Doubling our Efforts in Afghanistan

Last night President Obama addressed an auditorium full of servicemen and women , as well as the rest of the nation, to inform us of his plans in Afghanistan, to justify his actions, and to layout a timeline.

His policy on Afghanistan was always that we would beef up our efforts there, which people seem to have forgotten. He wanted to pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan, which he is doing. People have been flustered recently with his failures to uphold other campaign promises, which may be causing some confusion. The Afghanistan issue is not to be confused with his promises on Guantanamo Bay, which he said would be closed in 18 months (FAIL). Or his stance on freezing illegal settlement building in Israel (EPIC FAIL).

But in many ways people are starting to view Afghanistan as another Vietnam, which the president addressed in his speech. He noted that Afghanistan was different from Vietnam in one very big way - the terrorists who (allegedly) attacked the U.S. live there. Now, I know it sounds conspiracy-theoretical, but there has been no proof or trial to say that the exact masterminds of the 9/11 attacks are living in territorial Afghanistan as opposed to anywhere else in the world. I seem to remember in 2001 when the attacks happened that everyone said the enemy was among us, living in the U.S.. Afterall, all of the hijacked flights were domestic flights. But Former President Bush grabbed his shotgun and threw on his britches and ran after the ambiguous enemy in Afghanistan almost immediately after the attacks, basing his decision on secret intelligence. 8 years later, that secret intelligence has never been tested, but we are doubling our efforts in the region.

Now, I am definitely interested in making sure Americans are safe and, if there is a threat in Afghanistan, neutralizing it. We started the job, we got 2 sides formed, we have Afghanis fighting against Afghanis and policemen being attacked and a corrupt leader in the region. Now is definitely NOT the time to throw our hands up and say we tried. By this point, we have gotten in too deep to back out.

One thing I noticed: the most poignant point in the president's address was at the very end when he went down to shake hands with the servicemen and women who were in the front rows of the auditorium; our brave soldiers clamored for attention, eagerly sticking out their hands, hoping to shake the hand of the man who has just torn them from their families and sent them to the front lines of guerrilla warfare. How ironic. Either they believe in his message wholeheartedly, or he just has that much star power.

It is rather unfortunate that President Obama is now being viewed as the reason we are sending in more troops. He is not. He is simply managing the mess and doing the only thing we can do - finish what we started. It will definitely be a reminder of the Vietnam war and if we win, people will always say "Ahhhh that's what would have happened! We should have stayed in Vietnam." But if we lose, be prepared for people to say "We should have shot Obama like we shot Kennedy." As ancient military strategist Sun Tzu once said "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."

Fox News tries to pass off Glenn Beck rally footage as anti-healthcare rally

The flagging peace process: Is Israel too strong for Barack Obama? | The Economist

The flagging peace process: Is Israel too strong for Barack Obama? | The Economist

Nov 5th 2009 | CAIRO AND JERUSALEM
From The Economist print edition
As America drops its demand for a total freeze on the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, angry Palestinians say there is no scope for resuming talks

Illustration by Peter Schrank

FIVE months after Barack Obama went to Cairo and persuaded most of the Arab world, in a ringing declaration of even-handedness, that he would face down Israel in his quest for a Palestinian state, American policy seems to have run into the sand. The American president’s mediating hand is weaker, his charisma damagingly faded. From the Palestinian and Arab point of view, his administration—after grandly setting out to force the Jewish state to stop the building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land as an early token of good faith, intended to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiation—has meekly capitulated to Israel.

The upshot is that hopes for an early resumption of talks between the main protagonists seem to have been dashed. Indeed, no one seems to know how they can be restarted. The mood among moderates on both sides is as glum as ever.

Mr Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, made matters worse by actually praising Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for promising merely to “restrain” Israel’s building rather than stop it altogether, as he was first asked to do. Previously Mrs Clinton had insisted that stop meant stop. There should be no “organic growth” of existing settlements and no exceptions for projects under way. Nor did she specifically exempt East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as their future capital but which many Israelis see as theirs alone. And she had earlier castigated Israel for demolishing Palestinian houses in the city’s eastern part. Now, in Israel on October 31st, she changed her tune, seeming to acquiesce in Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to meet those earlier American demands and congratulating the prime minister on his “unprecedented” offer to build at a slower rate than before.

Mr Netanyahu’s case is that being “prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements” is indeed a concession. No new settlements would be started, no extra Palestinian land appropriated for expansion. But some 3,000 housing units already commissioned must, he said, be completed. Building must go on in East Jerusalem, he has repeatedly said, as it cannot be part of a Palestinian state.

Mrs Clinton later awkwardly backpedalled, assuring the Palestinians that she still considered all settlements “illegitimate”, while pleading with them to resume talks. That seems unlikely. A storm of abuse raged in the Palestinian and Arab press. Mr Obama, it was widely deduced, had caved in after his own ratings in Israel had slumped, according to some Israeli polls, to as low as 4%. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Fatah party who presides over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, expressed extreme disappointment—and continued to insist that talks could not resume until there was a full building freeze.

Among Palestinians at large, Mr Abbas has been derided for putting his faith in the new American administration. Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip, the smaller of the two main parts of a future Palestinian state, mocked him for ever thinking that Mr Obama could change American policy towards the Middle East.

Last month he called a general and presidential election for January 24th. But with opinion polls showing his popularity diving, on November 5th he said he would not stand for re-election. Hamas, in any event, said it would refuse to take part in the polls. Mr Abbas, it seems, has been forced to acknowledge that his authority—and his ability to grapple with the Israelis in negotiations if they had resumed—has been eviscerated.

Besides, even if talks did start again, no agreement would stick without the acquiescence of Hamas, which won the last Palestinian election, in 2006, and is still strong enough to kibosh any deal done without it. Yet discussions between the two rival groups, under the aegis of the Egyptians, have been stuttering along for more than a year without getting anywhere.

Mr Netanyahu, on the other hand, was cock-a-hoop. The right-wing and religious ministers who make up the bulk of his coalition government can scarcely believe his luck. The prime minister is riding high in the Israeli people’s esteem. Building work is proceeding apace in many of the settlements. He looks as if he has emerged unscathed from a brush with a hostile American president.

Mr Obama is being criticised, even by Israelis and Americans on the left, for making demands of Mr Netanyahu that he should have known would never be met. Some say the president should himself fly to Israel to address the Israeli people directly with a game-changing plan of his own. But no one, least of all in Washington, seems to know what that might be.

Iranian Women's Rugby

Rugby is a fierce sport - these ladies must be tough enough not only to withstand the physical challenges but also to stand up against cultural misconceptions about women.

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp team up for Alice in Wonderland 2010

How exciting! The even darker and more twisted side of Alice in Wonderland, a children's story that has been marked by allegations of similarity to a drug trip. An already somewhat confusing and at times, frightening, story is taken over by a characteristically dark and sinister Tim Burton, and Johnny Depp, who has made a name in dark comedy. March 2010 is the proposed release.

Al Jazeera English - Americas - US House rejects Goldstone report

Al Jazeera English - Americas - US House rejects Goldstone report

RT 11/3/09 AlJazeera

The US House of Representatives has rejected as "irredeemably biased" the findings of a UN-sponsored report which says Israel committed war crimes during its military assault on the Gaza Strip.

The house on Tuesday voted 344 to 36 in favour of a non-binding resolution calling on Barack Obama, the US president, to maintain his opposition to the report, which was written by a panel led by Richard Goldstone, a South African judge.

The report accused Israel and the Palestinian Hamas group, which has de facto control of Gaza, of war crimes during the 22-day conflict in December and January.

But most of its criticism was directed towards Israel's conduct during the offensive, in which human rights organisations say about 1,400 Palestinians - many of them women and children - were killed.

Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were also killed over the course of the war, Israel has said.

Steny Hoyer, the Democrat House majority leader, said it was important to adopt an official resolution against the Goldstone report as it "paints a distorted picture".

It "epitomizes the practice of singling Israel out from all other nations for condemnation," he said on Tuesday.

UN assembly pressure

The US house vote came a day before the United Nations General Assembly is expected to debate its own resolution endorsing the findings of the Goldstone report.

Al Jazeera's Kristen Saloomey, reporting from the UN in New York, said that while the majority of the assembly's member nations were expected to vote in favour of the resolution, the US vote on Tuesday, although non-binding, was likely to dampen its impact.

"Remember - the key recommendation of Goldstone is to get a credible investigation into the alleged war crimes that the Goldstone commission found evidence of in Gaza, and the UN Security Council is the only body that can move forward and demand an investigation," she said.

"The general assembly just does not have that power. Of course, on the security council, the United States is a veto-wielding member and, as the congressional vote underscores, the US is not going to be interested in moving forward in the security council to call for an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), or anyone else for that matter."

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has previously criticised the report, calling its recommendations "unprecedented for any country, not just Israel".

The United Nations Human Rights Council, which sponsored the Goldstone commission, has already voted to endorse the report.

Bias claims

Steven Rothman, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey, told Al Jazeera that the report was biased against Israel, even after the Goldstone commission's mandate was expanded so that it could investigate war crimes alleged to have been committed by Hamas.

"The report was not written to talk about 12,000 rockets intentionally sent by Hamas to slaughter Israeli men, women and children, versus the Israelis trying in many respects to minimise the damage to Palestinian civilians," he told Al Jazeera.
"So there have been completely different standards applied."
But when asked if he had read the Goldstone report in full, Rothman said he had read only the report's executive summary.

"I did not read the 400 or 500 pages, but I read the executive summary designed for members of congress and other world leaders to read, and I found it terribly, terribly biased and one-sided," he said.

Keith Ellison, a Democrat congressman for Minnesota, criticised his colleagues for rushing to judgement on the issue.

"I urge members to oppose this resolution because it will undermine President Obama's belief that all countries, including our own, should be held accountable for their own actions," he said during the debate.

Goldstone clarifications

Goldstone last week sent a letter to the US House of Representatives saying that the text of the US resolution had "factual inaccuracies and instances where information and statements are taken grossly out of context".

He offered several rejections and clarifications of the ideas expressed in the resolution.

In response to Goldstone's criticism, three parts of the resolution were amended on Tuesday to clarify that Goldstone had sought an expansion to the commission's mandate so that his team could investigate claims that Hamas had violated international law during the Gaza war.

The Goldstone report, which accused Israel of using "disproportionate force" and of deliberately targeting civilians, called for independent investigations to be held into Israel's and Hamas's conduct during the war.

The report called for the cases to be referred to the ICC in The Hague if Israel and Hamas do not investigate the war crimes allegations against them within six months.

Hamas has agreed to hold such an investigation, but Israel has not.

Marwa El-Sherbini - stabbed 18 times in a German courtroom

Just 2 weeks after the media frenzy over Neda, the Iranian woman who was killed during the political protests, Marwa El-Sharbini was stabbed 18 times in a German courtroom by the man she was suing for racism, and her husband was shot by the security guard when he tried to save her.

Weird that it was all over Arab news, but never broadcast in the U.S. aside from a short mention by CNN and BBC. Read more from The Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/german-trial-hijab-murder-egypt

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize

Congratulations to a great man on unifying the world during an economic crisis and taking over the collosal mess left behind by the previous administration. He has written 2 books, is a professor at the University of Chicago, an intellectual as well as a politican. His achievements should not be put aside because he is the president or because people think he is only getting the award as a result of his eloquence and fame.

Chicago 2016 Olympic bid

Chicago's Daley Plaza is buzzing today with people flowing in from all sides to see what's going on. The water fountain has been dyed orange and bands are playing, they are giving away T-shirts and mugs and there are 2 big screen TVs.

Chicago, Rio de Janiero, Tokyo and Madrid are vying to host the 2016 Olympics, which will be the next Olympics after London hosts in 2012.

After living in London for the past few years, I have seen the steps the city is taking to update neighborhoods, increase open transportation, reduce pollution and generally spiff up the city. I know people have complained about the money, but the lasting effects should not be downplayed.

Chicago has already built Millennium Park and updated Grant Park, built additions on the blue line to include the pink line and have begun restructuring and rebuilding the Bronzveville neighborhood. Those are great things for Chicago.

But Chicago also had a big budget shortfall recently and had to sell our parking meters to a private company that messed everything up royally. It was a blemish for Mayor Daley, but nothing Chicagoans aren't used to. So if we are already in the negative and are selling things off to make ends meet, then would we want to take on the added gamble of the Olympics - which are touted to make millions of dollars, but have left most cities in debt - ? So can we take this risk? Every Chicagoan I have talked to says No. But PaddyPower and William Tell, betmakers in London are putting 16-to-1 odds on Chicago winning the bid.

There is also the issue of crime and bad neighborhoods and whether tourists would be able to get around. And be safe. This is where I think Chicago should host. We already pay the highest taxes on goods and services in the United States. Bring in a few million people and we will be rolling in dough. The city, according to the Chicago Tribune, has insurance totaling a billion dollars to cover any shortfall of money, and Obama has already given Chicago a ton of money for rebuilding and renovating the city. It can only be a good thing for the modernization of Chicago and putting us on the map for tourism. The last huge international event here was the World Fair in 1933!

I think that most people in Chicago do not realize what a huge, huge step this would be for us. It would bring us into the homes of millions of people around the world. We would be in people's minds for the next 7 years until we host. The athletes would be renting out rooms and houses from Chicagoans ----

Oh. The news just broke. Chicago was the first city to be eliminated. I guess this discussion has ended... lol :)

Tiananmen Square

I wish I was the Tank Man. I really, really want to know what happened to him.

Fiscal Manifestations

As I sit in Starbucks reading back issues of The Economist (from November 29th to December 5th 2008) I am surprised. As I read about the financial catastrophy from my seat, 9 months into the future, I am very surprised. In September of last year I traveled to Iceland on a whim, to soak in the soothing, ethereal waters of the Blue Lagoon and watch geysers explode. We did not know the Icelandic Krona was only weeks, even days away from complete collapse. In June, my sister planned a trip to London from the U.S. and I thought about moving back to the U.S. at the end of the year. In the passage of my daily life, there were hints that the world economy was unwell. The collapse of Northern Rock in the summer, the drop in retails sales...But I did not think this would have led to the catastrophic headlines of hundreds and hundreds of bankers losing their jobs, of New Labour slashing interest rates by 1.5%, of the bankruptcy of Iceland.

Apparently, other people did.

When Northern Rock was having so much trouble at the beginning of 2008, the British government subsidized them so they wouldn't go under, dragging other banks with them. I didn't understand this back when it happened. So one bank mismanaged their money - what does that have to do with other banks? Now I see. It was about confidence. People see a bank going under and they think their money is unsafe. But why didn't anyone take that as a red flag? Why didn't all these stimulus plans begin around that time, before the worth of the inflated pound plummeted and chaos descended on the world? It doesn't make sense that all this drama was foreshadowed so early last year, and no one did anything and I didn't see it.

If I would have waited a month, even a few weeks to go to Iceland I would have saved tons. If I had moved from the UK to the US 3 months earlier, my savings would be worth hundreds more. I did not have the insight to see the handwriting on the wall. Did anyone else?

If articles about the economic stimulus plans of the US, the UK, the EU, France and Germany are in The Economist as early as November, then someone must have had a heads-up before September. While it is my ego-centric nature to ask why no one warned me against my ill-fated decisions, a more important question I feel I need to ask is why didn't anyone do anything?? Northern Rock was taken over by the state in February of 2008, the economic collapse happened in September and it was SCARY. The headlines, for days, were like being hit in the stomach with a bag of bricks - bankers killing themselves, thousands losing their jobs, companies tanking. Was there enough advanced notice from the U.S. sub-prime mortgages to have saved the public from all the ulcers and headaches?

This brings up even more questions about big business execs and the government role in protecting them. The fiscal year ends in July, right? Is that when they hand themselves bonuses? A healthy three months later, they are all bankrupt. Am I missing something?

Michael Jackson, King of Pop has Passed (1958-2009)

Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, the most controversial megastar from the 80s, the international music icon, died on June 25th. It was a shocking and unexpected moment.

Michael was set to begin his absolute final tour in London on July 13th and many thought this was going to turn out to be just a stunt to postpone the tour. Perez Hilton posted a picture of MJ with the caption: "Heart Attack or Cold Feet?" But alas, it seems Michael has been taken to the rank of Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Elvis and so many other music stars who have passed from drug issues. MJ had a problem with prescription drugs, but no one expected him to die from it. It is particularly tragic because his father and all his older siblings outlived him.

And though it is, of course, heartbreaking for his immediate family and his die-hard fans, I think the news of his death had 2 even larger repercussions. First, it really demonstrated the globally instantaneous nature of information. Within minutes, MINUTES of his passing in LA, Twitter was shutting down with the number of people tweeting about it. Facebook was overloaded too. But before I even got to any of those sites (which is pretty quick because I am always on), I got a text message from a friend in London:

"They took my Michael away! My king! Michael Jackson has passed away"

It was as shocking to hear the sad news as it was to realize that someone in London ( a 6 hour time difference and thousands of miles away) heard the news before I did.

So I guess in the famous words, "It's a small world after all."

But to me, the biggest thing I noticed was the response from people. It is as though our whole generation has stepped up one rung on the ladder of time. We didn't know Elvis or Jimi Hendrix, we may have heard of Kurt Cobain but that was ages ago and had a small following, we hadn't really experienced the loss of someone we really really bonded with. Britney survived against all odds, JayZ, Diddy, Rihanna, Madonna, Backstreet, N'Sync, and even Paris and Lindsay (who we all assume abuse a substance or two) they are the pop stars of our generation, household names, and they are all going strong.

It is hard to accept, but I think we have all changed for this experience. We are more grounded now, yanked into reality by proof of our own mortality (during harsh economic times that rival with the Great Depression at that).

My nephew is 1 year old. He will not follow the dramatic tales of Michael Jackson, he will not live in an America that can be surprised by the election of a black president, he begins a new generation where pop icons are practically immortal and you still believe that talent should extend your lifespan. Where everybody is somebody and everyone remembers the Great Depression of 2009. He will not live in a world that struggled to remember not to write "199-" as a year, reminding ourselves that it is a new millennium.

These subtle changes switched almost instantaneously when we lost The King of Pop. Now we are more aware of our loss of innocence. It had been building in the backs of our minds, and now, with the digestion of one too many prescription pills and a doctor who failed to save a life, we have realized it. We are becoming the next older generation.

Power to the Tweeple!

" wipoolplayer RT @zaibatsu: This site is used to find protesters. Someone with ability please shut it down. #iranelection http://bit.ly/aareA PLZ rt less than 20 seconds ago "

It may look like jibberish to some, but this "tweet-speak" is an indicator of the power of virtual protesters around the world. They may not be marching in Tehran, but they are joining the efforts of pro-Mosavi protesters in ways that were impossible this time last year.

Is Torture Ever Ok?

Everyone has been talking about it. The Obama administration published the debated torture methods authorized during the Bush Administration. Waterboarding, Stress positions and Confinement are the main categories and were supposedly not designed to inflict severe bodily injury. If you look at the pictures and analyze the methods from a third-party point of view, then it would seem like these methods are pretty safe. I wonder if you were being put in these positions if you would feel the same. What if you have arthritis? What if you had sores and cuts? How do you decide which method to use on each prisoner - or do you use them all?

The Obama administration has stated that the U.S. does not torture. Period. But he has been rubbing conservative Christians in the U.S. the wrong way. They have vehemently protested his policies on abortion and stem cell research (which can only lead you to believe they preferred the Bush Administration which would in turn, lead many to question their credibility) and could it be that they are also finding fault in his torture policies because they simply are unhappy with his other policies? I would have thought that conservative Christians would believe in humane treatment for all of God's creations, and yet they are happy to have bodily pain inflicted on anyone who the government feels may have information - in an era when the government created new laws that take away civil liberties and allow anyone to be detained without cause.

CNN published a story about Ken Cordier, a devout Christian who was a Vietnam POW, tortured for 6 years. He believes that torture is wrong in all circumstances. I guess when you are on the outside, looking in, torture seems like a good idea to "protect" our country, but when you have lived it then your view might be slightly different. It is interesting, though, that Cordier did not consider the "enhanced interrogation" techniques introduced by the Bush Administration to be torture.

The story also mentions Rev. Ronald Kuykendall, an evangelical pastor in Gainesville, Florida. Kuykendall is all for torture, citing the New Testament (Romans 13:1-7) "everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." Oh. Well doesn't that apply to Muslim countries too then?

It is a complicated issue, but I know one thing for sure, we agreed to follow the Geneva Convention, which says no country can torture prisoners of war, whether that be physical or mental torture. We throw a fit when other countries don't follow the rules, but we seem to hold ourselves to a different standard.

South Africa Votes

This election will define the future of South Africa. The country has struggled to get out of the shadow of the apartheid for the past 14 years. But with the aging of the godfather of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, it seems like the country may be heading the way of most other African nations - corruption, political strong-handing, puppet democracy and eventual instability.

Thabo Mbeki was a respectable leader for South Africa who was elected by the people. While he was president (and leader of the ANC) Jacob Zuma was being tried for corruption. Somehow Zuma got the charges against him dropped. Then a young girl announced Zuma raped her. Many people began to question his morals and the rape trial made international headlines. Miraculously, Zuma managed to get those charges dropped too. The straw on the camel's back came when Thabo Mbeki brought new charges of corruption against Zuma.

In my opinion, Mbeki was doing South Africa a favor by trying to show that trials cannot be bought or influenced based on a person's status. I think he brought the charges to make an example of Zuma and restore faith in South Africa but it backfired on him. Zuma claimed Mbeki brought the charges for political reasons because Zuma was going to run against him for head of the ANC. And the day South Africans bought that line was the day that will foretell South Africa following Zimbabwe into political corruption.

Mbeki knew he had been elected fairly by the people and was not willing to soil his reputation and have people think he brought the charges in order to keep his position. So he stepped down. Without a fight, without a scene, he quickly resigned and walked away with dignity. He will be remembered as a great leader who really loved his country.

Zuma, on the other hand, is a crook. If his abilities to make cases against him "go away" is any indication of his presidency, South Africa is in for a downward spiral that they will not even see until it is way too late.

The elections are today and, while it seems unfathomable, the people are faced with having to leave behind Mandela's mangled party in order to preserve everything he fought for.

Murder via Craigslist

Craiglist was a relatively unfamiliar concept to many people until a few years ago. How can we tell that the phenomenon has been integrated into mainstream American society? It has been exploited for murder and robbery.

In June 2007 Christian Morton responded to an ad for a car in Dallas, TX. The "sellers" Kendrick Demus and George Carter had posted the ad and planned to rob responders to get the $2000 asking price. In Morton's case, after the thieves demanded money, he was shot and killed.

In a more publicized"craigslist" murder, Katherine Ann Olson replied to an ad for a babysitting job. Police later found her bound and shot to death in the trunk of a car a few blocks from the home of Michael John Anderson, who posted the ad.

So does this foretell the beginning of the end of what started out as a positive website with so much potential?

The sad part is craiglist has a European equivalent that is even more widespread - most popular in London - called Gumtree. Gumtree.com is exactly like Craigslist in that it has parallel sites for different cities, has posting areas for jobs, items for sale, personal ads, etc. But Gumtree, even though it used in London - one of the most diverse cities in the world, and a city with a high crime rate - was never exploited the way craiglist has been exploited by Americans.

Sadly, craiglist may never enjoy the success that gumtree has in Europe. The reason is simply that Americans cannot be trusted to not kill each other.

Sexting: A Teen Felony?

Sexting: Sending a text message that contains a naked picture of yourself.

Sooooo many questions! If you sext someone, can you still wear your chastity/purity ring? If you send it to someone besides your boyfriend is it cheating? What if he sends it to someone else - is that a threesome? I jest. But not really.

In fact, what has surfaced as the pertinent question in this situation is "Is it child pornography?"

According to Slate.com:

"Last month, three girls (ages 14 or 15) in Greensburg, Pa., were charged with disseminating child pornography for sexting their boyfriends. The boys who received the images were charged with possession. A teenager in Indiana faces felony obscenity charges for sending a picture of his genitals to female classmates. A 15-year-old girl in Ohio and a 14-year-old girl in Michigan were charged with felonies for sending along nude images of themselves to classmates. Some of these teens have pleaded guilty to lesser charges; others have not. If convicted, these young people may have to register as sex offenders, in some cases for a decade or two. Similar charges have been filed in cases in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin."

WOW.

So this is in no way considered an innocent mistake - these kids have literally turned their lives upside down and they will pay for the consequences of their teenage stupidity for years.

Now in a case where these images are abused (shown against the sender's consent; used for bullying, etc) then it is understandeable that the offending party should be have repercussions. But police officers are saying the kids who choose to send the pictures of themselves should be prosecuted to show them the severity of distributing what, to many, is considered distributing child pornography.

Some say this is a new trend in child pornography. Others see it as teen folly, to be cringed at one day in a retirement home cafeteria. But at the end of the day, who is hurt in all this? Who suffers? The kids. No one yet knows how difficult it will be for them to find a job while registered on the sex offender's list. They certainly can never work in a school or a daycare. And they will be charged with child porn felonies, so for the rest of their lives they will have to tick that box on job applications. In an effort to protect kids from predators, the law has somehow turned on them and caused severe repercussions to 14- and 15-year olds whose biggest concern in life is getting asked to prom.

The debate amounts to two questions: Can you be the child and the predator? And if you can, if you prosecute the predator, are you still protecting the child?

My question is since when did freedom of speech only apply when you turn 18? These children are American and allowed, by law, to express themselves. That alone should rule out their prosecution on felony charges. That said, there SHOULD be consequences. They should be put in counseling, suspended from school and have their phones confiscated and thier parents called to comply with this rule. They most likely did not know they were being child pornographers. EDUCATE THEM. The whole world is still dealing with massive changes in the way we live our lives with the introduction of popular new technology. These issues didn't exist when school policy was written - they didn't exist until camera phones were created about 4 years ago.

Anya Hindmarch for Target

I love Anya Hindmarch and have been searching for a bag from her for months. I almost bought a white hobo bag (reminiscent of the indescribably gorgeous Gucci Indy bag) and in my search for her Summer line, I came across "Anya Hindmarch for Target" What what??

It turns out she has designed a few handbags for giant (lower-end but lovable) US retail store, Target. After looking into it, I found out Target has a little-known "label" called GO International. Ladies who love designer names are probably familiar with the line. Every season they have a few pieces by high-end designers at Target prices. An AH bag usually costs about $395; at Target one of her bags is selling for $49.99. Fundamental difference: Anya Hindmarch bags have "Anya Hindmarch" stamped in the buckle or front design; on the Target bags, "AH for Target" or "Anya Hindmarch for Target" is stamped.

I was awestruck, but obviously skeptical. The bags follow Anya Hindmarch's design ideas, but use lower quality materials. I will go check them out in-store but am not getting my hopes up. After all, the best parts about designer bags are the thick, soft leather and the solid detailed trinkets.

BUT the deflated economy will probably see a lot of people joining me in the line at Target for lower-end high-end items. GO International, started in 2007, is probably just realizing the potential of their label.

Frost/Nixon - A Must-See for Every Journalist

Frost/Nixon is an excellent movie whose story is not lost on anyone who has ever done an interview for broadcast. It follows the dream of a journalist who was hungry for recognition and ratings, who put his career and personal prosperity in jeopardy to score an interview with Nixon after he resigned. And not just any interview, a no-holds-barred interview costing Frost $2m. The twist is that the $2m came out of his own pocket, not backed by any network and Frost was a British journalist with experience in Australia, nothing related to American politics. No one believed he would be able to get a decent soundbite from a political figure as versed in semantics and as slippery as Nixon.

Of course, if you know anything about history or journalism then you know how the story ends. It is an amazing triumph for a man who no one believed in, and to be fair, at one point I almost wasn't sure how the story would end :).

One thing to note is that the movie does dramatize the situation Frost was in by a lot. It portrayed him as a big-time talk show host with little-time experience, when, in fact, he had done numerous hard-hitting interviews. I have to wonder how Frost, who now has his own show on Al-Jazeera English: Frost Over the World, feels about it.

But as the movie is made, it is still inspiring to any journalist. It makes us proud to do the research, put in the time, study the techniques, and eventually emerge triumphant with the golden soundbite. The "I may have made mistakes" statements that mean so much. I recommend all my journalist friends go see it (among others) and I, myself, would like to see it again. But I don't want to give away too much here...

SUPERBOWL SPOILER ALERT: The Steelers won the Superbowl today!!!!!!!!!!! It was a nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat-then-crawling-toward-the-TV game that went down to the last 5 seconds. They won their 6th Lombardi trophy, and their coach is the youngest to ever make it to the Superbowl, let alone win it. It was such a great game and there were moments when I thought they were going to lose it. ALTHOUGH, part of me can't help but notice that President Obama predicted the Steelers would win...and he seems to have an eerily magical touch...

Blagojevich aka Nixon

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached and found guilty of trying to sell the senatorial seat vacated by Barack Obama. I'm sure you've heard about it - he made SURE of it. In fact, he skipped the first day of his trial to go on a media blitz in New York, starting with the ladies on The View!! *Best Moment*: when Joy asked him to do a Nixon impression and say "I am NOT A CROOK!" and he totally refused. Smart man! That sound bite would have been played over and over and over right now. The similarities between Nixon and Blago can't be denied. The speech in this clip could almost be used word-for-word by Blago...

He made a great effort to avoid the impeachment trial, raising hell over the fact that he was not given his 6th amendment rights and he couldn't bring witnesses to testify to his innocence and it was all a conspiracy because real corrupt politicians in Illinois didn't like all the "wonderful" work he was doing for the people. Right. BUT at the end of the day, if you read the 6th amendment, it says "In all criminal cases" which means NOT in impeachment trials. His was a case of the legislature deciding whether he was still the best person to take care of Illinois, not whether he was going to jail - so the 6th amendment doesn't apply here.

He was given an undetermined amount of time to defend himself and NOT ONCE did he deny the charges of corruption or deny that he was trying to gain financially from the available senate seat. He did not provide affidavits from the supposed witnesses he wanted to call. Instead he spent almost AN HOUR talking about his immigrant parents, his children thinking he was corrupt, the great work he has done, detailing EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE (aka his JOB). I wish I knew how to play the violin so I could play along to the tune...

He will go down in history and when corrupt politicians have no defense but insist on their innocence, it will forever be known as Pulling a Blagojevich. So now Illinois is Governor-less (to my knowledge) and if his eventual appointee, Roland Burris (who I met and questioned on his policies toward Arabs, and who I consequently dislike immensely) is not honored as senator, Illinois is also Senator-less (aside from Durbin). I can't wait to be back in Chicago next week!

Fab Five: Texas Cheerleading Scandal

The trademark phrase of American optimism is "Only in America!" Well this is well and truly an example of American elitism. 5 "Mean Girls"-type cheerleaders in Texas, near Dallas ran McKinney North High School. It helped that one of the girls was the principal's daughter. They told teachers to shut up, used offensive language and hand gestures, they skipped school and were subject only to their own rules while other students were forced to follow school policy.

Why? Because they were cheerleaders and because Linda Theret, the principal who was in charge of a whole school of kids could not even handle her own kid. They say everything is bigger in Texas - like egos and hypocrisy?

The girls went through 5 cheerleading coaches in 3 years. No one wanted to deal with their "Untouchable" personas and massive, unchecked egos. Then the girls took it one step too far with one of their new coaches, Michaela Ward. They ignored her attempts to teach them, they stole her phone and sent explicit messages to her husband and a fellow coach at the school. Mrs. Ward resigned then went straight to the media to inform the public about the school. An investigation was made into the principals conduct allowing the girls to run rampant in the school and giving them preferential treatment.

It was during the resulting school district investigation that pictures came out of the girls on MySpace, all minors, in a store holding explicitly shaped candles and one of them in a compromising position with the candle. There was also a photo of the girls drinking under age. All of them were given 15-day suspensions from school. Now here is where it is interesting.

Even though it was understood that the girls were bullies and were running the school, they were allowed to stay. Principal Theret was offered a deal to resign: $75,000 and a glowing recommendation. Now, really, does that seem fair? Would you want this woman in charge of your school? She can't control one 16-yr old girl, let alone a whole school. And how are those hiring at other schools supposed to know about her past failure when she has a letter saying she did a great job???? She should not be allowed to work in the school system and she should have DCFS monitoring her daughter and her other children. Way to go Texas...

Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire

I watched this movie today in theaters. At points it is sickening and it makes you want to turn your face away. The things people have to do for the "privilege" to live when so many of us take this as a given is shocking. It did portray India as a third-world country with intense human rights violations, like many Indian critics complained - although there was one scene that showed the development of the slum area the boys grew up in to be a newly built business center. Rife with corruption and a complete lack of value for human life, it will undoubtedly wedge a seed of mistrust in Americans regarding the region. Americans will think of the slums whenever they see or hear about India.

I have to say, it is a heart-warming story that makes you smile and really think for days afterward. I am glad I watched it in the theater in America because I knew just about everyone in there was on the same page. When the last question was revealed, the whole theater simultaneously gasped out loud! It was a great moment. But immediately after watching the movie, in the rush for the ladies room, I overheard numerous people say the movie put them off visiting the region. Where people once saw an area of meditation and calm spirituality, they now saw politics, corruption and injustice. It is not fair to say this was an inaccurate portrayal of India because it is not by any means a lie. But it did not delve into the business and commerce side of India. Since it is not a tourism ad, I don't see why it would.

It was shocking and disturbing to many Americans to see the movie and in the beginning a few people got up and left because it was very heavy. Americans do not like to see people struggling with basic life and the horrible, inhuman things these kids had to go through. It still makes my heart ache. And while we all like to think "I should do something about this, I would like to see this change" sadly I think the only change will be a drop in Indian tourism revenue.

But, on the bright side, the movie won 5 Critic's Choice Awards and 4 Golden Globes. Don't let it be said that America did nothing...