As the prices of educational laptops for children in developing countries creep upward, a group of researchers attempts to create a new, even lower-tech computer that would cost as little as $12.
Computers

While wandering the streets of Bangalore, India, in February during an internship for Qualcomm, 27-year-old graduate student Derek Lomas stumbled across a contraption that looked quite similar to the original Nintendo console that he played video games on as a kid in the 1980s.

NEW YORK — Bank of America Corp. revealed Thursday that it has received subpoenas and requests for information from various state and federal regulators regarding its sale of auction-rate securities.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank said subsidiaries Banc of America Investment Services Inc. and Banc of America Securities LLC are cooperating fully with the requests.

Auction-rate securities are bonds whose interest rates are set at periodic auctions, on the basis of bids submitted. The market collapsed in February amid turmoil in the credit markets.

Regulators have been investigating some banks' involvement in the sale of the securities.

Earlier Thursday, Citigroup Inc. said it reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General and regulators to repurchase $7 billion in auction-rate securities and pay $100 million in fines.

Regulators claimed the investments were marketed as safe even when banks knew of liquidity risks during the downturn in the credit markets.

According to the SEC filing, four purported class action lawsuits have also been filed against Bank of America on behalf of purchasers of auction-rate securities. The cases relate to the sale of the investments between May 2003 and February 2008 and allege that the bank violated certain securities laws in regards to its marketing and sale of the securities.

The actions seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

A related individual federal action as well as several related Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitrations have also been filed, the bank said.

A Bank of America representative was not immediately available for comment.

Bank of America shares tumbled $1.93, or 5.8 percent, to close at $31.52. Shares are down about 19 percent for the year.

WASHINGTON — Planning appeals, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers asked a judge on Thursday to delay enforcement of his ruling that they must testify before Congress.

U.S. District Judge John Bates did not immediately rule on their request to place a hold on his ruling allowing White House aides to be subpoenaed by Congress. The judge asked House lawyers to respond by next week.

Bates on July 31 rejected White House arguments that presidential confidants are protected from congressional subpoenas by executive privilege, giving free rein to Democrats who have been trying to get President Bush's aides to testify on the dismissals of nine federal prosecutors.

Without a quick stay of the ruling, Miers and Bolten may be forced to testify before an appeal can be heard, the two said in a court filing. Democrats have announced they would schedule hearings in September, at the height of election season.

"Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers," the Bolten and Miers request said.

A stay would also benefit Republicans, since the subpoenas expire at the end of the year, not long before Bush leaves office.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said White House lawyer Fred Fielding sent him a letter saying the administration would not let Bolten testify until the appeals process is finished.

"This continuing contempt of Congress is another example of the lengths to which this administration will go and how it uses government lawyers to protect its actions from scrutiny and increase its power, rather than respect the rule of law," Leahy said.

Bates' decision gave some teeth to Congress' power to investigate the executive branch, because earlier disputes had been settled through political compromise instead of the courts.

The judge has scheduled a conference between the litigants on Aug. 27 to assess whether negotiations over the subpoenas had progressed.

It's been great sport the last couple of weeks to make fun of the fact that John McCain is so out of touch with the technology that drives much of our economy, democracy and just about everything else. McCain earlier this year described himself as a "computer illiterate" in a video that surfaced in June, and he's been trying to dig himself out of that hole since then, even as commentators Anna Quindlen, David Corn, and countless others have slammed him for being oblivious.

His aides peg him as "aware of the Internet," even if he relies on his wife, Cindy, and others for his electronic services. While McCain now says he's learning more each day, two years ago, McCain described himself as a "Neanderthal'' - I don't even type." As the furor grew over the last month or so, he now says he's learning more about the Internets every day. Perhaps McCain is taking his cue from the fate of Al Gore. Gore, as a member of Congress and Senator, was a leader on technology policy and did help shepherd the Internet from an academic curiosity to today's ubiquity. His thanks was to be derided by the right-wing noise machine through the 2000 election as having said he "invented" the Internet, which he didn't say, and didn't do. McCain must aware of the techno-phobia of his party, and so stays away from becoming too knowledgeable. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's not as if we expect he and Paris to have a BlackBerry-to-Sidekick texting session, although it might help to clear the air after those ads. (Hers was better.)

But as bad as it is that McCain isn't familiar with, and doesn't use, a computer for even little things, that's just a symptom of something far more serious. Use of a computer and the Internet is one thing. A whole different level of awareness are the elements and philosophy that go into making an economic and technological policy that govern how everybody else uses computers and the Internet. Unfortunately, his broad policy history isn't simply one of being oblivious. It would be actively harmful to our economy and our standing in the world because it would chill competition and innovation at least as much, if not more, than the misguided policies we have now.

Let's briefly compare. Barack Obama released a comprehensive tech policy on November 14, 2007, while visiting Google. He framed the policy as a forward-looking set of ideas to move the economy, starting with protecting an "Open Internet" and the recognition of the value an open Internet has had.

McCain has yet to release anything on the topic. It has been reported that Michael Powell, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is drafting one for McCain. Powell was hand-picked for the FCC by McCain (shoving aside a sitting commissioner, Rachelle Chong), and is frequently a surrogate for McCain on tech policy debates. Reportedly, Powell will leave technical issues, such as whether the Internet should be open and free from discrimination by telephone and cable companies, out of his discussion. Those issues are "in the weeds," he said .

That contrast is striking, but even more so as the United States continues to decline in Internet usage among developed, and sometimes, developing, countries. The number-crunchers can delve into the esoterica whether we are 12th in the world, or 13th, or 15th, depending on what and how you count. But the trend is unmistakable - we're headed down. Unfortunately for McCain, his policy history is one that will continue to lead us down, rather than up. It's a history of siding largely with the big telephone and cable companies, of opposing an Open Internet. The more control over Internet access the big telecom companies assumed, the lower our rankings. In contrast, the countries with the higher rankings have more competition and less control by the big companies. We once had a good policy, but little by little it was taken out by Powell and the FCC. With it went the competition McCain wants, so now most people have at most two choices for real Internet service, rather than the dozens we had 10 years ago.

Congress in early 1996 passed a massive overhaul of telecommunications law. For the most part, it gave big industry what it wanted - telephone companies, cable companies and broadcasters all got some goodies out of it. Long-distance companies and competitors to telephone companies, not so much. By any accounts ,except those of the Bell companies created after the breakup of AT&T in the early 1980s, the Bell companies made out just fine. There were seven of them then - there are three now. Through the debate over the legislation, McCain pursued what might be called an inconsistent philosophy at best. He wanted deregulation and competition - two things that would be mutually exclusive in the telecom environment of the times.

He and Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR) opposed the Telecom Act because it wasn't sufficiently deregulatory. Their solution was simply to set a date, a timeline, and declare that after said date, every company could compete with any other company in every line of business. Back then, unlike now, local telephone companies like Verizon and (today's) AT&T couldn't offer long-distance service, but wanted to. This bill would let them combine the two services in a way that wouldn't allow long-distance companies to compete for long.

The problem with that approach is that on any given deadline, the Bell companies were, and are, the biggest, baddest, companies on the block. The deregulation deadline would only have resulted in the immediate wipe-out of the long-distance and competitive industry. That might have been more humane than the long, slow death they eventually suffered, but at least there was competition for a little while before the Bells wiped out most of it, aided by the FCC. Ironically, McCain later complained about the Telecom Act, which freed the Bell companies from the regulatory barriers of buying each other, by saying when then SBC (now AT&T) bought Ameritech (no longer with us), that the bill "stymies competition" and depriving consumers of choices.

McCain also opposed the part of the Telecom Act that extended discounts on Internet access to schools, libraries and rural health-care clinics. While the program, nicknamed "e-rate" has had its problems over the years, there's also no doubt it helped bring many educational institutions into the Internet age more quickly than they would have otherwise. In 1998, McCain tried to use access to e-rate discounts as a club, introducing legislation that would have cut off e-rate money to recipients which didn't have filtering software on their computers. Librarians were among the groups which objected, and during a Feb. 10, 1998 hearing, McCain was particularly rude to Elizabeth Whitaker, the Tucson coordinator of instructional technologies, who opposed the bill. The bill didn't pass, despite repeated attempts.

Over the years, McCain has consistently resisted attempts to have the big telecom carriers - telephone and cable - open up their networks to provide competition. While McCain has railed through the years about cable rates and cable programming packages, he rejected attempts in 1999 to force cable companies - then the only providers of high-speed Internet - to allow access to outside providers. That move would have brought new competition to the Internet market. That same year he sponsored a bill (S. 1043) that would have freed telephone companies from any obligation to offer wholesale access to their networks for others to offer Internet service. That was the period of time, recall, when there were thousands of local Internet Service Providers who existed precisely because they could buy the access McCain would have denied them.

In 2005, McCain introduced with Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) an updated version (S. 1504), which would similarly have, in the name of competition, eliminated requirements that the Bell companies resell their phone services.

Finally, in 2006, McCain voted against the concept of an open free Internet when the Senate Commerce Committee marked up telecommunications legislation over three days in 2006. On June 28, McCain voted against an amendment that would have guaranteed Net Neutrality. It failed on an 11-11 tie vote. That day is more well known as the day Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) delivered his famous "series of tubes" diatribe in response to a speech in favor of Net Neutrality by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

McCain's telecom contradictions continue to this day. That's his story and McCain is sticking to it. In answers to a questionnaire from CNET news earlier this year, McCain said he still wants to "promote competition and reduce regulation" and seeks "market-based" solutions to do so. In a speech in Kentucky in April this year, he proposed a version of a plan that had been put forward by local telephone companies and rejected by the legislature. The original plan was to use a tax write-off for little companies, like AT&T, as an incentive to put in high-speed Internet service. McCain's plan was the same tune with different words. He wanted to help AT&T pay for the cost of installing broadband service through loans or bonds.

That's McCain's view, contradictions and all. Talk about deregulation and free markets, do nothing to enable competition, help the big guys. We've seen what direction that type of thinking has taken us. Perhaps if McCain were more Internet-literate he would have seen that.

In this amazing video, a slow-motion camera captures the strange and beautiful electricity dance that is a lightning strike. (h/t BuzzFeed)

[WATCH]

I'm a huge fan of the "Product Service System," better known to some as PSS. Though the name is easy to trip over, the concept is brilliant: rather than buying everything you need outright, you can essentially "lease" or "rent" a product, deriving benefit from its service but not retaining ownership. That way, when you're done with it, you can pass it along to someone else, or, in some cases, back to the place where you got it, so they can distribute it to someone else to use for a little while. Confused? Don't be; there are examples everywhere.

Graham mentioned car-sharing as a great PSS, but there are lots more we can all use (and, in some cases, already do). One that's familiar to a lot of us is Netflix. The service-as-product (which now has competition from Blockbuster's rent by mail program, among others) is well known to millions of Americas: sign up; make a list; receive movies in the mail; enjoy; return by mail; repeat.

src='http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/25506/original.jpg'
align="right">Not only does it make movie-watching more convenient and cut back on the clutter of having to own all these DVDs, it's greener than trucking off to the video store every time you want to catch a flick. A recent study published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology concluded that even a two-mile drive to the video store will consume a few hundred times more energy than the Netflix delivery via mail from a distribution center 200 miles away. The authors run the numbers for a movie fan in Ann Arbor, Mich., concluding that renting online DVD rentals consumes about 33 percent less energy and emits 40 percent less CO2 than picking up those same movies at the traditional video store.

And Netflix isn't stopping there. Chief executive Reed Hastings, "We want to be integrated on every Internet-connected device, game system, high-definition DVD player and dedicated Internet set-top box. Eventually, as TVs have wireless connectivity built into them, we'll integrate right into the television." Pretty slick; while it's true that TiVo and other digital video recorders allow you to do this now, Netflix's proposed deal would leverage their huge catalog via the internet, allowing you to watch just about any movie your heart desires, any time. And you don't even have to go to the mailbox to get it.

This model easily extends to libraries, which essentially offer the same service with books (and many are now offering DVDs and CDs as well). There are also more specific services that use the web to offer a similar deal -- with the notable difference of being a paid service -- if your local library doesn't have the variety you desire; America's Bookshelf is one such place.

One way to use stuff without owning it all -- and one that you may not have heard about -- is Neighborrow. Founded on the premise that it's dumb to buy everything you need when you can just borrow it from your friends and neighbors when you need it, Neighborrow is part Freecycle, part Netflix and all product service system goodness. It allows you to pool your resources with your neighbors, and then borrow a food processor when you need one; when you're done, you just pass it back, and round and round we go.

Founded by Adam Berk in his New York City apartment, the site gives users the opportunity to both list what they're willing to share and what they're looking to use; you network with your neighbors to get 'em all done without having to resort to paying retail. Users are rated, so you know how reliable each one has been, and the site keeps track of where your stuff is, how long its been there, and when it's due back.

What other products can you turn into systems? Let me know your favorites in the comments section!

Other Product Service Systems in TreeHugger
Tool Libraries: The Sharpest Tack in the Shed
Mio Introduces Their First Product Service System
Telecommuting is Green and Saves Money, but Most Employers still Resist it
Product Service Systems: Japan's Cat Cafés
Product Service Systems: Puppy the World
Clothing Libraries: Another Product Service System

Some 250,000 Americans are HIV positive but unaware of it, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Thursday, and most of them are not in high-risk groups.

"In the past, people associated HIV with drug use and men who have sex with men," said Bernard Branson, associate director for Laboratory Diagnostics in CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention. "But the epidemic is changing, and there is an increased proportion of cases that have been reported in heterosexual transmissions and among women," he said.

he young Afghan girl sits in the center of the room, weeping. Using her hand and her blue scarf to hide her face, she recounts how she was brutally raped by five gunmen.

The girl's tragic case is one of many in war-torn Afghanistan, activists say.

American humorist Fran Lebowitz once said "Your life would not make a great book, don't even try" -- while I love Lebowitz's sentiment, one could strongly argue that some lives make great movies. As is the case of Philippe Petit, whose extraordinary life, at least a segment of it, is detailed in the new documentary Man on Wire.

Directed by James Marsh, Man on Wire tells the story of Mr.Petit, a French street performer who in 1974 walked across a metal wire that was illegally mounted between the now fallen Twin Towers in lower Manhattan. While the act in of itself is a truly breathtaking sight (yes, there is footage), the narrative that leads us to these climatic moments is even more engaging.

The story begins with Mr. Petit describing the first time he observed an artist's rendering of the not yet built World Trade Center -- the moment he lays eyes on such a sight, something in him clicks and he knows that it would be his destiny to cross the towers via a death-defying tightrope walk. He immediately sets out training himself on a wire and planning his first stunt. He brings along several friends and accomplices, including the flame of his youth. As his journey begins and the WTC is being built, we watch as he prepares himself by first walking between the towers of the Notre Dame Cathedral and later on conquering the Sydney Harbor Bridge in Australia. As the closing act approaches we move to New York, where he collects a team of willing participants who have been swayed by his charisma and a yearning to do something important, different and in a few cases -- illegal. The last portion of the film goes down like any great heist picture, with obstacle after obstacle being overcome through tenacity, a relentless desire to fulfill a vision, and pure luck. The picture culminates with our hero successfully playing the part of artist, acrobat and divine being as he seemingly strolls thousands of feet above downtown New York on a 450 pound wire strung between the now fallen symbols of American prosperity.

The film is finely crafted by Marsh and editor Jinx Godfrey, who intertwine stock footage, animation, interviews and reenactments -- giving the audience a picture that is fluid and building -- the film's plot always being presented by its narrator in the present rather than past tense, which keeps the viewer feeling as if they are watching an actual actual event unfold. The pacing ebbs and flows -- our director knows when to keep the narrative racing and when to break the tempo and let an emotional moment breath. Because of this, it never plods as many a documentary featuring this many talking heads. Another reason for its perceived expedience is that our helmer's greatest strength lay in is his ability to really pull performances from his subjects- enlightening us with their revelations and none is more enchanting than Mr. Petit, our high-wire walker, himself. By the end of the film, he could probably recruit any audience member to follow him to complete his next death defying showcase.

The major weakness of the film is present in some of the previously noted reenactment scenes. While many of these reflections of historical moments come off as so truthful that they fool many into believing that they are pieces of actual footage, there are just as many that tread the territory of cable mini-series. In that sense, the picture has an occasional uneven quality to it. Ninety percent of the work is fantastic and melds together as one cohesive whole; and the remainder either falls victim to, or almost falls victim to, the rare beat that took me out of the work by simply being tonally inept.

Stylistically speaking, this is a film that lends itself to those that certainly came before it -- and certainly is quite a loaded remark. There is absolutely nothing new here in the use of the medium -- the manner in which sequences are built and presented has clearly been influenced by the landmark work of pretty well known documentary filmmakers -- see Michael Moore. Now where our filmmakers stage a great departure here, aesthetically speaking, is in these aforementioned reenactment pieces. Like I had earlier suggested -- the ones that work, really work. They have a certain pseudo-realistic quality, playing with the picture's look, framing, and camera movement to simulate home recorded films -- but with a more deliberate touch from a directorial stand point.

This is a film that is about fearlessness. In the most literal sense -- yes walking on a wire between the Twin Towers takes a dash of fearlessness. What I'm referring to can be summed up by Petit himself. He reflects in the film that as he stood looking over the edge of the WTC, he realized that this could be his end. He says that his comfort came in the idea that even if he were to die, it would be in the act of his art, of his passion, of love and of life. This is the core of the film. No matter what the stakes, what the pain, what the discord -- we should never stop ourselves from following through with our goals because of fear of failure or loss -- instead we should only seek to cloak ourselves in the joy of the attempt and the beauty in having the sense to try.

On the flip side, I also see this work as a portrait of a man who is centered on his fear. Every action, every emotion, every relationship is spent digging further and further away from failure. So in a sense, the picture could be seen as a film about the process by which a person can channel their fear, use their fear -- even relentlessly, in a way that could only spark the greatest of success. At the same time, such vigor also promotes a certain destructiveness apparent in Mr. Petit's self-justifying moral ambiguity, particularly on the topic of the intimate relationships that he builds and abruptly abandons at the close of the picture.

While not a life changing film, it is certainly a life a affirming work. I highly suggest it for anyone who has ever tried to "live the dream" as it were, or for those that may need a swift kick of inspiration to get them back on that horse.

There is something to be said of the idea that some lives are stories that are meant to be told -- Man on Wire is certainly one of them.

Man on Wire is currently playing in NYC and will begin rolling out nationally on Aug 8.

A West Virginia man recently attempted to rob a video store wielding an empty Jello box, claiming the container held a bomb. The Charleston Gazette reports on the crack police work that occurred:

"It was some kind of cheesecake dessert ... I'm not sure if it was pre-made," said Sgt. Aaron James, assistant chief of detectives for Charleston police. "I think he had just bought it at Kroger, and he ate it. Then he got the notion to go in and rob the business."

Luckily, no one was hurt. However, this raises a question: does it count as a weapon if his intent was to inflict mad cow disease?

The Jello-gentleman later came to his senses about his choice of weapon:

Before Parrish admitted to committing the crime, he watched the tape of the robbery with detectives.

"He said, 'That looks like a Jello box.' We said, 'Yeah, we think so too,'" James said.

With the current state of the video rental business, he may have also later realized that he should have planned some sort of identity fraud on Netflix customers instead.

Read more: Man tries to rob video store with Jello box.

La Paz, Bolivia -- On Sunday, Aug. 10, Bolivians will go to the polls to vote on whether or not to recall the president, vice president and the governors of eight of the nation's nine departments. Just two-and-a-half years into the term of President Evo Morales, his government is racked by political crises. This week alone, two miners participating in a protest for higher pensions were killed in clashes with police; a meeting in the Bolivian town of Tarija between the presidents of Venezuela, Argentina and Bolivia was canceled when protesters tried to storm the airport; and President Morales will not attend the traditional independence celebration in Sucre on Wednesday, August 6 for fear of anti-government violence.

While the president and vice-president are expected to survive the recall, perhaps even overturning a few opposition governors (seven out of nine governors are in the opposition), the tensions tearing at this divided nation's social fabric will persist.

On one side of this struggle is the impoverished indigenous majority in the western highlands who, along with Bolivia's first indigenous president Evo Morales, are trying to redistribute power and wealth towards poor communities. Pitted against them is a mostly white elite based in the eastern part of the country who want to keep tight control over the nation's wealth and are using their money and control of the media to foment widespread discontent. Sadly, the U.S. government, instead of embracing social transformation in Latin America's poorest nation, is aiding and abetting the opposition.

At the opening meeting of a group called International Intellectuals and Artists for the Unity and Sovereignty of Bolivia on July 26, Bolivian President Evo Morales put the division in simple terms. "Two models of government are on the table," he said. "One is a colonial model where a few families control the nation's resources. The other, which we defend, is based on the nationalization of natural resources for the benefit of everyone."

Morales' government nationalized the nation's most important source of revenue, natural gas and has used the profits for social programs that fight poverty and inequality. These include free school meals and a cash payment to mothers who keep their children in school. Morales has also raised the minimum wage and expanded the number of eligible elderly people receiving pensions from 489,000 to 676,000, providing them with the equivalent of 27 dollars a month. [Nearly 60 percent of elderly people in Bolivia live on less than one dollar a day.] He is also trying to institute a land reform that would take non-productive agricultural land from wealthy landowners and give it to poor, landless families.

Morales has appealed to progressive governments in the region to help with his program of social transformation. Cuba has sent thousands of doctors and teachers to rural areas and is building dozens of hospitals. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Brazilian President Lula da Silva are investing in the expansion of Bolivia's gas industry and helping to construct new highways.

Turn on the radio or the television these days, however, and you'll hear a different story. A barrage of opposition ads encourage people to vote against the President in the upcoming recall. They scare people into thinking that Morales is going to take away their private property, like their homes or their cars, and paint him as a "Chavez-style dictator" who has indebted the country to Venezuela.

"I apologize to the journalists here," Morales said at the scholars' meeting, "but in Bolivia the press is engaged in media terrorism. I know it's not you, the journalists, but the owners of the means of communication. They manipulate the news and the polls; they lie to the public."

He gave a recent example. He had just come from visiting Camiri, a town in the department of Santa Cruz, which is the home of the opposition. A large group of people came out to welcome him and listen to his speech. At the end of the rally he heard some firecrackers and was told that there were a handful of protesters. On his way back to the airport, however, he heard a local radio station say that the people of Camiri had blocked him from coming to the city. "I had to laugh," said Morales, "because there were perhaps 20 young protesters compared to crowds of supporters. But that's how they reported 'the news.'"

The recall vote comes on the heels of a series of referendums organized by these powerful elites in the eastern departments calling for autonomy from the national government. They have been able to mobilize significant sectors of the population, including people who once supported Morales but have been disillusioned by what they perceive as government corruption and incompetence.

While the autonomy referendums passed, they were claimed illegal not only by the President, but by the Bolivian Electoral Court, the Organization of American States, the European Union or other major leaders throughout the region.

The next vote is the Aug. 10 recall vote. If Morales and Vice President Alvaro Garcia lose, they have to hold new elections within 90 to 120 days. If any of the governors lose, Morales gets to select interim governors until the next election.

Polls indicate that the president and vice president will win, thanks in part the government's massive voter registration drive and the fact that many voters who are critical of Morales will back him so as not to strengthen the right-wing opposition.

A win at the polls is crucial, but it is not likely to stop the growing tensions that have polarized the country, created a crisis between national and local legal institutions, dried up private investment and led to increasingly violent clashes between supporters on both sides.

The following are some of the crises the government will still have to contend with:

* If several opposition governors lose, they and their supporters may refuse to accept the results, which could lead to increased violence and make certain departments ungovernable;

* A new constitution that aims to include Bolivia's historically excluded indigenous majority within a "plurinational" state, with greater state control over natural resources, was passed in December 2007 by an assembly that was boycotted by opposition parties. It still awaits approval in a national referendum that is being blocked by the opposition-controlled Senate.

* Even the location of the nation's capital is in dispute. Sucre, which is in the hands of the opposition, is the historic capital of Bolivia, but all the state powers were shifted to La Paz in the wake of the 1899 Federal War between conservatives in the south and liberals around La Paz. Opposition leaders, however, have been complaining about "La Paz centralism" and whipping up local sentiment for Sucre to become the capital. This has led to violent clashes that will likely continue.

* Tensions with the U.S. government have been rising, as more information comes out regarding U.S. support for the opposition. The Morales administration has accused the US Agency for International Development (AID) of working to undermine it. Vice President Alvaro Garcia said the U.S. was trying to develop "ideological and political resistance." In June the Bush administration recalled its ambassador to Bolivia for several weeks following massive protests outside the US embassy, which the U.S. accused Morales of inciting. As Bolivia continues to strengthen its ties with leftist governments in the region and reject free market economic policies, it will face increasing opposition from the U.S. government.

Back at the gathering of Intellectuals and Artists, Frei Betto, a well-loved liberation theologist from Brazil, spoke on behalf of the group when he told Morales, "We've come from all over the continent to show our support because the future of Bolivia affects the future of all of Latin America. We're inspired by your efforts at social transformation and we hope that the August 10 vote takes place in an atmosphere of peace, tolerance and respect for the sovereign will of the Bolivian people."

Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org) is cofounder of CODEPINK (www.codepinkalert.org) and Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org).

Traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological impairment... all medical jargon, are perilous threats to our military personnel. Hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women will return from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with some form of complex psychological health issue. For this reason, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (IFHF) has undertaken the project of raising $70 million to fund the construction of a state-of-the-art facility to treat soldiers with these disorders. Once completed, the IFHF will turn over the facility to the government to operate.

This is the second project of this kind the IFHF has taken on. In January 2007, the IFHF opened a center to treat physical injuries called the Center for the Intrepid at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. It is now the finest military physical rehabilitation center for military amputees in the world, all privately paid for by over 600,000 Americans.

The new center, to be called the National Intrepid Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (NICoE), will be located at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in suburban Washington D.C. The hope is to have enough funds committed to the project for it to be completed next year. It will be a 75,000 sq. ft. state-of-the-art treatment and rehabilitation center and a place where scientists from around the world will gather to share their research.

Unfortunately, this is a much tougher project to accomplish because mental and brain injuries are not visible to the untrained eye. Soldiers can be living with problems that no one can see. And, problems such as post traumatic stress disorder can surface years later if left untreated.

It is only recently that we finally understand that many of the homeless living under our nation's bridges suffered from that abnormality. It is only recently that the Rand report identified the fact that up to 300,000 troops have been exposed to some form of TBI and PTSD and that number may actually be much, much higher. And it is only recently that our country has been galvanized to address this national peril. We are no longer embarrassed to talk about mental health for our brave warriors. They deserve the best care and this Center will be the core of that effort.

The centers will not only provide treatment but will also be research facilities. Improvements in screening, diagnosis, and treatment will be fed back out to the military and VA hospitals and the medical facilities in the field. Long-term follow-up care will also be incorporated into the system plan to ensure that, once soldiers separate from the military, they do not separate from whatever continued treatment they need.

The National Intrepid Center of Excellence will send a message to military personnel overseas fighting for the freedom of others. We will always remember the sacrifices made by our brave, young heroes and their families, and we will continue to support our soldiers by providing them with world-class support when they return.

For further information go to www.fallenheroesfund.org.

Arnold Fisher
Honorary Chairman of the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund

McCain's campaign hides secret of Iraq surge "success." Real News Network analyst, Pepe Escobar looks at the flipping and the flopping of McCain's "surge" message.

Presidential hopeful, John McCain is adamant about his wartime experience. He has steadfastly stuck by President Bush in his selling of the surge in Iraq, and then changed his mind -- hedged his bets, recovered, retracted, insisted.....

This report examines McCain's position in relation to the Iraq war and his interpretation of the surge's "success." Escobar compares McCain's interpretation to the many overlapping political and military facts on the ground in Iraq before and during the surge.

For more stories from The Real News Network, visit TheRealNews.com

With few exceptions, it's now possible to say that most everybody everywhere is an environmentalist, especially politicians running for higher office. Even the major oil companies and oil rich Gulf state are sponsoring environmental initiatives and research into alternative energy sources.

Of course, we all want to wean the world, and ourselves, off of fossil fuels to the extent possible. If you've had at least $23,000 to buy a new car in the last year, chances are you've seriously considered a hybrid (and chances are also good that if you have two or more young kids, you decided that the only hybrids that get really good mileage -- the Prius and Civic hybrids -- are just too small to function as family cars. Why haven't Toyota and Honda put out hybrid Siennas and Odysseys?!). Perhaps you've even bought a solar system if you have $15,000 to spare and are spending enough on gas and electricity to recoup the investment within 15 years (note to southern California readers: this is the excuse you've been waiting for to buy that hot tub you don't really need).

But for everyone of us who daydreams -- as do I -- about pulling our plug-in Prius into the garage, filling it up with relatively clean Compressed Natural Gas using our home nozzle (if the Pakistani government subsidizes the conversion of cars to CNG, why can't the US?), and recharging the hybrid batteries using the energy produced for free from our home solar panels, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans who have barely enough money to pay for heat in their drafty apartments or homes during the winter, or for gas for their beat-up, 2nd or 3rd hand -- and most likely environmentally incorrect -- 12-year-old Fords.

For the majority of working class Americans, barring an unprecedented and highly unlikely (no matter who wins in November) government investment into creating an inexpensive post-petroleum consumer infrastructure, the majority of their fuel, whether for their homes or cars, is going to come from petroleum and their main concern is going to be how to afford the oil and gas they need to live rather than how to spend enough money to purchase more fuel efficient cars, solar systems, and other costly contraptions that while crucial to saving the environment are still far out of reach for too many Americans.

Enter "Music is Our Oil," a recently created collaborative venture, whose two principals, Mikal Kamil and Dan Levin, are music industry pros who have set before themselves the task of galvanizing the entertainment industry and the energy industry into what they are calling the "Great Collaboration".

As Mikal explained it to me, the Great Collaboration "will manifest itself in the form of a worldwide concert tour/film titled "Music is our Oil" (MIO) whose goal will be to barter American entertainment, goods, and commodities for oil. Specifically, we intend to barter the performances of well-known hip-hop and rock artists for 20 million barrels of crude oil produced by OPEC member nations.

The venture didn't start out as such a complex and far-thinking program. Instead, it started in Philadelphia, where Kamil and Levin are based when the two brought in rap heavyweights like Public Enemy and The Roots to help raise money to pay for heating oil for the city's poorer residents.

"We stumbled into this thing, thought of great way to bring immediate relief to people in community by doing a benefit that combined the entertainment and energy industries, two of the most important and far-reaching business sectors in the world today, whose activities touch the lives of nearly everyone."

We were mentored by other festivals like Farm Aid and Citizens' Energy, who introduced us to the idea of bartering, and then, of all companies, Venezuela's national oil company, Citgo, came in and helped tremendously getting oil to poor inhabitants of Philly and other cities. It wasn't until we began producing events for Barack Obama's campaign in Philadelphia that we learned from his skilled team what our responsibilities as Americans were. We are forever grateful to his campaign for awakening our potential and changing our lives."

I will say that my knee-jerk reaction merely to the suggestion of working with ExxonMobil and other major oil companies was extremely negative. But the tens of millions of poor people in this country can't afford to take principled stands when they can obtain the fuel they need at prices that could spell the difference between making it through the next month or seeing their homes foreclosed or cars repossessed.

As Kamil explains, "The idea is to prove naysayers wrong about grass roots activism," by showing how even two industries as seemingly at odds as the environmentally uber-aware music business and the ultra-polluting petroleum industry can work together to address the urgent needs of millions of citizens, then we an also work together to solve the pressing long term problems associated with global warming.

What struck me as someone who works on issues related to oil and the economy is that the project is neither selling out to the major American oil companies nor merely lending them desperately needed credibility, but going more directly to the source in the countries who produce most of the foreign oil purchases by the US, while at the same time creating linkages to pre-existing infrastructures, industries and technologies to have immediate impact.

On the music side, Kamil has already lined up cooperation from The Roots, Public Enemy, Erykah Badu, Stanley Clarke, Stanley Jordan, Everlast and other acts, and is reaching out to others with the hopes of lining up a tour that can generate millions of barrels of oil -- 20 million barrels, in fact. The oil will be the "barter" with which the OPEC and non-OPEC governments in whose countries the artists play will pay for their services (the artists would donate most of their normal fee,. allowing the oil to be given directly to the needy through the use of a new currency called the Mio, which will be based in gallons of gasoline rather than US dollars and giving out gas cards which can be redeemed at most service stations.

If all goes well, the tour will begin in June 09 in Canada and move on to Norway, Russia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and finally Latin America, before ending six weeks later in the USA. There will also be a film documenting the whole tour, tentatively titled "What The Hell Is Going On."

That is certainly an apt description for what in fact is going on when it comes to oil and the various mechanisms surrounding the huge rise in oil prices in the last few years. At the very least, bringing artists on a grass roots endeavor to engage the peoples of countries that are often in tension with the United States (as are many OPEC nations) can increase international goodwill and ease geopolitical tensions at a time when both are needed. And bartering with governments in the Middle East seems to be an eminently more practical approach to dealing with our need for foreign oil than bombing or occupying them. So even if you already drive a Prius or own a solar system, if you see the MIO tour coming your way, do yourself a favor and check it out. The music will be great, message important, and you'll be helping some of your less fortunate neighbors pay for the gas and heat that is becoming an increasing burden for millions of low income and elderly Americans each year.

Hillary's silence is deafening. And it's, in some measure, the reason why Obama's lead has disappeared against McCain.

Of course, this was predictable given her acrimony during the primary season. All that's happened, since her ungracious concession, has been an announcement that Bill Richardson is going to try and help them raise funds to pay down their huge primary campaign debts and that she will campaign for Obama in Florida and Nevada.

Clearly, the Clintons are aiming for 2012. They began doing so when they turned nasty against Obama during the primary marathon. They are betting, and by so doing they are helping, McCain win a one-term presidency. By that time, Hillary will have been re-elected to the Senate and Bill's business activities and some questionable associations will be ancient history. But that's just Bill's "fairy tale" ending.

Here's what I wrote in the Huffington Post about this on June 1 followed by a few quotes from HP readers who now look prescient:

By Wednesday morning, Hillary and Obama will up neck and neck in popular vote, give or take 100,000 votes between them.

That means the pressure will be on for him to make her his running-mate.

But she may not be interested. In fact, she will likely turn down recruiting efforts. If you take the Clintons at their word Obama is doomed to failure so why would she want to go down in flames with him this fall against McCain?

It's not like she hasn't made this perfectly clear. Her feelings about Obama's inadequacies have been articulated and broadcasted for months.

She has said he is an untried rookie who shouldn't get the nod and can't beat McCain. Her character assassination has been subtle but effective: The reference to Bobby Kennedy. Her doubts about his beliefs, (he's Christian or so they tell me). Her attacks on his manhood. Her husband's description of Obama's entire campaign as a "fairy tale."

All these statements and others will be generously splashed across Republican ads this fall to the point that some voters, who only wake up to their democracy during elections, may actually think she is McCain's running-mate.

Joining the Obama teams means she will have shot herself in the foot beforehand.

So what emerges is what I believe is the Clinton no-lose strategy.

They have used Obama's unelectability as their excuse to continue running against him even though they cannot win because, by saying he's unelectable, they help in part to bring about his defeat.

His defeat by McCain would make them look really smart and also set them up for the nomination and run in 2012. This is based on their professed logic that only Hillary can win against McCain; McCain will be a one-termer because he will be decrepit in four years and there will be a job vacancy in 2012 for the White House.

The tricky part for Hillary will be to appear to be a team player if she declines the VP slot or isn't even asked. Obama will offer both of them something in return for a few stump speeches made in between long absences from the campaign due to "exhaustion."

Here are a few choice comments from HP posters following this entry which point to why Obama is lagging and not getting Hillary's voters.

Bakossi wrote:

The tricky part for Hillary is that if Obama loses this fall, a lot of his supporters (myself included) will be as angry with her as her supporters are with Obama. We will look at the exit polls, look at how many white older women, for example, went over to the other side because of her repeated gender card plays, and begin organizing immediately (b/c a lot of the grass roots organizers are Obama supporters) not only to deny her any chance at the 2012 nomination, but to unseat her from the Senate as well. Unlike Lieberman in Connecticut, if she loses the Democratic primary in NY, she's toast, and we may support an independent against her as well, just to make sure. If her supporters decide a term of McCain is just 'punishment' for alleged Obama 'sins,' our attitude is going to be: "why not two?" So to Hillary supporters in advance, if this is the plan, we're letting you know: WE told YOU so.

Nostalgia:

Someone has to pay Clinton to play.
"Negotiations are understood to be taking place between the Obama and Clinton campaigns about the Illinois senator helping to repay some of the massive debt incurred by his rival. One of Hillary Clinton"s donors said that the former First Lady"s campaign was as much as $40 million in the red.

Dawlishgal:

She has already damaged Obama to the point that she can't do much more harm, and she has inflamed her crazy people so that they won't vote for him even if she tells them to. But, hey Obama might win anyhow.
And she can't be expected to campaign for him because Hillary does not campaign for presidential candidates....remember 2000 and 2004 where she and Bill sat on their hands and waited for Bush victories so they could keep the seat warm for her;

Fourex:

My guess is that Bill and Hillary will actively undermine the Obama campaign in the general election. The animosity they displayed to those who supported Bill's eight years in the WH is mind numbing. Then they disgustingly courted the Bush bigots to continue the race. They have the hubris to slander most of the party and then run as Democrats in 2012.

Paralogos:

From the moment Hilary Clinton endorsed John McCain over Barack Obama in the famous "commander-in-chief test" soundbite, she made it clear that she is NOT a team player. She staked everything on grabbing the nomination this time. If she fails - and it sure looks as if she is failing - her aspirations to be the Democratic candidate for president, or indeed to hold any national position for the Democratic party, are dead. That's one of the reason's she's carrying on so desperately.

Lisakaz:

She probably is angling for 2012 but make no mistake: Obama supporters DO NOT WANT HER AS VP. Sorry. To present this like that door is open is its own "fairy tale" I think.

But as many commentators have pointed out recently, Carter led Reagan in the polls until the 1980 debate when Ronnie landed a KO punch just as Obama likely will.

What do you think?