The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- Paul Helmke: Obama Administration Fails To Remove Gun Lobby Language From Budget
- Katie Couric: The Poppy Fields Of Afghanistan
- Not Your Father's Solar Technology
- Last-Minute Deals On 5 Classic Mother's Day Gifts
- Denmark's New Prince Leaves The Hospital (PHOTOS)
- Kelley Bell-Wenzlaff: Rush Limbaugh Attacks Connie Schultz
- 'MISS BEAUTIFUL MORALS' SAUDI ARABIA: Winner Shows Most Devotion And Respect For Her Parents
- Stanley Kutler: No More Judges on the Supreme Court
- Dr. Seth Berkley: Science for us, but also for the world
- Matthew DeBord: Tiger Woods Has the Worst Swing in Golf
- Patricia Stark: Confidence Setbacks
- Michael Rowe: Bristol Palin Can See Unicorns From Her House
- Dennis Whittle: Making things happen
- Drew Peterson Not Welcome On Nevada Brothel Show, HBO Says
- Lisa Madigan Rates Mention As Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick
- Samantha Orobator Likely To Serve Sentence In UK Instead Of Laos
- Anneli Rufus: Rainwater Toilets and Slag: Touring Berkeley's Greenest Building
- Elisabeth Hasselbeck Disowns "Ignoramus" Joe The Plumber Over "Queers" Comment (VIDEO)
- Dennis Whittle: He can have whatever he wants
- Oregon's $175M Stimulus Puts People To Work
- Norm Stamper: Open Letter to the New "Drug Czar" from Another Top Cop: End the Drug War
- Richard Chin: A Response to 'Charity is Dead'
- Liya Kebede: Let's Make Mother's Day a Global Reality
- Arthur Rosenfeld: A Dog's Life
- Deepak Chopra: What is Prayer Meant to Be?
- Obama Seeks End To Yucca Nuclear Waste Dump
- Jay Glatfelter: On Lost: "Follow the Leader"
- Rep. Earl Blumenauer: Reducing Pollution Should Not Be a Partisan Issue
- Jerry Zezima: Out of Shape and Into Yoga
- Dave Johnson: Government Empowers And Protects Us
| Paul Helmke: Obama Administration Fails To Remove Gun Lobby Language From Budget | Top |
| The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is profoundly disappointed that President Obama has failed to follow through with his promises for ' openness ' by reaffirming much of the so-called Tiahrt Amendments . This means a continuation of the reckless Bush-era policies that endanger public safety and make it easier for criminals to obtain illegal firearms. President Obama's proposal undermines the landmark Brady Law by continuing the dangerous Bush Administration policy requiring the destruction of most Brady background check records in just 24 hours. The government has found that this policy has allowed guns to remain in the hands of hundreds of criminals whose gun purchases were mistakenly approved. How can the President reconcile this policy with his recent statement calling for stronger enforcement of our gun laws? President Obama continues to bar the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from requiring that gun dealers keep track of their firearms by conducting annual inventories - a standard practice for law-abiding businesses. A Brady Center analysis last year found that more than 30,000 guns were "missing" from licensed gun dealers. Gun dealers who have large numbers of guns "disappear" from their inventory often supply criminals. The D.C.-area snipers killed 10 people using an assault rifle they obtained from a gun shop that "lost" at least 238 guns, including the snipers' assault rifle , over a three year period. In addition, President Obama has made the Tiahrt Amendments' unprecedented ban on public disclosure of crime gun trace information even worse than before, now even prohibiting law enforcement from communicating it to the public it serves. Prior to 2003, non-confidential trace data was available to researchers, public officials, the media and the public, and enabled all of us to better understand the sources of illegal guns, patterns of gun trafficking, the role of gun dealers in supplying the illegal market and other key facts informing public policy. With gun violence continuing to lead to high levels of death and injury in so many places in our country, policy makers need more, not less, information on the sources of these crime guns. We are saddened to see this "gun exception" to the President's stated commitment to "an unprecedented level of openness in Government." The Tiahrt Amendments have always been about pleasing a special interest lobby at the expense of public safety. Congress should delete the proposed language and do what the Obama-Biden ticket called for last year when their campaign said they ' would repeal the Tiahrt amendment .' (Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post .) More on Barack Obama | |
| Katie Couric: The Poppy Fields Of Afghanistan | Top |
| Today I rode in a black hawk helicopter over the poppy fields in southern Afghanistan with Brigadier General John Nicholson, Secretary Robert Gates and a few other folks. I thought of that famous poem from World War I, John McCrae's "In Flanders Fields." It's one of my mom's favorites. "In Flanders fields the poppies grow/Between the crosses, row on row," he writes. I expected the poppies to be bright red flowers like the artificial ones people wear as a remembrance on Memorial Day, but there weren't any like that. On the flight I was wearing a headset, so I could hear the Brigadier General briefing Sec. Gates on the opium situation. The poppy crop is being harvested right now and made into opium which will later be refined into heroin. In fact, two thirds of the world's heroin supply comes from southern Afghanistan. Opium production accounts for 60 percent of this country's economy and it fuels the engine for the insurgency, with the Taliban making $70 to $100 million dollars a year. So, how do you cut off this powerful source of drugs and money? Ambassador Richard Holbrooke has said destroying the poppy fields would only strengthen the Taliban. As Sec. Gates told me today, you have to find a crop to replace the poppies or every farmer becomes a Taliban recruit. The U.S. military is bullish about helping with an agricultural transformation....encouraging farmers to plant pomegranates or vineyards, arranging microfinance and giving economic incentives. Officials say Afghanistan is an agrarian culture, relying on farming for centuries and NOT poppies. Agricultural teams will be coming from the states to offer advice and water experts may help direct farmers about what can thrive in this often drought stricken land. Whether they will be inspired to start anew is up for grabs, but there is little doubt that the Taliban in their role of narcotics traffickers will fight ferociously to keep the drugs and money flowing. Something called "the killing season" begins after the poppy crop is harvested and some farmers pick up their guns and become fighters again. As the U.S. pursues a more aggressive strategy towards the opium drug trade and dispatches soldiers to the fields of southern Afghanistan, it may be a very bloody summer. This post originally appeared at CBSNews.com. More on Afghanistan | |
| Not Your Father's Solar Technology | Top |
| Last-Minute Deals On 5 Classic Mother's Day Gifts | Top |
| NEW YORK — With Mother's Day just days away, there are plenty of options left for procrastinators, but most involve shelling out major bucks. This year, though, as retailers chase dollars amid the recession, some low-price options are available. Here's how to get deals on five classic gifts: 1. Flowers. The date to get free shipping offers has passed. But you can still find deals at 1-800-flowers.com and FTD.com, both of which have arrangements starting at $19.99 _ which can help offset the last-minute shipping costs. 1-800-flowers.com is also offering 30 Mother's Day gifts for $30 until Saturday. 2. Chocolate. Inexpensive chocolates can be found at drug stores and grocery stores of course, but for more discerning moms, Godiva is offering free brownies with an in-store purchase of $25, and a 10-piece treat bag with an in-store purchase of $45, through Sunday. 3. Brunch. Several chain restaurants are offering enticements for Mother's Day brunchers. At T.G.I. Friday's and McCormick & Schmick's, moms will get a free desert. For Japanese cuisine-loving moms, Benihana is taking a different tack: Mothers will receive a complimentary signed souvenir photo taken with her personal chef. For after-brunch treats, TCBY will offer moms a free frozen yogurt and some Dunkin' Donuts are giving out a free small latte. 4. Electronics. Through Saturday, Target is offering a free bath gift set worth $25 from Soap & Glory _ the lower priced line of Bliss spa founder Marcia Kilgore _ when you purchase one of three electronics: a $129 Kodak Zi6 camcorder, a $146 TomTom One 140 GPS system or a $146 8GB iPod Nano. Shoppers can decide if mom gets the gift set, the electronic, or both. A less-expensive choice for electro-savvy moms is a $10 digital-picture key chain that holds up to 50 pictures. 5. Perfume. Amazon.com is offering $10 off orders of perfume for $59 or more, including Euphoria by Calvin Klein and Lovely by Sarah Jessica Parker, through Saturday. Buy.com and PayPal are offering $5 off perfume purchases of $50 or more through Monday. Another option: Though known mainly for deals on clothing and accessories, off-price retailers such as T.J. Maxx and Filene's Basement offer a wide variety of perfume at a discount. | |
| Denmark's New Prince Leaves The Hospital (PHOTOS) | Top |
| Denmark's Princess Marie and her husband Prince Joachim welcomed a new son on Monday. Thursday they posed for photographers as they left Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark with the infant. They have yet to name, or at least release the name of, the 3-day-old prince. This is Joachim's third child and Marie's first. The pair married last May. Joachim has two sons from his first marriage. PHOTOS: More on Photo Galleries | |
| Kelley Bell-Wenzlaff: Rush Limbaugh Attacks Connie Schultz | Top |
| Rush Limbaugh attacked journalist Connie Schultz on his show this week, calling Connie a "ditz." He referred to her as "a stupid person" and called her "blitheringly ignorant." (For the record, "blitheringly" is not actually a word.) He went on to call the women's summit "a joke" and then continued his character insults of the Pulitzer Prize-winning wife of Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown by adding "Maybe she doesn't have an IQ of three figures. Maybe she can't crack 100 on an I.Q. test." (The complete audio of his commentary is available on this link at Media Matters.) What did Ms. Connie do to deserve this attack? She appeared on C-Span's Washington Journal, and responded to a question about Limbaugh: C-Span's Steve Scully: "We had a caller mention Rush Limbaugh and others. What do you think of Limbaugh?" Connie Schultz: "Rush Limbaugh in particular is, there's so much hate there, and it fuels people who want to be angry who just want to hate. Certainly now, in our country there is so little productive outcome from that. We can talk about this as human beings. When I am angry, when I am all worked up, I am not my best self. My vision is affected in terms of how I see things. My opinions are distorted by my rage. I don't think it is ever a good idea to just fuel rage in people." When Connie was asked a direct question about Limbaugh, she did not engage in name-calling or personal attacks. She expressed her opinion of the controversial conservative by taking her own inventory and examining her personal experiences of "getting worked up" and striving to become "her best self." The exchange between these two is like a page from the old Highlights for Children cartoons of Goofus and Gallant: When Goofus disagrees with someone, he calls them names and resorts to personal character attacks. When Gallant disagrees with someone, he asks how he can improve himself to make things better. While most of us can agree nasty name-callers deserve a little stint in the Time-Out chair, I, for one, hope this exchange is treated as a teaching moment for the conservatives. If the folks on the right can find a new crop of leaders who speak with respect, and are willing to engage in an exchange of ideas without all the vitriol, our country will gain the maturity and insight befitting our shared sense of national pride. Then we will be able to work together to build a better future for all. | |
| 'MISS BEAUTIFUL MORALS' SAUDI ARABIA: Winner Shows Most Devotion And Respect For Her Parents | Top |
| RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Sukaina al-Zayer is an unlikely beauty queen hopeful. She covers her face and body in black robes and an Islamic veil, so no one can tell what she looks like. She also admits she's a little on the plump side. But at Saudi Arabia's only beauty pageant, the judges don't care about a perfect figure or face. What they're looking for in the quest for "Miss Beautiful Morals" is the contestant who shows the most devotion and respect for her parents. "The idea of the pageant is to measure the contestants' commitment to Islamic morals... It's an alternative to the calls for decadence in the other beauty contests that only take into account a woman's body and looks," said pageant founder Khadra al-Mubarak. "The winner won't necessarily be pretty," she added. "We care about the beauty of the soul and the morals." So after the pageant opens Saturday, the nearly 200 contestants will spend the next 10 weeks attending classes and being quizzed on themes including "Discovering your inner strength," "The making of leaders" and "Mom, paradise is at your feet" _ a saying attributed to Islam's Prophet Muhammad to underline that respect for parents is among the faith's most important tenets. Pageant hopefuls will also spend a day at a country house with their mothers, where they will be observed by female judges and graded on how they interact with their mothers, al-Mubarak said. Since the pageant is not televised and no men are involved, contestants can take off the veils and black figure-hiding abayas they always wear in public. The Miss Beautiful Morals pageant is the latest example of conservative Muslims co-opting Western-style formats to spread their message in the face of the onslaught of foreign influences flooding the region through the Internet and satellite television. A newly created Islamic music channel owned by an Egyptian businessman aired an "American Idol"-style contest for religious-themed singers this month. And several Muslim preachers have become talk-show celebrities by adopting an informal, almost Oprah-like television style, in contrast to the solemn clerics who traditionally appear in the media. Now in its second year, the number of pageant contestants has nearly tripled from the 75 women who participated in 2008. The pageant is open to women between 15 and 25. The winner and two runners up will be announced in July, with the queen taking home $2,600 and other prizes. The runners up get $1,300 each. Last year's winner, Zahra al-Shurafa, said the contest gives an incentive to young women and teens to show more consideration toward their parents. "I tell this year's contestants that winning is not important," said al-Shurafa, a 21-year-old English major. "What is important is obeying your parents." There are few beauty pageants in the largely conservative Arab world. The most dazzling is in Lebanon, the region's most liberal country, where contestants appear on TV in one-piece swimsuits and glamorous evening gowns and answer questions that test their confidence and general knowledge. There are no such displays in ultra-strict Saudi Arabia, where until Miss Beautiful Morals was inaugurated last year, the only pageants were for goats, sheep, camels and other animals, aimed at encouraging livestock breeding. This year's event kicks off Saturday in the mainly Shiite Muslim town of Safwa, and mostly draws local Shiite contestants. But it's open to anyone _ and this year, 15 Sunni Muslims are participating, al-Mubarak said. "This is a beautiful thing," she added. There have long been tensions between the two sects in the kingdom. Hard-liners in the Sunni majority consider Shiites infidels, and the Shiites often complain of discrimination and greater levels of poverty. Al-Zayer, a 24-year-old international management student, said she signed up because she is the "spitting image" of her mother. "I'm proud of my devotion to my parents," she said. What does she think of Lebanon's beauty contests? "It's a matter of cultural differences," she said. "In Saudi Arabia, they are Islamically unacceptable." Awsaf al-Mislim, another contestant, said if she does not win the crown, she will have won something more important. "I will be proud to show everyone that I competed with the others over my devotion to my parents," the 24-year-old said. | |
| Stanley Kutler: No More Judges on the Supreme Court | Top |
| Stanley Kutler Since US supreme court justice David Souter informed President Barack Obama of his intention to retire from active service, media speculation has percolated over a likely successor. The great majority of names floated have been women, many of whom had also been mentioned earlier, considering justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent health issues. And not surprisingly, some names offer a twofer, with links to an important voting bloc - Hispanic the leading likelihood. Most strikingly, the overwhelming majority of possible candidates feature lower court experience. Prior judicial experience has for 40 years been the sine quo non for qualification to serve on the supreme court. Americans believe - incorrectly - that it is mandated by the US constitution. The supreme court has been the cockpit for close-quarter ideological combat since the South and Richard Nixon declared war on the judiciary in the late 1960s. Nominees, once almost off-handedly selected and only cursorily questioned by Congress, are now intensely vetted and examined. Apparently, the assumption has been that known judges will steadfastly maintain their ideological preconceptions. Alas! The process has not been perfect - see, for example, Harry Blackmun and David Souter. Since Nixon's time, presidents ritualistically have promised an appointee who followed "strict construction", which, of course, was not-so-subtle code for "conservative" ideological views - whether race, reproductive rights, voting rights, rights of the accused, separation of church and state or government regulation. Fortunately, Obama has dropped the ahistorical babble of strict construction. Such doctrine is meaningless for the long path of our constitutional history. Chief justice John Marshall wisely reminded us it is "a constitution we are expounding". The constitution is not a statute or legal code. Rather, it provides the necessary authority and energy essential for government to maintain society. For his 34-year tenure, Marshall, without previous judicial experience, successfully framed the young US government on that basis, one which we usually called "broad" or "liberal" construction of the constitution. Chief justice Roger Taney, Marshall's successor, believed firmly in strict construction, and today he is most remembered for his infamous pro-slavery Dred Scott decision, deservedly "hooted down the pages of history". Our political history, too, bears out the constitution's vitality, as most national leaders have chosen a broad construction of their powers. Thomas Jefferson, when in the opposition, vigorously championed a convenient doctrine of strict construction, but then behaved quite differently in the White House. Similarly, constitutional law interpretation through most of our history, by liberal and conservative (slippery terms, of course) justices alike, has emphatically rejected the doctrine of strict construction in favour of the idea of a "living constitution". It is a phrase loathed by justice Antonin Scalia - anyone, he said, who believes that is "an idiot." But would the constitution have survived for 222 years on the basis of only 27 amendments? Like it or not, judicial interpretation of our constitution is a fact, and it has been a vital component of our history. The practice of naming lower court judges is not the norm in our history. The first chief justice, John Jay, lacked judicial experience, as did John Marshall. Both had distinguished political careers in the new American republic, and a great deal of evidence suggests that their rich political and real-life experiences were paramount in forming their conceptions of how the constitution should work as an organic part of always changing political reality. Supreme court appointees can be problematic and, often unpredictable. Theodore Roosevelt wanted a man who was "right" on the question of monopolies, and his friend Henry Cabot Lodge assured him that Oliver Wendell Holmes was just the man. But early in his tenure Holmes dissented in TR's first great antitrust case, personally believing that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was "humbug". Franklin Roosevelt appointed eight men whose judicial philosophies sprawled across the intellectual and political spectrum, including senator Hugo Black (a former night police court judge), SEC activist William Douglas, attorney general Robert Jackson and professor Felix Frankfurter. Dwight Eisenhower gave us Earl Warren without prior experience and William Brennan, widely regarded as the most outstanding state jurist. Their decisions surprised and even angered him. Nixon's "strict constructionist" appointments ironically included three members of the Roe v Wade majority. George W. Bush's personal list of great recent court appointments pointedly and prominently ignored his father's selection of David Souter and instead had 41's choice of Clarence Thomas at the top. Many justices who are ranked highly by historians - Joseph Story, Samuel Miller, Louis Brandeis and Charles Evans Hughes - lacked judicial experience but had important political careers before their appointments. Admittedly, some judges without judicial experience have been disappointing to their patrons. In recent years, lower courts (especially in the District of Columbia) have been used as tryout camps. Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and John Roberts served little time on the appellate court, and their tenures offered brief auditions rather than any compelling resume of judicial behaviour. Judicial experience has become an important, even crucial, component in the nomination process over the last four decades. It has provided a convenient gauge to chart and predict ideological track records. Enter Barack Obama, professor of constitutional law, who has boldly rejected the strict construction mythology. "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal doctrine or footnote in a casebook," he said. "It is also about how our law affects the daily realities of people's lives." He added on another occasion, that he wanted a nominee with a "quality of empathy". The president's stated qualifications, along with obvious others such as gender and ethnicity, are all part of the picture. The projected candidates from the lower courts might well satisfy the latter set of considerations, but maybe not the first. The calls and hopes for a woman have great appeal - not to say justification. The president might well make such an appointment, and he can do so by putting less of a premium on prior judicial experience. Since Ronald Reagan named Sandra Day O'Connor, a relatively obscure woman state judge to the court, we have gained an enormous pool of women who are elected public officials, who have made a prominent mark at the bar and who have displayed that vital "quality of empathy" the president apparently finds so vital and desirable. | |
| Dr. Seth Berkley: Science for us, but also for the world | Top |
| Earlier this week, President Obama proposed a $63 billion, six-year global health initiative to address diseases in the developing world, so as to both protect Americans from health challenges that emerge from abroad and to support the dignity of people everywhere. This announcement came on the heels of his inspiring speech at the National Academy of Sciences, where he laid out how he planned to implement his inauguration day promise to "restore science to its rightful place" in the administration's domestic policies. I suggest there ought to be a connection between these two ideas: that the Obama administration should extend its fervor for science to its foreign aid policy, putting science and technology at the heart of U.S. assistance to the developing world. As the President pointed out in his National Academy of Sciences speech, by a number of measures, U.S. support for science has flagged. Still, this country remains by far the world leader in scientific research and development. It is home to three quarters of the world's top 40 universities and is responsible for 40 percent of the total global funding for R&D. And now the President plans to dedicate 3% of the nation's gross domestic product to R&D. Our R&D prowess should be the cornerstone of our foreign aid policy. We have much of this resource to share, even in recession. And it is needed. No country in the post-colonial era has thrived without first building its capacity to conduct scientific research. Japan and Singapore systematically harnessed science to become technological powerhouses, and the emerging economies of China and India are doing the same today. But how, precisely, might science be better deployed in the service of foreign aid? We could, for one thing, support the adaptation of existing technologies--from water-pumps to seed stocks to power sources--to address the immediate needs of the world's poor. If you're looking for an example of how this might work, consider the LifeWrap, a pressure device that resembles a wetsuit in pieces and was, in an older form, used to stabilize severely injured soldiers during the Vietnam War. Refined by NASA scientists in the 1990s, it was adapted by a Stanford University obstetrician who recognized its promise for stabilizing women bleeding heavily after childbirth. Obstetric hemorrhage is a leading cause of death for women in developing countries, where access to ambulances and quick trips to hospitals is often scarce. With a little training, the LifeWrap can be used by almost anybody. It has been field-tested by the University of California at San Francisco's Safe Motherhood Programs, which is further evaluating the device in Zambia and Zimbabwe and has already deployed it in Nigeria and India. Imagine how many more such innovations we might dig up if we just gave American scientists and engineers incentive to focus deliberately on the diseases and challenges of poverty. Of course, such stopgap measures aren't likely to deliver adequate health care services or drive innovation on the scale required to rejuvenate national economies. That can only be accomplished by the thoughtful cultivation of scientific and technical capacity in developing countries. The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, of which I am a part, has some experience in this kind of work. To enable the clinical evaluation of a series of candidate AIDS vaccines, we have supported the construction of laboratories and clinics at research centers with which we collaborate in five countries of sub-Saharan Africa. We have helped to train local scientists, technicians and counselors at these facilities to conduct research at the highest of international standards. These skills and resources are indispensible to the fulfillment of our long-term mission to develop an affordable and effective AIDS vaccine. But the scientific capacity generated by our collaboration has benefits that reach far beyond our organizational objectives. We have helped to establish a regional network of sophisticated laboratories staffed with top-notch researchers that may now be harnessed to find home-grown solutions to some of the region's countless medical challenges. We are not by any means alone in our capacity-building work. Some 35 percent of the money disbursed by the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria, for example, goes directly into developing human resources, infrastructure and disease-monitoring capabilities. The U.S. Agency for International Development, for its part, has been an enthusiastic supporter of our efforts to develop the lab network. If science and technology were more deeply incorporated into the fabric of U.S. foreign aid policy, we have no doubt the agency would be an enthusiastic and capable leader of all such efforts. And, as the President noted in his statement this week, such assistance would, in many cases, ultimately benefit Americans. As demonstrated by the emergence of the Mexican swine flu in the US, infectious diseases have little respect for borders; helping developing countries detect and deal with their diseases is the surest way for us to protect ourselves from new and potentially devastating epidemics. More on Obama's Budget | |
| Matthew DeBord: Tiger Woods Has the Worst Swing in Golf | Top |
| I'm serious. There's probably no more analyzed, scrutinized, and deconstructed action in all sport. Michael Jordan's jump shop? Obscure. Michael Phelps' butterfly? Unknown. Roger Federer's forehand? Unexplored. In fact, I'd suggest that Tiger Woods' golf swing in the most assiduously pondered movement a human being has ever made. There are times when I think we know less about walking than we do about Tiger swinging. But more than a decade into his professional career, does Woods even really have one swing we can point to? This will be a subject of (presumably) much discussion over the next four days, as Tiger, the world's number one golfer, takes to the famous stadium course at the TPC Sawgrass, to compete in the Players Championship alongside world number two, Phil Mickelson, and number three, Sergio Garcia. Since his first major victory, at the 1997 Masters, Woods has rebuilt his swing at least three times. At any given juncture in his domination of the sport, Woods' swing has been impressive. Big, powerful, generating considerable distance. In the 2000-2001 period, when Woods accumulated and held all four professional major trophies at the same time, his (then) swing was judged to the best ever. Unlike past greats, however, Woods swing has always been difficult to summarize. He has added to confusion; when asked about the seemingly endless process of reworking his action, he often declares that it's complicated. Well, of course it is. Woods isn't really practicing a swing--he's cultivating an ever-changing state of mind. It's always been relatively easy to zero in on what's great about a great players swing. Ben Hogan hit a mercilessly controlled fade. Nicklaus also played a fade, but his shots were towering, flying far and landing softly. Palmer favored a hard, working man's hook. Tiger, by contrast, seems to have embraced just about every swing he could think of. As an amateur, he was supposed to play a hard, high draw--except that year when he hit a hold-on fade. He was primarily a fader when he was dominant in the early '00s, but that swing, honed with coach Butch Harmon, put too much pressure on his vulnerable knee, so he moved over to Hank Haney and went back to the draw. Except when he was working on a flat-plane fade. And through all this, he still maintains that his natural shot is a slight draw. These days, he appears to be going with a flattish, single-plane swing that allows him to fade his driver, draw his 3 wood, and work the ball around with his irons. But who really knows? There's some kind of theory behind it all--there always is with Woods--but by now we've seen him shake it up so many times that we could all be forgiven for losing track of his project. What young player can copy what he does? No one really knows what it is. In this sense, his swing is terrible. But then again, this is one of his many strengths. Nicklaus' game probably would have suffered had he jumbled up his basic swing principles. In Tiger's case, the jumble is the point--it's yet another part of an intricate , Zenlike competitive mojo. Woods doesn't play golf swing--he's plays golf, and he does whatever it takes to win. At his level, that usually means making putts. Lots and lots of birdie and eagle putts (not to mention countless par-savers). Sometimes, I think that the golf swing for Woods is a mere formality, a means to an end--that end being getting to green and making putts to win golf tournaments. And of course over the years his putting stroke has changed barely at all. You got a good thing, you don't mess with it, right? | |
| Patricia Stark: Confidence Setbacks | Top |
| After a setback or a disappointment your confidence can really be put to the test. Everyone experiences doubts and fears after something unexpected throws you off your game or changes a part of your life. After the initial blow and once the dust settles you need to go into "Recovery Mode." R-E-C-O-V-E-R-Y The R in recovery mode stands for "Redirect your thoughts." You need to kick-start your brain back into a positive direction. Although you may not feel like it, force yourself to make a list of what is right in your life, what you are thankful for, like your health, family, or friends, etc. Add to the list everyday. Look at the list when you wake up in the morning and when you go to bed at night. The E in recovery mode stands for "Evaluate." Evaluate the situation from another perspective. Could it have been worse? Is there any good at all that could come from it? Are there folks in worse situations right now than you are? Do you have any different options in the way you can react to the situation? The C in recovery mode stands for "Connect." Connect with people who believe in you and your abilities. The O in recovery mode stands for "Open up." Open up your mind to new doors and windows by looking at all angles. Ask the folks who believe in you what new possibilities they may see for you. The saying "when one door closes another always opens" has been around a very long time, there must be a reason. The V in recovery mode stands for "Value." Remember that no matter what happens to you, you are of great value -- everyone is. There are people who also value you right now and you may not even realize it. The next E in recovery mode stands for "Embrace where you are right now." People don't generally learn and grow when everything is just peachy. We grow the most when we're challenged and tested, and when we go through change. The next R in recovery mode stands for "Realize this too will pass." Nothing lasts forever. Time really does heal all wounds. There will be a day in the future where you look back from a very different place. And finally the Y in recovery mode stands for "Yell." Vent if you have to. Open the window and scream "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore." Get it out. Don't hold in your anger, your sorrow, or your disappointment. Once you let it out, it's so much easier to move on. View this tip in video format: Patricia Stark is the host of Craving Confidence , a weekly show about confidence, life, and business skills. To subscribe to the show or the monthly newsletter, visit www.cravingconfidence.com | |
| Michael Rowe: Bristol Palin Can See Unicorns From Her House | Top |
| It's springtime in Alaska, and yesterday Bristol Palin was presented as a new national ambassador for teen abstinence. No, there's here's no punch line. Given the regularity with which the various members of Alaska's gothic first family (both indicted and unindicted) have asserted themselves into the news since Mrs. Palin's failed run for vice president last fall (and turning the American media into their own personal haunted house in the process) yesterday's announcement of Bristol's new role was more like turning on a reality show and seeing a familiar cast member who has inexplicably not as yet been voted off Pop Culture Island than it was actual news. OK, I have to ask: How on earth does Bristol Palin find time to fly around singing the praises of sexual abstinence, between pursuing that elusive high school diploma, and caring for the son she and Levi Johnston had as...well...teenagers not practicing sexual abstinence? And second of all, why is the daughter of Alaska's increasingly unpopular governor still in the news at all? Cynic that I am, I confess that my first thought was, Bristol Palin is the last person on earth anyone would want as a poster girl for "abstinence education" for several reasons besides the obvious one. For one thing, her pregnancy was the most glaring proof that the moral agenda her mother was so hell bent to impose on everyone else's family didn't even work in her own family. For another, there has been no apparent downside to the out-of-wedlock birth of her son, who has, by all accounts, been a joy for the entire family. As a textbook example of an accidental pregnancy gone right , what is Bristol going to tell the girls she lectures to? "Well yes, I had a baby and I wasn't married. It was a blessing. We all look after the baby, and the whole family loves him, and they all help out. But---don't get pregnant. It'll be a disaster for you! " Or, better still, is she going to continue to say it on television, made up like a teen idol and styled to the hilt, with her handsome father sitting beside bouncing his beautiful grandson on his knee? And this presents an accurate portrait of the consequences of teenage pregnancy how , exactly? What's the message? Where's the deterrent? On February 18th of this year, Bristol told FOX news that abstinence was "not realistic." Today, clearly having learned at the knee of the master, she claims the quote was "taken out of context." In the same interview, Governor Palin said she was "proud of her daughter" for "wanting to take on an advocacy role, and, you know, just let other girls know that this is -- it's not the most ideal situation, but certainly, make the most of it. And Bristol is a strong and bold young woman and she is an amazing mom. And this little baby is very lucky to have her as a mama. He's going to be just fine." All very touching, like a commercial for someone planning to run for president in four years who wanted to make sure the family values folks knew she was still standing shoulder to shoulder with them against the foe. See folks? We're still here, and we're still just a family of Joe Sixpacks tryin' ta do the right thing. . That, of course, was back when Levi Johnson was still Miss Palin's "fiancé," and Mrs. Palin's followers were still caught up in the romance of the wedding Mrs. Palin claimed was coming during the election. The Palins made sure that there were more than enough photo-ops showcasing the baby. Then, in the subsequent months, Levi Johnston appeared on various television shows with his family accusing the Palins of interfering with his access to his son. The Palin family closed ranks, accusing Johnston of speaking to the media as a way to pursue "fame and fortune," which begs the question, if Levi Johnston was seeking "fame and fortune" by going on Larry King Live to announce that the Palin family was keeping his son from him, what was Sarah Palin doing when she cleaned Levi up and dressed him like a Macy's back-to-school model in order to Photoshop the empty spaces in her picture-perfect campaign promise of a family in November? One might ask if this latest publicity grab by the Palin family is little more than an attempt by Governor Palin to regain control of her image, which has been spiraling into the deadly freefall as confirmed by the latest Hays Research poll, which has her approval rating at 55%. On the other hand, maybe this has nothing to do with Mrs. Palin at all. Given the recent public tit-for-tat between Bristol and Levi Johnston, perhaps Bristol sees this as upping the ante, or repairing her own image by classifying their union as a "mistake" she wants to "warn other girls" away from. Or maybe she's just a bored teenager enjoying the chance to travel around on someone else's dime and enjoy her inherited celebrity for a little longer before Levi Johnson gathers his wits about him and contacts a fathers rights lawyer. "Abstinence is a great idea," Johnson said pointedly yesterday, "but I also think you need to enforce, you know, condoms and birth control and other things like that to have safe sex. I don't just think telling young kids, you can't have sex, it's not going to work. It's not realistic." Suddenly I realized what an ironic stroke of genius Bristol's selection really was, because, Bristol really is the perfect ambassador for abstinence education: She's proof that it doesn't work. Over a billion federal dollars have been wasted on abstinence programs during Bush's eight-year Thirty Days of Night in an attempt to placate the conservative base. Study after study has proven that abstinence education is a failure because Teens Will Get Up To What They Will Get Up To. Especially when their evangelical parents (who are terrified by the very thought of naming body parts, let alone body fluids) have refused to teach and impress upon them them the absolute necessity of preventative birth control, including how to use a condom properly and how to use the pill if they're going to have sex. The collateral damage of all this squeamishness is fact and truth. That, and the lives of those teenagers who are going to have sex anyway, because they like, you know, wanted to but didn't have the tools to prevent the results, from pregnancy, to generic STDs, to abortions, to AIDS, and worse. The "abstinence only" platform is entirely in keeping with the current incarnation of conservative social and political morality. It's the Millennial answer to Nancy Reagan's vapid "Just Say No" drug campaign, and has been shown to be just as unsuccessful. And what's been the solution? "Rebrand" the problem, don't fix it. Slap a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and tell people it's "designer" lipstick so they forget what's wearing it. Instead of admitting that most teenagers are not going to wait till they're married to have sex, and need proper sex education in schools, and practical information including the correct use of available birth control, offer them perky Bristol Palin saying, "Regardless of what I did personally, I just think that abstinence is the only way you can effectively, 100% foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy." Then, when she's asked to reply to the very obvious question of how her new platform should be seen in light of her own behavior, have her say, "I'm not quite sure, I just want to go out there and promote abstinence and say, this is the safest choice. This is the choice that's going to prevent teen pregnancy and prevent a lot of heartache." In other words, Do as I say, not as I do. Yoo betcha. More on Sarah Palin | |
| Dennis Whittle: Making things happen | Top |
| Only small NGOs it seems are able to actually get out in the field and get their hands dirty making things happen. Past a certain size (what is that size?) the demands for official looking papers, reports, audits and the like overshadow the demand to actually provide aid. Large donors are just too caught up in the appearance of good business and good government. Form without substance. That is by Scott MacLennan over on Bill Easterly's Aid Watch blog. Read his short post - it is central to why we started GlobalGiving. [GlobalGiving] | |
| Drew Peterson Not Welcome On Nevada Brothel Show, HBO Says | Top |
| CHICAGO — HBO says there's no chance Drew Peterson will appear on "Cathouse," its reality television show set in a Nevada brothel. In fact, HBO spokeswoman Tobe (TOH'-bee) Becker says the network would cancel the show before allowing the former suburban Chicago police officer to appear. Peterson is a suspect in the October 2007 disappearance of his young wife, Stacy. Peterson publicist Glenn Selig (SEH'-lig) said Wednesday that his client was weighing an offer from the owner of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch outside Carson City. Becker calls that a "stunt" that HBO does not condone. Selig did not immediately comment Thursday. A spokeswoman for the Bunny Ranch says they're still talking to Peterson. | |
| Lisa Madigan Rates Mention As Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick | Top |
| Dozens of names have surfaced as potential replacements for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who is retiring at the end of this year's term. The money is on President Obama selecting a woman , something Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court's lone female justice, has said is much needed . In its roundup of 20 potential candidates , Slate leans toward women, including a dark horse from Illinois: Attorney General Lisa Madigan. Slate calls Madigan "a rising star in Illinois politics" and notes that she shares a background in community organizing with Obama. Consider this for Madigan's column: She successfully argued a case before the Supreme Court, the first attorney general to personally do so in 25 years--while seven months pregnant. The case, Illinois v. Caballes, gave police the authority to use drug-sniffing dogs on the outside of a stopped vehicle without a warrant or reason to suspect possession. As Law.com notes, Madigan has other serious law-and-order bona fides, such as advocating for stricter supervision and registration of sex offenders, stronger methamphetamine laws, and scrutiny of the state's gaming industry. Prior to joining the state senate, Madigan specialized in employment law at a Chicago firm and as attorney general filed an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy in Grutter v. Bollinger. She also challenged former Illinois Gov. George Ryan's commutation of 32 death row inmates on legal grounds--and lost--and recently came under fire for not aggressively investigating 25 cases relating to a Chicago police commander accused of torture. The odds are slim for Madigan, who is weighing a run for governor in 2010, but it's not nearly as unlikely as Sen. Dick Durbin's suggestion that Obama consider first term Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez. More on Supreme Court | |
| Samantha Orobator Likely To Serve Sentence In UK Instead Of Laos | Top |
| The pregnant British woman accused of drug trafficking in Laos could be allowed back to Britain to serve her sentence if convicted at next week's trial, after an agreement reached today with the Laotian government. More on Asia | |
| Anneli Rufus: Rainwater Toilets and Slag: Touring Berkeley's Greenest Building | Top |
| This week I got a private sneak-preview tour of downtown Berkeley's David Brower Center , a bold new 50,000-square-foot experiment in "green from the ground up" architecture that will open to the public on Sunday, which is Mothers Day, which makes sense if you think of it in a Gaia/Pachamama/Demeter/Mother Nature sort of way. Four stories tall, the center comprises offices, conference rooms, public space, an art gallery, theater, organic restaurant, and more. Designed to be 40 percent more energy-efficient than standard commercial buildings -- with innovative heating/ cooling/ventilation/earthquake-protection systems and recycled goods infusing its walls, carpets, furniture and fixtures -- it's expected to receive LEED Platinum, the highest certification, from the U.S. Green Building Council. A whopping 53 percent of its construction entailed recycled materials, which makes the Brower Center ... the world's biggest scavenged building. On its ground floor, executive director Amy Tobin showed me some salvaged-wood tables, benches, and a lustrously smooth black-acacia countertop created by Paul Discoe, an ordained Buddhist priest whose Oakland-based company, Live Edge, utilizes lumber from urban street trees that have been cut down due to storm damage, disease, and other reasons. The center's soaring concrete walls include up to 70 percent slag. Runoff from the steel-smelting process, slag was long unwanted but is now hailed for its fortifying properties and its ability to help concrete bear weight. The presence of slag in construction also significantly reduces CO2 and cement content. The ground-floor reception area is set into a geometric grotto whose walls, in bands of varied browns, are a mixture of plaster and salvaged soils. It's a permanent art installation, dubbed "Earth Niche" by its creator, Marisha Farnsworth, whose company The Natural Builders specializes in construction with such substances as earth, cob, and salvaged straw. "We think of the Brower Center as more 'art' than 'building,'" Tobin said. Ever since planning began in 2000, the process has focused on sustainability, from methods to materials. The resulting structure boasts a daylighting program that employs zinc siding and photovoltaic panels that double as sun-shades so that, optimally, artificial lights need never be used during daytime in many parts of the building; high-efficiency lighting with automatic controls limit use when daylight is adequate. Windows that actually open and close (a rare sight in office buildings) and low-pressure ventilation via a raised floor system increase indoor air quality. Radiant heating and cooling operate via tubes set into the concrete structural slabs. Non-toxic fabrics and finishes are used throughout. Upright steel cables create a "self-healing seismic system" designed to protect and preserve the center during an earthquake; much of Berkeley is built atop a fault. An interactive real-time systems-monitoring dashboard, set to be mounted in the lobby, will allow passersby to monitor the building's energy consumption. Interface FLOR carpeting, which includes the industry's highest percentage of recycled content in both the pile and the backing, is used throughout the center. While it runs wall-to-wall in some areas, in others it is laid in tile form, with each small square separately detachable. So in the event of a spill or stain, the whole rug need not be ripped out of a room and replaced: rather, just a tile or two. Restrooms are a building's "private parts," and the counters in the Brower Center's restrooms largely comprise chunks of recycled glass. The water in the toilets is repurposed too: Faintly yellow, it looks like you-know-what, but it's really rainwater, collected in a cistern. "Toilet water," Tobin reasons, "doesn't have to look drinkable." (Elsewhere in the building, a chain fashioned from recycled bits of artillery shells is used to channel rainwater into a vessel, where it is saved for re-use. And water isn't an issue at all in the men's-room urinals, which are Berkeley's first waterless urinals.) "In trying to build the right way," Tobin says, "we're trying to send a message here, to establish a track record and a model so that other communities can see how it's done. We're setting a standard. We need to change how we build cities." | |
| Elisabeth Hasselbeck Disowns "Ignoramus" Joe The Plumber Over "Queers" Comment (VIDEO) | Top |
| Elisabeth Hasselbeck disowned "Joe The Plumber" Thursday morning on "The View." Hasselbeck, who campaigned on the trail with Sarah Palin in October, took Joe the Plumber to task for his recent comments that "queers" aren't welcome around his children. "I think this is an ignoramus statement," Hasselbeck said. "In that specified corner to which he had a life during this election, I was even a person who thought, you know what, power to Joe the Plumber at that point. Well, Joe the Plumber is not invited anywhere around me. " Joy Behar promptly screamed, "Turning! Turning! Turning!" implying that Hasselbeck, a stalwart Republican, was turning into a Democrat. Watch: More on Video | |
| Dennis Whittle: He can have whatever he wants | Top |
| I met this woman early one morning last summer at the Starbucks near our office. She walked up with her huge, hobbling dog, handed me the leash, went inside, came back out a few minutes later, and fed him a maple scone. She told me that he is seventeen years old and loves scones, so she gets him one every day. "At his age, he can have whatever he wants," she told me. I have not seen her recently and wonder whether her dog has died. [GlobalGiving] | |
| Oregon's $175M Stimulus Puts People To Work | Top |
| SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Roughly 80 percent of the 547 projects funded by the state's $175 million stimulus package have started putting people to work and several other projects will get under way before June, legislators were told Wednesday night. Follow The Money In Your State! More on Stimulus Package | |
| Norm Stamper: Open Letter to the New "Drug Czar" from Another Top Cop: End the Drug War | Top |
| Dear Gil: Congratulations on your confirmation as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Bit of an irony, isn't it? Two Seattle police chiefs on opposite sides of the drug war? As "drug czar" (please retire that ill-begotten label), you are responsible for advising the president and vice president on drug control programs, and for coordinating drug policies among all federal agencies. I, on the other hand, as a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition , am devoted to ending the drug war, along with the prohibition model on which it's based. But how far apart are we, really? During your tenure as police chief you either championed or tolerated sensible policies such as methadone treatment, clean needle exchanges, medical marijuana, and a Seattle voter initiative requiring you and the city attorney to make simple adult marijuana possession your lowest enforcement priority (lower, indeed, than jaywalking). You also continued the practice of assigning police officers to Hempfest, knowing your cops would make no arrests for possession of marijuana, thus ensuring a safe and peaceful event. These modest steps represent progress, and they position our former city as a leader in local reform. But I'd be less than honest if I didn't point to some genuinely worrisome positions you've taken recently. In responding to written interrogatories from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee you claimed there is no scientific consensus supporting medicinal marijuana; announced your opposition to legalizing marijuana; and defended the classification of pot, along with heroin, PCP, and GHB, as a "Schedule 1" drug--which means, I guess, that you believe it is highly addictive and possessed of no medical value. Sadly, these views put you in league with your ONDCP predecessor, John Walters--he of the magnificent obsession with "killer weed"--who during his tenure silenced science, lied habitually, and refused to debate those with opposing views. How much of your stance on these issues falls into the category of confirmation politics? How much represents your true feelings? Either way, your early public comments are disconcerting, coming from an administration headed by a president who's proclaimed the drug war an "utter failure," and who has advocated more of a public health approach to drug control. Still, you did stand up to the shriller apostles of the drug war. You wrote, for example, that needle exchanges are "not a cause of significant public safety problems," that they are part of a "comprehensive approach for drug abuse prevention, treatment, and care, including efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne diseases." You share Obama and Biden's position that sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder forms of cocaine are "wrong and should be eliminated." And I loved your reply to Senator Grassley's question of whether marijuana is a gateway drug: "Often, marijuana is the first illicit drug that young people use. I support efforts to educate young people about the dangers of illicit drugs, including marijuana." In other words, Senator: No. Pot is not a "gateway" drug. Likewise, your answer to the Iowa lawmaker's query about whether the medical marijuana case of Gonzales v. Raich was a proper decision. "...the Supreme Court's decision...is the current law of our land. As a result...I am duty bound to honor it and so I [will] until such time as the supreme law of our land on this subject changes." The "subject," simplified, refers to whether the federal government should trump the states on marijuana enforcement. Sounds like another "no" to me. You oppose "mandatory minimums" which have resulted in millions of nonviolent drug offenders going to prison for very long stretches. "...I understand and respect the ability of states, under the longstanding principles of federalism," you wrote, "to make state policy decisions within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction." Sounds like you're fully on board with the president and Attorney General Holder in calling off the DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. (Federalism. Smart invocation, Gil. Appeals to many Americans, including thoughtful conservatives of a "dual federalist" stripe.) So, how open will you be to new ways of looking at old, disastrous drug policies? You claim to support "evidence-based," data-driven solutions. You have, in your own words, "long recognized that to be successful as a police chief you have to rely on and work collaboratively with...other governmental and non-governmental entities." You pledged to "re-establish valid working relationships with non-governmental entities and stakeholders." Drug policy reformers, mushrooming in strength and number every day, are committed to sensible drug laws, Gil. We will support your every worthy incremental step on the road to rational government policies. Of course, some of us, like LEAP members, will not be content with anything less than an end to the drug war, and the replacement of prohibition with a regulatory model based on sound public health principles. But that shouldn't stop you from making a place for us at the table. We are, after all, stakeholders too. Finally, as we begin this new era of drug policy debate, is it too much to ask that you vanquish the vocabulary of "war"? We all know that when Richard Nixon labeled drugs "public enemy number one" and vowed all-out war on them he was in truth declaring war on us, the citizenry of the United States--especially the young, the poor, and people of color. In an April 20, 2009 proposal to end the drug war, the Drug Policy Alliance urged us to recognize that while "DPA's work is all about drugs on the surface, dig down a little deeper and one finds it's not really about drugs at all." It's about "much larger struggles in American and international society--over the extent and limits of individual freedom, what it means to be a free society, and how we deal with both phantom and real threats to health, life, and security." You have been given what DPA calls a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" to help us reclaim our freedom as Americans, and to live safer, healthier lives. Please don't blow it, Gil. Warm regards, Norm Norm Stamper was Gil Kerlikowske's immediate predecessor as Seattle's chief of police, having served from 1994-2000. | |
| Richard Chin: A Response to 'Charity is Dead' | Top |
| Julia - In response to your post : You've raised some excellent points about how we view people in need. As our virtual connections increase and we become a more global society, individual groups can no longer afford to isolate themselves from other countries or cultures simply because they have what they need to take care of their own. In addition, the gap between the poor and rich countries (which is a relatively new phenomenon that has emerged only over the last couple of centuries) continues to grow larger and larger. But increased travel and the exchange of ideas and goods have made us interdependent and more aware of each other. Fortunately, this idea of "other" is slowly disappearing as we learn more about each other, what we have in common as well as what makes us different. With this knowledge is the realization that a child with a debilitating illness in a developing country is suffering just as much as a child with the illness in our country would be. That child's parents have the same fear, love and responsibility that we do. Knowing that we can help those in need, the question really becomes: how do we put our resources to the best use? One area, as you mention, is corporate social responsibility (CSR). Large organizations are certainly coming to see how CSR can be a win-win scenario for all partners. But we need not rely on business alone to solve complex global problems. Another truth about raising awareness, and funds, for critical social causes is that many organizations thrive because of small gifts (or "sharing" as you call it) of time and money given by a multitude of donors. Think of the enormous success of President Obama's grassroots mobilization. The other is sustainability. As a social enterprise, we are working hard to make our organization and others that follow us in the future sustainable, and to leverage the resources we have and obtain from our stakeholders and sponsors. I serve as CEO of The Institute for OneWorld Health , a non-profit pharmaceutical company that develops safe, effective, and affordable new medicines for people with infectious diseases in the developing world. We have embarked on a number of different partnerships to raise awareness about neglected diseases in the developing world, develop drugs to treat these diseases, and engage the global community to work together and combine our resources. Large gifts from a few individuals is not the only way to make a real difference--getting everyone engaged in making the world a healthier place, having more people "share" will get us there faster with benefits to all. Richard Chin, M.D. CEO, The Institute for OneWorld Health | |
| Liya Kebede: Let's Make Mother's Day a Global Reality | Top |
| There is a saying in Africa that to find out you are pregnant is to have one foot in the grave. It must sound strange to Americans, since becoming a mother is so celebrated here. But in the developing world, more women die from pregnancy and childbirth than any other cause. In my native Ethiopia, children are treasured, yet dying in childbirth is a fact of life. I now live in the U.S. and had my two children here, where death in childbirth is almost nonexistent, so I've lived the difference. That difference leaves me haunted by what pregnancy and childbirth means for so many women in places like Ethiopia. Every minute, a woman dies in childbirth, mostly from preventable causes. Ninety-nine percent of those deaths occur in the developing world. No other health disparity is so stark; virtually every woman who dies giving birth lives in a poor country. And as horrific as this statistic is, it hides the true scope of the problem. For every woman who dies in childbirth, twenty more will suffer debilitating and often lifelong injuries. Injuries such as fistula -- literally a hole between the mother's vagina and her bladder or rectum that is caused by obstructed labor and avoided in the developed world through medical intervention -- often leave women isolated, rejected by their communities and unable to support themselves. When a mother is harmed, her community is devastated. Her children are up to ten times more likely to die within two years. They are less likely to be immunized, more likely to be malnourished, more likely to contract HIV and more likely to be exploited. Older children are denied an education because they must care for siblings or work to feed their families. Much attention is justifiably paid to children's health issues but one of the best ways to protect a child's health and future is to protect his or her mother. Maternal mortality isn't just a family tragedy or a problem for the developing world. It affects us all. We can't end poverty if we fail to save the lives of our world's mothers. USAID estimates that the world economy loses $15.5 billion dollars each year because of preventable maternal deaths. When we lose our mothers, we lessen productivity, deepen gender inequality and destabilize societies. When our mothers are alive and healthy, they do extraordinary things...like the mothers of Plaza de Mayo, who marched in Argentinean plazas, defying the military junta dictatorship and demanding the whereabouts of their abducted children...or the Liberian mothers who faced down civil war armed only with T-shirts and courage. If we are going to solve the unbelievable global challenges that face us all, we're going to need our mothers. The good news is that we can prevent these deaths. The solutions are known and relatively inexpensive. The developed world has proven that eradication is possible over time, but other countries have demonstrated that serious progress is within reach quickly. Thailand, Egypt, Nepal and Honduras have each dramatically reduced maternal mortality in the last decade -- in stark contrast to the worldwide rate, which has fallen by less than one percent since 1990. Their individual programs varied, but each country shared an overriding strategic objective: a national commitment to reducing maternal mortality. The United States has a historic opportunity to lead the fight against maternal deaths and we should seize it. There is a bill in the House of Representatives right now -- the Newborn, Child and Mother Survival Act of 2009 -- which would put saving mothers' and children's lives at the center of U.S. foreign aid. The Newborn, Child and Mother Survival Act of 2009 (H.R. 1410) establishes a comprehensive strategy to reduce deaths and bring cost-effective health tools within reach for the world's poorest nations. However, the bill won't even come up for a vote until our representatives know that voters understand that saving the lives of mothers must be central to our investments in the developing world. And governments won't invest in women's health until they know it is a voter priority. Call or write your representative and tell them that you expect them to support this bill. And there are other ways to get involved. You can check out my Foundation's website -- www.theliyakebedefoundation.org or learn more from the Mothers Day Every Day U.S. advocacy campaign sponsored by the White Ribbon Alliance and CARE - www.mothersdayeveryday.org. Investing in women's lives is an investment in sustainable development, in human rights, in future generations -- and consequently in our own long-term national interests. Mother's Day is May 10th. This Mother's Day, remember to thank your mother, but also take a moment to voice your support for the health and safety of mothers worldwide. More on Africa | |
| Arthur Rosenfeld: A Dog's Life | Top |
| My dog died this morning. He was a small, black, mixed-breed, part Chihuahua, perhaps part miniature pinscher. I adopted him five years ago after someone dropped him off at a pet shop in South Miami Beach. The owners gave him to their parents, who are my friends, and I fell for his hyperactive long-legged stumbling and running and prancing and turning circles. He shot me one beseeching "don't you abandon me too" look and I brought him home. The next day I went to my favorite lunchtime eatery only to find it closed. It was a little Italian deli across the street from my writing office in Boca Raton. A Brazilian couple of Italian descent owned it. The manager was a good enough businesswoman to keep the tables full with fair prices, good service, a friendly smile and remembering everyone's favorite dish. The real draw was her husband, Lelo, though, for he was a magician with a pan and spices. Lelo kept a seat at the counter for me no matter how crowded the place got, and he effortlessly whipped up magnificent dishes, sandwiches and salads and traditional plates, as well as rigatoni pasta for my young son, who sometimes joined me for a bite. The inside was dark and the door was locked and a sign in the window said "Closed for family emergency". I had the wife's cell phone number as I had once held a private New Year's Eve party there, but when I called it there was no answer. The door stayed closed for a week, then into the beginning of a second week. I left to give a speech in Eugene, Oregon after that, and was walking along the forested bank of the Willamette River when my cell phone rang. It was the restaurant manager. "Are you sitting down?" she asked. I found a stump. "I am now. What happened? Are you back at the restaurant? Is everything okay?" "Nothing's okay," she said. "Lelo is dead." I went cold and held my breath. "37 years old," she told me. "We were taking a shower. He looked at me and said 'Oh', and then he dropped to the tile. He was dead very quickly. It was a brain aneurysm. The restaurant is finished. I'm going back to Brazil." When I got home, I gave my new puppy Lelo's name. The idea, I told my family, was to honor the memory of a man who had died too young, and had been kind to us. I wanted to remember his friendly manner and his terrific cooking and I figured this was a good way to do it. I wasn't sure how Lelo's wife would take it, but when she heard she was delighted. Lelo grew into a ten-pound ball of energy that could zoom in a way that said whippet. He took great joy in circling my local park at high speed, harrying my 16-year-old toy Mexican Hairless like a black wasp. As he matured he became more and more dominant and the old hairless dog took refuge from him at every opportunity. I ran Lelo with me on my bicycle. I taught him to obey me even when unleashed and then took him with me to my tai chi classes in the park so he could run free. He had the life of Riley for some years. Everything was going well, and there seemed to be nothing but a joyous connection between him and the man who had died so young. Then my little dog killed his hairless "brother". I didn't see it happen, but at the time I was sure it happened, and later became even more so. The dogs were often in my back yard together when I was out. One day I came home to find the old Mexican hairless floating dead in the pool. He had drowned there, and from his expression had suffered mightily. He might have had a seizure--he was prone to them--and fallen into the water, but more likely Lelo had "humped him in", in his customary expression of dominance. I don't think Lelo intended to kill him, but I imagine that watching the old boy drown was traumatic for the other two dogs, especially for Lelo. I say this because shortly after the sad event, Lelo developed Addison's disease. In this syndrome, also known as chronic adrenal insufficiency, the adrenal gland fails to produce enough steroid hormones. One day he grew unresponsive, and could not stand or walk. A visit to the emergency veterinary clinic and a large and expensive number of tests later confirmed the diagnosis. For the rest of his life, two more years, a monthly shot kept him alive, but he grew fragile, docile, and delicate. My guess is that the genetic odds were stacked against him. In addition to Addison's, he developed gait abnormalities and his chest grew asymmetrical in a fashion that suggested a tumor, although we couldn't find one. Whatever his ills, the halcyon days, the proverbial "dog's life" were over and Lelo no longer cavorted. He still greeted me with gusto in the morning, but spent most of his day lying around, was intolerant of exercise, put on weight and moped after the fashion of someone overcome by the guilt murder can bring. His final day was not as painful as some I've seen, but in a way I think he began dying the day the Mexican hairless did. I can't prove it, of course, and maybe his disease would have had exactly the same course without the drowning, but watching him fade away--and trying everything from acupuncture to dog whispering to help--brought all my mind/body pursuits to the fore. Regardless of our genetics, we really are who we think we are and we really do reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of that self-image. The latest research, so well explained in Bruce Lipton's magnificent book The Biology of Belief points to the fact that our state of mind actually changes what our genes express. Our DNA, it turns out, is less a carved rock than a paper screenplay constantly evolving. I will never know how little Lelo regarded himself. I will never know if he really died of guilt, will never know whether he took measures to pull his hairless brother from the pool but failed or even whether he had anything to do with the drowning. I do know, however, that the health of our body is always in a delicate dance with the health of our mind. The old distinction between the mind and body has given way to a modern linking of the two. We need to continue on this path and go one step further to the point where we see the mind and body as one entity. See if you don't gain valuable perspective thinking about life this way, see if your ills and your trials and your challenges and your strengths don't all have roots in how you see yourself and what you believe. And watch for the return of a soul who was once a little black dog. | |
| Deepak Chopra: What is Prayer Meant to Be? | Top |
| Thursday is National Day of Prayer, as mandated by Congress. What should President Obama do? Should he follow tradition and sign a ceremonial proclamation? Should he follow President George W. Bush's practice of hosting a formal White House event? Should he ignore it completely? Whether or not a national day of prayer is worthy of the name depends on what prayer is meant to be. In the Bush era, public or group prayer followed the pattern set down by Nixon in the Sixties: it was a validation of conservative values. God was for law and order and against hippies. God was against anyone who didn't believe in him, a ridiculous position when you think about it. Shouldn't God, of all beings, not need the approval of others? As long as prayer was simply a shout-out to evangelicals and supporters of the current war, I think it had little value as a national activity. Anyway, prayer is personal to begin with. It is called upon by individuals for their own reasons, regardless of politicians who want to co-opt it. Is there a single thing that prayer is meant to be? Many among the devout would find this an odd question, because for them the issue is self-evident. Prayer is a way to talk to God. The image is quite basic, like a telephone call. Whether God answers is exactly the same as whether the person you have dialed picks up the phone. The only mystery -- and it's a huge one -- is how to judge when God answers and when he doesn't. Is he angry or indifferent? Is he sufficiently pleased with your behavior in general? Does he deem it fit to fulfill your special request? The human race has entangled itself fruitlessly in these mysteries for centuries, so it would be helpful to somehow get them out of the way by giving prayer a new meaning, one that doesn't depend on the fickleness of an invisible being living above the clouds. Why not consider prayer to be an action in consciousness? It may be too hard for someone in the Judeo-Christian tradition to let go of a personal (and usually masculine) God in favor of something as impersonal as one's own awareness, but I think this is where the focus should lie. Everything about prayer happens in consciousness and nowhere else. The message is sent and received in consciousness; the results are noticed in consciousness; one's expectations, beliefs, and intentions are rooted in consciousness. Jesus proclaimed the existence of God inside each person, and "inside" means in a person's deepest consciousness. Therefore, prayer is one process: consciousness interacting with itself. Religions enforce a division between the one who prays and the one who answers, but why? Stripped of religious vocabulary, a prayer is nothing more than an intention. Either that intention comes true or it doesn't. Once we put the issue on this basis, we can talk more rationally about how intentions come true. Does consciousness have the power to make dreams come true, to rescue people by bringing unexpected solutions, to heal illness, inspire faith, and surmount crises? A massive amount of evidence from the world's wisdom traditions says that a heartfelt intention arising in awareness possesses all these powers. There isn't space enough here to elaborate on the point at length, but anyone who delves seriously into the power of intention will come to the conclusion that having a prayer come true depends much more on the consciousness of the person who's praying than on an invisible, fickle, unknowable power who may or may not be listening. Published in the Washington Post More on Barack Obama | |
| Obama Seeks End To Yucca Nuclear Waste Dump | Top |
| The Obama administration said Thursday it wanted to officially terminate the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage waste site and instead spend $197 million to phase out the project and "explore alternatives" for nuclear waste disposal. More on Barack Obama | |
| Jay Glatfelter: On Lost: "Follow the Leader" | Top |
| Last night's season finale set-up episode titled "Follow the Leader" was nail-biting fun. The last line summed it up perfectly: "I'm going to kill Jacob." Why was that line so much fun? Because I guarantee not one of you out there expected the resurrected John Locke to say that. That quote solidified the fact that while we may theorize and have our ideas, the powers that be are steering this ship and we the viewers are along for a very turbulent ride. Last night showed two different people making a stance with rather serious implications. Developing for a while was Jack wanting to detonate the hydrogen bomb "Jughead" to erase the past. The second one was Locke's blind side reveal of his desire to kill the apparently omnipotent Jacob. What I felt from viewing this episode is that both leaders' journeys seem to be two sides of the same coin. Jack is no longer the "Science" countering Locke's "Faith." Jack feels it is his destiny, much like Locke has felt for all 5 seasons of the show, to blow up "Jughead" and right all of the "wrongs" of the past 3 years for our Losties. Now comes the debate: Is this the right thing to do? Is this the end that the viewers want to see? Will detonating the bomb actually cause "The Incident"? Why does Locke need to kill Jacob? What are the true repercussions for theses actions? How will they continue into next season? I, for one, love how the writers set up all of this suspense over these decisions, leaving us hanging till the finale to see what decisions they make. This is masterful storytelling that will definitely split viewers in fractions of what they think the decisions and outcomes should be. What do you think? What do you think is going to happen? There are a lot of possible theories as to what will happen. Let's take this week until the finale to throw out our theories and see which ones will actually come true. | |
| Rep. Earl Blumenauer: Reducing Pollution Should Not Be a Partisan Issue | Top |
| The Green the Capitol Initiative undertaken last year by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard has successfully demonstrated how a few common sense steps can reduce energy consumption and improve the quality of our air. Simple programs such as providing locally grown, sustainable food choices to recycling materials and composting food wastes in House cafeterias have already reduced the Capitol's carbon emissions by 72% and saved significant money through greater energy efficiency. But the biggest step in improving the air in our nation's capitol came with Speaker Pelosi's request that the Capitol Power Plant -- the number one source of air pollution in the District of Columbia -- switch from coal to cleaner burning natural gas. When the Capitol Power Plant begins using natural gas in 2010, we will be able to reduce 95% of the sulfur monoxide and at least 50% of the carbon monoxide emitted by the Plant, making Washington DC a safer, healthier place for all residents, including many members of Congress and their staff. Sadly, the Republican leadership has opposed , even mocked, the Speaker's determination to improve our air quality and reduce operating expenses. On Tuesday night, members of the minority party went to the House Floor one by one, accusing the Speaker of launching, "an assault on coal." Bizarrely, they chose the policies and the technologies of the past over the health of our citizens and our quality of life. Stranger still, the party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility neglected to mention that switching the Capitol Power Plant to natural gas will eliminate significant costs to transport and store coal, and to clean up coal's fly-ash and waste. Apparently, cost savings don't count if they're associated with measures that help to improve the respiratory health of the District of Columbia's children. I applaud the efforts of Speaker Pelosi and CAO Beard to Green the Capitol. They understand the need to take financially sound and constructive action to improve the health and well being of our citizens and our planet. In fact, I believe that Americans expect the federal government and their elected officials to lead by example, demonstrating the actions that each of us can take to make our communities a better and healthier place to live: reducing our carbon footprint, eliminating waste, and saving money while we improve our air quality. I am proud that my office serves as a model of energy efficiency and carbon reduction for others, demonstrating ways to benefit our bottom line, reduce waste, and improve the quality of life for us all. I encourage all House members to commit to doing their part to create a more sustainable future for our planet and for generations of Americans to come. More on Nancy Pelosi | |
| Jerry Zezima: Out of Shape and Into Yoga | Top |
| As a dedicated couch potato who would eat potatoes on the couch if my wife would let me, I firmly believe that exercise can kill you. After decades of being ridiculously sedentary, I still have not only my boyish figure but, on most mornings, a pulse. Lately, however, I have begun to think that, at 55, I really ought to do more than what is now my main form of physical activity, which is to get up once a night to go to the bathroom. So I recently took a yoga class. I signed up for one very important reason: It was free. And, all modesty aside, I figured I was worth every penny. Also, I received great encouragement from my older daughter, Katie, who is something of a yoga guru. She has been taking classes for the past few years and once participated in a "yoga challenge," which required participants to do yoga every day for a month. I would have been dead on Day Three. "Are you doing hot yoga or regular yoga?" Katie asked. "What's the difference?" I replied. "About 40 degrees," Katie said, explaining that regular yoga takes place at room temperature, whereas hot yoga is done at 110 degrees. At that rate, I'd have to be in either a sauna or Death Valley, so I was guessing -- and hoping -- it was the regular kind. Then Katie said that I had to buy a yoga mat. "What's that?" I inquired. "It's a mat," Katie said, very patiently, "on which you do yoga." Who would have guessed? So I forked over $12 for a baby blue mat that perfectly matched the baby blue T-shirt I planned to wear to the class. After all, sometimes a boy just likes to feel pretty, especially when he's sweating like a stuck pig. The first thing I noticed about the yoga class, which was held at work, was that there were 20 women and one guy. That guy was, of course, yours truly. "Is this your first time?" asked Diane, who took a spot behind me. "Yes," I said bashfully as I unfurled my yoga mat. Then I asked if anyone knew CPR, which I figured I would need, although I was worried that my T-shirt would blend in with my mat and nobody would notice that I had collapsed. "You'll do fine," Liz, another participant, said reassuringly. I hoped I could say the same for the women around me because the instructor, Dawn, suggested that we do the session in bare feet. Fortunately, when I removed my sneakers and socks, nobody keeled over. Dawn began the class by talking about positions, none of which was third base or, the place where I am always accused of being, left field. Instead, she said we would be doing down dog, plank, cobra and warrior 2. They involved gently stretching, twisting and otherwise contorting our bodies in ways I didn't know a body could move. I must have looked like a cloverleaf on the interstate highway system. Dawn instructed us to extend one arm while crossing the opposing leg over our bodies as we lay on our yoga mats. Then we had to get on all fours and extend one leg, then the other. I was so confused that I resorted to cheating by looking at the other participants to see which limb I was supposed to be lifting, extending or stretching at any given moment. At the end of the 45-minute class, I had a sense of both peace (the soothing music helped) and accomplishment (because I didn't have to be hospitalized). In fact, I have seldom felt better. "You did very well," Dawn told me afterward. When I said I hadn't exercised in years, she said, "You look like you're in really good shape." "Looks can be deceiving," I noted, "but this made me feel great. I'm not sore at all." "That's because we did hatha yoga," Dawn explained. "Well," I replied, "hatha yoga is better than none." Dawn politely ignored the remark and said that hatha is the regular kind of yoga, while Bikram is the hot version. Either way, I had such an enjoyable experience that I would definitely take another class. Until then, maybe I can be a couch potato on my yoga mat. Stamford Advocate columnist Jerry Zezima can be reached at JerryZ111@optonline.net. His blog is www.jerryzezima.blogspot.com. Copyright 2009 by Jerry Zezima More on Yoga | |
| Dave Johnson: Government Empowers And Protects Us | Top |
| Watch this great video: The video is funny, but it makes a point: We need government. Republicans say "government is the problem" but just who is government a problem for ? If you are a top executive in a large chemical corporation and your bonus depends on lowering the cost of discarding toxic wastes, government stands between you and the river into which you want to dump the wastes. It costs the company less to dump the waste into the river, you will get your bonus, but We, the People don't want that stuff in our water. So for you, government is the problem. And that is a good thing. But our government is us. Our government protects us. Government also empowers us. In the 1950s President Eisenhower proposed building the interstate highway system. That was an example of government spending, and the top tax rate was over 90% on income above a certain amount, so after executives and owners of big companies made several hundred thousand dollars additional income was taxed at a very high rate. (They could still become very, very wealthy, but more slowly.) This meant that the major beneficiaries of our government helped pay for our government. And it paid off. The interstate highway system triggered a surge of economic growth, new industries, new products -- and even greater income for the very people who were taxed to help pay for it . Of course, at the time, some (not all) of the wealthiest objected to being taxed, even though the taxes led to even greater gains for them as well. They were shortsighted and considered government to be a problem. Lucky for all of us, even for them, it didn't turn out that way. P.S. They're serious about hating government, and they really do hold up Somalia as an example of what they want! Go see for yourself at the libertarian Mises Institute, which "defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive" where they write in Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It , Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated. The future of peace and prosperity there depends in part on keeping one from forming. And see for yourself at the libertarian Reason Magazine, "the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets," where they write about The Anarchy Advantage in Somalia . I guess if Cholera and lawlessness don't bother you, maybe you don't need government. The rest of us, however, ... Click through to Speak Out California and leave a comment. | |
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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment