Newsweek Blogs

New Estimates on Kids' TV Watching – It's Much More than We Knew

Ashley Merryman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:46:18 GMT

According to a study released today by Pediatrics, University of Washington's Dimitri A. Christakis has found that children may be watching significantly more television than previously reported – because those earlier assessments didn't include television-watching during day care.

 Surveying 168 owners and directors of child care facilities located across the nation, Christakis discovered that television-watching is a hallmark of day care – especially for home-based day care providers.

Despite the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics warns that children under two shouldn't watch any television, 12% of the home-based facilities reported that they regularly have infants in front of the television. Over half of the home-based programs reported that toddlers watched television while in their care; 70% of them said that the preschoolers were in front of the boob tube. (Comparatively, no childcare centers reported infants watching television, and "only" 32% had preschoolers watching television.)

The amount of television the kids were watching is stunning as well. For example, a third of the toddlers watch television for more than two hours a day. 17% of the kids were watching for somewhere between five and ten hours each day. And that's just at day care: it doesn't include any television viewing at their actual homes.

And Christakis actually thinks that these are under-reports – that the kids are actually spending more time in front of the television than the day care providers were willing to admit.

If that isn't jaw-dropping enough, consider that Christakis didn't measure the length of time that a child was actually at the facility. We don't know for sure, but, conceivably, for some of these children, being parked in front of the television could be the only activity they do all day.

According to Census data, 727,000 children (aged zero to five) spend their days in the type of home-based care that Christakis is describing.

That's a lot of television.

The Science of How We See Obama's Skin Color

Andrew Romano — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:21:15 GMT

Sample images from Caruso's study. Photo copyright PNAS.

When it comes to the policies and politics of Barack Obama, it's no secret that liberals and conservatives don't see eye to eye. But according to behavioral sciencist Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, these differences in perspective may literally be a difference in perception. In a new study, Caruso and colleagues Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tillberg University asked a group of undergraduates which of a series of photographs of Obama--some of them secretly lightened and darkened--best represented who he is as a person. The results were striking: while self-described liberals tended to pick the digitally lightened photos of the president, self-described conservative students more frequently picked the darkened images. The more one agrees with a politician, in other words, the lighter his skin tone seems; the less you agree, the darker it becomes. To discuss how political affinities influence perception--and how politicians and the press could take advantage of these findings--NEWSWEEK's Andrew Romano spoke to Caruso. Excerpts:

How did the study actually work?
Essentially we were interested in whether political party influences how people literally see the world, and how they may see different depictions of candidates as representative of who they really are. So to test this we gathered up a bunch of photos of Barack Obama and digitally altered them to create a version where his skin tone appeared a bit lighter and a version where his skin tone was a bit darker than it appeared in the original photograph. And then we just showed people several different photos and asked them to rate each one on how much they represented who he really is. What we found was that participants who told us that they had a liberal political orientation rated the lightened photographs as more representative of Obama than the darkened photographs, whereas participants who told us they had a more conservative ideology rated the darkened photographs as more representative of Obama than the lightened ones.

So how much of a difference between self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives did you find in the results?
It’s a little bit hard to quantify the difference because they were just rating on a 7-point scale of representativeness. So to make it a bit more concrete we looked, for each participant, at which photo they rated as the most representative. They gave us three different ratings—say 1, 4 and 6—and we picked the photo that they gave the highest number to. From there we saw that liberals were about five times as likely to rate a lightened version of Obama as the most representative compared to a darkened version, whereas conservatives were about twice as likely to rate a darkened version as most representative compared to the lightened version.

I’m no expert here, but you’re confident that it’s the skin tone that changes “representativeness” in the eyes of the voter, as opposed to something else about the photographs—like pose, or background, or facial expression?
That’s a great question. What we did was essentially take three different photos with three different poses, and created for each photo a lightened and a darkened version. And then we randomly selected the combination of pose and skin tone that we showed each participant.

So your findings about “representativeness” were consistent across poses—the conservative will be twice as likely to say a “darkened” Obama was representative, regardless of which image of Obama was being darkened?
Right. We were experimentally able to isolate the effect of skin tone because some people saw a lightened version of pose #1 and others saw a darkened version of pose #1—and independent of the pose the lightened versions seemed most representative to liberals and the darkened most representative to conservatives.

Were you surprised by the results?
A little bit. Some of my research deals with how people who have different views on a subject are able to try to understand the views of someone on the other side, and the general finding is that people aren’t particularly good at really coming to understand the perspective of someone with whom they disagree. Beyond that, though, I got interested in this notion of whether our beliefs can actually affect the way we see the world—of whether they can actually affect our perception of objects or people in our environment. And it turns out they can.

Ultimately, what does it mean that someone believes a lightened version of Obama is more representative of him than a darkened version, and vice versa? What are the larger implications of these differences in perception?
Partisanship can affect all sorts of beliefs. It’s not surprising that a liberal and a conservative who read the same health care bill would come to very different conclusions about its merits. But I think our work is more akin to having a liberal and conservative look at the exact same physical copy of a bill sitting on the desk in front of them and disagreeing over how thick it is. That is, even something that we feel we should be able to see similarly, like a person’s racial identity or physical characteristics, can be influenced by our desire to see that person favorably or unfavorably.

That’s fascinating. To extend that analogy, I guess you’d say that when a conservative looks at the current health care reform bill on the table, he sees it as really thick and interprets that thickness as meaning that the bill will create more red tape, more bureaucracy, more spending, whereas a liberal would see it as thinner and interpret that thinness as meaning that the bill will streamline an unwieldy system and reduce deficits over time. In other words, they’re seeing a physical attribute as a kind metaphor about the merits of whatever it is they’re looking at. How does that work with Obama and skin tone?
There’s a long history in Western society of associating lightness with good and darkness with bad. Throughout history, throughout literature, et cetera. And we know now that these associations sometimes apply to the color of a person’s skin, and in addition to associating goodness with white, there’s some recent research in implicit attitudes suggesting that at an unconscious level people have a strong tendency to associate America with white. Which means that liberals, who are going to think that Obama is generally good and generally American, may have these subtle associations linking him to the concept of white, which is reflected in their representativeness ratings. The opposite would be true of conservatives.

But isn’t there a chicken or egg relationship here? Do conservatives see Obama as darker and are thus prone to dislike him, or do they dislike him first and then see him as darker because of it?
That’s a great question. One of the things we’re trying to do now is experimentally try to tease those two options apart. Basically, what we have in our current paper, the one that’s out now, is correlational studies of Obama where we don’t really know what comes first or what’s causing what. The first study in the paper tries to address part of what you’re asking. If we get people to think about a novel candidate and simply manipulate whether they agree with a candidate or not, we can show that people who think this novel biracial candidate agrees with them later report that the lightened photos are more representative of him, suggesting that if you agree with someone then you may come to see him as lighter. From that we can speculate, exactly as you have, about the reverse path—and that is, seeing images of someone when his or her skin tone looks darker may cause people to like that person less than seeing images of that person with lighter skin tone.

Do you plan to study the second option?
We’ve actually just recently completed a new study that’s not in the current paper that looks at this question. We had people read about this new biracial candidate in the Department of Education, and for some participants we had them read this candidate’s biography with an unaltered picture accompanying the biography, while for some participants we had them read the biography with a picture of the candidate that had been lightened or darkened in terms of his skin tones. Then we had them tell us how they felt about the six issues facing the Department of Education, and everyone was told the same thing—which was that this guy agrees with you on three of the six issues on the table, so it’s unclear really whether you like him or not. Then we asked them to tell us how much they supported him and how likely they’d be to vote for him if given the chance. And somewhat remarkably, the participants who’d seen a darkened photo just a view minutes earlier reported that they were less likely to vote for the candidate than those who’d seen the lightened photo.

Could you imagine political campaigns using this sort of research in the future—you know, as candidates for office become increasingly multicultural?
I think our findings help explain the ways in which people may try to influence the level of support for, say, a biracial candidate. People have and may continue to strategically expose the public to images that alter certain characteristics of a person in the media spotlight. It reminds us of the Time magazine cover where an illustration had darkened an image of OJ Simpson following his arrest in 1994. Hillary Clinton’s campaign was actually accused of doing the exact same thing in the primary when it ran a television ad with a video of Obama during one of the debates in which the entire ad was artificially darkened. Although we didn’t find any direct evidence of this in our data, it’s possible that news directors may be susceptible to same sort of biases as our participants, without even really being aware of it, such that liberal and conservative media outlets may differ in the types of images of Obama that they tend to select and depict.

Which, in turn, could activate or reinforce whatever biases are already out there among voters as they see the candidates through the media filter—for example, an MSNBC viewer who is continually exposed to “lighter” images of Obama and who therefore tends to think of him as more “good” and more “American.”
I wouldn’t advocate that people strategically try to manipulate things, but certainly political campaigns and ideologically-driven media outlets will always try to show their candidates in the best possible light.

So to speak.
Right. It’s the same as scrutinizing haircuts and clothing to make people as appealing as possible to the voters. With the Clinton ad, the goal was to try to make Obama appear more ominous.

Or more “other.” There’s still an instinctive feeling among some voters that Obama is un-American—a socialist who wasn’t born where he says he was born.
Absolutely. It’s a short leap from “dark” to different, and from “different” to “dangerous.”

It’s amazing to think that these voters actually see his skin color differently than, say, their more liberal neighbors. You’d think we could all be objective, at least about that.
We expect to be objective, but if we can’t even agree on a picture sitting before us, it suggests that there are still deeper challenges to overcome before we can truly understand the perspective of someone we disagree with.

Gavin Newsom Gets Testy Facing Unknown Future

Daniel Stone — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:29:05 GMT

Since he dropped out of the California governor’s race last month, where has San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom been? That’s exactly what local news reporter Hank Plante asked the mayor last week during an interview--one of few he has given over the past month. Newsom answered with the amount of San Francisco’s current deficit -- $522 million -- as reason for having ducked out of public view. But Plante wasn’t buying it. He challenged Newsom on a staff shake-up, including several resignations from senior staff. Then there were questions about an off-the-radar weekend getaway Newsom took to Hawaii without telling key members of his staff. And then about why he had missed so many important public appearances. By the time Plante got around to asking about the deficit, a clearly agitated Newsom was done being patient. Leaving the room, he shook his head and grinned at the camera, declaring “off the record” how "amazingly disappointed" he was in the questioning.

In Newsom’s case, that kind of frustration is understandable. After such a long run of popularity in San Francisco, being told by the rest of the state that you aren’t good enough to be governor would logically make Newsom want to lay low until the news cycle passes. But to make matters worse, Newsom is also faced with the reality that in 2011, after his last term, he won’t be mayor either. From a public official’s point of view, it’s an equation that's rather embarrassing. Usually in politics almost anything can be spun to make it sound like you’ve won, but no amount of PR work can mask the fact that pretty soon, Newsom will be unemployed.

Of course he won’t stay that way for long. With his stature and connections, someone will certainly offer Newsom a corner office and fat paycheck. But will he take an outside job? Newsom is reportedly mulling several ways to maintain his relevance, having told the Wall Street Journal that he plans on “being in politics for the long haul.” That could signify a future run for office, but a spokesman also told the Journal that Newsom is entertaining more focus on his Napa Valley winery PlumpJack that he founded in 1997. It’s unclear what future office Newsom would seek, but considering the mounting pressure for him to address the city’s deficit and the approaching opportunity to escape the public eye, the choice seems like a no brainer: vintners don’t have to sit for interviews.

Eight Essential iPhone Accessories

Daniel Lyons — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:27:10 GMT

Click on the image above for NEWSWEEK's Eight Essential iPhone accessories.

The real magic of Apple’s iPhone is that it’s so well-designed, and so simple to use, that it quickly becomes an addiction. You get one of these magical little devices and pretty soon you’re living on the darn thing. You use it to check email and browse the Web, and to get directions from Google Maps. Then you discover the iTunes App Store, with its 100,000 applications, and you get mesmerized even further into the iPhone’s spell.

Even then, your journey into iAddiction is just beginning. Because once you’ve bought the iPhone itself, you’re going to start buying accessories. Battery life extenders, protective cases, special earphones, music players – the list goes on and on. There are so many accessories, in fact, that you could easily spend more money on accessories than you did on the iPhone itself.

Where to begin? We’ve chosen a handful of accessories that we love and can’t live without. If you or someone you love is an iPhone addict, this list can be your guide when you set out to do your holiday shopping.

First up is the one thing that’s so important (and so necessary) that it should come bundled in the box with the iPhone itself – a battery life extender.

Seriously, if you’re buying an iPhone, do NOT leave the store without also buying a battery life extender. No matter what you think, no matter what the Apple salesbot tells you – you WILL need one of these. Okay? Just accept that this is the reality of living with an iPhone.

You’ll also need an extra power cord for your office, so you can recharge the phone while you’re at work. And you’ll need a car charger too.

Because the fact is, the iPhone’s battery life is the single worst thing about the iPhone – worse even than the AT&T network that iPhone runs on. And that’s saying something, because the AT&T network stinks.

The problem is simply that the battery in the iPhone is nowhere near big enough to power the device. Apple knows this. But to make an iPhone with a big enough battery, they’d have to make an iPhone that’s big and clunky, and Apple doesn’t do big and clunky. Hence, instead, you get something that is slim and pretty. And dead by lunchtime.

Yes, as Apple points out on its Web site, you can make the iPhone last longer on a charge if you shut off a bunch of iPhone’s features, like WiFi, Bluetooth, push email, location services and 3G. You can also make it through a day if you use the iPhone only for making phone calls, and if you only use the iPhone when you’re traveling to and from the office.

But what about when you’re traveling, and you’re hammering away on email for hours at a time, trying to stay in touch with the office? And anyway, what’s the point of having this expensive smartphone if you have to shut off all of its good features?

No, a better plan is to buy a battery life extender and pound on that iPhone all day long. Yes, these things are clunky. Such is life, for now anyway. (Someday batteries will get better, and/or smartphones will find ways to use less power.)

Best choices: Mophie Juice Pack and Juice Pack Air. The "Air" model doesn’t give you as much battery life but it’s also not as clunky. Both also act as protective cases.

And just for kicks we’ve included a tongue-in-cheek recommendation: If you’re going to have an iPhone, you’ll probably also need a good old-fashioned feature phone too. Preferably one that runs on the Verizon network. You know, for when you want to, um, make phone calls.

Europe's Cautious Choice

Newsweek — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:17:02 GMT

By Anita Kirpalani

The EU seems never to miss a chance to be boring. Last week, after much agonizing, it decided to fill two top posts created by the new Lisbon Treaty--the European Council president and the high representative for foreign policy--with relative unknowns, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton, the EU trade commissioner. Critics have already blasted the union for forgoing big-name statesmen such as Tony Blair for the bland lowest common denominator. But the move may actually turn out to have been the wisest one in the long run. "There appears to be less wind in the sails, but beneath the surface the EU might end up being more united," says Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow and Europe expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. That's because the EU picked people who actually have a chance at fostering consensus, especially on matters such as Iraq or Afghanistan policy. A higher-profile candidate like Blair might have been able to use his star power to bring the bloc a bigger international profile. But he also would have risked alienating certain member states--especially given Blair's controversial closeness to Washington and his support for the Iraq War. What looks like timidity might just lead to a stronger Europe after all.

The Takeaway From 'The Takeaway': Five Easy Subject Changes to Avoid Thanksgiving Fights

Kate Dailey — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:30:21 GMT

Today on Public Radio International's morning show, The Takeaway, host John Hockenberry, Detroit Free Press columnist Rochelle Riley, and I discussed how to avoid family fights during Thanksgiving. As I mentioned on the show, some amount of discord may be inevitable this year: from health care to climate change to gay rights, we're living in a particularly political time.

Like in War Games, the only way to win a political argument amongst relatives is not to play. But while you can head into Thanksgiving dinner determined to avoid any conversations about sensitive topics, you can't count on other members of your family to do the same. So if you want to keep the peace, you have a choice: you can either halfheartedly agree with whatever offensive (to you) nonsense (to you) that Aunt Sally is spewing, or you can try to artfully change the subject.

Of course, you could challenge Aunt Sally directly on her views about climate change, health-care reform, or whether or not H1N1 is a global conspiracy perpetrated by the pharmaceutical companies. Some families love nothing more than battling it out over turkey and mashed potatoes. For those who don't, we've provided a list of five all-important holiday dodges to get you from a dangerous topic to a less offensive one, still guaranteed to elicit a lot of opinions:

1) Health Care: Health care is not only incredibly complex and divisive, it can lead to discussions of an even more volatile topic, abortion. Instead, try to steer any medical conversations toward Charla Nash, the women who was brutally injured in a chimp attack. Nash's tragic story incorporates elements of health and medicine—she's currently living at the Cleveland Clinic full time, hoping for a face transplant; in the mean time she's relearning how to live without hands or a face. There's enough in her story to keep your family talking for hours.

2) Gay Rights: When someone starts to discuss the fight for gay marriage, talk about Adam Lambert: his humble beginnings on American Idol; his guy-on-guy kiss at the American Music Awards. By keeping the topic in the realm of pop culture, you may actually be able to have a low-stakes debate about gay rights. As Lambert himself pointed out, women have been performing similar stunts at award shows for years. Is this different? Discuss. And when things get too heated, switch to comparing the merits of Ellen vs. Paul a.

3) Sarah Palin: No matter how people feel about Palin, credulity that Levi Johnston is somehow still something of a celebrity is a point on which most Americans can unite. Bring up his Playgirl spread and watch the conversation go from politics to pornography.

Playgirl.com

4) Barack Obama: President Obama is a unique position to anger both liberals and conservatives, both of whom feel he's on the wrong path. Michelle Obama, with a 63 percent approval rating, is a much safer subject. And her initiatives as first lady are all family friendly: starting a garden, supporting military families, wearing Banana Republic and J. Crew on a public stage.

5) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: No matter how you feel about the war, you have to respect the service of the men and women serving overseas. Focus on that—then show your family the amazing online videos of soldiers reuniting with their dogs after serving a tour of duty:

6) Climate Change: Al Gore's recent appearance on 30 Rock will only lead to debates about whether Gore is an eco-savior or a false prophet and whether 30 Rock is still funny. Instead, bring up the meteorological styling of the tornado-chasing, Balloon-Boy-launching Henne family. Not only will everyone have something to say, chances are their family will make you appreciate how normal yours really is.

This is not how we recommend behaving every other day of the year. It's important to stand up for your beliefs and to be able to defend those beliefs articulately. But Thanksgiving is a different story: the level of discourse never gets beyond arguing over the very basic facts (Obama: Secret Muslim or not?), and very rarely will you change someone's mind over dinner.

Of course, if you are gay, or Sarah Palin, or a solider, it may be impossible not to get passionate—and personal—before the turkey is even out of the oven. But save for those situations, it's probably not worth taking on your sweet, frail, and totally sexist 86-year-old grandfather in a battle of oratory skill.

In other words: feel free to stand up for what you really believe in, but don't try to be a hero. Accept your family for the lovable, well-intentioned, ill-informed bunch that they are, pour another glass of wine, and try to make it through the night unscathed.

When all else fails? Mention Twilight and let your teenage cousin do the rest.

The Chicago Terror Case: The Bollywood Connection, Al Qaeda Videos, and a Look at Jihadi Life in Wazirstan

Michael Isikoff — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:39:11 GMT

The newly discovered links between a Chicago-area terror suspect and last year’s deadly Mumbai attacks have triggered front-page headlines in India, including a rash of speculation about an alleged Bollywood connection. According to an FBI affidavit, David Coleman Headley, the son of a former Pakistani diplomat accused of plotting terror attacks in Denmark, was in regular communication since early 2008 with an operative of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terror group suspected of orchestrating the Mumbai massacre.

In one e-mail exchange intercepted by U.S. intelligence last July, Headley and the operative talked about going “to see rahul [sic].” The FBI affidavit states that, from a review of Headley’s e-mails, “it is clear that ‘Rahul’ refers to a prominent Indian actor with the first name of 'Rahul.' ”

The Indian press has been filled with speculation—and denials—about the identity of “Rahul” and various Bollywood actresses who might have been associated with him and Headley (see here and here). The Indian press has reported—and Indian officials confirmed to NEWSWEEK’s Sudip Mazumdar—that the Rahul in question is not actually an actor but Rahul Bhatt, the son of a famous Bollywood filmmaker, Mahesh Bhatt, who was a fitness trainer at a posh Mumbai gym that Headley frequented during multiple trips to the city in which he was suspected of conducting surveillance for last year’s Mumbai attacks. There is no indication the trainer was a participant in the terror plot, and the Indian press reports he is cooperating in the probe.

But a close reading of the FBI affidavit, and other court documents filed in the case, suggests the Headley case has provided more fruitful nuggets for investigators on a host of other fronts.

When FBI agents raided the home of Tahawwur Hussein Rana—Headley’s accused co-conspirator who ran a string of Chicago-area businesses, including an immigration-services company that Headley had listed as his employer—they discovered two DVDs made by As Shahab Media, Al Qaeda’s media-production company.

One of them began with a speech by Osama bin Laden and profiled the lives and deaths of four jihadi “martyrs,” the affidavit states. Another DVD, 54 minutes in length and recovered from Rana’s living room, was titled Bombing of Denmark Embassy and featured an appearance by Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, identified as the third ranking Al Qaeda member. (Patrick Blegen, Rana’s lawyer, did not return a phone call seeking comment, but after his client’s arrest last month he told the Chicago Sun-Times that his client had been “duped” by Headley.)

The affidavit also includes a rare peek into life in Waziristan, in northwest Pakistan, where an array of jihadi groups, including Al Qaeda, has established a stronghold. In one e-mail exchange—which Headley posted on a Yahoo group known as "the abdalians” (named for a Pakistani military school that he and Rana both attended)—Headley expressed outrage over a think-tank report suggesting that the population of Waziristan was not sympathetic to the jihadis and might not even object to U.S. drone attacks on Islamic militants in the region.

“This ‘survey’ is the biggest crock of S...," Headley wrote last May. “I was there on some business recently and I assure you this dude is not even close ... I even challenge [the author of the think-tank survey] to just walk around the bazaar in Miranshah. This bazaar is bustling with Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Russians, Bosnians, some from EU countries and of course our Arab brothers. According to MY survey the foreign population is a little less than a third of the total. Any Waziri or Mehsud I spoke to seemed grateful to God for the privilege of being able to host the ‘Foreign Mujahideen.' ’’

As for Headley, 49, new details are emerging about his background. Born in Washington, D.C., as Daood Gilani and a U.S. citizen, he is the son of a Pakistani diplomat. His late mother was an American-born woman who, after the couple’s divorce, ran a well-known bar in Philadelphia’s Old City called the Khyber Pass, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Headley attended military school in Pakistan but returned to Philadelphia to live with his mother in 1977 and later took over management of the Khyber Pass. After running the bar “into the ground”—according to the bar's current owner—Headley studied accounting at a community college and ran a video store with his mother (who had married a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter). In 1997 Headley was convicted in Brooklyn on federal charges of smuggling heroin into the country and was sentenced to 15 months in prison, according to the Inquirer story and court records reviewed.

Reid Gets His 60 Votes, but Still Has His Work Cut Out

Katie Connolly — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:05:04 GMT

It's official: Harry Reid has corralled enough votes to bring his health-care-reform bill to the floor. Blanche Lincoln became the 60th Democrat committed to voting to allow debate to open on the bill, following her moderate colleague Mary Landrieu, who also announced today that she'd vote aye. But Reid still has his work cut out for him. This vote signals little about the ultimate viability of the bill. For all the furrowed brows and gnashing of teeth to get to today's 60 yes votes, this vote simply says that the Senate is prepared to have a debate on the bill. From here, the bill will be discussed and possibly amended. Then Reid must find another 60 votes to end the debate, and then he'll need at least 51 senators who want to vote the final product up. Clearly his work is far from over. This reluctance to even allow the bill to be debated—keeping in mind there will be two other opportunities to vote against it—illustrates the depth of moderate concerns.

Neither Lincoln's nor Landrieu's vote today comes with a guarantee that the senators will support the final bill. Both have expressed serious reservations about the legislation, particularly the inclusion of the opt-out public option. They might vote to amend the public option to a trigger version, or they might vote to strip it out of the bill entirely. It's unclear. But Landrieu offered one glimmer of hope to her liberal counterparts today, saying that on the public option she "would consider a principled compromise because I understand this is one of the issues we have to find a solution for or it could blow up the whole effort."

Reid also faces problems in the form of Ben Nelson, who will torpedo the bill if it doesn't contain stronger anti-abortion provisions, and Joe Lieberman, who said he'd join a Republican filibuster if the public-option provision isn't changed. So the bill still has a ways to go, but at least now the Senate will have an open debate about it.

FBI Probes U.S. Link to Mumbai Attacks

Michael Isikoff — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:57:17 GMT

The FBI is expanding its investigation in a Chicago terrorism case to determine whether a key suspect may have helped scout targets for last year’s massive coordinated attack in Mumbai, India that killed 166 people, according to U.S. law enforcement officials.

The Justice Department announced late last month that it had charged two Chicago-area men—David Coleman Headley, the son of a former Pakistani diplomat, and a childhood friend, Tahawwur Hussain Rana-- for plotting to attack a Danish newspaper for publishing cartoons deemed offensive to the Prophet Mohammed.

But since then, the case has taken some dramatic turns that have attracted the interest of Indian Government investigators and transformed it into one of the most significant international terrorism cases that the FBI has brought since 9/11, the officials say.

After his arrest at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Oct. 3, Headley waived his rights to a lawyer and admitted to FBI agents that he had worked directly with Ilyas Kashmiri—a notorious Al Qaeda-linked terrorist – to plan the assassination of an editor of the Danish newspaper (who he mistakenly believed was Jewish) and the cartoonist who drew the cartoon of Mohammed, according to a detailed 47-page FBI affidavit filed in federal court on Nov. 6.

In virtually no other case since the initial wave of post 9/11 investigations has the FBI confirmed such a direct link between a U.S. based suspect and a high-ranking international terrorist. (Kashmiri, identified by federal prosecutors as one of the Pakistan’s most wanted terrorists, is leader of a group closely associated with Al Qaeda and was the target of an unsuccessful CIA drone attack last September.)

Headley also told the FBI that he had “worked at various times” and “received training” from Lashkar-e Taiba, the Pakistani based terrorist group that is believed to have orchestrated the Mumbai attacks, the FBI affidavit states.

In the days after his arrest, Headley waived his right to a court hearing and continued to cooperate with the FBI, a senior law enforcement official (who like others interviewed for this story declined to be named told NEWSWEEK. The official said federal prosecutors now hope to file new charges in the case in the next “few weeks.” John Theis, a lawyer for Headley, declined to comment.

Based in part on statements made by Headley – as well as a wealth of intercepted emails, phone calls and other evidence--FBI agents have been aggressively investigating additional leads in the case and have been working with Indian investigators in Mumbai to nail down Headley’s admitted work for Lashkar, the U.S. officials say.

At the same time, India’s National Investigation Agency—which was created after the Mumbai attacks to specifically investigate terrorism cases-- has launched its own probe. The agency has developed evidence that between 2006 and 2009, Headley travelled to India at least nine times and scouted targets for Lashkar, Indian intelligence officials (who also asked not to be identified talking about the ongoing probe) told Sudip Mazumdar, a Newsweek reporter in India.

Among the targets that Headley scouted was the luxurious waterfront Taj Mahal Hotel where the Mumbai terrorists remained holed up for nearly two days killing guests and staff at random, the Indian official said. During one of his trips to India, Headley had stayed at the hotel.

Headley is also believed to have scouted other Mumbai targets, including the Jewish Chabad House that was seized by two of the terrorists during the Mumbai attacks, the Indian official said. (The Chabad House’s American rabbi, Gavriel Holtzberg, and his six month pregnant wife, Rivka, were among those killed in an ensuing gun battle.)

The Indian National Investigation Agency have filed charges against Headley in connection with the Mumbai attacks, the Indian officials told Muzamdar. The charges have not yet been made public.

Coming: More on the Chicago terror case: the Bollywood connection, Al Qaeda videos, and a look at jihadi life in Wazirstan.

Update: In another sign of the intensifying Mumbai probe,Italian police on Saturday arrested two Pakistani men accused ofproviding logistical support for the attack by transferring money fromItaly to activate an Internet phone account used by the attackers.

How Not to Helicopter

Po Bronson — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:23:41 GMT

I’ve never bought macrobiotic cupcakes or hypoallergenic socks. Nor have I hired a tutor for pencil-holding deficiency, or put covers on the stove knobs, or used a leash on a toddler to be safe in a busy airport. At the grocery store, my kids are often in other aisles, but they’ve never felt lost. When they were babies, we weren’t scared to leave them with babysitters. Their preschool didn’t teach Mandarin, nor even worry about teaching them to read. Nor have I ever questioned a teacher about one of my children’s grades.

In fact, nobody I know has done these things. The only parents I know who are superprotective are parents who have to be—and it’s totally justified—because their child has Down’s or Asperger’s.

But like all of you, I still suspect these horror stories—while not representative of reality—shine a light on the unmistakable reality that we are not giving our kids anything like the freedom or independence we enjoyed as children when we were growing up. If we turned out fine, then why do we think our kids have to be raised so differently? This is the grand theme of Nancy Gibbs’s story on the cover of Time, “Can These Parents Be Saved?”

The problem with using these horror stories to make a point is that they’re not helpful in finding the right line between parenting and overparenting. Carl Honore’s book Under Pressure is also filled with bad-parent stories ripped from the newspapers. Obviously it’s wrong to sue a college because it did not admit your child. Obviously it’s wrong for a tennis dad to spike his son’s opponents’ water bottles with Temesta, a drowsiness drug. Obviously it’s wrong for Japanese 2-year-olds to enroll in cram schools.

As Gibbs admits deep into her article, having parents involved in children’s lives is exceptionally good for children. They get better grades, drink less, use fewer drugs, etc. Backing away completely is not the answer.

So the real question is, for regular parents—normal, involved parents who are not crazy, headline-worthy overprotective freaks—in what dimensions do we need to back off?

We think our book NurtureShock, and our column here, have already noted many areas where good parents are going too far. Here’s a summary of those points, in some cases with additional commentary:

Praise them less, and help them develop accurate awareness of how well they’re doing—so don’t try to spin them into believing they’re better than they are.
Protect their sleep hours fiercely.
When young children hurt each other’s feelings, give them a chance to come back together on their own. You might not see apologies or overt repair, but scientists are learning that repair can be implicitly implied when kids end up side by side again.
Choose schools that don’t assign too much homework (more than an hour in middle school is too much), and the schools will finally get the message.
Protect play time, and as children mature, help make sure they still have outlets for fantasy.
By the time a child is 11, don’t encourage or expect her to tell you everything. Some things need to be none of your business. Set a few rules and enforce them, but in other domains encourage independence and autonomy.
Teens need opportunities to take good risks. They need more exposure to other adults, and even kids of other ages—and less exposure to teens exactly their age. They need part of their life to feel real, not just a dress rehearsal for college. They will mature more quickly if these elements are in their life.
Colleges have gotten better. It’s harder today to get into the top 30 name-brand colleges, because so many kids apply, but the next 70 colleges are now just as good as the top 30 were when you went to college, and the next 100 are darn good too. Care about your child’s education, not the notoriety of the name printed on his college sweatshirt.

Religious Leaders Warn of Civil Disobedience

Eve Conant — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:53:42 GMT

They are calling it the Manhattan Declaration, a 4,700-word manifesto reaching into scripture and signed by 148 Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders. It was released this afternoon at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and is designed to draw a line in the sand across three issues they argue are non-negotiable despite the law: the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman, and religious freedom.

Signers of the Declaration pledge to "...not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” nor will signers “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships” or “treat them as marriages.” The list of backers reads like a who’s who of the pro-life movement, and the document essentially argues that supporters of the movement deserve conscience rights.

What does noncompliance look like? Nonviolent civil disobedience. "Dr. King was very clear about nonviolence and we are committed to nonviolence,” said Robert George, drafting committee member and jurisprudence professor at Princeton University. He listed some examples of what religious civil disobedience might look like, such as a pharmacist quitting before providing abortion drugs or a physician changing jobs before performing an abortion or taking part in an assisted suicide. “There are limits to what can be asked of people,” said George, who was flanked by 15 religious leaders, including the Archdioceses of Washington and Philadelphia and evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and Tony Perkins.

Addressed not only to Christians, but to President Obama, Congress, and civil authorities, the treatise will be available online for individuals to sign as well. When asked whether nonpayment of taxes would be an acceptable form of protest, George, who is also a lawyer, said he was currently representing a West Virginia taxpayer who is refusing to pay the small percentage of her bill that might go toward state-funded abortions (“Litigation is still pending,” said George). Institutions were also called on to participate in the civil disobedience if, for example, if a Catholic hospital is under pressure to provide services that go against Catholic beliefs. Although conscience protections do exist for many institutions already, there are areas, cited on Friday, such as when the Catholic Charities of Boston halted adoption services, rather than comply with state law and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

According to the Declaration, “We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.” Yet similar documents, such as last year’s Evangelical Manifesto, have been unveiled with great fanfare but little consequence. Civil disobedience, especially giving up a job, is a lot to ask in the current economy and is a hard notion, even for some signers of the Declaration.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council tells NEWSWEEK the point of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce, which he says led directly to the breakup of families and high divorce rates. “I’m a former police officer, and I have hard time with civil disobedience, but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

Daily Mayor of New York Higher Office Debunking

Ben Adler — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:50:34 GMT

If it's not Mike Bloomberg, it's his predecessor. The New York Daily News reports that Rudy Giuliani is going to run for the Senate in 2010 and that he may use that as a stepping stone to a presidential run in 2012. Over at The Atlantic Chris Good claims "Giuliani will make a formidable Senate candidate, should he run—in fact, if he enters the race, he will likely become the frontrunner," noting that he polls ahead of incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand.

Repeat after me, punditariat: the mayoralty of New York is a stepping stone to nothing. Being mayor of New York is a good way to:

A) piss off a lot of powerful constituencies by making hard choices

B) piss off a lot of powerful constituencies by being the kind of obnoxious jerk who becomes mayor of New York in the first place

C) get entangled in the minor corruption that is endemic to even the best-run major city governments

and, D) become well known to the powerful national media figures in your hometown, who will talk about how you will or should run for senate, governorship, or the presidency.

But it ain't happening. Like Ed Koch and John Lindsay before him, Rudy Giuliani has been seen at times as a likely, and strong, candidate for statewide or national office. And, like both of them, he'll lose if he actually runs. Flashback to early 2000, when Giuliani's approval ratings were in the toilet, thanks to his contentious tenure, and he was losing to carpetbagger Hillary Clinton in every poll for the Senate race. He dropped out, citing health reasons, and was not expected to ever come back. But then September 11 made him America's mayor, his national name recognition soared, making him misleadingly appear to be a GOP frontrunner in the 2008 election, and off he went to New Hampshire and Florida. Forty-eight million dollars and 1 RNC delegate later, Giuliani crashed and burned, his image tarnished by revelations about his inappropriate use of his NYPD security detail, and his cronies' even worse behavior.

When will people learn? Polls three years in advance are about name recognition and little else. When the campaign actually starts and the New York press picks the bones of the skeletons of the Giuliani's closet, his numbers will go down. The rationale for his presidential or gubernatorial candidacy—crime-fighting and managerial credentials—don't apply to legislative, rather than executive, office. Democrats hold a 5-3 registration advantage in New York State. When people actually step in the voting booth, plenty of folks who currently don't know Gillibrand from Eve will pull the lever for her. And, Gillibrand has shown some political talent.

The better question is why anyone thinks Giuliani is running at all. He could make millions of dollars a year giving motivational speeches and working as a lawyer, with a direct line into all the cable news networks. Or, he can spend the next year going to county fairs Upstate, shaking hands, giving the same stump speech, asking donors for money and answering fascinating questions. "Mr. Giuliani, what are you going to do about the economy here in Elmira? Mr. Giuliani, how are you going to protect New York's dairy farmers? Mr. Giuliani, the public schools here in Herkimer County are teaching evolution, what do you think about that?"

All in the service of either losing or getting to be a junior senator in the minority party. Which he will chose? Either way, I don't think we'll talking about Senator Giuliani in 2011.

Mammograms, Pap Smears, and the PSA: How Other Screening Tests Measure Up

Krista Gesaman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:14:09 GMT

Earlier this week the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shocked legions of women when it recommended waiting until 50 for a first mammogram, despite previous recommendations that women begin mammograms at 40. Then today, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released new guidelines for Pap smears. Previously, all sexually active women were encouraged to get the test—which examines cells in the cervix to determine whether there are any abnormalities that could lead to cancer—every year. Now, the recommendations state that women begin the Pap test at 21, retest every other year, and then, once women hit their 30s, schedule a test every three years.

Quite often, new technology hits the market before long-term studies have been completed, says Ted Epperly, a family physician and past president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Only after years of using the equipment can experts then gather statistics about their efficacy. And, Epperly suggests, there may be other tests once considered annual necessities that are now being reevaluated in light of new evidence. We asked Epperly to evaluate other preventative tests—once considered lifesavers—and relay what the evidence currently suggests. As always, be sure to check with your doctor about your individual risks and treatment plan.

COLONOSCOPY

Both men and women are advised to have their first colonoscopy at 50, the American Cancer Society reports. In some cases, testing for colon cancer can be delayed until age 55, Epperly says. He goes on to warn that testing should not be delayed in instances where there is a family history of colon cancer or where a person experiences symptoms including weight loss, bloody stool, or unexplained abdominal pain. Colonoscopies have one of the highest success rates: they can reduce a person's chances of dying from colon cancer by between 60 and 70 percent.

PROSTATE SCREENING

The American Cancer Society reports that screenings should begin for men at 50. But just like mammograms, the final results can be misleading. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a protein produced by the cells of the prostate gland, and a prostate screening test measures the level of this protein in a man’s blood. It’s possible for a man to have high levels of the protein in his system, but not actually have cancer. The National Cancer Institute reports that “only 25 to 35 percent of men who have a biopsy due to an elevated PSA level actually have prostate cancer.” It's also possible that the PSA can detect cancer so slow-moving that it likely would have gone undetected before the patient died of other causes.

The test is most useful for men who have a family history of prostate cancer or are experiencing symptoms like painful urination, weight loss, or pelvic pain. Black men are also encouraged to seek screening because they have a higher potential rate of prostate cancer. Evidence seems to indicate that men who don’t fall into any of these categories can forgo the prostate-cancer screening test, Epperly says.

CHEST X-RAY

As late as 2005, smokers were encouraged to get chest X-ray’s to detect any signs of lung cancer. But studies indicate the X-ray can produce misleading results. The U.S. National Cancer Institute conducted a study where 67,000 people received chest X-rays. The results showed abnormalities in nearly 6,000 cases, but after follow-up consultations with doctors, only 126 patients were actually diagnosed with lung cancer. Currently, no major professional organization, including the American Cancer Society, recommends routine screening because it hasn’t been shown to prevent people from dying of cancer.

FULL BODY SCAN

Total-body MRIs can also strain your wallet and cause unneeded anxiety. Popular in the past seven years as a general preventative tool, an MRI will produce images of anatomic abnormalities and is designed to help diagnose tumors, spinal-cord injuries, and problems with the lungs, kidneys, and uterus, the Mayo Clinic reports. However, MRIs often detect small irregularities that ultimately don’t require more testing or surgery. Epperly says patients often become more anxious when these irregularities are spotted and invest in costly medical exams to confirm that they are, in fact, healthy. Patients primarily need MRIs when a doctor is exploring a specific symptom, like whether excessive headaches might be the result of a tumor, Epperly says. Unless recommended by a doctor, total body images can be a serious financial burden, and may expose the patient to harmful radiation.

Is Homeland Security Gun Shy About Confronting Far Right?

Mark Hosenball — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:32:47 GMT

The Obama administration didn't hesitate recently to pick a fight with Fox News, but its Department of Homeland Security now appears to have backpedaled on a report expressing concern about what its analysts earlier this year described as "right-wing extremists." Back in April, Homeland Security's intelligence analysis division produced a nine-page "assessment" describing how the nation's economic problems and the ascent of the first African-American president "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists" and might even lead to violence between such groups and the government. Although the paper was stamped "for official use only" and bits of it were labeled "law enforcement sensitive." the document quickly made its way onto the Internet. Its contents provoked howls of rage from conservative activists (some of which was reflected in reports from ... Fox News). The report's critics expressed particular outrage at a paragraph stating that returning veterans "possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists." The report stated directly that Homeland Security's intelligence shop was "concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities." (Despite these concerns, the report also acknowledged up front that the Feds had "no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.")

After the report became public, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano backed away from it, telling members of Congress that it had been disseminated to state and local officials without proper authorization. She said the department's procedures for vetting such documents had not been followed. But Napolitano also indicated that the report would be "replaced or redone in a much more useful and much more precise fashion." After gunmen with extreme right-wing pedigrees separately killed a Kansas abortion doctor and a security guard at Washington's Holocaust Museum, some liberal activists raised questions as to when Homeland Security was going to produce an updated version of the April report.

That is unlikely to happen. Instead, said a source familiar with Homeland Security Department thinking, the contents of the April report have already been sliced and diced and put into other reports about extremism that the department has no plans to make public. "We have reused pieces of the [April] report in operational products that we've put out over the course of the last few months," a Homeland Security Department official said, asking for anonymity when discussing a politically sensitive topic. But the department evidently has no plans at this point to replace the old right-wing extremists report with a more useful or more precise version, as Secretary Napolitano initially suggested. Officials emphasize that Homeland Security keeps an eye on all kinds of extremists who could threaten violence inside the U.S., including Islamic extremists and left-wing extremists. In another paper leaked online (posted here on the Fox News Web site), the department's analysts did express concern that left wingers, such as animal-rights campaigners or environmental extremists, might try to use cyberattacks to cause economic damage.

News that Homeland Security is unlikely to revise its April report surfaces just as one of the nation's most prominent private monitors of political extremists, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, has issued a new report expressing alarm about a resurgence of right-wing extremism. This ultraconservative revival is contributing to a "toxic atmosphere of rage in America," the ADL says. Among the manifestations of such rage, according to the ADL, are antigovernment "tea party" protesters who have alleged that the current administration is acting like Nazis, a resurgent "militia" movement, and a proliferation of conspiracy theories. (The ADL explicitly condemns Fox News host Glenn Beck for "demonizing the Obama administration and promoting conspiracy theories about it.") Heidi Beirich, research director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, another private group that keeps an eye on the extreme right, told NEWSWEEK that Homeland Security's reluctance to stand by its analysis of the right-wing threat is disturbing. "From our perspective, this is ridiculous. The [April Homeland Security report] was dead-on. Why the [department] won't stand by an accurate report is incomprehensible."

Newsverse: The Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:26:47 GMT

By Jerry Adler

Exhibit A:

Consider, men and women of the jury

The evidence of displaced fury.

Rage flung like a prisoner’s feces

Against the walls. The human species

Unique in all biology

Kills for ideology.

Exhibit B:

Is entropy.

One hundred stories, ground to dust.

The twisted columns, growing rust.

Scraps of flesh and flecks of blood

Splashed outward, and then mixed with mud.

Exhibit C:

The cellphone calls.

From people trapped in stairs and halls

The roof above, below them fire.

And in the dark, the strong desire

To say goodbye, fed by belief

That one can store up memories

Against the coming grief.

Closing Argument:

Consider, if you will, the brain

And how it analyzes gain

And if anything worth having

Could justify such pain.

E-commerce Growing Despite Downturn

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:00:04 GMT

Credit: Michael Loccisano - Getty Images

High Stakes For Online Gamblers

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:50:57 GMT

By Jeremy Herb

Between online gambling and the countless ESPN reruns of the World Series of Poker, poker has become a mainstream "sport." More than 6,000 people paid $10,000 to enter this year's World Series main event, and gambling experts say 10 to 15 million Americans wager $100 billion on all forms of Internet gaming annually. The online gambling industry—made up of offshore companies—earns somewhere between $6 and $10 billion in the U.S. each year. But it's a poker game of politics, not cards, that will decide the fate of online gambling in the U.S.

The battle rests on a bill that was passed in the final hours of the 2006 Republican-controlled Congress, when Sen. Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) forbids banks from accepting illegal Internet gambling transactions. In essence, it prevents would-be players from using their debit or credit cards—a standard for online payments—for Internet gambling. Those who support Internet gambling, led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, are making a final plea to the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to push back the law for one year, giving them time to repeal it. In response, Sen. John Kyl and Rep. Spencer Bachus wrote a letter to Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke urging them to enforce the Dec. 1 deadline. The Treasury and Fed have yet to make a decision, according to a Federal Reserve official.

The problem with UIGEA is it raised more questions than it answered. The law does not make it illegal for people to gamble online, as it focuses on bank transactions. But it failed to define what's considered "illegal Internet gambling." The Treasury and Fed, which are instructing banks on how to enforce the law, did not define illegal gambling either. "The role of financial institutions is not to be policemen of the government," says Mary Dunn, senior vice president of the Credit Union National Association. The finance industry says the law is an unfair burden and also wants it delayed. But if the law goes into effect Dec. 1, all financial institutions must demonstrate they can block online transactions.

The new law won't prosecute individual players, but the risk for gamblers is that online casinos will pull out of the U.S. market. Last week, Golden Casino announced it would no longer take deposits from American players on Dec. 1, according to a gambling trade site. PartyGaming, a publicly traded company, left the U.S. in 2006 when UIGEA passed. The company paid a $105 million nonprosecution fine to the Justice Department, which took UIGEA's passage as a "Congressional mandate" to prosecute illegal online gambling.

The Justice Department believes all Internet gambling is illegal based on the 1960s Wire Act, which was designed to stop bookies from using telephones and passed long before the Internet as we know it existed. The gambling industry disputes this, arguing the Wire Act only applies to sports-betting, not games like poker or roulette. In 2002, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled the Wire Act only applied to sports-betting, but that didn't sway any opinions at Justice. Several offshore executives of online casinos and "e-wallet" payment processors have been arrested in the past few years. In June, the Justice Department froze $33 million in payments to American players from four online casinos.

If Frank gets his online gambling bill passed, however, the Wire Act dispute would disappear. Frank's bill, along with companion legislation from Rep. Jim McDermott, would legalize and tax online casinos, though online sports-betting would remain outlawed. Online gambling could generate up to $42 billion in tax revenue over the next decade, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation report. Spurred on by efforts from lobbyists and advocacy groups, Frank has vowed to overturn what he says is an "outrageous" law. His plans have been sidetracked by finance reform, however, which has eaten up most of the Financial Services Committee's time this year.

The morality debate over Internet gambling doesn't stray far from regular gambling, with a few exceptions. Opponents say the convenience of the Internet gives gambling addicts easy access to the lure of slots and cards, and encourages underage playing. Gambling advocates argue regulated sites will be more difficult for underage players because they will have stricter age verification, and that players should have the same rights online they already have in a casino. But another argument that's also being made is poker should be legalized online because it's a skill game-not a game of chance-and therefore it doesn't fall under UIGEA or the Wire Act. Sen. Robert Menendez has also introduced separate legislation that carves out an exception for poker. "People have been playing this great skill game that's been around for a long time," says Howard Lederer, a professional poker player and member of the Poker Players Alliance. "We're playing against each other, not the house."

Even if the UIGEA is enacted, it's unlikely online gambling would disappear completely. There are ways for American players to circumvent bank regulations, including setting up a foreign bank account. "We're all holding our breath and hoping the petition will be accepted," Lederer says, but that isn't the industry's only option. Online poker could be legalized through the courts on the argument that the Wire Act doesn't apply to poker. The industry is waiting to see what happens Dec. 1 before taking any action, he says. But if they do head to court, Lederer likes the odds.

Footballing Obama Experiences the Wonders of Slow Motion

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:12:20 GMT

If President Obama was looking for another way to differentiate himself from President Bush, he just found it. When it comes to sports, you might recall Bush as an avid mountain biker. He also showed off some lightening-quick reflexes that one time that would give him an edge in dodgeball, and certainly fencing. Obama’s forté so far has been shooting hoops. Now add to the list, football. Check out this PSA that will run during several football games on Thanksgiving Day that encourages kids to get more exercise. Between spliced footage of kids running and doing jumping jacks, Obama makes a cameo on the White House lawn, tossing around the old pigskin. An ordinary game of catch, right? Not quite. The whole spot comes off as rather moving, almost epic, but not because of Obama or his receiving skills. Producers slowed down the footage so much that a short-range pass from New Orleans’s Saints quarterback Drew Brees to Obama ends up looking like a Sports Center highlight. Then, add in some dramatic background music and the receiver-in-chief almost looks qualified for a Heisman. Of course that would be premature. First we would need to see his end-zone dance.

Ungenerous Japan

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:57:56 GMT

By Takashi Yokota

Japan, the globe's second-largest economy, has long prided itself on its reputation as one of the world's most generous nations. But the Center for Global Development (CGD) thinks the country is punching below its weight. A recent report by the reputable Washington think tank ranked Japan the second-worst contributor among the 22 countries it surveyed. The analysis of "how much countries are living up to their potential to help" found that while Japan's foreign-aid budget is large in absolute terms, it amounts to only 0.18 percent of gross national income, compared with 0.98 percent for Sweden, which ranks first. The report also dings Japan for its insular policies, such as Tokyo's steep tariffs on rice imports (to protect its farmers), its strict policy on refugees (it accepted a mere 410 out of 4,882 applicants between 1982 and 2005), and its small contributions to global peacekeeping efforts (due to restrictions in its pacifist Constitution).

The new Yukio Hatoyama administration may improve matters. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada has said he will review and increase Tokyo's official development assistance and make it easier to deploy peacekeeping personnel. Last week Tokyo also announced it will dole out $5 billion to Afghanistan over the next five years. But don't expect Japan to move up the ranks on the CGD's scale any time soon--considering the country's severe budget crunch, the coming changes are likely to be incremental at best.

What Did the Accused Fort Hood Shooter Say to a Jihadi Cleric?

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:09:54 GMT

By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff

The Fort Hood shooting may soon become more politically explosive. Two U.S. intelligence officials Thursday night confirmed to Declassified key details of a just-breaking ABC News report--that in emails sent to a radical Yemeni cleric, accused shooter Nidal Hasan asked when jihad is appropriate, and said “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife.

One U.S. official, who did not want to be named discussing sensitive information, said the emails could be “a problem,” but cautioned that they still needed to be viewed in context.

In background briefings for reporters and members of Congress, U.S. officials have insisted that Hasan’s communications with radical imam Anwar al Awlaki were consistent with a paper he was researching as an Army psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center. After a Joint Terrorism Task Force reviewed the emails last spring and concluded that Hasan was “not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning,” FBI and U.S. Army officials chose not to open an investigation. But members of Congress now are demanding answers about what the FBI and Army knew—and the ABC report is likely to fuel those demands. (The ABC story also reports that, while earning a salary of $92,000 a year including his housing and food allowances, Hasan contributed $20,000 to $30,000 a year to Islamic charities.)

To respond to Congress--and to prepare for Hasan’s trial--U.S. intelligence officials have been wrestling with how much of the email chain (intercepted by U.S. intelligence) can be declassified without compromising sources and methods. Given the leaks, that question may soon be academic.

Several officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that Awlaki has been a major target for American intelligence collectors since he left the United States in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, settling first in England and then Yemen. While in the United States, Awlaki had preached at a mosque in the Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C.; Hasan used to attend the same mosque, which reportedly hosted his mother’s funeral. Before moving to the Virginia mosque, Awlaki lived in San Diego, where investigators say he met two future 9/11 hijackers.

U.S. intelligence agencies monitored Awlaki once he settled in Yemen due to his relationship with 9/11 participants, but also because he was outspoken in favor of jihad. Even before his relationship with the accused Ft. Hood shooter came to light, Awlaki was recognized by experts on Islamic extremism (see this paper by the NEFA Foundation) as a leading radical preacher—one of the few who preached his message in English. Because of his pro-jihad postings on the Internet, Awlaki’s name has regularly turned up in terrorism investigations, including court cases in Canada, Britain, and the U.S. state of Georgia, as well as in a failed plot to shoot up a military training base at Ft. Dix, New Jersey.

Given all of that, Ft. Hood investigators will want to know why Hasan’s email contacts with Awlaki didn’t create more alarm. To answer that question, they’ll want to examine the contents of the emails. But intercepts gathered by U.S. intelligence—mainly by the ultra-secretive National Security Agency—are usually considered some of the government’s most sacred secrets. Historically, the NSA has exerted enormous effort to keep them that way. Intelligence officials argue that, at the very least, making the intercepts public would remind Awlaki and people like him that they are being monitored; going public might also give potential enemies clues as to how such monitoring is conducted.

Yet because the emails are central to discovering whether U.S. authorities ignored warning signs about Hasan’s behavior, the spy agencies may lose this argument. “I assume they will have to declassify material,” one veteran intelligence official said. Law enforcement and intelligence agency spokespeople either declined to comment or said that it is too early to address the declassification issue.

Earlier this week, the ABC News investigative team, led by correspondent Brian Ross, also reported that Hasan had tried to get government and military lawyers to open criminal investigations of soldiers he claimed had confessed to “war crimes” during psychiatric counseling sessions. According to ABC, however, Hasan’s military superiors “repeatedly ignored or rebuffed” Hasan’s complaints. ABC said that one military lawyer, Col. Anthony Febbo, had told investigators that on three occasions in the weeks before the massacre, Hasan had contacted him asking whether it was permissible, under medical privacy laws or rules, for him to provide prosecutors with information on "war crimes." Febbo told ABC News he could not comment because of the ongoing investigation, and a spokesman for Army Headquarters told Newsweek that the service was not commenting on any aspect of the Hasan investigation. Spokespeople for Defense Secretary Robert Gates and James Clapper, the Pentagon’s chief of intelligence, had no immediate comment.

Grumbling About China and the Renminbi

Robert J. Samuelson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:23:38 GMT

Wonder why President Obama’s trip this week to China didn’t go more smoothly? Meetings between Obama and top Chinese leaders were reportedly stiff; the Chinese also limited domestic press coverage of Obama’s appearances. The explanation is disarmingly obvious: huge disagreements separate the two countries that can’t easily be papered over.

Anyone doubting that ought to take a quick read of the latest annual report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group established by Congress in 2000 to examine the connections between the countries’ economic relations and broader issues of national security. The Commission has typically been more suspicious of Chinese policies and motives than many American analysts. This year’s report is no exception.

The picture of China drawn by the Commission is of a rapidly-growing country that, through an undervalued exchange rate and systematic industrial policies, increasingly challenges the U.S. economy and is rapidly expanding and modernizing its military. The commission cited estimates that China’s currency, the renminbi (RMB), is undervalued by 12 percent to 40 percent. Despite a 4 trillion RMB ($586 billion) “stimulus” package announced in Nov. 2008—to offset the effects of the global economic crisis—China “is still pursuing an export-led strategy,” the report said. At the end of September, China’s foreign exchange reserves totaled $2.27 trillion.

Though the U.S.-China trade deficit in 2009 of $144 billion (through August) was down 17.6 percent from the same period in 2008, most of the decline reflected the deep U.S. recession and less demand from American consumers. In fact, the report said, China’s share of the total (non-oil) U.S. trade deficit continues to rise and is now about 80 percent, up from 40 percent as recently as 2005. The Commission echoed the criticism of many U.S. economists who argue that China’s large trade surpluses, reinvested in heavily in U.S. Treasury bonds, contributed to the present economic crisis. The argument is that the reinvested dollars kept interest rates down and caused banks and other investors to shift funds into riskier mortgage-related securities with higher interest rates.

“If China continues to pursue huge trade and investment surpluses and to accumulate vast financial claims, it will hinder the necessary global economic adjustment, create excess manufacturing capacity, and lay groundwork for the next [economic] crisis,” the report warned.

Aside from trade policies, the report also alleged that China has stepped up its cyber attacks against U.S. private and government data networks. It cited Defense Department estimates that “malicious” incidents against DOD systems had doubled since 2005, from 23,03l to 54,640 in 2008, and are on track to increase another 60 percent in 2009. The Commission conceded that tracing the origins of cyber attacks is difficult and that many come from “”private hacking groups.”. However, the report contended that the technical features and targets of some attacks pointed to heavy Chinese involvement.

On military matters, the Commission said that, supported by an expanding economy, China “has embarked on its largest naval modernization since the founding of the PRC [People’s Republic of China] in 1949.” The main aim is to deter “Taiwan from declaring independence” and “to impede other nations—including the United States—from intervening on Taiwan’s behalf.” In recent years, the report said, China had purchased or built 38 submarines, 13 destroyers and 16 frigates and has developed “advanced offensive and defensive weapons, such as anti-ship cruise missiles, land –attack cruise missiles, and sea mines.” However, American officials believe that the United States retains naval superiority in the region.

The Commission’s powers are confined to investigations and recommendations to Congress. Its recommendations this year included making more formal complaints to the World Trade Organization about Chinese trading practices and taking legislative steps to offset the effects of the undervalued RMB.

More Grumbling About China and the Renminbi

Robert J. Samuelson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:09:35 GMT

Photo: Getty Images

After the Bombs: The U.S. Needs to Figure Out Its Aid Plan for Pakistan. Fast.

Katie Paul — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:58:46 GMT

Photo credit: Anjum Naveed / AP

By this time next month, Pakistan is likely to have a monster of a reconstruction project on its hands. That’s not necessarily because latest anti-Taliban offensive has laid such waste to its tribal areas; it hasn’t. As those who went on the press junket through South Waziristan earlier this week pointed out, the army hasn’t had to wage much of a fight, and images of rubble (like the one above) are less common than evidence of sudden flight. The militants—Mehsuds, Uzbeks, and maybe some Arabs—have scattered, potentially to Afghanistan, mainstream Pakistan, or North Waziristan, where the Afghan Taliban is likely holed up. That raises a worrisome question about the next phase, once displaced civilians start heading back to their homes: what’s to keep the militants from simply coming back with them?

A big part of the answer was supposed to be beefed-up economic and civil society development. As security analysts point out, the official FATA (Federally Administrated Tribal Areas) government consists of a fragile, volatile, and increasingly beleaguered tribal structure, whose long-term bungling of basic services provided the political opening for firebrand Taliban leaders to gain power in the first place. Now, even that structure is in shards, with many tribal leaders among the casualties of the Taliban. Once the shooting stops in the coming weeks, those analysts say, the battle for control of the region will quickly become a hearts-and-minds competition based on who can provide essential services.

The Obama administration seems as keenly aware of that as anyone, talking up development and signing off last month on the ambitious Kerry-Lugar bill, which ratchets up non-military aid for Pakistan from around $400 million a year to $1.5 billion a year. As John Kerry explained it to the Council on Foreign Relations, the new approach should kick in as soon as the Pakistani army withdraws, when there will be a window of “immediate opportunities” to put those development initiatives to the test.

So what’s the plan for that money, exactly? Good question, is the most common response in Washington. “That’s the one thing we do not know,” says Sam Worthington, who heads up Interaction, a consortium of NGOs responsible for coordinating initiatives with the U.S government. While there has been near-unanimous support in Washington for ramping up development initiatives in Pakistan, U.S. development strategy has been in flux for months, as the State Department, USAID, and Congress wage bureaucratic turf battles over how and to whom the money should be funneled once it gets to Pakistan.

Shortly after he took on his new role as special envoy, Richard Holbrooke launched head-first into that fray (in typical fashion). He began making plans to shift aid money over to the Pakistani government and local NGOs, putting a hold on existing contracts, which are mostly with non-Pakistani contractors, while his team set about reviewing which ones to keep around and which ones to cut loose. Critics have long complained about the drawbacks of foreign contractors: high overhead costs, minimal local participation in the projects, and crippling security restrictions. Highlighting development as a key part of their diplomatic strategy, the Obama team promised to change that. So, while Holbrooke was characteristically bold in forging ahead on the policy change in Pakistan, the move actually reflects a pronounced philosophical shift in the administration’s thinking on aid.

The questions are how, and how fast, that shift can happen. A number of reviews are underway to determine those answers. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), run by policy planning chief Anne Marie Slaughter, is putting the State Department's inner workings under the microscope to better leverage American soft power. There were initial concerns the QDDR was a ploy to absorb USAID into the State Department—so-called “absorption conspiracy theories”—though Slaughter has stated in no uncertain terms that option is off the table. In the Oval Office, the President put Jim Jones and Larry Summers in charge of the Presidential Study Directive, a government-wide review of global development policy. Both the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees are putting together initiatives to overhaul the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, which controls USAID's mandate and funding, though aides grumble that they wish each would stay out of the other’s way—and the State Department wishes they would both stay out of its way. Finally, this summer Holbrooke brought on Ambassador Robin Raphel, an experienced foreign service hand, to oversee all development initiatives in Pakistan. She’s now conducting her own review of all the contracts in Pakistan.

None of those reviews are finished. In the meantime, say development workers, USAID projects currently underway are stuck in limbo, renewed for 45-90 days at a time as they wait for the word from Washington. Naturally, all that bureaucratic reshuffling has given USAID the jitters. A leaked memo from a senior USAID economist warned that the USAID office in Pakistan is receiving “contradictory objectives” from Holbrooke’s team, and that attempts to rapidly shift projects over to the Pakistanis are “shockingly counterproductive” to counterinsurgency and economic development objectives.” The USAID office in Islamabad seems just as conflicted; development workers say their USAID contacts have intentionally avoided putting any advisories in writing, wary of having contractors wind down much-needed projects when they’re most needed. “I have never seen an AID mission in as much chaos as the one in Islamabad right now,” said one sub-contractor, who did not want to be identified because of his ongoing work with USAID in the FATA.

Part of the confusion stems from the absence of a top USAID advocate within the administration. The agency’s top post sat vacant for ten months. When Rajiv Shah was finally appointed USAID administrator last week, staffers hoped the pieces might finally start falling into place. But mixed signals remain, mostly concerning how much power Shah will actually have to determine the way forward after the reviews are completed. Given the uncertainties over the future of his post, the administration reportedly had to reach out to more than a dozen candidates who turned down the job before Shah finally agreed to take it.

However the reviews shake out in Washington, the likely end result in Pakistan is a mix of routes for the money: some handed off to the Pakistani government, some run through international contractors, and some funneled directly to local groups—and even development wonks agree, that could be a good thing. That is, says Worthington, if they get the mix right. The devil is in the details, of course, and timing is a key one. According to a new report from the International Crisis Group, U.S. officials should hold off transferring control over development programs to the Pakistan government until the FATA secretariat, the FATA Development Authority and the office of political agent are abolished and their authority transferred to the NWFP secretariat. That could be a long, uncomfortable transition, especially considering the uproar in Pakistan over perceived U.S. micromanagement of the Kerry-Lugar billions. But given the warnings about the lack of "local capacity" in Pakistan, that may still be the right call. What remains to be seen is whether those devilish details will be ironed out in time to have an impact.

It’s OK Not to Care about the European Union Presidency

Adam B. Kushner — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:52:27 GMT

As Barrett points out, the world wasn't exactly riveted was by the selection of the next president of the European Union (whom you've never heard of). Good. Except for the fact that Gordon Brown failed to install his predecessor Tony Blair in the post, there's not much to say about it. The consensus is already emerging that he'll have no power. The truly important figure will be Europe's number-two, the Baroness Catherine Ashton of Upholland, who was just named EU foreign affairs chief.

Who? I started casting around to see what I might learn about Europe's top diplomat. The answer is next to nothing; after a few years as the continent's trade chief, she still has no profile. Will she fight for sanctions against Iran? Will she try to weaken Chinese support for the genocidal regime in Khartoum? Ashton is an unknown quantity. Reuters has started collecting her vitals.

Lula Foists Brazil into New Role: Middle East Power Broker

Andrew Bast — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:42:49 GMT

(Photo: Getty Images)

Next week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will make the rounds of South America. Hardly surprising that he will be dropping in to see Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales in Venezuela -- in recent years the 21st century socialists of Latin America have largely aligned themselves with the Iranian strongman. But Ahmadinejad is also making a more unexpected stop: Brazil.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has made his mark as the leader of one of the world's strongest up-and-coming economies, but now he is also asserting a new kind of diplomatic clout. Earlier this month, Lula hosted Israeli President Shimon Peres, and said, "We need to talk more and to find more partners who want to help in peace-building in the Middle East. And we do not refuse to talk to anyone, as long as in that chat we can get a word, or at least a comma, that might help build peace." Hosting the Iranian president next week -- though Lula has reportedly said there will be no holocaust-denying or Israel-bashing going on -- could well be an exclamation point.

This diplomacy down south has been in the making for a while. According to Reuters, earlier this year, President Obama asked Lula to step in as a broker with Iran. It very much remains to be seen what kind of leverage the Brazilian president might have in the Middle East, and just as much, why he would want to turn his attention away from the rapidly growing beast that is the Brazilian economy to deal with some of the most twisted, complicated, and convoluted conundrums in international politics.

Photo-ops may abound, but we fear that demonstrable progress may well prove elusive. That is, in the big-power circles of the permanent members of the Security Council, at least. If this is a play by Washington to build a consensus in the developing South to take a diplomatic lick at Ahmadinejad from those who he considers his kinsmen, something more interesting could be afoot. But would that mean that Lula is just Washington's pawn?