Veja, mas não olhe

A Veja desta semana tem matérias com os seguintes títulos:

“O grampo da PF e a filha do presidente”  - na seção “Corrupção”

“O Mensalão brasiliense” – na seção “Distrito Federal”

A primeira matéria, apesar do título, é sobre o genro do Presidente, Marcelo Sato, flagrado pela PF em telefonemas comprometedores com empresários.  Sato é casado com Lurian, a filha do relacionamento entre Lula e Mírian Cordeiro, e vive em Santa Catarina.  A matéria diz que “é grave o caso de Marcelo Sato, oficialmente empregado como assessor parlamentar”.  Não dá pra saber se a Veja esclarece, mas na IstoÉ está claro que Sato é assessor parlamentar na Assembléia do estado de Santa Catarina, não em Brasília _ é empregado por uma deputada estadual do PT local.

A segunda matéria fala sobre o flagra que a PF deu no governador do Distrito Federal, José Roberto Arruda, pagando propina à sua “base aliada”.

É engraçado como a revista liga “presidente” a “corrupção”, e a esbórnia do DEM ao…”mensalão”.

Mais engraçado ainda é como Tio Rei “relê” o título da matéria de Veja sobre o DEM da capital federal, criativamente transformado em “O Desastre de Arruda“.  Mais ou menos a mesma estratégia de quando eclodiu a história da invenção do mensalão pelo PSDB, intitulada pelo Tio Rei como “O Caso Azeredo“.

How much do I not want to click-through to Essential Baby today? Let me count the ways:

So, for those keeping score, that’s a faceless/objectified (pregnant) woman, wearing “sexy” lingerie, referred to as “like mini-vans”, under the banner “Pregnant women: hot or not?” and all within an ad roughly the size of a credit card. I believe that’s some sort of a record!

Yes, that is precisely how they are advertising Fairfax Digital’s parenting site via sidebars on TheAge.com.au. The ad links to “Essential Baby blogger” Joseph Kelly’s blog entry on whether or not he found his wife – the aforementioned “transportational unit for conveying children” (which isn’t as offensive as the decontextualised excerpt might suggest).

Stay classy, Essential Baby!

Procurando pelo “tijolaço” do Serra, encontrei mais um clone do blog do Tio Rei.  Trata-se do Res Publicano, um anaeróbico café com leite.  Mas tem algumas coisas interessantes: por exemplo, um post com excertos das tuitadas de 3 jornalistas sobre o “Lula, Filho do Brasil” _ Noblat,  Helena Chagas e o Diego Escotesguy, da Veja (o responsável pela matéria desta semana sobre o filme).   Quando a primeira dama chegou ao teatro, Diego disse, de dentro da Sala Villa-Lobos, onde foi feita a projeção:

“#filmedolula Dona Marisa veio. Há uma sessão do teatro reservada para políticos. Eles entregam um convite com adesivo vermelho.”

(…)

“filmedolula Lula fala um português escorreito, de dar inveja.“

Ah, vai.  Tenha paciência.  Jornalista que troca “seção” por “sessão” não tem moral pra falar do português de ninguém, né não?

A couple of weeks ago, I talked with my nine and a half year old daughter about why we bother learning about history. She argued that it’s boring and it’s past. I non-eloquently said that history is interesting and that we can learn a lot from studying it. As would be expected, the conversation drifted off to something else. I remembered this conversation as I read Jonathan Schell’s “The Fifty-Year War” (The Nation 11/11/2009), which relates the lessons of  the Vietnam War to the war in Afghanistan. With a clenched stomach, I realized that we are being led into meaningless war after war by people who have a fourth-grader’s attitude toward the value of history lessons. The difference being that the grown-ups are responsible for sending soldiers off to kill and be killed, causing civilian casualties, fostering hate against us, and, of course, spending billions and trillions of our dollars. As I see it, the only beneficiaries of this endeavor are the military industry and the various firms who snag the lucrative war-support contracts.

Starting with his introduction, here are some of my favorite sections from Schell’s article,

I was about to write that there can be no military solution to the war in Afghanistan, only a political one. But I almost fainted with boredom and had to stop. Who, as President Obama lengthily ponders his decisions regarding the war, wants to repeat a point that’s been made 11,000 times before? Is there anyone on earth who doesn’t know by now that you can’t win a guerrilla war without winning the “hearts and minds” of the people? The American public has known this since the American defeat in Vietnam. The formerly colonized peoples of the Third World, whose hearts and minds were the ones contested, know it. American officialdom knows it. [...] Today, even the general in charge in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, now asking for 40,000 or more troops, knows it. He can read all about it in the new Army counterinsurgency manual produced by his boss, Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus. There he can learn that “political factors have primacy in COIN [counterinsurgency]” and that “arguably, the decisive battle is for the people’s minds.”

But if one has repeated this point anyway (as I have, by a backdoor route), then one must go on to make the rather newer point that there is no political solution that serves the foreign invader either. The problem is structural and fundamental. Like the imperial powers of the past, the United States wants to impose its will on other countries. Yet it is different from those previous powers in at least one respect: it does not aim to rule the countries it invades indefinitely. Conscious that the American public will not support war without end, it means to leave one day. Therefore the art of victory has to be to try to set up a government that can both survive US withdrawal and serve US interests. The circle to be squared is getting the people of a whole country to want what Washington wants. The trouble is that, left to their own devices, other peoples are likely to want what they want, not what we want.

One problem flowing from this dilemma is that the more the United States does to set up such a government, the more the “Afghans themselves” (or the Vietnamese themselves or the Iraqis themselves or the whoevers themselves) are tainted by the association. If the paradox of military engagement in such a conflict is that the more you fight the more you lose, then the paradox of political engagement is that the more you rule the weaker the native component of the government becomes, and the more likely it is to collapse when you leave, as the South Vietnamese government did in 1975. [...]

And so, hanging over the scene, still, are the political pressures that go back almost fifty years, to Vietnam, or even sixty years, to the myth that the United States lost China. There is an unmistakable continuity that runs from McCarthy’s attacks on Truman and his administration for “appeasement” and even “treason” clear down to Dick Cheney’s and Karl Rove’s and Glenn Beck’s refrains assailing Obama for opposing the Iraq War, not to speak of Sarah Palin’s charge during the election that he had been “palling around with terrorists.” (The Republicans even call Obama a “socialist,” as if the cold war had never ended.) [..]  it is no secret that Obama’s support for the war in Afghanistan served as protection against charges of weakness over his policy of withdrawing from Iraq. [...] In the words of foreign policy old hand Morton Abramowitz to Packer, “Obama…to show he was tough, made Afghanistan his signature issue because he wanted to get out of Iraq.” In short, in strictly political terms, the Vietnam dilemma has been handed down to Obama virtually intact. Now as then, the issue politically is whether the United States is able to fail in a war without coming unhinged. Does the American body politic have a reverse gear? Does it know how to cut losses? Is it capable of learning from experience? Or must it plunge unchecked over every cliff it approaches? And at the heart of these questions is another: must liberals and moderates always bow down before the crazy right when it comes to war and peace? [...]

Über einen Mitbürger der speziellen Sorte bin ich bei meinen heutigen Web-Recherchen gestossen: Mit einer ‘erschütternden’ «Fotoreportage» prangert M.P. aus B. die dunklen und schmutzigen Seiten unseres geliebten Basels an. Scheinbar wollen wir alle einfach nicht wahrnehmen, in was für einer schrecklichen Stadt voller Terror, Kriminalität und Verschwörung wir leben. Folgende Terror-Gattungen hat der Liebe Herr in der Basel ausgemacht: Kanalisationsterror, Chemie-Terror, Messenutten-Terror, FCB- und Kulturterror. Auch der Terror von – achtung! – «Drogennegern, Kiffern und der verdrögeleten Oberschicht» scheint am Rheinknie weit verbreitet zu sein. Nicht zu vergessen der Autobahn- und Flugzeug-Terror sowie – und das muss besonders schlimm sein – der Schulhausglockenterror.

Der paranoide Herr protestiert offensichtlich gegen alles und jeden. Ich frage mich: Gibt es eigentlich auch etwas in Basel, das dem Herren gefällt? Auch ja, gemäss seiner «Biographie» ist der Herr vergangenes Jahr nach Peru ausgewandert…ich wünsch dem Herrern, dass er dort zur Ruhe kommt und nicht mehr terrorisiert wird.

Some Nonprofits Shortchange Troops, Watchdog Group Says

By Philip Rucker, Washington Post Staff Writer

Americans gave millions of dollars in the past year to veterans charities
designed to help troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, but several of the
groups spent relatively little money on the wounded, according to a leading
watchdog organization and federal tax filings.

Eight veterans charities, including some of the nation’s largest, gave less
than a third of the money raised to the causes they champion, far below the
recommended standard, the American Institute of Philanthropy says in a
report. One group passed along 1 cent for every dollar raised, the report
says. Another paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in
compensation and benefits last year, a Washington Post analysis of tax
filings showed.

Richard H. Esau Jr., executive director of the Military Order of the Purple
Heart Service Foundation, based in Annandale, said the cost of fundraising
limits how much his group can spend on charitable causes. ‘Do you have any
idea how much money it costs to advertise? It’s unbelievable the amount of
money it takes to advertise in the print and electronic media,’ he said.
‘I’m very proud of what we do, and we certainly do look after everybody.
F or no F, the point is we do the right thing by veterans.’

Borochoff said many veterans charities are ‘woefully inefficient,’ spending
large sums on costly direct-mail advertising. ‘They oversolicit. They love
to send out a lot of trinkets and stickers
and greeting cards and flags and things that waste a lot of money that they
get ittle return on,’ said Borochoff, who plans to testify before Congress
today.

The philanthropy institute gave F’s to 12 of the 29 military charities
reviewed and D’s to eight. Five were awarded A-pluses, including the Fisher
House Foundation in Rockville, which the institute says directs more than 90
percent of its income to charitable causes.

One group received an A, and one received an A-minus.

Jim Weiskopf, spokesman for Fisher House, said the charity does not use
direct-mail advertising. ‘As soon as you do direct mail, your fundraising
expenses go up astronomically,’ he said.

One egregious example, Borochoff said, is Help Hospitalized Veterans, which
was founded in 1971 by Roger Chapin, a veteran of the Army Finance Corps and
a San Diego real estate developer. The charity, which provides therapeutic
arts and crafts kits to hospitalized veterans, reported income of $71.3
million last year and spent about one-third of that money on charitable
work, the philanthropy institute said.

In its tax filings, Help Hospitalized Veterans reported paying more than $4
million to direct-mail fundraising consultants. The group also has run
television advertisements featuring actor Sam Waterston, game show host Pat
Sajak and other celebrities.

Bennett Weiner, chief operating officer of the Better Business Bureau, said
the agency has 20 standards for reviewing charities, including that a
charity’s fundraising and overhead costs not exceed 35 percent of total
contributions.

The American Institute of Philanthropy, a leading charity watchdog, issued a
report card this month for 29 veterans and military charities. Letter
grades were based largely on the charities’ fundraising costs and the
percentage of money raised that was spent on charitable activities.

Air Force Aid Society (A+)

American Ex-Prisoners of War Service Foundation (F)

American Veterans Coalition (F)

American Veterans Relief Foundation (F)

AMVETS National Service Foundation (F)

Armed Services YMCA of the USA (A-)

Army Emergency Relief (A+)

Blinded Veterans Association (D)

Disabled American Veterans (D)

Disabled Veterans Association (F)

Fisher House Foundation (A+)

Freedom Alliance (F)

Help Hospitalized Veterans/Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes (F)

Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (A+)

Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation (F)

National Military Family Association (A)

National Veterans Services Fund (F)

National Vietnam Veterans Committee (D)

Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society (A+)

NCOA National Defense Foundation (F)

Paralyzed Veterans of America (F)

Soldiers’ Angels (D)

United Spinal Association’s Wounded Warrior Project (D)

USO (United Service Organization) (C+)

Veterans of Foreign Wars and Foundation (C-)

Veterans of the Vietnam War & the Veterans Coalition (D)

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (D)

VietNow National Headquarters (F)

World War II Veterans Committee (D)

Tomorrow (November 18, 2009) is the last day of the World Summit on Food Security held in Rome, Italy, and sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Sign the petition at www.1billionhungry.org which says, “1 Billion People live in chronic hunger. In the time it takes to watch this video, two children will die of hunger.”  I confess that I did not watch the video, but I did sign the petition and read about this horrible state of affairs. Here are some highlights.

Rising hunger and malnutrition is not just a problem of poor countries as pointed out by Alfred Lubrano in, “USDA: Hunger Rises in U.S.“  (The Philadelphia Inquirer 11/17/2009). Lubrano reported that,

America is hungry and getting hungrier, with 49 million people – 17 million of them children – last year unable to consistently get enough food to eat, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These figures represent 14.6 percent of all households, a 3.5-percentage-point jump over 2007, and they are the largest recorded since the agency began measuring hunger in 1995.

Of those 49 million, 12 million adults and 5.2 million children reported experiencing the country’s most severe hunger, possibly going days without eating. Among the children, nearly half a million in the developmentally critical years under age 6 were going hungry. That’s three times the number in 2006.

The study documented both “low food security,” which describes people unable to consistently get enough to eat, and “very low food security,” in which people reported being hungry various times over the year but were unable to eat because there wasn’t enough money for food.  The South reported the highest number of households in both categories, at 15.9 percent, followed by the West at 14.5 percent, the Midwest at 14 percent, and the Northeast at 12.8 percent.

Experts attributed the harsh statistics to the recent recession and to an American poverty that has persisted despite economic growth earlier in the decade. [...]

In “At UN Food Summit, Ban Ki-Moon Warns of Rise in Child Hunger Deaths” (The Christian Science Monitor 11/16/2009), Nick Squires reported that,

At the start of a global food security summit in Rome on Monday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon urged donors to help the 1 billion people on the planet who do not have enough to eat. He particularly underscored the plight of children, saying that more than 17,000 children die of starvation every day. “One every five seconds. Six million children a year,” he said in his opening remarks to the conference. “This is no longer acceptable. We must act.”

Some aid groups dismissed the three-day gathering of international leaders as a failure before it had begun, arguing that it won’t generate more money to tackle hunger and malnutrition. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which is organizing the summit, had hoped wealthy countries would promise to increase their annual food aid from $7.9 billion to $44 billion, but a draft declaration leaked before the summit began was short on specifics. It makes no mention of a proposal to eliminate hunger by 2025 and leaders are expected to simply reaffirm their commitment to the UN’s Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of hungry people by 2015. [...]

Campaigners condemned the fact that the summit is being attended by only one G-8 leader – Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who is hosting the gathering. The United States, the world’s biggest food aid donor, is sending the acting head of the US Agency for International Development, while Britain is represented by two junior ministers. [...]

Aid groups said it was outrageous that malnutrition still exists on such a vast scale when the world produces a surplus of food. Cereal crops this year are expected to be the second-largest ever, after a record harvest in 2008. According to FAO, the number of hungry people rose this year to 1.02 billion people, as a result of the global economic crisis, high food and fuel prices, drought, and conflict. [...]

The summit marked the third time in a decade that leaders had met to discuss food security, yet there are more hungry people today than in 2002 when the first gathering was held, said the London-based think tank International Policy Network. “Instead of making bland commitments, it is time for governments to take action to reduce the barriers to trade that currently inhibit investments in new agricultural technologies and economic diversification. Only then will they end hunger,” said executive director Julian Morris. [...]

Why am I not surprised that Ban Ki-Moon’s call to real action went unanswered and did not make many headlines in US papers? The AP release “Food Summit Rejects U.N. Aid Plea” (tucked away in the innards of the Philadelphia Inquirer 11/17/2009) reported that,

Pope Benedict XVI decried the steadily worsening tragedy of world hunger yesterday after a global summit rebuffed a U.N. call to commit billions of dollars a year for a new strategy to help poor countries feed themselves. The meeting at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization did, however, unite nearly 200 countries behind a pledge to increase aid to farmers in poor countries to help the developing world lessen its dependence on foreign food aid. Only hours after the three-day summit began, some 60 heads of state and dozens of ministers rejected the United Nations’ call to commit $44 billion annually for agricultural development in these nations. The final declaration also omitted a pledge, sought by the United Nations, to eradicate hunger by 2025.

“Hunger is the most cruel and concrete sign of poverty,” Benedict told the delegates after the document was approved. “Opulence and waste are no longer acceptable when the tragedy of hunger is assuming ever greater proportions.” [...] The last previous papal appearance at a food summit in Rome came in 1996, when Pope John Paul II delivered a speech. U.N. officials say roughly one billion people, one of every six people on the planet, do not get enough to eat. The food agency says the share of international aid allocated to agriculture has steadily declined in the last three decades. Helping the hungry has largely entailed rich countries sending food assistance rather than technology, irrigation help, fertilizer, or high-yield seed. Much of this food aid is purchased from the wealthy nations’ own farmers. While the summit agreed on the need to increase agriculture’s share of international aid, it did not allocate the $44 billion annually the FAO says is necessary to feed a population that is expected to grow to nine billion by 2050.

Vatican Radio called the lack of a firm money commitment “disturbing.” Greenpeace called the declaration “empty rhetoric,” while Oxfam said that the strategy it laid out was “honorable” but that nothing had been done to ensure funds and hold governments accountable for their promises. [...]

While I rarely agree with anything the Pope says, I certainly have to give him this one. But I have to point out the connection between women’s lack of reproductive control, overpopulation, and hunger. Providing food aid, building fresh water supplies and agricultural self-sufficiency, and supporting viable family planning are the interlinked solutions to hunger.

NY Times Video about Pakistani Musicians

The following video from the New York Times website is going around. [Click on the graphic to view the video on their own site.]

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/11/11/world/1247465633296/tuning-out-the-taliban.html

This video is so hit-or-miss and done from one specific point of view!

Firstly, Pakistanis, including Pakistani musicians, can walk and chew gum at the same time. They see that Pakistan is stuck, as Ali Azmat’s current ideological guru puts it, between the twin jaws of fanaticism and neo-imperialism. The same video clips could have been used to say that Pakistani musicians and artists are actually taking the issues on in a more nuanced way and talking about both sides of that equation rather than leaning on side or the other. Except Ali Azmat, but we’ll come back to that.

Yeh hum naheen

To say that “Yeh Hum Naheen” (This is not us) is belittling the issue by not using the word “Taliban” is so ass-backwards! Pakistanis see that Taliban are only one face of terrorism and fanaticism. Take a closer look at the graphic on the left. That statement “Terrorism is murder. Murder is haram.” expressed in those religious terms, using a word–haram–that every Western Muslim pounds into their children with respect to eating pork, and wine, and so on is something I am still waiting for any “American Muslim” or Muslim government official to utter, 8 years after 9/11.

I try not to make sweeping statements, but to say that only the entity (or three entities, if you really follow US establishment rhetoric) known as “The Taliban” are our fanaticism problem is to follow the same shortsighted attitude of solving one problem and ignoring if not creating another that the US establishment has done again, and again–not least during the jihad, yes, jihad, against the Soviets.

Ali Azmat on his TV Show

And coming back to Ali Azmat. To have a discussion about Ali Azmat without bringing into the discussion the gentleman–and I am personally not allergic to him as others–that he has been hosting a show with and seems to be re-presenting the thoughts of is to miss the point. If you are not following Zaid Hamid and his influence on large swathes of Pakistani society, you’re not paying attention.

[First published on my personal blog.]

Since I am way behind in my intended Blogs, here is a list highlighting recent articles and editorials on the hot topic of health care reform. The list starts with the most recently published, but they are all still quite current. These articles are all from The New York Times. Please send me suggestions for other ones.

• In “Drug Makers Raise Prices in Face of Health Care Reform” (11/15/2009), Duff Wilson wrote, “Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years. In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year. Drug makers say they have valid business reasons for the price increases. Critics say the industry is trying to establish a higher price base before Congress passes legislation that tries to curb drug spending in coming years [...].”
• The editorial “Reform and Medical Costs” (11/14/2009) says that “Americans are deeply concerned about the relentless rise in health care costs and health insurance premiums. They need to know if reform will help solve the problem. The answer is that no one has an easy fix for rising medical costs. The fundamental fix — reshaping how care is delivered and how doctors are paid in a wasteful, dysfunctional system — is likely to be achieved only through trial and error and incremental gains. The good news is that the bill just approved by the House and a bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee would implement or test many reforms that should help slow the rise in medical costs over the long term.” The rest of this editorial provides an overview of the “the important proposals in the House and Senate bills.” The following issues are discussed: Cadillac Coverage, Simplified Forms, Electronic Medical Records, Reform of the Delivery System, Independent Commission, Managed Competition, a Public Plan, Comparing Treatments, Negotiating Drug Prices, and Malpractice Reform.
• In “America’s Defining Choice” (11/11/2009) Op-ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote, “President Obama and Congress will soon make defining choices about health care and troops for Afghanistan. These two choices have something in common — each has a bill of around $100 billion per year. So one question is whether we’re better off spending that money blowing up things in Helmand Province or building up things in America. [...] So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan? Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system? [...] So where’s the best place to spend $100 billion a year? Is it on patrols in Helmand? Or is it to refurbish our health care system so that people like Sue don’t die unnecessarily every 12 minutes?”
• In “Trading Women’s Rights for Political Power“  (11/11/2009) Op-Ed contributors Kate Mitchelman and Frances Kissling wrote, “A GRIM reality sits behind the joyful press statements from Washington Democrats. To secure passage of health care legislation in the House, the party chose a course that risks the well-being of millions of women for generations to come. House Democrats voted to expand the current ban on public financing for abortion and to effectively prohibit women who participate in the proposed health system from obtaining private insurance that covers the full range of reproductive health options. Political calculation aside, the House Democrats reinforced the principle that a minority view on the morality of abortion can determine reproductive health policy for American women. [...] The Democratic majority has abandoned its platform and subordinated women’s health to short-term political success. In doing so, these so-called friends of women’s rights have arguably done more to undermine reproductive rights than some of abortion’s staunchest foes. That Senate Democrats are poised to allow similar anti-abortion language in their bill simply underscores the degree of the damage that has been done. [...]“
• In “Unhealthy America” (11/4/2009) Nicholas D. Kristof wrote, “The moment of truth for health care is at hand, and the distortion that perhaps gets the most traction is this: ‘We have the greatest health care system in the world. Sure, it has flaws, but it saves lives in ways that other countries can only dream of. Abroad, people sit on waiting lists for months, so why should we squander billions of dollars to mess with a system that is the envy of the world? As Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama puts it, President Obama’s plans amount to “the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known.’ That self-aggrandizing delusion may be the single greatest myth in the health care debate. [...] The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is two-and-a-half times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland.[...]“

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA …. What are they trying to accomplish?

A License required for your house…no longer just for cars and mobile homes…..

Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right. The caveat is
(there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (“mobile homes”) are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America . Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.” Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year…

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

For additioal info on Cap & Trade, click on http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-+Cap+and+Trade &btnG=Google+Search

By Shane Vander Hart, Caffeinated Thoughts

After botching initial coverage of Governor Sarah Palin’s book, Going Rogue: An American Life, and having one of their mistakes regarding a legal bill go viral.  They keep at it.  Today there is blatant editorializing in their article that was up at the Anchorage Daily News site:

NEW YORK — Sarah Palin’s new memoir describes heart-wrenching anguish about her teen daughter’s pregnancy playing out before a national audience. But the 413-page tome doesn’t contain a single reference to the father of her grandson, soon-to-be Playgirl model Levi Johnston.

In "Going Rogue," which will be released Tuesday, Palin also laments about everyone in her entourage being forced to wear fancy clothes she couldn’t afford — preferring simpler, cheaper garb. But it’s as if Johnston, who was among those hastily spiffed up to appear at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., had never left Wasilla.

The tactic does appear to have merit; Johnston, who has sparred repeatedly with his former mother-in-law-to-be, continues to warn that she should leave him alone, or he might dish some serious dirt that "will hurt her." (emphasis mine)

It appears to have merit?  Yes, after reports about what was said during her Oprah interview, after receiving his “Fleshbot award” in New York for his upcoming Playgirl spread he reiterated this.  Let that sink in for a moment.

Perhaps the better answer is that she doesn’t want to destroy the father of her grandson (who is doing a good job of that all on his own).  Perhaps she’s doing that for the benefit of her grandson who may later on read the book.  Perhaps she doesn’t want to rehash all of the stupid things this kid has done or said after the break-up.  This kid has lost all credibility and most on the left see that he is a complete liar, but in the AP’s mind, it has merit.  Oh brother.  If he had something on her we can be sure it would have been discovered by now.

I really didn’t want to blog on this kid again, thanks AP.

They are in full-blown attack mode “fact-checking” her book.  And their fact-checking needs fact-checking.  Did they ever do this with President Obama’s books?  How about the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s memoir?  Then sources (we have sources here!) say this book is policy-lite.  But Rush predicted the tactic we see being used:

I talked to her yesterday, I’ve got the book, I have it right over there and I’ve had a chance, I just got it a couple days ago, three days ago, and I’ve had a chance to go through it, and I made a prediction to her when I talked to her yesterday.  I said, "You’ve got enough in here that people who get hold of this, like the AP or any of the State-Controlled Media, they’re gonna focus on the soap opera aspects of your book, and they’re going to ignore what is truly one of the most substantive policy books I’ve read."  

This woman, Governor Palin, clearly is jazzed by policy, particularly environmental policy and energy policy, as well as taxes and so forth.  I talked to her about the future of the Republican Party, what she thought about New York-23, how she deals with the character assassination, not just of herself, but of her entire family.

Now it is a memoir, it isn’t going to be all policy and become a wonkish tome, but to say it doesn’t tackle any policy issues at all doesn’t wash.  Especially if you’ve been reading her Facebook notes of late.

Obviously this is the type of “news” organization that the White House likes, but if you’re wondering about her book, keep your powder dry, you can read it yourself this Tuesday.

Shane Vander Hart is the editor of Caffeinated Thoughts.  You can follow him on Twitter or friend him on Facebook.

I already knew this – they have been running ads here on the local radio station that I listen to “everyone deserves a call phone” (really??) call to see if you qualify for a “free” cell phone based on your income . . . blah blah blah

Sigh
—– Original Message —–

Passing it along. Might want to check it out for yourselves, it may not be true, but more importantly, why isn’t this being reported on the news as either true or false? Here it is:

You have to be kidding Me! This is Obama at his Best.

I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his “Obama phone.” I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive
(1) a FREE new phone and
(2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month.
I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with “Hope and Change” and “Change we can believe in.” You can click on the link below to read more about the “Obama phone”…just have a barf bag ready.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

If you can’t click on this link, copy it and paste it into the address line on your internet browser.

Don
IN GOD WE TRUST

www.justplainbill.wordpress.com

To ensure delivery, please add alerts@patriotupdate.com to your address book.

My name is Rhonda Edmondson and my husband is Sgt. Chris Edmondson, an 18-year veteran of the Raton, New Mexico Police Department.

I’ve sent you a photo of our family. It was taken just last Christmas.

That’s Chris holding our son, Aidin.

Aidin is four — and so proud that his Daddy is “a police man who helps people.”

But if bureaucrats here in New Mexico have their way, Chris won’t be able to hold our little boy again for two years.

Because the New Mexico Attorney General is trying to throw Chris in jail.

Even though my husband is an innocent man!

Please, let me explain.

Chris is a decorated officer who has received the Gallantry Star, the Lifesaver Award, dozens of written commendations, and even helped capture one of America’s “Most Wanted” criminals.

Less then, two years ago, 4:15am, November 18, 2007, Chris and two other officers received a call for police to investigate a fight at a nearby house.

When they arrived, they found a 25-year old man named Jesse Saenz acting strangely.

Saenz was on all fours, yelling and screaming, and pulling up grass and throwing it. Before that, he had been slamming a chain link fence against cars in the driveway. Officer Leonard Baca started to escort Saenz to the patrol car. And that’s when things got ugly.

Saenz began fighting the officers — who immediately handcuffed him. But Saenz became so violent that they couldn’t get him into the patrol car.

Saenz was wearing sharp-pointed boots and began kicking violently.

Chris and the other officers tried to pull them off his feet — but couldn’t get close enough without getting kicked.

As the senior officer, Chris finally ordered the officers to “bump” Saenz with a taser gun.

The taser had absolutely no effect on Saenz. He kept yelling and kicking.

As Chris told me later, Saenz was “wildly out of control.”

Chris ordered the officers to taser Saenz again. But it still had no effect as he kept kicking and screaming at them.

Finally Chris managed to get the boots off Saenz and push him into the back seat of the squad car.
Amazingly, Saenz still managed to kick Officer Dominguez on the wrist, breaking his watch and injuring his wrist.

As they neared the station, Saenz finally stopped struggling. Officer Baca thought he had passed out.
But when they opened the door, they realized that Saenz wasn’t breathing.

An emergency crew performed CPR. But Saenz died on the way to the hospital.
Chris was devastated.

But he knows he did everything he could to protect his officers from a violent and dangerous suspect.
New Mexico police regulations clearly state that officers are authorized to use tasers on “violent persons under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.”

An autopsy revealed that Jesse Saenz had high levels of cocaine , nemzoylecgonine, cocaethylene and hydroxzione in his blood.

That explains why he was acting so wildly.

It even concluded that Saenz most likely died due to “cocaine intoxication.”

But Jesse Saenz’s family didn’t agree.
They accused Chris and the other officers of being “racist cops” who tasered Jesse Saenz because he was Hispanic…

…even though Officer Dominguez and Officer Baca are Hispanic themselves!

They painted their car windows with messages like “Justice for Jesse,” “RIP Jesse” and “I’m Mexican, am I next?”

They held memorial events and parades.

And eventually the powerful Saenz family got what they wanted:

Chris, Officer Dominguez, and Officer Baca have all been indicted for the involuntary manslaughter of Jesse Saenz.

All three of them have been placed on administrative leave. And if convicted, they will all be sent to prison.

Sent to prison just for doing their jobs!

Chris and I are still in shock.

And our lives will never be the same.

Last year after many prayers we had decided to adopt a little girl and boy.

But after Chris was indicted, we were told we are no longer allowed to adopt them.

Even worse, we don’t feel safe here in our own town.

The Saenz family has been very vocal about their hate for the police — Officer Dominguez and Officer Baca’s children were even threatened at school.

So Chris and I don’t even go into town anymore unless we’re armed.

I’m doing my best to stay strong for Chris and Aidin, but it’s hard to do when I’m so scared myself.

Especially when I think about the trial.

I’m worried that the Saenz family has the deck stacked against us.

For instance, there were other witnesses who saw Jesse Saenz out of control the night of his arrest – but they were allegedly threatened by the Saenz family and refuse to come forward.

Even worse, NO interviews with the medics who treated Saenz were ever conducted.

NO interviews with the Emergency Room doctors and nurses were held.

And Jesse Saenz’s past medical records have NEVER been examined.

I feel so hopeless… scared… and angry.

Is this the thanks my husband gets for risking his life as a police officer for the past 18 years?

All he’s ever done is try to keep the people of New Mexico safe and protected.

Now I don’t know what will happen. Will Chris be torn away from Aidin and me? Will he be sent to a prison here in New Mexico, where the inmates despise cops? And if Chris survives the trial, how on earth will we ever pay our legal bills?

So far I have only one hope.

You see, The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund has offered to help Chris — and I can honestly tell you that these patriots are the best friend a police officer could ever have.

When I called the Chairman of LELDF, he and his Board Members , including former Attorney General Ed Meese and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights William Bradford Reynolds , said they would do whatever they could to help us.

Now they are trying to raise money on Chris’ behalf — to pay for attorneys, expert witnesses, and legal research.

I truly believe that God is sending Chris and me a lifeline through LELDF .

They are the only light at the end of the tunnel for us right now.
Chris and I aren’t wealthy people.

Our friends and neighbors even held a spaghetti dinner fundraiser to try to raise money for the trial. But we are still short by more than $100,000.

And that’s why I’m about to ask you the hardest question I’ve ever asked anyone in my life.

Could you send a contribution today to LELDF to help Chris and the other officers?

I know it’s a bold request. But I’m so frightened for Chris — I will do whatever I can to help him.
As his wife, I’ve got to try. The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF) is a non-profit organization so your gift is tax-deductible.

Any amount — $25, $50, $75, $100, $250, or even $500 — will help. Just your $25 could be the difference between Chris coming home to me and Aidin…

… or going to prison for a “crime” he didn’t commit.

Please, if you have just a few dollars you can spare today — will you help my husband and these other brave officers?

The state of New Mexico has unlimited funds to stack the deck against Chris in court. But Chris and I can rely only on the generous hearts of people like you.

Thank you for reading my letter.

I will never be able to put into words how much your support means to us.

Yours truly,

Mrs. Rhonda Edmondson

P.S. If what my husband did was manslaughter than sooner or later every good police officer in this country will be behind bars just for doing their jobs!

For Information about Advertising, Click Here
www.patriotupdate.com

Is passage of the House of Representatives health care reform bill a step forward or backward towards real health reform? On the one hand I am encouraged that something passed (albeit by a tiny margin), on the other I am dismayed about the right-wing compromises that were made to to buy passage. Not surprisingly, women’s rights are thrown away as cheap bargaining chips. Health insurance companies and religious conservatives are the winners, while all sorts of people are left out in the cold.

According to the editorial “The Ban on Abortion Coverage” (The New York Times 11/9/2009),

When the House narrowly passed the health care reform bill on Saturday night, it came with a steep price for women’s reproductive rights. Under pressure from anti-abortion Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, lawmakers added language that would prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions — even if they use their own money.

The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman’s right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.

The anti-abortion Democrats behind this coup insisted that they were simply adhering to the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs. In fact, they reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholder’s own dollars to pay for abortion coverage. [...]

And women’s rights are not the only thing that got lost along the road to passage. Here is a handy little list “Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill” from John Nichols’ The Beat blog ( The Nation, 11/09/2009).

The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Saturday night with overwhelming support from progressive Democrats who serve in the chamber and from a president who was nominated and elected with the enthusiastic support of progressive voters. But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure. In fact, some are openly and explicitly opposed to it [...]

Key interest groups [...] argue that the bill is not the cure for what ails the U.S. health care system. Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse. Many sincere progressives in the House, and outside of it, chose to back the bill as the best that could be gotten. Others supported it on the theory that flaws could be fixed in the Senate and in the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills. But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.

For that reason, even supporters of the House legislation would be wise to consider the criticisms of it by groups that advocate for the rights of women, patient advocates, unions and some of the most progressive members of the House. Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:

1. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: “This Bill Obliterates Women’s Fundamental Right to Choose” [...]

2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs [...]

3. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: “This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry” [...]

4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes [...]

5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH,: This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America [...]

6. FROM “SICKO’S” DONNA SMITH: The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us [...]

And for those of you who favor the multimedia approach, check out GRITtv: American Sickos: Will The Current Bills Help?

Dari amatan sederhana atas cerita Cicak vs. Buaya ini, saya menemukan beberapa pertanyaan berikut ini.

Pertama, mengapa Anggodo tak ditahan? Mengapa Polri tak meminta Anggoro, kakak Anggodo yang menjadi penyandang dana untuk segera pulang? Padahal Deplu menyatakan siap membawanya pulang.

Kedua, dari sekian banyak orang yang diduga menerima suap di KPK, mengapa hanya Bibit dan Chandra yang dimintai keterangan, diperiksa dan kemudian ditahan?

Ketiga, menurut BAP awal Ary Muladi sebelum akhirnya dia cabut, nama yang disebut menerima suap adalah Ade Raharja. Tapi, anehnya, mengapa Ade Raharja—orang Polri di KPK—justru tak ditahan, bahkan tak dimintai keterangan oleh Tim 8?

Keempat, mengapa Polri tak segera memeriksa Ong Yuliana Gunawan—makelar kasus yang sejati? Bukankah dia bisa banyak menjelaskan fakta-fakta yang terjadi?

Kelima, mengapa identitas Edi Soemarsono baru mencuat belakangan, setelah rekaman Anggodo dibuka di MK? Apakah kemunculannya ini hanya pengalihan semata-mata?

Keenam, mengapa penyidikan tak difokuskan pada rekaman yang disiarkan MK, melainkan pada keterangan2 yang berubah2? Padahal, tak ada satu pun orang yang terlibat dalam rekaman itu menyangkal dirinya dalam rekaman itu?

Ketujuh, mengapa Wisnu Subroto yang juga termasuk saksi kunci tak diperiksa?

Teman2 silahkan menambahkan keganjilan dan pertanyaan lain…thx.

I posted a few days ago about the incredible lack of body diversity on television.  I wanted to post a sort of appendix to that post cataloging one notable exception: food television.  Stations like the Food Network and PBS are among the few places where you can see attractively dressed women of a variety of shapes and sizes heading up their own shows.

The women pictured below are hosts, critics and chefs on popular, currently running food shows.  While these women are almost universally beautiful and charismatic (and most are white), they run the gamut from tall to short, fat to skinny, and everything in between.  Some of these women have stayed one weight consistently, while others have gained and lost over the course of time.  In short, they are a sampling of women who have pursued food as career and who are not hired or fired on the basis of their ability to fit into a size two dress.

Don’t these women look more like women you know in real life?  Refreshing, isn’t it?

Well, well, well. We won’t take any credit here (well, maybe a bit), but it does seem that the information provided on this blog is catching on, quicker than we thought. Today, Canadian journalist Tom Fletcher has released an article in over 70 newspapers which describes the clever (and quite possibly illegal) marketing of U.S. salmon.  This is good and echoes many statements made in this blog. You can view the entire article here, but in the meantime, here are some highlights;

If you go to the grocery store and buy a can of sockeye salmon right now, chances are it will say “product of U.S.A.” on the label.The can I’m holding was sold as a house brand at a large B.C. supermarket chain. The label states the ingredients – sockeye salmon and salt – along with Canada’s mandatory nutrition facts chart. It doesn’t specify that it’s from Alaska, which it likely is, but it does have a logo that says “wild Pacific salmon,” which is, to say the least, debatable.

With some B.C. sockeye runs in an apparent state of collapse, our commercial and even aboriginal food fisheries banned this year, Alaska and Washington state fisheries are relatively strong. The reason for this is the U.S. practice of salmon ‘ranching,’ where billions of salmon fry are raised in tanks, fed pellets until they’re big enough and then released to sea.

Ranched Pacific salmon don’t just flood the whole West Coast habitat, they interbreed freely with wild stocks. The Americans ranch chum, pink and Chinook as well as sockeye. As a result, Koenings testified in a Seattle court Oct. 23, all but four of Puget Sound’s watersheds are now dominated by hatchery fish. He warned that if the state focuses strictly on access work now, they will soon dominate the rest and the state’s wild salmon will be gone.

As I described last week, none of this is discussed in B.C. political circles. Here it’s all about the alleged evils of fish farms. Why? According to research brought to my attention last week, one reason is a staggeringly big negative marketing campaign financed by U.S. private foundations to discredit farmed salmon as a food source.

Former Kitimat resident Vivian Krause has assembled a heavily documented critique of the campaign, which has flooded North American media with exaggerated warnings, first about PCBs in farmed salmon, and now about the hazards of sea lice.

In the past two years, Krause has pestered two of B.C.’s environmental demigods, David Suzuki and Alexandra Morton, to detail the extent of the funding their foundations have accepted to take part in a “demarketing” campaign that demonizes fish farms and coincidentally benefits Alaska and Washington interests.

She documents that the David Suzuki Foundation has received more than $10 million from these U.S. sources.

 Tom Fletcher is legislative reporter and columnist for Black Press and BCLocalnews.com

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/opinion/68866257.html

To counter the big hole of suck that is the Triple M Super countdowns, I thought I would make my own vastly superior one. Here’s the results of the top 10 Air Guitar songs as voted by Triple M listeners.

Top 10 Air Guitar Songs
10 Smoke On The Water – Deep Purple
9 Alive – Pearl Jam
8 Walking By Myself – Gary Moore
7 Back In Black – AC/DC
6 Are You Gonna Go My Way – Lenny Kravitz
5 Enter Sandman – Metallica
4 Hotel California – Eagles
3 Monkey Wrench – Foo Fighters
2 Bow River – Cold Chisel
1 Kickstart My Heart – Motley Crue

Not bad, but not great. I take it ‘air-guitar songs’ is a euphemism for greatest riffs. Here is my even better list.

1. Layla – Derek & the Dominos (Duanne Allman)
2. Stay With Me – The Faces (Ron Wood)
3. Whole Lotta Love – Led Zeppelin (Jimmy Page)
4. Voodoo Chile (Slight Return) – Jimmi Hendrix
5. Smoke On The Water – Deep Purple (Ritchie Blackmore)
6. Paranoid – Black Sabbath (Tony Iommi)
7. Brown Sugar – The Rolling Stones (Mick Taylor)
8. You Shook Me All Night Long – AC/DC (Angus Young)
9. Johnny B. Goode – Chuck Berry
10. Sunshine Of Your Love – Cream (Eric Clapton)

I also have an alternative top 10 guitar songs that is more bluesy and unlikely to have been heard by any Triple M listener.

1. Shake Your Money Maker – Fleetwood Mac (Peter Green)
2. Jeff’s Blues – The Yardbirds (Jeff Beck)
3. Ice Pick – Albert Collins
4. The Sky Is Crying – Elmore James
5. I’m Tore Down – Freddie King
6. Statesboro Blues – Taj Mahal (Ry Cooder)
7. You Really Got Me – The Kinks (Dave Davies)
8. I Ain’t Superstitious – Jeff Beck Group (Jeff Beck)
9. Jumpin’ Jack Flash – The Rolling Stones (Keith Richards)
10. Sweet Child O’ Mine – Guns ‘N’ Roses (Slash)

Triple M is currently running a series of Top 10 countdowns on their website and playing the results of the vote on air. The mix of songs is quite eclectic with a few tunes that don’t regularly get played on Triple M getting airplay. However these ‘Super’ countdowns automatically fail by not having Joan Jett’s I Love Rock ‘N’ Roll in the Chicks That Rock Top Ten. In fact, let’s look at the ways in which these polls fail and ask who the morons who vote for these songs are…

Top 10 Movie Soundtracks

10 Ghostbusters – Ray Parker Jnr.
9 Blaze Of Glory – Jon Bon Jovi
8 Danger Zone – Kenny Loggings
7 I Don’t Wanna Miss A Thing – Aerosmith
6 Don’t You (Forget About Me) – Simple Minds
5 Everybody Needs Somebody – Blues Brothers
4 You Could Be Mine – Guns N Roses
3 Oh Yeah! – Yello
2 Good Times – INXS & Jimmy Barnes
1 Eye Of The Tiger – Survivor

Why the hell did Ghostbusters make this list? I thought that it was well established that Ray Parker Jr. blatantly ripped off Huey Lewis’ I Want A New Drug with this song. Also I’m sure there are several thousand other soundtrack songs that could go in this list ahead of Kenny friggin’ Loggins.

Top 10 Greatest Guitarists

10 Jimmy Page – Led Zeppelin
9 Eddie Van Halen – Van Halen
8 Dave Gilmour – Pink Floyd
7 Chris Cheney – Living End
6 Mark Knopfler – Dire Straits
5 All Along The Watch Tower – Jimi Hendrix
4 John Frusciante – Red Hot Chili Peppers
3 Always With Me Always with You – Joe Satriani
2 Angus Young – AC/DC
1 Slash – Guns ‘n’ Roses

FAIL. No Clapton, no Keith Richards, no Peter Green, no Jeff Beck, no Pete Townshend, yet the dude from the Living End makes the list. I wasn’t expecting Triple listeners to vote for Robert Johnson but WTF is wrong with them?

Top 10 Cover Versions

10 You Really Got Me – Van Halen
9 I Will Survive – Cake
8 Sympathy For The Devil – Guns ‘n’ Roses
7 Mrs.Robinson – Lemonheads
6 Girl You’ll Be A Woman Soon – Urge Overkill
5 Smooth Criminal – Alien Ant Farm
4 Cats In The Cradle – Ugly Kid Joe
3 Suspicious Minds – Fine Young Cannibals
2 Knockin’ On Heavens Door – Guns ‘n’ Roses
1 Black Betty – Spiderbait

Umm… NO! That’s just fucked up! Especially the piece of shit that was GNR’s version of Sympathy For The Devil. Also Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door features in about half these polls, which is just wrong. That Spiderbait cover is just a direct knock-off of the Ram Jam cover version of the ol’ Lead Belly song.

Top 10 Greatest Concerts Ever

10 Pearl Jam – Melbourne Park – 1998
9 Crowded House Farewell – Opera House – 1996
8 Green Day – Telstra Dome – 2004
7 Pink Floyd – National Tennis Centre – 1988
6 INXS – Wembley Sradium – 1991
5 Pink – Rod Laver Arena – 2009
4 Midnight Oil – Sound Relief, MCG – 2009
3 U2 with BB King – National Tennis Centre -1989
2 Kiss Symphony – Telstra Dome – 2003
1 Guns N Roses – Calder Park – 1993

How many Triple M listeners attended that INXS gig at Wembley?I’m surprised that Live Aid wasn’t listed, and wasn’t there bands other than Midnight Oil at Sound Relief?

Anyway the full lists can be found here. Also I feel that I need to right this wrong by making vastly superior lists…

Descrição do Distrito 9 na seção “Cinema” do CorreioWeb, versão online do Correio Braziliense:

“Distrito 9

(District 9, África do Sul/Nova Zelândia, 2009)

Sinopse: Grupo de extraterrestres transformam-se em refugiados na África do Sul. Inspirado no jogo Halo, da Microsoft.“

Descrição do Halo, na Wikipedia (a 2 cliqs de distância da página do Correio):

“Halo: Combat Evolved, ou simplesmente “Halo” é um jogo de tiro em primeira pessoa produzido pela subsidiária da Microsoft Game Studios, Bungie. Lançado inicialmente em 2001 para o console da Microsoft Xbox. O Halo é um enorme habitat espacial em forma de anel, que fica em um campo gravitacional entre um planeta e sua lua, o que causa a sua rotação gravitacional. No jogo, o jogador assume o papel de Master Chief, um supersoldado com uma armadura de batalha (Mjolnir Mark IV)para aumento de performance. Em nenhum dos jogos da série Halo foi mostrado o seu rosto. Master Chief é acompanhado por Cortana, uma Inteligência Artificial que está em seu capacete. O jogador enfrenta uma aliança de raças alienígenas durante o jogo, tanto a pé quanto em veículos, enquanto tenta descobrir o segredo de Halo.“

Tudo a ver!

***

Ah, nosso jornalismo.

***

É verdade que, de certa forma, Distrito 9 nasceu da malograda tentativa de fazer um filme baseado no jogo Halo.  Porém eis o que diz o próprio produtor, Peter Jackson:

“When Halo suddenly died, it was a bit of a shock but we thought: Let’s make an original, low-budget film — something where we won’t have to deal with a lot of studio politics.”

***

(*) copirráite Brad DeLong

From a Fox News poll:

Who do you think is more determined to win the war in Afghanistan, President Obama or the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

Scale: 1. Obama, 2. The Taliban/Al Qaeda, 3. Both, 4. Neither, 5. Not Sure

Damn.  That’s about as loaded as a question gets.  Luckily, we all know that Fox News is fair and balanced.

Bertepatan dengan Hari Kelahiran Imam Ali Ridha, Yayasan Imam Ali Ridha yang mengelola makam Imam Kedepalan Syiah itu meluncurkan teve internasional bernama Saamen. Secara harfian, Saamen berarti Imam Kedepalan.

Jaringan teve yang diluncurkan pada Jum’at 30 Oktober kemarin merupakan teve swasta yang dikelola oleh Yayasan Imam Ali Ridha. Berbeda dengan dua teve Iran sebelumnya, Alalam dan PressTV, teve ini lebih bertujuan pada peningkatan pemahaman tentang ilmu dan budaya Islam.

Menurut para penanggungjawab teve ini, Saamen didirikan dengan motto ‘cinta dan pengetahuan’. Salah satu program utama teve ini akan berkaitan dengan pemahaman yang benar tentang mazhab Syiah dan meningkatan persaudaraan di antara umat Muslim.

Saamen mengudara dengan satelit Hotbird 8 di frequency 12207 MHz, horizontal polarization.

There will be more food posts today (roasted cauliflower curry soup and apple tart on the menu for lunch), but when I stumbled on a bit of news that includes law, parody, pop culture, and Barbie, I really couldn’t resist writing about it.  I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.  This is apparently old news, but I just learned about it today.  Does anyone remember a dance pop song called “Barbie Girl” that was all the rage in 1997?  Let me refresh your memory:

When I first heard the song in the 90’s, I assumed it was a pro-Barbie song, but I was wrong.  The song is actually a scathing critique of Barbie as a symbol of the sexual objectification of women.  Here are some highlights from the lyrics:

Barbie:  I’m a blond bimbo girl, in the fantasy world
Dress me up, make it tight, I’m your dolly

Ken:  You’re my doll, rock’n'roll, feel the glamour in pink,
kiss me here, touch me there, hanky panky…

Barbie:  You can touch, you can play, if you say: “I’m always yours”….

Barbie:  Make me walk, make me talk, do whatever you please
I can act like a star, I can beg on my knees

Ken:  Come jump in, bimbo friend, let us do it again,
hit the town, fool around, let’s go party

Needless to say, Aqua isn’t Barbie’s biggest fan.  Mattel noticed and sued Aqua for trademark infringement for using Barbie in their song.  The result is one of the most hilarious court decisions ever written.   Any court opinion that opens with the words “If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong”  and ends with the immortal words “the parties are advised to chill” is worthy of a special place in my heart.  If you want a good laugh, read the whole thing.  Substantively, the court concluded that “Barbie Girl” did not infringe on Mattel’s trademark.

So imagine my shock when I learned that Mattel has now managed to acquire the rights to do a pro-Barbie version of the song for Barbie commercials.  No, this isn’t a joke.  A song that blasted Barbie is now being used to to market her to children who are too young to remember the critical original.

The song has been cleaned up a bit, with lyrics like “you can brush my hair/undress me everywhere,” replaced with the faux-inspirational “you can be a star/no matter who you are.”  In the words of Barbie’s Senior Vice President of Marketing:  “We’ve re-written the lyrics ever so slightly. There’s a bit of girl empowerment that gets infused in there.”  Girl power, eh?  If this is girl power, then I’m not sure that girl power has very much to do with feminism.  What are girls being empowered to do exactly?  Love fashion?  Dance like they are made out of plastic?  Criticize Ken’s dancing skills?  Be “doll’icious”?

What is perhaps most interesting to me about this turn of events is that Mattel thinks that a handful of “be a star!” references are enough to transform a negative message into an empowering one.  I think there are probably a lot more subtle messages in the media that are primarily negative, but dressed up with just enough “love yourself!” jargon to make women buy into them.  An interesting trend to keep an eye on.

Tadi malam saya datang ke Mabes Polri untuk mendukung Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas, mantan Wakil Ketua KPK, yang sedianya akan menyerahkan diri untuk ditahan sebagai bentuk solidaritas terhadap pejabat KPK yang ditaangkap. “Saya melakukan prosedur-prosedur yang sama dengan Chandra dan Bibit ketika di KPK,” kata Erry. “Jika mereka ditahan karenanya, dengan alasan sama saya harus pula ditahan.” Erry ingin menunjukkan betapa absurd langkah polisi (dan Presiden Yudhoyono yang mendukung penuh polisi, atau setidaknya diam saja melihat keganjilan itu).

Suasana hati banyak orang kemarin sore hingga tadi malam, secara umum adalah masygul dan marah. Komentar umum di Facebook juga menunjukkan hal itu. Ini bukan soal nasib Bibit atau Chandra. Tapi soal matinya peluang gerakan anti-korupsi. Juga soal amburadulnya hukum: bagaimana polisi menahan orang dengan dalih yang ngaco. [Ini sebenarnya lazim di tingkat masyarakat bawah sehari-hari, tapi jarang menimpa tokoh atau pejabat negara, apalagi pejabat KPK].

Di Mabes, saya bertemu orang-orang yang selama ini mendukung Yudhoyono-Boediono dan menyatakan kecewa. Juga orang-orang yang selama ini menilai sikap skeptis saya terhadap profesionalisme polisi dalam soal terorisme sebagai “teori konspirasi”. Salah satunya adalah Bambang Harymurti. Saya jadi ingat renungan lama saya, yang juga pernah saya lontarkan kepada Bambang Harymurti: bagaimana Anda bisa menilai satu lembaga, polisi, sangat baik (dalam terorisme) dan sangat buruk (korupsi, penyalahgunaan kekuasaan) sekaligus pada saat yang sama?

Beberapa tahun lalu ketika saya bicara itu, Bambang Harymurti baru saja dilecehkan anak buah Tomy Winata bukan di mana-mana melainkan di markas polisi (dan polisi diam saja). Pada pekan yang sama polisi dinilai sukses memecahkan kasus terorisme. Lembaga apapun, seperti individu kita, punya kelebihan dan punya kekurangan. Tapi, menurut saya, perbedaan mencolok antara “sukses” dalam kasus terorisme dengan “busuk” dalam kasus korupsi semestinya menerbitkan beberapa pertanyaan. Bukankah keduanya terikat pada satu kata: profesionalisme, yang melibatkan dimensi etik dan prosedural, bukan sekadar kinerja (performance) ?

Kita bisa menilai seseorang atau lembaga punya kinerja bagus dalam hal tertentu, namun buruk dalam hal lain. Tapi kita tidak bisa mengatakan polisi, misalnya, profesional dan tidak profesional sekaligus. Pasti ada satu yang lebih benar. Profesional yang saya maksud meliputi kesediaan untuk memunaikan semboyan polisi sendiri: “To serve and to protect”. Tentu ada polisi yang baik dan ada yang buruk. Seperti ada wartawan baik dan wartawan buruk pula.

Tapi, dari pengalaman, saya dengan sedih harus mengatakan: saya mendengar lebih banyak keluhan masyarakat awam tentang polisi (dan wartawan) yang jahat dan tidak profesional. Ada “kerusakan” sistemik di situ, dan bukan sekadar oknum. Dalam kasus polisi, ada gap yang terlalu jauh antara kenyataan yang kita rasakan sehari-hari tentang polisi (yang menunjukkan korupsi sistemik) dengan “sukses gemilang” memberantas terorisme.

Menurut saya, “citra sukses” polisi dalam kasus terorisme yang dielu-elukan wartawan tanpa sedikitpun kritisisme telah memberi “dukungan moral” tak langsung pada korupnya polisi dan keberanian mereka untuk melakukan sesuatu yang “sulit dipercaya” seperti menahan pejabat KPK dengan alasan suka konferensi pers! Tanpa skeptisisme, termasuk mempertanyakan extra-judicial killings dalam penggerebegan TERSANGKA teroris, kita tidak hanya gagal mengurai fenomena terorisme di Indonesia, tapi juga ikut merusak kepolisian sebagai institusi yang penting dalam sebuah negara.