http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/21/larry-whitfield-sentenced_n_366544.html

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A man will spend the rest of his life in prison after he was found guilty in what prosecutors said was a case of scaring a 79-year-old North Carolina grandmother to death.

Multiple media outlets reported a federal jury found 21-year-old Larry Whitfield not guilty of murder Friday in the death of Mary Parnell last year. But they did find him guilty of causing her death by kidnapping her, and that carries an automatic life sentence.

Prosecutors say Whitfield was looking for somewhere to hide after a failed bank robbery attempt in Gastonia in September 2008 when he broke into Parnell's home. Authorities say Whitfield never touched the grandmother, but she suffered a heart attack when she saw him, and he didn't call for help. According to WCNC, Parnell's husband found her four hours later.

Parnell's son-in-law David Hains spoke to WCNC, "He committed this crime with callous indifference. My mother-in-law had a heart attack right in front of this guy, and he didn't even have the decency to call an ambulance...All he cared about was himself, and he can think about that for the rest of his life in jail."

WATCH WCNC's Report:
More on Crime

So John aka jawnbcaka Dr. E. is on a business trip that will eventually take him to Greece. If I got him right, he started in Budapest, Hungary then off to Zagreb, Croatia and Belgrade, Serbia and then Athens... I nice short exploring of this part of Europe. And since Zagreb is a mere 120 kms away from Ljubljana and since he is one of my "oldest" pals in the WWWorld and since he is a person very dear to me (although he might not know it) and since he is a man that made my LJ come true... I was more than happy to have the chance to see him again and really glad he told Slovenian LJ people he's going to be in Zagreb. Mitja mitjablazicand Viki vksihave also been sharing a LJ world with John for a while and today was a great chance for them to meet in person. I think it all just clicked.

The cast performed as expected. Iggy was kind, Mitja and John were fireworks of conversation, Viki and me were just the usual bitches. Our Saturday could hardly be any better. :)

Oh, some short history... My LJ story started HERE and jawnbc in Slovenia is HERE. :)


mitjablazic, vksi, jawnbc, paterson_si.


( More LJ in ZG. :) )

hi all.

So, my last experiment failed. After that experiment, I rested, then drove home to CT for my mom's 60th bday.

We discovered, afterward, why it failed; the strains provided to us are auxotrophs - they have an inability to synthesize uracil, a nucleotide required for transcription. So, when you make media to feed these guys, you need to spike in some uracil to keep them happy.

Anyhow, I'm 8 hours and 8 minutes in to the next 30 hour time course. So far so good. I'll probably get relieved around hour 22, and I have plenty of caffeine to get me going, so it should be fine.

In the interim, I have work to do. I've decided I'll grade papers and listen to music during this time course. While everyone is out having fun, I'll be pippetting.

I think around 1 am stuff is supposed to happen. Hopefully this won't be a repeat of last time?

How's everybody's weekend going?

http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/cmqpcPitGLY/-GOP-health-care-derangement-syndrome:-Stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-one.

Government takeover! Destroying America! The end of the world as we know it!

Yes, we've heard it all before. But did you know how many times, and for how long?

The fact is that the Republican Party told teabaggers' grandmas (of "death panel" fame) that Social Security was going to be the end of America. And today you can't swing a euthanized cat without hitting a Republican at a microphone insisting he's Social Security's greatest champion.

Republicans likewise told teabaggers' dads that Medicare would be the end of America. And today you can't swing a... oh yeah, you've heard that one.

Today, of course, Republicans will spend the entire day telling teabaggers themselves that the health insurance reform bill will be the end of America.

Gosh, poor America! That's a lotta ends!

Not sure you remember just how sure Republicans were about all those ends? Remind yourself with this trip down Fevered Nightmare Lane.

Today my man turns 64!! Yay!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-holewinski/bad-math-in-afghanistan-d_b_362566.html

Nobody's manning the calculator at NATO.

This year is on track to be the deadliest for Afghan civilians since the war began in 2001. Yet Oxfam just reported that of the 700 Afghans they interviewed just 1% received any compensation or apology for the harm done to them.

War never delivers clean numbers. But no matter how you look at these, something doesn't add up.

International forces acknowledge that civilians are key to their mission but still haven't figured out a coordinated way to help Afghan war victims. Just months ago, General McChrystal specifically endorsed a collective policy of compensation in his 60-day assessment of the Afghan war, but NATO is still dragging its heels.

To break this down into real terms: If your home is accidentally bombed by a Coalition airstrike, you may get compensation for the loss of property. But you likely won't. If your son is shot at a checkpoint by, say, a European, you may get some money. You may even get more than if your house was destroyed. Or you may get nothing at all.

Is this really the right way to respect the population? To win them over?

Some states like the U.S., Canada and Australia are relatively good about offering compensation when Afghans are caught in their crossfire, and are getting better about not making knee-jerk denials following tragic incidents. But the international coalition includes 26 NATO, 10 partner and 2 non-NATO countries. Taken together, their efforts to address civilian suffering are horribly scattered -- ad hoc, slow and under-used to the point that most Afghan civilians receive nothing for their losses.

The fact remains there is no coordinated system or even uniform guidelines for addressing civilian harm among international forces. Survivor's pleas for apologies, investigations and assistance have been largely met with silence. That's a big missed opportunity for respecting and establishing stability among the Afghan population.

There's a big NATO gathering coming up in early December, where all of the big decision makers will gather in Brussels to discuss Afghanistan.

How about finally addressing the human cost of this war for Afghans?

More on Afghanistan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/new-report-gmos-causing-m_b_362888.html

There is one fact about genetically engineered foods that there is no debate about: no one wakes up in the morning eager to buy gene-altered food. There's good reason for this. Genetically modified foods do nothing for the "eating public". They provide no extra nutrition, flavor, safety or any other trait that people actually want. Instead, these food products only offer risks, which include potential toxicity, allergenecity, and lower nutritional value.

This presents a tough problem for the Monsantos of the world, who are pushing these GM foods. How can you sell something to the public that offers no benefits to them? And, because of their lobbying power, the biotech companies have ensured that their products are not labeled. So Monsanto's real request of the public is "be unknowing guinea pigs for foods that make us a lot of money and offer you nothing but risk."

Obviously this message is a PR nightmare, so Monsanto has come up with a spin that is old as public relations itself: "accept and buy our products because they will help the world." More particularly, their ads displayed in mass transit systems around the country and regularly on NPR claim that GM foods "will feed a hungry world" and "reduce the load of pesticides" used in agriculture.

Not surprisingly, both these claims turn out to be self-serving myths. Earlier this year the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a detailed report entitled "Failure to Yield". The report's findings were straightforward and incontrovertible. After 21 years of research, billions of dollars of investments in public and private funds, and more than 13 years of commercialization, GM crops have done nothing to significantly increase yield: so much for the "feeding the world's hungry" spin.

Now, a new report from The Organic Center, "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years", exposes the "less pesticide" myth. The report, which was released on Tuesday, was authored by Dr. Charles Benbrook, a leading agricultural scientist. In the spirit of full disclosure, I should also mention that Center for Food Safety helped fund the report.

It turns out that far from reducing pesticides, GM crops are a major reason for the massive expansion of pesticide use in recent years. This should not be a surprise. The majority of GE crops are "Roundup Ready," designed to survive heavy and repeated spraying with Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller. Roundup Ready crops have dramatically increased Roundup use, and spawned a growing epidemic of Roundup-resistant weeds, which now infest millions of acres of American cropland. Killing resistant weeds requires more herbicides. How much more? Dr. Benbrook's study - based on official USDA data - shows that GE crops have increased the overall use of weedkillers in the U.S. by a massive 383 million pounds since 1996.

Sometimes even more chemicals won't do the trick. In the South, cotton farmers are reverting to the pre-industrial practice of "chopping cotton," or manual hoeing, to rid their fields of Roundup-resistant pigweed.

Never fear, the biotech industry has "killer" solutions to the Roundup-resistant weed epidemic - you guessed it, new crops resistant to different and multiple herbicides. Dr. Benbrook describes these "next-generation" GE crops, which are the true pesticide-promoting future of agricultural biotechnology.

For instance, Dow Agrosciences will soon bring us GE corn, resistant to 2,4-D, one of the weedkillers in Agent Orange - the dioxin-laced defoliant used during the Vietnam War. 2,4-D-resistant corn will undoubtedly increase use of this dangerous weedkiller, which has been banned in Sweden, Norway and Denmark due to its links to cancer and reproductive disorders. Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer and Syngenta all have their own new "herbicide-tolerant" crops in the works, some resistant to two and even three herbicides each. The inevitable result will be continuing increases in the use of toxic chemicals to kill "next-generation" weeds resistant to multiple weedkillers.

In the face of all this, many farmers are becoming disillusioned with GE crops. In many states, demand for conventional seed, especially soybeans, is outstripping supply. Among the reasons given by farmers for this historic switch are dramatic price hikes for biotech seeds, increased pesticide costs due to resistant weeds, premiums for non-GM supplies, and importantly, the ability to save and replant conventional seeds, which is illegal with Monsanto's patented GE seeds.

Thanks then to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Organic Center for debunking the myths about GM crops and foods. In terms of timing, the two reports released this year couldn't have come at a more crucial moment. Through careful scientific analysis they expose the false advertising that biotechnology companies are using in print and on our public radio airways.

We should all know what Monsanto and other companies are selling, and its not a solution to world hunger or a cleanser for the environment. What they are really selling is what they make best: chemicals. The biotech giants - Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow - are, without exception, major pesticide manufacturers. They have each bought up sizeable chunks of the world's seed supply, and are using biotechnology to make those seeds sell their pesticides for them.

It may be good for their bottom line, but its bad for us, the safety of our food, and the health of our environment.

More on Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-loux/the-great-pacific-garbage_b_366539.html

About a thousand miles off the coast of California, in the great blue Pacific Ocean, there is a flotsam of plastic that covers hundreds, possibly thousands of miles. It's called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (and various iterations on the theme). It is largely governed by the gyre in the North Pacific Subtropical Zone, which is a fancy term for a bunch of clock-wise-circulating ocean currents that converge in this moderately stationary part of the ocean. It appears to migrate north and south seasonally, as much as a thousand miles, but one thing's for sure: it's big. The verdict is out on definitive answers about the volume, primary sources, density, and average size of the debris, but another thing's for sure: it's growing. When I first heard of it, about 6 years ago, it was estimated to be roughly the size of Texas. At the time, I could hardly believe it - how could pollution of that proportion be so relatively unknown? Now, some estimated the Great Plastic Patch to be twice that size. Could it have grown that fast? It's hard to say.
Since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) first documented it in 1988, increased scrutiny has revealed a can of worms. First, the Great Garbage Patch is not as visually concrete as one might expect. Robert Knox, deputy director of research for California's Scripps Institute of Oceanography explains, "There may be a misapprehension...that if you got out there and stood on the middle of a deck, you'd see nothing but plastic litter from horizon to horizon...Certainly one does encounter pieces of plastic stuff that are big enough to see. But the other side of the puzzle is all the little bits and pieces of plastic that you can't even see unless you scoop up a sample of seawater and see what's in there." The density of debris may not be solid enough to walk on, in part because the plastic stuff is breaking down, though not nearly at the rate in which it is accumulating, but also due to the extensive possible depth of distribution. The fact that it's breaking down intersects a causal concern about plastic as a material, which poses a significant danger for the entire marine food chain. The most obvious danger is for larger animals such as birds, fish, and turtles mistaking pieces of plastic for food and ostensibly starve to death because their guts become full of indigestible plastic and are unable to ingest enough real food. But, a deeper and more complex concern is for small organisms at the bottom of the food chain that ingest small particles of plastic and feed it up the food chain. Unlike polluting debris that biodegrades (meaning it breaks down in to materials that exist in nature or are similar enough to plant and animal matter to be put to use by microorganisms), plastic photodegrades, which means that as it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, it will always remain as a petroleum-based polymer even when broken down to the molecular level. What this really means is: plastic never ever really goes away. Climbing up the food chain, where larger animals eat smaller animals, plastic inevitably enters the human food supply too. Among the questions about how a diet of plastic will affect the scope food chain over time, one that surfaces with quiet concern is: what's the impact of a massive scale marine breakdown and ingestion of the plasticizers that are widely used in plastic, such as BPA (Bisphenol A), which have shown hormone disrupting traits? It's a short stretch of the imagination to be sure we'll find out. The question that is likely the most pertinent is: what can we do to about The Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Learn more, get involved, and opt out of plastic whenever possible. Thanks to increasing interest and media coverage, 2009 marked the year that clean-up efforts have begun on a scale with potential to make a dent in this doozie.
To learn more and to get involved in the action, visit www.projectkaisei.org
Visit Renée Loux at www.reneeloux.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-buzzell/integrating-the-best-idea_b_362895.html

As a psychotherapist I've done my share of counseling squabbling couples and have learned to listen carefully to both partners in any dispute, looking for common ground to build on.

Lately I've begun to apply this method to politics, with some fascinating results. As I put aside my own particular political taste (progressive/green) and work at being as objective in following the news as I am in the counseling room, I have started to realize that each side of our current polarized society has some really valid ideas that the other refuses to hear.

When people aren't heard, they often scream louder and louder. If they still can't make themselves understood, they often retreat emotionally into disengagement or finally resort to old-fashioned hatred and even violence.

The predictable result of not listening to our fellow citizens is -- as in couple quarrels -- that divorce seems the only solution. But in US politics, there is no such thing as divorce. We tried that once (the Civil War) and the country has yet to fully recover from that horrible break-up.

So what issues am I suggesting that progressives, liberals and conservatives might actually find agreement on if they truly listened to each other?

1) Abortion. (Yes, abortion!) The hard-line left is asking for abortion on demand, making the rights of the mother primary. The hard-line right calls for no abortion ever, making the rights of the unborn child primary. There is an obvious middle ground here. If we truly listened both to women's needs and also to concerns about children, other relatives and the rest of society, we would see that the solution lies in developing a complex decision-making process, not a quick yes or no. Every case and situation is different. The interests of each woman, her potential child, the child's father, the grandparents and the wider community need to be weighed. There would probably be different rules for each stage of pregnancy, and doctors, judges and ethicists might be part of the process. It would be challenging for our country to come up with some agreed-upon way to make decisions with such deep life consequences. Would this be difficult or even impossible in our current polarized political system? Of course. But intellectually, rationally and practically, this is a path we will all surely walk before too long.

2) Taxation. The left is all for government taking care of multiple community and personal needs using tax-payer funding. The right screams "no taxation!" and wails against government expenses (unless the money goes to the military or big corporations). Again, there is a need for both sides to listen to the underlying concerns. The right has an excellent point that there needs to be a balance between the size of government and the size of the taxpayer base. They also have a legitimate concern that much money is wasted in every area of government bureaucracy and that small businesses mustn't be taxed beyond their ability to survive and create jobs. But the left is correct in bewailing the undertaxation of the very wealthy and pointing out that impoverishing public education and health care is actually penny wise and pound foolish. Again, both sides make important points and the only "win" is if all concerns are addressed in a revamping of the tax system and government spending so a healthier balance is achieved.

3) Health care. Progressives want single-payer health insurance for all, paid for by the taxpayer-funded government. Liberals want a health care system that covers everyone, preferably with a mix of private and public options. The right wants corporate insurance for those who have earned the money to afford it. Again, we need to listen to the fears behind the positions. Some on the right fear more personal taxation, oppressive government bureaucratic systems and loss of choice. Corporations fear higher health insurance costs and higher taxation - even though logic might dictate they'd be better off if the taxpayer took over the health care burden. Those on the left fear the callous greed of for-profit health insurance companies and hospitals that have financial and life-or-death power over their customers. All of these fears need to be addressed. For a rational solution, we need to look at how other countries manage with their various systems. Who are the countries with the healthiest population, the lowest infant mortality rate plus healthy economies? Do they have systems that might work for us?

4) The Environment. The right fears that protecting the rest of nature will cost human jobs and freedom. In fact, this fear is sometimes so extreme that people are conned into complete denial of all environmental problems, despite scientific studies and the evidence of their own senses. The left argues that trashing the planet has put the survival of the human race and multiple other species at risk. The solution seems obvious: rapidly fostering "no waste" green and sustainable industries and agriculture, which will create green jobs. In fact, this is what is beginning to happen all over the world, most notably in Europe and Asia. And yes, we desperately need things to progress much more quickly -- and the way to make that happen is to listen compassionately to the concerns on both sides.

5) The Economy. The right believes in free market capitalism as the solution to all problems. Liberals support regulated capitalism and a mix of government programs and private enterprises. Those further left advocate some form of democratic socialism, as in the Scandinavian countries. Greens promote sustainability, relocalization, deglobalization and "living local economies." The usual fears underlie each position: the right worries about curtailment of freedom. Those on the traditional left look to big government for answers and fear big corporations. And greens fear the environmental apocalypse and are building "lifeboats" and reinventing the economy "as if people and the planet mattered." If we listened to the concerns of each group and travelled the world to see how the various solutions are faring in other countries, perhaps we could break through our polarized viewpoints to find a way that would allow us to meet the needs of our country's people without destroying each other and the rest of the planet.

Of course we could consider many more issues that have also become unproductively polarized: drugs (treatment vs. punishment), crime, security and the media being just a few.

So what do you think? Is there any chance that we might start listening to those with whom we most disagree so we can incorporate their best ideas into our integrative solutions?

More on Health Care

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/21/cal-stanford-big-game-200_n_366533.html

Led by the running of Gerhart and freshman quarterback Andrew Luck, coach Jim Harbaugh's 14th-ranked Cardinal (7-3, 6-2 Pac-10) are playing for a chance at the conference title when they host California (7-3, 4-3).

This is the first time since 1991 that both teams enter the rivalry game with at least seven wins.

More on College Football

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/n-e-marsden/health-care-rationing-why_b_365434.html

America has long needed a rational discussion of what we as a society are willing to pay for in a health care system and how best to provide it. Part of that discussion is rationing.

For example, it is fair to say that most Americans do NOT want to pay for other people's cosmetic plastic surgery. That's rationing and it has to be discussed.

Proponents of private health care are fear-mongering with the "R" word -- a specious tactic. First of all, it is ludicrous to imply that private insurance companies don't flat-out refuse procedures that people genuinely need or desperately want; and that they don't make those determinations based on cost/benefit analysis. A private policy is crammed with exclusions and conditions-- which is rationing.

Secondly, even if America opts for a private health care system, government always has and always will set the ground rules for coverage. The obvious example is preexisting conditions clauses. Many states have slapped on rules to prevent this unfair form of rationing, and now some conservatives are actually proposing federal regulations for the same purpose. Because private companies pursue the profit motive, not public health, government oversight is necessary.

Third, it is false to assert that government will necessarily be the more restrictive arbiter of what will and won't be paid for by "the system." Evidence in other sectors suggests precisely the opposite. Consider the plight of Special Needs children in private schools. In my state it is a given that Special Needs kids go to public school, because private schools have the legal right to reject them flat out, and they do so everyday. Only in public school are parents guaranteed services. And believe me, savvy parents armed with lawyers and "advocates" work the system to get what they need, and sometimes more than they deserve for their Special Needs children. These are realities that must be examined, problems that must be solved -- and the "R" word isn't helping.

Which brings us to the greatest hypocrisy underlying the "health care rationing" hoopla. Partisans raising this red herring have no compunction about rationing care they don't want to pay for. The obvious examples are illegal immigrants and their children, and pregnant women who want an abortion. No matter what you may think about either of these categories, it's rationing. And if you scratch the conservative mind a bit deeper, you find a rather coherent libertarian argument that, hey, taxpayers who take care of their health should not have to foot the bill for people who choose to smoke or over-eat and thereby incur diabetes and obesity. Some go a step farther: healthy people who don't go to doctors should not have to pay for the infirm and the hypochondriacs among us.

The suggestion that private health care plans relieve citizens of these burdens and dicey choices is simply false. We pay for each other's health care, one way or another. In the public option, through taxes. In the private option, through premiums, which are increasingly exorbitant -- not just because of "frivolous lawsuits" but also because of over-prescribing and personal freedom to seek care when we want it.

It's time to put away the "R" word and the misinformation associated with it. Choosing what to cover and what not to cover is a key factor in the health care debate. For that, America needs to have "ration-al" discussion.

More on Health Care

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/climategate-in-perspectiv_b_366531.html

Climate conspriricists pounced at the opportunity yesterday to draw grandiose conclusions from the illegal hacking of private emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. 

They wasted no time declaring global warming a vast science-wing conspiracy, orchestrated by a powerful handful of white-coats who, when not publishing in reputable peer-reviewed science journals, were (gasp) emailing each other to talk shop and vent about climate skeptic “idiots” (how un-PC).

The scandalistas say little about the fact that this breach of security and publishing of private communications is a crime, content to enjoy the opportunity to cherry-pick a few lines from these internal emails to push the skeptic theory of a sinister master plan by mainstream scientists to warn humanity that man has altered the climate in dangerous ways.

The Telegraph’s resident skeptic blogger, James Dellingpole, immediately labeled this episode “Climategate,” pondering whether this is “the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming.’”

If James Dellingpole lived in Newton’s day, his blog (er, scroll) might have read something like this. 

And here are some of the “tasters” Sir Dellingpole might have pulled from Isaac Newton’s personal communications [H/T CarbonFixated]:

Conspiring to avoid public scrutiny:

There is nothing which I desire to avoid in matters of philosophy more then contentions, nor any kind of contention more then one in print: & therefore I gladly embrace your proposal of a private correspondence. What’s done before many witnesses is seldom without some further concern then that for truth: but what passes between friends in private usually deserve ye name of consultation rather then contest, & so I hope it will prove between you & me.

Newton to Hooke, 5 February 1676

Insulting dissenting scientists and equating them with holocaust deniers:

[Hooks Considerations] consist in ascribing an hypothesis to me which is not mine; in asserting an hypothesis which as to ye principal parts of it is not against me; in granting the greatest part of my discourse if explicated by that hypothesis; & in denying some things the truth of which would have appeared by an experimental examination.

Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June 1672

Manipulation of evidence:

I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.

Newton to Keill, May 15 1674

Knowingly publishing scientific fraud:

You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence & may be corrected by the reader.

Newton to Cotes June 15 1710

Suppression of evidence:

Mr. Raphson has printed off four or five sheets of his History of Fluxions, but being shew’d Sr. Is. Newton (who, it seems, would rather have them write against him, than have a piece done in that manner in his favour), he got a Stop put to it, for some time at least.

Jones to Cotes, 17 September 1711

Abusing the peer review system:

…only the Germans and French have in a violent manner attack’d the Philosophy of Sr. Is. Newton, and seem resolved to stand by Cartes; Mr. Keil, as a person concerned, has undertaken to answer and defend some things, as Dr. Friend, and Dr. Mead, does (in their way) the rest: I would have sent you ye whole controversy, was not I sure that you know, those only are most capable of objecting against his writings, that least understand them; however, in a little time, you’ll see some of these in ye Philos. Transact.

Jones to Cotes, October 25 1711

Insulting their critics:

The controversy concerning Sr. Isaac’s Philosophy is a piece of news that I had not heard of unless Muys’s late book be meant. I think that Philosophy needs no defence, especially when tis attack’t by Cartesians. One Mr Green a Fellow of Clare Hall in our University seems to have nearly the same design with those German & French objectors whom you mention. His book is now in our press & is almost finished. I am told he will add an appendix in which he undertakes also to square the circle. I need not recommend his performance any further to you.

Cotes to Jones, November 11 1711

More on Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/21/chicago-frets-about-life_n_366530.html

CHICAGO — Step outside Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Studios and into the near west side neighborhood that's been home to her television talk show for two decades, and it's easy to get a sense of what she's meant to Chicago.

"I used to live across the street from Harpo and when I moved there it was me and cross-dressing crack addicts and Harpo. And now it's strollers and little white dogs all over," said Paul O'Connor, whose job has been to sell the city to businesses looking to relocate and those wondering why they should stay.

Along with the upscale condominiums and pricey restaurants that replaced the rundown apartments, abandoned warehouses and vacant storefronts, it's a sentiment that helps explain just how nervous people in Chicago are about Winfrey's announcement that next season, the 25th, will be the last for "The Oprah Winfrey Show."

"Chicago's going to find out that she's a real engine to hotel rooms, flowers, limo drivers, you name it," said Joel Nickson, who owns Wishbone restaurant just down the street. "Even when she's not doing the show, we see people all the time taking cabs out here, taking pictures in front of the place."

Media analysts will discuss the millions of viewers worldwide who have eagerly watched Winfrey's show, tuned in others she told them to watch and read books she told them to read. The story in Chicago will be what she's meant to Chicago.

It's a story that starts in the neighborhood that people visited just to see her show – then they'd go off to explore the rest of the city. It's from the neighborhood that Winfrey bragged about Chicago, reminding all those who knew she could take her show just about anywhere that she wanted to be right here.

"Isn't this the most fabulous city in the world?" Winfrey yelled to more than 20,000 fans who crowded Chicago's Magnificent Mile in September for the taping of this season's premiere.

Without Winfrey, some wonder.

"What's this town going to come to?" asked Ann Coddington, 41, of Richmond, Ind., who was at Harpo Studios to see the show Friday morning. "You think of Chicago, you think of Oprah."

Winfrey hasn't said she's leaving Chicago, but there are indications it's possible. She is widely expected to start up a new talk show on OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network, which is set to debut in January 2011. OWN hired "Oprah" co-executive producer Lisa Erspamer this month as its chief creative officer. She is expected to move from Chicago to Los Angeles in January.

Nobody suggests Harpo Studios' neighborhood will revert to the pre-Winfrey years, when it was all but impossible to catch a cab and there was no place to order a latte much less a nice meal. But the studio stands as a reminder of what has been, and what could be lost.

It was here that celebrities came from all over the world when they had something to say – from Tom Cruise's declaration of love for Katie Holmes, memorably accompanied by a jump on her couch, to Sarah Palin's appearance on the show to kick off her book tour.

"It's our little piece of Hollywood, our big piece of it," said Bob O'Neill, the president of the Grant Park Conservancy.

Winfrey did more than set up shop in Chicago: She gave other companies reason to do so.

"She is part of the cultural infrastructure which provides a rich intellectual and cultural life to the city and that is absolutely critical for corporate decision making," said O'Connor, who now works for the Chicago Metropolis 2020 civic group after leaving World Business Chicago, a not-for-profit economic development corporation that worked to attract and keep businesses in Chicago.

Once the businesses are here, Winfrey has even been part of the effort to persuade employees who might be reluctant to pack up and move their families.

"Oprah and the sports and the 5,000 boats on the lake and the museums are all part of the rich mix to help (companies) bring talent here and make that transition." O'Connor said. "You cannot underestimate that."

Now, though Winfrey will tape in Chicago for at least another 18 months, the studio will stand as a reminder of all that is plaguing the city, from the staggering economy to the lost bid to host the 2016 Olympic games to losing two major trade shows in recent weeks.

"A lot of bad things are happening," said O'Neill, who was troubled enough even before Winfrey's announcement about the spate of bad news that he helped organize a "Chicago in a funk?" symposium. "Her leaving brings a lot of negative publicity."

___

Associated Press Writer Caryn Rousseau contributed to this report.

More on Oprah

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yoani-sanchez/a-1980s-style-repudiation_b_366527.html

The images of what happened yesterday, in G Street, with my husband, Reinaldo Escobar, and other friends are, to me, too reminiscent of repudiation rallies of 1980. Look for yourself and tell me if it doesn't seem the same.

Note: The first video is of the 'spontaneous demonstration' against the bloggers

Note: This second video shows Reinaldo Escobar attacked by the crowd, before he is taken away by State Security agents. Reinaldo is in a grey shirt, with dark curly hair. Some of the people clinging tightly to him are his friends, trying to protect him from the crowd.

Yoani's blog, Generation Y, can be read here in English translation.

More on Cuba

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/21/houston-vs-memphis-cougar_n_366526.html

HOUSTON — Case Keenum threw for 405 yards and five touchdowns in just more than two quarters, and No. 24 Houston beat Memphis 55-14 on Saturday.

Keenum set a school record for touchdown passes with 94, surpassing David Klingler's 91.

He was replaced by backup Cotton Turner after an 18-yard pass to L.J. Castile put Houston (9-2, 5-2 Conference USA) ahead 49-14 after its first drive in the third quarter.

It was an easy win for a team trying to get back on track after last week's surprising loss to Central Florida, which left the Cougars in second place in the West division.

Memphis (2-9, 1-6) was led by Curtis Steele, who had 160 yards rushing and two touchdowns.

More on College Football

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/21/epa-uranium-from-polluted_n_366529.html

YERINGTON, Nev. — Peggy Pauly lives in a robin-egg blue, two-story house not far from acres of onion fields that make the northern Nevada air smell sweet at harvest time.

But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: "Danger: Uranium Mine."

For almost a decade, people who make their homes in this rural community in the Mason Valley 65 miles southeast of Reno have blamed that enormous abandoned mine for the high levels of uranium in their water wells.

They say they have been met by a stone wall from state regulators, local politicians and the huge oil company that inherited the toxic site – British Petroleum. Those interests have insisted uranium naturally occurs in the region's soil and there's no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals at the former Anaconda pit mine is responsible for the contamination.

That has changed. A new wave of testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of the World War II-era copper mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink.

And, more importantly to the neighbors, that the source of the pollution is a groundwater plume that has slowly migrated from the six-square-mile mine site.

The new samples likely never would have been taken if not for a whistleblower, a preacher's wife, a tribal consultant and some stubborn government scientists who finally helped crack the toxic mystery that has plagued this rural mining and farming community for decades.

"They have completely ruined the groundwater out here," said Pauly, the wife of a local pastor and mother of two girls who organized a community action group five years to seek the truth about the pollution.

"It almost sounds like we are happy the contamination has moved off the site," she said. "But what we are happy about is ... they have enough data to now answer our questions."

"Prior to this, we didn't really have an understanding of where water was moving," said Steve Acree, a highly regarded hydrogeologist for the EPA in Oklahoma, who was brought in to examine the test results. "My interpretation at this stage of the process is yes, you now have evidence of mine-impacted groundwater."

The tests found levels of uranium more than 10 times the legal drinking water standard in one monitoring well a half mile north of the mine. Though the health effects of specific levels are not well understood, the EPA says long-term exposure to high levels of uranium in drinking water may cause cancer and damage kidneys.

At the mine itself, wells tested as high as 3.4 miligrams per liter – more than 100 times the standard. That's in an area where ore was processed with sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in unlined ponds.

Moving north toward the mine's boundary and beyond, readings begin to decline but several wells still tested two to three times above health limits.

"The hots spots, the treatment areas on the site, are places you totally expect to see readings like that," said Dietrick McGinnis, an environmental consultant for the neighboring Yerington Paiute Tribe. "But this shows you have a continuous plume with decreasing concentration as you move away from the site."

The new findings are no surprise to Earle Dixon, the site's former project manager for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which owns about half of the property.

An administrative judge ruled last year that the BLM illegally fired Dixon in 2004 in retaliation for speaking out about the health and safety dangers at the mine.

"The new data depicts the story that I had tried to hypothesize as a possibility," Dixon told AP.

"It was speculation, because I didn't have the dramatic evidence they have now. You just had all the symptoms," he said from New Mexico, where he is now a state geologist.

"The way the state has been telling the story and BP and Lyon County ... is this is mostly all natural. Well, no it's not," he said. "We now know for a fact that most of this uranium as far as 2 miles out from the mine comes from the mine.

"This site becomes a poster child for mining pollution."

Officials for BP and its subsidiary Atlantic Richfield have insisted until now that the uranium could not be tied to the mine. They maintained the high concentrations were due to a naturally occurring phenomenon beneath Nevada's mineral-laiden mountains.

The new discovery has Pauly, McGinnis and others renewing a call for the EPA to declare the mine a Superfund site – something the state and county have opposed despite a new potential source of money to help cover clean-up costs that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

Jill Lufrano, spokeswoman for the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, said an investigation into the source of contamination is continuing but "the new finding does put scientific confirmation behind the theory that this would migrate off site."

She said the new evidence doesn't change the state's opposition to Superfund listing. Nevada has a long tradition of supporting mining and now produces more gold than anywhere in the world except China, South Africa and Australia.

Copper first was discovered around Yerington in 1865. Anaconda bought the property in 1941 and – fueled by demand after World War II – produced nearly 1.75 billion pounds of copper from 1952-78.

A mineral firm launched a then-secret plan to produce yellowcake uranium from the mine's waste piles in the 1970s. An engineer reported in 1976 that they weren't finding as much uranium as anticipated in the processing ponds. "Where could it be now?" he wrote. "Should we continue to look for it?"

Had they continued the search outside the processing area, Wyoming Mineral Corp. likely would have detected the movement of the contamination. But the market for uranium dipped and the company scuttled the venture.

Pauly never suspected the mine was leaking contamination when she and her husband finished building their home in 1990. They drank water from their well until 2003 – and used it to mix formula for a baby from 1996-98 – before becoming suspicious as rumors swirled about the contaminated mine.

"Everybody said it was fine," she said. "Legally they didn't have to disclose anything because technically there was nothing definitive then that showed the contamination was moving off the site."

BP and Atlantic Richfield, which bought Anaconda Copper Co. in 1978, have stopped claiming there is no evidence the mine caused any contamination, but they aren't conceding anything about how much.

"We know the mine has had an impact but to what extent is not really known at this time," Tom Mueller, spokesman for BP America in Houston, told the Associate Press in a recent e-mail. He said the sampling "remains inconclusive regarding relative impacts from the mine" compared with other potential sources.

Yerington Paiute Tribe Chairman Elwood Emm said he hopes the new findings help expedite cleanup. "In the meantime, we continue to lose our water resource," he said.

So who will pay for the cleanup?

"That is the million-dollar question," Dixon said. "Every Superfund site needs an advocate or two or three and in my view there are none for Yerington except for Peggy Pauly."

Regardless of who pays, Acree said, it likely will take decades to clean up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/21/kkk-rally-at-ole-miss-kla_n_366475.html

The KKK gathered at Ole Miss today to protest the University chancellor's decision to remove "From Dixie with Love" from the school band's song list. The song had drawn controversy because some fans chanted "the South will rise again" when it was played at Ole Miss football games.

*** SCROLL DOWN FOR PHOTOS & VIDEO ***

According to the AP, around twelve members of the Mississippi White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan waved flags and issued Nazi-style salutes. The AP estimated that 250 people showed up to protest the Klan's presence.

Kevin Cozart, a senior at the University and the coordinator for operations at the Sarah Isom Center for Women and Gender studies, sent in some photos along with a report from the scene:

Under an overcast sky and greeted with a wall of boos and calls to leave, a few members of the Mississippi Chapter of the Ku Klux Klan rallied on the campus of the University of Mississippi this morning... for less than ten minutes. Little could be heard of any message they attempted to convey. Dressed in the highly recognizable robes, the ten Klansmen that showed up simply stood and waved their banners of hate and ignorance from the portico of Fulton Chapel, a fitting place since it is the home of the Theatre Department's productions. The sizable crowd that had gathered to see them was extremely hostile regardless of color, race, creed or university affiliation. After all of the fanfare, bravado and planning (including the use of bomb sniffing dog around the area), the brief appearance by the Klansmen is the very definition of anticlimactic.

The real story of the day was the students, faculty, staff and alumni who gathered peacefully and read the University's creed in unison repeatedly a few hundred feet from where the Klan had gathered. Organized by One Mississippi, a student group working towards greater social integration at Ole Miss, protesters wore shirts that said "TURN YOUR BACK ON HATE... (I live by the UM Creed)" and stickers with one simple word: "Unity." Before and after the rally, they talked to fans in town for the game about their message and plan to make their way through the 10-acre, park-like Grove, passing out copies of the UM creed to fans.

Today, the members of the real Ole Miss family were not afraid to show their faces. They were not afraid of the Klansmen. They stood with their backs to them. They stood together to say with one voice that Ole Miss "believe(s) in respect for the dignity of each person." They stood as the leaders of a new Mississippi, a Mississippi that her citizens and a nation can be proud of.

Were you at the rally today? Send your photos to sports@huffingtonpost.com or upload them here.

LOOK:

Get HuffPost Sports on Facebook and Twitter!

More on Sports

yo all, :]

I am a literature phd student (and L word fanatic) writing a paper on dyke/queer invisibility in the advertising industry for my feminist media studies seminar. I will be using portions of the L word to illustrate both the lucrativeness and potential pitfalls of explicit lesbian advertising (Specifically using Dana & Tonya's "first every corporate sponsored celebrity lesbian wedding" + Dana & Nikki and their scum bag agent's 'career killing' public coming out phobias) I'll also be looking at how since SHOtime is premium television programming, it is essentially commercial free, and how Chaiken and the rest use the show as a vehicle for PSAs within the queer community (breast cancer, dont ask dont tell, trans awareness, funding for the arts, etc...)

There was also one thing that Bette mentioned about the WNBA alienating its core audience by not utilizing queer advertising, and I can't remember which episode that conversation was from...

And I know that the characters are LOOSELY based on real life lesbians (Shane > Sally Hershberger, Jenny > Chaiken, (Alice > Guinevere Turner??) - I forget the name of the lesbian museum curator that Bette is allegedly modeled after....
can anyone provide more insight on this one-to-one mapping of fictional characters to their real life personas?

And I know that season 6 just came out on DVD, but does anyone know if they are planning to release an entire box set of all 6 seasons like they did for similar HBO & SHO series??

Anyway, thanks in advance for any help!-


eye candy:
(this is my favorite promo photo from any season)



(ps- i'd be glad to share the finished paper with anyone who's interested. I'm hoping to present it at a conference.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/we-must-replay-the-match_b_366515.html

No, American friends, France is not a country of "cheaters." And the affair of Thierry Henry's hand, the scandal of the France-Ireland game that we won, but should have lost, has outraged many in Paris. Today I am publishing on the website of my magazine "La Règle du Jeu" the point of view of one of France's greatest businessmen, Marc Ladreit de Lacharriere. He is the Chairman of Fimalac; the head of the Fitch rating agency; and he is also, most of all, the director of the oldest French review, La Revue des deux Mondes. All this to say that his opinion carries a lot of weight.

Here is his text. It is entitled: "We Must Replay the Match."

In accepting a win by cheating, France is permanently compromising its reputation and its image abroad. It will not be easy to soften the severity of the comments that we are currently hearing. So much the more so because we have the reputation as "lesson givers" the world over. In the national context, how will parents, educators, and teachers be able to tell their students not to cheat when the captain and coach of the French national team do it?

Marc Ladreit de Lacharriere

Translated from the French by Sara Phenix.