Saturday, February 21, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Holder Should Finger Presidents for Race Cowardice Top
Attorney General Eric Holder got it right. Americans are cowards for not talking about race. But the biggest cowards of all have been politicians and especially presidential ones. They're the ones who've ducked and dodged on race at every turn. President Obama points up the problem. Holder said that he talked tough about race after Obama laid down the gauntlet in his so called race speech last March in Philadelphia. The speech was important and challenging. But Obama made the speech to damp down the furor over his relationship with his controversial former pastor Jeremiah Wright. The only other speech that he made during the campaign that explicitly dealt with race was at the NAACP convention a few months later. McCain did even worse. He talked about race at the same NAACP convention, and issued a terse statement backing the Ward Connerly concocted anti-affirmative action initiative that was on the November ballot in Arizona and two other states. That was it for him during the campaign. Obama and McCain spoke to a mostly black audience at the NAACP convention. This reinforced the notion that racial issues are by, and for, blacks, with none of the broader policy implications for the country as issues such as health care, jobs and the economy, the war on terrorism and Iraq. Obama and McCain can't be blamed for their quick in and out on racial issues. Racial issues have seeped into presidential politics only when they ignite public anger and division. In a 1988 debate, Bush Sr. hammered Democratic contender Michael Dukakis as being a card carrying ACLU member, a milksop on crime, and tossed in the Willie Horton hit to drive home the point. In one of their debates in 2000, Bush and Democratic challenger, Al Gore clashed over affirmative action Race has been a taboo subject for presidents and their challengers on the campaign trail for the past two decades because no president or presidential challenger, especially a Democratic challenger, will risk being tarred as pandering to minorities for the mere mention of racial problems. Clinton was the one exception. In a speech at the University of California, San Diego in June 1997, Clinton vowed to confront racial issues head on. He announced that he was setting up a panel to help heal the racial divide in America. It was doomed from the start. In this case by the man who announced it, Clinton. He made it clear that the panel was strictly advisory and would not operate independent of the White House. The panel gamely soldiered on and put forth a handful of vague, spotty, and innocuous proposals such as a Council for One America, an education program to inform the public about race, and a call to arms to make racial reconciliation a reality. The heavy duty stuff as affirmative action, better police-community relations, and reforms in the criminal justice system was mostly window dressing. There was absolutely no chance the White House would propose legislation or issue any executive orders to enact them. Clinton foot dragged for months before he publicly decided to print the panel's findings and recommendations. The foot drag was no accident. Following the 1960s ghetto riots a harried Lyndon Johnson with much public fanfare established the Kerner Commission to confront racial problems. The commission bluntly called American society "deeply racist" and proposed sweeping, hard nosed proposals for racial reform. The proposals inflamed many whites. That was too much for Johnson. He disavowed the panel and shelved its recommendations. Clinton advisors wanted no repeat of that. They were scared stiff that a too aggressive push for racial reforms could cost the Democrats in the 1998 mid-term elections and the 2000 presidential contest. That was too much to risk. In his script for winning elections, Clinton publicly urged Democrats to talk about the economy, strong national defense military preparedness, and tax relief for the middle class. Democratic presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry followed the script to the letter. They were virtually mute about criminal justice reform, hate crimes, affirmative action, chronic black unemployment, the gaping health and education disparities, and the racially skewed drug laws during their losing presidential campaigns. Obama followed the same script. But he had little choice. Any talk of race by him would have stirred doubts, suspicions, and fears that he was not the race neutral, all purpose candidate that he claimed. That would have been a campaign killer. Yet shunting racial problems to the back burner of presidential campaigns invariably means that presidents shunt them to the backburner of their legislative agenda. That is until they burst into flashpoints of national debate and conflict. When that happens presidents are ill prepared to craft meaningful legislation and programs to deal with them. Holder dared to challenge the nation on the taboo R word. Just don't expect much more to come of it. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009). More on Eric Holder
 
Bank Of America CEO Lewis: We Don't Need To Be Nationalized Top
Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis, under siege from investors on concern the company may be taken over by the U.S. government, said he doesn't need any more federal assistance and can "make it through this downturn on our own." Lewis, speaking in a memorandum to employees yesterday as his stock price plummeted as much as 36 percent, said he aimed to "prove cynics and critics wrong" by spurning attempts at nationalization. Bank of America, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, has already received $45 billion in bank rescue funds. More on Bank Of America
 
Christal Smith: LA's (Dirty) Secret Garden Top
This isn't the first movie entitled simply The Garden . But it is the first one nominated for an Oscar in the documentary category. Director and Producer and fresh vegetable aficionado Scott Hamilton Kennedy explains why this garden in particular was worthy of a feature length film. SHK: The Garden is about the largest community garden in the country -- 14 acres in South Central Los Angeles. It was born as a form of healing after the 1992 riots and it went on to be an incredible success serving over 360 families. It had over 500 trees, every kind of fruit and vegetable, and then after these 12 years all of sudden the farmers heard that they were being evicted. There was no public hearing, none of this was public record, and on top of it, this land was being sold to a developer who got the property for a quarter to a third of its original value. So the farmers said something does not seem right here. I'm embarrassed to say that even after living in LA for 12 years I hadn't heard of the garden and it's a shame that people like myself who only live really six miles as the crow flies from the garden hadn't heard of it. Could this have happened anywhere but LA? LA has a long history of eminent domain stories, one of the most famous being Chavez Ravine that was turned into Dodger Stadium But I think it's very much a universal story [about] justice for all: is that a pipe dream that we pull out during a campaign speech or is it something that we are all going to fight for and possibly die for to believe in? This is the perfect example of the potential for that to be there but also for that to fail. If the city had just been on the up and up from the beginning maybe the garden would have had to come to an end as well but we could have talked about it; everybody could come to the table and try to figure it out. You clearly have a point of view and perspective more in line with the farmers'... I obviously wanted to make the film from the point of view of the farmers and how the farm came to be in existence; what it meant to those farmers, and then the information as they found out about it. I wanted the audience to take the journey with them. But I stand by every moment in that film; I'm a filmmaker that is trying to tell an engaging story and to do that you need to have a point of view. Daryl Hannah, Joan Baez, Alicia Silverstone, --celebrity involvement was high--even for Hollywood. James Cromwell says-in a piece not in the film but it will be in the DVD extras-that ' I don't have any better knowledge of this situation or any better wisdom on this situation than any of the other farmers but the cameras come to me, so I want to help them give voice to this issue.' It's not about the celebrity-- it's about how can their power and the media's love of them get people to understand this difficult situation. But it's not a Hollywood ending. Sadly the film is a tragedy. The film does end with eviction and bulldozers. It's strange as a documentarian who is now so honored to be nominated for an Academy Award to have a scene like that in the film that still brings me to tears when I watch it, and knowing that it's such a heartbreaking scene, but it also might be the reason people are responding to the film in a positive way-- it's a very strange feeling to benefit from such a horrible situation. So I tried to tell it as honestly as I could and imbue it with the soul of the people that I saw live through this story and try to put a bit of my own soul in the story and hopefully that would translate back to an audience. Have you planned an acceptance speech? The acceptance speech that I probably won't have to give?..... I want to make sure I get some real thank yous to the people without whom I wouldn't have a film... These farmers introduced me to the term 'si se puede!' they borrowed it going back to Cesar Chavez . Another slightly more famous gentleman has been using it recently and it became very popular in his campaign. The farmers then introduced me to 'si se pudo,' 'yes we can' becoming 'yes we did' and out of respect for them I might see if we can get the audience to get us a little hope for more days ahead when 'si se puede' becomes 'si se pudo.' I am one of the people who has a great deal of hope in Mr. Obama and I like hearing him speak to us like adults: that it's going to difficult, that there's going to be mistakes, that he's going be imperfect and that this little engine that could called democracy needs to be fine tuned by all of us. Maybe they'll all chant along... si se pudo, si se pudo.... After his nomination, one of the South Central farmers told Kennedy that he sees their story just like a tree: you can cut off a branch but it can still grow in a healthy new direction. Recently several farmers got a loan to purchase over 80 acres in Bakersfield and they are now producing fresh fruits and vegetables that they are bringing to farmers markets across Los Angeles. More info at southcentralfarmers.org . Scott Hamilton Kennedy is particularly fond of their spinach. It has nourished him several times already this busy Oscar week, mostly in his salads and with eggs for breakfast. More on The Oscars
 
Presented By: Top
 
MJ Rosenberg: Obama Empowers Jewish Insurgency Top
The other day I was asked if the existence of Israel Policy Forum "really make a difference." My interlocutor went on: "I would not expect you to have ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is not something Americans can do. But I would think you and your allies would have cut into the power of the right-wingers by now. But they still seem to own Capitol Hill, almost as if you guys didn't exist." It's a good question, but it is also one that I had no problem answering. That is because I believe that were it not for IPF and our partners-- J Street , Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tsedek, Churches for Middle East Peace , The Arab-American Institute , and the American Task Force on Palestine -- the peace process would have died during the past eight years simply because the United States would have allowed it to. In fact, it is astonishing that the diplomatic process survived the outbreak of the Second Intifada in the fall of 2000, 9/11, and the eight-year neoconservative-dominated Bush-Cheney administration. Without us, the horrific violence of the suicide bombings might have convinced both the American government and the pro-Israel community that peace with the Palestinians was an unattainable goal. After all, as soon as the terror started, the propagandists of the right put out the line that the Palestinians never intended to reach an agreement with Israel. They asserted that the Palestinians had been offered a viable state at Camp David and flat-out turned it down, and that the seven-year Oslo process had been a disaster for Israel. This was the line pushed by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who pressured President Clinton to join him in putting the blame exclusively on the Palestinians, something Clinton does not believe now and may not have believed then. And it was Ariel Sharon's line, too. He opposed Oslo from the first and wanted it to fail. His premeditated and provocative walk on the Temple Mount in the summer of 2000 was his own contribution to that failure, not his last either. It was up to IPF, and our allies, to explain to both the United States government and to the pro-Israel community that the official line on Oslo and Camp David was simply that: a line. Yitzhak Rabin's initiative was not a failure. It was not a mistake. It was an opportunity that was blown, and not by just one side. In fact, the last three years of Oslo-after Israel and the PLO worked together to thwart terror attacks with the assistance of the CIA-were the best in Israel's history. They were not just safe. Israel was an entirely different place between 1997 and 2000. Anyone who spent time there during the period remembers the feeling of security both inside the country and out. It's hard to believe but back in the Oslo days the roads from Israel to West Bank cities like Jericho, Kalkiyah, and Ramallah were packed with bargain-seeking Israelis. Palestinians were thrilled to sell their wares to Israelis, and Israelis were happy to buy. My religious (and very right-wing) relatives from Petach Tikva could not believe how friendly the locals in Jericho were when they packed a Passover lunch, drove over to Jericho, and ate their matzo and gefilte fish under a giant Yasir Arafat billboard. Israel in 1999 was as close to realizing the dreams of its founders as it has ever been in its history. It's been downhill ever since, despite what the right-which prefers a ghetto to a normal country-claims. IPF's mission was to explain what went wrong in 2000 and to assert that-although the terror was horrific and indefensible-so was nonstop expansion of settlements (which Palestinians view as tantamount to terror). And we had to convey that, despite the propaganda, the Palestinians had not been offered a viable, contiguous state at Camp David. Additionally, we had to explain that, despite everything, the two sides came closer to an agreement at Taba in 2001 than ever before (or since). Our efforts at rebutting the right helped keep the peace process alive, despite the prevailing myths and the advent of an administration that had barely any interest in the peace process. It wasn't easy. Consider this. In 2000, the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, delivered his most significant address on Israeli-Palestinian issues at an IPF event. But for the next eight years, neocons in the vice president's office, at the Pentagon, and at the National Security Council worked overtime to ensure that Clinton's successor was exposed only to their bellicose and utterly one-sided approach. And then there was 9/11, which the same group struggled to link to the Palestinians just as they successfully linked it to Iraq, knowing full well that they were simply "fixing the facts." Talk about your seven lean years; well, we had eight. But we kept pushing and, with the help of our friends in Congress, made sure that the peace process was not allowed to die. Essentially, we kept it on life support until the neocons had safely passed from the scene. That happened this past November with the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden-two senators with whom we had close ties and who both believe in the two-state solution and in America's role in achieving it. In fact, in 2007, both Obama and Biden told us in their Senate offices that they believed that America needed to play the "honest broker" role in the Middle East and that until that happened, the peace process was going nowhere. Neither had any illusions that the Bush administration could play that role, while both encouraged us to hang on until 2009. Obama said, "and once I'm president, make sure your voices get through to me." It's now one month into the Obama administration and, again, we see the impact of IPF's presence. The Obama administration has thrown open its meetings and briefings with the Jewish community to those of us who make negotiations a priority. This week former Senator George Mitchell, the president's envoy to the Middle East, held a phone conversation with the organized Jewish community. Unlike the bad old days, the representatives of the community did not speak in one (hawkish) voice. No, this time the participants included not just the old establishment, but also the newer groups that subscribe to the view that being pro-Israel requires supporting (not thwarting) United States diplomacy. In fact, most of the people on the call delivered that message while the status quo crowd stuck to the old flat talking points, points which for eight years were the only ones government officials ever heard. And Mitchell listened and responded; more than that, it was clear that he welcomed our support. He believes that Israel's security can only be achieved through a political agreement, that economic initiatives cannot do it except in the context of political movement (despite Binyamin Netanyahu's position), and that the current divisions in the Palestinian community need to be healed if progress is to be made. He also made it clear that he will indeed play the role of honest broker and that, at seventy-five, he does not intend to fail. The most striking thing about the Mitchell call was that it demonstrated that the right-wing of the pro-Israel community has become something of a relic. I am not saying that their view of the Middle East will not prevail in the end. At this point, only a fool is confident that Israel and the Palestinians will ever live peacefully, side-by-side, in two states. No, it is possible that the deadly status quo-with its intermittent wars and terrorism-will continue. In other words, the status quo crowd may yet see the triumph of their hopeless point of view. Nonetheless, the right-wing has lost its ability to speak for the pro-Israel community. It is now evident that it speaks only for a segment of the community, and not even the majority. It is also evident that the Obama administration understands that and is doing what it can to empower this vanguard (all of whom preferred Obama last November, in contrast to the status quo crowd which favored McCain). In short, the "iron wall" that was represented by a monolithic pro-Israel community that promoted failed policies for fifty or sixty years has collapsed. In its place is a community that agrees that Israel must remain a secure homeland for the Jewish people, but differs profoundly on how to achieve it. Some of us -- me, for instance -- believe that one difference between the old establishment and us is that if our policy prescriptions offer security to both Israelis and Palestinians. Our adversaries' prescriptions, if followed, will mean the end of the Jewish state. Don't they see that or have they gotten to the point where the only thing that matters to them is despising Arabs and Muslims, regardless of the consequences for Israel. I don't know. But I do know that at long last it is our voice that is being heard at the highest livels i.e. the White House. What a difference one election makes. More on Israel
 
Huff Radio: KCRW'S Left Right & Center 2.20.09 Top
Banks-rupt; Forestalling Foreclosure; Detroit Doom It's not a state of the union - it's a state of gloom, and Bill Clinton advised Obama to start looking "at the sunny side of the street." Can he? Should he? What will he say on Tuesday as he gives his first address before a joint session of both Congressional houses? Will Bank of America be nationalized? Is closed-door decision making by elites any way to run a democracy? Bob gives us a dissertation on capitalist, socialist and fascist economics. Shall we let the banks go bankrupt but still try to save the auto industry? These and many more unanswerable questions fill the airwaves. More on Bank Of America
 
With new name and fresh paint, Abu Ghraib reopens Top
BAGHDAD — Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison reopened, with a new name and official promises Saturday of humane treatment in a lockup notorious as a center for abuse _ both under Saddam Hussein and the U.S. military. Judicial authorities showed off the renovated compound during a tour for journalists that included a sewing room, exercise equipment, computers, a library, outdoor recreational areas, greenhouses and a barber shop. "We turned it to something like a resort not prison. The first step was to change the name," Mohammed al-Zeidi, the assistant director of the Iraqi Rehabilitation Department, said as he led journalists through the halls decorated with plastic flowers and streamers and still smelling of paint. Abdul-Mutalb Jassim, general-director of the Iraqi Rehabilitation Department, said about 400 convicts have been transferred to the prison. A total of some 3,000 inmates are expected shortly with an eventual total capacity of 12,000 to 15,000, according to the Justice Ministry. Officials defend their decision to reopen the prison _ now called the Baghdad Central Prison _ saying they need the space as the U.S. military hands over about 15,000 detainees in its custody to the Iraqis under a new security agreement that took effect on Jan. 1. The compound of gray, stonewalled buildings and watchtowers west of Baghdad became the center of a global scandal in 2004 after photos were released showing U.S. soldiers sexually humiliating inmates. Outrage over the pictures fueled support for the insurgency as well as anti-American sentiment among Iraqis. The 280-acre (113-hectare) prison, which was already notorious as a torture center under Saddam Hussein, closed in 2006. "All kinds of human rights violations took place in this prison. So, we, and the government felt that it was our duty to rehabilitate the prison ... and we did this in accordance to the international standards," al-Zeidi said. American authorities implemented a series of policy changes following the Abu Ghraib scandal, including separating extremists from prisoners considered more moderate and implementing educational programs, although they still faced complaints about prolonged detentions without charges. More recently, human rights groups have raised concern about the Iraqis' ability to care for inmates, with the United Nations warning in a recent report about overcrowding and "grave human rights violations" of detainees already in Iraqi custody. Iraqi officials said that would not be the case at Abu Ghraib. "This prison has had a bad reputation," Jassim said. "Now it is a place where law and justice are respected and prisoners are rehabilitated." Last year, the government said it would turn a section of the prison into a museum documenting Saddam's crimes but not the abuses committed by U.S. guards.
 
Oscar Pre-Party: UNICEF's Star-Studded Bash (PHOTOS) Top
Friday night at a UNICEF educational fundraiser, 'Montblanc Signature for Good' held at Paramount Studios, a few dozen celebrities turned out in support. Among the attendees were past Oscar winners Mira Sorvino, Helen Hunt, Reese Witherspoon, Susan Sarandon, a few supermodels, some television stars and a star of "Slumdog Millionaire." Sadly for voyeurs, most of the weekend's exclusive bashes had no red carpets and press lines for photo opportunities. PHOTOS: Photos by Getty More on Slideshows
 
Arianna Huffington: The Political Oscars: Your Winners (and Losers) Top
Earlier this week, I offered my take on this year's Political Oscars - mashing up the best and worst from the worlds of politics and entertainment - and asked for your suggestions. You responded with an Oscar-worthy collection of winners (and losers). Here are our favorites: Best Picture : Slumdog Millionaire Worst : Bailout Billionaire (RepugsOut08) Sound Effects: Best: Wall-E's singing. Worst: Wall Street's begging. (Temsi) Editing: Best: Elliot Graham, Milk Worst: George W. Bush, The Constitution (boatsrwood) Performance by an Actor Playing a White Character Pretending to Be Black: Best: Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder Worst: Michael Steele, Republican National Committee (stevemarvin) Performance as a Psycho Clown Who Wants To Watch The World Burn: Best: Heath Ledger as The Joker. Worst: Rush Limbaugh as Himself. (3rdcitizen) Makeup: Best: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button , in which Brad Pitt has a backwards way of aging. Worst: The Curious Case of Ashley Todd , in which a crazed McCain fan has a backwards way of writing. (Beets) Song: Best: M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes," Slumdog Millionaire Worst: G.O.P.'s "Barack the Magic Negro," Scumdog Millionaires (kurtlockwood) Portrayal of an Interviewer: Best: Michael Sheen as David Frost, interviewing Richard Nixon ( Frost/Nixon ). Worst: Greta Van Susteran as Herself, interviewing Sarah Palin (Fox News). (MIMom) Achievement in Sound: Best: The Dark Knight Worst: Rod Blagojevich recorded trying to sell a Senate seat (kmv) Farce: Best: War, Inc. Worst: (tie) Iraq War, Afghanistan War, War on Terror, War on Drugs (OttoMann) Visual Effects: Best: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Worst: The Curious Case of Blagojevich's Hair (Temsi) Rude Character: Best: Dane Cook, "Tank" in My Best Friend's Girl Worst: Dick Cheney "VP" in The Torturista (ez14livin) Costume Design: Best: The Duchess Worst: Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe (kmv) Overblown Performance by a Diva with a Dubious Sense of Right and Wrong: Best: Meryl Streep in Doubt Worst: Sarah Palin in Doubt She Has Any Business on the Ticket (uofcphd) Adaptation: Best: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire Worst Adaptation: George W. Bush, U.S. Constitution (DryIce) Supporting Actor: Best: Heath Ledger Worst: Joe the Plumber (Bleubeard) More on The Oscars
 
Stephen Colbert Gets A Falcon Namesake Top
SAN JOSE, Calif. — It helps to have fans in high places. Just ask Stephen Colbert, who has had a peregrine falcon making its nest atop City Hall named after him. The male falcon was dubbed "Esteban Colbert" by Mayor Chuck Reed, an admirer of the Comedy Central star. Like the human Colbert, Esteban is comfortable before cameras; he and his new mate, Clara, have their rooftop rendezvous beamed throughout the world by way of a FalconCam the city installed when baby falcons turned up on City Hall three years ago. The falcon is the third wild bird or mammal to be named after the host of "The Colbert Report." Breeders at the San Francisco Zoo named a bald eagle Stephen Jr. in 2006. Last month, researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, christened a pair of elephant seals Stelephant Colbert and Jon Sealwart, the latter after Colbert's fellow Comedy Central pundit, Jon Stewart. ___ On the net: FalconCam: http://www.sanjoseca.gov More on Animals
 
Conan's Final "Late Night" Episode: Will Ferrell, Classic Skits, Andy Richter, Tribute To Staff (VIDEO) Top
"Late Night" with Conan O'Brien aired its final episode Friday night, ending its run in New York after 2,725 shows. Conan will be moving to Los Anges to over Leno's "Tonight Show" slot, starting in June. Conan had been counting down to the moment all week by taking apart his stage piece by piece and giving it to fans, as well as airing many of the show's best moments. The final episode said goodbye with an appearance from Will Ferrell as George Bush, a satirical song from John Mayer, a visit from former sidekick Andy Richter and music from the White Stripes. But perhaps the best moment was the end, when a clearly emotional O'Brien put aside all pretense to humor and offered thanks to all those who worked with him, and inspired him, over the years. Speaking of TV producer Lorne Micheals, who gave him his job, Conan said: "Lorne Michaels single-handedly made my career in television. "I don't know what I did. I think I must have saved his life at one time. He certainly saved mine." Watch highlights from the episode below. More details about the final show from the AP . Watch more classic moments here . HIGHLIGHTS: Will Ferrell, Conan's favorite skit, classic Andy Richter skit, Conan's promise for his new show, his tribute to his staff. Will Ferrell appears (and strips) Conan introduced this as his favorite "Late Night" segment A classic skit in which Conan takes Andy to a 'NBC Turkish spa' Conan promises he won't grow up when he moves to his new time slot. Conan's moving tribute to his staff, as well as to Leno and Letterman. More on Video On HuffPost
 
Anne Naylor: Imagination: The Key To Successful Job Creation Top
'You see things; and you say, "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"' George Bernard Shaw The news is sadly full of layoffs taking place. Thousands each month are losing their jobs. The grim spectre of the 1930's Great Depression comes readily to mind. However, there is a non-documented period of history, 30 years ago in Europe, which paints a different picture, one of much greater possibility. Non-documented because it was pre-internet time and no one thought to record what took place. In the late 1970's British Steel were laying off thousands. The steel industry, as it was then in Great Britain, was no longer viable. Massive steel mills were closing down. Communities supported by the steel industry suffered profoundly the loss to their local economies. Into the picture came Patrick Naylor, to run the job creation arm of British Steel. He had the imagination to recognize two important truths: 1. A steel worker has dreams too. At that time, it was considered that a man who worked in steel could do only that. Therefore there was no hope for him when the industry died. "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create." Albert Einstein 2 There is a tremendous wealth of human energy and resource in every community. What does this mean? When an industry closes down, its employees are not stripped of their imagination, talent and capacity for creating wealth. Quite the reverse. The demise of one large industry potentially releases individuals to generate greater economic stability than was there before. "Apathy can be overcome by enthusiasm, and enthusiasm can only be aroused by two things: first, an ideal, with takes the imagination by storm, and second, a definite intelligible plan for carrying that ideal into practice." Arnold Toynbee England in the 1970's was emerging from the notion that a person worked for 48 hours a week, 48 weeks a year and for 48 years of their life in the same organization - a relic concept of the industrial age. It has since been recognized that a person may now have several vocations in one lifetime, more than one dream to fulfil. Not only did Naylor have the vision for job creation, but he also had the skills and ability to implement the vision, creating lasting jobs in communities, potentially devastated by high levels of unemployment. Above all he was a believer in the process. Subsequently, his practical experience turned belief into knowledge and understanding. When job creation teams had been set up within steel closure areas, Naylor went on to run Job Creation Limited, a private enterprise addressing other major industries in Europe which, through changes in the marketplace, were downsizing or shutting up shop completely. "There is hope in dreams, imagination, and in the courage of those who wish to make those dreams a reality." Jonas Salk The forces of negativity were legion. Non-believers, and those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, such as the unions wishing to retain their membership, tried and sometimes succeeded in blocking a job creation project. Job Creation Limited was paid on results: new jobs established over a period of time. As a one time small business owner himself, Naylor recognized the most important factor in securing new wealth: 3. The key to successful job creation A person with a business idea needs help, both practical and psychological, to translate their idea into a successful enterprise. They need support at hand to avoid the pitfalls, and ensure a positive outcome. You can't just throw money at a start up project, walk away and hope it will work. In the 1980's, British banks made that mistake. As a result, they created a lot of unnecessary business failure and human misery. In response to my last week's post 5 Ways To Turn On The Power Of Your Love , Jason commented that "the power of imagination is so under valued in our culture". I agree. You may recall Imagine sung by John Lennon: If you have been recently laid off, the future may seem very bleak for you. My heart goes out to you. My hope is that in President Obama's job creation initiatives there might be programmes similar to those run successfully in Europe 30 years ago. When Patrick Naylor was engaged in Job Creation, I went with him to some of the industrial closure areas. To enter huge shut-down factory buildings -- cold, damp, desolate and devoid of people gainfully employed in them -- was gut wrenching for me. Later, these empty shells were transformed into industrial villages with new hope, fresh enterprise and sources of greater wealth and well-being than before. History could repeat itself. True to his own philosophy, Patrick Naylor now fulfills a long time dream of running very successful small hotel in Cornwall, England - The Camelot Hotel . "They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea." Francis Bacon Have you been laid off, and how are you dealing with it? Do you have a business idea that you would like to make happen? What does your community need that you might provide as a business? *** Anne offers Clear Results Consultations to people facing turning points in their lives and gives monthly Possible Dream Meetings. A pdf copy of the Clear Results Self-Assessment is available; and a copy of the pdf guidelines for Possible Dream Meetings that can be run in any home. Please get in touch with me if there is any way I can be of assistance to you. I would love to hear from you, either as a comment here or contact me at Clear Results .
 
Tara Stiles: Yoga For Facebook Addicts (VIDEO) Top
If you've identified yourself as a Facebook (or HuffPost) addict from the 10 warning signs article that made its way around the internet last week, I've come across a remedy. This post is for you. Not surprisingly I have found myself on Facebook more than usual this week, chatting back and forth about Facebook addiction with friends and strangers alike. I have a bunch of new friends now, and that's cool. But, I found myself in a self-reflective pickle. On one hand, I find myself sucked into Facebook when I'm trying to do work, even as I write this article. (I know, sad, right?) On the other hand, connecting with people is good, especially when there's an exchange of exciting information. Shout out to Daniel Boyson for sharing (through Facebook!) the New York Times link about non-sugary breakfasts including morning pizza. Now that's my idea of breakfast. Good stuff! I tried to keep a little distant from last week's confessional, because I wanted immunity. This wasn't really about me. Which is what I kept telling my friends as they expressed concern on my Wall. But I have ultimately realized that I am just plain guilty of Facebook addiction, and all that goes with it. I found myself glued to my screen, clicking away while longing for a solution to my dilemma. Then suddenly it presented itself. Yoga for Facebook Addicts. Too much Facebook (or HuffPost) time is a recipe for aching wrists, and crunched spine and hips. A slumped torso is terrible for your body and your state of mind. This short routine I put together re-aligns the wrists, lengthens the spine and opens the hips. It will hopefully put you in a good mood too. I'm not suggesting that this routine is the cure for Facebook, or even that there needs to be a cure for Facebook addicts. I'm also not going to speak out about abolishing your account or anything crazy like that. Your own sensibility will hopefully help you find the right balance of Facebook time. The purpose of this routine is simply to refresh your body, just as you do your browser when you're checking for updates on your Facebook page. So really this is not a cure at all. It's an enabler. And on that note I leave you with 10 reasons that I love Facebook, followed by the routine. See you on FB! 10 reasons that we love Facebook (even if we're addicted) 1. We meet awesome people. I met and interviewed Justin Blazejewski, a yogi who has been to Afghanistan and Iraq 7 times in the last year. He is a normal kid doing extraordinary things. That article coming soon. 2. We keep in touch. I keep up with friends from high school. Without Facebook, it would be much harder. 3. Interesting articles. My friends post things that I might not find in my own web research. Tim, Waylon, Lola, you guys rock! 4. Seeing a photo when you message someone is nice. 5. Clicking through photos of people you know is fun. Actually, clicking through photos of people you don't know is fun too. 6. You can promote your business. The beginnings of my yoga studio, plus my Free Yoga in the park stunt, were made possible by Facebook. 7. Shameless self-promotion. You can promote your blog or article and your friends will surely check it out. 8. You can be in control. Block and add who you want. Your Facebook experience can be as small or expansive as you want. 9. Events. Not like I ever go, well, not that often, but you never have a lack of something to do since the Invites took off. 10. It's fun. Facebook is fun. Stalkers, fake friends, real friends and all, we love it. More on Yoga
 
AP: Even Military Split Over Iraq Pullout Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama faces split opinions within the military on whether to make the speedy withdrawal from Iraq he championed as a candidate. Obama's top generals in Baghdad are pressing for an elongated timetable. Some influential senior advisers inside the Pentagon are more amenable to a quicker pullout. Obama has yet to decide the matter. But his recent announcement that he is sending thousands more combat troops to Afghanistan implies a drawdown of at least two brigades from Iraq by summer. That does not answer the question whether Obama will stick to his stated goal of a 16-month pullout or opt for a slower, less risky approach. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commander in Baghdad, favors a longer timetable for leaving Iraq. He sees 2009 as a pivotal year, with parliamentary elections set to be held in December; he doesn't want to lose more than two of the 14 combat brigades that are now in Iraq before the end of the year. And he believes the U.S. military will need to remain engaged in Iraq, to some degree, for years to come. Odierno's boss at U.S. Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus, leans toward Odierno's view. Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has steered clear of the debate over withdrawing from Iraq. But he sees his battlefield as an increasingly urgent priority, not just for additional combat troops but also for Iraq-focused surveillance aircraft and more civilian support. There are now about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, compared with 38,000 in Afghanistan. Obama has directed 17,000 more to head to Afghanistan, including Marines and soldiers who had been in line for Iraq duty. At the Pentagon, a more mixed view prevails. The uniformed service chiefs see Iraq as a strain on their troops and, more broadly, a drain on their resources. The Marines, in particular, are in the tough position of having a foothold in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a relatively small service, they would prefer to concentrate more fully on Afghanistan, if only they could get out of Iraq. Neither Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said publicly whether he supports a 16-month withdrawal timeline. But they have an obligation to consider the full spectrum of threats and potential threats to U.S. national security. "There's a very clear understanding of what is at stake here," Mullen said Feb. 10. "And it's very natural for Gen. Odierno to want to go slower and to hang onto capability as long as possible," he added. "That's not unusual. It's very natural for Gen. McKiernan to say, 'I need more.' And so that's the tension. We don't have an infinite pot (of resources and deployable forces). We have to make hard decisions about where to accept risk." In internal discussions, the emphasis appears to be on getting out responsibly rather than quickly, several officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made. Obama must weigh an array of hard-to-figure trade-offs in security and politics. And he must reconcile his conviction that the combat phase of U.S. involvement in Iraq must end with his commanders' concern in Baghdad that hard-fought gains could be squandered. It boils down to this: How much more effort is the Iraq war worth? What is the risk of leaving too soon? Is the 16-month timetable too short, given the uncertain state of stability and political reconciliation in Iraq and the potential cost of seeing the country slide back into widespread sectarian war? And is anything substantially beyond 16 months too long, given the call for still more troops in Afghanistan, where Obama himself has said the battle against extremists is going in the wrong direction? Obama is still considering his options, which officials say includes a less hurried, 23-month withdrawal. The deadline he inherited from the Bush administration is Dec. 31, 2011, the date set in a security agreement with Baghdad that says all U.S. troops, not just combat forces, must be gone by then. One clue to some of the thinking inside the White House might lie with the views of Obama's national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones. Jones co-chaired a study published in January 2008 on the way ahead in Afghanistan. The group endorsed the idea of providing more military support for Afghanistan, including resources that become available as combat forces are withdrawn from Iraq. The president has an additional factor to weigh: the political cost of backing off the 16-month pullout timetable that was a prominent feature of his campaign. Although he has said he thinks 16 months is a reasonable timetable, he also has assured military leaders that he will consider their advice. Notably absent, at least so far, is even a whiff of public pressure from fellow Democrats to stick to a 16-month timeline. That suggests Obama's party might be satisfied so long as he makes early and clear steps in the direction of ending U.S. combat involvement in Iraq, even if on a somewhat longer timeline. Obama campaigned for the White House on a promise that he would end the war and get U.S. commanders moving immediately on a transition to Iraqi control of their own security. He said military experts believe combat troops can be pulled out safely at a rate of one to two brigades a month, meaning all 14 combat brigades there now could be gone within 16 months, which equates to mid-2010. Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who was the executive officer for Petraeus when the general was in Baghdad overseeing the "surge" of U.S. forces in 2007-08, said he thinks it likely that Obama will pull at least four combat brigades out of Iraq by the end of this year. But he hopes the president does not insist on getting all 14 brigades out within 16 months. "If the president orders it, the military can do it, but whether it's advisable or not is a different story," he said in a telephone interview. "Quite frankly, I don't think it is, given the risk you would incur to potentially upsetting the political situation" inside Iraq. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE _ Robert Burns has covered national security affairs for The Associated Press since 1990. Associated Press writers Robert Reid, Jennifer Loven, Pam Hess and Lara Jakes contributed to this report. More on War Wire
 
Chandra Levy Case: Arrest Close In Slaying Top
WASHINGTON — An arrest may be near in the nearly decade-old slaying of federal intern Chandra Levy, whose disappearance in 2001 ended Gary Condit's congressional career, several television stations reported. The California Democrat was romantically linked to Levy, but was not considered a suspect in her death or disappearance. Television stations, KFSN and KCRA in California and WRC in Washington, D.C., reported that police were seeking an arrest warrant. Levy's parents said Friday outside their Modesto, Calif., home that police called them and told them an arrest was near. "Your child is dead and gone and it's painful, but we're glad that the police and people are doing something, and investigating, and making a difference so somebody's not on the street to do it again," Chandra's mother, Susan Levy, told KGO-TV in San Francisco. The parents did not say when an arrest warrant might be issued. The 24-year-old Levy disappeared in May 2001 and at the time, she was wearing jogging clothes when she left her apartment. Her remains were found in Rock Creek Park in Washington about a year later. Authorities questioned the married Condit in her disappearance. He reportedly told police that he and Levy were having an affair, and while he was not considered a suspect, the negative publicity was cited as the main cause of the Condit's re-election defeat in 2002. Investigators also interviewed Ingmar Guandique, 27, a Salvadoran immigrant who has denied any involvement in Levy's disappearance and killing. Guandique was convicted of attacking two women in Rock Creek Park shortly after Levy disappeared. D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said Saturday her department had no information to release in the ongoing case. "This case generated numerous bits of information, which we continue to follow up on," she said in a statement. After Condit did not get re-elected, he sued several media outlets that had connected him to the disappearance and death of Levy. He reached an undisclosed settlement with three tabloid newspapers.
 
Julia Moulden: Six Billion Reasons To Get Out of Bed Each Day Top
With all the bad news about, you may feel like pulling the covers up over your head and waiting until it's over. That thought has certainly crossed my mind. But if we do that, we'll miss a huge opportunity: People around the world are sitting on the edges of their seats, hoping that we'll catch the wave that may just help save us all. I'm talking about social entrepreneurship. It's not a new idea. But it's an idea whose time has definitely come. What is social entrepreneurship? It's about applying the approaches and spirit of the entrepreneur - things like innovation, leadership, tenacity, risk-taking, and vision - to help drive social change. Rather than focusing on making money, social entrepreneurs are driven to achieve economic and social goals - like helping people start small businesses and secure access to health care, education, and clean water. The Grameen Bank of Bangladesh is probably the best-known example of social enterprise in action. In 1976, Professor Muhammad Yunus realized that a loan of just $27 could help the poor start the small businesses that would allow them to provide for their families - a practice known as microfinance. Today, the bank provides more than six million poor families with loans, savings, insurance, and other services. The bank is fully owned by its clients and is a model for microfinance institutions around the world. (As you may know, Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for the simple insight that helped start a revolution in lending.) This brand-new video is a great introduction to social entrepreneurship (produced by the Skoll Foundation): One of the best parts of social entrepreneurship is that it's a "win-win" idea: Helping other people while finding the meaning we're longing for in our own careers. That's what New Radicals are all about - and we welcome social entrepreneurs under our broad umbrella - men and women like you and me who are discovering how to apply the skills acquired in our careers to the world's greatest challenges. (For more about the New Radicals, please see archived articles .) I'll be writing about social entrepreneurs in the coming weeks. About an organization that is the centerpiece of the emerging infrastructure that supports this work. About a conference that will take place in March at Oxford University, and how you can observe sessions and read about what's going on in real time. I'll also talk to social entrepreneurs who are preparing to go to the conference - either as speakers or delegates -- and share their thoughts with you. And I'll report on my experiences at the conference, including the men and women I met that I think you might be interested in hearing about. Watch for inspiring stories about creative new ideas in this emerging field. Plus practical information that can help people like us find our way into this work. Help us feel connected to the billions of people around the world (and, yes, here at home) who need our ingenuity and expertise to help them climb out of poverty. And make us feel really, really glad that we got out of bed to check in on how the world is doing today. Please share your experiences with social entrepreneurship, and your thoughts on this approach to changing the world, by commenting below. As always, I invite you to email me directly at julia@wearethenewradicals.com . But don't be shy: the more we tell each other about our lives and our hopes, the more we will feel connected and inspired. More on Giving
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)