Daspu is a fashion house founded and run by prostitutes whose designs have become the talk of Brazil's fashion industry nine months after its start. Its success has surprised its founders, who see its sudden prominence as a revolutionary moment for a country long ambivalent about its world-famous sex industry.

Prostitutes like Eloy have been modeling their fashions practically everywhere, from seedy downtown plazas where many still work at night to trendy fashion shows attended by the well-heeled.

Its models have been featured in the Brazilian edition of Vogue magazine and will be seen soon in Marie Claire. Last month, they shared the spotlight with supermodel Gisele Bundchen at Fashion Rio, one of the city's biggest fashion showcases.

[Mercury News]

I'm sure Ted would love their dresses, too.

[via Fleshbot]

[...] attacking Hezbollah rocket installations or stockpiles or what have you is fine, bombing Lebanon's civilian infrastructure is not fine, and firing rockets at random into Israeli cities is also not fine.

Works for me.

Walzer's books on the philosophy of just war are here and here.

We often hear skeptics talk about how costly it would be to make the investments necessary to end poverty. What you don’t hear as much about is how expensive it is for America to have so many citizens mired in poverty. We all pay a price when young people who could someday find the cure for AIDS or make a fuel cell work are unemployed or stuck in low-wage jobs because they didn’t get the education they need.

We all pay a price when our people turn to crime because they have no other hope. A Harvard professor estimates that growing incarceration costs and unemployment of ex-offenders costs 4 percent of our economy, each and every year. And we all pay a steep price when the American dream no longer seems attainable to every citizen.

[...]

I think it would be an oversimplification to describe poverty as either a cause or an effect of other problems. We have to adopt a holistic view in order to understand what it means to be poor or to be living at the edge of poverty in America today.

My friend David Shipler, tells a striking story about a single mother he met while researching his book, The Working Poor. She had no savings and low earnings, so she had to live in a drafty wooden house. This exacerbated her son's asthma. That led to two ambulance rides to the hospital. Those trips led to ambulance charges she couldn't pay. Those charges damaged her credit report. And so then she was denied a loan to buy a mobile home. That meant she had to stay in that drafty house. And she had to buy a car from a sleazy dealership that charged her 15 percent interest.

This is just one vivid example of how a combination of forces act together to keep people stuck in a cycle of poverty -- despite their best efforts.

[...]

We need to restore the American dream by finding ways to help everyone who works hard and makes smart choices get ahead. First, we need to raise the minimum wage substantially. No one should work full-time and live in poverty. Since the Republicans in Washington won’t raise the minimum wage, we are taking this fight to the states.

[...]

Fighting poverty is a job for government, but it is also a job for all of us in our own communities. I believe our nation is up to this challenge. Hurricane Katrina exposed us to heartbreaking images of extreme poverty but it also reminded us of the extraordinary compassion of the American people -- millions opened their hearts, homes and wallets after the storm.

We need to speak up when we know something is wrong. Let's put poverty on top of the national agenda and pledge to hold our government accountable for ignoring the suffering of so many for far too long. I’ve traveled the country for more than a year, meeting with people who are struggling to get out of poverty. One thing I’ve noticed in these conversations is that they have never had a champion. They have no idea what it’s like to have somebody to speak up for them. All of us must champion their cause.

More.

These days, I'm having a hard time deciding who to "vote" for in Straw Polls and Opinion Polls about the 2008 Presidential Election. I know quite a few Democrats I don't want (Biden, Bayh, Daschle, Dodd and Vilsack for instance), and others I'd prefer not to have because I don't think they can win (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Richardson, Feingold), but in the last three polls I've responded to over the past couple of months I've given three different answers: Warner, Clark and Edwards, in that order.

My primary problem with Edwards is that he goes against my proscription against Senators -- except that he wasn't a Senator for long, and hasn't been one for a few years, so perhaps it shouldn't apply. There's also the problem of his lack of administrative experience, and his relative youth (which could also work for him in a Kennedyesque way). He's certainly in the right range, casting-wise.

He's one of the guys I'm keeping my eye on.

[via Blog Around the Clock]

Update: Interestingly, with almost a couple of thousand votes cast (1887), Edwards is leading the revived MyDD straw poll. Wes Clark is in 2nd by 10 votes.

Democrats seem to have a highly evolved (and perhaps misplaced) sense of sportsmanship: magnanimous in victory; chastened in defeat. Whereas Dems will rise to a political fight when they deem circumstances warrant, Republicans consider politics nothing but a fight, with peace the exception, not the rule.

And so it is that many Democrats are unprepared to face an adversary who has a fallback position situated just inches behind the frontline, and a fallback position just inches behind that, and so on indefinitely.

When the Dems overrun a Republican position, they celebrate like drunken Hessians, only to sober up and realize they have gained very little ground at all and that the Republicans are still fighting.

I think Republicans have the more accurate view of politics. It is an ongoing battle. Power is a moving target, hard to seize, harder still to hold on to.

So rather than viewing Hamdan as a sweeping victory to be relished as a vindication of principle, Dems need to see it, as Republicans do, as a starting point for negotiations. Negotiation, like diplomacy, is war by other means.

Moreover, one of the prime faults of the Democrats is that they don't think depply enough -- that is, their strategies and tactics don't go enough steps into the decision tree, so that when succeed or when they fail, they don't have an immediate plan for what to do, since they've never looked ahead that far.

(This is painfully illustrated by the "flag-draped coffin incident". They had the good idea to produce the video and include the potent image of flag-draped coffins, and frame it properly as an indictment of the failed Republican invasion of Iraq, but apparently nobody thought through the next steps, which were utterly predictable: that the Republicans would complain about the video, and attempt to re-frame it in a way that hurts the Dems. OK, if you give you to that you're weak, and you're admitting that the video shouldn't have been made at all -- game, set, match, Republicans. But if you hold your ground, you've got at worst a tie, and (if your video was as effective as you'd hoped it would be) possibly a distict advantage. But the people who made and marketed the video apparently saw only the potential positive impact, and made no allowances for the Republican countermoves, because when it came, they caved.)

But what do you expect when you keep relying on the same tired corps of consultants who have been losing elections consistenly for decades? These people not only don't know to win, they also don't seem to know how to hold off losing, because they don't have any clear idea about what to expect from the opposition, and what to do about it when it (inevitably) comes.