All Global News on One Page

The belief that American Jews may flip to the Republican Party out of concern for Israel is not new. For example:
In 1981, Milton Himmelfarb (who happens to be Weekly Standard editor William Kristol’s uncle), wrote in a piece for Commentary titled “Are Jews Becoming Republican?” that the 1980 presidential election may prove to be a watershed election in which Jews begin to turn to the Republican party, largely because of Israel.
In 1999, at a convention hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, Republican pollster Frank Luntz told the audience that “The magic word is ‘Israel.’ Pro-life Republican candidates, if they use less divisive social language, can win a significant portion of Jewish support if they are vocally and unconditionally pro-Israel.”
In a 2003 report for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, titled “Are American Jews Becoming Republican?,” Professor Steven F. Windmueller, questioned whether the event of 9/11 and terror attacks in Israel “could impact on Jewish political consciousness and even voting patterns.”
The answer, at every turn as we now know, was no. But old and bad arguments have a funny way of creeping back into conservative talking-points.
Last month, Windmueller wrote a piece for The Jewish Week, familiarly titled “The Politics of Anger: Are American Jews Becoming Republican?”:
Now Bill Kristol has gotten into the act. Kristol cites a poll commissioned by the “Emergency Committee for Israel,” which he chairs, as demonstrating that Democrats are losing touch with Israel, and that pro-Israel advocates (read: American Jews) should turn to the Republican party. “…is it time for pro-Israel liberals to rethink their attachment to liberalism?,” Kristol questions.
The answer, yet again, is no.
American Jews indeed deeply care about the security of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. But when it comes to voting, they also care about – and tend to base their votes on – other stuff, namely: the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care, unemployment, and foreign policy in general–all of which were listed above Israel as issues determining American Jewish votes in the upcoming election according to the American Jewish Committee poll released this week.
This fact has in the past vexed Republicans and it continues to do so. (See Norman Podhoretz’s book Why are Jews Liberals?)
But their denigration of American Jews’ traditional political leanings can’t help matters.
For example, Irving Kristol (Bill Kristol’s father) wrote a paper in 1999 titled “On the Political Stupidity of the Jews,” in which he stated that “A people whose history is largely a story of powerlessness and victimization, or at least is felt to be such, is not likely to acquire the kinds of skills necessary for astute statesmanship.”
Kristol, the son, himself wrote for Commentary in June that “Fortunately, neither American nor Israeli foreign-policy need be guided by the head-in-the-sand political views of much of the American Jewish community.” In the piece, he argued that:
Neither would I.
Earlier this month, Eric Cantor — now the lone Jewish Republican in Congress today — told the Wall Street Journal that the Jewish community is largely democratic because they “are prone to want to help the underdog.” In a five-part series of posts on the Huffington Post — and prominently promoted on the Emergency Committee for Israel’s website — Richard Chesnoff and Edward Klein argue that President Obama has a “Jewish problem” and cite as evidence their conversation with the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, who essentially boils down American Jewish support for Obama as a case of Jewish guilt:
“The black-Jewish alliance was shattered in the late 1960s, and Jews have yearned ever since to restore it. Jews felt good about voting for Obama, for not only were they voting for a guy they agreed with and liked, but they were also voting for their own personal redemption.”
The truth is that American Jews — like their Democratic representatives — care about Israel, but also progressive values and goals, like universal health care, valuing science and research, openly serving gays in the military — ya know, just like Israel.
Polls showing dwindling support among American Jews for President Obama mirror national trends. ‘Only’ 57 percent of those polled in the AJC survey said it would be better if Democrats controlled Congress after the November election. This has a whole lot more to do with the struggling economy and the other issues listed above than with support for Israel — and I wouldn’t count on synagogues nationwide to begin hosting tea-party meetings anytime soon (albeit, with some exceptions).
It is indeed true that worrisome developments within Israel which threaten its democratic values have American Jews, and progressives broadly, deeply concerned. A stalled peace process and potentially nuclear Iran do as well. Conservatives are wrong to think they can exploit these concerns for electoral gains for two reasons.
First, the fear-mongering about President Obama’s supposed lack of support for Israel just doesn’t hold water. The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has proved to be a significant point of disagreement between the administrations in Washington and Jerusalem… for the last 40+ years. Obama is not the first president to raise the issue of settlements (that was Lyndon Johnson — and every president since), nor has he been the toughest when it comes to pressuring Israel to halt them (that would be the first President Bush). In fact, President Obama has reportedly offered Israel a plethora of unprecedented diplomatic and security guarantees from the United States for just a two-month extension of the settlement moratorium.
The United States’ relationship with Israel has strengthened, not waned during the Obama administration, particularly concerning the threat from Iran. In addition to the Obama administration’s leading a global effort to pass significant international sanctions against Iran, The Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. aid to Israel has increased markedly this year.” Following the report, AIPAC spokesman Josh Block stated that “Clearly the Obama administration remains deeply committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance, and supporting aid to Israel and deepening our military cooperation is just one aspect of that.”
This is all a far cry from “the most anti-Israel administration in the modern history of the state of Israel and our relationship with her,” as House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence recently told Christian Broadcasting Network in describing the Obama administration.
Second, conservatives aren’t doing American Jews — or Israel — any favors by trying to use Israel as a tool for scoring political points. Instead, they should focus on the issues of genuine disagreement. But don’t take my word for it. As Brandon Griefe of the College Republican National Committee wrote in April:
“Republicans must be careful not to create public controversy where none exists solely because they believe it is a winning issue with their own voters and a chance to appeal to traditionally Democratic Jewish voters. Likewise, Democrats would be foolish to waiver from their pro-Israel stance in order to induce concessions from Prime Minister Netanyahu in Palestinian bargaining talks. In an era when peace is at a premium, in the halls of Congress and in the Middle East, both parties would be wise to remember their agreement over Israel.”
Is Griefe wrong? I wouldn’t bet on it.

Follow David Halperin on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/dhalperin

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I recently read with great interest a document released by Chancellor Joel Klein and enthusiastically titled a “Manifesto”.
I had to plow through it a few times in search of any substance. There is no connection to what transpires in the real world. I read no definitive solutions, no practical remedies offered. I read rhetoric, more rhetoric based on initiatives, that are not supported by any research. Does this make sense to anyone? Let’s write a manifesto and base it on a shaky foundation of initiatives proven to fail.
I wondered if whether this op-ed that Chancellor Joel Klein wrote was just excerpts from Education Nation’s show producer’s questions? Within hours, the best Education columnist on the planet, Valerie Strauss, picked it apart masterfully.
Later, teacher extraordinaire Anthony Cody superbly dissected it in his blog.
I returned to “why?” Why write a lengthy document easily repudiated and formalize it?
After four years of Latin, I’m forever breaking down words into their Latin meaning (a shout out to Sister Eleanor Farren!) Manifesto (manifestum) means “clarity” or “conspicuousness”. The only clarity I saw in that “Manifesto” was that Joel Klein clearly demonstrated how little he knows about the world of education.
Valerie Strauss did a superb job dissecting this manifesto and all its salient, or lack thereof, points. Teacher Anthony Cody also picked up on more outstanding points in his smackdown today. I’d like to dissect the rationale behind this published nonsense.
In my best Andy Rooney impersonation, here goes…
Let’s see, who creates a manifesto anyways? Manifestos are always politically motivated and usually written by someone in desperate need of swaying public opinion.
The last manifestos I read were, I suppose, the Unabomber’s manifesto! And, then, there was Andrew Stack who crashed his plane into an Austin IRS building — yes, he had a Manifesto on him! And then, there was Ron Paul in 2008, while he was running for President, he wrote an ambitious Revolution manifesto, and of course Mein Kampf manifesto by Adolf Hitler.
It sounds official though. Doesn’t it? A MANIFESTO! Sounds as it it should be heralded in by trumpet first or read while being carried in on an elephant!
To me, Klein, Rhee and the handful of superintendents (backed by and/or trained by the Broad Foundation) just guaranteed themselves entry into the game show, “Jeopardy,” category MANIFESTO AUTHORS. They are now trivia game answers, just like, Adolf Hitler, Ted Kazcynski, Andrew Stark, etc. This will be a tough question to answer in a few years — nobody will remember it. It may qualify to fall under the “Double Jeopardy” category. It does for me!
A manifesto is always politically motivated. What’s the motivation? Big foundations love this gobbledygook on paper — makes them think this is the official word — and oh, wait, let’s affix some signatures and make it look even more official.
More empty rhetoric trying to be shoved down the throats of hedge fund managers to buy into this privatization scheme, more nothingness, no concrete solutions. I apologize to the authors but that is how it appears to me. I’m a parent who wants genuine dialogue between teachers, unions, parents and the Department of Education — no more rhetoric.
Manifesto, manifesto, how do I renounce thee? Let me count the ways!

Follow Rita M. Solnet on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ritacolleen

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I know that you Tea Party members are here to stay, but I’m still confused about how some of your policies would play out. Maybe one of you out there can help me understand. So here are my questions:
OK, so you want to privatize Social Security. As you know, millions of Americans depend on their monthly checks for food and shelter. If the last two years have taught us anything, it’s that markets are volatile and susceptible to the machinations of Wall Street smarties. Here’s what I don’t understand: What happens to families who depend on Social Security if the markets plummet? What plans have you to protect older Americans from losing their homes and their ability to buy food? I am assuming there would be little or no money available from a down-sized government for shelters and food programs, right?
I take it many of you don’t like President Obama’s approach to health care. As I understand it, you would prefer giving individuals the right to choose their own menu of health care insurance coverage, as Sharon Angle said in her debate with Senator Harry Reid. If I understood her correctly, she didn’t think insurance companies should have to cover things like mammograms and colonoscopies if the buyer didn’t want them. So here’s my question: If I opt out of having coverage for a colonoscopy to save money, what happens when I can’t afford to cover the costs of colon cancer that the colonoscopy might have detected at an early stage for a fraction of the cost? I know I won’t get turned away for treatment, but if I can’t afford it, who pays? If the answer is other taxpayers, well, that doesn’t seem fair, does it? If the answer is no one pays and treatment is denied, what happens to all those doctors and health-care providers who are trained to treat colon cancer? How will they make a living? And, oh yeah, what happens to me?
Let’s carry that question a step further: If I’m in an auto accident and need hospital care and I have auto insurance, do I get a room and treatment ahead of all those people who have colon cancer but no insurance to cover it?
Some of you expressed support for that fire department in Tennessee that didn’t extinguish a fire because the homeowner hadn’t paid his local service fee. Fair’s fair, right? Market forces: got it. But if there were a child in the house who suffered third degree burns, would the municipal ambulance company be legally protected from declining service because the home owner didn’t pay the fee?
Many of you regard yourselves as “originalists” when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, accepting the notion that our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created our most sacred document. One thing they did was count each black American as three-fifths of a person. I know that changed later, but were those originalists right?
I have lots more questions, but if you could get started with these, it would really help me understand what you stand for. Thank you.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

One of our family sayings is: “you can’t compete with self-parody”. Daniel Henninger is the most recent proof of this saying. He authored a column on October 14, 2010 entitled “Capitalism Saved the Miners.” Mr. Henninger is an editorial writer/editor for the Wall Street Journal. His essay, of course, was designed to attack President Obama. Mr. Henninger wrote that the rescue of the Chilean miners reflected badly on President Obama’s criticism of Republican candidates’ views about markets:
“The basic idea is that if we put our blind faith in the market and we let corporations do whatever they want and we leave everybody else to fend for themselves, then America somehow automatically is going to grow and prosper.”
Henninger’s responded to this quotation from the President:
“Uh, yeah. That’s a caricature of the basic idea, but basically that’s right. Ask the miners.
If those miners had been trapped a half-mile down like this 25 years ago anywhere on earth, they would be dead. What … meant the difference between life and death for those men?
Short answer: the Center Rock drill bit.
Longer answer: The Center Rock drill [was] developed by a small company in it for the money, for profit. That’s why they innovated down-the-hole hammer drilling. If they make money, they can do more innovation.
This profit = innovation dynamic was everywhere at that Chilean mine.”
Well, not really. Let’s begin with why the miners needed to be saved. They needed to be saved because the private mine they worked for appears to have been a “control fraud.”
In a control fraud the person controlling a seemingly legitimate entity uses it as a “weapon.” Our ongoing financial crisis was driven by an epidemic of accounting control fraud, which caused the housing and commercial real estate bubbles to hyper-inflate. Accounting control frauds target creditors and shareholders as their primary victims. Anti-purchaser control frauds maximize profits by defrauding purchasers about quality and/or quantity in order to gain a competitive advantage over honest sellers. George Akerlof described this form of control fraud in his famous 1970 article on “lemons.” Anti-purchaser control frauds can maim or kill their victims, e.g., Chinese infant formula frauds. The worst anti-employee control frauds increase profits by avoiding costs that would protect workers from being maimed and killed. Illegal, private Chinese coal mines are the infamous example of this type of control fraud.
We know that the Chilean mine was private, that it had a bad safety record, and that it has been ordered to shut down permanently. The BBC reports that the (strongly conservative) President Pinera promised the people of Chile that: “never again in Chile would people be allowed to work in such inhumane conditions.” Reports from Chile stress that the mine violated the law in failing to have a second entrance to the mine (which would have greatly reduced the risk of the miners being trapped by the collapse of a portion of the shaft). Local officials have claimed that the only way the mine owners could have gotten away with such an obvious violation of the safety rules was through bribery of the regulatory officials.
Reports from Chile also state that the mine did not have the required ladder that would have allowed the workers to escape the mine in the immediate aftermath of the collapse through a ventilation shaft that subsequently became inaccessible. The “innovation dynamic” that was “everywhere” in the Chilean mine due to the profit motive also explains why the ladder was not there. To sum it up, the miners wouldn’t have had to be rescued but for the perverse incentives of that unregulated capitalism inherently produces (which is what Obama warned about). (The governmentally-owned coal mines in China also have a far better safety record than the private Chinese coal mines.)
Once the mine shaft collapsed in Chile, the private mining company declared that it not only could not pay to rescue the miners — it could not even pay their wages. The private company threatened to file for bankruptcy. The rescue was paid for by the State-owned mine (i.e., the Chilean government had to bail out the private mine owner to the tune of an estimated rescue cost of $10 to $20 million in order to rescue the miners). A $25 ladder apparently would have prevented the tragedy, but the private owners’ profit motive led them to avoid that expense. The Chilean mine had gold and copper ore. Both of those minerals are selling for record prices. This makes the private mining company’s failure to provide another exit and a ladder all the more outrageous. Where did the profits go? Capitalism would have left the miners to die. The government paid to rescue the miners.
Mr. Henninger is right to advise that we should “ask the miners” — because that is exactly what the private mine and Mr. Henninger failed to do. The private mine ignored the miners’ warnings about the inadequate safety of the mine. The government of Chile did not listen to the miners’ union on safety issues. And the miners’ families sued the private mine owners — blaming them for the collapse that nearly killed them.
When we prevent a corporation from engaging in fraud or endangering its workers we do not harm capitalism, but rather save honest businesses from being driven from the marketplace. Akerlof demonstrated in 1970 — forty years ago — that control frauds can produce a “Gresham’s” dynamic in which the markets drive ethical firms and professionals out of the marketplace. When cheaters prosper, markets become perverse. Effective regulators serve as the “cops on the beat” that allow honest firms, workers, lenders, investors, consumers, and taxpayers to prosper.
Crossposted from New Deal 2.0.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Let me be clear: Courteney Cox and David Arquette owe me – and my generation – absolutely nothing. They are simply two grown adults, living their lives, working on their marriage, and as of late, calling it quits over issues that I, a random bystander and gossip reader, realistically know nothing about. When did their relationship start breaking down? How does the barmaid fit into all of this? Truth be told, it’s really none of my business.
That said, indulge me. I need to take a moment to mourn the passing of yet another famous couple who had previously given little ol’ me a bit of hope in the love department. Why did it have to end? They seemed so stable! And happy! And compatible! What a bummer. For us Millennials, especially.
Of course, Courteney and David signed up to be actors – not role models. It’s my fault for watching cable reruns of Scream and letting myself be charmed, each and every time, by their surprising on-screen/off-screen romance. I blame myself for taking a particular liking to them as a couple: the pretty woman who wasn’t afraid to make fun of herself (starring in a show called Cougar Town, anyone?), and the quirky guy who wasn’t quite as attractive but undoubtedly brought a lot of fun and spontaneity to their time together. They never asked me to be invested in them as a duo. So, this was my mistake.
But as part of a generation that was raised amidst an approximate 50% divorce rate, and that spent way too much time being carpooled between two Christmases and wondering whether it was going to be Mom or Dad picking them up from the soccer game this week, I can’t help but be disappointed by the news that another relationship with role model potential has bitten the dust. Especially one that seemed – maybe thanks to a smart PR campaign, or maybe thanks to a generally healthy and respectful connection – to be solid and long-lasting (11 years is basically the equivalent of a golden anniversary these days). At least their marriage seemed stronger than so many of the other Hollywood romances that are thrown at us unfamous folk.
I, personally, am in the middle of a nationwide tour for the book portion of my multimedia project, WTF Is Up With My Love Life?! And as I’ve begun interviewing young men and women around the country, I’ve found – and this should shock no one – that we are all deeply affected by the relationships that surround us.
For many, this influence comes in the traditional form of parental relationships. True to the statistical claims, about half of my interviewees were raised by parents who have been married for 20, 30, 40 years. And during my interviews, the coupled-up offspring of those marriages tend to laugh and roll their eyes as they describe the many ways in which their current relationships mirror their parents’. “I never thought I would turn into my parents, but…!” is a common sentiment. And on the other hand, the single interviewees with still-married parents are often single because they have not yet found what their parents had. Either way, our parents’ relationships seem to play a key role in our individual decisions about the kind of spouse and marital lifestyle we are seeking.
The interviewees who have divorced parents, or parents who were never married? Their situation is in no way tragic – many of them are committed to building different types of relationships than those that failed their parents. But their road to marital bliss, at least from a modeling perspective, is a bit harder going. Some have been completely turned off to the concept of marriage and lifelong monogamy, while others are unsure but deeply hesitant after seeing how much hard work a relationship can entail. A few of them seem to be floating aimlessly in the sea of potential romantic needs and wants and possibilities, frustrated by the relationship patterns that they see themselves repeating but unaware of how to break them.
Yet on the bright side, many of them have sought out other relationship role models to balance out the harsh lessons from their split parents. These role models are usually closer to them than, say, Courteney and David. But every relationship they see – that we all see – has a small but existing impact.
Committing to a lifetime of monogamy with anyone, even our most perfect of soulmates, can be tough – especially for a self-aware generation that is so used to splitting when something isn’t to our liking. We don’t love our job…we find another one. We don’t like where we live…we pack up our car and move to another city. We’re not impressed with the institutions and industries that already exist…we create new ones. But how will this willingness to change course and leave behind undesirable situations play out in the arena of commitment, marriage and monogamy? If monogamy is in fact the goal, and something that we still aspire to – then are we Millennials going to be able to do it?
We need role models who will show us how to stick things out when the going gets tough. In addition to the relationships that we observe in our own lives, we can’t help but also look at those in the media to see if they’re making it through the difficult, or just plain boring, times. So it comes as a disappointment when the couples who have always seemed pretty great to us – Courteney and David, Susan and Tim, Kate and Sam, Al and Tipper – don’t make it as far as we’d hoped.
Therefore, the questions remain. Will we succeed in finding role models who inspire us to work towards lives that are filled with monogamy and commitment and partnership? And even if we do succeed, will we then have enough discipline and perspective to stay together even when we’re grayer and saggier, despite our tendencies toward change and innovation and self-fulfillment? Or should lifelong monogamy not even be a goal for our generation – since the evidence that it can work continues to dwindle?
I guess we’ll just have to see. But in the meantime, let’s all cross our fingers for Goldie and Kurt.
For more on love in the post-dating world, check out www.WTFIsUpWithMyLoveLife.com.

Follow Jessica Massa on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/jessmassa

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

All that glitters seems to be gold. With the metal at $1,371 per ounce, up from $800, the two-year return on bullion is approximately 70%. In 2008, comparatively late to the long-running gold party, we purchased the GDX (gold mining stocks exchange traded fund) across client accounts in cautiously small weightings. Obviously, we should have bought more.
Returns that approach 100% in short periods of time are unsustainable. Gold may climb for awhile, but at some point it will fall — with all the force of gravity a heavy metal can provide.
Consider that gold has been a terrible long-term investment over the past century. By way of illustration: in 1910, one ounce of gold bought a decent men’s suit — and it still does today. In other words, over that time gold has provided zero real return (above and beyond the inflation rate). Contrast this with stocks which have provided a 7% real return, and you begin to appreciate the difference. One that thing that worries me is that, at $1,346, an ounce of gold nearly fetches a really nice men’s suit: think Armani, not a knockoff. And that’s the trouble. When gold starts providing some sort of real return above and beyond inflation, you have to worry, because it normally doesn’t.
Gold is a story of tremendous spikes — when people panic about inflation or currency debasement — and harrowing collapses, once sound currency returns. From 1971-1981, as inflation vexed the American economy, gold returned 28% a year, but then lost money over the next two decades. As Volcker restored a stable price level via high interest rates, gold lost its luster.
History will rhyme, if not repeat. Gold is ultimately a commodity, with few uses beyond jewelry and hoarding. It costs quite a bit to unearth and offers little in return. Expensive to store and secure, it also pays no interest. In short, it’s only value lies in its rarity — and such rarity is only attractive at times when dollars are anything but. An ounce of gold cannot create wealth like a company, can’t enjoy economies of scale and doesn’t pay a dividend. Gold mining stocks do these things, however, and are thus more attractive than bullion. But gold mining stocks are now fully valued, or even overvalued. At free cash flow yields below 3%, gold mining stocks need metal prices to stay in the stratosphere to maintain their own price levels.
Gold itself cannot be accurately valued, given that it provides no yield. Valuing gold is no different than valuing a currency: impossible yet commonly attempted. But when an investment throws off no cash, there’s no way of discounting its present value — or of comparing it to other opportunities.
As you know, we don’t believe anyone can predict the short-term direction of prices in anything: stocks, bonds, livestock, or certainly gold. Since we can’t value gold accurately either, the asset is more dangerous than most.
Gold is clearly in a “bubble,” but bubbles can expand for very long periods of time before they pop — usually longer than the most lengthy of predictions. Despite more and more cocktail chatter about gold, the aura surrounding the metal still doesn’t approach the internet frenzy, or the real estate mania, or even the euphoria of gold bulls in the 70′s. Until it does, gold will not collapse. A bubble only bursts once the last doubter climbs aboard. There are still too many naysayers loudly condemning gold. When the ultimate erstwhile cynic capitulates and cries “Buy gold!” that will mark the top. I don’t believe that time has yet arrived.
On the other hand, we believe in selling assets that are overvalued. When dealing with a likely overpriced asset that can’t even be properly valued, it’s better to be too early than too late. Waiting until inflation and interest rates rise is probably a losing strategy; by then, gold will have already long priced in that reality. Our contrarian philosophy dictates selling an asset class when people are optimistic about its prospects, and that seems to be the current mood surrounding gold. So we’ve sold our holdings of the GDX. Gold looks a little gaudy in this light.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Last month President Obama was in New York City for a Democratic fundraiser, but it wasn’t his political views that made headlines. Thanks to some agitated activists it was a nonpartisan issue that rose to the forefront – lack of funding for a virus that’s become epidemic in a first world country: AIDS.
It’s been estimated that AIDS rates among black Americans rival some African nations. And according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), AIDS is the leading cause of death for American women ages 25-34 – an embarrassing statistic for a country with access to some of the best medication in the world.
But access comes at a price, and the government has never been willing to foot the bill.
Housing Works, the largest community-based AIDS service organization in the United States, reports that more than 2,000 people with HIV/AIDS are awaiting critical, potentially lifesaving medication. More than 18,000 Americans with AIDS will die this year, many of them because they have been wait-listed for treatment.
President Obama’s allocation of $25 million toward AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP) is an anemic attempt to quell a consistently underfunded and ignored issue. It only prolongs the laissez-faire mentality that has prevailed when it comes to AIDS treatment in America.
AIDS no longer has to be a death sentence, yet thousands of people with HIV/AIDS are forced to fight for a chance at life because the cost of medication is prohibitive. Current estimates reveal that one million people are living with HIV in the United States. For a president who has earned a reputation as a spendthrift, it’s hard to believe that he can’t spare some change to give citizens the prescriptions they need to lead healthy lives.
Nearly three decades have gone by and the four-letter acronym is still treated as an “other” problem. But we know it has many faces. It’s not just the injection drug abuser or promiscuous gay man’s problem. And creating obstacles to proper treatment effectively makes it a human rights problem. The physical and emotional damage caused by an HIV/AIDS diagnosis can be devastating enough without having to worry about the cost of staying alive.
The Access ADAP Act Senate bill currently on the table calls for $126 million of unspent federal stimulus funds to be transferred to ADAP but the Obama administration has declined to support it. And until then, many pill bottles will remain empty.

Follow Melody Serafino on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@MelodySerafino

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Next weekend, October 22 to 24th Las Vegas revives, revitalizes and celebrates the style pioneered in desert resort’s glory days when glamour ruled the Strip and the Rat Pack packed ‘em in. This is a weekend full of classic retro Vegas chic.
Mondo Lounge III comes to the Palms Hotel for three suave days and two debonair nights, bringing the swank, swingin’ Mad Man style of Las Vegas Modernism to real life with classic Las Vegas and Hollywood glitz; lounge culture, martinis and other retro cocktails; vintage fashion, Mid Century Modern, Atomic Age and Space Age living; stereophonic sound and Exotica la Les Baxter and Pablo Esquivel; swing and ballroom dancing, the fox trot, rhumba, and samba; Eames-era, 1950s, and1960s style; bachelor pads, minks, black tie and Sean Connery-era James Bond; pin-up girls, and nightclub glitz.
Themed around the lifestyle and culture of Americana from 1957 to 1963, Mondo Lounge III will feature live music, lounge and burlesque acts, plus DJs from internet Exotica radio station Luxuria, exhibitors and vendors, as well as off-site cultural events including an architectural film screening and panel discussion at the former Stardust Country Club (National Golf Club), a guided bus tour and a self-driven architectural tour of Las Vegas landmarks (these have separate admissions from the Mondo Lounge event). The Junior League will host a complimentary open house at the Morelli House on Sunday too! The off-site events are produced by Las Vegas cultural entities such as Friends of Classic Las Vegas, VeryVintageVegas.com and the Architectural and Decorative Arts Society of Las Vegas.
The weekend’s in-person host is the highly collectible and popularfine artist SHAG (aka Josh Agle), famous for his Jetsons-meets-James Bond jet-set themed paintings. A large selection of SHAG’s artwork will be a premiere exhibit at the event with an exclusive opening on Friday night.
Other art includes tiki artist extraordinaire, Bosko and his Witco burnt-wood carving style artwork; mod/psy-fi fine artist Chris Reccardi; and vintage serigraphs by David Weidman, animator for many cartoon classics including Mr.Magoo, Gerald McBoing Boing and Fractured Fairytales.

Follow Lisa Derrick on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/lalisa93

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Looming losses from ForeclosureGate qualify as the sort of systemic risk warranting the breakup of the too-big-to-fail banks under the Financial Reform Bill.
The new Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) probably didn’t expect to have its authority called on quite so soon, but Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has just put the Kanjorski amendment to the test. The amendment provides that federal regulators can preemptively break up large financial institutions that — for any reason — pose a threat to U.S. financial or economic stability. On October 7, in a letter addressed to Timothy Geithner, Shiela Bair, Ben Bernanke, Mary Schapiro, John Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), Gary Gensler, Ed DeMarco (FHA) and Debbie Matz (National Credit Union Administration), he asked for an emergency task force on foreclosure fraud. He said:
Grayson sought a foreclosure moratorium on all mortgages originated and securitized between 2005-2008, until such time as the FSOC task force was able to understand and mitigate the systemic risk posed by the foreclosure fraud crisis. He wrote:
Why Wasn’t It Done Right in the First Place?
That raises the question, why were the notes not assigned to the trusts? Grayson says the banks were not interested in repayment; they were just churning loans as fast as they could in order to generate fees. Karl Denninger says, “I believe a big part of why it was not done is that IF it had been done the original paperwork would have been available to the trustee and ultimately the MBS owners, who would have immediately discovered that the representations and warranties as to the quality of the conveyed paper were being wantonly violated.” He says, “You can’t audit what you don’t have.”
Both are probably right, yet these explanations seem insufficient. If it were just a matter of negligence or covering up dubious collateral, surely some of the assignments by some of the banks would have been done properly. Why would they all be defective?
The reason the mortgage notes were never assigned may be that there was no party legally capable of accepting the assignments. Securitization was originally set up as a tax dodge; and to qualify for the tax exemption, the conduits between the original lender and the investors could own nothing. The conduits are “special purpose vehicles” set up by the banks, a form of Mortgage Backed Security called REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits). They hold commercial and residential mortgages in trust for the investors. They don’t own them; they are just trustees.
The problem was nailed in a class action lawsuit recently filed in Kentucky, titled Foster v. MERS, GMAC, et al. (USDC, Western District of Kentucky). The suit claims that MERS and the banks violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law originally passed to pursue organized crime. Bloomberg quotes Heather Boone McKeever, a Lexington, Kentucky-based lawyer for the homeowners, who said in a phone interview, “RICO comes in because the fraud didn’t just happen piecemeal. This is organized crime by people in suits, but it is still organized crime. They created a very thorough plan.”
The complaint alleges:
53. The “Trusts” coming to Court are actually Mortgage Backed Securities
(“MBS”). The Servicers, like GMAC, are merely administrative entities which collect the mortgage payments and escrow funds. The MBS have signed themselves up under oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC,”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS,”) as mortgage asset “pass through” entities wherein they can never own the mortgage loan assets in the MBS. This allows them to qualify as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) rather than an ordinary Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”). As long as the MBS is a qualified REMIC, no income tax will be charged to the MBS. For purposes of this action, “Trust” and MBS are interchangeable. . . .
56. REMICS were newly invented in 1987 as a tax avoidance measure by
Investment Banks. To file as a REMIC, and in order to avoid one hundred percent
(100%) taxation by the IRS and the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet, an MBS REMIC could not engage in any prohibited action. The “Trustee” can not own the assets of the REMIC. A REMIC Trustee could never claim it owned a mortgage loan. Hence, it can never be the owner of a mortgage loan.
57. Additionally, and important to the issues presented with this particular
action, is the fact that in order to keep its tax status and to fund the “Trust” and legally collect money from investors, who bought into the REMIC, the “Trustee” or the more properly named, Custodian of the REMIC, had to have possession of ALL the original blue ink Promissory Notes and original allonges and assignments of the Notes, showing a complete paper chain of title.
58. Most importantly for this action, the “Trustee”/Custodian MUST have the mortgages recorded in the investors name as the beneficiaries of a MBS in the year the MBS “closed.” [Emphasis added.]
Only the beneficiaries – the investors who advanced the funds – can claim “ownership.” And the mortgages had to have been recorded in the name of the beneficiaries the year the MBS closed. The problem is, who ARE the beneficiaries who advanced the funds? In the securitization market, they come and go. Properties get sold and resold daily. They can be sliced up and sold to multiple investors at the same time. Which investors could be said to have put up the money for a particular home that goes into foreclosure? MBS are divided into “tranches” according to level of risk, typically from AAA to BBB. The BBB investors take the first losses, on up to the AAAs. But when the REMIC is set up, no one knows which homes will default first. The losses are taken collectively by the pool as they hit; the BBBs simply don’t get paid. But the “pool” is the trust; and to qualify as a REMIC trust, it can own nothing.
The lenders were trying to have it both ways; and to conceal what was going on, they dropped an electronic curtain over their sleight of hand, called Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or “MERS.” MERS is simply an electronic data base. On its website and in assorted court pleadings, it too declares that it owns nothing. It was set up that way so that it would be “bankruptcy-remote,” something required by the credit rating agencies in order to turn the mortgages passing through it into highly rated securities that could be sold to investors. According to the MERS website, it was also set up that way to save on recording fees, which means dodging state statutes requiring a fee to be paid to establish a formal record each time title changes hands.
The arrangement satisfied the ratings agencies, but it has not satisfied the courts. Real estate law dating back hundreds of years requires that to foreclose on real property, the foreclosing party must produce signed documentation establishing a chain of title to the property; and that has not been done. Increasingly, judges are holding that if MERS owns nothing, it cannot foreclose, and it cannot convey title by assignment so that the trustee for the investors can foreclose. MERS breaks the chain of title so that no one has standing to foreclose.
Sixty-two million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, a ploy that the banks have realized won’t work; so Plan B has been to try to fabricate documents to cure the defect. Enter the RoboSigning crew, who signed hundreds of documents a day without knowing what was in them. Interestingly, it wasn’t just one bank engaging in this pattern of coverup and fraud but many banks, suggesting the sort of “organized crime” that would qualify under the RICO statute.
However, that ploy won’t work either, because it’s too late to assign properties to trusts that have already been set up without violating the tax code for REMICs, and the trusts themselves aren’t allowed to own anything under the tax code. If the trusts violate the tax laws, the banks setting them up will owe millions of dollars in back taxes. Whether the banks are out the real estate or the taxes, they could well be looking at insolvency, posing the sort of serious systemic risk that would bring them under the purview of the new Financial Stability Oversight Council.

Follow Ellen Brown on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ellenhbrown

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision not to renew the settlement “freeze” has left the Obama administration scrambling to save the negotiations from collapse. For the second time in two years, direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are at risk due to Israeli actions. In a misguided attempt to overcome Netanyahu’s recalcitrance, the White House has reportedly offered unprecedented incentives for Israel to continue the freeze for a mere 60 days (“U.S. Presses Israelis on Renewal of Freeze”). What happens after those two months expire is still unclear, but what is certain is that the United States will have abandoned any leverage with Israel and any chance of brokering a peace accord.
Meanwhile, Israel has attempted to downplay if not dismiss entirely the impact of its settlement construction and 43-year occupation of the Palestinian territories. In a recent interview with USA Today, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren asserted that contrary to Palestinian claims, Israel’s settlements would not prevent the establishment of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. He claimed that renewed construction will not “impact the map” (“What the Israeli ambassador has to say”). Yet a glance at a map of the West Bank interlaced with settlements reveals the opposite (B’Tselem West Bank Map, February 2008).
Today, Israel has more than 130 settlements and over 100 “outposts” in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem with a population of over a half million — all in violation of international law. These heavily fortified settlements are supported by a Jewish-only road network, checkpoints, military bases, and the massive 480-mile long barrier that segments and isolates the West Bank’s major Palestinian population centers from each other and from Palestinian East Jerusalem (The Separation Barrier). To support its occupation infrastructure, Israel has seized and controls vastly more Palestinian territory than the “1.7 – 1.9 percent of the West Bank” claimed by Ambassador Oren.
Israel currently controls over 59 percent of the West Bank. Under the terms of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the West Bank was divided into three zones, of which Area “C,” where the settlements are located, was to remain under full Israeli control until final status negotiations were complete. Although negotiations were to conclude after five years, today, 17 years after the Oslo process began, the negotiations and settlement construction continue both seemingly without end. In addition, the Israeli organization Peace Now determined that over 39 percent of the settlements are built on private Palestinian property, a violation of Israeli law (“Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land”). This includes large areas of major settlements like Maale Adumim and Ariel.
Underlying these figures is the human toll of the settlements and the settlers on Palestinians. Last week a mosque in the village of Beit Fajjar near Bethlehem was torched, the fourth in the past year (“Korans burnt in West Bank mosque attack”). Over the past decade, settlers have frequently damaged and uprooted Palestinian olive groves, harassed Palestinian farmers, shepherds, and school children. Last month, an Israeli settler shot and killed an unarmed Palestinian man in the Jerusalem suburb of Issawiya. In the ensuing protests, tear gas fired by Israeli police suffocated an 18-month-old Palestinian child (“Palestinian Infant Dies from Tear Gas Inhalation in East Jerusalem”).
Although these incidents are shocking they are not isolated. As the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has documented, settler attacks against Palestinians are not only routine, but escalating (“Settler Violence”). These acts often go unpunished by the Israeli authorities, which serves to further embolden the settlers and encourage further acts of violence. This was on display in the celebrations by settlers marking the end of the “freeze” and their increasingly brazen “price tag” policy in which Palestinian property is attacked to prevent any Israeli concessions in the peace talks or attempts by the state to curtail their activities. The settlers believe they are above the law — Israeli and international — and neither the U.S. nor Israel has given them reason to believe otherwise.
Washington’s continued financial, military and political support for Israel’s settlement policy means the end of the two-state solution. Palestinian attempts to negotiate an end to the conflict have again been undermined by Israeli politicians unwilling to negotiate in good faith and feckless American politicians unable to muster the political will necessary to broker an agreement. Like its predecessor, the Obama administration has sought to placate the most unreasonable Israeli demands at the expense of Palestinian rights. In the process, it has damaged its own attempts to improve relations with Arabs and Muslims around the world. Such a policy ensures continued conflict, not a resolution.
Six years ago, the International Court of Justice in The Hague reaffirmed that Israel’s wall in the West Bank and supporting infrastructure, including the settlements, were in violation of international law. In spite of its best efforts to gloss over this reality, Israel’s settlement policy remains an obstacle to peace and prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state. If the Obama administration has any hope of brokering a peace accord it must embrace international law and demand that Israel cease settlement construction now and unconditionally.

Follow Osamah Khalil on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/alshabaka

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Creative Commons has announced the release of the Public Domain Mark. Artists and others are using multiple images from the web for just about every conceivable purpose including making artwork. Now, the new mark can be attached to images that are free of copyright and are a part of the public domain.
The New Public Domain Mark
Even with creative commons searches for images, it is not always clear if those images are copyrighted. With this new mark, we will no longer be guessing. The symbol is the traditional copyright symbol with a slash through it. Think copyright symbol meets the international “no” symbol.
Just to be clear, an image becomes a part of the public domain when their copyright expires or when the artist or creator decides not to copyright and make it part of the public domain. What this means is that people can use the image themselves as is, modify it, or distribute it freely. You do not need permission to use a public domain image. Commercial use of the image becomes possible.
Europeana — Europe’s digital library, museum and archive — is the first major adopter of the Public Domain Mark. It is announcing the launch at the European Open Culture 2010 Conference, Oct 14-15. The PublicDomain Mark, to be used for marking works already free of copyright, complements Creative Commons’ CC0 public domain dedication, which provides an easy and reliable way for adding new works to the public domain prior to the expiry of copyright.
“The Public Domain Mark is a further step on the path towards making the promise of a digital public domain a reality,” said Michael Carroll, a founding board member of Creative Commons and a law professor at American University. “Marking and tagging works with information about their copyright status is essential. Computers must be able to parse the public domain status of works to communicate its usefulness to the public. The metadata standard underpinning the Public Domain Mark and all of CC’s licensing and legal tools are what makes this possible.”
For artists and others, this opens up a clearer distinction of copyright. So watch for this symbol to become a part of your online life, and happy hunting for images.
To make your own images a part of the public domain, please see the creative commons website at http://www.creativecommon.org
Send your questions about the business of art to info@gyst-ink.com.

Follow Karen Atkinson on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/GYSTInk

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The gap between General Petraeus’ rhetoric and the reality on the ground in Afghanistan grows every day.
Yesterday, the Afghan NGO Safety Office (ANSO) released its quarterly report (.pdf) on the security situation in Afghanistan, which described the continued growth of the Afghan armed resistance and a deterioration of security in areas where ISAF made major military pushes. Yet, today, General Petraeus crowed in London about “progress” made in Afghanistan. Americans are wise to the game and don’t buy this sort of clap-trap anymore: most Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is a “situation like Vietnam (.pdf).” Yet Petraeus spins on, damaging his own credibility and fooling no one.
The ANSO report paints a grim picture of the reality on the ground in Afghanistan:
In other words, the counterinsurgency campaign is failing all over the dang place. ANSO very helpfully updated their chart showing the number of armed-opposition-group-initiated attacks over time, and the picture is worth a thousand words:
Lest you think the ANSO data is an outlier, remember that military assessments in both December 2009 and late March 2010 both said that the insurgency’s organizational capabilities are qualitatively and geographically expanding.
Now, in this context, with a clear and easily available body of data that includes U.S. military reports, no U.S. media outlet should be uncritically passing along any quote from any military official claiming “progress” in Afghanistan. The American adventure in Afghanistan is a 9-year-plus unequivocal failure with the indicating statistics showing a remarkable consistency.
Yet on Friday, October 15, General Petraeus laughably attempted to paint “a picture of Afghanistan in which the Taliban’s ability to mount attacks is being reduced…” The ABC News coverage of Petraeus’ remarks came under the headline, “General Petraeus Upbeat, Cites Signs of Progress in Afghanistan.” The subsequent story is little more than stenography, reporting Petraeus’ narrative without including information that would challenge the general’s false depiction of the situation on the ground. The story even claims–without substantiation–that the insurgency has been “knocked back.” That’s laughable, and easily disproved. See above.
Petraeus went on to describe plans to “link the growing Kandahar security bubble with the one in central Helmand.” That begs the question: what planet is Petraeus living on?
Marjah is a basketcase–an example of the failure of the McChrystal/Petraeus strategy. Here’s a brief description, courtesy of the Associated Press:
Eight months on, the Taliban are still here in force, waging a full-blown guerrilla insurgency that rages daily across a bomb-riddled landscape of agricultural fields and irrigation trenches.
As U.S. involvement in the war enters its 10th year, the failure to pacify this town raises questions about the effectiveness of America’s overall strategy. Similarly crucial operations are now under way in neighboring Kandahar province, the Taliban’s birthplace.
There are signs the situation in Marjah is beginning to improve, but “it’s still a very tough fight,” said Capt. Chuck Anklam, whose Marine company has lost three men since arriving in July. “We’re in firefights all over, every day.”
Also from the ANSO report:
“Data from Marjah, Helmand (below) paints a similar picture with high rates of attacks persisting 30 weeks after OP MOSHTARAK and an average of two residents per week being killed by AOG in acts of intimidation or collaterally in IED strikes. The closed nature of Marjah makes reliable reporting difficult but anecdotal reports suggest the fighting is much more intense than ANSO records show with possibly as many as 70-100 kinetic events per week. Both operational areas shows signs of the ‘dynamic occupation’ process typical of the region with AOG melting away ahead of IMF operations only to reappear intact in their wake.”
Kandahar is similarly a wreck. Security for the civilian population has rapidly deteriorated since the launch of the ISAF military push there, resulting in a doubling of the war-related injury rate for civilians, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. ANSO’s data confirms the dire security situation:
“The daily attack rate [in Kandahar] has grown from 0.1 in Week one to 2.8 per day by Week 35 suggesting that the ele- ments of OP HAMKARI un- dertaken so far are not de- grading the AOG ability to conduct attacks. Field reports suggest that the Taliban retain up to 4,000 fighters inside the city and continue a wide- spread campaign of intimidation, targeted assassination and the widespread deployment of IEDs against Police and Military targets.”
If those are security bubbles, the only thing Petraeus is going to succeed in linking is a discreet arc of deteriorating safety for civilians and rising insurgent attacks. Petraeus’s slippery aspirational language can’t hide the fact that he and his strategy are failing to produce promised results.
There are no “security bubbles” to link.
These aren’t signs of progress.
These are signs of failure.
With roughly 60 percent of the American people opposed to the war in Afghanistan, it’s clear that Petraeus is no longer fooling anyone. We know failure when we see it, and we see it in the counterinsurgency strategy pushed by Petraeus, McChrystal, and their think-tank allies.
Where Petraeus is succeeding, however, is in demonstrating conclusively just how disconnected the generals are from reality. But as long as President Obama suspends his disbelief and allows their warped version of reality to drive U.S. policy in Afghanistan, we’ll continue to waste lives and resources on a failed policy that corrodes the national interests of the United States. The president once declared he was against, “dumb war.” It’s past time he acted like it and acted aggressively to rein in the Proconsul of Fantasyland.
The Afghanistan War isn’t making us safer, and it’s not worth the cost. If you’re tired of this brutal, futile conflict, join us at http://facebook.com/RethinkAfghanistan.

Follow Derrick Crowe on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/derrickcrowe

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The former boss of US lender Countrywide Financial has agreed to pay record fines to the financial watchdog to settle fraud charges.
Angelo Mozilo will pay the Securities and Exchange Commission 22.5m (14.1m) and repay 45m of profits.
He is the highest profile executive to face charges relating to the US sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007.
The SEC alleged he, with two colleagues, had failed to disclose risks that Countrywide was taking.
The civil charges related to claims he had misled the market by falsely assuring investors that Countrywide was a prime quality mortgage lender that had avoided the excesses of its competitors.
Mr Mozilo was also charged with selling company shares based on inside knowledge of the company's troubles.
Bank of America eventually rescued the biggest US mortgage lender in July 2008, agreeing to pay 4bn in shares.
Mr Mozilo's penalty was the largest ever paid by a public company's senior executive in an SEC settlement.
It was a “fitting outcome” said Robert Khuzami, head of the SEC's enforcement division.
Mr Mozilo “deliberately disregarded his duties to investors by concealing what he saw from inside the executive suite – a looming disaster in which Countrywide was buckling under the weight of increasing risky mortgage underwriting,” Mr Khuzami said.
The other two Countrywide executives, David Sambol and Eric Sieracki, have also agreed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle the charges, the SEC said.
The sub-prime crisis was caused by mortgages being given to people who could not really afford them.
The loans were then repackaged by banks and sold on to investors, made to look like low-risk investments.

Source:BBC

Is it becoming a clich to say New York is the culinary Capital of the World? Clich or not, in my opinion it is more so now than ever before! From the myriad food neighborhoods we have to choose from, not to mention the recent Food Truck Revolution and gourmet markets like Chelsea Market, FoodParc, and Eataly among others, New Yorkers and visitors can indulge their culinary curiosity without having to travel far at all. If you’re anything like me, your motto is So much to eat, so little time!
I have had several dining spots on my radar for far too long, like Roberta’s in Brooklyn for their famous pizzas. But as I understand from my many friends who have been, there is always an hour or two wait to get in, and, well, I just don’t have that kind of time. So imagine my delight and extreme exuberation when a new dining concept hit my Flatiron neighborhood. Only three blocks from my office, on 23rd and BWAY, a coterie of restaurants have set up pop-ups around the square just across from Madison Park and I was told Roberta’s was among them.
I grabbed two of my colleagues and made a mad dash for “Madison Square Mark’t.” It was a bright sunny Thursday afternoon around 2pm and we were famished. Let’s try it all, I squealed, or at least as much as we can possibly eat. Our first task was to secure a table, which can be challenging; we prevailed and made a B line for Roberta’s and their magical pizza oven. I say magical because the individual pizzas come out light, fluffy, and piping hot in five minutes. We ordered the Fun Guy with taleggio, cremini, speck and thyme and the Mamma Treat with tomato, guanciale, chili, red onion and pecorino. It was just hot enough, the dough firm yet chewy and the toppings enhanced rather than overwhelmed the signature dough. I’m so happy I can actually come eat this every day! As a matter of fact, I could eat there for breakfast, lunch, and dinner if I wanted, with the mark’t open from 11am-8pm seven days a week through October.
Roberta’s may have been the draw but that’s not all there is in this culinary oasis. After we indulged in our pizza we made the rounds, in the interest of research of course, and proceeded with reckless abandon. Next stop, Fatty Crew, which was offering none other than its namesake “fatty” brisket sandwiches with chili jam and cabot cheddar, among other delicacies. We went for it; the brisket was tender, juicy and was not lacking Fatty’s signature kick.
There is something to be said for the smell of fried chicken and biscuits that recalls the compelling draw of the pied piper. We followed our noses and stood on a short line for this decadent comfort indulgence from Pies & Thighs. It was too big and bulky to eat as served in a sandwich form, but we divided and conquered, eating the components in small bites, finding the biscuit flaky and buttery and the chicken crispy and well seasoned. We were at peace and smiling at how lucky we were to be sitting outside enjoying this culinary frenzy while gazing at the iconic Flatiron building as a backdrop. We’re sharing everything!, I told the gals in a meek attempt to justify the seemingly obscene quantities of food we were hoarding. Suddenly my eye caught a sign where the Resto pop up was serving Boudin Noir Tart (blood sausage pie), a Pig’s Head Sandwich and a Sloppy Goat Sandwich. No way! I need those immediately… and we can’t forget the crpes at Bar Suzette. “Oh, Oh, we know that look!”, said the gals, and up we went! We ordered the Peking Duck Crpe with greens and Hoisin Sauce — totally out there and delicious! And for dessert…? Is there any room left in our stomachs? Well maybe just one bite. The classic Banana Nutella crpe would do the trick and was worth every sinful calorie, I’m in heaven!
We rejoined our table with our second round of flavorful treasures. I was thrilled to see my accomplices really liked the blood sausage pie; it was well seasoned and brought me right back to Paris where I used to order a crpe with Boudin Noir and Apples at least once a week at a tiny bistro near my University. The Bar Suzette owner, Troi Lughod, happened to be passing by and asked us how we were enjoying our food and our crpes. He saw the Blood Sausage Pie and asked what it was, I’ll tell you after you taste it, I told him and gave him a bite. He loved it and thus I shared my memory of my Parisian. He promised he’d try it out and maybe even put it on his menu. The New York food scene just ROCKS! I’ve always loved street food but I really dig NY Street Cuisine.

Follow Karine Bakhoum on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/KBIronPalate

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A federal court ruled this week that the enforcement of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) must be halted, a ruling that the Obama administration is preparing to appeal. Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Gates has stated that ending DADT abruptly would have “enormous consequences” and that he believes that the decision should lie in the hands of Congress only after the Pentagon has completed their study of the issue.
As I discussed previously, President Truman ordered the integration of the armed forces by issuing Executive Order 9981 in 1948. Congressional approval was not required in 1948. In fact, if Harry Truman had waited for an assessment of desegregation’s consequences and approval from Congress, does anyone honestly think we would have seen the desegregation of the military until the 60′s?
So why is the Obama Administration pretending that this is an issue for Congress to decide? In 2008, candidate Obama stated that he would repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and put an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military. Now he is trying to have the judge’s ruling against DADT challenged while simultaneously pretending that he doesn’t the authority to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It is clear that:
-The president still has the authority to issue executive orders. The Constitution hasn’t been amended on this issue, so if executive orders were constitutional in the days of Harry Truman, then they are still constitutional.
-The president has the authority to issue executive orders that overrule “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” according to military law experts.
-The president is passing this hot-button topic over to Congress rather than issuing an executive order so he can wipe his hands of this campaign promise.
President Obama is very focused… on his re-election. Midterms-shmidterms he might be saying. He knows that very few people are going to make a decision about his re-election in 2012 based on his lack of action concerning DADT in 2010.
Leadership requires many traits, including the courage to take a position that is morally correct, even if it isn’t politically expedient. Leaders defend their beliefs. Leaders don’t pretend to lack authority when they know they are the decision-maker.
Whether or not you think DADT is important enough to be receiving the current media coverage, whether or not you think DADT should remain or be repealed and whether or not you voted for Obama, there is little question that the president has displayed a lack of leadership, shunned responsibility and exhibited cowardice on this issue.

Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Photo credit: kevindooley via FlickrPhaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of Green For All, is part of Change.org’s Changemakers network, comprised of leading voices for social change. Her contribution today is part of Blog Action Day 2010, a day for bloggers around the world to raise awareness about a single topic–”water.”
I don’t remember how old I was when I learned that water is not supposed to have a taste. I grew up in a town that was surrounded by oil refineries and heavy industry, basically learning that water that tasted like chemicals and metals was normal. This was my reality, and unfortunately the reality for many young people growing up in low income communities and communities of color. The EPA estimates that more than 870,000 of the 1.9 million housing units for the poor, occupied mostly by Latino and African Americans, sit within approximately a mile of factories that report toxic emissions to the U.S.
Turning on your faucet shouldn’t be a high-risk venture. Parents shouldn’t have to worry whether or not the water in their homes is safe for their children to drink. Cities and towns shouldn’t have to worry that the water lost in leaky pipes will mean ongoing shortages or usage restrictions. But these concerns are already cropping up in communities throughout the country — and they will only become more common as decades of neglect to our water infrastructure begin to catch up with us.
We have a choice: We can either be a country that continues to take shortcuts for the benefit of polluters, or we could be a country that sees opportunity in water. With the proper investment in our infrastructure, we can conserve water, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, upgrade its integrity, generate revenue for cities, create green jobs and new green spaces in low income communities and communities of color.
We’ve seen some of the sorts of innovation that illustrate what’s possible.
Green For All Academy Fellow, Katie Houstoun in Philadelphia spearheads a program aiming to turn one-third of the city’s impervious asphalt surface into absorptive green spaces. The city has even declared that all new buildings must capture the first inch of water on-site. One inch of rainwater hitting one acre of asphalt means 27,000 gallons of water going into the sewer. “For a big warehouse downtown with lots of parking spaces, they could be looking at half a million in storm water fees per year,” says Kate Houstoun.
Edmonston, Maryland used more than $1 million in funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to transform its main street from a flood-prone hazard to a “green street” that diverts storm water to keep it from overflowing and polluting the Anacostia River. This green infrastructure project generated about 50 jobs for local companies.
Treepeople, in Los Angeles, retrofitted a public park and built a 216,000 gallon underground cistern to capture and reuse rainwater for use in dry months, when the park vegetation must be irrigated to survive. The purpose of this green infrastructure is to mitigate the city’s need to import 85 percent of its usable water – and to save the city money. As an additional benefit, tree canopies from strategically planted trees can also help cool the environment up to 10 degrees to counter heat-trapping concrete, which in turn saves families money in energy bills.
Innovation exists. And it must be expanded, explored and invested in. The challenges our nation’s water infrastructure faces are real and immediate, and the existing problems, particularly in low-income communities, are long-standing and increasingly severe.
We often speak of creating a better life for our children. I know how our water systems failed my community when I was a kid. Working together, we can ensure that future generations ensure that America is green – but that our water is clear.

Follow Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/phaedraEL

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Sex advice columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage began the “It Gets Better Project” after hearing of the September suicide of 15-year-old Billy Lucas in Greensburg, Ind. Bullies tormented him with gay slurs.
Only weeks later, the country was shocked when Rutgers student Tyler Clementi jumped off a bridge after classmates webcast a video of his romantic interlude with another man.
“I wish I could have talked to that kid for 5 minutes,” Savage told me of yet another case. “And been able to tell them it gets better.”
Savage’s Internet-based project hopes to connect with young gay people and let them know, no matter how bleak their lives seem now, it does get better.
“When a gay teenager kills himself, what he’s saying is that he can’t picture a future for himself with joy in it to compensate for the pain in his life now,” says Savage. “Gay teenagers need to know that life as an openly gay adult is wonderful… and they shouldn’t be filled with despair.”
It’s a story Savage knows well. On the site, he talks about being bullied in high school. But most of the content is devoted to the joy-filled life he now leads with complete support from friends and family.
The project now has thousands of submissions and millions of views, according to Savage, including “heartbreaking” stories from parents of young gay teens struggling to connect.
“They’re telling me they’re working,” he says. “They’re helping.”
Celebs like Kathy Griffin, Neil Patrick Harris, Eve, Anne Hathaway and Zachary Quinto are already on board.
Savage hopes the site will not only spark conversation and change, but push legislators to take action too. “What we need are anti-gay bullying programs in every school,” he says.
But many conservatives have pushed back on that idea, claiming the message pushes a “pro-gay agenda” to kids.
“We believe the bullying policy should put the emphasis on the wrong actions of the bullies and not the characteristics of the victims,” Chuck Darrell of the conservative Minnesota Family Council said last week regarding a state push to add gay sensitivity to anti-bullying lessons. The ideological fight there went national after a bullied gay teen, Justin Aaberg, committed suicide.
“There’s a line in which bullying becomes assault,” says Savage, who feels we need to start “prosecuting and arresting kids and administrators who are negligent and do nothing to stop it… We have to draw a line in the sand.”
You can go to ItGetsBetterProject.com to watch the videos and submit your story. Savage is also encouraging people to check out TheTrevorProject.org, a 24-hour crisis line for gay and lesbian teenagers.
Originally posted on CBSNews.com

Follow Shira Lazar on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/shiralazar

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It’s been nearly three years since virtually every bank, brokerage and securities fund pulled off one of the slickest deceptions in Wall Street’s scam-ridden history: the $336 billion auction-rate securities (ARS) scandal — Wall Street’s financial roach motel: Investors check in but many still can’t check out.
Three hundred and thirty-six billion dollars is enough to fund 20 percent of the entire federal government. And aside from blowing a hole in a struggling economy, the ARS rip-off has caused human misery on an unimaginable scale.
Auction-rate securities are “debt obligations” — bonds that promise to pay back an investment with a little higher interest than would be available in ordinary money market funds. The bonds were issued mostly by municipal and corporate entities in need of cheap funding.
Unlike ordinary bonds with fixed interest rates, ARS rates reset every 7, 28, or 35 days. Wall Street controlled these “Dutch auctions” and charged hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. The “issuers” — charities, hospitals, corporations and cultural icons like the Museum of Modern Art — received long-term financing at short term rates. Investors received a little higher yield on their cash than plain vanilla money market funds. The banks sold as completely safe, liquid, and Triple-A rated.
But when the credit crunch of 2008 killed off Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, the banks pulled off a scripted, simultaneous shutdown of the market, leaving investors holding the bag. A cone of silence descended and information was near impossible to get.
The irony is that the bonds aren’t worthless; investors just can’t cash them in, unless they wait 30 to 40 years, at which time the issuers are obligated to buy them back. Since many investors are seniors, most will never see a dime.
I was one of those investors. My life turned upside down. But I was determined to find out what was behind the scripted market failure and get my money back. Working with others via the Internet, we discovered the following:
* Though ARS was sold as a money market in the classic sense, it is actually a bond fund propped up by the banks.
* There had been market breakdowns in the past, but these were covered-up.
* Prospectuses were not publicly available; investors couldn’t even find them online.
* While the ARS funds were listed on accounts as “cash” or “cash equivalents,” the major accounting organizations had ruled ARS could not be defined that way. The banks paid no attention.
* When the market showed cracks in 2004 and 2006, the banks began shoveling ARS into the accounts of ordinary investors and corporations.
* We found legions of brokers who actually had no understanding of ARS. “We did what we were told,” was the mantra.
* We uncovered misery on a Third World scale: lost homes; savings of a lifetime obliterated; victims dying of illnesses for lack of funds; students forced to drop out because student loan organizations were shuttered; hospitals and charities crippled or ruined; corporations laid off workers or went out of business; municipalities fired first responders; construction projects withered.
Two-and-a-half years have passed since the market collapse. During this time, our team has forced action by state and federal regulators. The House Financial Services Committee held hearings. I asked Barney Frank, chairman of the committee, why no remedial action was taken. “We didn’t have time,” he replied. Washington was overwhelmed by the Wall Street meltdown.
In the meantime, we have had much success recouping frozen ARS. Through political pressure we’ve managed to redeem $200 billion. Yet $130 billion remains under challenge, despite the precedent of settlements by state attorneys general against firms such as Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Wachovia, and Wells Fargo.
Still, there are holdouts. Raymond James, for example, complains that redemption of ARS amounts to “extortion.” Among the worst holdouts is Oppenheimer & Co., which sold approximately $1 billion in ARS. The company settled with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, but has not redeemed the full amount. Mr. Cuomo was to conduct six-month reviews of the company’s finances, but has yet to force a full buy back. Oppenheimer continues to plead poverty.
I repeatedly called Daniel Sangeap, New York assistant attorney general for investor protection. Mr. Sangeap never returned my calls. Financial insiders say Oppenheimer “thinks it’s dodged a bullet.” Why hasn’t Mr. Cuomo pressed his case? Mr. Sangeap isn’t talking.
It’s long past time to end this farce once and for all. Our economy is hurting, people are suffering. An injection of $130 billion will buy jobs, security, and end a great deal of misery.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It was never about Barack Obama.
He said as much on the campaign trail. Time and time again he would remind the thousands that gathered to hear him speak that the election was not about him… a sentiment that’s been lost over the last two years. This inconsistency, as subtle as it may be, is the subtext for everything wrong with the administration’s message.
It was about us.
In his words, it was about “the power of ordinary Americans”, the promise of millions of voices calling for the kind of change that transcended one election cycle.
Over the course of the last two years this administration has distorted the “we” in “Yes We Can”, most blatantly during the health care debate. Whenever President Obama evoked the term “we” more often than not he was referring to himself and Congress. Back room deals and convoluted congressional process took the place of the sort of change that comes from the ground up. This distortion was at its worst at yesterday’s MTV, BET, and CMT town hall (see a full recap of Campus Progress’ live chat here.)
The president spent the bulk of the one hour town hall talking over an audience that asked him pointed and honest questions by stating what we already knew. The Dream Act is important, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell must go, bullying is bad, bipartisanship is good. His responses were either obvious or overly wonky for a crowd that wasn’t asking for clarification on the substance of each policy but the state of it.
Where’s the change we voted for?
Rather than provide context, the president regurgitated talking points and laundry lists that seemed to be directed at the pundits rather than at the young people in the room. Much has been said about the challenges of turning out young voters without having Barack Obama on the ballot. Yet the truth is that in 2008, 69% of young voters cited a candidate’s positions on the issues as the most important factor in determining who they choose to support.
The issues are on the ballot this November 2nd.
President Obama could have used the town hall to issue a call to action, to articulate how each person in the room could contribute to the ongoing work of changing our country. If you’re upset about the partisan tone of our politics, bring it up with the elected officials who spend more time questioning the president’s place of birth and the “communist” undertones of his rhetoric than debating him on the merits of his policies. If you’re upset that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hasn’t been repealed; identify elected officials who are standing in its way. Lobby them when it comes time for a vote and let them know that you’re bringing your passion for equality into the polling place with you. If you’re upset about youth unemployment, bring it up with the representatives, Democrats and Republicans, who voted down a Youth Summer Jobs bill last spring.
Election Day puts us in a position of power, in a position to hold members of Congress accountable.
Just as the 2008 presidential election was not about Barack Obama — this administration shouldn’t be about him either. We’ve been asked to “pledge to support” the president’s agenda — when in actuality we signed up to impact it. We’ve been asked to donate our money instead of our ideas and our passion. We’ve been accused of whining when really we’re having a hard time coming to terms with the notion that something is now impossible.
I’m guessing it stems from being told that something was “impossible” two years ago. I’m guessing it’s grounded in the fact that we already turned the impossible into the improbable, and the improbable into the inevitable, and the inevitable into reality…
I’m guessing we’re a generation that looks unkindly on the justification that some things just can’t get done… I’m guessing we’d probably respond to the insistence that while things have been hard, the unfinished business of changing our country relies on us.
What President Obama needs to do is make the midterms about something larger than who wins the House or the Senate, grounded in something more profound than the individual candidates on the ballots. He did it in Madison, he did at the Gen 44 event, and then he took 12 steps backwards yesterday.
If he can’t deliver this message then Progressives have to do it without him.
As frustrated as I am, I don’t believe my country and the future of my generation should be punished for his lack of consistency.
Let’s face it, we may not have millions to invest in candidates, and we may not be as loud as the Tea Party, yet on Election Day we’re all equals. We all enter the ballot with one vote.
Young people are not interested in taking the country back; we’re insisting that we move the country forward. Our ability to do that, relies on us.
If that’s the mission, just as 2008 wasn’t about Barack Obama, 2010 can’t be about him either.

Follow Sara Haile-Mariam on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Sarahailemariam

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Designer John Patrick is arguably one of the most credible eco-designers in the industry.
Since launching John Patrick Organic in 2003, the designer has earned numerous accolades for the line’s long parade of tailored, wearable separates and well-crafted knits, made using wholly organic fabrics and sustainable practices developed on farm collectives.
Sara James Mnookin, a regular contributor to The Inside Source, eBay’s online style magazine, recently spoke with the designer about his 2011 collection, changes in sustainable production over the last few years and his personal collection of works by female photographers, sourced in part on eBay. The following is an excerpt of that story. For the full article and more interviews with fashion insiders, visit The Inside Source.
The Inside Source: You were one of the first high fashion organic lines with real credibility. How has the process of making sustainable clothing changed since you launched the brand?
John Patrick: Sourcing has become more diverse, and I have more options with recycled and up-cycled fabrics. Fashion is actually a very slow process if you look at it carefully. We are in the infancy of the sustainable dialogue.
TIS: What pieces are you most proud of in this collection?
JP: I did a zero waste skirt and scarf using up-cycled and recycled polyester, which is pretty amazing and fun and modern.
TIS: Where is the brand headed next?
JP: Announcements for collaborations and projects will be done at the end of the year. There are several things in the works as far as product. We will go live with our own shopping site in early 2011. It will be all exclusive product for our own site.
TIS: Are you a collector of anything? If so, what?
JP: I collect very little at this stage in my life. I have a small collection of photographs by women: Germane Krull, Debbie Fleming Caffery, Andrea Modica, Margo Dooney. In the past, I have been a voracious collector of 18th century American antiques and vintage clothing.
TIS: Do you use eBay at all? If so, what do you buy?
JP: Recently, I bought about 500 vintage wooden clothespins.
**All images provided by John Patrick. For the full interview, click here.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

New Rule: If a woman rejects your first dozen advances, don’t up the ante by sending her a picture of your penis. This week, we found out that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre allegedly tried to get with a young woman by sending her MySpace messages, voicemails, and notes through a friend, and when none of that worked, and it was third and long — though, not as long as most of us would have imagined — he decided to throw the Hail Mary and sext her pictures of Little Brett to close the deal. Brett, I get it: Your dictionary doesn’t include the word “quit” or “retire” or “married” but you’ve got to at least understand “punt.” You know the worst part about having sex with Brett Favre? He keeps saying he’s finished, and then he comes back to drag it out for another year.
To me, this story isn’t about sports or sex or how necessary caller ID is — it’s about how pathetic and clueless white American males have become. Because the kind of guy who thinks there are women out there who just, cold, want to see your cock, is the same kind of guy who thinks Sarah Palin is swell and tax cuts pay for themselves. I will explain that connection further, but first let’s just dwell for one more moment on how stupid it is to forget that in 2010 when you text someone a picture of your genitals, you’re not just sending it to that person, but to every person she has in her contacts… and then everyone on the planet who has access to the Internet. Somewhere right now there’s a tribesman in Samoa thinking, “Brett Favre is texting a picture of his dick to a woman? That shit never works.”
And he’s right — no woman in the history of mankind has ever wanted to see a picture of a penis. Go back to the earliest cave paintings. The very first one is of a cock, and after that they’re all antelopes and sunrises. But for some reason men persist. Why? Because men have always been in charge, especially white men. Brett Favre is like a lot of white males: he’s owned the world for so long, he’s going a little crazy now that he doesn’t. Also, like many white men across the country, he lost his job to a Mexican, (i.e. Jets Quarterback Mark Sanchez).
If Brett Favre’s penis could talk, what would it say? Well, other than, “No photos please,” I think it would say, “I’m not a witch. I’m you.” Because for hundreds of years white penises were America. White penises founded America, they made the rules and they called the shots in the workplace, in the home, and at the ballot box. But now the unthinkable is happening. White penises are becoming the minority: 2010 was the first year in which more minority babies were born in the U.S. than white babies. This is what conservatives are really upset about — that the president is black, and the best golfer is black, and the Secretary of State is a woman, and suddenly this country is way off track and needs some serious ‘restoring.’ If penises could cry — and I believe they can — then white penises are crying all over America.
And that’s where this crew comes in; Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Michele Bachmann; the lovely MILFs of the new right. And their little secret is that their popularity comes exclusively from white men. Look at the polling: minorities hate them, women hate them — only white men like them. I’m no psychiatrist, but I do own a couch, and my theory is that these women represent something those men miss dearly: the traditional, idiot housewife. Writing on your hand is sheer Lucy. If an election between Obama and Sarah Palin were held today, and only white men could vote, Sarah Palin would be president. Did you know that in 1788, when there were four million people in America, only 39,000 of them — the richest white men — got to vote? That doesn’t sound good to you? Well, what if I threw in a picture of my cock? Which brings me back to Brett Favre, and I think it’s worth noting that in one of the alleged photos of him, he’s pleasuring himself on a bed while wearing Crocs. And if you think about it, is there any better metaphor for the sad state of America today than an over-the-hill white guy lazily masturbating in plastic shoes?

Follow Bill Maher on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/billmaher

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I spent some time on Sunday reading through the WaPo Manifesto written by Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein and their teacher-bashing buddies.
Like most of the work being created by the well-funded uber-reformists who are driving conversations on education in America today, this bit was full of half-truths and outright lies.
Perhaps most disconcerting was the assertion that “the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents’ income — it is the quality of their teacher.”
That’s simply not true, and every one of the 16 “educators, superintendents, chief executives and chancellors responsible for educating nearly 2 1/2 million students in America” that signed the WaPo Manifesto knows it.
Thankfully, voices on education are starting to call ‘em on it time and time and time again. The truth is that factors in a student’s life beyond school are three to four times more influential than teacher quality in determining just how successful a child will be in school.
What caught me by surprise in the WaPo Manifesto though, was this statement:
The fact of the matter is the kinds of reforms Michelle and company — which all seem to begin and end with rewarding or punishing teachers for scores on standardized tests — are doing little to “prepare our kids for the 21st-century global economy.”
Here’s why: Success in tomorrow’s knowledge-based world depends on innovative thinking and collaboration. It depends on finding connections across domains and understanding what global issues look like through the lens of international neighbors.
It depends on the ability to generate creative solutions to cross-border challenges. It depends on understanding the kinds of cultural factors influencing the choices made by other nations. It depends on being able to persuade in a world where influence is easier to generate and where minds are buried in thousands of messages.
The problem is that the tests Michelle and company have built their reforms around don’t measure any of these skills. Instead, they’re focused on the kinds of low level thinking that can be easily assessed in 60-question multiple choice exams.
And that carries real consequences in our classrooms. I rarely spend time engaging my students in deep and meaningful conversations anymore because the skills my students develop in those conversations aren’t tested.
I haven’t taught my current students anything about using visual images and video messages to persuade because the skills my students develop in those activities aren’t tested.
I stopped working to develop collaborative digital projects between my students and students in other nations because the skills my students develop in those activities aren’t tested.
Instead, we’re simply grinding through a massive curriculum memorizing the basic facts that are likely to be on the mini-assessments we take every three weeks.
We might be prepared to pass Michelle’s silly exams this June, but we’re certainly not going to be prepared to participate in the 21st-century global economy.
And don’t let ‘em tell you otherwise.
(Pencils Can’t Fix This slide can be downloaded here—by Bill Ferriter.)
________________________________________________
Bill Ferriter is a full-time classroom teacher, part-time author and proud founding member of the Teacher Leaders Network.

Follow William Ferriter on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/plugusin

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

If schools discipline more blacks or Hispanics than white students, federal officials warn they’ll use “disparate impact analysis” to charge civil rights violations, reports Education Week.
Under “disparate impact,” schools can be in violation if discipline policies affect one racial group more than others, even if there’s no evidence of unequal treatment for the same offense or an intent to discriminate. An education agency would be found out of compliance if an equally sound policy would have less of a disparate impact, Russlyn Ali, an Education Department official, told Ed Week.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said at a conference he was “deeply troubled by rising discipline rates and disparities in discipline” in the nation’s schools. The department has launched compliance reviews in the Christina School District in Wilmington, Del.; the Salamanca City (N.Y.) Central School District; Winston-Salem/Forsyth (N.C.) County Schools; San Juan (Utah) School District; and Rochester (Minn.) Public Schools. All involve both different-treatment and disparate-impact analyses.
Roger Clegg, president of Center for Equal Opportunity, warned the policy could push schools to manipulate the data rather than enforce rules fairly.
In most districts, suspension rates are much higher for black and Hispanic students. Denver Public Schools changed its policies in response to complaints from a local community group, says Allegra “Happy” Haynes, the chief community-engagement officer.
Denver’s policy seems to make sense: Why kick kids out of school or call in the police, unless it’s necessary to maintain safety? But it doesn’t make Hispanics as likely to be suspended as Asian-Americans or whites. For that matter, boys are far more likely to get in trouble than girls. Should the rules be changed to tolerate boy-typical misbehavior?
The “different treatment” rule, used in the Bush administration, is simple: The black kid who curses the teacher shouldn’t get a harsher punishment than the white kid who curses the teacher. It doesn’t matter if blacks are more likely to curse and therefore to get in trouble. The behavior is what counts.
When student misbehavior is tolerated, the impact is dismal. Teachers are forced to spend their time and energy on classroom management, not instruction. Teachers burn out quickly, quit and are replaced by novices, who are even less capable of teaching in the midst of chaos. Students who want to learn don’t get much chance. The wild kids who get away with it pay in the long run because they don’t learn self-control, a critical life skill, much less reading, writing, arithmetic, history or science.
All the high-achieving, high-poverty schools teach students to follow the rules so they can learn in a safe, orderly atmosphere.

Follow Joanne Jacobs on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/joanneleejacobs

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

For a second consecutive year, Social Security recipients won’t receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2011, according to the Social Security Administration.
The news was widely anticipated. Social Security has had an automatic annual COLA feature since 1975, which is determined by the third quarter Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). In the third quarter of 2008 — just before the economy crashed — the CPI-W spiked temporarily, the result of a big increase in energy prices.
The result was a whopping 5.8 percent boost in Social Security benefits for 2009 — a raise that was especially generous considering the near-absence of inflation in the post-crash economy. Seniors on Social Security or disability benefits also received a one-time payment of $250 under the 2009 stimulus.
Social Security payments can’t fall under federal law, so benefits were held level in 2010, and will continue that way until the CPI numbers exceed the 2008 CPI-W index level. Today’s final third quarter CPI report determines that payments will stay steady again in 2011.
While it’s disappointing news for seniors, it’s important to keep the COLA news in perspective. See my post at Reuters on why Social Security COLA complainers should settle down.

Follow Mark Miller on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/RetireRevised

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com