US may boycott racism conference

The US is likely to boycott a UN racism conference, reports suggest, saying a text drawn up for the event criticises Israel and restricts freedom of speech.

An unnamed state department official said the draft document for April's forum in Geneva was "unsalvageable".

Canada and Israel have also said they plan to boycott the meeting.

In 2001, US and Israeli delegates walked out of a similar conference in Durban, South Africa, when a draft document likened Zionism to racism.

The 2001 draft expressed "deep concern" at the "increase of racist practices of Zionism and anti-Semitism".

It talked of the emergence of "movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority".

'Unsalvageable'

A US delegation travelled to Geneva for negotiations earlier in February to try to agree the conference's final document.

"Unfortunately, the document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse," the unnamed state department official was quoted as saying by the Washington Post newspaper.

"The current text of the draft of the outcome document is, in the United States government's estimation, unsalvageable.

"As a result the United States will not participate in the forthcoming negotiations on this text, nor will we be able to participate in a conference that is based on this text," the official said.

Washington says the proposed text unfairly singles out Israel for criticism.

US officials say they are also concerned that some sections of the draft - which call for restrictions on the defamation of religions - could threaten free speech.

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7916191.stm

This is an interesting debate. Aside from the question of whether the US should participate in the conference the issue of whether Zionism is racism is interesting, and should probably be discussed. Israelis, understandably are appalled by the idea, and I would argue that there is nothing inherent in the idea of believing that the Jewish people have the right to a homeland that is racist. Critics, however, have argued that modern Zionism (at as seen in Palestine) is constructed on the notion that Jews are superior to Arabs, have greater rights to the land, and therefore have a greater set of rights. It is an exclusionary ideology that preferences one group over another and demonizes and discriminates against a specific racial/ethnic group. I am not necessarily taking a side in this argument because I think that whether or not Zionism is racism depends on how it is spun. Bu the debate is interesting and important. I also think there is a discussion to be had about whether rules against defamation of religion is appropriate or infringes on freedom of speech.

Carnival Queens for Obama!

This is the kind of soft power I am talking about. Obama has banked so much good will around the world that even Brazilian (carnaval) royalty is painting his face on their naked bodies. I am shocked. I am really, for the first time in almost a decade, proud to be an American...


and I just wanted a reason to post this hot girl on the blog. Enjoy.

From our friends at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/22/nude-carnival-queen-vivia_n_168923.html

Gaza case studies: Weapons use

The BBC News Website looks at case studies of some of the weapons and tactics used in the recent Gaza conflict that human rights groups are concerned may have been violations of international law.

Interviews by Aleem Maqbool and Heather Sharp in Gaza City.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Human rights investigators have been trawling through the rubble in Gaza and gathering testimonies in an attempt to piece together a picture of the way both sides fought and the weapons they used.

International law demands that a distinction is made between combatants and non-combatants, and civilian casualties proportionate to the military gains from the attack in which they occurred.

But Amnesty International has concluded that some Israeli attacks "were directed at civilians or civilian buildings", while "others were disproportionate or indiscriminate".

Amnesty has dubbed Israel's use of white phosphorus as a war crime

As well as the way Israeli forces used white phosphorous in the conflict, which Amnesty has dubbed a war crime, the organisation has also raised concerns about other weapons and their use.

These range from the firing of high explosive artillery shells, which have a large margin of error, in populated areas, to concerns that Israeli forces were trigger-happy in their use of more precise weapons such as tank shells.

There has never been any doubt that Palestinian militants' use of rockets to target civilians in southern Israel was a violation of international humanitarian law.

Human rights investigators are also certain that the militant groups operated from civilian areas, although Amnesty and HRW are yet to publish detailed reports on the issue.

"The testimony and forensic evidence clearly shows Hamas was endangering the civilian population with its tactics," says Marc Garlasco, a senior researcher and military specialist with Human Rights Watch.

The violations of one side do not allow the other side to fight in an illegal manner Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch

He says there were cases of Hamas firing from abandoned Palestinian homes.

"I myself saw Qassam rockets rise up from populated areas, likely fired from between homes," he adds.

Israel says the blame for civilian casualties lies with Hamas for using such tactics.

But Mr Garlasco - echoing the views of several other human rights groups - says this "in no way justifies what Israel did".

"The violations of one side do not allow the other side to fight in an illegal manner."

Israel has not yet responded to the specific allegations, but says it acts to minimise civilian casualties, and that its interpretation of international law is in line with that of other Western nations.

The Israeli military also says it is conducting internal investigations into some of the claims and individual cases, including regarding the use of white phosphorous, that rights groups have raised.

Back to the top

FLECHETTE SHELLS

Muhammad Abu Jarad still has a flechette lodged close to his spine

Flechette shells contain several thousand razor-sharp, nail-like metal darts, each about 4cm long.

The shells explode in the air scattering the darts over the surrounding area - in a cone-shaped pattern 300m long and 90m wide, according to Human Rights Watch.

They are not banned under international law, but human rights groups say their indiscriminate nature makes them illegal if used in built-up civilian areas such as the densely populated Gaza Strip.

Although they were not widely used by Israeli forces in the Gaza conflict, Amnesty International has documented several incidents and says their use "contributed to unlawful killings" of Palestinian civilians.

The black darts can still be seen in the walls above the spot where Wafa Abu Jarad, aged 21 and three months pregnant, was fatally injured on 5 January 2009, outside their home on a residential street near Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza .

Her husband Muhammad, 24, said they had just had breakfast on the steps of their home, with their two-year-old son Khalil, and were walking among the lemon trees in their garden when they heard an explosion a few blocks away.

As they ran for cover in the house, Wafa with Khalil in her arms, there was another explosion above them. "All we could see were nails," said Muhammad, in reference to the flechettes.

"We were both thrown to the ground. She was bleeding from her head and chest," he said. "She fell unconscious immediately."

Young Khalil Abu Jarad has not yet been told his mother died in the attack

Flechettes hit Khalil in the legs, Muhammad in the leg and back, and flew through the open door hitting Muhammad's father in the shoulder, he said.

Wafa died in hospital three days later.

The clean white line of a flechette can be seen close to a vertebrae on an X-ray of Muhammad's back. He says he cannot sleep because of the pain, and sometimes finds his right side temporarily paralysed.

"The doctors are afraid to take it out, it is too close to the nerve - they are afraid I could be completely paralysed," he says, as Khalil clings to his leg and breaks briefly into a howl.

"What can I tell him when he cries 'Mummy, Mummy'?", he asks. "Where am I supposed to bring his Mum from?"

He tells the toddler Wafa is "travelling". "But yesterday he picked up a picture of her, and was saying 'Mummy, Mummy' and kissing it. He said she had been hurt in the explosion."

In similar cases, Amnesty International has documented the death of a 16-year-old boy, another woman and a paramedic, and numerous more injuries.

Israel has used flechette shells in Gaza for several years. In 2003 Israel 's High Court rejected a petition to ban their use, saying it considered the military's guidelines on their use to be adequate.

Back to the top

TANK SHELLS

The Amnesty report says "tank rounds are precision munitions".

"The killing of so many civilians, many in their homes, indicates that these munitions were, at best, used in a reckless or indiscriminate manner," says the report.

Human Rights Watch military analysts say tank shells are so accurate they can be fired into a window from a distance of a mile (1.6km).

Both Amnesty and HRW investigators say there appeared to be a consistent pattern of Palestinian families being killed by Israeli tank shells fired into their homes, apparently as they approached windows or stepped on to balconies.

Haider al-Eiwa, 42, walks through the ruins of his family's top floor apartment in the eastern part of Gaza City .

Everything in the living room, dining room and kitchen has been reduced to a mangled, dusty mess.

A few weeks ago, he says, four of his children, aged between seven and 13, were playing by the kitchen window, looking out towards the Israeli border.

KEY STORIES 'Phosphorus wounds' alarm Gazans Who can probe war crimes claims? Gaza conflict: Timeline Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?

He says that, without warning, a tank shell crashed straight through the same window, killing his wife, and all four children.

"Of course they played near the windows, they are children," Haider says. "And the tanks were well over a kilometre away.

"They have destroyed my life. Why did they choose my house?" he says. "I am not Hamas, I don't belong to any group. They must have known there were children here."

Marc Garlasco of Human Rights Watch says: "I saw dozens upon dozens of homes damaged or destroyed by tank fire and our investigation noted numerous civilians killed in these cases."

"Though we don't know why they were killed, the Israeli army may have thought they were spotters for Hamas," says Mr Garlasco.

It seems that in some cases, Israeli forces were "looking through the vision system, firing at anything they saw moving", says Donatella Rovera of Amnesty International.

In another such case, cited by Amnesty, the house of Dr Izz al-Din Abu al-Eish was hit. A tank shell was fired into his daughters' bedroom. Three of his daughters and his niece were killed.

Back to the top

DRONE MISSILES

Unmanned drones (one visible, top right) were used extensively by Israel over Gaza

Marc Garlasco of HRW says there is concern about the number of Palestinian civilians killed by missiles fired from unmanned Israeli aircraft, or drones, particularly because these can be precisely targeted and guided by an operator using imaging "like a TV camera" as they home in on their target.

In several cases, children were killed as they played on roofs, despite the fact that the operator should have been able to determine they were civilians and steer the missile away, he says.

"It appears there was this wider policy to kill anyone on a roof," he said.

Furthermore, investigators found that many of the missiles used in such strikes contained tiny, sharp-edged cubes of purpose-made shrapnel, which are scattered as the missile explodes.

Mr Garlasco says these were designed as anti-tank weapons, but are often used by Israel for targeted killings, as they "do they job well" - the blast is confined to a small radius, the missiles are relatively light and can be mounted on unmanned drones.

Mahmoud al-Habbash, 15, shows us the spot on a rooftop where his cousins were killed by a guided missile. According to HRW, the missile contained such cube-shaped shrapnel.

"We were feeding the chickens and playing," he says. "We did it every day and did not think we had any reason to be afraid."

"I looked to the sky and I saw a flame coming towards us and I shouted and ran. It was strange, I was suddenly sucked back forcefully, but I don't even remember hearing the blast," says Mahmoud.

"Shada, who was 12 and Isra who was 10 were killed. Jamila lost both legs, she is 14. Muhammad who is 16 lost one leg. Muhammad says when the explosion happened, it looked like there was a huge cloud of flies around us."

Qusai al-Habbash, 48, a science teacher and the father of the two girls who died, says the area had been calm and that families along the street had been going about their business as normal.

"Still, I thought of warning my children not to go outside, because of what was happening in other areas," he says. "But then I told myself that the Israeli weapons were very sophisticated. They can easily see who is a child and who is a militant. But they killed my children anyway."

Amnesty has listed many cases in which civilians were killed in this manner, including eight secondary school students who were waiting for the school bus to take them home.

It's all been said. But I thought the detail of the reports were telling. BOTH sides here act with disregard for civilians, and both are guilty of war crimes. Israel is simply more destructive because of its greater technology and less likely be punished because of its allies...

Bush & Obama-ice cream flavors by Ben & Jerry‏

Recently I received this email. Rather than forwarding it, I am posting it here, even at the risk of inciting Beck. But really, this is quite funny, especially the last one.

This year Ben & Jerry created "Yes Pecan!" ice cream flavor for Obama.

For George WB they asked for suggestions from the public.

Here are some of their favorite responses:

Grape Depression
The Housing Crunch
Abu Grape
Cluster Fudge
Nut'n Accomplished

Nut'n Honest
Iraqi Road

Guantanmallow
Chock 'n Awe
WireTapioca
Impeach Cobbler
imPeachmint

Good Riddance You Lousy Motherf-er ... Swirl
Neocon Politan
RockyRoad to Fascism
The Reese's-cession
Cookie D'uh!
Nougalar Proliferation
Death by Chocolate... and Torture
Freedom Vanilla Ice Cream
Chocolate Chip On My Shoulder
Credit Crunch
Mission Pecanplished
Country Pumpkin
Chunky Monkey in Chief
WMDelicious
Bloody Sundae
Caramel Preemptive Stripe

Lime The Decider

Swirl of Evil

I Broke The Law and Am Responsible For The Deaths of Thousands ... With Nuts

Executive Compensation and the Problems of Corporate Culture...

Executive Compensation Doesn't Always Reward The Best

Audio for this story will be available at approx. 12:00 p.m. ET

Weekend Edition Saturday, February 14, 2009 · Host Scott Simon speaks with Harvard Business School professor Rakesh Khurana about executive compensation and the culture of greed in corporate America. Khurana says the highest paid isn't always the best.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100714491

This was a really interesting piece on executive compensation and how execs have been able to morph themselves from "economic stewards" of their companies to self-perceived "Michael Jordans" of them. At least in my mind, this is a perfect reason for some serious regulation of how companies run and structure themselves. I understand the fears and protestations of free-marketeers and libertarians that hate any government intrusion in business, but come on. The absence of regulation have let POS execs establish virtual principalities that have led to a ruinous economic environment. If not regulation, something approaching the French Revolution may be on the horizon. Been a long time since the aristocracy faced the guillotine...

You respect my rights and I'll respect yours

(Original Story From http://www.examiner.com/Charlotte/)

In the comments to yesterday's jury nullification piece (yes, I read your comments) Smitty was especially on-point when he said, "The real problem might be toleration, or more accurately, the lack of it. We wish our preferred freedoms to be respected, while applauding governmental crackdowns upon those freedoms we dislike or are indifferent to." Frankly that's been an ongoing hurdle in the effort to preserve and extend liberty. Until pot-smokers and gun owners and low-taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we're all in this together, we're going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms.

After World War II, Pastor Martin Niemöller voiced several variants of the following sentiments in his public speeches:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Along the same lines, Benjamin Franklin once commented, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

It comes down to the same thing: When liberty is under attack, everybody is at risk. But that's not what the politicians and inspectors and tax collectors and police officers say, of course. No, they're all too happy to tell you that the queers next door are a threat to your way of life, or that the gun nuts are a public danger, or that the tax dodgers are greedy and not doing their fair share, or the store keepers are running amuck without entangling red tape, or that the pot heads are lazy parasites who will corrupt your kids.

But once the politicians and inspectors and tax collectors and police officers are done with the queers, they'll happily shift their sights to the gun nuts, then to the tax dodgers, the store keepers, and then the pot heads, and ...

Where were you planning to hide? Forget about it. Because you're some kind of menace, too, and you'll be fresh out of allies if you don't realize that the freedom of people you don't care very much about is just as important as your own.

The sort of people who make up the political class -- the control freaks of the world -- are experts at divide and conquer. They have all sorts of reasons why you should be glad that somebody else is being hemmed in by laws and threatened with prison. Those people are bad -- until it's you who's so bad. What the control freaks will never tell you is that they'd be entirely unable to impose those draconian laws and threats if you'd ally yourselves with those different folks and their peculiar interests to protect their liberty and your own at the same time.

You don't care about your neighbor's gun collection and he doesn't give a damn about your pot farm? So what? If you help each other out, everybody wins. If you don't, you'll both end up losing something you want, or else hiding it in the shadows and hoping for the best.

Keep that in mind the next time a politician promises to protect you from bogeymen who look an awful lot like the pleasant couple who live down the street. Maybe it's time to knock on their door and talk about an alliance of convenience.

Because you're not going to stay free if the only liberty you care about is your own.

I couldn't agree more, freedom is of utmost importance, and involves everyone. For example, if an individual uses their guns to infringe on another person's freedom, by attacking them or actively keeping them in a state of fear without provocation, then that person should have their freedom to own guns restricted. However, just simply possibility that someone who owns guns could act in such a way should not be reason to restrict their freedom to own guns. Similarly, whose freedom are "pot-smokers" restricting. I am not for prohibition of alcohol, but alcohol is much more damaging to public, societal, and personal well being than pot.

The following is a relevant humorous take on the pot issue:

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"

--Abbie Hoffman, social and political activist in the United States)

Bailed-Out Firms Distributing Cash Rewards: "Please Do Not Call It A Bonus"

Two Wall Street firms that received at least $60 billion in government bailout funds will be rewarding their financial advisers with controversial retention payments, the terms of which one senior executive described as "very generous" in audio obtained by the Huffington Post.

The soon-to-be-merged financial giants -- Morgan Stanley and Citigroup's Smith Barney -- announced the payments during an internal conference call last week, but warned advisers against describing them in terms that would cause PR headaches.

"There will be a retention award. Please do not call it a bonus," said James Gorman, co-president of Morgan Stanley. "It is not a bonus. It is an award. And it recognizes the importance of keeping our team in place as we go through this integration."

The payments, Gorman said, will be calculated based on performance numbers from 2008 instead of 2009, when the merger is expected to be completed. That decision virtually guarantees an increase in the size of the awards. While 2008 was challenging for the firms -- Morgan Stanley's client assets in fee-based accounts dropped 25 percent in the fourth quarter, and a round of lay-offs is expected -- 2009 is expected to be substantially weaker.

"I think I can hear you clapping from here in New York," Gorman joked during the call, after announcing that the payments would be linked to '08 performance. "You should be clapping because frankly that is a very generous and thoughtful decision that we have made. We spent a lot of time kicking this around. We could easily have done it from the point of closing, which is obviously going to be somewhere in the latter half of this year or around the middle of the year. But we just decided... that it was right thing to do, to give you that certainty that it would be based off '08. '09 is a very difficult year... So that degree of anxiety, which many, many of you have emailed me about... is now off the table."

Audio of the conference call was provided by a reader who responded to the Huffington Post's call for information about wasteful or extravagant spending by bailout recipients.

Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, which will combine their brokerage firms into the world's largest, have received a combined $60 billion in government bailout funds. Officials with the firms said that the retention packages, which are rumored to value as much as $2 to $3 billion, would not come from that pool of money. But critics note that money is fungible, and question whether such payments are a proper use of funds for banks that are dependent on the government to stay afloat.

"They are putting lipstick on a pig," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission. "Very often, retention bonuses are paid to undeserving executives who helped drive their enterprises into the ground. This is like people who hold up banks getting paid to stop holding up banks. It isn't good policy. It's not always the case, but on Wall Street, people were vastly overpaid for the value that they created."

advertisement

Retention awards for Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney employees have been rumored since their merger talks began. But the terms of the payments, which are still being hammered out, are bound to spur critical questions.

An official for Morgan Stanley downplayed the decision to value the payments off the more favorable '08 numbers. "You pick a point in time that you base any retention program off of and the decision was to base these off of the production these individuals would have achieved in 08," said spokesman Jim Wiggins. "Whatever they end up getting paid will be based off their 2008 production. That doesn't say anything at all about the timing it is going to be paid or when it will be paid."

Wiggins also defended the decision to provide financial advisers with retention packages. Noting that the money would "be paid out of the operating revenues for business and not" TARP funds, he said the system was necessary to prevent an exodus of key personnel.

"Retention programs like this are standard practice in the industry whenever you do a deal like this one," he said. "This is a profitable business. Our financial advisers are being heavily recruited by other companies like UBS... It is absolutely critical to hold this together and hold them in their seats so this will be a successful joint venture."

This assessment is challenged by an array of industry observers. Noting that retention awards are a relatively small sum of cash when compared to the money that the U.S. government will be spending on subsidizing bondholders, Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics nevertheless called it a gratuitous expense.

"These firms are attempting to continue to pay their people the way they have in the past and in the current job market here in New York, I don't think it is necessary," said Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics. "You certainly don't need to pay people to stay in their jobs right now, because they are praying to Jesus that they just don't lose their job generally."

Certainly, as recipients of billions of dollars in government funds, Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney find their accounting decisions under greater scrutiny. As part of the merger, the two entities have promised to make $1.1 billion worth of budget cuts -- or roughly half the projected amount of retention payments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/11/bailout-recipients-giving_n_165624.html

Oh my fucking god! Evil greedy monsters... I am so livid... I can't even articulate how much I am... so ... ugh... I have lost all faith in bankers.

Israelis vote in general election

Voting is taking place in Israel in an early election called by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is stepping down.

The favourite to become prime minister is Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing opposition party, Likud.

But his opinion-poll lead has been reduced in recent weeks by Tzipi Livni, who heads the centrist Kadima, the largest party in the government.

Mr Olmert announced months ago that he was standing down in the face of corruption allegations.

Ms Livni's attempt to form a new government without elections failed last year.

Leaders confident

Voting across the country started at 0700 local time (0500 GMT) and will close at 2200 local time (2000 GMT).

Israel imposed a closure on Palestinian-run areas of the occupied West Bank, banning Palestinians from entering Israel except for medical emergencies. Israeli soldiers have already voted.

KEY BACKGROUND Downbeat poll reflects mood Q&A: Israeli elections Where the candidates stand Israeli elections: Voters' views

Mr Netanyahu and his wife Sarah cast their vote in Jerusalem.

"This felt good," the Likud leader said. "The people want a change and they will choose it today. Those who want to embark on a new path would rally with the Likud and with me."

After voting in Tel Aviv, Ms Livni urged other voters to do the same, despite heavy rain and strong winds.

"I have just done what I want every citizen in Israel to do - first of all to get out of the house, rain or not, cold or hot, go out, go to the polling station, go into the booth, close your eyes, and vote - not out of fear or despair - and think about hope," she said.

Labour leader Ehud Barak, Israel's current defence minister, also voted in Tel Aviv. "I am sure we will emerge stronger from this day," he said.

The head of the nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, Avigdor Lieberman, voted at polling station in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim.

"There are many parties who talk, but there is one party that knows how to act not only talk. We did a good job during the elections, we will do an even better job after the elections, thank you," he said.

Bad weather

On Monday, Israel's politicians made a final push for votes.

Mr Netanyahu and Mr Lieberman, made visits to one of Judaism's holiest sites, the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem - regarded as occupied territory under international law.

Ms Livni and Mr Barak both planted trees - in different places.

Israeli soldiers in the West Bank cast their votes on Monday

Opinion polls suggest that about 20% of voters are not sure who to vote for - and that many others are unenthusiastic about their choices.

Bad weather may keep voter turnout low. About 5.3 million people are eligible to vote at more than 9,000 polling stations.

Even if Ms Livni does pull ahead of Mr Netanyahu, pollsters think right-wing parties are likely to dominate the Knesset and she could struggle to form a coalition, says the BBC's Bethany Bell in Jerusalem.

Following the recent conflict in Gaza, many Israelis say security is what counts, and that they do not trust the peace process or the Palestinians.

In such a climate, Mr Lieberman - with his strong, often anti-Arab, rhetoric - is forecast to make gains, our correspondent adds.

Arab voters of Palestinian origin make up about one-fifth of the electorate.

Scuffles broke out in one Israeli Arab town when a Jewish hardliner arrived to observe the polling, in what was seen as a provocative act by locals.

National Union candidate Aryeh Eldad was escorted out of Umm al-Fahm by police, who also arrested five stone throwers.

Once the final votes are counted, the complicated process of building a coalition will begin - something that could take several weeks.

If you want to know who gained from the destructive invasion of Gaza wait until polls close today in Israel. Given the public opinion polls that all show security issue as a top concern and distrust (and dislike) for Palestinians climbing, it seems likely that right-wingers will gain disproportionately in this election. Sad. This will set the peace process back years. And nothing will change.

It is a cold comfort that this result seems to fit with some current research we've conducting. What we have found so far (in numerous statistical tests) is that there is not much learning between Palestinians and Israelis. Their leadership seems to be guided more by expected domestic political gain than any process of reciprocal or evolutionary learning. But these results are preliminary, and I hope they are far from robust.

Astronaut's Video Satirizes NASA Bureaucracy

Morning Edition, February 9, 2009 · A short, satirical video produced by an astronaut and posted on YouTube is generating a lot of discussion within NASA and the space community. The video focuses on making sure the agency's bureaucracy doesn't crush innovative ideas and dissenting opinions.

The video, written and filmed by four-time space flier Andrew Thomas, tells the fictional story of a young engineer at Johnson Space Center in Houston who has a great new concept for a spacecraft design.

Her attempts to convince her managers go nowhere. They dismiss her proposal with administrative objections even as they assure her that her efforts are valued.

"We don't want to repress dissenting views or innovation like this. That's not how we operate," says a fictional manager in the video. As he speaks, a caption appears and poses a question: "Are you sure?"

Raising Awareness

The film shows how innovation-blocking behaviors are "all too common" at the space center.

Thomas says he put the little movie together using a borrowed camera and his home computer. The actors are employees of either NASA or its contractors. Last summer, they all worked on a team project organized by Johnson Space Center's senior management as part of a larger effort to enhance innovation and open-mindedness.

"They were told to be creative not only in their approach to answering the questions they were asked, but also to be creative in the way that they presented their findings and recommendations," says Debbie Denton, manager for diversity and special projects at the center's human resources office.

Thomas and his teammates were specifically asked to look for reasons why new ideas get ignored or blocked. "And I wanted to try and capture those in a way that people would understand, in a way that would resonate," says Thomas.

Heather Hava, who plays the role of the engineer, says Thomas took stories and anecdotes that the team discussed and wove them into one storyline. "He compiled all that and wrote a little dramatization of all of our experiences," she says. "It was a composite of many, many people's experiences."

Management Reacts

The video was shown at a retreat for NASA managers last month. One manager, Wayne Hale, posted it on his blog and wrote that he found it "extraordinarily funny and not at all funny."

Hale noted that after the space shuttle Columbia accident, the investigation board said NASA's culture had stifled dissenting opinions from engineers who were concerned about potential dangers. NASA's leadership has been trying to change its culture. "Still, it is hard to tell how effective the change effort has been," Hale wrote.

Thomas says he initially wasn't sure how his video would be received. "Because these are, after all, fairly sensitive issues and they're important issues. I have to say I'm very gratified by the upper management of the agency who made a point that this should go public so that people could see it."

Howard McCurdy, a space policy expert with American University in Washington, D.C., has written about how NASA's original high-tech culture has become more bureaucratic. He says that what struck him is that the managers in the video didn't engage in technical discussions. Instead, they focused only on the administrative process.

"That's not the kind of agency you would like to have running rocket programs," says McCurdy. "It might be OK for Social Security check disbursement, but it sure isn't going to be good for rocket science."

McCurdy notes that culture change is hard, but that "culture consists in large part of the stories that people tell about their agency. And if they tell stories like the one we're just seeing, it's a way of communicating their concern."

Justin Kugler, a member of the team that made the video, says there's been a lot of reaction. "I know I personally have received e-mails from people saying, 'You all nailed this, this is spot on,'" he says.

Kugler says his team did identify positive changes that managers can make to encourage innovation and new ideas, but those didn't get featured in the movie. "Just seeing the video by itself out on YouTube," he says, "you don't necessarily get that other half of the story." He added that the group is considering making another video.

I feel that a stifling of innovation is just one of the problems with Bureaucracy that need to be fixed, hopefully the release of this video to the public is a sign of good things to come.

Marijuana testicular cancer link

Frequent or long-term marijuana use may raise a man's risk of testicular cancer, American research suggests.

The study of 369 men, published in the journal Cancer, found being a regular marijuana user doubled the risk compared to those who never smoked it.

The results suggest that it may be linked to the most aggressive form of the cancer.

A spokesman for Cancer Research UK said that no previous studies had found a link between marijuana and the disease.

What young men should know is first, we know very little about the long-term health consequences of marijuana smoking, especially heavy marijuana smoking Dr Stephen Schwartz Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute

Testicular cancer is one of the most common cancers in younger men, with approximately 2,000 new cases each year in the UK.

Incidence in Europe and North America is far higher than in some other parts of the world, and has been rising steadily for no apparent reason.

Known risk factors for the cancer include previous injuries to the testicles, a family history of the disease, or suffering from undescended testicles as a young child.

The study from scientists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle is the first to look specifically at marijuana use in relation to the disease.

They studied 369 men aged 18 to 44, who had been diagnosed with testicular cancer, and quizzed them about marijuana use.

Their replies were compared to those from almost 1,000 apparently healthy control subjects.

Even after adjusting the figures to take account of the other known risk factors, marijuana use remained a clear risk factor for testicular cancer.

Just being a marijuana smoker seemed to carry a 70% extra risk, while those who smoked it regularly, or had smoked from an early age, had twice the risk compared to those who had never smoked it.

A connection was made to nonseminoma, a fast-growing form of testicular cancer which accounts for approximately 40% of all cases, and tends to strike younger.

Puberty chance

Dr Janet Daling, one of the authors, said that puberty might be a "window of opportunity" during which boys were more vulnerable to environmental factors such as the chemicals in marijuana.

Testicular cancer is usually easily treated

"This is consistent with the study's findings that the elevated risk of nonseminoma-type testicular cancer in particular was associated with marijuana use prior to 18," she said.

Another research, Dr Stephen Schwartz, said: "What young men should know is first, we know very little about the long-term health consequences of marijuana smoking, especially heavy marijuana smoking, and second, our study provides some evidence that testicular cancer could be one adverse consequence."

The next step, he said, would be to look more closely at cells in the testicles to see if any of them had receptors set up to respond to cannabis chemicals.

Henry Scowcroft, from Cancer Research UK, said: "As the researchers themselves point out, this is the first inkling that there is any association between chronic marijuana use and testicular cancer.

"But the researchers only interviewed a relatively small number of men.

"So before we can reach any firm conclusions about whether this is a cause-and-effect relationship, rather than a statistical blip, the result needs to be replicated in a much larger study."

This is bound to be the most popular anti-drug campaign ever.

Number of alien worlds quantified

We are likely to be listening for a long time, even if there are many worlds

Intelligent civilisations are out there and there could be thousands of them, according to an Edinburgh scientist.

The discovery of more than 330 planets outside our solar system in recent years has helped refine the number of life forms that are likely to exist.

The current research estimates that there are at least 361 intelligent civilisations in our Galaxy and possibly as many as 38,000.

The work is reported in the International Journal of Astrobiology.

Even with the higher of the two estimates, however, it is not very likely that contact could be established with alien worlds.

While researchers often come up with overall estimates of the likelihood of intelligent life in the universe, it is a process fraught with guesswork; recent guesses put the number anywhere between a million and less than one.

"It's a process of quantifying our ignorance," said Duncan Forgan, the University of Edinburgh researcher who carried out the work.

In his new approach, Mr Forgan simulated a galaxy much like our own, allowing it to develop solar systems based on what is now known from the existence of so-called exoplanets in our galactic neighbourhood.

These simulated alien worlds were then subjected to a number of different scenarios.

If alien life forms do exist, we may not necessarily be able to make contact with them, and we have no idea what form they would take Duncan Forgan Edinburgh University

The first assumed that it is difficult for life to be formed but easy for it to evolve, and suggested there were 361 intelligent civilisations in the galaxy.

A second scenario assumed life was easily formed but struggled to develop intelligence. Under these conditions, 31,513 other forms of life were estimated to exist.

The final scenario examined the possibility that life could be passed from one planet to another during asteroid collisions - a popular theory for how life arose here on Earth.

That approach gave a result of some 37,964 intelligent civilisations in existence.

Form and function

While far-flung planets may reduce uncertainty in how many Earth-like planets there are, some variables in the estimate will remain guesses.

For example, the time from a planet's formation to the first sparks of life, or from there to the first intelligent civilisations, are large variables in the overall estimate.

For those, Mr Forgan says, we will have to continue to assume Earth is an average case.

"It is important to realise that the picture we've built up is still incomplete," said Mr Forgan.

"Even if alien life forms do exist, we may not necessarily be able to make contact with them, and we have no idea what form they would take.

"Life on other planets may be as varied as life on Earth and we cannot predict what intelligent life on other planets would look like or how they might behave."

Cool. Let's get on with the space exploration! United Federation of Planets here we come.

Hamas police 'seized Gazan aid'

Hamas policemen have seized thousands of blankets and food parcels that were meant to be distributed to Palestinian civilians in Gaza, UN officials say.

A UN spokesman said policemen raided a UN warehouse on Tuesday after officials refused to hand over the aid to a Hamas-controlled ministry.

The UN said it was the first time its aid had been confiscated by Hamas.

It condemned the action and demanded the goods be immediately returned. There has been no comment by Hamas.

UN spokesman Christopher Gunness said Hamas police took 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels.

About half the population in the Gaza Strip are dependent on UN food aid, since Israel imposed a blockade on the territory 19 months ago.

The UN's relief agency said it has distributed more than 50,000 blankets and more than 12,000 food parcels.

Reconstruction plan

Aid delivery became increasingly difficult during Israel's offensive against Hamas which began in late December.

The UN said it has increased its food distribution to cover 900,000 of Gaza's population of 1.5 million.

However, the UN, along with most of the western world, does not deal directly with the Islamist Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, the government of the Palestinian Authority has announced $600m (£417m) for reconstruction in the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said the programme would cover all Palestinian houses destroyed or damaged during Israel's 22-day offensive in December and January.

"The amount of the project is $600 million. Most of it will come from donors," Mr Fayyad said in a speech in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Further details would be announced later, he added.

Initial Palestinian estimates said rebuilding would cost $2bn (£1.4bn) and take three to five years.

Ugh...fuckers. Wait to represent the needs of your people. Who needs enemies when the Palestinians have Hamas on their side? Despicable.

Bailouts for Bunglers

by Paul Krugman

Question: what happens if you lose vast amounts of other people’s money? Answer: you get a big gift from the federal government — but the president says some very harsh things about you before forking over the cash.

Am I being unfair? I hope so. But right now that’s what seems to be happening.

Just to be clear, I’m not talking about the Obama administration’s plan to support jobs and output with a large, temporary rise in federal spending, which is very much the right thing to do. I’m talking, instead, about the administration’s plans for a banking system rescue — plans that are shaping up as a classic exercise in “lemon socialism”: taxpayers bear the cost if things go wrong, but stockholders and executives get the benefits if things go right.

When I read recent remarks on financial policy by top Obama administration officials, I feel as if I’ve entered a time warp — as if it’s still 2005, Alan Greenspan is still the Maestro, and bankers are still heroes of capitalism.

“We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we’d like to do our best to preserve that system,” says Timothy Geithner, the Treasury secretary — as he prepares to put taxpayers on the hook for that system’s immense losses.

Meanwhile, a Washington Post report based on administration sources says that Mr. Geithner and Lawrence Summers, President Obama’s top economic adviser, “think governments make poor bank managers” — as opposed, presumably, to the private-sector geniuses who managed to lose more than a trillion dollars in the space of a few years.

And this prejudice in favor of private control, even when the government is putting up all the money, seems to be warping the administration’s response to the financial crisis.

Now, something must be done to shore up the financial system. The chaos after Lehman Brothers failed showed that letting major financial institutions collapse can be very bad for the economy’s health. And a number of major institutions are dangerously close to the edge.

So banks need more capital. In normal times, banks raise capital by selling stock to private investors, who receive a share in the bank’s ownership in return. You might think, then, that if banks currently can’t or won’t raise enough capital from private investors, the government should do what a private investor would: provide capital in return for partial ownership.

But bank stocks are worth so little these days — Citigroup and Bank of America have a combined market value of only $52 billion — that the ownership wouldn’t be partial: pumping in enough taxpayer money to make the banks sound would, in effect, turn them into publicly owned enterprises.

My response to this prospect is: so? If taxpayers are footing the bill for rescuing the banks, why shouldn’t they get ownership, at least until private buyers can be found? But the Obama administration appears to be tying itself in knots to avoid this outcome.

If news reports are right, the bank rescue plan will contain two main elements: government purchases of some troubled bank assets and guarantees against losses on other assets. The guarantees would represent a big gift to bank stockholders; the purchases might not, if the price was fair — but prices would, The Financial Times reports, probably be based on “valuation models” rather than market prices, suggesting that the government would be making a big gift here, too.

And in return for what is likely to be a huge subsidy to stockholders, taxpayers will get, well, nothing.

Will there at least be limits on executive compensation, to prevent more of the rip-offs that have enraged the public? President Obama denounced Wall Street bonuses in his latest weekly address — but according to The Washington Post, “the administration is likely to refrain from imposing tougher restrictions on executive compensation at most firms receiving government aid” because “harsh limits could discourage some firms from asking for aid.” This suggests that Mr. Obama’s tough talk is just for show.

Meanwhile, Wall Street’s culture of excess seems to have been barely dented by the crisis. “Say I’m a banker and I created $30 million. I should get a part of that,” one banker told The New York Times. And if you’re a banker and you destroyed $30 billion? Uncle Sam to the rescue!

There’s more at stake here than fairness, although that matters too. Saving the economy is going to be very expensive: that $800 billion stimulus plan is probably just a down payment, and rescuing the financial system, even if it’s done right, is going to cost hundreds of billions more. We can’t afford to squander money giving huge windfalls to banks and their executives, merely to preserve the illusion of private ownership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/opinion/02krugman.html