Mad Mad ,Al-Assad hangs on by ruthlessness, reformist image

When the Tunisian revolt erupted last year, Tunisia's president fled power in weeks. When Egyptians took to the streets, longtime leader Hosni Mubarak was swiftly ousted as well.
In Libya, it took about seven months for rebels to topple dictator Moammar Gadhafi. And in Yemen, sustained anti-government protests eventually led to the departure from power of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
But Bashar al-Assad, the president of embattled Syria, is a survivor.
He's remained ensconced in power despite an 11-month popular uprising, a bloody government crackdown against civilians, and world outrage at the tales and videos filtering out of Syria.
Observers say he's been able to stay in power with a combination of regime ruthlessness, diplomatic subterfuge, and internal sectarian dynamics.
Rafif Jouejati, spokeswoman for the Local Coordination Committees, the Syrian opposition group, said that when al-Assad came to power in 2000, he inherited a Soviet-style intelligence network erected by his father, Hafez Assad, who ruled from the early 1970s till his death in 2000.
That spider web of agencies has served to control popular discontent, she said.
"He has a network within a network within a network of intelligence services."
Al-Assad has continued what she calls "the family tradition." The repression has generated the widespread fear "embedded in day-to-day life" among the populace.
"He didn't come up with this himself. This came from his father," she said.
"In Syria, there are dozens of Mukhabarat-types of agencies that spy on one another," she said, using an Arabic term for intelligence agencies.
"In families, one doesn't know if one's sibling is an informant."
Jouejati said Hafez Assad was able to strike a deal with business elites 30 years ago during popular tumult then.
"That's been an important factor" and "up until recently" Bashar al-Assad has had the support of the business community.
She compares the current president to Germany's Adolf Hitler and Cambodia's Pol Pot. And she likens regimes in Haiti and North Korea, where sons inherited power from their fathers, to al-Assad's Baathist regime.
"He's got a whole group around him, many of whom are from the old guard and they keep the pressure going," with "Soviet-style tactics that other repressive regimes have used."
"They are raising the level the violence," she said.
She said al-Assad staked out his position "at a time when the world is sort of getting smaller and everybody is more aware of human rights and individual rights and governments are pushing people for more transparency."
He missed a "tremendous opportunity" to work for that kind of change in his own country, she said.
Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he thinks al-Assad has been more brutal than Mubarak and Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.
"He's been willing to use live fire extensively," he said. "He's just ruthless."
And in a reference to world and regional powers, Tabler said "very simply we have not been ruthless with him."
There has long been sectarian strife in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, where there are Sunni-Shiite as well as Muslim-Christian animosities, among others. Syria's diverse sectarian dynamics buttress al-Assad, Tabler said.
Al-Assad is part of an Alawite minority in Syria, a largely Sunni nation. That minority - which he calls a heterodox offshoot of Shiite Islam - prevails in the government and military.
It and other Shiite offshoots, such as Druze and Ismailis, have made up the core of the regime. Christians represent another minority that has not largely been anti-regime and even some Sunnis have made their peace with the government.
During the 11-month crisis, there has been a lot of international engagement with the regime.
But Tabler said al-Assad has done "a very good job of confusing diplomats."
"That's his M.O.," he said. "He consistently lies and confounds people."
(CNN) -- When the Tunisian revolt erupted last year, Tunisia's president fled power in weeks. When Egyptians took to the streets, longtime leader Hosni Mubarak was swiftly ousted as well.
In Libya, it took about seven months for rebels to topple dictator Moammar Gadhafi. And in Yemen, sustained anti-government protests eventually led to the departure from power of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
But Bashar al-Assad, the president of embattled Syria, is a survivor.
He's remained ensconced in power despite an 11-month popular uprising, a bloody government crackdown against civilians, and world outrage at the tales and videos filtering out of Syria.
Observers say he's been able to stay in power with a combination of regime ruthlessness, diplomatic subterfuge, and internal sectarian dynamics.

Russia's Syrian peace mission

Syria activists plead for help

Rice: Assad's days are numbered

Paul: Don't get involved in Syria

Rafif Jouejati, spokeswoman for the Local Coordination Committees, the Syrian opposition group, said that when al-Assad came to power in 2000, he inherited a Soviet-style intelligence network erected by his father, Hafez Assad, who ruled from the early 1970s till his death in 2000.
That spider web of agencies has served to control popular discontent, she said.
"He has a network within a network within a network of intelligence services."
Al-Assad has continued what she calls "the family tradition." The repression has generated the widespread fear "embedded in day-to-day life" among the populace.
"He didn't come up with this himself. This came from his father," she said.
"In Syria, there are dozens of Mukhabarat-types of agencies that spy on one another," she said, using an Arabic term for intelligence agencies.
"In families, one doesn't know if one's sibling is an informant."
Jouejati said Hafez Assad has able to strike a deal with business elites 30 years ago during popular tumult then.
"That's been an important factor" and "up until recently" Bashar al-Assad has had the support of the business community.
She compares the current president to Germany's Adolf Hitler and Cambodia's Pol Pot. And she likens regimes in Haiti and North Korea, where sons inherited power from their fathers, to al-Assad's Baathist regime.
"He's got a whole group around him, many of whom are from the old guard and they keep the pressure going," with "Soviet-style tactics that other repressive regimes have used."
"They are raising the level the violence," she said.
She said al-Assad staked out his position "at a time when the world is sort of getting smaller and everybody is more aware of human rights and individual rights and governments are pushing people for more transparency."
He missed a "tremendous opportunity" to work for that kind of change in his own country, she said.
Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he thinks al-Assad has been more brutal than Mubarak and Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.
"He's been willing to use live fire extensively," he said. "He's just ruthless."
And in a reference to world and regional powers, Tabler said "very simply we have not been ruthless with him."
There has long been sectarian strife in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, where there are Sunni-Shiite as well as Muslim-Christian animosities, among others. Syria's diverse sectarian dynamics buttress al-Assad, Tabler said.
Al-Assad is part of an Alawite minority in Syria, a largely Sunni nation. That minority -- which he calls a heterodox offshoot of Shiite Islam -- prevails in the government and military.
It and other Shiite offshoots, such as Druze and Ismailis, have made up the core of the regime. Christians represent another minority that has not largely been anti-regime and even some Sunnis have made their peace with the government.
During the 11-month crisis, there has been a lot of international engagement with the regime.
But Tabler said al-Assad has done "a very good job of confusing diplomats."
"That's his M.O.," he said. "He consistently lies and confounds people."
But world opinion appears to be shifting, even those previously supportive of the regime.
"You can see statements by the Russians" indicating al-Assad is neither a friend nor an ally.
"Everyone is frustrated with him," Tabler said.
Still, Russia and China vetoed Saturday's U.N. Security Council resolution that would have backed an Arab League plan for Syria's president to step aside.
Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center, said al-Assad has been able to maintain some popular support with his rhetoric and has not been shy about using force over the years, even against people who were encouraged to open up and air their thoughts.
"He's convinced everyone he's been a reformer," he said.
He is widely unpopular now in the Arab world, but many in the region have liked his stance against Israel.
"He's presented himself as one of the sort of key leaders of the axis of resistance," a reference to Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria.
Al-Assad has modernized the government apparatus -- the omnipresent Baathist rule and its "deep state."
He and the regime have had a "certain strength" from different sectors of society, such as the business community. There are Sunnis who support his regime and al-Assad's wife, Asma, comes from a Sunni background.
"All of these things have helped the regime internally," he said. "It's a mistake to just call it an Alawite regime."
Aram Nerguizian, visiting fellow, Burke chair in strategy, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said al-Assad's support is dwindling, but he's been able to buy time for a number of reasons.
First, the uprising didn't break out in the two top wealthy urban centers -- the capital, Damascus, and the city of Aleppo. While the unrest is closing in on those communities now, the opposition has been driven in the rural periphery of the country, far from the seats of political and economic power. There was no Syrian "Tahrir Square," the place in Cairo where protesters gathered and that symbolized and catalyzed the Egyptian uprising.
"Assad has and still continues to benefit from the fact that a mainly rural uprising has to make its way into the urban strongholds of the regime. The uprising has had a hard time taking root in major city centers that fear a deeper destabilization of an already weakened Syrian economy," Nerguizian said.
In addition, al-Assad's supporters are fearful of recrimination in a post-Assad era, and that gives them pause about backing the opposition, which appears to some as splintered and disorganized.
"The local opposition forces remain deeply divided and have yet to show true unity of purpose, command and control, and a socio-economic platform that the average Syrian can look to as a viable and stable alternative to the ruling Assad regime. This has become all the more challenging as the opposition has moved to arm itself in a bid to fight back against security apparatus' brutal crackdown," he said.
"The Syrian National Council in particular has had to work hard against perceptions that many of its members and leadership have been parachuted into their roles as an opposition force."
Communities at the margins of Syrian society, like Christians, Kurds and Ismailis may be unhappy, but prefer to stick with the devil they know -- al-Assad -- than risk the unknown of a post al-Assad era.
"Taken together, we have a broad pattern here. Most if not all of these groups are unhappy with how the Assad regime has managed Syria's nearly year-long unrest," he said.
But "these groups prefer that Assad remain in power rather bet on opposition forces that remain largely leaderless, divided and appear to be increasingly radicalized."
There is also a fear that change will bring instability.
"Many Syrians remain fearful of a Libya-style decay into militia warfare and lawlessness and are wary of the costs of uncertain transitions in Egypt, Yemen and Iraq. Outside of Syria, the opposition faces yet another challenge," he said.
And, he said, the international community and the opposition "seem to have fundamentally misjudged the resilience of the Syrian military. "
Divisions in the Arab League and at the United Nations have also helped al-Assad buy time, Nerguizian said.
"This division at the international level is tantamount to the kind of great power politics, balancing and bandwagoning that were the hallmark of the Cold War. This has and continues to buy valuable time and international legitimacy for the Assad regime," he said.
Still, Jouejati said she thinks time is short al-Assad -- that the man doesn't have the same gravitas and proficiency of his father, who commanded the country till his death.
"Bashar does not have the skills and intelligence," she said. "His father was extremely brutal but intelligent. This guy's an idiot."

Fur? Taraji P. Henson Would Rather Go Naked

Actor Taraji P. Henson joins a growing list of compassionate celebrities who are speaking up for animals by refusing to wear fur. She bares all in a super sexy ad for PETA's iconic "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign and shows off her skin to help animals keep theirs. http://bit.ly/fwtMpw

"I don't think a living being should suffer for the sake of fashion, period," Henson proclaims. "End of story." Suffering and furs go hand in hand. Animals on fur farms spend their entire lives confined to cramped, filthy wire cages before meeting a painful death. Denied proper veterinary care, they languish with open wounds and sores in cages. These living conditions can cause the animals severe psychological distress, and consequently, many of the animals turn to self-mutilation and cannibalism. See the pain and suffering that animals on fur farms endure by viewing these shocking photos of a Swedish fur farm.

Henson shares with PETA, "When I realized what went into—not just, we're not just even talking about a full-length fur coat, I'm talking about just … fur on your gloves or on your jacket or—what goes into making that little piece of fur ripped my heart out. And as humans, we have control. What if someone said, 'Black skin is the new fur'?" Check out this exclusive behind-the-scenes video footage from Henson's naked photo shoot to learn more about why she refuses to wear fur.

You can help animals by vowing never to buy or wear fur or fur trim. Join Taraji P. Henson in boycotting fur and take the pledge to be fur-free now!
Pledge to Be Fur-Free!

Pledge Text:

I won't support an industry that causes any animal a lifetime of suffering and a cruel and painful death. No animals will be tortured and killed just so that I can wear them. By signing my name, I pledge not to buy or wear any fur.
Signed,
[Your Name]

By signing up here and giving us your details, you're acknowledging that you've read and agreed to our privacy policy.

Tony Cornelius: I don't think my dad knew how much he was loved

Don Cornelius' death last week has been ruled a suicide, and the "Soul Train" legend's son Tony tells "Showbiz Tonight" that he never saw an indication that his father was capable of taking his own life.
"Not at all. I mean...we all have disappointments, we all go through things, [and] when the lights go down, all you have is family," Tony says. "There weren't any indications, other than his health was failing a bit. Nothing that would make me say, you know, that he would want to end his life this way. It's hard to believe."
When Don Cornelius died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound last Wednesday, several entertainment icons mourned the loss of a man who contributed so much, on top of the outpouring of grief from friends and fans.

"Sometimes I wonder, if he could come back here and if he were to know how people felt about him would he...would he make that move?" Tony says in the interview. "I mean, but again, when you're in that kind of darkness, it's really hard to tell, but people really loved him."
Sadly, it's something Tony says he's not sure his father was aware of.
"I'm pretty sure he didn't realize [that]," he says. "I think he spent his entire life trying to be someone, trying to be the best. It's hard to know if that's true, if you have succeeded. I think he was driven by trying to be the best, and in doing so, it's really hard to know how people really feel about you."

Dangerous path to legal status for some immigrants

Aurora, Colorado-- Tania Nava has one piece of advice for anyone seeking to come out of the shadows and pursue a path to U.S. citizenship: don't do it.
She says her decision to become a legal citizen is one of the reasons her husband was murdered.
"I should've stayed illegal this whole time," the 21-year old widow said. "Jake would still be here."
Jake Reyes-Neal, an American citizen, had traveled to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, last year to protect his wife as she waited for the long, complicated process to attain U.S. citizenship. Instead, Reyes-Neal -- who had never been to Mexico and didn't speak Spanish -- became one of the thousands of homicide victims in Juarez as his family watched helplessly.
Nava and Reyes-Neal were high school sweethearts in Aurora, Colorado, and they got married at 18 after she gave birth to their son, Anthony. Nava decided that the next step to build her new life with her husband and child was to apply for U.S. citizenship.
Her parents had brought her to the United States illegally at the age of 7. Although Reyes-Neal was an American citizen, their marriage didn't automatically give Nava legal status, so she still faced possible deportation.

Jake Reyes-Neal moved to Juarez, Mexico, with his son, Anthony, to protect his wife.

So the 18-year-old couple began navigating the intricate U.S. citizenship laws and regulations without the help of a costly lawyer. When Nava tried to apply for citizenship, she learned that federal law said she had to leave the United States and barred her from returning for up to 10 years because she had resided in the country illegally.
She could apply for a hardship waiver requesting that U.S. immigration officials not separate her from her husband and child, both American citizens. But she had to file that waiver in her birth country, and that meant packing up and moving to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
Every year, more than 100,000 people travel to the U.S. consulate in Juarez to attain legal status. The consulate was set up to handle the permanent immigration visas years ago before the city became so violent.
Immigration attorney Shawn Mead calls the policy a perfect catch-22.
"It's an impossible situation: They have the option of staying here unlawfully, not being able to get their residence now or ever, or going and living in the city of Juarez, a place where people do get murdered all the time," Mead said.

Paramedics risk their lives in Mexico

A ray of hope in Mexico's murder capital

Nava left her husband and young son in Aurora and attempted to live in her native Mexico, where she felt like a foreigner. She lived with her grandmother in Juarez, where more than 3,000 people were murdered in 2010. Last year, that number fell to just below 2,000 -- the first time the murder rate has dropped in four years.
"We were aware of everything," Nava said of the dangers in Juarez. "I mean, where we lived was a really bad neighborhood. We would drive by, and there were a couple shootings, and they had the bodies right there and everything."
Meanwhile, back in Aurora, the separation was proving even more difficult for Anthony, and it wasn't long before Reyes-Neal packed up and moved to Juarez to keep his family together. In a letter to the consulate, Jake pleaded for a hardship waiver allowing his wife to live in the United States while awaiting permanent legal residency.
"I am living with my wife and son in perilous and very dangerous conditions in Juarez, Mexico. We live with fear of our lives on a daily basis," he wrote. "As U.S Citizens, my son and I are facing extreme danger everyday we wake up in one of the most violent cities in the world."
His plea went unanswered, and within six months, Reyes-Neal's fear proved prophetic. He was shot more than 80 times outside the family's home. Nava's uncle was also killed in the attack. The motive was unclear, although the family suspects robbery.
"The last thing I heard was him saying, 'I don't speak Spanish,' 'No hablo español,' and that's it. And then I just heard the shots, and then I waited for a little bit because I was scared to go down there. I just went down there with Anthony and my grandma, and they were right there on the floor, on the ground," Nava said.
Nava was covered in her husband's blood before she realized she was still holding their 2-year-old son. That night still haunts her.

I am living with my wife and son in perilous and very dangerous conditions in Juarez, Mexico.
Jake Reyes-Neal, from a letter to U.S. authorities, six months before his death

"It's hard to sleep at night, because every time I think about them, the image pops in my head of them, they're on the ground. And as much as I try to block it out of my head, I can't," she said, wiping away tears.
Today, Nava and her son live in Aurora, where she has a green card and is awaiting awaiting a path to permanent citizenship.
"The tragedy that this family has suffered is most unfortunate, most tragic," said Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
"What we can do within the current laws is develop process improvements that mitigate the dangers and hopefully avoid tragedies to the best of our abilities."
Immigration Services has recently proposed a rule change aimed at reducing the time U.S. citizens are separated from their spouses and children during the process of becoming legal immigrants.
The proposal would streamline the process of obtaining hardship waivers by allowing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to process certain waiver applications in the United States before an applicant departs for an immigrant visa interview with a U.S. consular officer abroad. In other words, it would reduce both the time the family spends apart and the time spent in harm's way in places like Juarez.
Mayorkas says that as it stands, the immigration system punishes those who, like Nava, attempt to obey the law.
"I have been working in the immigration system now for almost two and a half years. As a federal prosecutor, I worked in enforcing immigration laws throughout the 1990s for approximately 12 years. Working in the system now, it is evident to me that the concern about a broken immigration system is indeed warranted and well grounded," Mayorkas said.
The proposed rule change still has to go through several steps including a period of public comment before becoming official. But whenever it happens, it will be too late for families such as those of Jake Reyes-Neal.

'Ethical iPhone' protests hit Apple stores

250,000 ask Apple to change its labor waysNEW YORK -- Protesters visited a half-dozen Apple stores around the world on Thursday to deliver petitions calling for reforms in the working conditions at factories run by Apple's suppliers in China and other overseas locations.
A demonstration at Apple's Grand Central Terminal store drew a small crowd of around a dozen people, who peacefully handed their petition -- hundreds of pages stacked in a shipping box -- to the store's manager
"I'm a big fan of Apple products, but I can no longer ethically support products that harm the people that make them," said Shelby Knox, an organizing director with Change.org who participated. "When people join together, we can hold companies accountable."
The protests are the offline outgrowth of an online petition drive launched two weeks ago on social activism site Change.org. Created by Mark Shields, a self-described lifelong Apple customer who says he was "shocked to learn of the abusive working conditions in many of Apple's supplier factories," the petition has drawn almost 200,000 signatures since its launch.
A parallel petition effort, led by corporate accountability lobbying group SumOfUs.org, has drawn another 50,000 signatures.
Both groups teamed up for Thursday's protest. The day began with petition deliveries at Apple stores in Bangalore and London, and will continue with events in in Washington, DC; San Francisco and Sydney.
Mike Daisey, an author and monologist who has been a vocal critic of Foxconn's working conditions, said the power of the petition was rooted in the number of signatures collected, rather than the number of people who showed up to deliver it.
"It's 250,000 people," he said at the event. "And it's also millions of workers who are at Foxconn on shift right now."
"This is a really huge step for us, in combining all of the voices we've collected from people all over the world asking Apple to clean up their supply chain," Change.org human rights organizer Sarah Ryan told CNNMoney in advance of the event.
Asked about the petition and protests, an Apple spokeswoman reaffirmed an earlier statement to CNN about Apple's commitment to monitoring its overseas suppliers.
"We care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain," Apple said. "We insist that our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made."
Change.org's petition asks Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) to develop a "worker protection strategy" around its major product releases to prevent the abuses that have reportedly occurred when major deadlines loom. It also asks Apple to be transparent about the findings of the Fair Labor Association, an independent watchdog group that Apple joined last month.
The FLA plans to begin monitoring the facilities in Apple's supply chain and to publicly post its findings on its website. Apple said it will work to align its programs with FLA requirements within the next two years.
SumOfUs's petition is less detailed and more sweeping. Calling for an "ethical iPhone," it asks Apple CEO Tim Cook to "overhaul the way [Apple's] suppliers treat their workers."
Horror stories have kicked around the tech industry for years about the conditions at the Chinese factories almost all major U.S. vendors rely on to manufacture their devices. The pressure has intensified recently on Apple -- the industry's most profitable and most popular gadget maker -- after a series of investigations drew attention to a set of particularly chilling alleged labor abuses.
An investigation by the New York Times shed light specifically on the harsh working conditions at Foxconn, a key Apple supplier. A story published late last month documented the human toll of a plant explosion that killed several workers.
In a recent CNN segment, a Foxconn employee spoke out about her working conditions.
"They use women as men and they use men as machines," the worker -- who asked to remain anonymous -- told CNN's Stan Grant. "I almost feel like an animal."
When asked why humans do machine-like work at Foxconn, she responded: "Well, humans are cheaper."
The Foxconn worker said that she made less than $1 an hour for her labors.

Less than $1 an hour to make iPadsApple is one of many companies that outsources its electronics manufacturing to suppliers across the globe. Change.org organizer Ryan said she hopes that garnering attention around the petition will push Apple to set a precedent for other tech companies.
"What we want is for Apple to take their motto -- 'think differently' -- and extend that to the way they treat their workers," she said. "We want them to be a leader in the tech world in not just treating their workers in the United States fairly, but also treat the ones abroad fairly."
As petitions are being delivered around the world, Ryan has hopes Apple will respond to the concerns.
"We're hoping that after all the collective petitions are delivered we'll get a formalized response from Apple," she says.

Postal Service pleads for help as losses continue

NEW YORK-- The U.S. Postal Service renewed its pleas for congressional support Thursday as the floundering agency reported another massive quarterly loss.
The Postal Service announced that it sustained a net loss of $3.3 billion in the last three months of 2011, as declining mail volumes and mounting benefit costs continue to weigh on its business.  
In the previous fiscal year, the Postal Service lost $5.1 billion and said its losses would have been roughly $10.6 billion if not for the passage of legislation postponing a $5.5 billion payment required to pre-fund retiree health benefits.
In a statement, the Postal Service urged the government to do away with the requirement that such benefits be funded at their current rates, and also called for greater "delivery flexibility."
The Postal Service has floated the idea of scaling back to five-day delivery from the current six-day system to save costs, though this is unpopular with Congress, which has the final authority. Also under consideration is a plan to slow down next-day service.
"Passage of legislation is urgently needed that provides the Postal Service with the speed and flexibility needed to cut costs that are not under our control, including employee health care costs," Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said in the statement.
The Postal Service warned that it could default on its health benefit pre-payments this year. It may also reach its $15 billion debt limit and run out of cash even if Congress changes or eliminates the pre-funding requirement.
The Postal Service is chartered as a government enterprise but does not receive taxpayer support.
In an effort to cut some $20 billion in costs, the agency plans to close post offices around the country. But it has delayed the closures until May 15, allowing Congress some time to devise a plan to support it.
The Postal Service's struggles have come even as its private-sector competition is thriving. Both UPS (UPS, Fortune 500) and FedEx (FDX, Fortune 500) reported strong increases in earnings and revenue in their most recent quarterly reports.

First new nuclear reactors OK'd in over 30 years

NEW YORK -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors Thursday, the first authorized in over 30 years.
The reactors are being built in Georgia by a consortium of utilities led by Southern Co. (SO, Fortune 500) They will be sited at the Vogtle nuclear power plant complex, about 170 miles east of Atlanta. The plant already houses two older reactors
The 5-member NRC voted in favor of the licenses four to one, with Chairman Gregory Jaczko dissenting.
Jaczko said the new licenses don't go far enough in requiring the builders to incorporate lessons learned from the Japanese nuclear disaster last year.
Although new nuclear reactors have come online in the United States within the last couple of decades -- the last one started operation in 1996 -- the NRC hasn't issued a license to build a new reactor since 1978, a year before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. Reactors that have opened in the last decades received their initial licenses before 1978.
The combination of the Three Mile Island incident and the high costs of nuclear power turned many utilities away from the technology.
The utilities building the new Vogtle reactors submitted their application seven years ago. Prep-work at the site has been under way for some time, but construction on actual reactors couldn't begin until the final license was issued.

How close is your home to a nuclear plant?

The new reactors are a Westinghouse design called the AP 1000. Together they are expected to cost $14 billion and provide 2200 megawatts of power, according to a spokesman for Southern Co. That's enough to power 1 million homes.
The plants are being built with the help of a conditional $8.3 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The loan guarantee is part of DOE's broader loan program that has been criticized for backing companies like Solyndra, the bankrupt maker of solar panels.

A nuclear renaissance in AmericaThe Southern spokesman said the loan guarantee, combined with other regulatory measures, enable the project to receive cheaper financing that will ultimately save ratepayers $1 billion.
The first reactor is expected to come online in 2016 and the second one in 2017, according to Southern Co.
The AP 1000 is the newest NRC-approved nuclear reactor. This would be the first one built in the United States, although four are already under construction in China, said Scott Shaw, a Westinghouse spokesman.
Critics have said the containment walls of the AP 1000 aren't strong enough to withstand a terrorist attack, but Shaw says they were redesigned after September 11, 2001 and have held up during simulations.
He also said the design's passive cooling system makes it much safer than older designs. The AP 1000 uses gravity and condensation -- not electricity -- to cool the fuel rods.
It was the loss of electric power that led to the meltdown of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi reactors following the tsunami in 2011.
Still, a coalition of nine mostly regional anti-nuclear groups say the current design is not safe. They plan on challenging Thursday's decision in federal court.
In addition to fears of a meltdown at a nuclear power plant, critics also point out that the nation still has no long term plan for the disposal of nuclear waste.
The waste, which is highly radioactive, is currently stored at the plants themselves while the federal government continues its decades-long search for a permanent disposal facility.
There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors at 64 plants across the country. Half are over 30 years old.
Nuclear power provides the country with about 18% of its electricity. Coal is the nation's largest source for electricity, providing 43% of our energy, while natural gas makes up another 25%, according to the Energy Information Agency.
Renewables make up the remaining 14%, with hydroelectric dams accounting for more than half of that. Wind accounts for about 3% and biomass (think paper mills or agricultural plants) another 2%. Solar and geothermal make up under 1% of American electricity production, according to EIA.
In addition to the Vogtle plant, 16 other plants across the country have applications with the the NRC to build 25 more reactors.
Most of those reactors would be built at existing nuclear power plants but there are two applications submitted for brand new nuclear plants -- one in Levy County, Fla., and another outside Gaffney, S.C.
Environmentalists are split when it comes to nuclear power. Many are weary of it, citing the safety, cost and waste disposal concerns. Others favor it on the grounds that it can provide massive amounts of power that's basically greenhouse gas-free.
"Moving away from fossil fuels in order to address climate change is the biggest challenge facing our power sector, and safe nuclear power will be an important part of that solution," Richard Caperton, director of clean energy investment at the left-leaning Center for American Progress said in a statement.
But, underscoring the dichotomy, he added: "If the new reactors are not brought online in a timely and cost-effective manner, as often happens with nuclear plants, those consumers could see their electric bills skyrocket."

What the foreclosure settlement means for you

NEW YORK -- The nation's five largest banks have finally struck a deal with 49 states to settle charges of abusive and negligent foreclosure practices dating back to 2008.
Under a deal announced Thursday, the banks will commit $26 billion to help underwater homeowners and compensate those who lost their homes due to improper foreclosure.

Foreclosure Fiasco

• What the foreclosure settlement means for you
• Foreclosure deal has 40 states, but others balk
• Finally, a foreclosure settlement (Maybe)
• Foreclosures made up 20% of home sales in 3Q
• Foreclosures: America's hardest hit neighborhoods

The banks also agreed to change the way they handle and approve foreclosures.
A group of state attorneys general claimed that banks lost important paperwork, cut corners and enlisted robo-signers to attest to facts they had no knowledge of on hundreds of documents a day.
The settlement has been in the works for more than a year.
What did the mortgage lenders and loan servicers agree to do? The banks and servicers have committed at least $17 billion to reduce principal for borrowers who 1) owe far more than their homes are worth 2) are behind on payments.
The amount of principal reduction will average about $20,000 per borrower.
Another $3 billion will go toward refinancing mortgages for borrowers who are current on their payments. This will enable them to take advantage of the historic low interest rates currently available.
The banks will pay $5 billion directly to the states, the only hard money involved in the deal. Out of that fund will come payments of $1,500 to $2,000 to homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure. Other funds will be paid to legal aid and homeowner advocacy organizations to help individuals facing foreclosure or experiencing servicer abuses.
Another $1 billion will be paid directly by Bank of America to the Federal Housing Administration to settle charges that its subsidiary, Countrywide Financial, defrauded the housing agency.
In addition, the banks agreed to eliminate robo-signing altogether and to use proper and legal procedures when putting homeowners through the foreclosure process. They also agreed to end servicer abuses, like harassing delinquent borrowers for payments, and to include principal reductions more often in their mortgage modifications programs. (Mortgage deal could bring billions in relief)
Is my mortgage lender taking part in this settlement? Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and Ally Financial (GJM)
are taking part in the settlement.
In addition, nine other unnamed loan servicers may join the settlement later, and that would bring its value to $30 billion.
Loans owned or backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, are not part of the deal. (Obama proposes new home loan refinancing program)
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees the two government-sponsored mortgage giants, will not allow any balance reductions for loans insured by the companies under the settlement.
I lost my home to foreclosure; how do I know if I qualify for payment? If you were foreclosed on in the calendar years 2008 through 2011, you may be be eligible for a payment of up to $2,000. People who think they may qualify should notify their bank.
The exact amount of the payments will depend on how many people participate in this part of the settlement. They will share equally in a pool of $1.5 billion. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development expects about 750,000 former homeowners to take part.
What should I do if I think I may qualify for a principal reduction or refinanced mortgage? Contact your lender/servicer and ask them to review your case.
If I take the money, what rights do I give up? Individual borrowers do not give up any right to sue.
As part of this deal, state attorneys general gave up the right to sue the mortgage servicers for foreclosure abuses arising out of the robo-signing scandal. However, they reserve the right to sue if they uncover improper acts when the loans were originated or when they were securitized.

0:00 / 2:11 Criminal prosecution still an option

When will the new rules and bank policies be put into place? Most of them have already become part of bank policies.
When will homeowners get paid? HUD said the settlement will be put before a court for approval within two weeks. It is unknown how long it will then take for a court to rule.
The relief for homeowners has to be completed within three years, but the state attorneys general and HUD want it to be front-loaded and completed within 12 months.
Would I have to pay taxes on the principal reductions or the pay-outs? If the principal is reduced in 2012, it will not be subject to income tax.
That's because the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 allows taxpayers to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. The act is scheduled to expire at the end of this year, however.
So if the act is not extended and the principal reduction occurs in 2013, borrowers may be on the hook to pay taxes on the settlement amount.
It's not clear whether you would have to pay taxes on the $1,500 to $2,000 payout. The IRS declined to comment on the question.
Which state didn't participate and what does it mean if you live in that state? Oklahoma was the only holdout of the 50 states. Instead, it announced its own settlement with the five banks Thursday.
Under its settlement, the banks agreed to pay $18.6 million in damages, part of which would compensate homeowners who were victims of unlawful and unfair mortgage practices, according to the Oklahoma attorney general's office.
Homeowners who believe they may have been wrongly foreclosed upon should visit the Oklahoma attorney general's website and fill out the paperwork for processing a claim.
Will the settlement make it harder to get a mortgage? The new rules and regulations the banks have agreed to under the settlement should have little impact on future mortgage borrowing since most of practices are already in place, said Keith Gumbinger of HSH Associates, a mortgage information provider.
The actual cost to the banks of the settlement should not discourage lending either. (Housing: The one bailout America really needs)
Only $5 billion of the $26 billion settlement will be a direct cost to the banks. The remainder will be the cost of modifying mortgages. Many of those modifications may be in the best interests of the banks to make, however, since the alternative may be foreclosure, which can cost banks more than modifications.
Were you foreclosed on? Do you think the banks owe you money? Send your story and contact information to RealStories@turner.com and you could be featured in an upcoming article on CNNMoney.

Mortgage deal could bring billions in relief/Billion dollars bail out for home owners.

Criminal prosecution still an option

WASHINGTON -- In the largest deal to date aimed at addressing the housing meltdown, federal and state officials on Thursday announced a $26 billion foreclosure settlement with five of the largest home lenders.
The deal settles potential state charges about allegations of improper foreclosures based on robosigning, seizures made without proper paperwork.
The settlement includes the Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as 49 state attorneys general -- all but Oklahoma.
"We are using this opportunity to fix a broken system," said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder at the news conference announcing the settlement.
The settlement sets up a federal monitor to oversee the process and try to prevent roadblocks and red tape that tripped many homeowners seeking help in earlier programs designed to address the housing crisis.
President Obama said the settlement will "begin to turn the page on an era of wrecklessness that has left so much damage in its wake."
"No action, no matter how meaningful, is going to by itself entirely heal the housing market," he said in separate remarks at the White House. "But this settlement is a start."
Most of the relief will go to those who owe far more than their homes are worth, known as being underwater on the loans. That relief will come over the course of the next three years, with the banks having incentives to provide most of the relief in the next 12 months.
"This settlement is about homeowners, homeowners in distress," said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller at the news conference with state and federal officials.

What the settlement means to you

Principal reduction: At least $17 billion will go to reducing the principal owed by homeowners who are both underwater and behind on their mortgages.
The agreement calls for principal reduction for as many as 1 million people. But it's unlikely the money will go that far, because many people need more than the $17,000 average reduction that would result if the money is split among 1 million homeowners.
At the same time, total principal reduction could go higher -- to as much as $34 billion -- since the agreement requires deeper principal reductions for the most troubled loans.
Refinancing: Officials say up to 750,000 other underwater homeowners who are current on their mortgages will be able to refinance their current loans at lower rates. They will not receive a reduction in principal, but with mortgage rates now near record lows, they could receive substantial savings on their monthly payments.
The settlement sets aside $3 billion to account for the reduced interest payments the banks will receive after the refinancing.
Robosigning payments: About $1.5 billion of the settlement will go to homeowners who had their homes foreclosed upon between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2011, and who meet other criteria. They will receive up to $2,000 each.
Accepting that payment does not preclude homeowners who lost their home in an improper foreclosure from suing the bank to recover damages, Donovan said.
Participating banks: The five mortgage servicers that are parties to the settlement -- Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and Ally Financial -- will pay a total of $5 billion to the states. Some of that money will go to foreclosed homeowners and the rest to the states.
Federal officials say negotiations are underway to expand the settlement to nine other major servicers, which would raise the overall value of the settlement to $30 billion.
Related settlements: The deal spurred pacts between the authorities and banks in similar cases.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt announced a separate $18.6 million settlement that addressed homeowners whose homes were foreclosed through improper means, but did not provide help to those whose mortgages were underwater. He said he believes the broader agreement "overreached" the authority of both federal and state governments.
"We had concerns that what started as an effort to correct specific practices harmful to consumers, morphed into an attempt by President Obama to ...fundamentally restructure the mortgage industry in the United States," Pruitt said.
The Federal Reserve said it had reached an agreement with the five banks to pay a $766.5 million in sanctions related to their servicing practices.
And Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, N.Y., announced a $1 billion settlement with Bank of America to resolve claims of underwriting and mortgage origination fraud by BofA and mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, which BofA bought in 2008.
The $26 billion deal announced Thursday is the second biggest settlement ever involving states. It trails only the $206 billion pact in 1998 with the tobacco industry.
And it dwarfs any settlements that major Wall Street firms have reached to resolve other allegations of misdeeds related to the financial markets meltdown and the Great Recession.
Still it only will help a faction of those homeowners who are struggling with mortgages. The relief would not be available to those homeowners whose mortgages have been sold to the government-sponsored mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
There are 1.5 million homeowners who are 90 days or more delinquent on their mortgages but not yet in foreclosure, according to the most recent estimate from the Mortgage Bankers Association. An additional 1.9 million are in the foreclosure process. And CoreLogic estimates that 11 million homeowners are underwater on their mortgages.

Obama proposes new home refinancing plan

The settlement does not preclude criminal prosecutions from being pursued. It also doesn't stop investigations into other allegations of misdoings, such as the process of bundling loans into mortgage-backed securities and selling them to investors.
"It wasn't the servicing practices that created the bubble nor caused the collapse," said Donovan. "It was the origination and the securitization of these horrendous products. We will be aggressive about going after those claims."
The deal is supposed to protect consumers when it comes to robosigning, and ensure that mortgage servicers agree to communicate better, avoid delays and give homeowners who are late on mortgage payments a fairer shake.
New York's participation had been shaky this week, because some of the banks involved in the multi-state deal had also been sued by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman last week. Those banks -- Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase -- had also asked for a legal pass from Schneiderman's lawsuit, which accuses them of deceptive foreclosure practices for relying on the Mortgage Electronic Registration System.
On Tuesday, Schneiderman's office organized a media briefing to talk about the deal and then canceled it minutes before it was supposed to begin.

One man's fight against foreclosures

The big question throughout the negotiations was how much money would be available to help homeowners, which depended on how many states agreed to the deal. California's participation raises the total settlement value by several billion dollars.
At least one consumer advocacy group, the Center for Responsible Lending, has said the deal -- while "no silver bullet" -- leaves room to hold banks accountable in other mortgage probes, said Kathleen Day, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit.
But other left-leaning groups, including Move On and the New Bottom Line, are continuing to urge states to hold out for a big criminal investigation and a $300 billion settlement award.

No Libya play for the West in Syria

Amid growing outrage over civilian casualties in Syria, there are ever more urgent calls to aid -- or at least protect -- the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. There is renewed talk of creating safe havens and humanitarian corridors inside the country. And those demanding tougher measures are again asking why events in Syria should not prompt Libyan-style intervention by NATO and its Arab allies.
In Washington Tuesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States "should consider all options, including arming the opposition. The blood-letting has got to stop."
So far, the international community's response to the violence in Syria has been limited. There has been diplomatic censure, with envoys withdrawn or "recalled for consultations," and Syrian ambassadors expelled from several Arab states. A growing raft of sanctions is draining the Syrian regime's coffers but only gradually sapping its strength. This is not a country that has relied on international trade for its survival.
An Arab League monitoring mission is in abeyance, after a much criticized few weeks on the ground that drew ridicule even from within its own ranks and fury (for its perceived complacency) from protesters. And back in November, France floated the idea of humanitarian corridors that would be protected by armed observers -- while ruling out military intervention. So far the idea has not gained traction.
None of this amounts to the sort of pressure that will make the al-Assad regime buckle, especially when it perceives as divided both internal opposition and the international community.
Compare the situation to that in Libya -- almost a year ago. As then-Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was about to unleash his forces on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the world came together in the shape of the U.N. Security Council to authorize international intervention and prevent a bloodbath
The French and British were prime movers behind U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973; the United States an enthusiastic supporter. Russia abstained, but at the time its ambassador noted that many questions remained "unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what the limits of engagement would be." Russian later complained that a humanitarian mandate had become a blank check in support of the rebels.

Perhaps in part because of the bad blood over Libya, the world body has reached no similar consensus over Syria. Rather, the opposite, with some of the harshest diplomatic language traded for years. To the United States, the vetoes were a "travesty." German ambassador Peter Wittig essentially said that Moscow and Beijing had Syrian blood on their hands.
"China and Russia will now have to assume that responsibility in the face of the international public opinion and especially in the Arab world, the Arab citizens and, of course, in face of the Syrian people," Wittig said.
Beyond the rhetoric, the vetoes had a more practical consequence. NATO officials have made it clear that the alliance cannot act, by enforcing a no-fly zone for example, without U.N. support. Writer Derek Flood, recently in Syria with elements of the Free Syrian Army, says NATO officials envision no role for the alliance in Syria this year. But they have not ruled out a "coalition of the willing" outside the NATO orbit.
Both Russia and China are wary of any international action supporting protest against authoritarian rule. And Syria has been first the Soviet Union's -- and now Russia's -- key ally in the region after Egypt 'defected' in the 1970s. As it has for decades, Russia still supplies the Syrian government with weapons. One Russian analyst, Ruslan Pukhov, told CNN: "Once the Assad regime vanishes, we have zero influence in the region."
According to Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, al-Assad has ably judged the "diplomatic red lines" to keep Moscow onside. There have been no massacres on the scale of what happened in Hama 30 years ago (when thousands were killed after a brief uprising against his father's rule) that might have forced Russia into a corner. The persistent drip of civilian casualties over almost a year has not unleashed a tide of irresistible outrage.
Last weekend's casualties in Homs, which opposition activists said numbered in the hundreds, may have changed that. But what can be done? In Bosnia, the international community declared "safe havens" for Muslims but failed to protect them. The result in July 1995 was Srebrenica, the worst massacre in Europe since 1945, when some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim civilians were killed by Serb forces. Havens are only safe when protected against superior forces.
Others support Sen. John McCain in arguing for arming the fledgling Free Syrian Army. Anne-Marie Slaughter, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, told CNN that is "the most likely [option], that the Arab League countries, Turkey and probably NATO as well arms the Free Syrian Army, gives them the means to fight back.
"But then you've got a long and bloody civil war," Slaughter says -- reminiscent of Bosnia.
Analysts say that even setting aside the lack of international will, successful intervention in Syria would pose problems not present in Libya:
Geography: Most regime targets in Libya were close to the Mediterranean coast and within easy reach of NATO air bases in Italy. Even so, NATO warplanes flew some 21,000 missions over nearly six months to enforce the no-fly zone, suppress air defenses and destroy command centers and armor. Military analysts say that, while no match for the best NATO members could summon, Syrian armed forces are better equipped and coordinated than anything Gadhafi could muster.
Neighboring states: Few of Syria's neighbors would likely allow their territory to be used to pre-position supplies or military units. Certainly neither Iraq nor Lebanon, both countries with their own volatile sectarian mixes. The Hezbollah militia, strongly allied with Syria, remains powerful within Lebanon.
The presence of foreign troops on Jordanian soil might have repercussions for a monarchy that already has plenty of problems domestically. Using Israeli territory would send the wrong message altogether.
That leaves Turkey, a NATO member that has run out of patience with al-Assad. Last month, the Turkish foreign minister compared the Syrian president with former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, and on Tuesday Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned al-Assad -- pointedly in Arabic -- "What goes around, comes around."
Turkey has military bases (Incirlik, Diyarbakir) close to the border that -- theoretically -- could serve as staging posts for intervention. But even for the Turks, there would be risks -- including a flood of refugees and possible retaliation by Damascus supporting the Kurdish terrorist group active in Turkey, the PKK.
Topography: Libya was flat desert; there was little cover for regime forces and most of the fighting was along a narrow coastal strip. "Target acquisition" was relatively simple. Syria's physical geography is more challenging; and much of its northern border with Turkey and Lebanon is mountainous, with few major roads. Getting aid into any safe havens within Syria would be a logistical nightmare.
The opposition: The Libyan rebels, for all their military shortcomings, quickly grabbed a swathe of eastern Libya and major air and seaports in Benghazi and Tobruk that became their resupply hubs. The Free Syrian Army (FSA), at best, controls a few neighborhoods in Homs and elsewhere.
'The FSA has established very small slices of liberated territory," says Derek Flood, who has just left Idlib province close to the Turkish border. He says the FSA is poorly armed; he was told the price of weapons on the black market has soared, "with a used AK-47 fetching as much as $2,000 - $3,000." Flood says the FSA in that area wants a 5 kilometer buffer zone inside Syria to provide protection from regime forces.
Crucially, the regime retains control of Syria's frontiers, and its armed forces appear cohesive, according to analysts in the region. There have been military defections, mainly of low-rank conscripts, but not of entire units with their armor.
Against all this and the political risks of western military action in yet another Muslim country, some argue there is a moral imperative -- as there was in Libya and Kosovo (done), Rwanda (ignored) and Bosnia (eventually.)
Writing last month in The Atlantic, Steven Cook argued: "If there is no intervention and political will to stop Assad's crimes remains absent, the world will once again have to answer for standing on the sidelines of a mass murder."
Cook -- a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations -- asked: "At what point in the body count is international intervention deemed to be an acceptably worthwhile option that can have a positive effect on the situation? After Assad has killed 6,000 people? 7,000? 10,000? 20,000?"
Scholar Fouad Ajami agrees, telling CNN's Anderson Cooper: "Not just the Russians and Chinese, shame to the rest of us. There's abdication elsewhere, by the Turks nearby, abdication by the Arab League and Washington. Washington spent an enormous amount of time chasing after the false mirage [that] maybe we can get the Russians and Chinese on board."
Some also argue that, despite the price, there would also eventually be a strategic gain: a post-al-Assad Syria would unlikely be as close to Iran as is the current regime and might also deprive Hezbollah of critical regional support.
Others see the risks of international intervention as outweighing any benefits, with the danger that civil war would inevitably spill into Lebanon.
In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice preferred tighter and more coordinated sanctions, saying that "our strong preference is not to fuel what has the potential to become a full-blown civil war" by arming the opposition.
Diplomats expect a new "contact group" on Syria to involve at least the United States, France, the Arab League and Turkey.
"We think that the Assad regime is on its last legs, that the pressure is increasing, the economy is crumbling," Rice said.
Syrians may already be discounting direct intervention by the West. In one YouTube video uploaded Tuesday from Homs, a doctor pleads for help from abroad. But he directs his message to the leaders of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Hicks: Tracy Morgan collapses at Sundance

Tracy Morgan was rushed to hospital in Park City, Utah, on Sunday after collapsing at the Sundance Film Festival, according to reports.

The "30 Rock" actor, 43, fell unconscious following the Creative Coalition Spotlight Awards dinner, where he accepted the Spotlight Initiative Award, according to the Hollywood Reporter. He was taken to Park City Medical Center.

"Superman ran into a little kryptonite. The high altitude in Utah shook up this kid from Brooklyn," Morgan tweeted on Monday. "Thank U 2 the hospital staff. Back at work 2morrow shooting 30 Rock. Holla at me!"

So he was too high? Or not.

A spokeswoman for the hospital said no drugs or alcohol were found in his system. The actor's rep denied Morgan had been drinking, despite reports that said he seemed out of control at the dinner, yelling and falling down.

Who ever said Tracy Morgan needs alcohol or drugs to act like that?

In a statement, the rep said Morgan was hospitalized "from a combination of exhaustion and altitude, Tracy is seeking medical attention," adding: "He is with his fiancée (Megan Wallover) and grateful to the Park City Medical Center for their care. Any reports of Tracy consuming alcohol are 100% false."

The outspoken (and often controversial) actor, who has diabetes, underwent a kidney transplant in December 2010.

Don't pick a fight with Clint Eastwood

San Diego  -- Karl Rove is obviously a smart guy. And yet, recently, the political strategist and former senior adviser in the George W. Bush administration did something that wasn't very smart. He picked a fight with Clint Eastwood.
I tell you, this story made my day.
Rove essentially threw down a penalty flag over, of all things, a Chrysler ad featuring the actor that aired during the Super Bowl. In the ad -- titled "Halftime in America" -- Eastwood praises the strength of the American spirit and the resilience of the American people in bouncing back from adversity. The symbol of that resilience: the U.S. auto industry.
The idea of the ad is to sell cars, of course. And maybe it's also intended to give Americans a much-needed pep talk as they continue to wrestle with economic uncertainty.
But Rove thinks there is something more sinister at work here, and that the real purpose of the ad is to put in a plug for President Obama's re-election.

Clint Eastwood's Chrysler ad "Halftime."

The ad starts with Eastwood saying: "It's halftime. Both teams are in their locker rooms discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half.
"It's halftime in America, too," he continues. "People are out of work, and they're hurting. And they're all wondering what they're gonna do to make a comeback. And we're all scared because this isn't a game. The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again.
Eric Liu: Super Bowl ads offer two views of national anxieties
"That's what we do," Eastwood concludes. "We find a way through tough times, and if we can't find a way, we'll make one. Yeah, it's halftime in America. And our second half is about to begin."
It's a good, strong ad. But did you hear the political message? No? Me neither. All I heard was an upbeat message slickly produced and expertly delivered. Which raises the question: Even in a presidential election year, does every single thing have to be about politics?
For Rove, the answer seems to be "yes." He told Fox News that he was "offended" by the ad, which he said was an example of "what happens when you have Chicago-style politics."
Give me a break. It's OK to not be impressed with the resurrection of the Motor City. But do you then have to respond by attacking the Windy City?
Rove thinks the ad is calling for Obama's re-election, so we can start the "second half."
iReporter: 'Halftime ad' supports Obama
But the political strategist does raise one legitimate concern. He is worried that Obama and his team are scheming to use "our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best-wishes of the management which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back."
Chrysler received, from the U.S. government, a bailout of about $12.5 billion; it has since repaid much of the money, leading the Treasury to estimate that taxpayers will take a loss of $1.3 billion.
Now, Rove suggests, as a kind of interest, Chrysler might feel obligated to also repay Obama for helping push through the bailout.
For his part, Eastwood denied there was any political motivation behind the ad.
Speaking to Ron Mitchell, a producer at Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," Eastwood insisted, "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it."
But, he added, if Obama or other elected officials "want to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."
It would be great if our leaders went for it. We need more optimism in American politics. There is too much doom and gloom and too many people preaching that America's best days are behind it. Everyone feels entitled to one thing or another, and everyone is a victim. People adopt the view that there is always a scam, a hidden message or an ulterior motive. Someone is always trying to convince you of something or con you out of your life savings.
Rove has succumbed to that trend. He jumped to the wrong conclusion with no evidence to back up his claims, and he made himself look foolish. It's OK to have politics on the brain, but there should be room for other things.
Sometimes, a Super Bowl ad is really just a Super Bowl ad. And the message behind this one is bigger than any one political figure.

After all, America may be headed into the second half. But no one says we can't change quarterbacks.

Analysis: Conservatives still resist Romney

WASHINGTON / Did you ever really think a Massachusetts Mormon was going to waltz his way to the Republican presidential nomination?
Rick Santorum's Tuesday trifecta reflects a central truth of the 2012 campaign. The most conservative voters will never love Mitt Romney, no matter what he says or does. They doubt his authenticity and wish they could vote for someone else.
Fortunately for Romney, he's running against maybe the weakest field in modern memory. Sorry, conservatives: Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Marco Rubio aren't walking through that door. What you see is what you get.
The most relevant question now may be whether the brain trust at Romney Inc. can figure out a way to get a skeptical base fired up this fall. Reaching out to independent swing voters is important, but so is motivating the folks who make the phone calls, stuff the envelopes, hold the signs, and knock on doors.
Hint: Those aren't the business bigwigs mailing mega checks to Romney's super PAC.
Tuesday's results are "a red flag for Romney. He has not sealed the deal among (ordinary) conservatives, and he has to have a large conservative turnout to beat Obama" later this year, said Darrell West, a senior political analyst and vice president at Washington's Brookings Institute.
"Romney is not beloved by any segment of the Republican Party, but he remains, as he has from the outset, the only plausible nominee with a chance of beating Obama," added Thomas Mann, another veteran analyst from Brookings.
Sensing the possibility of a Tuesday setback, Romney's team did its best to lower expectations. Campaign Political Director Rich Beeson sent a memo to the political world declaring that "there is no way for any nominee to win first place in every single contest."
"John McCain lost 19 states in 2008, and we expect our opponents to notch a few wins too," he said.
Fair enough, though few analysts anticipated the magnitude of Tuesday's beat down. Santorum defeated Romney by about five points in Colorado, 28 points in Minnesota, and 30 points in Missouri. Noting you didn't put in a full effort only goes so far when you're running against a skeletal campaign like Santorum's.
And make no mistake: Romney cared about at least a couple of those states. His first stop after winning the Florida primary was Minnesota. He spent the last couple of days in Colorado. He won both states by overwhelming margins four years ago, when he was seen as the conservative alternative to McCain.
Romney's losses this time around means the GOP fight goes on. And that, in turn, means Romney can't yet do what he really wants to do: Turn his full attention to Obama.
"Romney wants all of his opponents marginalized so the campaign effectively ends early," Mann said. "Santorum's victory ensures his presence at least through Super Tuesday (on March 6), and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul will surely keep contesting the nomination."
It remains nearly impossible to envision a scenario under which Romney fails to eventually steamroll his way to the nomination. Santorum headed to Texas on Wednesday -- land of big GOP donors -- but his campaign is barely above water financially. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul -- flawed candidates all -- will never be able to match Romney's infrastructure or bank account.
And Santorum gained minimal ground in the delegate race Tuesday night. Missouri's primary was nonbinding, and both the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses didn't officially award any delegates -- that will happen down the road at district and state conventions.
Looking ahead, Romney is certain to match his opponents' rhetorical red meat at the Conservative Political Action Conference later this week. His team is also ready to unleash its full financial arsenal in the run-up to the February 28 delegate-rich Arizona and Michigan primaries. If necessary, Romney's machine will tear down Santorum and Gingrich before both contests, much like it did to Gingrich in Iowa and Florida.
Another Romney edge: Arizona is home to a significant Mormon population, and Michigan offers virtual home state status.
Combine momentum from those states with campaign muscle on Super Tuesday, and Romney more likely than not will be off to the races in the delegate count in March. It takes 1,144 delegates to seal the deal. While Romney's team would have liked an early knockout, they planned for a long haul.
Santorum's Tuesday win could actually end up helping the former Massachusetts governor in one critical respect: It may prevent the anti-Romney conservatives from coalescing around Gingrich's candidacy.
"Romney's best strategy is divide and conquer," West noted.
One fear accompanying a long nasty fight, however, is how much scorched earth is ultimately left behind. Turnout is down in a number of GOP primary and caucus states this year compared to 2008 -- a dangerous sign for a party that will need enthusiasm and energy to oust Obama. Romney's unfavorable ratings have been rising among independents in some polls.
"I suspect (conservatives') hatred of President Obama and unwillingness to consider him legitimate will be sufficient to rally GOP turnout," Mann predicted. "The problem for Romney will be with the rest of the electorate, given his sharp right turn during the primaries."
Romney has "to rely on his financial and organizational resources to stagger to the (Republican) finish line, and then hope people hate Obama more than they hate" him, West said.
Can an unloved candidate win the White House in 2012? We may find out soon enough

Dr Khalid Muhammad - Part 4 (Phil Donahue Show)

Dr Khalid Muhammad - Part 2 (Phil Donahue Show)

Dr. Khallid Muhammad interviewed by Phil Donahue (part1)

LEO MUHAMMAD: Why Caucasians Are Not Admitted Into Our Meetings.

LEO MUHAMMAD: Why Caucasians Are Not Admitted Into Our Meetings.

Leo Muhammad: Answer To The Critics

Leo Muhammad: Was Elijah Muhammad Racist?

For All You "Black" People Who Think Whites Are Your Friends - Pt2

Five ways al-Assad may fall

The uprising in Syria has taken a crucial turn. The opposition has become powerful enough to liberate parts of the country from Bashar al-Assad’s rule, even reaching the suburbs of Damascus. The question now is not if al-Assad will fall, but how. The fate of other dictators, from Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti, provides a political menu of five options for how al-Assad may go.
1. Milosevic’s Miranda Rights: Al-Assad holds on to power, turning the popular uprising into a sectarian conflict between Alawites and Sunnis. Syria descends into a war of ethnic cleansing. In the long term, however, this ushers in an economic and moral collapse of his regime similar to that of Milosevic’s rule in Serbia. Although the dictator of Belgrade instrumentalized Yugoslavia’s break to foment ethnic war and cling to power in the early 1990s, in the end he failed. International sanctions and continued unrest brought down his regime in a decade. Milosevic ended up being arrested in 2001 and then turned over to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague which read him his Miranda rights. In 2006, fifteen years after the uprising against him, Milosevic died of a heart attack in his prison cell.
2. Baby Doc’s Dolce Vita: Al-Assad decides that it is time for him to go, his regime collapses, and he brokers a deal with a patron state, for instance Russia, to take him in. Just as after the end of his rule in 1986, Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, or Baby Doc, found safe haven in his guardian France, where he lived la dolce vita, al-Assad could find himself in his protector Russia, safe and comfortable, though probably not enjoying the Russian weather.
3. Mubarak’s Misery: Al-Assad agrees to a transition, yielding power to a deputy. He is then arrested, and given a promise of a fair trial in Syria as part of a transition. Just as Egyptian dictator Mubarak agreed to leave power to his deputy in 2011, only to end up in jail and then put on a trial likely to last for years, al-Assad languishes in a jail cell, waiting for justice that never comes.
4. Ceausescu’s Chopping Block: Al-Assad holds on to power with obstinacy. His close elite, though, predicts regime collapse, deciding to sacrifice him the dictator in a palace coup to save themselves. Just as Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu was executed by his people on live TV in 1989, a year after the uprising against him, Assad is killed by his own generals. Syria moves into a period of instability marked by continuing demonstrations and the tenuous hold of power by the old elite. In the end, the demonstrators win, inshallah!
5. Gadhafi's Cut: Al-Assad holds on to power together with his army, turning more brutal and committing large scale massacres. This brings more people to the streets, leading others to take up arms against the regime. The uprising crescendos before Syria can descend into sectarian warfare. The revolution succeeds. Just as Gadhafi's dictatorship succumbed to a massive popular uprising, al-Assad's rule simply withers away. The dictator of Damascus meets the “people’s justice” and Gadhafi's abrupt fate.
Those are five potential ways for al-Assad to go. Which one do you find most likely? Or do you have another idea for how he might leave power?
The views expressed in this article are solely those of  Ahmad Shabazz,. What's your's?

Ten ways an Israeli strike on Iran could radically weaken Israel

What's the worst case scenario of an Israeli air strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities? Below is what I came up with. I think each of these scenarios is plausible in its own right, and that all could well ensue.
1. Iran is now threatening to strike at any third country in the region that aided Israel in an airstrike on Iran. The aftermath is therefore likely to be further conflict in the region.
2. Oil prices will spike. I imagine you could easily see $150 a barrel or maybe even more. This development could throw the U.S. and Europe back into deep recession.
3. Hezbollah would likely launch rockets, causing at least severe inconvenience to some 1/4 of the Israeli public, which might well have to move house again, and possibly much worse if Hizbullah is able, as they claim, to target toxic gas storage in Haifa or even the reactor at Dimona with modified Chinese silkworms.
It is not clear that the Israeli public would appreciate all that trouble; they didn’t, in former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s case (his 2006 Lebanon war was extremely unpopular and his party is no longer in power). A Hezbollah official said on Sunday that Hezbollah would be willing to go to war with Israel if Syria were attacked, so it seems likely the same thing would hold true with regard to Iran.
4. Israel would destroy Lebanon infrastructure in revenge for Hezbollah rocket attacks.
5. The Syria uprising would be over with. It would be impossible for the Syrian National Council to continue to oppose the government and risk being tagged as genuinely Israeli agents. The Baath would be consolidated in Syria.
6. An Iran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut axis would be strengthened, allowing for resupply of Hezbollah capabilities. Beirut would be pushed into arms of the new axis. Gulf oil states and Iraq and Iran would quickly rebuild Lebanon.
7. Iraq would be radicalized. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq would have to support Hezbollah and Lebanon or risk losing face inside al-Da’wa and losing backing in parliament of Sadr, al-Hakim and other Shiite religious forces. Al-Maliki has already given, as a reason for supporting al-Assad, the danger that Israel will take advantage of turmoil in the Fertile Crescent. Iraq would likely use its oil wealth to help rebuild Lebanon and al-Maliki’s Islamic Mission Party (al-Da’wa al-Islamiya), which helped create Hezbollah, would strengthen relations with it. You could see cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army supply men and arms to Hizbullah in Lebanon, as well.
8. The European left and liberals would be horrified and unlike in the past could well take action. Remember that the scenario is that Israel, having gone rogue and poisoned Isfahan and maybe other populations with toxic chemicals and radioactivity, went on to destroy Lebanon’s airport, harbor, electricity plants, oil refineries, roads, bridges, etc.
Ireland, Norway, and possibly some other European governments, plus large numbers of European civil society organizations and unions might well slap economic boycotts and sanctions on Israel (50% of Israel’s trade is with Europe).
Significant negative measures by the European Union are not impossible, including in area of scientific and technological exchange. In my view, the Campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement in Europe would become a wave and once that happens, it could have a long term impact on the Israeli economy.
9. The region’s diplomatic dynamics could be changed. The possibility exists of a rupture between Israel and Turkey. It is also possible that Egypt will terminate the Camp David peace accords. The Egyptian military won’t care about the strike on Iran, but the Egyptian public would be horrified by that and by the likely third Lebanon war. The Muslim Brotherhood, now dominant in the Egyptian parliament, would have to react strongly or risk losing credibility in the eyes of the Egyptian public.
10. Over succeeding years, significant Israeli out-migration could occur by Israelis with sufficient education and training to find jobs elsewhere, who became convinced that the Middle East will just never settle down and be a pleasant environment for them.
This development would strengthen the internal position of the Palestinian-Israelis and possibly of the Haredim (who are probably more committed to staying and toughing it out), and weaken the Ashkenazi secular elite. Ironically, Barak has admitted that some of the impetus for preventing a nuclear Iran is to forestall this out-migration scenario, but he doesn’t seem to realize that a strike on Iran could actually have a similar demographic outcome if the region doesn’t take it lying down.
It seems obvious to me that if all these developments actually occurred,they would be much worse for Israel than if Iran actually did start a weapons program and Iran and Israel replicated on a regional scale the Mutually Assured Destruction of the U.S.-Soviet standoff of an earlier era.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of  Ahmad Shabazz,.

Poll: Obama bests GOP frontrunners

 President Barack Obama tops the Republican presidential frontrunners in hypothetical head-to-head matchups, according to a new survey.
The ABC/Washington Post Poll indicated Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney, 51% to 45%, among registered voters. The new figure is the first time Obama cracked 50% against the former Massachusetts governor in the survey. He received 46% to Romney's 47% in mid-January.

Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
It appears Obama was also aided by an increase in support among independent voters, who were split 48% for Obama and 47% for Romney. The former Massachusetts governor held a 12-point edge in January.
The new figures showed Romney's business background, which he often touts on the campaign trail, is a positive element of his candidacy. He held a narrow edge over Obama on who is best to handle the economy.
The president also bested Gingrich, 54% to 43%, among registered votes, although it was a smaller margin than the 15% by which Obama led the former House speaker in January.
In an interview on Sunday the president said he deserves a second term. The poll found 49% of registered voters agreed, while 49% said he does not deserve a second term.
But the president did not fare as well among independent voters, who will likely play a significant role in the 2012 elections.
Obama received a 47% approval rate among the key voting bloc and a 50% disapproval figure.
The poll questioned 1,000 adults between Wednesday and Saturday with a sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points

Newt and Mitt: Two guys with issues

So after all of this drama in the Republican race, we have two major candidates with some very basic questions left unanswered: For Mitt Romney, it's the most basic query of all -- "Who am I?" (Moderate or conservative? Warm or cold? Very rich or very, very rich?) As for Newt Gingrich, he's got to explain to voters that "I'm-not-who-you-think-I-am." (And then behaves as the angry, unpredictable man they think he is.)
So let's start with Romney. In life, he's "to the manor born,'' no doubt about it. Yes, he made his own fortune, but he also inherited one (and then gave it away). Yet oddly, he can't figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time; that is, proudly describe his earned wealth while at the same time making the case that he understands how tough it is for the Average (or Below-Average) Joe. Discussion of money -- whether it's his own taxes or the safety net for the poor -- leaves him flummoxed.
No wonder the public might get a tad confused. The man who is running as the right person with the right business experience for America can't figure out a way to talk about his own personal business. Not a good sign. When the candidate is uncomfortable, it shows. And it's not reassuring.

 

It's also worrisome for conservatives when Romney talks about the minimum wage (as in indexing it to the rate of inflation) and says he would fix the social safety net if it had holes. Republicans, in case Romney hasn't noticed, believe a growing economy lifts all boats, and a government-funded safety net isn't the way to go. As for the minimum wage, Republicans believe that raising it is a guaranteed job killer.
"It's clear he doesn't really get the entire intellectual framework for conservative economic arguments," says one dispirited Romney supporter. "No wonder he has a tough time talking about it."
Then there's Gingrich, who has a tougher time listening than talking. Exhibit A: his post-Nevada speech Saturday night. After two days locked in meetings with advisers, donors and supporters -- many of whom encouraged him to stop focusing on Romney's character and start focusing on his policies -- Gingrich proceeded to hammer Romney.
So the candidate who needs to explain to voters that he's not the evil, erratic, disgraced former speaker holds a news conference to denounce Romney's "fundamentally dishonest' campaign." He then went on to explain that when Romney wins contests, he is "suppressing turnout." In other words, if Romney is nominated, GOP voters won't turn out to support him. Very helpful.
Here's the problem for Gingrich: He can't help but play into his own caricature. Simply put, he seems, well, unable to control the public expression of his own anger, and there's something that really sticks in his craw, according to one source who has communicated with Gingrich: It's the Romney ad which says Gingrich resigned from the speakership 'in disgrace."
While the ad links Gingrich's ethics problems to his resignation, that was not the case. He resigned after the GOP took a drubbing in midterm elections in 1998.
"Gingrich is very upset," says one source with knowledge of Gingrich's sentiments. "He's furious about it. And the result is that it makes it even harder for the Romney people to have any kind of a sensible conversation with him."
Lest you forget, Gingrich is an historian. He has a vision of himself in history as a transformational political figure -- not as an ethically challenged leader who resigned in "disgrace."
"This is not the epic storyline Newt wants," continues this source.
And it's not the campaign the voters wanted, either.