Terror group fills Syria rebels' space

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• U.S. declared a key opposition group in Syria a terrorist organization


• New report says it is the most effective group in the opposition, with 5,000 fighters


• Nada Bakos: The group has ties to al Qaeda but also seeks to provide social services


• She says the chances are slim that it could be persuaded to give up radical goals

Editor's note: Nada Bakos is a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst.

(CNN) -- In the midst of the struggle against Bashar al-Assad's government stands Jabhat al-Nusra, recently designated by the U.S. State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.

A new report by the Quilliam Foundation in London says the organization is the most effective arm of the Syrian insurgency and now fields about 5,000 fighters against the Assad regime.

Practically speaking, the terrorist designation means little that is new for the immediate struggle in Syria. Shortly after al-Nusra claimed credit for one of its early suicide bombings in January 2012, the Obama administration made known al-Nusra's connection to al Qaeda in Iraq, a group with which I was intimately familiar in my capacity as an analyst and targeting officer at the Central Intelligence Agency.

Nada Bakos

The administration's position was reinforced when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper one month later testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee that "...we believe al-Qaeda in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria."

Analysis: Study shows rise of al Qaeda affiliate in Syria

Al-Nusra is filling a power vacuum through charitable efforts to galvanize local support and generating influence among Syrians. In light of al-Nusra's influence in Syria, the real question is not so much about the scope and scale of al-Nusra currently, but rather how should the United States respond to its rise, particularly after al-Assad's eventual exit?

Historically, the U.S. government seemed to believe that as soon as people are given the chance, they will choose and then create a Jeffersonian democracy. Then we are surprised, if not outraged, that people turn to organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood in electoral contests. These organizations often provide the basic necessities that people need to survive: food, water, medical care, education and security.

As ideologically distasteful as we might find them, they are often doing things corrupt, weak or failing governments do not: providing the basic necessities that people need to survive (let alone create the conditions that enable people to aspire to thrive).

Why does al-Nusra keep quiet about its ties to al Qaeda in Iraq? The documents pulled from the Abottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden shed light on his awareness that the al Qaeda brand had been deteriorating.

Bin Laden urged regional groups, "If asked, it would be better to say there is a relationship with al Qaeda, which is simply a brotherly Islamic connection, and nothing more," according to CNN. Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had criticized the Jordanian-born founder and leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for his killing of civilians and lack of political acumen to win public support.

Talk about al Qaeda seems distant. It was a bogeyman made real in 1993 when it unsuccessfully attacked the World Trade Center and terrifyingly tangible in 2001 when its operatives succeeded in destroying the twin towers and expanded their attacks to the Pentagon and the air over Pennsylvania. Its looming shadow has since faded from the public eye, particularly with the death of bin Laden. Its vision and ideology, however, continue to have a strong appeal.

Now that al Qaeda central has a less visible role, what makes players like al-Nusra and al Qaeda in Iraq threats? Even today, after Zarqawi's death, al Qaeda in Iraq has managed to continue to wreak havoc in Iraq and in the region through an autonomous, adaptable structure.

Al-Nusra has declared itself a player in the fight for a global jihad, a bold statement for what is today a localized group . Even small groups, however, have the potential to disrupt regional stability and complicate America's pursuit of its national security objectives—a fact I learned firsthand tracking and trying to stem the rise, influence and efficacy of al Qaeda in Iraq in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Zarqawi, until his death in 2006, was able to confound U.S. forces and attack Jordan by attracting recruits from North Africa (including Libya), Central Europe, Jordan and Syria.

Some of Zarqawi's earliest recruits were veterans of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that lashed out against the Syrian government during the 1980s. Captured records from a raid near the city of Sinjar, Iraq, indicated that during the 2006-2007 time frame, 8% of al Qaeda in Iraq operatives were Syrians. The percentage likely ebbed and flowed as the group formed, became influential and waned, but it suggests that there was no shortage of recruits amenable to engage in religious conflict in Syria as recently as 5-10 years ago.

The most striking thing about the captured records, however, is that it appears almost every foreign fighter entering Iraq to join al Qaeda in Iraq came through Syria. As a targeter, I can tell you that facilitation networks are key: they are the means by which groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq are funded, supplied and sustained. During the Iraq war, Zarqawi's top aides in Syria played a critical role in recruiting, funding and operational planning outside Iraq.

One of the things U.S. officials and the international media should watch for is how al-Nusra uses its terrorist designation: If it seeks to use the declaration to burnish its jihadist credentials, it might be able to bolster the image of the organization in the eyes of the extremist community and parlay that recognition into larger, or steadier, streams of funding—a development that will make the group more viable over the long-term or allow it to expand its operations or influence in the short- to mid-term.

An important differentiator between al Qaeda in Iraq and al-Nusra is one of its tactics: Zarqawi made a practice of indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians, effectively terrorizing the Iraqi population, especially the Shiite minority. Zarqawi, despite identifying with al Qaeda, had a much thinner theological basis than al Qaeda central.

Key figures at al Qaeda central such as bin Laden and Zawahiri argued with Zarqawi over his tactics, complaining that alienating mainstream Muslims would not help achieve the over-arching goal of instilling Sharia law.

Al-Nusra is using some of the same tactics as al Qaeda in Iraq (e.g., suicide bombings, kidnappings and car bombs), but it appears to be trying to strike a balance Zarqawi was unwilling to make: Not only does it seem to be avoiding alienating—if not antagonizing—the larger population, but it also is providing the people of Syria with a range of goods and services such as food, water and medical care—basic necessities that people need to survive in the best of times, let alone when their country is in the throes of a civil war.

If this becomes a trend, it might signal that al-Nusra aspires to be more like Hezbollah or Hamas, organizations that defy neat categorization based on the range of social, political and military activities they engage in and the resultant legitimacy they have in the eyes of their constituencies.

In the Syrian uprising, the opportunity for meaningful U.S. intervention might have passed: Exhaustion from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken their toll on the U.S. military, have taxed the national treasury, and sapped political will, especially as the state of the economy remains at the center of the debate in Washington.

Our absence from the fight is going to cost us if the al-Assad regime fails, leaving rebel groups like al-Nusra dictating the direction, pace and scope of a new Syria.

Given that managing affairs in the Middle East has never been one of our strong suits, the question at this point should be how can the United States, particularly the Department of State, best engage groups that might be inimical to U.S. values but necessary to our interests in the Middle East? For that, I am not sure there is a clear or simple answer.

One opportunity would be if the United States uses its designation of al-Nusra as both a stick and carrot, cajoling and encouraging it to enter into mainstream politics when (or if) the Assad regime falls.

My read of al-Nusra, however, is that, like Zarqawi, it does not aspire to be a political player and is unlikely to settle for a political role in the new government. Instead, it may aim to play the spoiler for any transitional government and use its resources and political violence to empower and encourage other like-minded extremists. With time and opportunity, al-Nusra could not only add to regional instability in the Middle East, but also rekindle global jihad.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Nada Bakos.

Read More..

Latino should have played lead in 'Argo'

Ben Affleck plays the lead role of Tony Mendez in "Argo," which he also directed.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Oscar nominations on Thursday, and Ben Affleck expected to get one for "Argo"


• Affleck plays real-life Latino who helped diplomats escape in Iran hostage crisis


• Ruben Navarrette: Affleck should have used a Latino actor to play role


• He says it cheats actor out of a job, and the Latino community out of a hero's story

San Diego, California (CNN) -- The upcoming Oscars are no stranger to causes or controversy. And this year, there is a strong dose of both surrounding the film "Argo" -- and its star and director, Ben Affleck.

This controversy bubbled up when the buzz started that Affleck could get an Academy Award nomination for best director when the announcements are made Thursday.

"Argo" tells how an ingenious and daring CIA agent helped orchestrate the rescue of six U.S. diplomats from Tehran during the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980. In November 1979, about 300 Islamic students stormed the U.S. Embassy and 66 Americans were taken hostage. But six U.S. diplomats escaped and were hidden at the Canadian Embassy by the Canadian ambassador and his wife.

Ruben Navarrette Jr.

The CIA agent -- Antonio "Tony" Mendez, played by Affleck -- successfully led the mission to evacuate the Americans, which involved Mendez and his associates posing as a Canadian film crew that was eager to make a movie in Iran.

The real Tony Mendez was awarded the Intelligence Star for Valor, and other honors, for leading the rescue. He later wrote a memoir, detailing the events in Tehran.

"Argo" is loosely based on Mendez's book. Better make that, very loosely based. As movie critics and others have pointed out since the movie opened a few months ago, the filmmakers took lots of dramatic license with the story. Mendez's role is played up, while that of the Canadians who helped hide and protect the Americans is played down. Some scenes depicted in the film never happened. Some characters are composites of several real people.

In other words, it's what you would expect from a Hollywood feature film based on a historical event. It's not a documentary. It's meant to be taken with a grain of salt, and to be entertaining.

Still, there are some Latinos -- in and out of Hollywood -- who think that, in this case, the filmmakers, and especially Affleck, pushed the concept of creativity too far. They say Affleck missed an opportunity to put more Latinos on screen. Moreover, they say, Affleck improperly claimed, for himself, the choice role of Mendez when he should have cast a Latino actor instead. They insist that the director didn't just cheat a Latino out of an acting job but the Latino community out of a feel-good story about one of their own who won acclaim for a heroic deed.

The critics are right, and their cause is just. Affleck should have tried to cast a Latino to play Mendez. That's common sense, and it would have made "Argo" a better movie. Affleck also didn't do himself any favors by trying to dismiss the criticism with a glib remark that essentially said that it really doesn't matter that the actor playing Mendez isn't Latino since Mendez himself isn't, shall we say, overtly Latino.

At a recent forum intended to publicize the film, Affleck responded to a question from the audience about the controversy by noting that "Tony does not have, I don't know what you would say, a Latin/Spanish accent" and that "You wouldn't necessarily select him out of a line of 10 people and go 'This guy's Latino.' "

Ouch. At least Affleck didn't slip and say "line up."

"So I didn't feel as though I was violating something," he said, "where, here's this guy who's clearly ethnic in some way and it's sort of being whitewashed by Ben Affleck the actor."

Johnny Depp set a better example. Several months ago, Depp turned down the role of Mexican revolutionary Francisco "Pancho" Villa in another film. He said that the role should go to a Latino. I praised Depp at the time for showing that, besides being a great actor, he is also a person of character.

The exclusion of Latinos from Hollywood is an old story. This is still a black and white world, where Latinos rarely get cast in the leading role. We're the gardeners and housekeepers, the gang leader and drug dealers, the nannies and farm workers. That's it. There has been some progress, of course. But not enough -- not when you have a Latina in the Supreme Court, three Latinos in the U.S. Senate, and Latinos heading Fortune 500 companies.

I could blame the environment of Southern California, in which most Hollywood writers, producers and directors live and spend most of their time. When they get up in the morning and drive to work, most Latinos they encounter are subservient. We clean their homes, cook their breakfast, trim their hedges, park their cars and otherwise help them get through the day.

Still, you can push this argument too far, and wind up going down a dangerous path -- one that ultimately sets back the greater cause of trying to get television networks and film studios to create a broader range of meatier roles for Latino actors and actresses.

After all, it's a short walk from saying that a director should have cast a Latino to play a Latino to arguing that only Latinos can play Latinos. And, if that's the argument, then on what moral high ground do Latinos stand to also push -- as we should -- for Latino actors and actresses to be considered for generic and mainstream roles that could have gone to white actors? We can't have it both ways.

Even if Latinos succeed in making their point about this one director and this one movie, it could backfire. We could win this battle, and still lose the war.

But before Latinos can be fully integrated into America and not considered outsiders, we have to take every opportunity to push for inclusion and fairness. And acknowledging that Latinos have the skills to play themselves is a good start.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette.

Read More..

SIA to recruit & train intern cabin crew from polys

SINGAPORE: Singapore Airlines (SIA) is working closely with three polytechnics to recruit and train cabin crew, as part of efforts to attract the best talent.

It has special programmes with Nanyang Polytechnic, Republic Polytechnic and Temasek Polytechnic, covering recruitment activities.

It's also starting an internship-recruitment programme to hire and train selected students to become full-time cabin crew.

These are provided under Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that the carrier signed with the three polytechnics on Thursday.

Besides recruitment, the MOUs also cover areas of potential cooperation such as curriculum development in service, operations, safety and security.

SIA will also work with the polytechnics on continued education programmes for cabin crew.

SIA employs about 7,500 cabin crew. New crew undergo an extensive 15-week training programme in areas such as service delivery, customer relations, deportment, security and safety.

- CNA/ck

Read More..

FBI probes cyber threats against Steubenville sheriff

Jefferson County Sheriff Fred Abdalla talks about how the FBI is investigating cyber threats in the eastern Ohio city that include a death threat received by the sheriff in his office on Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013, in Steubenville, Ohio. / AP Photo/Keith Srakocic

STEUBENVILLE, OhioThe FBI is investigating cyber threats in an eastern Ohio city that include death threats against the local sheriff's family and an email that apparently shut down the police chief's computer.

Play Video

Steubenville rape case: Officials go on the defense

Play Video

Leaked video shows teens joking about Ohio rape case

The threats are part of a series of online messages that have targeted individuals and authorities in Steubenville amid increased attention over two high school football players who are facing rape charges.

Jefferson County Sheriff Fred Abdalla said Wednesday he'd provided the FBI a copy of an anonymous Facebook post in which someone threatened to kill his family.

Steubenville Police Chief William McCafferty said he gave the FBI an email that he had opened Wednesday morning, which then disabled his computer.

FBI spokesman Todd Lindgren said he could not immediately comment.

The two teenage boys are set for trial next month in juvenile court on charges they raped a 16-year-old in August. Their attorneys have denied the charges in court.

Much of the evidence in the case played out on social media, in which the photos of the seemingly unconscious girl were posted online. A video published and then deleted from YouTube shows a third freshman, Michael Nodianos, joking about the alleged rape.

The hacking collective Anonymous has staged rallies in support of the alleged victim, and hackers were able to dig up and re-post the deleted YouTube video online.

According to the Steubenville Herald Star, Nodianos' attorney said someone hacked into his client's email and social media accounts, as well as the email accounts of his family members. He has since dropped out of Ohio State University, where he was slated to attend on a scholarship.

Read More..

Arias Caught Lying to Cops in Recorded Phone Calls

Jodi Arias blatantly lied to police who asked her about Travis Alexander's death, telling them in recorded phone calls that she kept trying to call and message Alexander the week of his death but never heard back from him.

The phone calls were played as evidence during the fourth day of Arias' trial, in which she is charged with murder and could face the death penalty if convicted of killing Alexander in a "depraved and heinous" way. Arias has admitted to killing her former boyfriend, but claims it was self-defense.

During the phone conversations played in court, Arias can be heard telling Mesa, Ariz., detective Esteban Flores that she last talked to Alexander on Tuesday night, June 3, 2008, around 10 p.m. She had been in Los Angeles, about to leave to go to Utah to visit a new love interest, she said.

After June 3, he stopped calling her back, she said.

Photos of Key Players and Evidence in the Jodi Arias Murder Trial

"On Tuesday night (I talked to him), it was brief though, 10 o'clock maybe. I'd say 10 p.m. or 9 - 9:30. I was calling people because I was bored on the road. He was nice and cordial, but kind of acting like he had hurt feelings," she said.

"I may have called him Wednesday, from the road, and I sent him a couple of text messages, and a couple of pictures," she said, though Alexander didn't pick up and his voice mailbox was full. "That's unusual. He deletes all of his messages. I didn't want to be obsessive about it because we're not together anymore and I didn't like to call too much."

According to court records, Arias, 32, actually went to Alexander's home on in Mesa on Wednesday morning. There, the pair had sex and took graphic photos of one another with Alexander's camera.

Then, Arias is believed to have killed Alexander, 30, in his shower by stabbing him, slashing his throat from ear to ear, and shooting him in the head.

In the phone conversations, Arias told Flores that she considered calling Alexander's friends when he stopped returning her calls on Wednesday, but didn't want to act like "his mother."

Alexander's friends found his body five days later with stab wounds and a bullet wound, lying in blood in his home.

Flores asked Arias if she ever considered buying a gun, she said she was too scared of handguns.

Jodi Arias/Myspace | ABC News

Jodi Arias Murder Trial: Who Is the Alleged Killer? Watch Video

Jodi Arias Trial: Defense Claims Victim Was Sex Deviant Watch Video

"I've looked into handguns. I have a list of things I'm scared of that I'm trying to overcome," she said. "I got that from Travis, you know, to push yourself out of your comfort zone, and do things you're afraid of. But handguns are expensive and not really in my price range right now."

Arias is accused of stealing her grandmother's handgun and using it to shoot Alexander in the head during the attack.
The detective interviewed Arias by phone multiple times in June after Alexander's body was discovered by his friends on June 9.

Arias was indicted on July 9, 2008, and changed her story again before her arraignment, telling a TV news station that she was at Alexander's house when he was killed and witnessed two intruders kill him.

After she was arraigned, Arias told police she killed Alexander, but did it in self-defense. Arias's attorneys have said that Alexander was controlling and abusive toward Arias, and described him as a "sexual deviant."

In earlier testimony in court today, Arias's new love interest, Ryan Burns, testified that Arias showed up to his house on the morning of Thursday, Dec. 5, just 24 hours after she killed Alexander.

There, the pair cuddled, kissed, and watched movies, according to Burns.

Burns, who met Arias at a business conference in spring, 2008, said he exchanged frequent long phone calls and online conversations with Arias before inviting her to come visit him in West Jordan, Utah, in June. Arias lived in California at the time.

She arrived at Burns's home 24 hours after she was expected there, telling him that she got lost, drove the wrong way on a freeway for a few hours, fell asleep for awhile, and then got lost again, Burns testified today.

She never told him that she had confronted Alexander with a knife or gun and ended up killing him just hours before their date.

When she arrived, the pair quickly got physical, he testified.

"We went back to my house. We talked for awhile, and agreed that we were going to watch a movie. At some point we were talking and we kissed. Every time we started kissing it got a little more escalated. Our clothes never came off, but at some point she was kissing my neck, I was kissing hers, but our clothes never came off," he said.

Burns said that both he and Arias stopped kissing at the time, though they again became physically involved later in the evening when Arias climbed on top of Burns and began kissing him. Burns said that they stopped kissing because he did not want her to "regret the visit" because of her Mormon beliefs about sex.

He also told prosecutors upon questioning that Arias was physically strong.

"She's very fit," he said, describing their encounter when she climbed on top of him. "She's very strong. She has close to a six pack (of abs)."

Prosecutors likely asked about the strength of Arias because in testimony Tuesday Maricopa County medical examiner Kevin Horn said Alexander was stabbed so forcefully that the blade chipped his skull and his neck was cut all the way back to the spinal cord.

Burns, who is also a Mormon, said he noticed two bandages on Arias's hand when she arrived at his house, which she told him she got when a glass broke at her place of employment, Margaritaville.

During her visit, the pair also went to a business meeting and went out with Burns' friends where Burns described Arias as acting "shy" and a "little awkward."

"She was fine, she was laughing about simple little things like any other person. I never once felt like anything was wrong during the day. With a crowd she was a little awkward in social areas, but one on one she was very talkative and excitable," he said.

Read More..

Case of Wall Street greed gone too far

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was one of the executives whose stock award was accelerated to beat higher tax rate.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Goldman Sachs granted $65 million in stock to execs before new tax rates began


• Susan Antilla says the firm's CEO had endorsed higher rates, called for entitlement cuts


• She says Goldman benefits from the implicit promise that U.S. will bail it out


• Antilla: It was unseemly for Goldman to rush the payments to shield execs from new rates

Editor's note: Susan Antilla is a columnist at Bloomberg View and a contributor to TheStreet.com. She has written about finance for more than 30 years. She is author of "Tales From the Boom-Boom Room: The Landmark Legal Battles That Exposed Wall Street's Shocking Culture of Sexual Harassment." Follow her on Twitter @antillaview.

(CNN) -- Nobody likes to pay taxes, so can you blame the good folks at Goldman Sachs & Co. for doing what they could to avoid the higher rates that kicked in on January 1?

While the rest of us were donning our party clothes on New Year's Eve, the legal worker bees at Goldman were pushing the send button on 10 regulatory filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

By the time the ball dropped in Times Square, regulators had been notified that $65 million in Goldman stock had been granted a month early, helping a cluster of powerful multimillionaire executives trim their tax tab.

Among the 10 who shared that $65 million, Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn and Chief Financial Officer David Viniar wound up with $8.4 million apiece in Goldman stock.

Susan Antilla

Blankfein's compensation in 2011 was $16.2 million. Cohn and Viniar that year made $15.8 million. Even Gordon Gekko would be impressed to see that bosses making that much money were able to catch a tax break for a couple hundred thousand.

The 10 executives who skirted 2013's higher rates were not the only Goldmanites who benefited from the "accelerated" vesting. Michael DuVally, a Goldman spokesman, acknowledged there was "a group larger than" the 10 but declined to say how many. DuVally would not comment on who made the decision to grant the shares early.

The shrewd Goldman move is hardly unique among rich business executives or even 99 percenters of more modest means. It was no secret that higher taxes were coming this year, and taxpayers of all shapes and sizes did what they could to ensure that "tax events" would occur in 2012.

Even environmental activist and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore tried, albeit without success, to unload his Current TV to Al Jazeera before the new year dawned.

What makes the Goldman move distasteful is that it wasn't even two months ago that CEO Blankfein was mouthing off in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that he endorsed tax increases "especially for the wealthiest" -- along with a plug to cut entitlements to all you freeloaders out there.

If you're pushing the position that the rich should pay more to help fix the deficit, it doesn't quite follow to employ a tax dodge, says Dennis Kelleher, president of the Washington-based public interest group Better Markets Inc.

"Goldman's quickie year-end tax shenanigans deprived the government of what it otherwise would get," he says. "So they either cause the debt to go up, or cause others to pay more by the taxes they are avoiding."

DuVally, the Goldman spokesman, declined to comment when I asked whether it was inconsistent for Goldman to make a move for its executives to avoid taxes after Blankfein endorsed increases for the wealthy.

I've got to hand it to Goldman. The firm is a master of the "have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too" brand of politics and public relations. One minute, Goldman is cranking out press releases about its devotion to women entrepreneurs in its philanthropic "10,000 women" program. The next, it is announcing its annual list of new partners that includes a paltry 10 women but 60 men.

Goldman was a victim on the defensive when Greg Smith, a former employee, wrote a New York Times op-ed on March 14, blasting the firm for having "morally bankrupt people" who needed to be weeded out. You could almost feel sorry for poor Goldman, which shipped out a memo reminding employees that their estimable employer had been named one of the best places to work in the United Kingdom only weeks before the London-based Smith's "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs" essay.

By the time Smith published a book seven months later, the firm had turned ruthless revenge-seeker, even sharing parts of Smith's self-evaluations with the media. A "best place to work?" Really? Careful what you say in the press -- and in your HR file -- if you get your paycheck from a Goldman-style operation.

The brouhaha over Smith's op-ed and book stirred up debate of the "What did you expect of an investment bank operating in capitalistic society?" type.

Fair enough. Banks are not in the philanthropy business -- even if they spend as much time as Goldman does talking about its good deeds and famous "business principles." ("Our clients always come first" is famously No. 1 on the list.)

At Goldman and other "too big to fail" banks, though, employees walk through the doors each morning knowing that the rest of us will be forced to bail them out again should another crisis ensue. We taxpayers provide the insurance policy that they enjoy without ever sending us premiums. In October of 2008, Goldman got $10 billion in taxpayer money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which it ultimately paid back.

Blankfein, like other bank CEOs, would later make the case that Goldman wasn't "relying on" that government help.

But leaf through the tomes of some of the regulators who lived through the crisis, and you start to wonder whether our tax-dodging heroes might be out of jobs today if the public hadn't fronted a bailout.

From "Bull by the Horns," by former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman Sheila Bair: Goldman and Morgan Stanley were "teetering on the edge" in the fall of 2008.

From "Bailout: An Inside Account of how Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street," by Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program: Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke "confided that he believed that Goldman Sachs would have been the next to go" after Morgan Stanley.

We need to change the conversation here.

Goldman and its too-big-to-fail brethren are banks that accepted welfare and are in debt to U.S. taxpayers for averting disaster. This hasn't been about hard-nosed capitalism since those first TARP wire transfers made their way into Goldman Sachs' coffers.

As for the bank's recent tax-reduction maneuver, it's another reminder that Goldman's management is either clueless about how bad it looks or doesn't care. Sometimes bad PR is a just a cost of doing business.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Susan Antilla.

Read More..

Football: Liga-dominated FIFPro World XI raises eyebrows

LONDON: With Spanish clubs having supplied all 11 members of the FIFPro World XI for 2012, La Liga's claim to be considered the world's best league appears stronger than ever.

Barcelona and Real Madrid may have missed out in last season's Champions League, losing to Chelsea and Bayern Munich respectively, but they still supplied 10 of the players voted into FIFA's all-star team by over 55,000 professional footballers around the world.

Atletico Madrid's Colombian striker Radamel Falcao completed the line-up, meaning that for the first time in the eight-year history of the selection, all 11 players were drawn from teams playing in the same country.

In recent years, coinciding with Spain's dominance of both club and international football, the make-up of the FIFPro World XI has crystallised around a small coterie of players.

Serial Ballon d'Or-winner Lionel Messi has been a mainstay of the side since 2007, Iker Casillas and Xavi since 2008, and Andres Iniesta and Cristiano Ronaldo have been included in the team for the past four years.

In fact, so enduring is the appeal of the players at Spain's top two clubs that there were only two changes to the 11 voted into the FIFPro World XI in 2011.

Manchester United pair Wayne Rooney and Nemanja Vidic were the men to make way, for Falcao and Madrid's Brazilian left-back Marcelo, as the English Premier League had its grip on the team prised away finger by finger.

England has at least mustered representation in recent years, which is more than can be said for the German Bundesliga and France's Ligue 1, while the leading lights from Italy's Serie A have been ignored since 2010.

Amid criticism that the FIFPro selection amounts to nothing more than a glorified popularity contest, dissenting voices have emerged.

Germany captain Lothar Matthaus, present at the Ballon d'Or ceremony in Zurich, claims "people were shaking their heads" when the line-up was announced, while Chelsea left-back Ashley Cole jokingly tweeted: "#iwantspanishpassport."

Given the Spanish national team's stellar achievements in 2012 and the enduring brilliance of Messi and Ronaldo, it is difficult to quibble with much of the team, but there is room for conjecture.

Xabi Alonso won the league with Madrid and scored twice against France in the Euro 2012 quarter-finals, but his performances in Poland and Ukraine were eclipsed by those of Italy's Andrea Pirlo.

The elegant Juventus midfielder narrowly missed out to Iniesta in the voting for the player of the tournament and UEFA technical director Andy Roxburgh described his displays as "magnificent".

His Italy and Juve team-mates Gianluigi Buffon and Giorgio Chiellini also enjoyed excellent years, including success in Serie A, although both were members of the back line pierced four times by Spain in the Euro 2012 final.

In attack, Manchester United striker Robin van Persie, Zlatan Ibrahimovic of Paris Saint-Germain and Chelsea's Champions League hero Didier Drogba all presented strong cases for inclusion as well, albeit not with a Spanish accent.

FIFPro World XI 2012:

Iker Casillas (ESP/Real Madrid); Dani Alves (BRA/Barcelona), Gerard Pique (ESP/Barcelona), Sergio Ramos (ESP/Real Madrid), Marcelo (BRA/Real Madrid); Xabi Alonso (ESP/Real Madrid), Xavi (ESP/Barcelona), Andres Iniesta (ESP/Barcelona); Lionel Messi (ARG/Barcelona), Radamel Falcao (COL/Atletico Madrid), Cristiano Ronaldo (POR/Real Madrid)

-AFP/ac

Read More..

Why 'Django' stirs race debate

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Gene Seymour: Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino spatting over "Django Unchained"


• Seymour says film, which upends slavery narrative, is classic comic-book Tarantino


• He says debate is over whether white artists have right to tell any part of black American story


• Seymour notes James Baldwin's sound advice: "If you don't like their alternative, write yours"

Editor's note: Gene Seymour is a film critic who has written about music, movies and culture for The New York Times, Newsday, Entertainment Weekly and The Washington Post.

(CNN) -- Spike Lee says he's never going to see Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained" because he's certain it is "disrespectful of my ancestors." Tarantino says he doesn't need to waste time responding to Lee's accusation. That, as they say, is that.

So why do we insist on staring at two egomaniacs staring down each other?

Race. Again. The subject that never fails to provoke, antagonize, alienate -- and fascinate rubber-necking onlookers from sea to shining sea. Fixating on race is an absurdity that has no rational reason to exist, yet no one quite knows how to eliminate it from humankind. The only thing dumber than race is underestimating its importance.

Gene Seymour

"Django Unchained" is Tarantino's latest exercise in genre-bending audacity, an antic ripsnorter folding in most of what its director knows and loves about spaghetti westerns, 1970s blaxploitation thrillers and his own ribald, recklessly violent body of work. Its title character, played by Jamie Foxx, is a slave bought and freed by a drolly effective German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz), who agrees to help Django emancipate his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), from a decadent plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio).

"Django" makes no pretense of being anything other than a phantasmagoric pseudo-western, rife with calculated vulgarity, anachronism and impropriety. Its body count rivals that of Tarantino's 2003 martial-arts epic, "Kill Bill Vol. 1" (to whose messily operatic set pieces of slaughter "Django" bears an uncanny resemblance).

Marquee blog: What's the verdict on "Django Unchanied"?

The movie has so far grossed more than $100 million since its Christmas Day nationwide release. Critics' reactions have ranged from wild-eyed enthusiasm (The Boston Globe's Wesley Morris: "Corkscrewed, inside-out, upside-down, simultaneously clear-eyed and out of its mind") to wary detachment (The Detroit News' Tom Long: "(Y)ou may leave ... wishing for both more and less") to borderline outrage (Slate's Dana Stevens: "There's something about (Tarantino's) directorial delectation in all these acts of racial violence that left me not just physically, but morally queasy.")

Given advance hype for the movie as extravagant as its violence, I doubt that audience members, whatever their race or age, bought tickets with the expectation of seeing some historically faithful saga of antebellum life, and neither did I. We were buying a comic book. Many people have a grievance against the very notion of comic books, but I don't. Expect a movie or a comic book to explain everything about anything and all you earn is surplus sadness that you don't really need.

Nevertheless, there are many who, unlike Lee, have seen the movie and carry the same grievances as he does. The most scathing attack came from that novelist-satirist-poet Ishmael Reed, writing in The Wall Street Journal: "To compare this movie to a spaghetti western and a blaxploitation film is an insult to both genres. It's a Tarantino home movie with all the racist licks of his other movies." He aimed this laser shot at the Oscar-nominated actor who plays the treacherous "house slave" to DiCaprio's character: "Samuel L. Jackson ... plays himself."

I doubt Jackson felt the blow. He has, in fact, further provoked the movie's antagonists by running straight at an interviewer asking about the movie's prolific use of the "N-word," refusing to answer the question unless the reporter, who is white, actually says the dread epithet aloud. (He didn't.)

Still, Reed's condemnation discloses what may lie at the heart of Lee's objection: the debate over whether white artists have the right to tell any part of the black American story -- which, as Reed writes, is as old as Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 abolitionist novel, "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

It is also as recent as 1967 when the white Southern novelist William Styron published, "The Confessions of Nat Turner," a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel told in the first-person voice of the brilliant-but-doomed leader of an 1838 slave rebellion. The outcry from African-American novelists was so intense that a collection of essays, "William Styron's Nat Turner: Ten Black Writers Respond" was published a year later. James Baldwin, a friend of Styron's who was one of the few African-American authors speaking out on the book's behalf, put his position as succinctly as possible: "I will not tell another writer what to write. If you don't like their alternative, write yours."

It's still sound advice -- and in the intervening years, black authors have taken it, from Alex Haley's 1976 blockbuster, "Roots," to Toni Morrison's haunting "Beloved" from 1987. Both were adapted for the screen, and while "Roots," the television miniseries, delivered a resounding national impact, the 1998 movie adaptation of "Beloved," even with Oprah Winfrey as producer and co-star, earned about $26 million, roughly half of its $50 million budget.

I remember many of my African-American relatives and friends who told me they were not going to see "Beloved," no matter how good it was or who was in it, because they simply did not want to watch a movie about slavery's legacy. Some of these same folks, on the other hand, tell me they were psyched about seeing a movie, however "incorrect" on several levels, in which a black ex-slave secures freedom for his wife, kills every white man who stands in his way -- and gets away with it.

Exasperated? If you're not, you should be.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gene Seymour.

Read More..

USADA head: I got death threats during Armstrong probe

(CBS News) Travis Tygart is the head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which polices U.S. Olympic sports. Lance Armstrong won the world's most grueling event, the Tour de France, seven times. But after Tygart's investigation, Armstrong lost all of his titles. In his first interview, Tygart spoke with us for the premier of a new program, "60 Minutes Sports" on Showtime. Tygart says Armstrong was doping in his very first win at the Tour de France in 1999. The drug was EPO, which boosts endurance.

TRAVIS TYGART: Six samples that were taken from Lance Armstrong were retested in '05. And they were positive.

SCOTT PELLEY: In '99, when the tests were originally taken, was it reported that they were negative?

TYGART: There was no test for EPO. They were not tested for EPO at that time.

PELLEY: And when you tested for them in 2005, you discovered that they were --

TYGART: All six were flaming positive.

PELLEY: Flaming positive?

TYGART: Flaming positive.

Armstrong allegedly offered large "donation" to doping agency
Atty. denies report Lance Armstrong will admit doping
Lance Armstrong sued for more than $1.5M by U.K. newspaper over libel case

Tygart told Pelley that throughout the investigation, witnesses were intimidated to try to keep the code of silence from breaking.

PELLEY: Was Lance Armstrong personally involved in intimidating these other riders to keep them quiet?

TYGART: He was. It was tough. All -- all these witnesses were -- were scared of the repercussions of them simply telling the truth.

PELLEY: What could Lance Armstrong do to them?

TYGART: Incinerate them.

Former teammate Levi Leipheimer felt the heat. In his sworn affidavit, he says he came to a cycling dinner after he testified to the grand jury. Leipheimer says Armstrong was there and sent Leipheimer's wife a text that read, "Run don't walk."

PELLEY: What did she take it to mean?

TYGART: It's a veiled threat. Knowing her husband had just testified, truthfully, in front of the grand jury and had told citizens of this country about this great fraud. It was a message: You better run.

PELLEY: Your investigation showed that there were personal threats made against riders who had decided to come clean. I wonder if there were any threats against you.

TYGART: There were, Scott.

PELLEY: These threats came from where?

TYGART: Emails, letters.

PELLEY: Anonymous?

TYGART: Yeah.

PELLEY: Can you remember any of the lines from the emails or the letters?

TYGART: The worst was probably putting a bullet in my head.

PELLEY: Did you take that seriously?

TYGART: Absolutely.

To hear the rest of Travis Tygart's story, tune into the premiere edition of "60 Minutes Sports" tomorrow at 10:00 p.m. on the Showtime Network.

Read More..

Menu Calorie Counts: How Accurate Are They?

They are supposed to help America's obesity problem: calorie counts boldly displayed on restaurant menus across the country and important information, considering Americans now eat one-third of their meals outside the home.

Two states and nine counties require them today, and by the middle of next year, a federal law is expected to force chain restaurants, convenience stores and vending machines nationwide to post calorie counts.

But how accurate are those numbers that so affect your waistline?

A 2011 study by Tufts University sampling food from 42 restaurants says it depends.

Fast food restaurants were the most accurate because of the uniform recipes and portions, but there were wide variations found in sit-down restaurants.

"We found that 20 percent of the foods we tested had 100 calories or more over what was stated on the menu," Lorien Urban, a postdoctoral associate in the energy metabolism lab at Tufts University and first author of the study, told ABC News. "We would consider that to be a considerable amount."

Urban explained that consuming an extra 100 calories per day can lead to an extra 10 pounds in one year.

Most concerning was that a majority of the errors Urban and her colleagues found were made on the diet side of the menu.

Calorie Check: How Many Servings Are You Eating? Watch Video

"These were the foods that people who are trying to manage their weight would gravitate towards and they may be getting more calories than they expect," she said.

ABC News sent producers in three cities that already require posting menu calories to major chains to do a sampling under the direction of a nationally known lab and found that more than half of the low-cal meals tested had more calories than listed on the menu.

In total 24 food samples from four sit-down restaurants and one McDonald's were collected and the results were surprising.

McDonald's did the best. Its Big Mac Meal (posted: 930) and its Premium Chicken Sandwich (posted: 400) tested 30 calories below the menu posting.

But the sit-down restaurants had results sometimes wildly different than advertised.

In all, only one calorie count was accurate -- a Skinnylicious chicken salad sandwich from the Cheesecake Factory.

Eleven meals had more calories than on the menu and 10 had fewer calories. Some were over by only 40 calories; another was over by as much as 420 calories, again at the Cheesecake Factory: This time an order of the fish and chips dinner.

Urban said that fast food restaurants tended to be more accurate than sit-down because of the formulaic preparation that fast food restaurants use.

"Things are arriving already packaged into the restaurants and it's just a matter of warming it up and serving it to the consumer," she said. "A sit-down restaurant, things are being prepared on [the] spot [and] by chance some extra butter gets into the pan."

That can change the calorie amount.

All the restaurants and their trade association say that most calorie counts are as accurate as possible and tested extensively to make sure.

They conceded that there are variations, mostly due to portion size and individual restaurant preparation, and that the menus warn actual calories may vary.

What can you do? Take control of what is put on top of the entree by asking for everything fattening -- such as cheeses, sauces or dressings -- on the side.

Read More..