en Original Posts
Vegetarians, Carnivores and Osteoporosis

While bone mineral density may be a tad or more low in vegetarians, the notable and well documented results are in: vegetarians do not have an increased risk of fractures. Their risk for busting a hip is no better, no worse than those of us who eat meats, even though the vegetarian's diet is typically lower in calcium and some vitamins. We already know about calcium and its lack of relationship to osteoporosis except at extremely low levels. But the fact remains that a diet lower in protein from animal sources or one entirely devoid of all animal products still provides every bit of protection -- or the lack thereof -- that we see in other folks (1, 2).

Menopausal Chinese women maintain bone mineral density with soy intake - though significant loss of bone can occur in very elderly Chinese. Similarly, Caucasian women maintain or increase bone density by their consumption of soy protein. In fact, two glasses of soy milk a day prevents bone loss in the spine of menopausal women with osteoporosis (3).

But interestingly, if Progesterone is added to those drinking soy, bone loss will occur (at least in this study of 89 women).

Apparently, too much of a good thing. Progesterone by itself increased bone density. Soy milk by itself did the same. But apparently you can't mix them together without cancelling all benefit.

And if you think that's not fair, read this.

For a while we thought the more vegetable protein we ate, the stronger our bones would be. Or, to paraphrase, the more animal protein you ate, the more likely you were to break a bone (4). This was the theory that vegetable protein (an alkaline diet), was superior to animal protein (an acid or ash diet).

Then along came a study in May, 2009, which by the way was a rather rigorous one, that concluded high protein intake was just fine for bones, regardless of where the protein came from. High vegetable intake was not more helpful than high protein intake from eating meats (5).

So much for the supposed evils of being a carnivore.

Then to add insult to vegetarian injury, there was a theory that the more alkaline your diet is -- a diet high in vegetables -- the less likely you were to have bad things happen to your bones. The theory stated that eating meats, dairy and grains -- sometimes called an "acid" or "ash" diet, high in phosphates -- resulted in malevolent things happening to bones. Things like osteoporosis and fractures. But just this September that theory (demoted to a "hypothesis") was all shot to heck in a major review of the evidence to date (6).

Two longstanding theories about the beauty of vegetarianism gone, just like that, in five months. Not fair.

However, it should be noted that most vegetarians also eat substantial amounts of grains -- the least acid of the foods studied. Perhaps because of this along with adequate vegetable protein we do not see osteoporosis in vegetarians any more so than in non-vegetarians.

What is true is there are many variables affecting diet and bone health -- and these are just a few of the stories.

Bottom Line: Eat your protein. What kind of protein? It really doesn't matter. I'm happy if you do soy in moderation and love your vegetables. But for bones, just eat your protein. Vegetables are a good thing by every measure from cardiovascular risk to cancer so my preferences lean there. But that's my bias, not the research on osteoporosis.

Strontium

Strontium, one of the most abundant elements on the planet, is almost entirely concentrated in our bones and connective tissue. In bone, it acts to increase density and strength. Strontium in various forms - lactate, carbonate, chloride, gluconate, citrate and in the largest studies to date, as strontium ranelate - has consistently shown not only improvements in bone density but significant reductions in the risk of fractures (7 - 9).

It should not be taken at the same time as calcium as calcium competes for absorption with it in the intestine. Most studies suggest taking strontium at bedtime to avoid this potential problem.

Bottom Line: Strontium may be a more effective and less expensive treatment than the Bisphosphonates such as fosomax, actonel, etc. it may also be superior to just about any other treatment for osteoporosis we have. It not only can help reverse osteoporosis but helps prevent recurrence of fractures in those who already have suffered a fracture due to osteoporosis (10)

Because of these factors, I consider strontium to be a first line therapy for bone loss.

NOTE: There have been rare reports of skin rash and reversible liver damage with strontium ranelate. This is the same syndrome seen in those who have a sensitivity to any medication. But if you are taking strontium in any form, you should discontinue it and contact your doctor immediately if any fever with skin rash or swollen glands develops.

Vitamin K

Who would have thought this vitamin could be safely taken in high doses to not only improve the strength of bone, but significantly reduce the incidence of fractures? I certainly didn't. And even more remarkably, vitamin K seems to do this without consistently increasing bone density or reducing bone breakdown. That's right. Vitamin K does not increase bone density. Yet it significantly reduces the risk of a fracture (11).

Another finding is that Vitamin K may also reduce the development of cancers in a study of over 400 women with osteoporosis (12).

But, you may ask, doesn't vitamin K cause blood clots? Even though it helps prevent fractures, aren't we increasing our risk of a blood clot forming by taking high dose K?

Actually, NO. You do not increase clotting risk with these doses of K unless you are taking Coumadin. Which most of us are not.

High doses of K - 5 mg per day for four years -- has been studied without any increased risk of clotting or toxicity.

BUT DO NOT TAKE VITAMIN K IF YOU ARE TAKING COUMADIN. ONLY IN THIS SETTING WILL IT CAUSE A PROBLEM AS IT INTERFERES WITH THIS DRUG'S ACTIONS.

Bottom Line: Vitamin K can be safely taken at doses greater than 1 mg per day to help reduce the risk of fracture for those with osteoporosis. It is an essential part of our osteoporosis treatment and fracture prevention program.

Alcohol

I am very partial to a good Bloody Mary as well as a Cadillac Marguerita. Besides defining myself as a real lightweight when it comes to drinking, it also raises the question of alcohol as a risk factor for osteo and fractures. Am I increasing my risk, even by a little, to drink on occasion?

Well, 2 large studies have examined this closely. Results? Moderate drinking -- defined as one or two drinks per day -- does not increase one's risk of osteoporosis or fracture -- at least not in men. More than this, however, can significantly increase a man's risks.

And by the way, a drink is defined as one shot of alcohol, not a glassful, sorry to say. Or one to two beers is also OK.

But in women, more than one drink may actually be helpful. More than a few drinks, you say? Yup. Women may actually increase their bone density by drinking more than two drinks per day (13-14). Of course, by doing so, a woman would also increase her risks of breast cancer, most other cancers, liver disease, cognitive decline and hypertension. So, heavy drinking for women to help bones? Maybe not such a good idea (15).

Bottom Line: All things in moderation may make Jack and Jill a very dull couple, but they sure do have good bones. Take it easy on the libations and you can have your drink without a worry about your skeletal welfare.

Fish Oils

Last and certainly not least is the question as to whether fish oils have any impact whatsoever on bone support and prevention of fractures. And the answer is they definitely have an effect.

We're just not sure what it is.

We have a number of studies which show fish oils are great for mice and rats. They help their bones stay real strong. And in people there is some evidence it protects against osteo. But so far, nothing which is clearly convincing (16 - 17).

Now, having said that, consider this. Diets which are higher in fish oils (omega-3's) result in:

Decreased risk of heart disease and sudden death
Decreased risks of cancers
Lower risk of death from all cause
Reduced inflammation with rheumatoid arthritis
Reduced severity of asthma (18 - 20)


So what's not to like? True, we don't have the exact doses down for fish oils, but the evidence is strong that they are really helpful for many inflammatory conditions.

Bottom Line: take your fish oil. It's good for you. And see your health care practitioner to guide your best usage of this. In my practice, most patients with the diseases noted above -- including osteoporosis -- are taking at least 2 grams a day of omega 3 fish oil. This, by the way, is pharmaceutical grade, screened for peroxides, mercury and other metals, really pure stuff.

CAVEAT: DO NOT TAKE FISH OILS IF YOU ARE ON ANY BLOOD THINNER. OR WITHIN 2 WEEKS OF ANY PLANNED SURGERY. OR IF YOUR DOCTOR ADVISES YOU NOT TO TAKE.

There you have it. The pearls I know today.

Bottom line is you should always check with your health care provider on issues as important as your bone health. But don't be afraid to have that discussion with what you have learned here.
With my best wishes for your health!

Joseph Sciabbarrasi, M.D., has practiced Integrative Medicine in West Los Angeles since 1993. In addition to his work with Osteoporosis, Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, Cardiovascular and Chelation therapies, he also lectures, writes and celebrates his weekends with his wife, Kathleen and their 8 year old son, Kieran. Join him at his website:
www.drjosephmd.com


References


1. New SA. Do vegetarians have a normal bone mass? Osteoporos Int. 2004 Sep;15(9):679-88. Epub 2004 Jul 16.




2. Ho-Pham LT, et al. Effect of vegetarian diets on bone mineral density: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Oct;90(4):943-50. Epub 2009 Jul 1.



3. Lydeking-Olsen E, et al. Soymilk or progesterone for prevention of bone loss--a 2 year randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Nutr. 2004 Aug;43(4):246-57. Epub 2004 Apr 14.



4. Frassetto LA, et al. Worldwide incidence of hip fracture in elderly women: relation to consumption of animal and vegetable foods. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Oct;55(10):M585-92.



5. Fenton TR, et al. Meta-Analysis of the Effect of the Acid-Ash Hypothesis of Osteoporosis on Calcium Balance. J Bone Miner Res. 2009 May 6.



6. Fenton TR, et al. Phosphate decreases urine calcium and increases calcium balance: a meta-analysis of the osteoporosis acid-ash diet hypothesis. Nutr J. 2009 Sep 15;8:41.
7. Meunier PJ, et al. Strontium ranelate: dose-dependent effects in established postmenopausal vertebral osteoporosis--a 2-year randomized placebo controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002 May;87(5):2060-6.



8. O'Donnell S, et al. Strontium ranelate for preventing and treating postmenopausal osteoporosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;3:CD005326.



9. Reginster JY, et al. Long-term treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with strontium ranelate: results at 8 years. Bone. 2009 Dec;45(6):1059-64. Epub 2009 Aug 11.


10. Hiligsmann M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate versus risedronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women aged over 75 years. Bone. 2009 Aug 28.



11. Cheung AM, et al. Vitamin K supplementation in postmenopausal women with osteopenia (ECKO trial): a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2008 Oct 14;5(10):e196.




12. Braam LA, et al. Vitamin K1 supplementation retards bone loss in postmenopausal women between 50 and 60 years of age. Calcif Tissue Int. 2003 Jul;73(1):21-6.



13. Kanis JA, et al. Alcohol intake as a risk factor for fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2005 Jul;16(7):737-42. Epub 2004 Sep 29.



14. Tucker KL, et al. Effects of beer, wine, and liquor intakes on bone mineral density in older men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Apr;89(4):1188-96. Epub 2009 Feb 25.



15. Salynn Boyles. Alcohol Linked to Cancer Risk in Women - Study Shows Even Low-to-Moderate Drinking Raises Risk of Cancer. WebMD Health News.



16. Fernandes G, et al. Effects of n-3 fatty acids on autoimmunity and osteoporosis. Front Biosci. 2008 May 1;13:4015-20.



17. Salari P, et al. A systematic review of the impact of n-3 fatty acids in bone health and osteoporosis. Med Sci Monit. 2008 Mar;14(3):RA37-44.



18. Mozaffarian D. Fish and n-3 fatty acids for the prevention of fatal coronary heart disease and sudden cardiac death. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jun;87(6):1991S-6S.

19. Iglesias del Sol A, et al. [Health effects of fish oil and fish oil supplements: consumption advice sustained]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2006 Sep 23;150(38):2069-71.



20. Simopoulos AP. The importance of the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio in cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2008 Jun;233(6):674-88. Epub 2008 Apr 11.]]> Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500
Want to join in the fun? Call Goldman's executive offices at (212) 902-1000, and tell them that nobody makes big profits at public expense while 10.2 percent of Americans are unemployed.

The idea here is to make the "transaction costs," as business people say, of using public dollars so high that Wall Street firms will think twice before feeding at the public trough again. Better to face their peers at Deustche Bank, ING, and Societe Internationale before pulling a switcheroo on the American taxpayer -- begging with one hand and skimming with the other. Being publicly shamed can be a deterrent, especially when your nose is rubbed in it.

Oh dear, but then we'll be accused of being "populists." Have you noticed how "populism" has become the dirty word du jour? As though what the people think is irrelevant, or even worse, stupid? Check how patronizing the pundits are when they use the term.

Populism in my history books was a good thing, started in the late 1800s when a Kansan named Mary Lease reputedly urged farmers to "raise less corn and more hell." She helped lead a movement to fight back against the concentrated economic interests that were destroying the quality of life of the average American--most of whom were farmers.

Her motto? "Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street." Sounds as relevant today as it was more than a century ago.

Unfortunately, the populist movement has often been portrayed as synonymous with racism and nativism, as though other political groups in America at that time were not infected with the same biases. They were. Yet it is only in a politics where the overall good of the people counts for something that the social fabric will stay strong. Once it unravels, the only other option is revolution.

That reminds me of those greatest populists of all time, the framers of the American Constitution. We tend to forget this, but according to Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, the ratification of the Constitution was "the most . . . populist event the Earth had ever seen."

Funny how those words "We the People" keep recurring in American history. Sometimes, a little pitchfork-waving is for the common good.


]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:56:35 -0500
Rule #1: There was no spending money.
Rule #2: There was no watching television.
Rule #3: We did something together as a family.

These three guidelines produced significant results in the quality of those twenty-four hours. What a relief to not buy anything, not have the television on, and spend time simply enjoying each other's presence. My wife and I talked more with our two children; we read books, told stories, played games, went for walks, and shared meals. The biggest benefit of this structured break was that, for a day, the pace of our lives slowed down and our family connections increased.

One of my favorite parts of this ritual was the formal ending. We observed the Jewish tradition of looking for the first three stars to become visible on Saturday evening, signaling that Sabbath was over. It was fun and exciting for the four of us to stand on our deck together, seeing who could find the three stars as the sun faded and nighttime slowly emerged. Of course, since we live in Marin County, dense fog sometimes forced us to use our imaginations.

Instituting rest and simplicity is not a magic wand for perfection. There were occasional disagreements, grumpiness, and boredom. But our imperfections often emerge as the most endearing parts of ourselves, and those "Sabbath" days stand out as important building blocks, and are great memories, for our still-growing family.

I'm a big proponent of doing less, and at times even of doing nothing. Nearly every morning for the past 35 years I've spent about 30 minutes, doing nothing; nothing but being aware of my breath and body, and occasionally just appreciating being here, being alive. I also like to spend whole days, about once a month, in the practice of doing nothing, and once a year spend six or seven days, again, nothing. I often suggest to my coaching clients, busy executives and non-profit leaders, to take the time, right in the midst of their busy, hectic workdays to do nothing - nothing but being aware of the breath; just noticing, I'm alive; I'm here. It seems to result in more calm, more productivity, and more effectiveness during the rest of the day.

The art of doing less isn't merely about becoming more productive employees or businesspeople. The true benefit of focusing on and taking a break from busyness is that it brings more kindness and love into our lives. With less busyness and unnecessary effort, more kindness and love can rise to the surface, leading to more effectiveness, energy, and focus. When we feel depleted, love is the best replenisher -- which includes the love we feel for ourselves, the love we freely give to others, and the love that comes to us from the people we care for and admire most.

It's worth pointing out that the opposite seems to be true as well. In our increasingly busy and impatient world, people seem to be less kind and patient with each other. Much of that seems to stem from busyness itself and from the increasing attitude that being polite and caring is just another form of wasting time.

When we do less and begin to unravel many of the motivations, worries, and strivings that make us run in circles -- and when we stop trying to second-guess everyone else's motivations, worries, and strivings -- what we find at the very core of self and of life, I believe, is kindness and love. Those two glorious things are the most profound levers for accomplishing more.

This is not a radical idea. And yet, what a radical idea! What a radical way to live your life! It underpins the best of psychological, spiritual, and contemplative practice. It is the fundamental teaching of all great mystics and is the experience most of us hold deepest in our hearts. We glimpse this basic truth whenever we touch birth or touch death and experience a complete acceptance of the simplicity and sacredness of being human. The more you quiet your mind and let go of striving -- which is all too often someone else's concept of striving imposed on you -- the less you have to "do" and, somehow miraculously, the more that love springs forth from you. I believe that this simple formula is central to being a functioning, happy, and truly contributing human being.

Still, doing less takes courage. Stopping, pausing, reflecting, and fully doing one thing can be much more difficult than reflexively reacting and distracting yourself from what is most essential, most heartfelt, and most needed in your life.]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:05:57 -0500
"I expected a roll call vote," said Speier, fresh off a star turn on the Colbert Report.

Lobbyists and committee staffers expected that the amendment -- which would mandate that banks essentially could not lend out or invest more than 12 dollars for every dollar they keep in reserve -- would only get a roll call and that it'd be soundly defeated, bounced by a coalition of Republicans and bank-friendly Democrats, who call themselves "New Democrats."

Instead, there were barely any lawmakers in their seats when her amendment came up during an all-day debate on comprehensive financial regulatory reform.

One of the two or three Republicans in the room asked for a roll call, but then quickly reconsidered and withdrew the request.

It passed by a unanimous voice vote.

The amendment makes sense, but rationality alone is rarely enough to get legislation through committee. The banks long fought to eliminate the cap and finally succeeded in 2004, a victory that is partially to blame for the financial crisis as over-leveraged banks ran short on capital.

But when the vote was called Thursday, the GOP members present didn't want to put their names to that agenda.

"I was thrilled," said Speier, who wouldn't confess to being surprised that she won. She guessed, instead, that the initial objection was simply Pavlovian.

"There's a knee-jerk reaction to just oppose everything on the other side," she told HuffPost. "I think what my Republican friends realized was that after going through this financial nightmare, to somehow argue against putting a leverage cap when we know that what happened was many of these companies -- the Bear Sterns, the Merrills, the Lehmans, were all leveraged 30-1 -- if we really are going to be real about tamping down that kind of behavior in the future, coming up with a reasonable leverage cap makes sense."

It wouldn't be a novel idea. Until 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission limited leverage ratios to 12 to one. Speier's cap would only re-apply a cap to financial institutions deemed to be a risk to the overall financial system.

Final victory in the committee, however, still awaits. Just before a final vote was called, a bloc of Democrats from the Congressional Black Caucus demanded the vote be put off, sending a message to the White House that more needs to be done to improve the job situation.

The New York Times, in the fall of 2008, reported that on April 28, 2004, five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to hear "an urgent plea by the big investment banks."

They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.


The five investment banks led the charge, including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr. Two years later, he left to become Treasury secretary.

A lone dissenter -- a software consultant and expert on risk management -- weighed in from Indiana with a two-page letter to warn the commission that the move was a grave mistake. He never heard back from Washington.

One commissioner, Harvey J. Goldschmid, questioned the staff about the consequences of the proposed exemption. It would only be available for the largest firms, he was reassuringly told -- those with assets greater than $5 billion.

"We've said these are the big guys," Mr. Goldschmid said, provoking nervous laughter, "but that means if anything goes wrong, it's going to be an awfully big mess."

It was. "There's a pattern here," says Speier. "We put these good laws in place, whether it's Glass-Steagall or, in that case the SEC cap. But then the industry comes to us and says, 'Oh, this is cramping our style. We could make' -- of course they don't say it this way -- 'we could make so much more money if you just lifted this cap.' And they were right. They made a lot of money and they also brought the entire country to its knees."


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:34:38 -0500
Through this long, hard recession, while many have put their environmental initiatives to the side (a big strategic mistake given the pressures), the leading companies--giants such as Wal-Mart, GE, and IBM--have actually accelerated their green efforts. Using the environmental lens, they've found new growth opportunities and significant cost-savings. They, and many of their peers, are aggressively cutting back on carbon emissions--over half the largest 500 companies in the world now have specific greenhouse gas reduction targets.

But no matter how great the benefits of going green, the private sector can, and will, only go so far without a strong policy framework. And this is why the global climate negotiations in "Hopenhagen" are so critical, for the world and for the United States.

With the right policies in place, the most innovative companies and countries will help solve this great challenge and grab a chunk of what HSBC estimates will be a $2 trillion market by 2020. But the U.S. is not positioned well in this competition.

Recently, two of America's most prominent capitalists, John Doerr from Kleiner Perkins and Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post.

They told us that we're falling behind other countries in the race to a multi-trillion dollar market for environmental solutions. Only one in ten of the largest solar and wind producers are in the U.S. We're losing to China, Germany, and other countries. Doerr and Immelt's conclusion was this: we need a cap and price on carbon so we can compete and innovate. And whether or not you want the U.S. to "win" doesn't really matter--it helps everyone innovate if they have the right economic signals.

Without a cost on carbon and some restrictions on total emissions, the "externality" that is climate change won't be priced into our investment decisions. On top of the environmental and moral imperatives of tackling our multi-generational existential threat, this somewhat wonky, economic externality argument is at the core of what's at stake in Copenhagen. The beginning of perhaps the most important global conversation in history begins in a just a few weeks. Is your company a part of the discussion and ready for what's to come?

--
Help turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen at hopenhagen.org.


Andrew Winston is a globally recognized expert on how businesses can profit from thinking green and the co-author of the best-seller Green to Gold. ]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:53:03 -0500
Appearing on Fox News Friday morning, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted that "every single Republican will oppose" even debating health care reform because "they know it will only get worse."

"None of the things that they like about the bill will get better; and the things they object to would take 60 votes to change, and they know they're not going to get 60 votes to amend the bill to their liking," said Kyl, the minority whip in the Senate.

The opposition isn't unexpected. For some time it's been clear that Democrats would be getting either one (Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine) or no Republican Senate votes on health care legislation. But Kyl's prophecy of across-the-board opposition does seem to undercut that other GOP tactic. Why do Senate Republicans need six weeks to debate and consider the legislation if they're already determined to vote against it?

"We know it's been in Harry Reid's office for six weeks and the other 99 senators haven't seen it," McConnell told "Fox News Sunday" last week. "I think we ought to at least have as much time for the other 99 senators and all of the American people to take a look at this bill as Majority Leader Reid has had."

And why, for that matter, are Senate Republicans complaining about a limited three-day window to read the legislation if they have already come to a final verdict on its contents?

"We're now going to have about 72 hours to figure this out," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), during a speech on the Senate floor on Friday. "But I know this much -- when a bill costs $2 billion a page and when it includes language like that, it's something that we should spend some time on. And this bill's being rushed, and it shouldn't be rushed."


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:39:46 -0500
It's clear that the authorities looked back at lessons learned from eight years of blunders and abuse in designing the new lock-up facility. However, since the detainees have not yet been transferred, the reality of the new facility is still unknown.

How will the guards and interrogators behave towards the detainees? Will the United States grant human rights groups access to the facility once the detainees arrive? Will the new Detainee Review Boards, charged with determining if someone should be released or not, be accurate and fair?


A communal cell in one of four detainee housing units at the new facility in Parwan. (Jonathan Horowitz)


Interviews I've conducted with former Bagram detainees indicate that these issues are of greatest importance, not the facility itself.

Also, a new facility does not tell us about the treatment of detainees at the point of capture. That is when Afghans allege that most physical violence and unnecessary destruction of property takes place.

As a Human Rights First report reveals, although the United States has improved the procedures previously in place at Bagram, those new policies closely resemble the discredited policies of the Cuba-based detention facility. Given the history at Guantanamo Bay, it's not hard to predict disaster -- unless U.S. detention authorities address the pitfalls immediately.

Similar to Guantanamo Bay, the new Bagram procedures deny access to lawyers, but grant them personal representatives and allow detainees to call witnesses. Yet this process failed when it was used in Guantanamo.


A communal cell in one of four detainee housing units at the new facility in Parwan.


A Seton Hall study found that in 78 percent of Guantanamo cases reviewed, the personal representative met with the detainee only once; and in 79 percent of the cases the personal representative meet with the detainee only a week before the hearing. This certainly did not provide anyone with a meaningful defense. The study also showed that very few witnesses were allowed to appear, effectively nullifying the right to call witnesses.

While additional improvements to the facility are still needed, there is evidence of a desire to improve detention conditions. The isolation cells contain toilets, which limit forced extractions and humiliating searches each time a detainee has to go to the bathroom. The metal meshed observer walk-ways above the 20 person communal caged cells have mats on them to reduce the noise of patrolling guards.

It is also a positive step that Secretary of Defense Gates created a new high-level task force--Joint Task Force 435--dedicated to improving detention policy in Afghanistan and ensuring that the new procedures are implemented.


Showering facilities in one of four detainee housing units at the new facility in Parwan.


However, the United States must continue to reform its detention policy in Afghanistan; additional steps must be taken to increase transparency, legitimacy, and accuracy.

The United States should open its detention facilities to independent human rights observers, such as the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. This was never done at BTIF or Guantanamo Bay. Afghan groups have been lobbying for this with a unified voice, and it is time for the United States to heed their calls.

The United States should invite Afghan officials and civil society actors to provide input on detention policy reforms. This will help enhance the legitimacy of any future policies in the eyes of Afghans, and make sure that local concerns are taken into account.

Placing Afghan judges on the Detainee Review Boards and giving detainees access to lawyers, instead of personal representatives, would also improve the accuracy and credibility of U.S. detention operations. The United States must guarantee that sufficient resources and expertise will be deployed to review evidence and seek out witnesses connected to detainee cases. Bagram regulations should also explicitly ban the use of coerced evidence at Detainee Review Board proceedings.

The United States also needs to improve its collection, corroboration, and analysis of information used to determine who it captures and detains. To do this, U.S. soldiers need to be better trained and equipped to gather more conclusive forms of evidence. Reliance on joint operations and intelligence sharing with the Afghan government should increase. And, reliance on malicious informants and poorly qualified interpreters at points of capture and interrogations must end.

The United States, with the help of the international community, needs to find more effective ways to successfully train Afghan lawyers, judges, and Afghan National Security Forces to respect the rule of law and the rights of detainees. The United States will only considering handing detention operations over to the Afghans if it trusts their justice system. Specific focus should be placed on reforming the practices of national security prosecutors operating under the Office of the Attorney General and engaging in rule of law reforms within the National Directorate of Security.

The first detainees are supposed to be transferred from the old Bagram facility to the new one by the end of the year. Soon, we will know if U.S. detention policy in Afghanistan has really changed or if it is more of the same.

]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:16:32 -0500
It has been 20 years since Sting and I first visited Brazil, and met some of the people for whom the Amazon rainforest is home. On that trip we saw for ourselves the sickening destruction that was taking place. One of the world's most precious resources simply being cleared out of the way, used up, wasted.

We met people who lived in the forest, who'd lost their land, their way of life, their families. We met a Kayapo tribesman called Raoni, who asked us to help him deliver a message to the world. Raoni's message was this, as he spoke of the burning of the rainforest:

"There is a lot of smoke. My people are very sick. But whatever happens in my forest today will affect all of you, in your lands, tomorrow." Well, as we all know, "tomorrow" is already here.

Over 20 years the work of the Rainforest Foundation has spread from Brazil to 18 countries, on three continents. The Foundations based in the UK, the U.S. and Norway work in partnership with more than 100 local organizations in all major rainforest areas.

We've protected over 115,000 sq km of forest, as well as an area bigger than Switzerland for the Kayapo nation.

Projects now underway aim to save nearly one million square kilometers of rainforest -- that's the size of the United Kingdom, Ireland and France.

Alongside our remit to conserve the environment, we support hundreds of thousands of forest peoples in their mission to protect their own rights to their land, livelihoods and culture. But against the relentless tide of land-grabbing, logging and forest-clearing by multinational corporations, none of this is enough.

One of the great tragedies of the ancient world was the burning of the great library of Alexandria. Countless volumes of accumulated knowledge were destroyed, and the wisdom of centuries was turned into smoke that cast a cloud, it is said, over the whole planet.

Today we face a tragedy even greater. The people of the Amazon have no writing.

Their library is the forest. Their university is the forest. Their church is the forest.

Every day we are burning down the library that has taken thousands of years to grow. Every day we are burning down the natural laboratory that could hold a cure for AIDS, a cure for cancer. We are burning down the kitchen that tomorrow could feed the world.

There is an area of the Ecuadorean rainforest I've been visiting for the last few years, which was once a paradise on earth. In the 1960s, however, Texaco -- later bought by Chevron -- started prospecting for oil there. The drilling practices employed by Texaco and inherited by Chevron had been outlawed in the U.S. since the 1930s. But it was cheaper to take shortcuts.

That region is now described by independent assessors as one of the most contaminated industrial sites in the world.

Chevron have admitted to dumping 18 and a half billion gallons of toxic waste directly into the rivers and onto the ground -- that's 30 times more than the pure crude spilled in the Exxon-Valdez disaster.

One thousand unfenced and untreated dumpsites still leak toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into the rivers and streams, 16 years after the company pulled out of the region in 1992. As a result, the water contains 280 times more hydrocarbons than is permitted here in the U.S.

On my visits to the region, I have spoken to mothers who know that the water they give their children to drink is poisoned but they've simply had no choice. I met Maria Garafolo, a 38-year-old mother, who has cancer of the uterus. Her 18-year-old daughter, Sylvia, has cancer of the liver. They showed me the stream where they collect their water. It stinks of petroleum. Nothing grows there. The animals they rear to sell at market die in the toxic environment. It's no surprise to me that Maria and Sylvia are also extremely ill. A spokesperson for Chevron counters that these diseases are due to poor personal hygiene and sanitation. That's as cruelly cynical as it is preposterous.

And so in 2007, the Rainforest Foundation joined hands with Unicef Ecuador and the local Amazon Defense Fund, to provide rainwater collection and filtration tanks for the families affected by the oil production damage. Now, for the first time in 35 years, mothers can be sure that the water their children drink is free from toxic chemicals. This band-aid solution will have to do until Chevron accepts its responsibility to the people whose lands and lives they have devastated.

What has happened in Ecuador is not an isolated incident. On the contrary. It is a microcosm of how the world works.

Whichever area of the Amazon I've visited since the late 80s, it is always the same tragic tale. Sometimes it's about oil, sometimes it's gold, or cattle-ranching. But whatever it's about, it's always about corporate profit. And nobody is holding these big businesses accountable.

In the 20 years Sting and I have been involved in rainforest issues, not once has there been meaningful government consultation with indigenous forest people about the development of their ancestral lands. The UN's declaration of their rights has not been bound by governments. In fact this week Sting will be adding his voice to the chorus of indigenous Amazon people in protest against the lack of information shared about the Belo Monte dam in the Xingu river in Brazil.

It is time for all governments and industry leaders to work together with indigenous rainforest peoples to preserve this vital natural resource.

Rainforests once covered 14 percent of the earth's land surface. Now they only cover 6 percent. Once they have been decimated to the tipping point, there will be no way back. We will face such extreme weather conditions that our planet will no longer support human life.

In March of this year a group of climate scientists met in Copenhagen, and agreed that the climate situation was actually much worse than we'd thought. It is now believed that there needs to be a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to over 90% by 2030.

We are now hearing that global temperatures could rise by 6 degrees by the end of this century. Do we want to be the generation that destroyed ourselves? What will it take for us to stop hiding from these terrible truths?

There is a way out of this mess. But we have to face the truth, and we have to embrace change. We can't leave it to the next government, and the next generation.

It's time to take the responsibility -- not by 2020, not by 2050 -- but NOW, to cut carbon emissions decisively and urgently.

Deforestation accounts for around 20% of the world's carbon emissions.

Simply halting deforestation would be the single fastest and cheapest way to make a significant reduction. So why aren't we doing it?

Land is exploited, human rights are abused and precious resources are plundered, because we have allowed mahogany sideboards and cheap beef burgers to hold more intrinsic value than human life.

It seems that forests are worth nothing until they've been turned into toilet paper.

Land is worth nothing until it is producing something that can be sold on the world markets. We have allowed the dollar, the pound and the petrol in our tanks to rule the world.

We have recently proved that we lack the wisdom to look after the global economy.

Never mind the global economy, it's the globe itself that's in danger. We are now at a turning-point in our short human history. As the world's financial systems begin to settle, we have a unique opportunity to shift our focus, to change our priorities.

We don't have to make a choice between the economy and the environment.

A transition to a clean economic system -- one that values vital natural systems, one that understands the cost of pollution and waste -- will open up huge opportunities.

The shift is inevitable. Countries can't stop it. They can only slow it down. And as they do, they will be left behind.

As a species, we have overcome far greater obstacles. We've landed men on the moon. We've developed weapons capable of destroying whole countries.

The challenge you will face at Copenhagen is far less daunting. But the implications of failure are literally immeasurable.

Twenty years ago, the world did not heed Raoni's message. Now that we know he was right, will we heed it now?

I want to end with a very personal appeal to each and every one of you. The very fact that you are in this room today means that you are powerful. When billions of poor people think about the global elite holding the collective fate of the planet in their hands, they are thinking of you.

The United Nations was created to bring order and responsibility to our world.

It is a magnificent testament to much that is good in humankind. You are the inheritors of that tradition. You are the keepers of that sacred flame. I am asking you -- no, I am begging you -- to live up to your responsibilities. Don't settle for warm words and fine-sounding declarations. Don't accept clever compromises.

As we go forward to Copenhagen, the signs are not good. In the face of the greatest crisis our world has faced for generations, too many powerful people are behaving with shocking irresponsibility. Instead of meeting the challenge of climate change, they are sidelining it in favor of short-term priorities. Instead of building a sustainable global economy, they are ignoring it in favor of short-term growth.

Instead of telling their citizens the truth, they are obscuring it in favor of comforting lies about painless solutions.

The 21st century is already a decade old. The time when leaders could claim not to understand the implications of the evidence before us is long past.

As powerful people, you will be judged by your children, your grandchildren and all the generations to come. They will ask: did you do everything you possibly could to stop climate change?

As I stand before you today I am very conscious of how many different nations are represented here, and that each member state has its own issues, its own policies.

But I am also very conscious of the fact that whatever our race, color or creed, this, above all, is the United Nations.

For we are all fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters. As a planetary family, whatever our differences, we share One world. One fate. One chance. ]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:14:54 -0500
The Grass Hut

The Dopeteria

The Weeding Room

Stoned Depot

De Pot Depot

McDoobies

International House of Potcakes

The Joint Joint

Paranoid Eddie's Bakery

Pottery Barn]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:01:29 -0500
It was true in Vietnam, and it's true in Afghanistan.

After years of propping up sorry, corrupt and ineffective governments in South Vietnam, the U.S. finally decided to enter into peace talks with the North Vietnamese. The same should happen with the Taliban in Afghanistan. This doesn't mean that we should give in to any demands, only that we should open negotiations.

Our willingness to talk is our opening gambit. We should make it clear that we are not going to abandon our bases in Afghanistan, at least not in the short term; we will keep them there to make sure that there is not a revival of Al Qeda camps. They can't stop us from doing that. But we must also know that, sooner or later, we will have to talk to the enemy--and sooner means that more lives will be saved.


]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:33:06 -0500
...when he's quoted or mentioned on radio, TV, or print, reporters and anchors generally identify him on first reference as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.


But for some reason -- most likely his unusual first name -- news organizations are conflicted on how to identify Emanuel on the second reference. Standard news editorial practice across the board is to give a person's full name on first reference and only the last name on second reference.

But not for Emanuel.

Oddly, several news organizations refer to him on a second reference as "Rahm Emanuel." NPR has just decided to make that a policy after correspondent Nina Totenberg referred to Emanuel three times by his first name only on-air.

Naturally, I feel compelled to point out that in the vast majority of news reports, Rahm Emanuel is most often referred to as "senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:28:29 -0500
The emails have been leaked to the public, and are being touted by global warming deniers, including the website Climate Depot, as evidence of an alarmist global warming conspiracy.

Climate Depot is an anti-global-warming website, which promotes skepticism and disbelief about the realities of climate change. The website is similar in format to The Drudge Report, and has a particular focus on criticizing former Vice President Al Gore.

One reputable group of scientists, Real Climate, has posted a response on its blog to the allegations about what information is actually contained in the hacked emails:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Some computer security experts, such as Graham Cluley, who was interviewed by the BBC, speculate that this hack was carried out now due to the increased worldwide focus on climate issues and global warming in advance of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen this December.

Check out our recent slideshow on the most dangerous climate change deniers.

You can read more about "ClimateGate" at Think Progress.

-- Filed By Katherine Goldstein

]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:26:47 -0500 at www.ThatsSports.com.

1. Quick Hits

Tim Lincecum of the San Francisco Giants wins the National League Cy
Young award for the 2nd straight year.
Starting today, baseball free agents are free to sign with any team.
Who will be shopping in this economy?
Ireland's demand is rejected that their World Cup qualifying soccer
loss to France be replayed. France won the game thanks to an obvious
handball. Major League baseball umpires are relieved that for once it
wasn't their fault.

2. Crime and Punishment

It only took 7 years but it looks like former NBA star Jayson
Williams will finally head to jail for shooting his limo driver to
death. He will reportedly plead guilty today and get 3 years (a
minimum of 18 months). I can't help but feel sad. Jayson was one of my
favorite all time interviews. Right behind O.J. Simpson. Am I a great
judge of character or what?

3. Homework

Here's your weekend assignment boys and girls. Steve B. messaged me
on Facebook at "Len Berman's Top 5" with an interesting question. He
wondered if there was another pair of athletes like the Yankees'
Mariano Rivera and the Devils Martin Brodeur? Two of the all time
greats in the same market, at the same time, who played their entire
careers with one team. I can think of Ted Williams and Bill Russell in
Boston. Anyone else?

4. Friday Mailbag

In response to the suggestion that if football players didn't wear
helmets they would play less violently and there would be fewer head
injuries, S.V. sarcastically writes: "We could stop requiring seat
belts in our cars, and maybe we would all drive more carefully."
But rugby player D.L. points out that rugby players don't wear
helmets, he writes: " If you looked at the concussion rates between
football and rugby at each level I will bet that rugby would be
significantly below football." And D.A. says: "If you really want to
eliminate reckless play, have them go without cups. you could turn
hockey into ice dancing.
Editor's Note: Ooh, with the Olympics right around the corner, ice
dancing rears its ugly head.

In response to the New York sports fan who wrote: "The Giants suck,
the Jets suck, the Knicks suck, the Nets suck and I cannot watch
hockey." J.F. responds from Chicago: "Oh cry me a river. New York is
more competitive in every sports league every year than any other city
on the country. Try being a fan in a town that only has one or two
franchises that always stink, say Kansas city. NY'ers don't know how
good they have it."
As for The Who (whose music is used on CSI) playing at halftime of
the upcoming Super bowl, "dances_w_vowels" tweeted me
@LenBermanSports, "So what we know, the Super Bowl is on CBS, in
Miami, starring The Who at halftime. Is David Caruso investigating
replays?"
Editor's Note: I always wanted to dance with vowels.

And from B.B. "If the Knicks get Iverson, maybe they'll have some
"Curry-ier & Ives-rson" moments for the upcoming holidays..."
Editor's Note: Groan, Groan, and more Groans.

5. What's Your Moment?

In conjunction with my new kids book "The Greatest Moments in
Sports," fans are voting for their favorite all time moment at my
website. So far you've voted for lots of baseball with Jackie
Robinson, the Red Sox comeback against the Yankees and a couple of
Derek Jeter moments (His flying catch into the stands and his November
World Series homer). And many of you voted for the "Miracle on Ice,"
the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team. We chose that as the #1 sports
moment of all time in my book.
If you want to join the party, go to http://tinyurl.com/ye7bfo4.

Happy Birthday: Red Sox right fielder J.D. Drew. 34.
Bonus Birthday: The perfect "10," actress Bo Derek. 53.
Bobby Kennedy would have been 84 today.

Today in Sports: The late great Walter Payton of the Bears sets the
record by rushing 275 yards against Minnesota. (The current record
holder is Adrian Peterson of the Vikings 296). 1977.
Bonus Event: 7 year old Drew Barrymore hosts Saturday Night Live.
1982.

I have a book signing tomorrow at noon at the Barnes and Noble in
Manhasset on Long Island.]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:15:52 -0500
Speaking on a conference call with reporters, the Iowa Republican called the Attorney General's decision to try five suspected terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal court in New York an incomprehensible legal and national security blunder.

"It's a complete show trial that will recruit al Qaeda all over the world," said King. "We have our own domestic homegrown terrorists [already]. We will have more here."

Despite assurances from the Obama White House that the case against KSM and others is airtight, King insisted that the administration's detainee-trial policy will result in terrorists being set free to roam the American countryside.

"It is likely that some of these terrorists will be released whether in the U.S. or someone else in the world," he said. "If they are, innocent people will die and some of them likely will be Americans."

Such dramatic language is to be expected from King, who has earned a reputation for some of the most bizarre histrionics in Congress. But it is also quite divorced from an honest debate. The past administration, for starters, tried terrorist suspects in federal court in Virginia. George W. Bush himself, stressed that these detainees "ought to be tried in courts here in the United States."

And yet, King insisted that he could not find "a way to justify any rationale" for sending KSM to New York and declared that the Obama administration's main intention was to "put president George Bush on trial."

He also, it should be noted, said that he didn't think that there had ever been a case were prisoners of war "have ever been treated as well" as those at Gitmo -- which, considering some of the early allegations of abuse at the facility, seems a bit confused.


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:55:17 -0500
At the beginning of these years, I sought a place to put my feelings. I was directed to a lovely lady in Santa Barbara Hospice who led a poetry class and had also lost her husband to cancer. The minute I put my pen to paper I couldn't stop. It was so cathartic. I didn't know anyone would ever see it but I didn't care. Without realizing, I wrote my story in poetry and prose and finally my book "I Can Do This, Living With Cancer, Tracing a Year of Hope."

My granddaughter who was eight kept my book by her bedside and was fascinated with everything concerning it. One day she told her mother she wanted to do a book report for her second grade class on "I Can Do This." Her mother said she didn't think that was appropriate because most kids her age didn't know that much about cancer. Tess asked, "Then why don't Nana and I write a book together explaining cancer to kids?" Her mother encouraged her to call me. When she did I thought it was a win win situation. Tess and I would get to work together, learning a lot, and hopefully helping some families bring cancer out in the open. I told her I loved the idea. I asked Tess to write down some questions that bothered her about cancer and I would try with the best of my ability to answer them.

I went to pediatric oncologists, the library, and used the internet for my research (i.e. the American Cancer Society website). Tess, meanwhile, did her own research. She read books that children had written about their mothers having cancer. To write our book, Tess and I would talk on the phone and e-mail each other. We would also meet over tea and cookies in each other's kitchens. We felt that that the American Cancer Society would be the place to publish it. We sent the manuscript and they liked the idea, but we would have to wait for their next season of selecting books. They suggested some rewrites. We reworked it some more and finally it was time to send it back to them. We waited, and waited. Finally, Len Boswell, the director of publishing, sent me an email, with the subject matter saying "And the Answer is..." The first line in the email was "Yes, we are going to publish your book." I called Tess and we both screamed on the phone. Two years had gone by. Now the work began. They turned us over to their editor (Rebecca Teaff) and illustrator (Shennen Bresani) and we worked with them. They were all very kind and supportive but it was a long process. Another year had passed. Tess was now 11 and taller than me (not hard to be!). But the bottom line is, we have a book! "Nana, What's Cancer?" was finally born. Our vision is that it is to be read by a child and a grown up together. We hope our loving conversation between grandmother and granddaughter explains cancer in a kid-friendly way and strengthens emotional bonds between family members during difficult times.


"Nana, What's Cancer?" published by American Cancer Society
Distrubuted by McGraw Hill
Honored as a finalist by USA Book News as one of the Best Books Nationally in the non-fiction category, 2009.
]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:38:16 -0500
In six states, there were statistically significant gains -- including Michigan, which still has the highest unemployment rate in the country at 15.1 percent (down from 15.3 percent in September).

The overall picture is still bad -- here's a chart from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics with the breakdown:




For a larger version, click here (it will open in a new window).

Click here for the state-by-state unemployment report from the BLS. And click here to see some of HuffPost's stories on people dealing with unemployment and its consequences.

HuffPost readers: Got an unemployment story? Losing your health insurance? Bank kicking you while you're down? Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.
]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:16:31 -0500
"Baby", I whispered in her ear, "look. You're home now, you're free." She put her hand up to the porthole window and touched the glass, reaching for what she saw beyond. In that moment, I was so happy for her that I thought my heart would burst out of my chest. She would now live her life in a country where she would not be politically or socially repressed; where she would not be subject to a government that was unaccountable to her or anyone; and in a society that cared about individuals and protecting their rights.

The future for her, I felt sure, would be far different now that she was in America. She, along with uncounted others, had literally been thrown away, by a family, a government and a society that does not value girls and women, and does not value individual choice. China had been a dangerous place for her and my dream was that the United States would be her safe haven.

So when I woke up to find a picture on the front page of the Washington Post, showing a tee shirt in a shop in Beijing depicting the President of the United States, Barack Obama, as "Oba-Mao", something wrenched deep in my heart. I stood blinking for a few moments in my driveway, unable to process what I was seeing. The image of our President melded with that of the Communist dictator who presided over the deaths of 70 million of his own countrymen was sickening. I felt like the innocent and unsuspecting Cindy-Lou Who, waking up on Christmas morning to find the Grinch had stolen Christmas. What I read in this picture was that China had stolen the presidency, along with our wealth, our freedom and our power. It was gone and there was nothing we could do about it. Actually, we all know it wasn't stolen; we sold it, gave it away really, for flat screen TV's, low mortgage interest rates and millions of plastic toys sold in Wal-mart. What a trade-off!

And it seems no one cares to know the nature of whom we have so carelessly sold our collective selves, our values and our children's futures to. Our President went out of his way to assure his Chinese hosts this week that Americans no longer feel that freedom, democracy and human rights are morally superior to tyranny, totalitarianism and force. They surely are happy to hear this. Getting us to give that up was easier than the Grinch snatching that one last candy cane from the grip of the dreaming Cindy-Lou.

Because the Chinese now have money, and have spent at least a trillion of it buying U.S. Treasury debt, we dare not speak about values. Forgotten is the fact that the Chinese government is rich precisely because it does not spend money on its people, and it does not spend money on its people because it doesn't have to. It doesn't have to because it is not a democracy and the people cannot demand it through free and fair elections. Democracy matters in very practical economic terms when you consider that our government, which has to spend money on things like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and the like, is competing with a government that is free to spend its riches buying us. What could that trillion dollars have done for the hundreds of millions of Chinese still eking out a living in poverty? One could argue that it is immoral for us to take money to fund our social services from a government that refuses to spend money on its own. Our Chinese-owned debt is not only economically burdensome but also morally repugnant when seen in that light.

At the staged 'town hall' meeting, the casualness with which the President spoke of 'women in America' who suffer because some men still have 'traditional views' of their roles was stunning. He seemed to be equating the self-indulgent gripes of privileged women in this country with the abject misery of baby girls in China who are abandoned by the thousands just because they are female, or the horror of late term forced abortions when a woman exceeds the one-child quota. One wonders if he knows what he is talking about; but it's certain he does not know whom he is talking to.

I am afraid that I do; I saw the victims of them and their policies in Tiananmen Square where I witnessed peaceful protestors beaten and dragged away by Chinese police. 'Community organizing' activities are not received well there. Most heartbreakingly, I also saw their victims in an orphanage in rural China, and I will never get them out of my mind. I am raising two gorgeous, precious girls, about the same ages as the President's own daughters, who came from there, and whom would not have had a chance at life had they stayed. Ironically, it is now our government, retirees and food stamp recipients who benefit from the lack of Chinese funding for the other girls left behind.

I told them when I brought them home that they were now free. When I saw the 'Oba-Mao' picture I realized, it isn't true. They, along with President Obama and the rest of us, are now wholly owned subsidiaries of The People's Republic of China. Is this what we want? Someday I will have to try to explain to my daughters why this has happened, but how? How will any of us, when our children ask?]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:15:41 -0500
For example, the NRCC could take a movie review that read, "Gigli is a great big sack of audible farts," and repackage it as "Gigli is great...audible." Or, as they did back in September, they could make Representative Tom Periello appear as if he was intimating that all of the constituents he encountered at town hall meetings were racist.

Well, apparently, they've done it again, and comically so! So says Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell:

First, a lighthearted slug to the National Republican Congressional Committee. In response to a recent column item that suggested the party hacks in Washington were undermining their own cause by offering only childish potshots at Democrats without offering any substance or solutions of their own, the NRCC sent out another release. It quoted this column -- only it creatively used ... ellipses ... to remove words it didn't like. So their version made it look like the column item was taking a Democrat to task, not them. OK, so it was kind of funny -- but didn't do much to combat the notion that it's amateur hour up there.

Here's what the NRCC did! They took Maxwell's November 10th column and packaged it in their own press release, thusly:

Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell notes that Rep. Suzanne Kosmas - far from covering her political bases with a 'NO' vote on Pelosi's healthcare bill - continues to get hit from both sides:


"Democrat Suzanne Kosmas may have irritated her liberal base when she voted against Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill...[and Republicans] are continuing to bash her on the topic, saying: OK, she may have done what they wanted -- but not for the reasons they wanted." (Orlando Sentinel, 11/10/09)

The only problem comes when you click out to Maxwell's column, where you realize that he was actually writing about what titanic, embarrassing hacks the NRCC are!

Democrat Suzanne Kosmas may have irritated her liberal base when she voted against Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill. But she also backed the National Republican Congressional Committee into a corner ... at least she would have if the party hacks had any shame or integrity.


For months, the NRCC had been sending out releases, asking whether Kosmas had the courage to do the right thing (in its mind anyway) and stand up to "Pelosi's health-care takeover."

Well, she did. She voted against it.

This apparently confused the simpletons at the NRCC, who don't know how to do anything but gripe. So now, they are continuing to bash her on the topic, saying: OK, she may have done what they wanted -- but not for the reasons they wanted. So they still hate her.

Why anyone pays attention to these petulant partisans who couldn't care less about Central Florida issues is beyond me. In fact, I'm hearing from more and more Republicans -- including respected ones contemplating congressional campaigns -- that the NRCC's incessant whining makes the whole party look like amateur hour.

I have bolded the part that the NRCC places behind an ellipsis. You know, the part where Maxwell refers to the NRCC as a bunch of "hacks" without "shame or integrity" who are "confused" "simpletons" "who don't know how to do anything but gripe." All points that the NRCC went out and basically proved, with ellipses!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:59:31 -0500
Goldman Sachs got $10 billion in bailout money -- no strings attached. That's the amount the big investors want for bonuses. Should we all say "You're welcome"? The Administration is nowhere to be found (indeed, current Treasury Secretary and last year's bailout leader as chief of the New York Fed, Tim Geithner, is the chief enabler) and Congress is too corrupt to stop this nonsense. When they had a chance to add strings last year, they did not. Now, the Wall Street gang is using our tax dollars to further bribe Congress (yes, that's very much you too, Democrats) to not have any meaningful regulatory reform. Thus, we are prone to future collapse right back into the mess we have now.

Corporate interests have long advocated "say-on-pay" for unions so that no objecting union member's dues could be used for political purposes. There is no corresponding restriction for shareholders on corporations. We need corporate reform (what I call "corp reform" to mimic "tort reform") by way of requiring ALL shareholders to approve ALL pay of ALL executives at ALL publicly traded corporations. Gramm-Leach-Bliley (which led directly to our current Depression) should be repealed and Glass-Steagall should be restored. The long-standing, incestuous practice of officers nominating directors and directors deciding on the pay of officers, is crazy and must end. Only when the shareholders have true control of the corporations, and the regulatory laws have been changed, can this looting insanity end.

www.normangoldman.com
]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:39:33 -0500
I don't mean to be crass. Technically, it's not actually the turkey's butt. It's more of his 'back hole' -- or if I may be more detailed since my father was knowledgeable in the world of poultry, the turkey's 'two back holes' -- one larger 'back hole' that's really just the under side of the rib cage, and one above the turkey's hangy dangly thing that our family would cook, serve, and eat, but never discuss what it was exactly. When I was younger, my dad would joke with me that I should put that thing under my pillow and that night, the turkey butt fairy would come. I loved my dad more than anything but his sense of humor frightened me.

For me, Thanksgiving is also a time of un-stuffing ourselves. As the year winds down, we prepare ourselves to empty out the year that has passed and fill ourselves back up with the year yet to come... We think about the people in our lives that we love, that we lost, that we have yet to meet... Please ignore this paragraph. I was just trying to get my Rabbi turned on if he read this thing.

When I drive past a house during the holidays, and I see the smoke billowing out of a fireplace, I know, that inside that house, on that kitchen table, there's a turkey carcass, open-winged, open-legged, its body ripped apart and eaten by the entire family. If that turkey could talk, its last words would probably be, "I'll see you all in hell!! And which one of you ate my hangy dangly thing that used to be my ass!!"

But thank God, turkeys can't talk. They can only gobble. And they are a bird. A very nervous bird. You'd be nervous too if you knew that one day someone was going to cut off your head, and fill your butt cavity with stuffing. Although I know a few people that would welcome it. I can almost see them reading this right now, saying to themselves out loud, "You got that right!"

The holidays are about people. All people. Caring about the people in your life. Even though you may not see them anymore, talk to them anymore, have driven a wall between you and them that is irreparable... You know that one day... if you have enough money... they will come back to you. Unless they have what my dad used to call 'integrity.' If you had friends that are no longer your friends, perhaps it was the time to let them go. I've known people that only liked me for what money I had. I call those people, "Honey."

So as this time of thanks unfolds, be kind to each other. And be kind to the turkey. Think about the sacrifice he has made. If we give thanks, and bless this turkey for giving of himself, he won't curse us as we feast upon and eventually digest him. We all make sacrifices. That too is part of the holiday spirit. The giving, the receiving, the stuffing, and the excreting. Sometimes if it's your old Uncle Nate, it winds up being right there on the sofa. That's where slipcovers could come back in vogue. Perhaps only during the holiday weekend. I don't know why, but I picture Uncle Nate wearing an old beige suit with the pants buckled up way over his stomach, just below his breasts.

I do have a wish for you all. May all your holidays be filled with the blessings that life can bestow. And though, for all of us, in different ways, this has been a tough year, try to remember something my father taught me. Something I reflect upon that occasionally has helped me through a tough time... That at your moment of suffering, somewhere in the world, some unsuspecting turkey is about to have a fistful of gravy shoved deep into his ass.

So when you ask me, "Why do you love Thanksgiving, Bob? Is it the memories of the traditional Pilgrim garb of square buckles and square-toed shoes? Is it the festive holiday colors of brown and orange? Is it the cornucopias on the table with odd varnished vegetables we have never eaten...?" I can look you right in your eyes and tell you with complete certainty why it is that I love Thanksgiving...

It's the stuffing.]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:32:30 -0500
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced Friday for the first time that he will vote to allow the Democratic health care reform bill to proceed to a debate on the Senate floor.

That leaves Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) as the lone holdouts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a vote on a "motion to proceed" -- actually, it's a vote to end a filibuster of the motion to proceed -- for late on Saturday night. He needs all 60 members of the Democratic caucus to vote yes, as every Republican has indicated that he -- or she -- will vote no.

Several weeks of floor debate and amendments will come next, followed by another vote to end a filibuster -- this one to move to a final vote. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has promised to vote with Reid on Saturday but wants to strip out the public health insurance option before offering to vote to end the final filibuster.

Lieberman believes that the government can not afford to set up a public health insurance option, even though it would not be federally subsidized and would in fact save the government money, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Connecticut is a stronghold of the insurance industry, which is a strong backer of Lieberman.

Nelson also opposes the public option and relies heavily on insurance industry money but said today he would let the debate move forward.

"For more than a year, Nebraskans and all Americans have debated health care reform in their homes, at work, and with friends at hundreds of town hall meetings. This weekend, I will vote for the motion to proceed to bring that debate onto the Senate floor. The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans," he said. "Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct. That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about."

But Nelson added that he would be willing to obstruct a final up-or-down vote on the bill if it wasn't to his satisfaction.

"[My vote] is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday. It is only to begin debate and an opportunity to make improvements. If you don't like a bill why block your own opportunity to amend it? As we have seen before, obstructionists are inviting a move toward reconciliation by opposing this first procedural vote," he said. "Let's be clear. That route shrinks debate and amendments, eliminates bipartisanship and needs only 50 votes to pass a bill. In the end, far more Washington-run health care policies win, but Nebraskans lose. In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion--needing 60 votes--to end debate, and oppose the final bill. But I won't slam the doors of the Senate in the face of Nebraskans now. They want the health care system fixed. The Senate owes them a full and open debate to try to do so."

Landrieu previously told HuffPost she wasn't inclined to support a filibuster.

"I'm not right now inclined to support any filibuster," she said.

The refusal of the GOP to participate meaningfully in negotiations has soured her on joining them in a filibuster. "For the Republican Party to kind of step out of the game is very unfortunate," she said. "I'm not going to be joining people that don't want progress."

Lincoln, meanwhile, faces intense pressure at home. The day she'll be faced with the decision, her potential primary opponent will be hosting a free health care clinic in Little Rock for the uninsured.


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:32:26 -0500
As any parent or grandparent knows, there are few greater rewards than seeing the smile spread across a child's face as they open the perfect present. But we also know how quickly that great joy can devolve into our greatest fear if the appropriate attention isn't paid to safety.

Fortunately, this year, you can shop for your child or grandchild with more confidence than ever before. That's because there are new rules on your side and the side of America's children -- and because we here at the Consumer Product Safety Commission are working tirelessly to protect you. As a result, recalls are being reduced and toys are safer than ever.

We all remember the lead paint problems involving Thomas the Train and Fisher Price recalls. Well, this year, the legal limits for the amount of lead paint on toys dropped to some of lowest limits in the world. For the first time ever, new federal rules also put strict limits on how much total lead can be in toys and all children's products. And toys now have to be independently tested and certified that they meet the new lead paint limits.

The new safety rules also put limits on three phthalates -- chemicals that many parents have been concerned about - from being in toys with mouthable parts. And they turned voluntary United States toy standards to mandatory standards, because we know that stronger standards can save lives.

If you're reading this and wondering exactly what these new rules and regulations mean for you, here's the bottom line: This year, when you walk into a toy store anywhere in America, you can be assured that there are more protections in place for you and your children than ever before.

For proof, just look at the numbers and see that we're headed in the right direction. So far this year, there have been 38 toy recalls -- down from 162 in 2008 and 148 in 2007. There have been 15 recalls involving lead, down from 63 in 2007 and 85 in 2008.

Also, rather than recalling a product once it is in the stream of commerce, CPSC is stopping products at the ports.

Now, I know that even with these new protections, many parents still have concerns about Chinese made products. That's why, as your representative, I've already been to China and Southeast Asia twice in my first four months as Chairman.

I've spoken to government officials and manufacturers about building safety into children's products and about making products that meet the high standards in the United States. I've reminded them that safety and trade are interwoven.

Rest assured that the Chinese are taking toy safety seriously. In fact, the Chinese government closed down numerous toy factories after the wave of U.S. recalls, and both CPSC and the Chinese government are educating toy makers about our new rules.

But even with the extraordinary effort we are making to protect you and your children, it's important to also remember that government can't do it alone. Tragic deaths and injuries still occur each year with riding toys and balloons and batteries and small balls. That's why parents and grandparents need to remain vigilant about toy safety in the home.

Really make sure you purchase toys that are appropriate for the age of your child. You know your child: get them toys they can play with now. And always be sure to keep younger children away from the toys of older siblings.

The CPSC has a number of free services to help you stay vigilant and informed about toy recalls and hazards. So go to CPSC.gov to sign for our e-mail alerts, follow us on Twitter, and check out our new OnSafety blog. And remember: CPSC Stands For Safety, especially the safety of your children. ]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:20:43 -0500
Kenneth first confronts Jenna about her energy-guzzling habits.

WATCH:





Kenneth then asks Liz to give up her mini-fridge, and watch as she calls out NBC for only doing token green things for Green Week, like making the NBC peacock Green.

WATCH:





Watch as Kenneth declares Frank The Greenest Person at TGS for his interesting habits.

WATCH:




Watch this hilarious cameo by Al Gore.

WATCH:




Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:09:22 -0500
Since his departure, some have speculated he might run as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, where he has a home, or even run as a third-party candidate in the 2012 U.S. presidential elections -- options he says remain on the table.


"I am ruling nothing out. ... I have come to no conclusions and no decisions," he said. "Do I seek to have some influence on public policy? Absolutely. Do I seek to represent and champion the middle class in this country and those who aspire to it? Absolutely. And I will."

One is reminded of the fact that Dobbs is just one of a long line of ivory-tower-educated millionaire media elites who fancy themselves to be an authentic voice of the "middle class." Fun fact: Dobbs's daughter is way into equestrian sports, America's most populist pastime!

At any rate, Dobbs's presidential hopes face numerous obstacles. His CNN ratings suggest that voters' first reaction to a potential Dobbs candidacy will be to raise the question: "Wait. Who is Lou Dobbs?" He mainly enjoys name recognition among people who at best think that he's some sort of bloviating joke, and at worst think he's some sort of weird nativist. Which leads me to the next impediment to Dobbs's presidential hopes -- he will not win the vote of a single Hispanic voter -- not one, not ever.

Still, in these recessionary times, it's nice to see that not everyone has become completely discouraged from looking for work.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0500
Asked by a citizen journalist if it was a foregone conclusion that Bernanke's nomination for a second term would be confirmed by the Senate, Dodd replied: "Not necessarily, not necessarily. We'll see how members react."

The intervening six weeks have seen a growing public anger about skyrocketing unemployment, and a growing recognition that government bailouts since last fall have helped Wall Street -- rather than Main Street.

Dodd's new comments came in a video posted to YouTube today by videoblogger Mike Stark. Stark also asked Dodd about the Obama administration's top economic team and whether a change is needed. Dodd said he was concerned about the country's economic plight, but said: "It's the President's call at this point because those are his choices."

Dodd also said of Bernanke: "I'm inclined to be supportive. I think he's done a far better job in the last couple of years than he did initially."

Dodd's spokeswoman, Kirstin Brost said "there was nothing new" in Dodd's statement.

"He has said consistently we are going to have a thorough hearing, there are serious issues that need to be addressed, but he is inclined to support Bernanke," she wrote in an e-mail. "There are no foregone conclusions in Congress."

Brost also pointed to an August statement by Dodd, in which he said:

While I have had serious differences with the Federal Reserve over the past few years, I think reappointing Chairman Bernanke is probably the right choice. Chairman Bernanke was too slow to act during the early stages of the foreclosure crisis, but he ultimately demonstrated effective leadership and his reappointment sends the right signal to the markets.

There will be a thorough and comprehensive confirmation hearing. I still have serious concerns about the Federal Reserve's failure to protect consumers and I strongly believe these responsibilities should go to an independent consumer financial protection agency. I expect many serious questions will be raised about the role of the Federal Reserve moving forward and what authorities it should and should not have.

In the video, Dodd also acknowledged some of his own shortcomings as a member then chairman of the banking committee, in the context of Bernanke's recent performance:

"He's been better on some of these issues, which I wish I'd paid attention to years before."

WATCH THE VIDEO:



]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:06:08 -0500
Over its 63 years, the SOA/WHINSEC has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counter-insurgency techniques, sniper skills, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. The military coup led by SOA graduates in Honduras on June 28, 2009, has once again exposed the destabilizing and deadly effects that the School of the Americas has had on Latin America.

The June 28th coup in Honduras against the democratically-elected President Zelaya was carried out by SOA graduates General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, the head of the of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Honduran military, and General Luis Prince Suazo, the head of the Air Force. The leadership of SOA graduates in the coup follows a pattern of anti-democratic actions by graduates of the SOA (renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, WHINSEC). The Pentagon claim -- that the institute instills respect for democracy and civilian leadership while teaching combat skills to Latin American soldiers -- has once again been disproved by the actions of the institute's graduates.

Vásquez studied in the SOA at least twice: once in 1976 and again in 1984. The head of the Honduran Air Force, General Luis Javier Prince Suazo, studied in the School of the Americas in 1996. The Air Force has been a central protagonist in the Honduran coup and arranged to have President Zelaya flown into exile in Costa Rica.

Vásquez and Suazo are not the only SOA graduate linked to the current coup or employed by the de facto government. Others include: General Nelson Willy Mejía Mejía, Director of Immigration, who is also a former SOA instructor and has faced charges in connection with the notorious death squad, Battalion 3-16, for which he served as an intelligence officer; Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza Membreño, the Honduran army's top lawyer who has acknowledged that flying Zelaya into exile was a crime; Lt. Col. Ramiro Archaga Paz, the army's Director of Public Relations; and Col. Jorge Rodas Gamero, a two-time SOA graduate, who is the Minister of Security (a post he also held in Zelaya's government).

Four months of military rule have led to massive human rights violations, as documented by a fact-finding delegation led by the National Lawyers Guild and three other organizations in late August 2009. The mission received reports of deaths due to excessive and disproportionate use of force by the National Police, the military, and COBRA special forces against those who expressed opposition to the coup d'état, including the use of live bullets against protesters. These violations were often committed against the most historically vulnerable groups, including women, indigenous people, children, and Afro-Hondurans. The mission received reports of cruel and degrading treatment including sexual assault and rape against women exercising their right to expression and peaceful dissent against the coup, and of the abusive treatment of minors, including arrests, arbitrary detention, and forced military recruitment amongst the poor in both rural and urban areas.

Additionally, the delegation noted cases of persecution, attacks, and intimidation against journalists and independent media, including Radio Globo, Radio Progreso and television channels 11 and 36.

Meanwhile, President Zelaya is still taking refuge in the Brazilian Embassy and a U.S.-brokered deal [the Tegucigalpa/San Jose Accords] to reinstate him by November 5th - in preparation for the Nov. 29th elections - has unraveled, because the Micheletti coup regime has no intentions of fulfilling its end of the bargain. With the quashing of free media, mass tear-gassing, beating and arrest of protesters, and absence of political space for opposition candidates to campaign or express dissenting political opinion, conditions for free, fair, and open elections are non-existent.

The SOA is continuing to train Honduran officers despite claims by the Obama administration that it cut military ties to Honduras. The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act requires that U.S. military aid and training be suspended when a country undergoes a military coup. However, WHINSEC has confirmed that Honduran officers are still being trained at the school.

Despite promising comments from President Obama during his 2008 election campaign, the SOA/ WHINSEC is still in operation. Too many have died and continue to suffer at the hands of the graduates of this notorious institution. It is time for the School of Americas to be shut down.



Father Roy Bourgeois is the Founder of School of Americas Watch; Bourgeois took part in a fact-finding mission to Honduras after the coup. Azadeh Shahshahani is an attorney based in Atlanta and National Lawyers Guild International Committee Co-Chair and Southern Regional Vice President. Shahshahani submits this piece in her personal capacity and not as an ACLU staff member.
]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:02:57 -0500
One day after calling on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to resign, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post that there were a lot of Democrats who were "upset and nervous with" the handling of the economy by the administration.

"It is pretty embarrassing for a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress to be identified with total attention to Wall Street and nothing for Main Street and jobs," he said. "There are a lot of Democrats who... want to see something more effective done to create employment."

DeFazio insisted that President Obama and, by extension, the Democratic Party were hampered by Geithner's policies for economic recovery. He pointed to the inability of the administration to spur small business lending and the lack of effective TARP oversight as particularly egregious examples of mismanagement. More than anything else, the Oregon Democrat deemed it untenable for the president to continue employing his current economic team given the taint of Wall Street that clings to many of those advisers.

"I have had a number of people say to me, 'I feel the same way you do but I'm not going to say it.' People are worried it will rub off on the president who still enjoys popularity," he said. "I tell them I still support the president. I just think he is being poorly served by his economic team."

"The truth of the matter," DeFazio added, "is that we have not changed the way the money is being used. It is not being used for the purpose it was supposed to be used for. We are not creating jobs and we have not aggressively taken on the culture of Wall Street."

At this juncture, the notion of Obama dumping Geithner remains far-fetched. Officials at the White House say that the Treasury Secretary still has the trust of the president and argue that he has played an instrumental role in righting the nation's economy. At Treasury, meanwhile, aides are acutely aware of the frustration over small business lending. They note that they have increased caps on small business loans, cut taxes for small business and changed the structure of the TARP to make it more open for community banks. If not for the poor reputation of the program, they argue, these banks would be more willing to take the government's money.

For DeFazio, however, the issue is as much one of perception as it is about policy. One of his chief concerns was that the president appeared enamored with the lords of finance. "The administration has, thus far, not threaded the needle here," he said. "They have taken care of Wall Street but not the rest of the country."

There is, the congressman concluded, "an anger" among the working class that could be a major factor in 2010. And without a new focus on jobs and small business from the White House, DeFazio warned, "a faux populist" Republicanism will fill the void.


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:55:24 -0500
Dr. Shah's work ethic, leadership by example and focus on doing what is in the best interest of others may mean that some do not know all that he has done. As someone who has not only seen Raj's work, but has also worked with him, I feel it is important to make his record of accomplishment common knowledge. It is safe to say that Raj has already worked to better the lives of millions of people. Many know Raj from his time at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation where he helped launch the Global Development program, and held numerous leadership roles in the financial, health, and agriculture sectors. What you may not know is that Raj has also led and worked on many of the international development initiatives that world looks to for best practices. These include the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, and Malaria and The Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA)-an organization he helped create.

As co-chair, with Catherine Bertini, former head of the World Food Program, of the Chicago Council's Global Agricultural Development Leaders Group, I was, in essence, one of Raj's grantees working together to turn attention to the renewed need for U.S. leadership in long-term global agricultural development. Collaborating with the Gates Foundation, and Raj, on this project was a tremendous experience. It is not often that people understand the overarching policy issues of a subject, are acutely attune to the human impact of it, and also know the most granular details of it. Raj knows all three. He understands the policy debates around foreign assistance and development, but does also knows that to impact the lives of others you must know what they need and what they want-that we cannot drive development from thousands of miles away, but must do so on the ground in-country. And once in-country, he can point to a type of soil and tell you the seed that will maximize production.

As a former Secretary of Agriculture, I am well aware of the significance of USDA's research operations and leadership. When Raj became Undersecretary for Research, Education and Extension and Chief Scientist, his knowledge of the importance of the land grant system allowed him to engage the colleges in a meaningful way-a way that is cognizant of the needs of others and the power of extension to help others-both at home and abroad in a lasting and meaningful way.

The Obama Administration has already taken steps to show its commitment to doing development differently-and in a manner that empowers others and helps grow economies. The Food Security Initiative is perfect paradigm of this approach. It seeks to turn the tide on the trend of short-term aid and one-off project based work and create agriculture-led economic growth along the entire supply chain. I can think of no one better to help guide this effort than Raj. He believes that foreign assistance means empowering others to create sustainable development and working to maximize the impact of humanitarian aid. This is the kind of leader USAID needs.

America is working to rebuild its international image and has committed to dealing proactively with the problems associated with modernizing agricultural systems, creating sustainable global health networks, and fragile states. The crucial role and mission of USAID have been made clear by both President Obama and Secretary Clinton. The next Administrator will play a vital role in restoring in tackling some of the critical issues we face as a global society. Dr. Shah has the experience, the knowledge, the vision, the passion, and the drive to rebuild and strengthen international development programs. He is the best man to fulfill this Administration's vision for development around the world. ]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:53:43 -0500
Today we are very proud to announce the inaugural ThinkSocial Award Winners and also release Blueprints 1.0, a report detailing trends in social media for the public interest.

The first draft of the report is part of a longer effort dedicated to the study and advancement social media in the public interest. It features concept definitions and examples for ten trends that we believe are shaping the use of social media. We have compiled this list through interviews with public and private sector leaders; analysis of initiatives, organizations and government programs; reviews of industry and mainstream news coverage; and submissions from thousands of online participants.

Highlighted trends from the report include:

Active Witness/Active Witnessing: Active witnessing occurs when individuals or groups share information and stories about important and often dramatic events through the use of digital tools. Examples include long-established "active witness" network Witness.org, a non-profit that empowers people to tell stories of human rights abuses through video technology.

Social Production/Mass Collaboration: Social production or mass collaborating occurs when large numbers of people work independently on a single project, often modular in its nature, to create a product of significant value and complexity. Examples include Invisible Children, a non-profit that spreads awareness about child soldiers in Northern Uganda, educational charity DonorsChoose.org, and charity: water, which uses Google Earth to track the progress of its projects.

Social Alignment/Social Aligning: Social aligning occurs when institutions engage with their constituents, consumers or other important stakeholders through social media to identify and take collective action on shared goals--often goals with a public purpose. Examples of social alignment include retail giant Target who recently gave 5% of its profit, or about3 million a week, to charity. For two weeks this past May, Target recruited Facebook users to help the corporation decide which ten charities would receive the "Bullseye Gives" funds and what percentage of the money the selected charities would receive.

Social Transacting/Social Transactions: Social transacting occurs when people spend time or money online engaged in activities that generate financial and social value for causes. Social transacting is demonstrated in Zynga's popular virtual farming game, FarmVille, where players can purchase certain charity-linked items with their virtual currency. Zynga's "Sweet Seeds for Haiti" promotion, where 50% of proceeds benefited Haitian charities FUNKOZE.org and FATEM.org, generated487,000 for the charities.

You can view the full list of trends together with a deeper analysis of each of the award recipients here: http://think-social.org/awards/blueprints

Winners of the inaugural 2009 ThinkSocial Awards include:

Kiva.org: a peer-to-peer micro-lending web site, enabling entrepreneurs in developing countries to receive loans from lenders around the world.

SocialVibe: an organization aids charities via brand activities that generate micro-donations.

The March 18th Movement: founded by Hamid Tehrani and Mideast Youth, seeks to expand the world's understanding of bloggers as de facto journalists, and extend the protections normally accorded to journalists to all those who share information and stories of repression and corruption online.

A special commendation award was also being presented to:

Amanda Rose: the founder of Twestival Global and Local, which is a concurrent series of offline events for charity, organized by volunteers in cities around the world via Twitter.
]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:29:36 -0500
"We all know politicians don't give up campaign contributions -- much less $25,000 -- without a very good reason," said CREW executive director Melanie Sloan in a statement. "It appears Sen. Landrieu's reason may have been to avoid a scandal or, even worse, a federal investigation into some of her contributions."

Marc Elias, a lawyer for Landrieu's campaign, wrote in an e-mail to the Huffington Post: "This is a silly complaint. Unfortunately FEC rules don't prevent frivolous complaints; nonetheless, it will ultimately be dismissed."

CREW first noticed the donation and wondered if it had something to do with an ongoing inquiry by the Senate Ethics Committee. The committee was investigating whether Landrieu violated Senate rules when she sought $2 million in earmarks for a company whose executives donated $30,000 to her campaign.

Elias emphatically told the Huffington Post last week that the donated funds had nothing to do with the investigation. But that was all he would say.

"When questioned about the expenditure by the press," the complaint says, "a lawyer for the campaign refused to explain why the campaign disgorged the funds to the Treasury, stating only the contributors 'are private citizens who in most instances may not have done anything wrong.'"

The complaint cites regulations that forbid campaigns from donating dirty money to the Treasury unless the contributor is under criminal investigation, indictment, or has been convicted. By not giving the $25,300 back to whoever contributed it, CREW says Landrieu's campaign broke the law.

Last week, almost two years after CREW filed its complaint over the $2 million earmark, the ethics committee cleared Landrieu of wrongdoing.

Landrieu's campaign will have 15 days to respond to the complaint after the FEC provides its formal notification.

Click here for a PDF of CREW's complaint.

HuffPost readers: Want to scan through Landrieu campaign's contributors and look for people who've been convicted or indicted? Click here for the FEC data. Send tips to arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:17:34 -0500