Thursday, April 30, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Dr. Larry Dossey: Premonitions and Spirituality Top
Spirituality involves an awareness of being connected with something greater than the individual ego or self. This "something greater" has traditionally been called God, Goddess, Allah, Great Spirit, the Almighty, the Absolute, and many other names. Some consider it as the Universe, or as a sense of infinite order and beauty. Many individuals prefer to attribute no name whatever to it. But whether named or unnamed, the awareness of a connectedness with something greater than the "I" has been a source of strength and meaning for individuals throughout human history. Individuals often find that their power of sensing and knowing expands as they mature spiritually. These expanded capacities often involve the capacity to know yet-to-be events that lie in the future, as the unbroken stream of prophets, visionaries, seers, and shamans throughout history attests. A modern analog of this ancient ability to know the future is premonitions, sometimes called intuition, gut feelings, or sixth sense. Premonitions are often regarded as unrelated to spirituality, but there are profound connections. The most obvious involves love, as in the following example. Amanda, a young mother living in Washington State, awoke one night at 2:30 A.M. from a nightmare. She dreamed that a large chandelier that hung above their baby's bed in the next room fell into the crib and crushed the infant. In the dream, as she and her husband stood amid the wreckage, she saw that a clock on the baby's dresser read 4:35 A.M. The weather in the dream was violent; rain hammered the window and the wind was blowing a gale. The dream was so terrifying she roused her husband and told him about it. He laughed, told her the dream was silly, and urged her to go back to sleep, which he promptly did. But the dream was so frightening that Amanda went to the baby's room and brought the child back to bed with her. She noted that the weather was calm, not stormy as in the dream. Amanda felt foolish -- until around two hours later, when she and her husband were awakened by a loud crash. They dashed into the nursery and found the crib demolished by the chandelier, which had fallen directly into it. Amanda noted that the clock on the dresser read 4:35 A.M. and that the weather had changed. Now there was howling wind and rain. This time, her husband was not laughing. Amanda's dream was a snapshot of the future -- down to the specific event, the precise time it would happen, and a change in the weather. Love appears dramatically as a mediator of premonitions in sudden infant death syndrome or SIDS, the abrupt, unexplained death of an apparently healthy baby between one and twelve months of age. Premonitions are a recurring feature in the experiences of SIDS parents. An example is Don, a physician in a large metropolitan area. During the first trimester of his wife's pregnancy, he sensed the happiness his son's birth would bring would not be lasting. A few months before the birth, he would occasionally find himself contemplating a nearby cemetery, where his son would eventually be buried. The day he was born and Don first held him in his arms, he felt, for no obvious reason that the newborn was not supposed to be with them. Beginning around two to three weeks before his death, Don would be awakened from his sleep with thoughts of SIDS. The day before his son died, he heard a voice very similar to his own say repeatedly, "Take a good look. This is the last time you will see him." Don's apprehensions increased when his wife planned a flight with the baby to visit her parents, who lived in another state. Although they disagreed about whether the baby should go, Don didn't make his fears clear to his wife. As he was driving them to the airport, negative feelings came flooding in. At the airport, walking to security, he heard a clear warning that he'd never see his son again. He knew his baby would die during the trip. While walking back to the parking lot, the voice told him to go back and get his son. Finally the voice softened and stopped, as Don ignored it and kept walking. Early the next morning his wife called, hysterically relating that their son had died. He later would find that his aunt had similar apprehensions about the baby. Looking back, Don said, "The process has been a shock to me since I knew before-hand this [death] was going to happen. The only thing I didn't know was when and where... I have no idea of its meaning. The only thing I can say is that perhaps if I would have listened to 'my heart' many mishaps could have been prevented... I think people have the ability to perceive things and give it a purposeful meaning which can be used for any future event." Many of the SIDS parents experienced dreams, visions, or feelings of being in contact with their infants following death. They felt uniformly positive about these experiences, and were left with a sense that their baby was being cared for and was in a better place. There are other benefits that are profoundly spiritual. Premonitions open us up to each other and to the greater world. As mentioned, they show that we are part of something larger than the individual self, that we are an element in the great "pattern that connects," as ecologist-philosopher Gregory Bateson put it. Premonitions suggest that we are linked with every consciousness that has ever existed, or that will ever exist. Many outstanding scientists have realized this. The renowned physicist David Bohm said, "Each person enfolds something of the spirit of the other in his consciousness." Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger also believed that minds are in some sense united and one. He said, "To divide or multiply consciousness is something meaningless. There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness.... [I]n truth there is only one mind." By linking minds across space and time, premonitions reveal the oneness of which these scientists -- and many spiritual traditions -- speak. Premonitions therefore imply that we are not isolated individuals, but beings whose consciousness operates outside the present and beyond our physical body. They suggest that in some sense we are nonlocal or infinite in space in time. When we deeply sense this, we may become "transparent to the transcendent," as mythologist Joseph Campbell put it. Through love, premonitions link human beings across space and time. There is no more fundamental aspect of spirituality than love. Premonitions are a window through which we glimpse our connection not only with one another, but with the Infinite as well. (This essay is based on The Power of Premonitions: How Knowing the Future Can Shape Our Lives, by Larry Dossey, M.D., published by Dutton/Penguin, 2009) More on The Inner Life
 
Obama Security Member Has Suspected Case Of Swine Flu Top
A member of the security advance team for President Obama's recent trip to Mexico is suspected of having contracted the swine flu, a senior White House official says. More on Swine Flu
 
Deborah Burger: America's RNs Call for Much Broader Response to Swine Flu Top
After years of shredding our public health infrastructure and ill-advised minimal preparations for the next great global pandemic, the spreading swine flu threat is at last making clear the very real calamity that could be just around the corner. If not today, surely from the next epidemic. The Obama administration's call on Congress Tuesday to allocate $1.5 billion for combating the virus is a start, but only a start. The RNs of the National Nurses Organizing Committee and California Nurses Association (NNOC/CNA) believe that far more is needed in federal action, in regulatory crackdown on insurance practices that potentially inhibit those who are infected from seeking help, and in global coordination. From SARS to avian flu to the swine influenza, the only question has not been if, but when. Three years ago, during the advent of an avian flu outbreak, in an article by Conn Hallinan and Carl Bloice in the national magazine of the National Nurses Organizing Committee, we warned that the "firewalls for stopping the next great pandemic are getting thinner." If the swine flu or the next pandemic has only the fatality of the 1918-1919 global influenza pandemic -- 2.7 percent -- it would have a catastrophic effect. That pandemic killed 675,000 Americans and anywhere from 50 to 100 million people at a time when the world's population was less than a third what it is today, and when populations were far more isolated. Obviously, there have been medical advances in the past 90 years. But on many other levels, conditions remain as precarious as ever. In the U.S., public health services are often first on the chopping block when budgets are tight -- such as the now evidently foolhardy decision of politicians to slash $870 million from the President's economic stimulus bill that was allotted to fight pandemics. And many politicians compete to see who can transfer more resources from the public setting into the pockets of private healthcare corporations -- often while harvesting hefty campaign contributions from those same companies. The result is a virtual decimation of many community clinics, especially in rural and medically underserved communities, and a starving of badly needed funds for public hospitals and services. Over the past eight years especially, we've also seen a rash of hospital and emergency room closures, reductions in available hospital beds, and the type of equipment needed to fight pandemics. For example, in 2005, we noted, there were only 105,000 mechanical ventilators, between 75,000 and 80,000 of which are in constant use. Ventilators are particularly important if a pandemic takes on the characteristics of the 1918-1919 flu in which a major killer was acute respiratory distress syndrome. Hospital and bed closures are all too often driven by the insatiable lust of healthcare industry corporations for greater profit that can be secured by relocating in wealthier communities or re-allocating resources to more profitable services, such as boutique clinics and surgery centers. Such is curse of our absurd reliance on the privatization of healthcare. An immediate shift in priorities and thinking is needed, if not for swine flu, for the coming plague. Here's the first call to action by the national nurses movement (link is a .pdf): • Recruit and mobilize teams of scientists to create the appropriate effective vaccine for the virus. • Cease and desist any reductions in public health programs at federal, state and local levels. Lift any freezes on public health funding currently in place. • Implement a moratorium on any closures of emergency rooms, layoffs of direct healthcare personnel, and reductions of hospital beds. • Allocate funding for recruitment and retention of school nurses, public health nurses. • Expand the network of community clinics, especially in medically underserved areas. • Add thousands of additional ventilators/respirators, which are critically needed in the event of epidemics. • Assure the availability of protective equipment for all healthcare personnel. • Require all insurance companies to suspend or waive all out-of-pocket expenses, including co-pays, deductibles, or co-insurance that discourage individuals from seeking preventive care for early signs of infection. On the international level, it's apparent that the World Health Organization is overwhelmed. A global infrastructure similar to what is being discussed for the economic crisis should be formed and sanctioned, at least by the G20. International cooperation and most importantly, transparency of data from all sources, health care facilities, governments, and individuals, is essential to identify the virus and track its patterns. The global health community must have the authority to require systematic, uniformly collected information to be reported on influenza cases in order to start formulating an effective vaccine. Within the U.S., we should learn the lessons of the 1918-1919 flu pandemic, one of which was the enormous mitigating effect on mortality of adequate nursing care. We need to rededicate our nation to expanding the supply of nurses and safe patient care in our hospitals and clinics, which is a central component of the healthcare safety net that is especially vital at times of public health crises. Finally, in order to promote containment and convention, we must eliminate the greed-driven barriers to care based on ability to pay. Recent reports have emphasized the growing number of Americans who are skipping routine medical screenings, exams, and general preventive care due to the skyrocketing co-pays, deductibles, and other use charges imposed by insurance companies. Price gouging by the healthcare industry has already put tens of millions of families in healthcare jeopardy, especially in an economic crisis. At a time when untold numbers are already exposed to a dangerous virus, we need to be removing any barriers to medical care that would exacerbate the spread of contagion. We can not afford to wait. The updated CNA/NNOC swine flu page is here. More on Swine Flu
 
Naomi Foner: In the Spirit of Mother's Day Top
Forget the trip to Walmart for the new crockpot. The corsage. The all you can eat brunch. Let's do something this Mother's Day in the spirit of the woman for whom Mother's Day was created: Ann Reeves Jarvis. Ann was a community activist who fought to improve sanitary conditions in Appalachia and foster comradery between Union and Confederate neighbors. Her daughter, Anna Jarvis, created Mother's Day not just to commemorate her mother's life work, but to promote the elder Jarvis' mantra that "motherly love" could heal both personal and community wounds. For many mothers around the world, love isn't enough to provide their children with simple necessities. More than 10 million mothers and children die every year during pregnancy, childbirth and infancy, which is more than the combined number of deaths from tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria -- according to Infante Sano , a non-profit organization that partners with local hospitals and rural clinics to provide medical training, essential equipment and resources to improve the quality of care women and children receive in Latin America and the Caribbean. Infante Sano is one of several groups focusing on trying to turn this around. Family Care International works with government and non-government agencies to improve maternal health care and sex and reproductive education to women in Central America and Africa. The Touch Foundation focuses on Sub-Saharan African countries like Tanzania that witness some 950 maternal deaths per 100,000 births (compared to 11 per 100,000 in the United States). And there's always UNICEF. These groups rely on donations from private individuals, small foundations and corporations to fund their programs. So this Mother's Day, why not take the money you were going to spend on gifts and instead make a donation to support one of the programs that help struggling mothers and their children around the globe? Infante Sano has a Mother's Day campaign where for only $25 you can sponsor a clean, safe birth for a mother, and give her child the healthy start to life he or she deserves. You'll help improve the quality of neonatal healthcare and insure that more mothers can raise healthier, happier children. And there's another dividend: It will make your mother proud!
 
Alex McCord: Cats on Keyboards and Job Hunting Online Top
Thump! It's 6:56 in the morning and my husband Simon has been attacked by a hammerhead shark. Not to be outdone, the Madge cat grabs the shark by the head and attempts to chew its eyes out. Five minutes previously, François somnambulated his way into our bedroom with the shark in question (stuffed, of course,) and sleepily piped up "Cats don't eat sharks." Another morning in this crazy household begins. Over the last month there's been plenty of stress, but gradually I've begun to feel calmer. Although I'm not completely sure whether we've passed Hurricane Layoff or whether we're in the eye, the internal nonsense is beginning to clear out. My hands are still attached to my arms, the family is alive and well and things really aren't so dire. Today I can sit at my new laptop, eat home-made potato salad and smile when the cat tries to lie down on the keyboard or climb into my hair rather than pushing her away. Life changes wreak havoc on your day-to-day existence. Whether it's a lay-off, a birth/marriage/death, a major renovation or any number of other things, change happens and when it does life gets stressful. I still can't quite believe that we went from a major renovation to the holidays to the premiere of our second season to my layoff all in one seamless arc. I'm just now catching my breath, as my husband is his. All in all, the last few weeks have been on a upward trajectory. From the layoff at the end of February, I slowly crawled into a feeling of normalcy - even though I'm luckier than most in that the loss of my job didn't mean our financial world was coming to an end. That gradually improving outlook allowed me to be coherent as opportunities presented themselves. Our world changes so quickly. Do you remember a time before the internet? The Mac I so proudly generated our grade school newspaper on in 1985 has morphed into the slick laptop under my fingers now, with wireless connectivity. The Performa or whatever it was that I took to Northwestern with me in 1991 had 4 MB of RAM. My current baby has 4 GB. Is there a point here? Just that we have to be sure that we are staying current with communication. If you're not changing, you're not growing. Case in point - recently I had a great interview for what looks like will be my next act, work-wise. How did the initial point of contact come about? Would you believe Facebook?! You never know where your next opportunity will come from. If you are looking for work, still do all the things you think of doing, such as responding to classifieds and looking at websites of companies you'd like to work with. Also, open yourself up to avenues you may not have thought about before. Whether it's a social networking site like Facebook or a career-oriented one like LinkedIn, why would you not get yourself and your resume out into a place where many, many potential colleagues and bosses are every day? The very first piece of advice given at the career transition center was go forth and get online! What do you like to do? How can you make a living doing exactly that? When I take a look at my friends and family, there's a common thread at play. Everyone I know who is successful loves what they do. The few that are struggling do not. One obstacle that I've been dealing with lately as I embark on the next phase of my working life is office space at home. It's very tempting given our six-month-old renovation to want to sit at my kitchen island and make coffee and tea all day while I write & design. What could possibly be wrong with that? Just that when my big boys come home from school and see Mommy in the kitchen, they want to grab me by the hand, tell our nanny she can knock off early and head straight for the park. On a few occasions we've done just that; however, just because I'm not in an office building in Midtown doesn't mean I'm not on deadline. Work-at-home parents know exactly what I'm talking about here - it's easy enough to pet the cat and swat her away, but it breaks your heart to tell your smiling 3 year old that you can't stop working to go ride Big Wheels outside. Luckily, we have a basement where we're setting up an office. As soon as I reset my wireless router password I'll be able to go down there and work uninterrupted on deadline. Assuming I can find said password. Then we'll have the "door is closed; Mommy's working" time and "door is open; come in" time. In the mean time, there's a shark puppet 5 inches from my keyboard, which actually gives me an idea for a design.... More on Facebook
 
Kim Morgan: Hungry Heart: Toback on Tyson Top
Mike Tyson has made me almost shockingly emotional. More than once. From discussing all the love he has to give, and how he can't receive it, to his genuine nostalgia for his former trainers, to all the women he mistreated, to the pigeons he's been raising since childhood and loves (a la Brando's On the Waterfront Terry Malloy), the man's troubles hit me to the core. And you can say I'm being conned or manipulated or white-washed by director James Toback (who clearly loves his friend) -- say what you want. I don't care. Tyson moved me. Just like Gary Gilmore moved me in The Executioner's Song or Perry Smith moved me in In Cold Blood , two other works in which the writers (Norman Mailer and Truman Capote -- who also were in love with their subjects) took on troubled, talented men turned criminals with a raw yet lyrical sensitivity and a deeper awareness of how, both the world and the man, can misdirect their power and passion to crush themselves -- no matter how much potential they've got.  With Mike Tyson, add the collective racism (by liberals and non-liberals alike) that view him as some sort of primal animal, and you've got multiple issues to contend with -- personally and politically.  Heady, poignant, scary, humanist, controversial, heartbreaking, and maddening -- Tyson pushes potent buttons. The famed "outsider" director  who made, among other pictures, his masterpiece,  Fingers , The Pick Up Artist and the terrifically underrated Black and White (which featured a stellar, scary turn by Mike Tyson in a brilliant scene with Robert Downey Jr. ) turned his camera on his friend of many years, former heavyweight champ, fallen icon Tyson and the result is hypnotic. Shot entirely from Tyson's perspective, the style will unnerve those who have serious problems with the former boxer. But many (I hope) will see a person in pain, and a person who's never resolved his pain. Which in our current culture of constant, empty apologies and quick fix therapy sessions, or the Barbara Walters tour of redemption, Tyson's emotional honesty is deeply refreshing. Yes, he's still fucked up.  And yes, he's the first to admit it. For 90 minutes we watch Tyson's face, world weary and at times, teary-eyed, discuss his life, from the heavyweight championship he won at 20, to his the trainers, to his wives, to his loves, to his pigeons, to his rape charge, to his stint in prison and then some. No matter how you feel about Mike Tyson, the man is a fascinating American figure. A tragic American figure. And clearly, Toback agrees.  As I talked with Toback, our discussion went to many places (our mutual love of Thomas Hardy and Dostoyevsky and our frequent siding with the supposed "bad guy"), so I'm parceling out some key moments, proving, once again, that James Toback is a man who is never at a loss for words, ideas, or demons  -- demons he embraces like a familiar friend. And God (or Satan) bless him for it. Thomas Hardy as related to Mike Tyson... Re-occurrences are not unlikely in fact, they are inevitable and you put them in movies and people say, "Oh get the fuck out of here" that's too convient. And then you say, read some Hardy and live a little and you'll not only see it's not convenient, it's inevitable, these things that you feel fit too neatly are constantly occurring. One of them happened to Tyson. When he got out of prison, I was thinking, I'm going to use him now in this next movie Black and White ...and I was just visiting my mother and I'm walking down 72nd Street to Columbus Avenue...thinking whether Mike has his old cell phone number which I'm sure he hasn't so I can call him about the movie and as I'm thinking this, there's a knock on the window of the City Grill Restaurant  and there's Mike sitting there with a friend and I come into the restaurant and I say, 'You are not going to believe this. I was just thinking about getting your number and calling you to ask you to be in... Black and White and he says, 'You're not gonna believe this(and he says to his friend) 'Who was I just talking about?' The guy says James Toback and he says (points) this is James Toback. So that was a truly Hardy-esque moment. I love Hardy.   Favorite Thomas Hardy? Jude the Obscure by far... Of course. The darkest one of all... Yes, of course. And, favorite Dostoyevsky? My favorite is The Possessed . Stavrogin's confession  -- one of the greatest chapters in the history of world literature. And I love The Brothers Karamazov and I love Notes from Underground , which I used with Jimmy Caan in The Gambler: "I am a sick man, I am a spiteful man, and I think my liver is diseased." Once you're a devotee of Dostoyevsky, you feel a kind of allegiance to his spirit. I literally feel that my life could not have been what it became without him, he was the only writer, I'm not so insane that I literally think it's true, [but he's the only writer] who ever addressed me directly and personally. I actually felt he wrote this to communicate it with me. He is speaking directly to me. And I will someday answer.  I regard my movies as a response to him. Not an argument. But an extension and a feeling that I am somehow carrying out his inspiration. This was a very Dostoyevskian line: Mike Tyson saying "My insanity is my only sanity." That's right. That is exactly what happened with me when I flipped out on LSD when I was 19 and a sophomore at Harvard. I lost my sanity for eight days. And that was my sanity. Those voices, that madness. And you can know it's insane and at the same time say that's all there is, everything else is just an illusion. And of course it's tough to fit in the social universe with that attitude and that psychology. But what can you do, if that's what you believe? Fortunately I gave up that belief...but I knew that I'd never get over it. I knew that if I ever became an artist that it would become the subject of my work so that even if I'm doing a movie about Mike Tyson, I'm really doing a movie about how madness lurks under the primary layer of consciousness and is ready to erupt at any time. And how the behavior of people who are living in some kind of close juxtaposition to madness  is always going to be potentially disruptive, subversive and radical because one is not subject to the normal restrictions and limitations that a quote un quote 'sane person' who has never been quote un quote 'insane' has had to deal with. The rape charge and critics as lemmings... First of all there'd be no reason on earth for him to spend 15 years lying to me about it... He's always told me, not told me, it's far too impassioned to use a verb like "told," -- he has always insisted that it is a horrifying example of railroading and that he under no stretch of the word could possibly be thought of as having raped her...In fact, he said if 500 people were watching he said there isn't one who could legitimately say that's what happened. But when you put in the fact, as you're just talking about, people don't see anything but the outside information surrounding context and that's what they believe.  Because it's easier to do that. It's easier to go through life always believing what the herd mentality leads you to believe because you're always on safe ground. As long as I say what I am supposed to say, no one can nail me, because I'm just saying what everybody else is saying or everybody in my group is saying.  It's like opinions of movies. There are film reviewers who are incapable of having an opinion till they have polled the group they are part of and make sure they are not going to be off base. It's embarrassing to a point of being ugly and creepy.  The idea of that I would ever have an opinion because I thought I was supposed to have it is so nauseating to me that I would rather slit my throat.  You've packed it in as a human being... I cannot say what I think because I'm afraid of what people I want to be a part of might not like me and will be upset that I said it or think there's something wrong with me? Fuck them and their ancestors. The rape charge was always suspicious to me -- and what does convicted really mean anyway? You start to look at it and say, this is fucking ridiculous. What do you mean, convicted as if it were a word we should be in awe of and the case is closed, discussion is over. Oh my god! It means he did it! No, it doesn't. It means it was he was convicted. The reason I have this fresh in my mind is because many people ask me about it. Convicted rapist. Convicted , convicted . This is why Wittgenstein was my favorite philosopher because he was the first one when I read him when I was 15 who started making me think about language as a suspect. That language can be used to conceal, to deceive to mislead even uncousiously as much as it can be used to reveal. And that often, we use langue as a tool of preventing meaning from coming through not as a way of creating meaning or truth. Yes, writers say a lot and mean nothing, even when they're being supposedly "out there" -- it's often always just enough to please their group.  Yes. I think this kind of group thinking class thinking, is the bane of any kind of honest approach to life and I am always so antagonistic towards it wherever I see it, that I'd rather defend someone who is guilty then convict somebody who is whether he is innocent or not, the conviction is based on this kind of group thinking...where we all know this. Everybody knows that. Who's everybody? Well, I and my friends.  It always going back to the basics. This is why Dostoyevsky was the greatest novelist who ever lived, because he assumed nothing. He started with the notion, (well that's not true he assumed the Russian Orthodox Church was perfect, but if you put aside that insanity) everything else he did started with a fresh perspective of human personality and the dynamic of human behavior and love and sex and madness and money. Nothing was assumed. Everything was original.  Tyson felt like a tragic Greek figure That's the first thing he said [when] the movie ended. He said:  "It's like a Greek Tragedy the only problem is I'm the subject." And then he saw it for the third time, he came up to me and said:  "You know people always said they were scared of me and I always thought 'what are they talking about? Why are they scared of me?' and he said tonight I was watching the movie and I thought,' I'm scared of that guy.'" One of the reasons Mike Tyson is a great "fictional" character, a great leading man in the movie that is about Mike Tyson where he's playing himself is precisely that he's a character who really only tells the truth, he gets through to you as who he is. There is no evasive misleading stuff... That Holyfield fight and the ear... You end up saying he should have had a third ear to bite. Because Holyfield is clearly intentionally head-butting he to the eye...Holyfield is a dirty fighter...and Mike snaps. And he goes crazy. And, as he says, I don't regret having bitten him, I regret that I lost my discipline because that's the one thing a fighter needs is his discipline, and I lost it. So I lost my faith in boxing and I lost my faith in myself. That was a real turning point for him, not because he bit his ear, or ears, but because he lost his sense of control. He went insane in the ring...you're watching a person whose gone insane and that's one of the wildest and weirdest moments in film history to me. He went back home drank some wine smoked some pot and fell asleep. You have this image of a billion people arguing and talking about this crazy event that happened and he's sitting there alone. And...the most moving line of the year: "I'll fuck you till you love me faggot." Yes, I really did get chills. Here's a clip of Toback discussing that moment with me: Read more Kim Morgan at Sunset Gun and her photo and video page, Pretty Poison .
 
The Progress Report: The Reality Of Green Jobs Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Brad Johnson To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . "We have to lay a new foundation for growth," President Barack Obama told the nation yesterday, "a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century." In his first 100 days, Obama has made "spending to promote renewable energy technologies that will generate jobs and an effort to shift the nation to a low-carbon economy" key priorities. Congress is responding to his call, drafting the American Clean Energy and Security Act to establish a green economy through national standards for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and global warming pollution. John Fetterman, the mayor of Braddock, PA, a failing steel town, told Congress last week that his town needs a change from the pollution-based status quo. Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr warned Congress in January that "of the top 30 companies in solar, wind, and advanced battery technologies in the world today, only six of them are U.S. firms." But conservative politicians and the fossil-fuel industry are questioning the green recovery. "Investing taxpayers' money in developing green jobs as an economic and environmental panacea," a paper from the fossil-fuel think tank Institute for Energy Research has argued, "are likely, like a Ponzi scheme, to result in empty bank accounts." Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) claimed on the Senate floor that "271,000 oil and gas jobs would be destroyed annually by the administration's proposed new taxes and fees on energy." "We must avoid green jobs proposals that result in killing millions of existing jobs to pay for new green jobs, require expensive taxpayer subsidies, or pay low wages," argued Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) on Monday. GREEN JOBS ARE REAL: The only "Ponzi scheme" when it comes to energy policy is continuing a debt-and-depletion fossil fuel economy. Over the last decade, Americans have witnessed what the United States looks like without clean energy policies: Electricity and gasoline prices skyrocketed, fossil-fuel industries profited, pollution rose, and the economy veered from bubble to near bust. A global economy dependent on non-renewable resources, by definition, cannot be sustained indefinitely -- even if pollution were not a concern. "Green jobs are not so much created as they are bought with massive taxpayers subsidies," argued Bond. History does not support Bond's argument. According to a University of California report, "California's energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007," while keeping per-capita electricity demand 40 percent below the national average. Hank Ryan, chair of the California Small Business Association, explained that energy regulations have given "California small businesses a competitive edge over their counterparts in other states because while they're wasting money on inefficiency, we're spending it on employees, building a better product, advertising, and capital improvements." In reality, the Center for American Progress writes, "most green jobs are familiar jobs, repurposed and expanded through new investments in a low-carbon economy." For instance, constructing wind farms "creates demand for steel workers and long-haul freight shipping. Energy-efficiency retrofits for buildings require roofers and insulators." Green jobs, in short, are the "person-hours" involved in realizing the clean-energy transformation. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch responded to Bond, "Green jobs in Missouri? We'll take 'em." GREEN JOBS DON'T KILL OTHER JOBS: A popular conservative myth is that energy standards, limits on pollution, and public investment in clean energy will destroy other jobs. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Fox News have cast doubt on a green economic recovery by "touting a Spanish study" from a libertarian think tank, Fundacion Juan de Mariana, showing that "for every green job created [in Spain], 2.2 jobs are lost." The Spanish study, which examines the effect of Spain's support for its renewable industry since 2000, has also been touted by industry front groups, conservative blogs, and right-wing think tanks. The report relies on bad numbers, grossly underestimating that Spain's renewable program created only 50,000 jobs, when other estimates are 188,000. indeed, the study is claiming that "government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending," the Wall Street Journal's Keith Johnson explains. Critics neglect to say that "Spain's support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenues," so "it's hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January." The reality is that investment in renewable energy sectors creates millions more jobs than does investment in traditional energy sectors, because investment can flow into employing people instead of extracting fuel to burn. The Apollo Alliance reports that "renewable energy creates more jobs than coal: the same investment creates 50% more jobs in wind and in solar than in coal. Energy efficiency is far more labor intensive than generation, creating 21.5 jobs for every $1 million invested, compared to 11.5 jobs for new natural gas generation." According to a Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council study, building a green economy that would cut United States greenhouse emissions by 45% by 2030 would create a net 7.8 million jobs versus business as usual. GREEN JOBS ARE GOOD JOBS: Bond argued that "passing climate-change legislation to pay for new green jobs" will mean that "good-paying manufacturing jobs are driven away by the burden of high energy taxes and replaced with fewer, lower-paying green jobs." The reality is that the decline of American manufacturing and the loss of good-paying jobs for many Americans have happened because there hasn't been an effort to clean up the economy. "We can choose to transition to a clean energy economy that secures our energy supply and combats climate change or we can continue down the same old path of uncertainty and insecurity that we're currently in," said Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), now the Secretary of Labor, at the 2008 National Clean Energy Summit. "Current economic conditions, particularly for under-served, under-represented minority communities underscore the need to transition to clean energy technology." The government and unions should play a role in ensuring that economic rebirth comes with not just regulations for pollution but also standards for jobs. "We can build a green economy Dr. King would be proud of," Green For All founder Van Jones testified before Congress in January. "We have an opportunity to connect the people who most need work with the work that most needs to be done, and fight pollution and poverty at the same time, and be one country about it." Van Jones, now the White House green jobs adviser, recently told reporters, "The president doesn't want a bunch of solar sweatshops." In 2007, Solis and Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) wrote the Green Jobs Act to authorize "quality job training programs in the renewable energy and energy efficiency fields." Building a green economy takes a trillion-dollar shift in resources from capital-intensive energy to labor-intensive energy -- instead of McMansions heated by giant power plants financed by Bank of America, it is homes greened by insulators and solar panel installers, linked on a smart grid. More on Climate Change
 
Wednesday's Late Night Round-Up: Obama's First 100 Days, Specter's Switch, And Coulter's Gender (VIDEO) Top
Poor David Letterman, he had a tough time last night with some sudden laryngitis (that eventually forced him to trade rolls with the cue card man), but he did make it through enough of the monologue for us to bring you his best moment! In other late night news, Jon Stewart mocked Rick Santorum for his Specter metaphors, Stephen Colbert gave us tips on swine flu, and Jay Leno compared Obama's time in office to Bush's. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Late Night Shows
 
Danielle Crittenden: ROUND TWO: Yes I *GET IT*--But Glendon is Still Wrong Top
After posting my blog about Mary Ann Glendon yesterday, I was going to wade into the comment section, knife in teeth, to defend myself against the criticism from conservative readers that quickly went up. But then I began to receive emails from my Catholic friends who, more gently and privately, took me to task for my views. So I've decided to post a more extended reply to these critics. As readers of my last piece know, I took issue with Glendon's decision to turn down the prestigious Laetare medal from Notre Dame University because the college had also invited President Obama to give the commencement address and bestow him with an honorary degree. Glendon would have received the award at the same graduation ceremony, and also have been expected to give a speech. In an impassioned and obviously painful letter for Glendon to write, she told the university's president, Rev. John Jenkins, that she could not in conscience accept the award nor attend the ceremony because, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops' express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it. You can read the full text of Glendon's letter here . As I stated at the beginning of my last blog, I'm a longtime admirer of Glendon. I'm also not a Catholic, so I did not wish to enter into the internal religious politics of Glendon's decision. My dismay stemmed from what amounted to her very public decision not to share a podium with the President of the United States, [f]or whom many Catholics and non-Catholics alike voted. Glendon's words suggest that Obama may be president but he is not HER President, or the Catholics' president -- a highly divisive and anti-democratic sentiment. I also said: Here we have yet another example of religious conservatives opting out of engagement with the larger political culture, even that within their own church. Even if you view President Obama's stance on abortion -- which this is about -- as wrong, or even appalling, wouldn't you want to take this opportunity to address the President directly -- or as the old saying goes, "Speak truth to power?" Whoa! Did a lot of my fellow conservatives ever take issue with that! Let's start with the least serious of the complaints. Many commenters argued that a commencement ceremony is no time to start up with politics--echoing the same point that Glendon had made in her letter to the university: A commencement...is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision--in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops--to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice. Maybe I have more faith in Glendon than the commenters--and even than Glendon herself--that she could have made a stirring, eloquent and respectful speech before the most powerful political figure in the land, without dragging it into the mud. When, if not at a commencement address, do we have the opportunity to restate, in soaring language, the larger values and beliefs that a degree from a religious university represents? And how often do we have the chance for a sitting president--especially one whom we feel opposes these values and beliefs--to hear our words directly? The more serious criticism was best stated in the private emails I received from my Catholic friends (and from whom I've received permission to excerpt). One wrote, Prof. Glendon's decision doesn't have much to do with sharing a podium with Obama; it has to do with rejecting Notre Dame. This is internal Catholic baseball. Notre Dame invited Obama--a popular president with wide Catholic support to be sure, but also one who aggressively pushed through policy changes profoundly anathema to Catholic doctrine. The invitation because it was made by a Catholic school is a matter of scandal to lots of Catholics--including a number of bishops, not least the bishop of South Bend. So it's a big deal, and another chapter in the "are 'Catholic' universities Catholic?" war that's been going on for twenty years. (So far the answer is: some, but not many.) The bishop decided to break with tradition and not attend. Prof. Glendon is following suit, with the additional rationale of not wanting to be "honored" but really used as a Crossfire style "and from the right..." prop. If they'd both been honored by the University of Indiana, I'd bet my house she'd have accepted and done exactly as you counsel. But it's Notre Dame, and that's the difference and the point of her walking out. The wider politics of left-right, Democrat-Republican, don't apply here. This is a bout between, well, to paraphrase, the Catholic wing of the Catholic Church and the secularizing "social justice," "spirit of Vatican II," "Church of the future" wing. Pax tecum! To which I'd reply: When does internal Catholic baseball become a political spectator sport? Answer: When a prominent Catholic figure publicly rejects sharing a podium with the President of the United States--and in the rejection, further disses this democratically elected leader by calling him "a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice." My argument is not that Glendon, the U.S. bishops, or even the Pope have to countenance or ignore President Obama's stance on abortion, as one of my other friends suggested: Ok, imagine that a venerated American Jewish institution decided to give an honorary degree to an implacable foe of Israel --(Just imagine that. Remember how upset you were, seeing Yassir Arafat's picture on the wall of [my daughter's] Jewish school)-- and you will have an inkling into the pain Notre Dame's decision has caused many Catholics, by inviting Barack Obama to receive an honorary degree. This is not about refusing to recognize Obama as president, it's about the intense distress that many Catholics feel that a venerated American Catholic institution has chosen to give an honorary degree to an implacable public supporter of abortion. Oh man, dear Catholic friends, we conservative Jews have to put up with this all the time --and quite often these "implacable foes of Israel" are Jews themselves ! (Exhibit A, the photo of Arafat posted in my child's parochial school. To be fair to the teacher who put it up, it was a picture of the historic "peace deal" handshake at the White House between then-President Bill Clinton and the notorious late terrorist...and thus one I might grumble about but could not in conscience ask the teacher to remove.) And although I vowed not to enter into the Catholic politics of the Glendon affair, I did ask myself before writing the piece the very question my friend raises: How would I feel if a prominent Yeshiva was to award an honorary degree to a president who had expressed anti-Israel views? Angry? For sure. But offered the chance to share the podium? I'd jump at it! But then I am known to be a scrappy person. And so was the feisty, articulate Mary Ann Glendon I remember from the trenches of the great feminist wars of the late 1990s. Back then, it seemed as if the entire culture believed that babies should be put in institutional daycare at birth, that all mothers should be condemned to a 40-hour work week, and that abortion should be available up to and including the last week of gestation. There were other issues, of course. And conservatives at that time didn't hold the national microphone. We had to fight our political battles hill by hill. Universities--even, and often, religious ones!--habitually handed out awards to public figures who made us gag. But the only way to counter this was, again, through engagement--not disengagement, which is what Glendon is practicing now, and what religious conservatives in general are practicing now, at their own peril. It's simply impossible to confine the debate about Glendon's decision only to religious politics. And frankly, I'm surprised that Glendon expressed surprise at the university's decision "a month ago" to invite President Obama to the commencement and receive the honorary degree. Notre Dame has customarily invited newly elected Presidents to speak at its graduation ceremonies, regardless of their political affiliation. It hosted Jimmy Carter in 1977; Reagan in 1981; and George W. Bush in 2001. (The exceptions are George Bush, Sr., who spoke in his last year of office, 1992, and Bill Clinton, who is notably absent from the list. I contacted the university to ask why: Did it have anything to do with Clinton's views on abortion? Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said it was not the university's policy to comment or speculate upon reasons why people are not chosen to be recipients of an honorary degree--but he allowed that the fact the university chose Obama this year "would indicate that the reason for that is no.") And let's not forget, Notre Dame invited the younger Bush despite the former Texas governor's well known, happy-triggered record on executions in his state--another form of killing the Church frowns upon. Were there boycotts then? I deeply sympathize with my Catholic friends' abhorrence of Obama's abortion stance; and more dispiritingly, what it represents for the future of Roe v Wade at the Supreme Court. But also remember that Catholics themselves voted 54% for Obama in the last election, versus 45% for McCain (according to national exit polls*). And according to the most recent Gallup poll , Catholics are as equally divided on abortion and stem-cell research as non-Catholics: 40% of Catholics find abortion morally acceptable (vs. 41% of non-Catholics); 63% of Catholics find stem cell research morally acceptable as well (vs. 62% of non-Catholics). So Glendon perhaps should have also addressed her protest to the 41-63% of students in the audience who presumably disagree with their Church's stance on these issues, as well as the majority of the student body who voted for Obama--especially the African-Americans, who understandably might by thrilled to graduate in the presence of the first black president in American history. Nor has the pro-life movement shrunk from using President Obama as a positive example for its cause, as it did in this famous ad (which was rejected by NBC and CNN). But here's the bottom line: I fear our side is becoming like the leftists we used to mock. We refuse to recognize the American president as our president. And we reduce our politics to a single issue, showing no tolerance or desire for engagement with our opponents, including those who dissent within our own ranks. In the coming four years, all conservatives will have cause to oppose and fight the Obama administration on many, many fronts. But let's not imitate the past eight years of political opposition. We are better than that. And we should--we must--be willing to share a platform with our elected President. *My thanks to Karlyn Bowman at AEI for these statistics:the exit poll data comes from the National Exit Pool, conducted by five networks and the AP. This post appeared originally on NewMajority.com
 
British Tourist Helps Save Cruise Ship From Somali Pirates Top
A British tourist celebrated his birthday by helping to save a packed cruise ship from hijack when he hurled a deck chair at Somali pirates. More on Pirates
 
Gingrich Backs Steele In Developing RNC Civil War Top
Only a few months into his tenure, Michael Steele has already been forced to do battle with some senior party insiders, with the latest show of no-confidence coming in the form of an RNC resolution that would limit Steele's hold on the party's purse strings. On Thursday morning, however, the Chairman received a bit of a boost. Newt Gingrich, who will occasionally call out the old guard of his party, stuck up for Steele and called the RNC members orchestrating the resolution a group of stale, self-involved individuals. "The Republican National Committee is this tiny group of people, some of whom have been there 20 years or more," the former Speaker told CSPAN. "And they all think they're precious. And they all think they should be taken care of. And they all think that the job of the chairman first of all is to make the RNC members happy." Gingrich's endorsement comes at a somewhat critical moment for Steele. His role in spending money early in his term has created gripes among fellow Republicans in private and increasingly in public. His tumultuous media appearances, likewise, have caused heartburn within the party. The most recent effort to rein him in came this past week, as the 168 RNC members began floating a resolution that would require any expense exceeding $100,000 to be pre-approved by executive officers independent from Steele. Steele has privately pushed back against the effort, sending a harsh email to those members pushing the resolution, accusing them of orchestrating a power grab. "It is of course not lost on me that each of you worked tirelessly down to the last minute in an effort to stop me from becoming chairman," Steele wrote, as reported by the Washington Times . Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Michael Steele
 
Steele: Hats Backward Is 'How We Roll' Top
Just one day after prominent DC law firm Kilpatrick Stockton announced layoffs of attorneys, Mark Levy, the head of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy practice, apparently shot himself in the firm's D.C. office this morning. More on Michael Steele
 
Saudi Arabia: US Lied About Peres Meeting Saudi King Top
Saudi Arabia demanded on Thursday that the U.S. State Department retract a claim that King Abdullah met Israel's president last year, in a rare public rebuke toward the kingdom's veteran ally. More on Saudi Arabia
 
Chicago Defender Moving Back To Bronzeville Top
The Chicago Defender has announced it is leaving its Michigan Avenue offices , where it has been for the past three years, and returning to its South Side roots in Bronzeville. The new location, formerly the Metropolitan Funeral Home and owned by prominent Chicago real-estate developer Elzie Higginbottom, will mark the fifth home for the venerable African-American paper, which was founded in 1905. The move will save the Defender , which expects to be in its new location by May 25, around $200,000 a year, according to Chicago Public Radio .
 
Tom Huston: Making Sense of the Dumbest Generation Top
Last year a close friend of mine, eager to expand his cultural horizons, decided to leave the backwoods of Massachusetts and move to Paris. Taking little more than the essentials -- his MacBook, his iPod, and a few graphic novels -- he managed to find a nice fifth-story apartment soon after his arrival. When I visited him there three months later, I was immediately struck by the view from his balcony. Towering above the rooftops, a monumental bronze statue of a winged golden man stood gleaming in the light of the setting sun. "That's amazing!" I said, asking him what it was. Briefly glancing up from his computer screen, he replied that he had no idea. He did, however, agree that it looked très cool. (A quick Wikipedia search revealed that it was the 154-foot-high Colonne de Juillet , erected in the center of the square where the infamous Bastille prison once stood.) Yes, not only is my friend a typical American, but he is also a card-carrying member of a sociocultural demographic that Emory University professor Mark Bauerlein has dubbed "the Dumbest Generation." Otherwise known as Generation Y , the millennials, or the echo boomers, Generation Dumb consists of anyone born roughly between 1978 and 1996. I wish I could say that I stand free and clear of this Gen-Dumb appellation, but no. I'm also an American, born in 1980, and by all accounts, upon my return to the EnlightenNext offices after my weekend jaunt to Paris, I didn't display much more cultural wherewithal than my friend. When some baby-boomer colleagues asked me what I thought of my first visit to that majestic ancient city where so much of Western history was forged, I apparently spoke on behalf of my entire generation when I answered, "Uh...it was pretty cool." Numbering seventy million in the U.S. and due to surpass the boomers in sheer numbers by 2010, Gen Dumb is rapidly becoming a force to be reckoned with. And a lot of people are courageously trying. In the past year or so, on top of countless stories regarding the increased engagement of young people in last year's presidential campaigns, major media outlets from the New York Times to Newsweek to 60 Minutes have put my generation under the microscope with unprecedented scientific scrutiny. A number of scholarly, stat-packed books have been published as well, and their authors have become the media's favorite go-to persons to explain to bewildered parents, teachers, and employers what, exactly, is up with us. Being a concerned member of the generation in question, I've been paying close attention to all of this, and I've noticed an interesting trend: Observers tend to either love us or hate us. We're either held aloft as the bright, tech-savvy, shining hope of humanity (see Generation We by Eric Greenberg and Millennials Rising by William Strauss and Neil Howe) or dismissed as hopelessly narcissistic ignoramuses whose every posted YouTube comment should make us all bow our heads in shame (see Generation Me and The Narcissism Epidemic by Jean M. Twenge). I think the truth, as usual, is more complicated than either extreme. We aren't simply Gen Dumb, and we aren't the messianic millennials either. We are Gen Y, a genuinely puzzling cultural variable, like Gen X before us, that has yet to be defined. This overly simplistic love-hate dichotomy first dawned on me a couple of years ago when I read a column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times titled " The Quiet Americans ." In the piece, Friedman offered one of the most optimistic appraisals of my generation that I'd ever encountered. Describing us as an impressive and admirably "quiet" generation -- due to both our silent determination not to let post-9/11 terrorism fears curtail our sense of freedom and our preference for keyboard-clicking internet activism over more vocal social engagements -- Friedman's paean to the virtuous potential of my peer group left me with strangely mixed feelings. I couldn't help but be inspired by a member of my parents' generation looking upon us twenty-somethings with such respect and admiration, yet I also knew that Friedman was overlooking a more disturbing part of the picture. In 2005, Thomas de Zengotita , a professor at NYU and contributing editor at Harper's , published a book called Mediated: How the Media Shapes Your World and the Way You Live in It . In its pages he exposed, with the eviscerating precision of a cultural neurosurgeon, the morass of ego-massaging media in which all members of postmodern society are helplessly absorbed. And in Gen Y, this state of "mediated" narcissism has reached an all-time high. Alone and adrift in what de Zengotita calls our "psychic saunas" of superficial sensory stimulation, members of my generation lock and load our custom iTunes playlists, craft our Facebook profiles to self-satisfied perfection, and, armed with our gleefully ironic irreverence, bravely venture forth into life within glossy, opaque bubbles that reflect ourselves back to ourselves and safely protect us from jarring intrusions from the greater world beyond. Bauerlein calls us the Dumbest Generation, but I think that we are really the most sophisticatedly narcissistic generation. Next to our depth of self-obsession, the boomers' narcissism, with all its weirdly idealistic naïveté, can't even compare. And our older Gen-X friends and siblings, with their strange existential angst and cynicism, are clearly living in semitransparent bubbles that permit them to still react to a real world beyond themselves. But Gen-Y narcissism trumps it all. Liberated utterly from the chains of history, with our attention glued to a world of pure virtuality, we seem to be floating freely -- within millions of bubbles of self-reflecting opacity -- into the stratosphere of the twenty-first century. Obviously, de Zengotita's diagnosis of my generation isn't something to be optimistic about, which is why, in the end, I could only shake my head at Friedman's unbridled praise. When he published a follow-up column called " Generation Q ," Friedman toned it down significantly, expressing concern that the "Quiet Americans" were too quiet, too detached and lost in cyberspace to have any kind of serious influence on the real world. His suggested solution to this problem, however, was for Gen Y to go back , to follow in the footsteps of the boomers' sixties revolution and take to the streets, march on Washington, and so on. Many of my peers, in fact, have attempted this, aspiring toward boomeresque idealism or raging against the machine and mimicking Gen-X cynicism. But it always seems strangely unconvincing, a put-on performance of sorts, and I think -- in line with de Zengotita -- that this is because Gen Y can't be deeply, genuinely engaged with the state of the real world when we're cruising a thousand feet above it in our custom pimped-out mePods. And yet there are human souls sitting behind those digital consoles, authentic and innocent beings looking out through those defensively ironic eyes. We are more than our narcissistic conditioning, as thick as it may be. When Friedman looks at Gen Y and says that he is "impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be," I do think that the optimism and idealism he sees in us are, at some level, real . The way we rallied around the Obama flag last year, excitedly chanting "Yes we can," is proof enough of that. But I mean it when I say that our brand of narcissism is sophisticated, and I know that our ability to appear more engaged with the world than we really are runs deep. I don't doubt the authenticity of Gen Y's idealism and inspiration. Yet I do worry that as long as it remains circumscribed by the spheres of our narcissism, its real potential will never be revealed. The question is: Do we have what it takes to burst our bubbles? Can we finally get over ourselves and start participating in life so fully, so unreservedly, that we remove any doubt as to where we really stand? Yes. I think we can. (This post is based on a piece previously published in EnlightenNext magazine. To read a free digital edition of EnlightenNext , click here .) More on Thomas Friedman
 

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)