the triumvirate that is our nation’s parental sanity safety net. The trinity is comprised of TV, Wifi and Wii. Car companies can fold, but be advised that if any of our Big Three require help, a bailout, or “restructuring”, you bet your long-haired bovine we’re yakking up the cash.
We can do without air conditioning. Or refrigeration. Possibly food. Last winter, we survived twenty-three days trapped in our houses with our children during Snowmageddon. But only because the kids cracked out on TV and battled each other on the Wii. And we either built farms on Facebook or mocked those who did.
If we lose the MommyLand Big Three, especially during football season, all that will be heard across this great nation will be the stunned silence of parental eye twitches and children sullenly plotting their revenge from the dreaded time out.
Let’s move onto some other important examples:
Oh, any chance we can “jettison” our asses? According to our mirrors, they’re definitely too big to fail… at pants. That’s what she said.

Follow Kristin Wilson Keppler on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/MommyLandRants

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I waited patiently outside an auditorium door for my turn — then bravely took the stage to work on the song I’d been practicing for months, “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music.
Three judges stared silently at me, looking bored and unimpressed, their arms folded neatly in front of them.
I opened my mouth, ready for that first phrase: “Raindrops on roses …”
Nothing. I swallowed, panicked and tried one more time. This time, I sang loudly and clearly, but the judges stopped me after just a few phrases.
“Yo Dawg,” said Randy Jackson, shaking his head and laughing. “What were you thinking?!”
Wait, he was right! How did I get on American Idol? What was Randy doing judging my audition as a vocal major to Fiorello LaGuardia High School? (Or was it Talent Unlimited, Professional Performing Arts or Frank Sinatra High School?)
I woke up in a sweat, then started to laugh with relief. And that’s when I realized my attempts to remain low-key and laid back about New York City public high school admissions in front of my 13-year-old had backfired.
We are in high school hell. My dream went ever further than the aborted song. I was also struggling to put together an art portfolio for admission to a high school art program, even though I’ve never had any artistic talent. The only drawing I could find was the intricate pencil doodles I found on the back of my older son’s chemistry homework recently.
In that very same dream, I had decided to memorize a monologue to perform for a drama audition, just like some eighth-graders who are hitting the tour circuit, preparing portfolios, songs and skits and who may also be getting ready for instrumental auditions on top of interviews, different entrance exams and the SSHAT for the specialized high schools.
All this talk about high school is doing me in. In my suburban hometown, everyone went together to junior high school from grades 7-9, then moved on to high school together in 10th grade.
There was no agonizing about separating from your friends. No tests, tryouts and no choice, although I have to admit, the school system could not match the diversity, sheer variety and excitement offered in the best New York City schools (the same ones everyone wants to get into).
I’m not complaining – we chose to live here and love it. I guess I just never expected to spend so much time thinking and talking about high school again. They weren’t exactly “Glory Days.”
“Anyone who tells you they loved high school and had a good time is lying,” a girlfriend said to me last weekend, after I had trudged up and down the cavernous floors of Brooklyn Tech at the high school fair, my mostly silent 13-year-old in tow.
“Ask questions!” I whispered every now and then, because I was trying to keep my mouth shut, trying not to be that stage mom who showed up in my dreams. I also tried to steer him to some new and interesting schools.
We all had a good laugh in my family when I told the story of my imagined tryout over breakfast, but the judges in my household were unanimous in their opinion that my singing be confined solely to the privacy of my own shower.
With so much hard work and tension around the concept of “getting in” to a top public high school in a city where the supply does not meet demand, I shouldn’t be surprised that there was one scene at the high school fair that left my 13-year-old looking and feeling relieved.
We spoke to representatives from LOMA (Lower Manhattan Arts Academy), a fairly new art school on the Lower East Side. (I stayed out of it, of course, listening respectfully from a distance).
“Do you have to take a test to get in?” came the question to the welcoming and enthusiastic young teacher.
“No, there is no test,” the teacher said.
“What about the tryout, then?” No tryouts, came the reply.
“I think LOMA is going to be my first choice,” my 13-year-old declared, smiling for the first time that day.
Never mind that we have yet to see the school and still know very little about it, although we signed up for an open house next month.
For all I know, LOMA will turn up in my dream tonight — and I can’t help but wonder if that will count as one fewer school we’ll have to visit.
In the meantime, I’d love to know how it’s going in your household. How are you (and your children) handling preparations for multiple tests and tryouts? Does it feel like too much?
Anyone want to go back to high school?
This article first appeared here on Insideschools.org.

Follow Liz Willen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/hechingerreport

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Now that BP’s Macondo oil well has been declared “dead,” as reported by Adm. Thad Allen on September 19, the real challenge begins. What is the state of the Gulf and what will it be in 5, 10 years and beyond? To simply take a “snapshot” of the Gulf today is an immense task, involving careful measurement of contaminants in the land, sea and air, as well as health impacts — short-term and long-term — on wildlife and on affected populations.
For such a “snapshot” to have real meaning, a side by side analysis of the same information collected before the oil spill would be required — a difficult task, since a central, open access environmental and public health “library” does not exist for the Gulf or for any region, for that matter. As the Gulf begins a return to equilibrium, we need a series of such massive data sets to gain a perspective on whether a quicker recovery is possible using the best tools available.
Any picture of the Gulf is further muddled by confidentiality agreements mandated by BP for contracted scientists. The information collected by these scientists may not be available publicly for many years to come. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced September 19 that they will assemble a team of scientists to measure the environmental impact of the oil spill. Independent measurements will be critical, as will open access to the information.
Not willing to wait for public agencies to respond formally to such an environmental disaster, a group of university students and their professor decided to experience it themselves, to see it, smell it, and, yes, even sample it. While results from the samples are pending, the story of lessons learned could not wait.
The students’ journey, like the process of learning itself, took some unexpected twists and turns, inspired by Mahatma Ghandi’s imperative: “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” What did they learn?
Traditional learning takes place in the classroom guided by textbooks. While this approach can be effective for transmitting facts, there are major limitations. Textbooks present information fixed in time for the student to absorb. Classrooms limit the experience of learning by their physical boundaries and by scheduled blocks of time that can pressure an instructor to “cover material” — not to be confused with learning.
Meaningful, deep learning is a personal, idiosyncratic process — you can never predict which experiences can suddenly spark passion, creating a drive to apply the new found knowledge to do a greater good. It is not a one way street. Prof. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who taught a course “Race, Disaster, and American Politics” at Princeton University that included a class trip to New Orleans soon after Hurricane Katrina landed, described how learning is a dynamic exchange: “…students always teach you at least as much, and maybe more, than you teach them.”
Disasters present both challenges and opportunities. The BP oil spill offered an opportunity to engage our students in service to a community well beyond the boundaries of our campus and, importantly, to grapple with problem solving that is directly connected to our day to day lives.
On July 26, seven students from the “Be the Change” community service group at Kean University and their professor Dr. Norma Bowe set out on a journey to volunteer in the Gulf regions of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana affected by both Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. Originally planning to volunteer with cleanup efforts in Alabama and Louisiana, things changed upon the realization that BP had taken control of any volunteering connected to the oil spill. The students participated in a debriefing at the Alabama Costal Foundation in Mobile, Alabama and learned of the devastation on the local population.
The Katrina Recovery work in New Orleans was a great success. The group did construction on a senior low income housing project still in need of repairs. The residents of the facility poured out of their apartments to greet and thank the group. The students were horrified to see the conditions still existing five years after the hurricane.
I am now the master of scraping and sanding. As I worked I thought about how easy it is to accomplish large tasks with a group of willing and dedicated people. I also know now, life is a process and there are stages to it as a project. We often have a hard time appreciating the stage we are currently in but I believe that one day we will understand how important the ‘sanding’ and ‘priming”‘ will be to the finished product… The people we have become! — Kayla Duncan, Senior Communications Major
If I had gone through everything that they had, a major hurricane, losing everything, a long recovery, and an oil spill… would I have the strength to smile again? — Becca Bowe, Sophomore Theater Major
Their next stop was to support the efforts of the wildlife cleanup. Lacking the necessary training to handle wildlife, they decided to support those that did in any way they could, such as preparing and distributing boxed lunches. The wildlife center had been moved abruptly two hours inland and they found it on an army base in Hammond, Louisiana. Needless to say, they did not have the security clearance to visit or assist. They did make it as far as the front desk. Disappointed that they could not volunteer, several of the students went into “journalism mode.” A trip to the Piggly Wiggly grocery store down the street from the base proved to be an opportunity for several of them to interview residents, including the sheriff about their opinion of the clean up and the state of local wildlife.
This is crazy! Why would they move birds off shore for clean up? The wildlife rehabilitation is now located in an army base and the street is off any map. I am more than ready to figure out why these things do not add up. — Nicolette Maggio, Senior Psychology Major
Media and government controlled? How will we ever know the truth? — Kayla Duncan
The group’s last stop was Pass Christiana Beach, Mississippi. They witnessed the beaches sullied with crude oil and the workers sub-contracted by BP trying to clean it up with shovels and plastic bags. The workers allowed the group to help by pointing out debris and tar balls along the shore line. While they were there, a Coast Guard photographer came to take pictures of the workers. He posed them on a tiny stretch of cleaner beach while just feet away the water was filled with hundreds if not thousands of dead jelly fish. One of the students (Benito Nieves) observed this and quietly took a sample of the sand, water, oil and dead jelly fish in a water bottle.
As their journey approached an end, here several students reflected:
Why is this trip important to you?
We healed others, reflected on ourselves and helped communities as much as we could. Never have I experienced such life changing events. — Mario
I miss being squished into a car with my friends who had such guts, heart and passion to change the world. I looked out at a beautiful sky and it looked close enough that I might touch a cloud, but I just wanted to hug my “Be the Change” friends. We made a difference in the world. That difference will always give me strength. — Nicolette
I don’t think the trip was anything we expected it to be. There were more struggles, more rewards and effective spontaneity. Instinct led the journey more often than not. A highlight I will remember is resiliency. — Benito
The people here will be in my heart forever. My biggest fears are their constant reality and they face it with grace and compassion. They inspire me to be a better me. We are most powerful when we are vulnerable. — Becca
I am so happy to be part of the solution rather than the problem. — Alexandra Bastos, Early Education Major
The smallest things can make the biggest difference in the world. We are a small group but the impact we have made is immeasurable. We will carry this experience with us throughout our lives. I want to inspire change so that the world can be a compassionate and peaceful place. — Elissa
Did their journey foster a “Be The Change” spirit? The changes sparked by the trip are showing already…
On August 26, 2010, Dr. Bowe, Kayla Duncan, and Nicolette Maggio returned to the Gulf to collect samples to be analyzed independently.
Elissa Hyer and Mario Da Costa will be involved in their respective science programs to assist with the analysis of the Gulf specimens.
Kayla Duncan prepared a video and photo presentation in her communication class regarding the trip.
Nicolette has decided to become an environmental attorney.
Becca, Alexandra, and others participated in a Women’s Leadership conference in Rhinebeck, NY.
The “Be the Change” group has been invited to Virginia Polytechnic Institute to present on a panel at the International Peace Symposium this November.
This journey affected each of us deeply; below is from a dream:
It is late afternoon, and the sun is glistening off the swells of the ocean. Separating me from the inviting waves is a stark, black picket fence spanning the beach as far as the eye can see. I am pulled towards the ominous barrier. As I come closer, each picket of the fence is transformed into silhouettes which, unlike the uniform pickets of the fence, are shadows of the families that live in the nearby communities. Surprisingly, I can pass through them as if they are vapors. My right foot feels heavy. It is weighed down by a large pool of crude oil, sinking downward. Realization ensues that I am now one of the silhouettes, immobile. Waves wash over me, releasing me from the burden of the oil. My silhouette becomes fragmented into thousands of smaller, sharp angled pieces. This cold comfort is oddly refreshing. — Anonymous

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In recent years there have been repeated efforts that threaten the independence of our state judiciary systems. Groups in Missouri, Arizona and Iowa, for example, have sought to replace long standing merit selection systems with the direct election of judges. Another group, the American Justice Partnership has criticized the Open Society Institute for supporting merit selection of judges on the ground that the Institute is attempting to take away the right to vote.
Such efforts foolishly ignore the increasing number of politically charged judicial contests that are characterized by large campaign expenditures from groups or individuals who seek to influence judicial decisions.
The business community has reason to be seriously concerned with this trend.
A particularly egregious case involving a campaign contribution to a judicial election was highlighted by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Caperton vs. Massey (2009) (reversing a lower court’s ruling for a company whose chief executive officer had made a $3 million campaign contribution to the judge who ruled for his company). The Committee for Economic Development (CED), joined by Intel, Lockheed Martin, PepsiCo, and Wal-Mart Stores, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the lower court’s decision.
It seems doubtful however that the Caperton decision will protect companies from the bias of judges who favor those who have been regular contributors to their campaigns for reelection. Corporations that do business in multiple states are particularly vulnerable to plaintiffs who can choose the state where the judges are more likely to be favorable to them.
There is today considerable concern in the business community with judicial elections. In 2007 the CED commissioned a poll by Zogby International that found four out of five business leaders worry that financial contributions have a major effect on decisions rendered by judges. The poll also found near universal concern that campaign contributions and political pressure will make judges more accountable to politicians and special interests then to the law. Finally, the poll found that 71% of business leaders support a merit or appointment system for the selection of judges.
The 2010 US Chamber of Commerce State Liability Rankings Study found that two-thirds (67%) of businesses polled reported that a state’s litigation environment is likely to impact business decisions such as where to locate or do business.
An independent judiciary is necessary to protect our free market economy. That independence is too often undermined by partisan elections that require judges to raise campaign funds. The bottom line is that businesses are increasingly enmeshed in contentious judicial political campaigns. A far better alternative is the merit selection of judges.
Business is best when it operates in the market place and not the political arena.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Co-authored by Rebecca Harris
On Wednesday, October 6, the opening of the Civil Society Policy Forum of the World Bank/IMF Annual Meetings, economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs spoke on a panel, “New Issues and Opportunities in Resource-based Development.” Sachs, director of Columbia’s Earth Institute, addressed resource-based investments in low-income countries within the context of rising global prices of minerals, food grains and hydrocarbons. He discussed the ongoing challenge of converting natural resources into sustainable development in low-income countries.
Sachs was joined by Karin Lissakers, director of the Revenue Watch Institute, who released their “Revenue Watch Index” during this year’s Annual Meetings. The 2010 Revenue Watch Index is an assessment of government-published data, such as contract terms and revenues related to oil, gas and mineral resources, a tool that was developed to be employed by government officials, civil society and media in order to demand accountability and improved public disclosure.
Professor Sachs initiated the discussion with an explanation of a paper he had written years ago on the paradox of the resource curse, examining how economic growth differed between resource-rich and resource-poor countries, and noted that he observed that between 1960 and 1980, it was the resource-poor countries that outperformed the resource-rich in economic development. He asked how, then, resource-rich countries must harness the benefits of such wealth, especially in light of the high natural resource prices on the global market.
Sachs responded that transparency is the answer. He stated that he “wholly subscribed” to the notion that “transparency, public scrutiny and to the maximum extent possible, proper democratic governance over these resources” were essential in avoiding the resource curse and ensuring positive development outcomes.
The conversation then shifted to the key macroeconomic aspects of natural resource management, which included contracting. He outlined the difficulties that natural resource-dependent governments face in negotiating a fair deal with the international actors who bring the necessary capital and technology to extract resource deposits. Also emphasized was the wide range of difficult choices resource-rich governments incur, ranging from types of contracts to concessions, bidding processes and investment guarantees and asserted that it was because of the confidentiality of such contracts that governments could not compare terms with other similarly resource-rich countries. “I think this is something that really needs to be busted open completely, in my view, because the companies’ interests in the confidentiality, I think, are rarely suitable grounds for maintaining the confidentiality, vis–vis the public and the high social costs of having many of the contracts remain confidential has been extraordinary,” insisted Sachs.
The development-based argument for contract transparency was further illustrated by the real-life example of the World Bank-financed Chad-Cameroon pipeline. He noted that despite the fact that the project was bankrolled by international public funds, the World Bank refused to reveal the contract, insisting that it was confidential. Sachs exclaimed that he was shocked by this, due to the large quantity of public money involved and explained that “it turned out to be a very bad deal on all sides.” He continued that it was “completely useless from Chad’s development perspective, but part of the problem was that it was secret and it remains secret even after the process went forward.”
Sachs underscored the importance of planning and how a given project is implemented in terms of infrastructure development, whether or not it will be “an enclave project that has no spillovers” or “a nucleus of a successful regional development.” He once again cited the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project as an example of failure. He explained that “in the Chad pipeline, the only electricity generated for the project was the electricity used to pump the oil, so Chad was left with fuel wood and no electricity.” He continued, “There was one power plant built in the project and it was built for the pumping station and there was no consideration given to actually using any of the energy resources for the country’s own electrification.”
Such strong statements in favor of transparency for extractive industry projects are timely, in that the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank, is in the process of reviewing and revising their Sustainability Policy, Performance Standards and Disclosure Policy. Currently, the IFC lacks a meaningful requirement of extractive industry contract disclosure between IFC clients and the host governments. As it stands, IFC clients have to disclose “relative terms” of “key agreements” only when the project generates 10% or more of government revenues. To date, not a single project from all the extractive industry projects approved by the institution since 2006 has met this criterion. Furthermore, civil society contends that this benchmark is arbitrary, in that the fiscal and developmental impacts of extractives projects occur irrespective of the size of a country’s total revenues.
Many civil society organizations, including the Bank Information Center, are advocating that all IFC-supported extractive industry projects must disclose all contracts, principal and derivative, related to the EI operation to which the government is a party. In addition, we are asking that for any information that is removed from an EI contract, the client or government must provide a clear reason for confidentiality and the merits for confidentially must outweigh the importance to the public. Because the influence that it wields is disproportionate to the amount that it invests, IFC represents an important target for civil society advocacy to not only strengthen social and environmental requirements in IFC’s own projects, but also potentially to a host of private banks and across the industries in which it invests.
As Professor Sachs noted in his closing remarks, “To get things right…would be hugely complicated and require many players, many sectors and many political and institutional processes. All of that, in my view, means transparency is essential so that there can be the active public debate and dialogue, confidence building that is need to get right a process that will take a generation or even more.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Share this page
Canadian detainee Omar Khadr's lawyers 'seeking deal'
Lawyers for Omar Khadr, a Canadian-born prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, have said they are negotiating to avert a trial.
Mr Khadr, whose father allegedly helped finance al-Qaeda, is the youngest detainee at Guantanamo. He was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 when he was 15.
A Canadian government spokesman said the deal rumours were “not correct” while US officials declined to comment.
But Mr Khadr's lawyer, Nathan Whiting, claimed that the negotiations were “ongoing”.
“We're hopeful that there is going to be a deal. There isn't one yet,” Mr Whiting said.
Mr Khadr's trial began in August but was delayed when his lawyer fell ill. The trial is due to reconvene on Monday at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Mr Khadr, now 24, has pleaded not guilty to charges including murder, conspiracy and spying, and could face life imprisonment if convicted.
The US government alleges that he threw a grenade that killed an American soldier. Prosecutors have also accused him of having close family ties with Osama bin Laden.
Mr Khadr's lawyers argue that his family forced him into the war as a child
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused to ask US authorities to release Khadr, who is the only remaining Western citizen at Guantanamo.

Source:BBC