The Blog

Faith Salie: Why I'm A Little Sad About Having a Baby (Even Though I've Always Wanted To Be A Mom)

2012-06-01T21:40:54Z

First off, let me make this clear: at 41, I am profoundly grateful that I am about to become a first-time mother. At nine months pregnant, I love my son already. This kid has been prayed for and paid for. He was a surprise to us, conceived naturally a month before our wedding. The morning we flew to Rome to get married, my fertility doctor -- a superhero who had performed corrective surgery on my uterus, frozen my eggs, seen me through two miscarriages, a post-miscarriage D&C, and one round of IVF that had to be punted into an IUI -- told us compassionately that my pregnancy hormone levels were low, the fetus was abnormally small, and the chances of a miscarriage during the wedding weekend or honeymoon were about 80 percent. There were no tears, just grim expectations, and we flew off to celebrate our marriage with 75 of our closest friends and family.

We said prayers in every church we entered in Florence and Venice though. My new husband used his impressive Italian to schmooze us into Vespers, and when I was suddenly overcome with nausea and fatigue on a leisurely morning walk to see David at the Accademia, I became giddy with hope: I'm really pregnant.

When we got home to New York from Italy, my husband and I grasped hands in the doctor's office for a 7-week ultrasound. The baby's heartbeat was a tiny pulsing explosion on the screen; it made me beam and my husband cry. Afterwards, we walked to a café on Lexington Avenue and split a smoked salmon on pumpernickel, because I hadn't yet read any of the pregnancy books that told me not to eat smoked salmon. And, we couldn't stop smiling.

Our little guy is a champ who has hit all his marks in this high risk pregnancy. I've been to the hospital for tests many times a week for many months. I actually love lying on my left side on a hospital bed and marveling at the variability in his heart rate, as if he's some kind of physiological genius. I admire him already.

And yet, at 39 weeks, I'm downright blue. That putative nesting instinct never kicked in -- I didn't want to deal with creating "the baby's room" (though this might have something to do with giving up space in a two-bedroom Manhattan apartment). It was my husband who had to open all the baby shower gifts which were haunting me in their candy-colored gift wrap -- thank you notes demanding to be written.

I have no problem being full-term pregnant and do not understand women who say, "I can't wait to get this baby out of me!" I'd be happy to keep the kid inside for at least a few more months. He is currently quite manageable. I don't have to change diapers, he drinks his own pee, and I cherish the intimacy of feeling my little buddy move around all day long. He delights me when he gets hiccups.

I'm blue because I'm scared about how utterly my life will change, and I'm sad about saying goodbye to my soon-to-be old life. Not in the cynical way that smug parents warn, "Say goodbye to your life!" as in say sayonara to sleep and spontaneity and romance and a perky rack.

No, I mean that I really love my life just the way it is. This life, in my 40s, is a life I've forged and prayed for and fought for and created and adjusted. I've lost a mother and a marriage. I've changed my career and settled, alone, in the greatest city in the world. I've met the love of my life and am acutely grateful for him every day. I know how much sleep I need, how much time on the elliptical I need and how much chocolate that buys me. I also know how little I need to make me happy, ironically blessed as I am to be surrounded with just about everything I've ever wanted. Paradoxically, falling in love with my husband made me think, for the first time, that I'd be okay if I never had a baby at all. Without children, he and I could make up for spending the first four decades of our lives apart.

And now there's this kid coming in to shake things up.

I've always wanted, notionally, to be a mother. And I was certain I would be, because everyone I know, gay or straight, married or single, rich or not so much, who truly wants to have a child figures out a way, some way, to have one -- whether through adoption, fostering, surrogacy, fertility, accident, or persistence. But I never held a friend's baby and felt a visceral yearning that I need one of these to make my life complete.

I froze my eggs as a practical move. I told my husband in our wedding vows, "I knew you were The One when you let me put my syringe in your refrigerator."

The life experience of being a mother has always been appealing, but now I'm up against the reality of having a kid. The former sounds like giggles and smells like a newborn's head; the latter is redolent of tantrums and poop.

My wisest friend pointed out that, for many of us, our late 20s and our 30s are about scrambling to assemble a life we think will make us happy. We feel an urgency to get married and have kids while we grow our careers -- and we imagine the aggregate will be fulfilling. That equation didn't work out for me. When I was married the first time, my now ex-mother-in-law proposed that having a baby might bring something positive into our unhappy marriage. I told her that I'd like to get pregnant ... if only her son wanted to have sex with me.

I wouldn't take back any of the nadirs of the past two decades -- the years I surrendered to unyieldingly sunny Los Angeles, hearing things like this from an acting coach: "Why aren't you as pretty as I want you to be?" or when my former husband asked me, seriously, if I'd consider having an exorcism. All of those disappointments and challenges ended up being clarifying, like microdermabrasion for the soul. They led me to this miraculous life now. The one I'm sad to leave behind.

Since it's become a national pastime to assign bad mother status, I, of course, wonder whether I already am one. But there is a part of me that hopes just maybe these pre-partum blues might make me a better, more honest mother. Not the woman who will replace her Facebook photo with a picture of her child. Not the mom who will say "We have a soccer game" when her kid is the one playing. I won't wear my child's initial on a necklace like a maternal dog tag, suggesting that he is my identity or accessory. Because I am not having this baby to complete my life. It's not his burden to make me happy; it's my honor to help him be happy. He's not our answer; he's a lifetime of questions we will help him solve. This little soul, who achieved existence with the odds against him, chose us to be his parents. I have faith that any day now, the blues in my life will be my boy's eyes.

Alec Baldwin: Why Bloomberg Is Right

2012-06-01T17:30:54Z

I think Mayor Michael Bloomberg is right. At least in spirit. The need to understand and then decisively act upon the latest findings regarding sugar consumption, diabetes, overall nutritional guidelines and policies, and the public health crisis created by the U.S. obesity epidemic is urgent. This is true for both children and adults.

At first, my response to Bloomberg's critics was more visceral. Some libertarian types don't mind government intervention in the matrimonial decisions of gay men and women. They look the other way at wars fought in our name in places they can't find on a map. They want courts to get involved when they want to tear down the wall between Church and State.

However, the public outcry over previous attempts to stop food stamp recipients from using their benefits to purchase soda and "sports drinks" and Bloomberg's current proposal is indicative of how deep the problem runs in America.

Food is a drug. At least in the way it is marketed today, which is significantly different from when I grew up. As a child, sweets were referred to as "treats," and were dispensed far more judiciously than they are today. The proliferation of fast food restaurants that serve high fat, high sugar meals, as well as places like Dunkin Donuts, which are simply sugar dispensaries, has evolved as well.

A quarter-pound hamburger with cheese, fries and a Coke was what you had after playing in a football game. And typically once a week. Gatorade, the granddaddy of sports drinks, was gulped on the gridiron or diamond or basketball court during a game. You didn't eat those meals or drink those beverages everyday.

I recently lost over 30 pounds by giving up the lion's share of refined sugar in my diet and reducing my intake of pasta, rice and bread. I switched to almond milk and have reduced my dairy consumption significantly.

I watched the HBO documentary The Weight of a Nation and many of the overweight people interviewed there spoke of being not only demoralized, but confused by a chronic weight gain that they struggled with and were ultimately powerless to overcome. I can relate.

I exercised constantly yet watched my weight climb until I was certain something was wrong with me. In May of 2011, that fear was confirmed. I was told I was pre-diabetic and needed to aggressively rethink and regulate my diet. Gone were the days when I could eat a peanut butter cookie the size of a hubcap with my 5pm coffee as a "snack." With age, my body had changed. My health had changed. My ability to process significant amounts of sugar was gone. I was sick. And I wanted to get well.

Many of those who cry loudest about measures like the one Bloomberg has proposed are probably sick, too: hooked on high fat, high sodium and high sugar diets who don't want their "drug" taken away. Are there people who consume these products responsibly? Of course. But that isn't the point. At least not anymore. Americans are obese, and in some areas of high concentration, morbidly obese, in numbers that are sapping the treasuries of the fifty states, undercutting U.S. competitiveness, and leaving this country vulnerable to a set of long-term health crises that we will struggle to overcome, if ever. All the while, millions will die, unnecessarily, simply because they fell victim to the marketing of unhealthy dietary choices.

Whether you think an elitist, billionaire New Yorker has any business blocking your path to the soda fountain is one issue. His motives, however, are unquestionable.

Watch The Weight of a Nation on HBO to learn just how on target Bloomberg is.

Victor Stenger: Is Free Will An Illusion?

2012-06-01T16:50:28Z

Research in neuroscience has revealed a startling fact that revolutionizes much of what we humans have previously taken for granted about our interactions with the world outside our heads: Our consciousness is really not in charge of our behavior.

Laboratory experiments show that before we become aware of making a decision, our brains have already laid the groundwork for it. In a recent book, Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior, physicist Leonard Mlodinow reviews a wide range of psychological experiments that demonstrate the dominant role the unconscious plays in our behavior. This recognition challenges fundamental assumptions about free will and the associated religious teachings about sin and redemption, as well as our judicial concepts of responsibility and punishment. If our brains are making our decisions for us subconsciously, how can we be responsible for our actions? How can our legal system punish criminals or God punish sinners who aren't in full control of their decision-making processes?

Is free will an illusion? In his recent book titled Free Will, neuroscientist Sam Harris pulls no punches. He tells us in no uncertain terms: "Free will is an illusion." We don't exist as immaterial conscious controllers, but are instead entirely physical beings whose decisions and behaviors are the fully caused products of the brain and body.

Philosophers identify several different positions on the question of free will. Incompatibilists hold that free will is incompatible with determinism, the idea that our behavior is fully determined by antecedent causes such as fate, acts of God, or laws of nature. These split into two camps. Libertarians hold that we have free will since humans transcend cause and effect in ways that make us ultimately responsible. Determinists hold that we don't have free will because either determinism is true or indeterminism (randomness) doesn't give us control or responsibility. Both these groups are opposed by compatibilists, who argue that free will is compatible with determinism, or indeterminism for that matter.

What exactly is determinism? Two centuries ago, French physicist Pierre Laplace pointed out that, according to Newtonian mechanics, the motion of every particle in the universe can in principle be predicted from the knowledge of its position, momentum, and the forces acting on it. This is the Newtonian world machine. Since, as far as physics is concerned, we are all just particles, then this would seem to make free will an illusion indeed.

However, we now can say with considerable confidence that the universe is not a Newtonian world machine. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics showed that, deep down, nature is fundamentally indeterministic. But does quantum indeterminacy play an important role in the brain, and thus open a way for free will? Probably not, and here's why.

The moving parts of the brain are heavy by microscopic standards and move around at relatively high speeds because the brain is hot. Furthermore, the distances involved are large by these same microscopic standards. It is easy to demonstrate quantitatively that quantum effects in the brain are not significant. So, even though libertarians are correct that determinism is false at the microphysical, quantum level, the brain is for all practical purposes a deterministic Newtonian machine, so we don't have free will as they define it.

Although the brain is likely deterministic when it comes to the control of behavior, there's plenty of "pseudo-randomness" (as opposed to "pure" quantum randomness) in the thermal motions of our brains and in the environment that feeds us data. It's possible that this can provide sufficient uncertainty to give us the "feeling" of free will. Or, perhaps uncertainty plays no direct role and it is simply our lack of awareness about what causes our decisions that we interpret as being exempt from the causal laws of nature. Either way, this means that ultimately we do not have libertarian free will, even though we might be under the impression we do.

But here's some consolation. Even though at the quantum level there is no rigid determinism, the compatibilists are correct in viewing the operations of the brain as causal processes. They also make another good point when they argue that even if our thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious processes, they are still our thoughts and actions. In other words, "we" are not just our conscious minds, but rather the sum of both conscious and unconscious processes. While others can influence us, no one has access to all the data that went into the calculation except our unique selves. Another brain operating according to the same decision algorithms as ours would not necessarily come up with the same final decision since the lifetime experiences leading up to that point would be different.

So, although we don't have libertarian free will, if a decision is not controlled by forces outside ourselves, natural or supernatural, but by forces internal to our bodies, then that decision is ours. If you and I are not just some immaterial consciousness (or soul) but rather our physical brains and bodies, then it is still "we" who make our decisions. And after all, that's what the brain evolved to do, whatever role consciousness might play. And, therefore, it is "we" who are responsible for those decisions.

And that's what it all boils down to. Who cares whether we call an action "free will" or not? Calling it "free will" (as compatibilists do) is too confusing, since it suggests some form of dualism, supernatural or not; so let's call it "autonomy." The issue is: what is the moral and legal responsibility of an autonomous person, and how should society deal with wrongdoing?

Obviously, we cannot have a functioning society if we do not protect ourselves from people who are dangerous to others because of whatever it is inside their brains and nervous systems that makes them dangerous. Still, given that we don't have libertarian free will that sets us above causal laws, it would seem that our largely retributive moral and justice systems need to be re-evaluated, and maybe even drastically revamped.

Bill Moyers: Pity the Poor Billionaires

2012-06-01T16:24:12Z

We had the perfect headline all picked out for this piece but our colleague Paul Waldman at The American Prospect magazine beat us to the punch:

"It's Hard Out There for a Billionaire."

You see, according to Politico.com, the so-called "mega-donors," unleashed by Citizens United and pouring boundless big bucks into this year's political campaigns, are upset that their massive contributions are being exposed to public view, ignoring the right of every one of us to know who is giving money to candidates -- and the opportunity to try to figure out why.

"Quit picking on us" is part of Politico's headline. Their article says that the mega-donors' "six- and seven-figure contributions have... bought them nothing but grief."

This is definitely not what they had in mind. In their view, cutting a million-dollar check to try to sway the presidential race should be just another way to do their part for democracy, not a fast-track to the front page.

Uh-huh. The sound you hear is the world's smallest violin, say, a teeny-tiny Stradivarius insured for millions. "Is there a group of people you can think of who have thinner skin than America's multimillionaires and billionaires?' Paul Waldman asks.

Wall Street titans have been whining for a couple of years now about the horror of people in politics criticizing ineffective banking regulations and the favorable tax treatment so many wealthy people receive... America's barons feel assaulted, victimized, wounded in ways that not even a bracing ride to your Hamptons estate in your new Porsche 911 can salve. And now that the presidential campaign is in full swing, their tender feelings are being hurt left and right.

Last month, an Obama website cited eight mega-donors to Mitt Romney's campaign as possessing "less-than-reputable records." Among them was Frank VanderSloot, a Romney national finance co-chairman who has raised millions for the campaign. He's a rancher -- with 110,448 acres, on which he no doubt roams playing "This Land is Your Land" on his little Stradivarius -- and CEO of the billion-dollar company Melaleuca, which Rolling Stone describes as "a 'multilevel marketing' firm based in Idaho that sells off-brand cleaning products and nutritional supplements."

VanderSloot and his wealthy pals went ballistic and cried intimidation. "You go back to the Dark Ages," VanderSloot said, "when they put these people in the stocks or whatever they did, or publicly humiliated them as a deterrent to everybody else -- watch this -- watch what we do to the guy who did this."

Conservatives described the Obama ranking of Romney contributors as an "enemies list," conjuring images of Nixonian wiretaps and punitive tax audits. But despite protestations to the contrary, these deep-pocketed plutocrats aren't shelling out the shekels for the love of flag, Mom and apple pie (or tarte tatin, as they call it in the swanky joints).

"Most of the megadonors backing [Romney's] candidacy are elderly billionaires," Tim Dickinson writes in Rolling Stone. "Their median age is 66, and their median wealth is $1 billion. Each is looking for a payoff that will benefit his business interests, and they will all profit from Romney's pledge to eliminate inheritance taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts for the superwealthy -- and then slash the top tax rate by another 20 percent." As at least one of them has said, they view these cash infusions as an "investment," plain and simple.

Dickinson claims that what VanderSloot specifically seeks are, "Fewer consumer protections. The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making 'false and misleading' claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to 'not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.' VanderSloot is also an anti-gay crusader: He tried to kill a PBS program for promoting 'the homosexual lifestyle,' and gave big bucks to pass California's ban on same-sex marriage." (Maybe that's why Mitt has called for privatizing PBS, admitting he's eager to see commercials on Sesame Street!)

Not that Democrats are pure of heart and innocent of venal self-interest -- many of them are all too ready to leap to the music of the ATM, too. In fact, Adam Bonica, an associate political science professor at Stanford has put together a database indicating that since 1979, 377 members of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans have given almost half a billion dollars to candidates of both parties, most of it in the last decade. The median contribution was $355,100 each.

For evidence of the bipartisan nature of avarice, all you need to do is leap into your Wayback Machine and dial back less than twelve hours before Politico's story of angst among the generous upper classes. This time, the headline reads, "Bill would give bank a $300M benefit."

Seems the Emigrant Bank, based here in New York City, needs a loophole. "At issue is an arcane provision in the Dodd-Frank law setting out how much capital banks are required to have and in what form," Politico reported. "Emigrant, the nation's largest privately owned bank, currently has $10.5 billion in assets, according to its chief regulatory officer, Richard Wald."

At one point during the financial meltdown, Emigrant borrowed money that by the end of 2009 raised its worth beyond $15 billion. This triggered a Dodd-Frank provision requiring the bank to liquidate some of its assets.

Enter New York Republican Congressman Michael Grimm who, with the bipartisan backing of members of the House Financial Services Committee, including Democratic ranking member Barney Frank (as in Dodd-Frank), introduced a one-sentence bill -- that's right, one sentence -- moving the cut off date to March 31, 2010, when the banks assets had slipped back under $15 million. This will create a savings for Emigrant of $300 million in capital.

Emigrant has come a long way since it was founded in 1850 as a savings bank for newly arrived Irish émigrés. Now Howard Milstein, whose family is worth an estimated $3.8 billion, owns it. He was a bundler for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and a major contributor to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Politico's John Bresnahan writes,

The Milsteins, along with business associates and other family members, have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to both GOP and Democratic lawmakers over the past decade. Along with Grimm, New York Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Carolyn McCarthy and Gregory Meeks -- all co-sponsors of the bill -- have received $11,500 in donations from the Milsteins this cycle.

What's more, over the last two years, "The Milsteins have retained high-powered lobbying help to bolster their push for congressional action, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars," including a firm which counts among its partners former New York Republican Senator Al D'Amato, whose career in Congress was but prelude to his lucrative retirement as a hustler for the mighty.

All of which leads to one last headline, via the Reuters news service on Thursday: "House panel votes to give New York bank a break." The tally was 35-15.

And the plutocrats cried all the way to the bank.

Watch Moyers & Company weekly on public television (check your local listings), and catch even more Moyers Moments at BillMoyers.com

Matthew Dowd: Is Dismal Jobs Report the Signal Independents Are Seeking?

2012-06-01T15:59:41Z

In life, when things seem like a close call in debating whether to take a job or move somewhere or dive deeper into a relationship, we look for a signal of which way to go. In facing really difficult choices, we are open to all kinds of signals. They could come from a movie that pops up on television, something someone says at the store, or a sudden tragedy that reminds us how precious life is. We search for those signals at key moments.

The same is true for independent voters in this very, very close presidential election. If one looks at the polls, this election seems to hover at 47/47 in a divided country, with the 5 or 6 percent of truly independent voters ultimately determining who will be elected. Will they stay with President Obama? Will they go for Mitt Romney? Or will they split and force us to be up all night on Election Day?

These voters are -- as we all sometimes are in our personal lives -- very confused and split. They like Obama and have great respect for him and his family, and think he has done some good things during bad times, but wonder if he has the leadership to get us to where the country needs to go. They would like to rehire him for another term, but believe the country is on the wrong track and have questions about his leadership especially on the economy. They aren't at all satisfied with where the country is at today.

As for Romney, those voters think he has a great family and they have respect for many moments in his career. They like some of his ideas, but wonder if a wealthy corporate businessman will understand their lives. They are looking for someone new, but worry that the Republican Party might be too far to the right at this time. They're giving him a serious look, but he hasn't closed the deal and voters have lingering concerns.

So in this extremely tight election environment, with each partisan side lined up solidly behind their candidate and independent voters liking and disliking elements of both candidates, those voters are looking for those signals. They're looking for moments that give them an indication of what the right choice is.

Friday's poor jobs report may be one of those signals. In the last two months, fewer than 150,000 total jobs have been added. Not only is this not enough to keep pace with population growth; it's also way below even the most conservative estimates. For the Obama campaign, the May jobs number of 69,000 being created is extremely bad news at an extremely bad time. This moment is one of those signals that could begin to push swing voters over to Romney. Independents may begin saying, "I really like President Obama, but maybe we should give Romney a shot for four years."

There's still a long time until Election Day, and there will be a few more moments to give voters an indication of where they should head. These could include more dramatic economic news; a global event, a candidate misstep, Romney's vice-presidential pick or the debates. Each of these could cause a swing in this election.

These "signal" moments for independent voters will matter more than television ads or super PAC spending or candidate appearances. And it is those moments that we should watch for over the next five months. They'll be the things that tip the scales.

Cross-posted from ABC News.

Steve Clemons: What Happens When They Get Drones?

2012-06-01T14:57:14Z

David Ignatius' gripping novels are quickly emerging as the spy industry's top smart, complex intelligence yarns to read on long flights. His made-for-movies stories seem to be a hybridization of LeCarre's with a twist of Michael Crichton as they reveal tectonic fault lines between an overly self-confident, reckless America and a fragmented, in spots radicalized, almost always misunderstood Islamic world.

His latest novel, Bloodmoney: A Novel of Espionage, has recently appeared in paperback and should be required reading for wannabe strategists who want a glimpse of how messy and convulsive the future is probably going to be. America will remain a big, important power in the foreseeable future, but a myriad of new players pushing back on U.S. institutions and interests heighten the danger for a declining superpower holding tightly to anachronistic global arrangements.

Ignatius, a long-time national security columnist for the Washington Post and author of the novel-turned-movie Body of Lies, makes an important policy point via his fiction that 'the other guys' -- in this case, vengeance-driven Pakistanis who have legitimate grievances against a drone-lobbing America -- will one day have the technology and systems sophistication to to turn the West's military and economic assets against it.

Bloodmoney probably should have been called Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, but that title was already taken by the late Chalmers Johnson, who wrote a pre-9/11 treatise arguing that American hubris, the global sprawl of U.S. military bases, and influence-machinery around the world were going to trigger push-back, or blowback as it were, from states no longer wanting to play by U.S. rules in a post-Cold War World -- eventually leading to a cataclysmic event.

One of the cases Johnson starts with in the book was the 1993 murder of CIA employees at a stoplight near the entrance to the Central Intelligence Agency by an aggrieved Pakistani man, Aimal Qazi, who was upset about American policy towards Palestinians.

When the terror strikes by al Qaeda hit Washington, New York, and rural Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, Johnson's Blowback became the most difficult in-print but out of stock book to get. The publisher could not keep the fast-selling, prescient books on the shelves.

Ignatius' novel starts out with a scene similar to this real world event, in which a U.S. clandestine drone wiping out an innocent family -- mother and father, siblings, nieces and nephews -- of an unusually smart tribal youth from South Waziristan, Pakistan. The youth, Omar, was the West's dream kid -- moving via educational opportunity from the backward, tribal pool of an ignorant, terrorist-generating culture to
modernity -- becoming a globally-aware, traveled and, in the Western sense, rational person. (drone photo credit: Reuters)

Ignatius' Omar is a mathematical wunderkind who not only escaped the geographic gravitational forces of his Pashtun tribe but became an academic consultant to the world's spy agencies who wanted to know more about the world he came from. This fictional fabrication again aligns closely with real life.

Like some others from Pakistan and Afghanistan who have quietly and deeply buried their grievances with the West -- perhaps because of religion, or the loss of loved ones due to the military operations of the U.S. and its allies -- and bided their time until they were in important military and intelligence operations that will eventually lead to the killing their duped allies, Omar is committed to achieving a 'calibrated revenge' against those who killed his family.

I won't reveal more of the plot, but I want to raise a few of the themes and nods that Ignatius weaves into this smart page-turner.

First of all, the West may be deceiving itself that education and roads, modernity writ large, will be a quick fix, correcting ancient behavioral norms and codes written deeply into the DNA of tribal groups -- in this case, Pashtun tribes but certainly not limited to them.

Ignatius' protagonist killer in the book is a professor possessed by deep impulses to avenge his family's murder.

Ignatius' portrait of Omar defies easy typecasting as he sits between primitive and turbo-charged modern worlds; interestingly, Ignatius positions him at the end of the novel to be the one most ready to see a way back to 'balance,' or a deal that would end the killing and restore calm.

None of the other personalities in the book -- not the head of Pakistan's ISI, or the operatives of an off-the-books intelligence operation, or the spymasters running the CIA -- could understand that Omar could choose to stop his successful campaign and might strike an arrangement. Ignatius is telling us that American policymakers still don't understand what could be achieved with the Taliban -- that it's not just a tug of war between a Pashtun uber alles formula or obliterating them.

Secondly, Ignatius has subtly taken sides in the novel, and surprisingly it's with the victimized Pakistani. Omar, driven by understandable outrage, hit above his weight and achieved an intellectual and technical sophistication besting his adversaries. The Americans in the novel arrogantly thought it would be impossible for anyone from relatively primitive circumstances in tribal zones in Pakistan to develop the capacity to challenge the U.S. and Western allies in the way Omar did. Ignatius reminds the reader that technology and innovation are globally accessible today and that neither the U.S. nor any other power have a monopoly on technological or economic innovation.

In other words, Ignatius warns that weapons technology -- and complex financial instruments and structures -- will not remain the sole preserve of the U.S. and its allies. What we throw at them may come back and be deployed against us.

The pattern and link analysis that the Department of Treasury, National Security Agency, CIA, FBI, and other parts of the intelligence industrial complex have used with great effect to target terrorists and influence the behavior of thuggish officials in problematic nations, like Iran, North Korea and Syria, could conceivably be acquired by our rivals.

While the U.S. is today preparing to further expand its drone force and, as of late arm Italian drones, Iran is trying to develop its own drones. As are, it seems China and Russia.

The question that President Obama, who has admitted direct, routinized involvement in creating the drone 'kill list', should ponder is what will happen as the barriers to entry on drone technology fall enough so that an adversary's drones can be deployed against the U.S. and its allied forces and interests.

The key message behind David Ignatius' interesting book is that that day is probably coming sooner than most think.

Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons.

David Gratzer: A Supersized Dud

2012-06-01T14:38:39Z

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made big news on Wednesday with his proposed ban on large serving sweetened drinks. The New York Daily News labels the mayor "a big soda scrooge" while the New York Post sees a future with "no more supersized Cokes."

But will the proposal achieve anything more than big buzz? As with other such efforts from the mayor's office, it has so many loopholes that the answer is likely no.

Yes, big servings of Coke will be on the endangered list -- unless, of course, you go to a fast food joint, and order a fountain drink where you will still be able to get free refills. Big soda scrooge? Clever one-liner, but he can't be accused of being a big milkshake scrooge -- since you'll be able to chocolate up under the proposal. The mayor is tough on soda, but sweetened fruit juices or alcoholic beverages? Not so much. They too would be exempt.

Welcome to the latest campaign in Mayor Bloomberg's war on fat -- and his latest misstep in an effort to regulate America to a healthier diet.

Consider earlier, similarly splashy initiatives. Remember the regulation requiring calorie counts on restaurant menus? Here, too, the war on fat proves selective. Walk into the McDonald's at Times Square, and you can get a full calorie count on a quarter pounder. What about the delis in the area that serve up a pound of corned beef, lightly decorated with bread? No, since the regulation applies only to chain restaurants. The problem, though, isn't just the implementation -- it's the basic concept. Most major studies of the new menus find them to be ineffective at reducing overconsumption. A recent Columbia University study suggests many aren't even able to read the menus properly.

It's a persistent theme through the multi-year war on fat -- good on PR, bad on policy. When public health managers complained about low fruit and vegetable consumption, City Hall created a new bureaucracy to operate produce carts. An analysis of the city's own data shows the program has had no significant impact on civic dietary habits, except among residents who are already in the habit of eating fresh produce. Other proposals -- like regulating food stamps and tax on soda -- never saw the light of day, failing to win the needed support in Albany and Washington.

In New York's war on fat, what matters is the perception of action. Tangible results? Not so much.

In the United States, health costs are spiraling up as a result of the obesity epidemic. But that fact alone is not enough to justify any regulation or effort, especially when it comes to food -- backlash can destroy progress just as surely as indifference.

The real problem with obesity remains one of motivation, not law. This isn't like smoking, where every puff you inhale is poison, in any quantity. When it comes to obesity, many people simply don't see their daily dietary choices as important health decisions.

In 2005, New York's then-Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene said that only 39 percent of obese New York adults surveyed correctly described themselves as "very overweight." After years of alarming headlines and ad campaigns on the obesity issue, similar polls have shown limited change.

Bloomberg's buffet of hit-and-miss laws will do nothing to change this. To give a sense of how hard it would be to change behavior through legal penalties, a recent British study found that so-called fat taxes would have to be as high as 20 percent before they change behavior.

How to deal with the obesity problem? Certainly, government policy could be smarter. We need to emphasize physical education in our schools; children are spending too much time playing sports on their PS3s, and not enough time playing sports in the real world. Agricultural subsidies and regulations give an unfair market advantage to unhealthy foods. Health insurance policies should emphasize wellness, and not just sick care; yet Washington regulations (even after ObamaCare) make it difficult.

But, ultimately, Americans need to go back to the basics: families must eat out less, and eat together more. Government policies can't achieve this, just a return to common sense.

And that's the reason that Bloomberg's war on fat has been a failure. Sure, it will keep a third-term mayor in the news. But better health outcomes for New Yorkers? Not so much. It's time for a change in strategy, Mr. Mayor.

Soraya Chemaly: 160 Million Missing Females: PRENDA and Misogyny

2012-06-01T14:33:30Z

Because of gender bias and sex discrimination, there are an estimated 160,000,000 girls and women missing from the planet today. This isn't man-bashing or "victim feminism," by the way. It's just a documented statement of fact. By virtually any measure, this is dystopian.

One hundred and sixty million is staggering number to absorb. It is roughly all the women in the United States... missing.

The result of this loss is a dangerously skewed sex ratio. This imbalance has global consequences that no country can avoid with a dismissive "not our problem, it doesn't happen here." The global problem with the gender imbalance that we now face is not technology, like ultrasounds or abortion. Nor is it, as social conservatives would have it, women making "immoral choices" about how to use it. It is deeply entrenched sexism.

The immorality in question isn't in the use of tools to select babies, it is in the use of misogyny to inform culture and mandate the elimination of girls in preferences for boys.

In order to address the sex ratio imbalance we have to acknowledge and challenge the root causes, namely dehumanization and elimination of female humans. Yesterday it was drowning newborn girls, today it is spinning them out of potential birth, tomorrow it will be something new. Abortion, nuanced as it is, is just a stop on the way. Anything short of addressing girls' and women's inequality as humans is an ineffectual and more often than not, patriarchal Band-Aid and will do nothing. It's the proverbial rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. That is why this morning's cynical Republican indignation over the US House of Representatives's rejection of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act is self-serving and disingenuous. Girls and women wouldn't need so much sanctimonious and hypocritical "protecting" if they had cultural equality and human dignity.

In the United States, Gallup has conducted a poll every year since 1941 that reveals a persistent preference here for boy babies -- particularly among men. Other sources, regarding adoption and abortion studies, seem to refute these findings. Take that preference, rooted in devaluating the female half of humanity, and add to it overwhelming social and economic reasons to prefer boys, particularly widespread in Asia, and you end up with these facts:

The unmodified biological sex ratio worldwide is 102-106 males to every 100 females born.

In India, ratios vary, but in the northern part of the country the ratio as high as 132 boys to 100 girls in some places. In a pattern distinctly different from China's the ratios in India are more imbalanced among well-educated, more affluent urban dwellers.

In China the ratios vary, higher in rural areas than urban, but in Beijing the ratio is 118 boys to 100 girls, in Shanghai 120 boys to 100 girls.

In former Soviet Bloc countries like Azerbaijan (115 to 100), Georgia (118 to 100), the numbers are equally grave.

160,000,000 missing females on a radically masculinized planet.

And, yes, men and women are making the choice to sex select for males. I use that word provisionally -- it's impossible to freely and autonomously "choose" when your existence is filtered from birth through patriarchal cultural norms that mean you experience your gender as a form a trauma. When your very nature is considered defective it skews your perspective.

Why Has It Happened?

The quickest answer is that cultures worldwide value males, societally and economically, more than females. Male offspring are more valuable and sex selection is the earliest manifestation of this bias. What begins as a way of controlling the gender of a baby ends up being the way you assign or deprive a lifetime of women's rights in a society. The more complicated answer involves scaffolds of legal, economics, religious and societal structures -- often property-related -- that make having girls undesirable and sanction their disappearance. The reasons why some cultures aggressively eliminate females and others, equally patriarchal, don't are elusive and complicated.

The Problems We Face

There are lots of things to worry about in regards to a male dominated dystopia. I have more than a niggling belief that in a world where violence is pervasive and girls are married without consent, tattooed with bar codes and sold being a rare commodity in an increasingly violent world will not result in a beneficial, radical new world order.

In immediate terms, bearing sons is a matter of practical daily survival for millions of women already. Even if she is not killed for giving birth to a girl, for a woman living in a society where bearing a boy is more important than she is the pressure to have a boy yields a terrible burden on her life, her body, her health and her other children. She is physically abused and risks far too many pregnancies in her attempts to meet her boy quota.

For her existing, unwanted girl children, the situation is dire, both before and after the birth of a brother. Cultures that have no ethical or moral problems with the wholesale elimination of females, where girls and women are not a valued, make little investment in their well-being. Girls are chronically under-cared for medically, under nourished, underclothed and undereducated. Violence against girls and women, already pandemic, will escalate. Trafficking, forcible marriage, importation of women (willing or unwilling) bride sharing, pressure on younger and younger girls to marry and marry more than one man will all continue to increase.

For boys and men the ramifications are clear. Just to begin -- not enough women and increased violence. China and India have at least 60 million more young men (called "bare branches" in China) than available women to marry. That's the equivalent of Japan or Mexico having no girls and women AT ALL and needing to find some.

Given the fact that sex ratios and global security are inextricably linked, this imbalance creates the ideal circumstances for increased violence and aggression, risk-taking, political instability and militarism during the next 50 years.

Solutions?

Fighting entrenched discriminatory practices is hard, but not impossible. Pockets of intense governmental intervention have yielded a return to biological sex ratio norms. But local efforts will not successfully challenge pervasive, millennia-old habits. Multi-pronged approaches, including changing laws, proving the value of daughters, improving education, creating incentives -- like pension plans for families with daughters -- need to be undertaken systematically and with cohesion. Five UN agencies have worked together to produce an interagency statement and guidelines for globally addressing the problem.

In the US, the sex selection and abortion debate is predictably complex and polarizing. The anti-abortion movement, seizing on a chivalric and politically useful "we'll save the girls" refrain, is cynically using the global "baby girls under siege" issue as part of a concerted incremental chipping away of abortion rights and women's reproductive freedom. Employing sex selective abortions as a political chess piece was deliberately outlined by the movement as early as 1994. As I typed this, the House of Representatives voted to reject the perversely named Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimation Act (PRENDA), which sought to ban sex-selection abortions. Authored largely by a man with an obsessive nostalgia for pre-industrial white male supremacy, this bill was roundly condemned by a broad coalition of civil rights, reproductive rights and justice, Asian American community leaders. This legislation would have impacted very few abortions and would do nothing to help girls and women on the planet.

This morning, for example, Republican Representative Christopher H. Smith decried the rejection of PRENA as the "real war on women" without a trace of irony, despite the fact that he used story about an immigrant woman abused violently for not having sons. The entitled audacity of voting in gendered blocs against the Violence Against Women Act and then using stories about abused immigrant women (whose rights to protection and legal redress you just voted to eliminate) to justify your own attempts to control girls and women is stunning. People like this are walking manifestations of violence against girls and women. His claim to care about girls and women flies in the face of everything his party stands for. If you genuinely want to "protect little girls and women" you don't limit yourself to a single minded focus on their uteri. You understand, for example, why health care, fair pay and comprehensive sex ed are important for their well being. You understand why contraception is about jobs and the economy. You understand, for example, why forcing women service members to pay for their own rape-caused abortions is wrong. You don't make jokes, for example, about about throwing acid on female political opponents or perpetually describe girls and women as farm animals.

The harm is not in the legality or availability of abortion. People have always found a way to kill girls. If current day medical technologies didn't exist people would and do find ways, inhumane and shocking, to achieve the same ends. But, if the discrimination did not exist the means would not be so abused. The harm is in social norms that discriminate against girls and women and violate their rights. The harm is in a cult of masculinity that engenders senseless violence... including sex selection.

Mara Hvistendahl's book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men , is an excellent and deeply disturbing account of the "rampant demographic masculinization" of the planet and provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of this complex problem. Published in 2011, it spurred a lengthy debate about sex selection, abortion and women's rights between Hvistendahl and conservative columnist Ross Douthat. Douthat wrote that, "The spread of sex-selective abortion is often framed as a simple case of modern science being abused by patriarchal, misogynistic cultures" but that it is "more complicated than that." He then went on to list what he meant -- all of his examples being cases of abuse by patriarchal, misogynic cultures. He simply cited examples of American policy interventions that exacerbated sex selection problems in ways that suggested these examples could not possibly be patriarchal and misogynistic by simple virtue of being American. As Hvistendahl pointed out in response, as people long immersed in this situation in India and China are all too aware, going backwards and curtailing women's rights is not the solution and a woman's right to have an abortion is not the problem.

When societies respect the equality of girls and women and "give" them control of their reproductive rights as a matter of justice, societies benefit. There is no contradiction between providing safe and legal abortion (particularly in the context of women's health and family planning) and creating cultures that reject the elimination of girls. As a matter of fact if you do the latter, reliance on the former will be reduced.

So, what to do as individuals? It might be advisable to reconsider how we talk about feminism, equal rights and gender in mainstream culture. I'd say it's important not to dismiss sexism, minor or major, casually or to tolerate it really at all. Call is out, discuss it openly, challenge it always. Acknowledging privilege and entitlement would help, too. Think twice about electing officials who perpetuating misogyny under the guise of paternalism by denying girls and women their rights to bodily autonomy, privacy, due process and more and say it's the moral thing to do. If you truly want to save lives and help girls then consider how to change cultures so they are respect boys and girls equally.

This article was originally published in Fem2.0 and is reposted with permission.

Robert Reich: The Jobs Stall

2012-06-01T14:26:27Z

The White House must be telling itself there are still five months between now and Election Day, so the jobs picture could brighten. After all, we went through a similar mid-year slump in 2011 but came out fine.

But however you look at today's jobs report, it's a stunning reminder of how anemic the recovery has been -- and how perilously close the nation is to falling into another recession.

Not only has the unemployment rate risen for the first time in almost a year, to 8.2 percent, but, more ominously, May's payroll survey showed that employers created only 69,000 net new jobs. The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised its March and April reports downward. Only 96,000 new jobs have been created, on average, over the last three months.

Put this into perspective. Between December and February, the economy added an average of 252,000 jobs each month. To go from 252,000 to 96,000, on average, is a terrible slide. At least 125,000 jobs are needed a month merely to keep up with the growth in the working-age population available to work.

Face it: The jobs recovery has stalled.

What's going on? Part of the problem is the rest of the world. Europe is in the throes of a debt crisis and spiraling toward recession. China and India are slowing. Developing nations such as Brazil, dependent on exports to China, are feeling the effects and they're slowing as well. All this takes a toll on U.S. exports.

But a bigger part of the problem is right here in the United States, and it's clearly on the demand side of the equation. Big companies are still sitting on a huge pile of cash. They won't invest it in new jobs because American consumers aren't buying enough to justify the risk and expense of doing so.

Yet American consumers don't have the cash or the willingness to spend more. Not only are they worried about keeping their jobs, but their wages keep dropping. The median wage continues to slide, adjusted for inflation. Average hourly earnings in May were up 2 cents -- an increase of 1.7 percent from this time last year -- but that's less than the rate of inflation. And the value of their home -- their biggest asset by far -- is still declining. The average workweek slipped to 34.4 hours in May.

Corporate profits are healthy largely because companies have found ways to keep payrolls down -- substituting lower-paid contract workers, outsourcing abroad, using computers and new software applications. But that's exactly the problem. In paring their payrolls, they're paring their customers.

And we no longer have any means of making up for the shortfall in consumer demand. Federal stimulus spending is over. In fact, state and local governments continue to lay off large numbers. The government cut 13,000 jobs in May. Instead of a boost, government cuts have become a considerable drag on the rest of the economy.

Republicans will have a field day with today's jobs report, taking it as a sign that Obama's economic policies have failed and we need instead their brand of fiscal austerity combined with more tax cuts for the wealthy.

But that's precisely the reverse of what's needed.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

David Wild: 'Work To Do': A Sad Soundtrack for a Painful Jobs Report

2012-06-01T13:50:43Z

When the first headline of the day that you read is "JOBS REPORT DISTASTER" and that headline is on The Huffington Post, that's not good news. Here's my own suggested playlist to take this economic sad song and try to make it just a little bit better. As always, please add your own work songs below. Here's hoping that someday soon everybody who wants and needs it will have "Work To Do."

WORK TO DO - The Isley Brothers
NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT - Frank Sinata
BROKE - Modest Mouse
MAN'S JOB - Bruce Springsteen
THIS WOMAN'S WORK - Kate Bush
BUSTED - The Black Keys
WORK - Jimmy Eat World
MONEY - Grace Potter & The Nocturnals
THAT'S MY JOB - Conway Twitty
M-O-N-E-Y - Lyle Lovett
BROKE DOWN AND BUSTED - Todd Rungren
WELCOME TO THE WORKING WEEK - Elvis Costello
SHE WORKS HARD FOR THE MONEY - Donna Summer
WORKING MY WAY BACK TO YOU - The Four Seasons
WE CAN WORK IT OUT -The Beatles
DO YOU WANT MY JOB - Little Village
INSIDE JOB - Pearl Jam
DAY JOB - Gin Blossoms
ELECTED - Alice Cooper
WORKING CLASS HERO - John Lennon
FIRWORK - Katy Perry
OUT OF WORK - Gary U.S. Bonds
A COWBOY'S WORK IS NEVER DONE - Sonny & Cher
GET A JOB - The Silhouettes
FOUND A JOB - Talking Heads
BEATS WORKIN' - Van Halen
GOOD JOB WITH PROSPECTS - The Actress

Bettina Elias Siegel: Bloomberg vs. Big Soda: Portion Size, Paternalism and Politics

2012-06-01T13:23:45Z

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made headlines by announcing his administration's plan to ban the sale of sugary drinks offered in containers larger than 16 ounces. The proposed "large soda" ban would affect food service establishments like restaurants, movie theaters and street vendors, but would not affect grocery or convenience stores. (Diet sodas, fruit juices, milk-based drinks and alcoholic beverages would be exempted.)

The move, which would take effect next March, falls under the purview of the city's health department. It therefore seems unlikely to require any outside approval beyond its likely passage by the city's Board of Health.

As a writer who blogs daily about kids and food, I'm deeply immersed in the issue of childhood obesity and its related ills. I've reported on children needing weight-related knee replacements and new research indicating that diabetes, which is on the rise among teens, may be a much more pernicious illness in pediatric patients than in adults. I also know that excess sugar consumption harms the health of all children, even those who are not overweight. So you might assume I'd welcome Bloomberg's large-sized soda ban with great enthusiasm.

Instead, I feel ambivalent about it.

Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of the soda industry (one that rightly has been compared to Big Tobacco) and while some commentators are dubious, I accept the proposition that the consumption of sugary beverages, particularly soda, has been a major driver of our current obesity and health crisis. I support the idea of a soda tax; I even approved of a more controversial proposal (also Bloomberg's), which would have exempted soda purchases from the food stamps program.

I stand behind any measures to curb the advertising of soda to children, including the intrusion of beverage companies into schools through bus advertising, vending machines and support of athletic programs. I'd even be OK with sticking a warning label on non-nutritive sugary beverages. In short, I have absolutely no problem with public policies that encourage health-promoting behavior and disincentives which lead people to avoid harmful behavior.

But forbidding people outright to buy the size of soda they desire strikes me as quite paternalistic and intrusive and -- if my Twitter feed is any gauge of public sentiment -- likely to fuel resentment. And while it's true that Bloomberg's other, similarly coercive health measure -- the banning of smoking in restaurants -- was controversial when announced but is now widely accepted, one key difference is that smoking in restaurants not only adversely affects the smoker, but also the non-smokers around him. With soda, though, there is no immediate harm to bystanders that might otherwise justify the proposal in the minds of many New Yorkers.

There may also be problems implementing the ban. First, one clear flaw is that at fast food establishments and other venues where free refills are the norm, nothing in the proposal would prevent customers from bypassing the soda limit by simply refilling their 16-ounce cup. Similarly, convenience stores like 7-Eleven (which are currently expanding in New York City) might be exempt from the ban, ironically preserving the most iconic super-sized sugary drink of them all: the Big Gulp.

Second, there's the possibility that the ban will actually create the perverse economic result of normal soda drinkers subsidizing the excess soda-drinking of others in establishments offering free refills. And if determined soda-buyers choose to buy multiple smaller containers and/or vendors raise soda prices, the plan could conceivably function as a back-door soda tax -- but one that lines the pockets of soda purveyors, instead of providing revenue to the government (which may use the funds to defray obesity-related healthcare costs).

Third, such a ban is likely to disproportionately affect poorer New Yorkers. This might seem like an odd concern from someone who supported the food stamp soda ban, but I see a categorical difference between the use of government-issued supplemental food benefits for an entirely non-nutritive beverage, versus spending one's own money on it. In that regard, it's notable that a 24-ounce McDonald's Coke (with 81g of sugar) would be banned, but the much pricier 24-ounce Starbucks White Chocolate Mocha Frappucino (with 87g of sugar) would likely not, due to its milk content.

Finally, while no fault of Bloomberg's (who is necessarily limited to taking action only within his city), nothing in his proposal gets at one of the roots of Americans' over-consumption of soda -- that is, the wrongheaded agricultural subsidies that have resulted in a liter bottle of Coke being cheaper than a similar-sized container of skim milk.

All of this said, though, I do admire Mayor Bloomberg for his dogged, forward-thinking approaches to improving public health in his city, where, currently, over half of adults are overweight or obese. Undeterred by the prior defeat of his proposed soda tax and food stamp/soda ban -- and the $70 million spent by the soda lobby around the country since 2009 to defeat such measures -- Bloomberg's latest salvo does show ingenuity and real political courage.

So it may well be that, after a lot of initial grumbling, New Yorkers will eventually grow accustomed to thinking of a "large soda" as containing 16 ounces, which, it's worth noting, is still twice as large as the serving size Americans thought of as "standard" back in the 1950s. Moreover, if the measure proves at all successful in lowering the city's rates of disease and/or obesity, that data could prove to be a powerful tool in future battles against Big Soda.

If any of that comes to pass, I'll happily eat my words here. And wash them down with a very small glass of Coke.

[This piece originally appeared on the website of The Guardian.]

Andrew Wild: Boston Red Sox: The Road Back to the Top

2012-06-01T13:18:08Z

I love the Red Sox -- I just don't like the way they're playing. My first baseball experience was rooting for them in the 2004 ALCS, which was quite a time to start. As a fan, I feel that the Sox don't need to go into a complete rebuilding mode, but some things need to change. Here's what Boston has to do as soon as possible.

1. TRADE CARL CRAWFORD. There's really nothing left to say about how big of a bust Crawford has turned out to be so far. It's worth taking a look at his progress when he comes back from the DL (probably in June), but he already has the whole city against him. So who will take him at this point? L.A., baby. Like I've mentioned before, the new L.A. owners are looking to make a splash, and Crawford can certainly make that splash. I still believe that Josh Hamilton is the better fit in L.A., but Crawford could be second prize or a compliment for the Dodgers. It doesn't matter who ends up with him, but Carl has no place on the Red Sox anymore.

2. CUT JOHN LACKEY. He stinks, pure and simple. Crawford isn't a bad player; he's just playing badly. Lackey is bad. I can't imagine any team would consider trading for Lackey and it would be a waste of time to try and find one who would. His contract has been a black hole of cash since the minute he landed in Boston. He's on payroll until 2014 and has an option for 2015. Boston has always been a premier free agent landing spot, but they have no money to spend. He's stunk it up in Boston for long enough, and it's time to cut our losses.

3. SIGN DAVID ORTIZ TO A MULTI-YEAR. Big Papi has been my favorite player since I started rooting for the Sox, but I do understand what the debate against this is. Ortiz is 36 and it defies all knowledge that he's still one of the team's best hitters. But he is! Ortiz hasn't just been good the last two years, he's been terrific! And he is the Red Sox. He has been the voice of the team for years, and everyone knows it. He already feels slighted by the team, so we need to make him feel loved again. If he doesn't play another game in a five-year contract, it's worth it just to have him in the dugout.

4. MAKE THE DRAFT COUNT. The Sox farm system has sputtered out in recent years. We struck gold in 2007 with Pedroia and Ellsbury, but we've had few good players called up since. Casey Kelly was supposed to be the next great one, but he ended up being traded for Adrian Gonzalez. Matt Barnes is very promising, and Will Middlebrook has shown some spark so far, but the Sox need to find some more pro-level players to phase into this aging team. I'm looking at pitcher as the Red Sox's focal point. But whether it's pitcher, catcher or batting boy, we need to find somebody.

5. STOP THE INJURIES. The DL has been brutal on the Sox so far in this season. Right now, Andrew Bailey, John Lackey, Matsuzaka, Crawford, Ross and Ellsbury are on the DL. It would make sense that an older team would have more frequent injuries, but it's not the veterans getting hurt. I don't mean to bash the Sox training staff, or pretend like I know the first thing about stopping injuries, but a team can't win with its stars constantly rotating in and out of the DL.

The 2012 campaign is by no means finished, but this isn't a year to put a heavy focus on, and a few things will have to change before we can get excited again.

Jared Bernstein: May Jobs Report: First Impressions (Updates)

2012-06-01T13:16:09Z

The Bureau of Labor Statistics just released the employment and unemployment results for May and the results solidly confirm that the pace of job creation has once again slowed significantly.

Job growth for May came in at only 69,000 jobs, the worst month in a year. Unemployment ticked up to 8.2%, but that was largely due to more people coming back into the job market. Moreover, April's already weak jobs number was significantly revised downward, to 77,000, a markdown of 38,000 jobs. Weekly hours worked ticked down a bit as well, further confirming the weakening labor demand story told by these numbers.

The deceleration in payroll job growth is alarmingly clear (see figure). It's important to average the past few months to get a better feel for the underlying trend in these data. Over the past three months, net job gains have averaged 96,000 per month, compared to 252,000 in the prior three months.

Source: BLS

These jobs data come from a survey of workplaces, while the unemployment rate comes from a household survey. As is sometimes the case, the two surveys revealed very different results in today's release. Employment growth was strong in the HH survey -- up 422,000 -- but analysts discount this monthly number as the underlying sample is a lot smaller and much more volatile, month-to-month.

Nevertheless, even with this job growth from the HH survey, unemployment rose because the labor force expanded and enough people already in and newly entering the job market were jobless last month to send the rate up one-tenth, to 8.2%.

I'll get into the gory details later, but wow... as it looks today, the job market is simply not providing workers with the employment and earnings opportunities they need to get ahead. This has obvious negative implications for family budgets, but it also threatens the macro-economy. If this pace of job growth sticks, the economy will slow down from a growth rate that's already too slow.

So, will it stick? It's always possible with these monthly reports that some statistical anomalies are in play. A candidate in this case is weather effects, as unseasonably warm weather last winter probably moved job growth that might have occurred in May to earlier months.

If so, that would imply that taking an average of more months of data would give you a more accurate read on the true underlying pace of growth. Over the last six months, net monthly job gains have been 174,000, so a lot depends on whether the current weak trend persists.

However, while one month does not a trend make, three months do. Also, slower job growth is consistent with a number of indicators that slowed in May, along with Europe and fiscal uncertainty regarding the fiscal cliff.

In my next update, I'll get deeper into the numbers and talk about what we should be doing about this tough situation we've put ourselves in by failing to apply more stimulus when the economy clearly hadn't fully recovered from the Great Recession.

_____________________________

Update: I see a lot of the wire reports on the lousy jobs release focusing on Europe, China, and other external factors to explain why employment growth once again appears to have decelerated.

Sure, European instability and a slower growing China are part of the problem. But they are not at its core. For that, we've simply got to look in the mirror.

The economic reason the job market is once again downshifting is because we as a nation failed to take out recovery insurance in the form of temporary stimulative fiscal policy against precisely the situation we now face.

The president proposed the American Jobs Act back in September of last year for just this reason. The economy in general, but especially the job market, has never reliably achieved "escape velocity," i.e., consistently high enough growth rates that would set off the virtuous growth cycle of more jobs leading to more incomes, more consumption, which feeds back into greater demand, more jobs, etc.

And the thing that has blocked us from taking out the insurance we needed was and is political gridlock. In fact, it's worse. Beyond gridlock, dysfunctional Congressional politics have led to self-inflicted wounds to the economy, wounds that are being freshly reopened with talk of going over the fiscal cliff, another debt ceiling fight, and the loss of extended unemployment insurance benefits for hundreds of thousands of jobless persons.

When politicians come to Washington not to solve our immediate pressing problems, not to compromise, but to promote, above the public interest, a narrow political agenda -- when they do so regardless of the degree of hardship in the current economy -- then I'm afraid we shouldn't be surprised at our inability to self-correct.

This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.

Elisabeth Braw: Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Leymah Gbowee: "Sex Strikes Help Good Men"

2012-06-01T13:05:54Z

Who said sex and politics don't mix? Led by Leymah Gbowee, a young mother, Liberian women went on a sex strike to end the country's brutal civil war. They were successful: in 2003 warlords agreed to end the violence. Last year Gbowee won a Nobel Peace Prize for her campaign. With Liberia's former President, Charles Taylor, facing life in jail after his war crimes trial The Hague, Metro spoke with Gbowee.

Charles Taylor is the first-ever head of state to be convicted for war crimes. Do you feel vindicated?
When someone has been terrorizing communities, and your community has been violated, of course you're relieved if he's convicted. It doesn't matter that Taylor has been convicted for war crimes he committed in Sierra Leone, not Liberia. We've waited for a long time, so we're happy. There's a sense that justice has finally been served, and that Taylor will pay for his crime. And he's not coming back to our community!

Are sex strikes an effective strategy to end wars?
(Laughs) It's effective in the sense that it gets people's attention. Sex is an exotic thing, and many people would say it's a taboo subject. But when someone dares to bring it to the attention of the public, it has two results. People start saying, "who's this person doing this?" and they start asking why the person is using sex to highlight an issue. And it gets men thinking. There are a lot of good men out there! The percentage of men who wage war is very small. Good men outnumber evil men, but why are they silent? Our strategy helps the good men because it gives them a reason to take action. They start talking to their colleagues and beer buddies, saying "this war is wrong."

So it's not the sex strike per se, but the support it gives good men, that makes it an effective strategy?
Yes. Every man is interested in the act of sex. We withheld sex from our spouses to get attention, and our husbands obviously noticed what we were doing. We said, "we need you to take a stand." And they did.

Would you recommend sex strikes to women in other war-torn countries?
People have told me many times, "why don't you export your strategy to this or that country that's also in the midst of a civil war?" But it's not as easy as that. I can't just go to a country and tell women how to make peace. I can encourage them, but they have to commit to peace and they have to do so beyond their political and ethnic affiliations. Regardless of whether you're Muslim or Christian, and regardless of which ethnic group you belong to, there's no way that we can solve a crisis without moving beyond such affiliations.

Liberia's civil war was extremely brutal, with one President Samuel Doe being tortured to death on videocamera. How many other Liberian war criminals are there who should also face justice?
That's the biggest debate in Liberia right now. Since Taylor's conviction there has been a lot of discussion about the role former warlords still play in Liberia. In the case of Prince Johnson, the warlord who killed Doe, people are saying that he, too, should be brought to justice. The whole issue of justice has to be looked at in Liberia. We need to start the conversation about people's role in the Liberian civil war and what should be done with them. Another issue we have to think about is whether this is the right time to start prosecuting war criminals, which we obviously haven't done yet. What I can is that there's no way Liberia will be a whole and healthy society if we don't address the issue of justice.

Prince Johnson has since been a member of parliament in Liberia and placed third in last year's presidential elections. Isn't that sickening?
It is. The difference in African politics versus politics in the West is that people tend to rally around their identity. Liberia is no exception. Some people, including myself, don't want a person who committed some of the worst atrocities in our civil war as a member of parliament, but if you ask the people of his tribe, they see him as a hero. Every warlord is a hero in the eyes of his own group.

If that's the case, what's the way forward?
We Liberians are in a state of denial. We have a very dark past, and we tend to pretend that someone will wave a magic wand and live will be ok for all of us again. That's not possible! Until we can really sit down and stare evil in the face, we'll continue to worry about the state of our country and whether we'll go back to war. We'll spend the next 20 years worrying about a new civil war unless we wake up and address our past.

So you think Liberia is at risk of sliding back into civil war again?
Not for the next 20-30 years. The memories and pains of the last war are still fresh in people's minds. But in 30 years we'll have a whole new generation of Liberians for whom the whole concept of war will be new and strange, and that's a risk. But this generation -- no. I'm certain we'll see more tensions and riots, but not a full-fledged war.

Speaking of warlords, Joseph Kony has been on the run for years, but only now is the world paying attention -- thanks to a YouTube clip. Does that make you cynical?
Very cynical. It tells you what a crazy world we live in. There are so many young girls and boys who're victims of Kony's atrocities, but at no point in time have people paid any attention to them. Why are people focusing on Kony when we haven't done justice to the victims of this war?

Madeleine Albright likes to say that the world wouldn't be a better place if women were in charge -- it would be like high school all over again. Do you agree?
It would be a much better place than it's now. Are all men bad? No. But I think when it comes to world politics, women bring something uniquely different to the table. Men often have values and principles, but politics tends to override them. When you believe firmly in things, you can achieve changes. Politics isn't a popularity contest; it's about achieving lasting changes. That's what women are good at.

The Nobel Peace Prize can be a blessing -- as in the case of Mother Theresa -- or a curse, as in the case of Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Which has it been for you?
For me it's a gift from God. Every good and perfect gift comes from God. I come from a very humble background, and I'd never have thought that something like this could come my way. So, I'm very grateful for God's grace, and I can never refer to any gift from God as a curse.

What does your husband think of your withholding sex?
Fortunately when we did the sex strike I didn't have a husband. But the interesting thing is, many of the husbands of the women in the sex strike actually helped us. They'd drive their wives to the meetings, then wait downstairs while we planned our actions. Sometimes they'd have to wait for hours! That's ironic, isn't it? These were very difficult times. The husbands would do the same thing for us every day: wait while he had our meetings, then drive us all home, without knowing what we were planning. They were very good men.

Flash Steinbeiser: Writer James Robinson Shines A Light On DC Entertainment's Latest Gay Superhero, Earth-Two's Green Lantern

2012-06-01T13:04:00Z

He may be unmarried, but count DC Entertainment's Alan Scott as the latest addition to the growing pantheon of gay superheroes. Formally known as the Green Lantern of DC's parallel universe, Earth-Two (take a hike, Hal Jordan), Scott will shine his light as the leader of Earth-Two's premier super-squad, the Justice Society.

Unlike most modern gay superheroes, Scott has had a long history with DC Comics -- like, a 72-year type of history. Though married with children, Scott's character was no stranger to LGBT issues. His son, the heroic Obsidian, was gay. Scott accepted and supported his son's orientation, making him the superhero dad of the year. But, continuity-wise, none of that counts anymore. When DC revamped its entire line of heroes with the "New 52" relaunch last September, Alan, his son, and their long history with the DC Universe simply vanished.

When DC reintroduced Scott last month as the CEO of a giant media corporation in Earth-Two #1, people were more curious about his new costume than about his sexuality -- that is, until DC Entertainment's co-publisher Dan Didio slipped the news on May 20 that they would reintroduce a previously straight and iconic DC hero as one of their "most prominent gay characters." Cue the sound of thunder as the Internet split in half. Rumors ran more wildly than the Hulk with a bad hair day, with fingers pointed at Superman or Batman. (Batman writer Scott Snyder joked on Twitter that Bruce Wayne was "Gothamsexual," as Batman only has time for the city he protects.) Of course, unverified rumors leaked that Scott was indeed the character in question, and, well, here we are.

But for every great superhero, there's a great writer behind them. Enter Eisner-Award-winning comic veteran James Robinson. With a writing résumé including multiple stabs at Alan Scott and the Justice Society, Robinson has also made headlines for revealing another DC character, Starman, to be gay. Read on as Robinson addresses how Alan Scott became gay, Scott's redefined role in Earth-Two, and the state of diversity in comics.

What was the process behind making Alan Scott gay? What was the discussion between you and editorial?

In Alan's prior version, he had been an old man with a gay son [Obsidian]. And removing that character from the DC Universe bothered me -- the fact that we were taking a gay character out of circulation. And it occurred to me: Why not just make Alan Scott gay? He's still interesting, he's still a dynamic hero, a great man, but he happens to be gay. So I suggested that to Dan, and to his credit, there wasn't a moment's hesitation. He was like, "Yeah, sure, that sounds great." So there wasn't a huge editorial think tank; it was just an idea that got put forward and was accepted.

You've written Alan Scott before in other Justice Society titles, though as straight. Is there any difference in how you've written the character now that he's gay?

No. He's attracted to men, and that's the only difference. He's going to be the leader of the team; he's this dynamic hero, this type-A personality. In his private life, he's this giant of the media industry. He is someone that you trust and believe in. He's willing to die for the planet; he's willing to die for the people of the world. He just also happens to be gay. I'm trying to make it one part of his personality, as opposed to it being the one identifying factor of him as a man.

How will other characters in Earth-Two, and even Alan himself, address his orientation?

Alan is already out when we realize he's out in issue 2. There isn't a coming-out moment. And I see that Alan Scott is a dynamic, type-A personality. At some point in his past, he realized that he was gay, so he said, "OK, I'm gay." He accepted it and moved on with his life. He just lived it, you know? So as we'll learn, Alan Scott is out. He has nothing to hide. He's proud of who he is. By and large, the world has accepted him as that. And his teammates will accept him as that.

Are there any plans for his romantic life? Should we expect boyfriends or partners down the line?

He's a tall, handsome, blond guy. He's definitely going to have some romance in the future, but I'm concentrating on setting up the character and setting up the world for the first story arc. So that's something that will unfold as we get more into his private life in the future.

What would your response be for more conservative readers who might not fully embrace this change?

I can't worry too much about that. I have to look at the world and what's the right thing to do, and what the right characters should be in these comic books. People that tend to be a little more hesitant to have these characters in comics need to just move with the times and realize that it's a diverse world and there are brave, gallant, interesting people who happen to be gay. They should just get to know them and realize that we all just have to get on with life and stop hating each other.

Pulling back and looking more at the comics industry as a whole, how do you think comics have developed in diversifying the character base, and not even just in terms of orientation but race, nationality, and religion?

Well, I think that comics are trying to do that, especially, I think, with DC, Marvel, and Archie. People are aware that the world is more diverse, that all heroes aren't white Anglo-Saxons. There's diversity in life, and there's diversity in the types of heroes we have. If you look at the brave men and women coming back from serving abroad in the armed forces, there are lots of different colors and religions and sexual orientations. So I think that comics are reflecting that more and more. But I should point out that for me, personally, what I believe was the first gay kiss in comics, I did that in 1998 in Starman [#45]. So I've been trying to do this for a while, and I think I've been pretty successful.

That actually brings up another question. You've had a history of writing other LGBT characters, like Starman, and DC has a selection of other LGBT characters, like Batwoman, Midnighter, and Apollo. Is there anything different about Alan Scott in how he'll approach his orientation compared with other LGBT characters that you have written or that DC has published?

That's an interesting question. I think the main difference is that Alan Scott is this heroic, dynamic man. He will be very much the leader of the Justice Society, and a figurehead. Often, I think, gay characters, with the exception of Batwoman, are part of a team but are often aside, somewhat. Alan's going to be at the forefront of this team, leading it, being someone that is loved and admired by the people of Earth-Two. So that's a subtle difference that I will be adding, trying to not just present a positive gay role model but someone that is a type-A superhero.

And beyond Alan's orientation, are there any other changes to the character?

The way he gets his powers and what they derive from will be different. He has a power ring, but he is literally the storehouse for the energy of the Earth. So he is literally the Green Lantern of Earth-Two. There isn't a physical lantern; he is the lantern. That makes him a powerhouse on Earth-Two on the level with Superman, so there's that element to him, as well.

Fantastic. Is there anything else that you wanted to mention?

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the interest, and I hope that people enjoy this book and support him and want to see where the adventures of Alan Scott and the rest of the team in Earth-Two go in the future.

See photos of Green Lantern and his boyfriend, as well as 14 other LGBT comic-book heroes, in the slideshow below: