Sunday, May 10, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Chinese Earthquake Park Turns Pain Into Profit Top
DONGHEKOU, China -- He Xiangtong places a chrysanthemum near his wife's name etched on a memorial atop the landslide that buried her in last year's devastating earthquake. Then business calls: He returns to selling flowers to the next carload of tourists arriving at Donghekou Quake Relic Park.
 
Republican Women Make Up Less Than 10 Percent Of The Party In Congress Top
Women make up almost 51 percent of the U.S. population but less than 10 percent of the House and Senate GOP -- a gender disconnect that could make the Republicans' climb back to power even steeper than it would be otherwise.
 
Beth Shulman: A Step Towards Equal Opportunity Top
Here in the United States, we believe in equality of opportunity. The vision is that the results may not be equal, but we should all at least have equal footing at the starting gate. The reality, of course, is very different. For children in low-income families, opportunity is anything but equal. At the very beginning of their lives, they face substandard child care and little or no early education, less decent health care, and public schools of generally inferior quality. But even if they overcome all that and graduate from high school, and even if they want to go on to post-secondary education and qualify for it, most can't go for one big reason - they can't afford it. President Obama is trying to change that. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he expanded existing tax credits for higher education to $2,500 for this academic year. The measure also made it partially refundable for the first time, which allows low-income families to qualify. Pell grants, the main vehicle for getting low-income young people into college, rose under the Recovery Act to $5,350 for 2009 and $5,550 for 2010, after six years frozen at $4,050. But President Obama wants to go further. He wants to expand Pell grants for low-income students and make them an entitlement similar to Medicare or Social Security. He wants to expand the Perkins loans that fill in funding gaps, and to make a student's need the chief criterion for awarding these loans. He wants to fund these expansions through savings in the way the college loan program is financed while putting in place ways to reduce college tuition and increase the number of students who graduate. Today, children of wealthy parents are the ones who disproportionately attend college. The large increase in college enrollment in the past 20 years was among children in the top 60 percent of income. This disparity is not surprising. Tuition is an expensive up-front investment. College costs have increased more rapidly over the past two decades than the cost of prescription drugs or health insurance, and far more rapidly than family income. Meanwhile, student financial assistance at the federal, state and university level has shifted away from a needs-based approach, leaving low-income and moderate-income students sitting at home. And the tax code structure meant tax credits for college went disproportionately to the rich, who needed them least. In 1975, a Pell grant covered about 84 percent of the cost of attending public college or university. Today it covers only 36 percent. The effect of this large unmet financial need is that many graduating high school students who want to go on and who are qualified to do it never become post-secondary students at all. Only about one-half of all "college-qualified" students from low-income families enter a four-year college, compared to over 80 percent of similarly qualified students from high-income families. If we want to live up to our promise of equal opportunity, we need to increase the size and number of Pell grants and give loan priority to those who need it most, just as President Obama is proposing. This will be a first step toward making equal opportunity not a hollow slogan but a real national commitment.
 
Jeff Schweitzer: Climate Change and Christian Values Top
Democratic leaders are initiating a media campaign targeting Christian radio stations to create support among Evangelicals for upcoming climate change legislation. While outreach is usually admirable, Democrats are barking up the wrong apple tree in this particular case. We will not effectively address the issue of global warming if we appeal to religion. For millennia, Christianity has taught that humans are special in the eyes of the god and that the world is made for their benefit and use. This is made clear in Genesis 1:1, which states: God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then Genesis 2:15 says: Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. That mandate for man to use the land to his purpose is not exactly an environmental manifesto. These biblical passages give humans the special status of being made in god's image, unlike any other creature on earth, and clearly imply human dominance over all other living things. Humans are told to "subdue" the earth and "rule over" the air, land and sea. These religious teachings not only condone but actively encourage humans to view the environment as separate from them, put here for their pleasure. In this world view, no deep moral obligation exists to preserve resources for future generations. The explicit religious mandate to exploit natural resources remains clear and unambiguous, in spite of recent efforts to harmonize religion and environmental sciences by numerous academic and international organizations, including The Forum on Religion and Ecology, the largest international multi-religious project of its kind, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, founded in 1936 by the Vatican to promote scientific progress compatible with the Church's teachings. The argument used by those seeking reconciliation between religion and environmental protection points to the integrity of all creation, or reverence for all things created by god, insisting that religion and concern for the environment are not only compatible, but have been so all along. Those are welcomed sentiments. In fact, as is frequently the case, the Bible contains contradictory passages about the natural world, reasonably allowing for such an interpretation. Old passages can also simply be reinterpreted to fit the facts or to be compatible with newly adopted ideas. Pope John Paul XXIII said in 1961: Genesis relates how God gave two commandments to our first parents: to transmit human life--'Increase and multiply'--and to bring nature into their service--'Fill the Earth, and subdue it.' These two commandments are complementary. Nothing is said in the second of these commandments about destroying nature. On the contrary, it must be brought into the services of human life. But the harsh facts of human history belie this benign revisionist interpretation of the meaning of "subdue". The preponderance of unambiguous passages in the Bible giving mankind dominion over nature's bounty argues against any idea that religion is environmentalism in disguise. As Renaissance scholar Lynn White famously wrote in 1967, "We shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man." His words remain true 40 years later, when religious conservatives in the United States view resource extraction as an inalienable right. For the past eight years our natural resources were under an accelerated threat from a torrent of new laws that encouraged mining on federal land, weakened protection for species, habitat and wetlands, encouraged deforestation, and promoted drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All with the enthusiastic support of the Evangelical community. Perhaps such enthusiasm comes with the idea that destruction of the environment will bring on the Apocalypse, a happy thought for those awaiting Rapture, but a bit less appealing to the rest of us. Seeking support from Evangelicals for climate change legislation is a bit like asking Rush Limbaugh to campaign for Arlen Specter. The attempt is ill-advised. We should not be reframing the debate to make the issue tolerable to Evangelicals. That type of accommodation is the dangerous first step onto a slippery slope, and soon we'll be compromising on teaching Intelligent Design next to or in place of Darwin's "theory." Have you ever wondered why the evidence to support Einstein's idea is never questioned by Evangelicals even though his seminal work is also "just a theory" on par with evolution? Because Relativity is not widely seen by the faithful to threaten religious beliefs (although in fact the case can be made that Einstein is a greater threat than Darwin). This dichotomy between the perceptions of Relativity and evolution reveals the real problem to be that only certain scientific issues have been selectively politicized by the right, with evolution and climate change serving as exhibits A and B. Think for a moment on what basis someone would not "believe in" climate change. For somebody to take the position that climate change is not real, he must claim that he knows more about climatology than 2500 atmospheric scientists from 166 countries. The claim is absurd, and has absurd consequences. Somewhere along the line "belief" superseded "evidence." Once that happens, science loses all meaning, and for that society suffers. If belief replaces evidence in public debate, why not make the claim that atoms, or DNA, or black holes, or any other scientific discovery is not real? Once you agree that evidence is subservient to belief, you dismiss the entire enterprise of science. How else could we explain on what basis climate change is seen as a liberal conspiracy but not electromagnetism? If we are not professional climatologists we can no more dismiss their conclusions than we could those of a physicist working on atomic fusion. We don't have the expertise in either field, and I don't hear anybody challenging our nuclear scientists. How odd that we only dispute the science that threatens to undermine our political or religious beliefs but accept all else with no hesitation. No, rather than reframing the issue to satisfy a faith-based approach to science, we should insist that our schools refrain from 16th century teachings. Rather than bend in the face of ignorance, we should elect politicians capable of evaluating scientific evidence at face value. That does not require a Ph.D., only common sense, and the commitment to keep god out of the laboratory. The intrusion of religion into science is every bit as dangerous as its infiltration into politics. That we still debate evolution is proof enough. Any effort to dilute the arguments about global warming to appease religious sensibilities does nothing but corrupt the integrity of science in public debate. Faith and evidence do not share equal space in the sphere of science, and we would make a terrible mistake in giving faith a seat at the table of hard data. Democrats need to push climate change legislation by making the most cogent, fact-based, scientifically-sound arguments possible given the evidence in hand. Any deviation from that course is irresponsible. If those who wish to pursue faith-based science are left behind, then so be it. If on the other hand we fail as a country and as a species to address a changing climate, then we deserve the consequences. Let the market of ideas choose the winners. More on Climate Change
 
Putin's Comeback: Hints He May Run For President In 2012 Top
Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, tonight gave his strongest hint yet that he is pondering a comeback that would see him return to the Kremlin as president in 2012. More on Vladimir Putin
 
Exclusive: DNC Ad Hits "The New GOP" Sunday Show Guests (VIDEO) Top
As expected, Democrats pounced Sunday night on the Republican Party for trotting out a set of Sunday talk-show surrogates who didn't exactly project political resurgence. In a Web ad provided to the Huffington Post, the Democratic National Committee pointed to Dick Cheney, John McCain and Newt Gingrich's appearances on the talk-show circuit earlier in the day as the latest example of a party devoid of new ideas or faces. "Having marginalized themselves as the Party of No - the GOP has nowhere else to turn but a generation of leaders whose ideas and brand of politics have been thoroughly rejected," read an accompanying statement by Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. "Anyone watching television today would have to be excused for asking - is this 1996 or 2009?" This truly is low-hanging fruit for the DNC: a widely unpopular former vice president, failed presidential candidate and highly controversial former House Speaker representing easy targets. But the real story - and, for the GOP, problem - here is the hard-to-overstate absence of leadership. Without a central figure or institution to help guide the party's message - from the policy platform to the television surrogates - the names and ideas that rise to the surface will naturally be from the old guard. Michael Steele's rocky tenure at the RNC hasn't filled that void. Much of the problem is, of course, self-inflicted. Cheney, after all, just this past week expressed his desire to see the new wave of Republican leadership take its place in high-profile roles. Then he went out and did a live interview for the full half hour on "Face the Nation," in which he proclaimed Colin Powell to no longer be a Republican. More on Dick Cheney
 
Maria Cuomo Cole: A Mother's Day Message that Touched my Heart Top
A special friend who works with me at HELP USA wrote this inspiring message for Mother's Day. It touched my heart and I would like to share it. A Mother's Wish Many of the Mother's Day Cards mailed this year will be posted, "return to sender" this year, due to the thousands of mothers and children who have lost their homes and are living in homeless shelters. In my current job as a social worker, I witness the hopelessness of women, who are homeless, many of whom are mothers, who have lost control of their home security and in many cases - their children's. I recognize their pain and frustration because I, myself, was once in the same place. Twenty years ago, I needed support through a devastating time when I had lost control of almost every aspect of my life. I was forced to enter the emergency NYC homeless system with my daughter, son and mother due to a chain of devastating events including a home fire and substance abuse addiction. It was the lowest point in my life. I did not know if I would be able to take care of my kids. Fortunately, I was referred to HELP USA, a homeless nonprofit organization, and moved into a beautiful new apartment with a park and a playground. My children were enrolled in on-site day care and I was able to work with professional staff on regaining sobriety and self-sufficiency in order to care for my children. I worked hard to become a positive role model and continue my education, earning an MSW from Fordham University. Today, my daughter is a college student looking for summer employment. (Anyone hiring?) I feel blessed to now be working to help women who are suffering through the desperate experience of losing their homes, an employee of HElP USA, the organization that helped me rebuild my life as an individual and as a mother. On this Mother's Day, I say a word of thanks for the public and private investment in programs that support women and children who slip through the safety net. I am living proof that good programs can help people turn their lives around. I thank all the women who are being helped and for all those helping others. And I give personal thanks to an organization that truly lives up to its name, HELP USA. -- Josephine Mitchell, Mother and Social Worker More on Mother's Day
 
Scott Foval: Phasers on Stun, Star Trek is BACK! Top
Ed Note: Spoilers If you're a Trekkie, and I mean a REAL HARD CORE Trekkie; well, you're going to have a problem with the first third of Star Trek. Maybe. Then again, maybe you'll LOVE this movie. Yep, I think so. Last night Paramount Pictures hosted the sneak preview event for the J.J. Abrams-directed prequel at the Navy Pier IMAX, and I have to admit it. I'm hooked. I should back up, though, because you want to know about the movie, right? (SPOILER: RED ALERT! RED ALERT! DON'T READ BELOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW!) Well you decided to keep reading, so its not my fault if you get mad for knowing stuff that you didn't want to know. First and foremost, we now know that Romulans aren't necessarily evil by nature, they got screwed over. This is a fundamental idea that I wasn't clear about before, but then again, unlike my partner, Tim, I had never seen the other movies and only partially watched the original series. Anyway, now a renegade Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana) is really pissed off at Spock (Zachary Quinto / Leonard Nimoy), so much that he waits 25 years just so that Spock can know the same pain that he does. This story angle of loss-driven-revenge is a quality foundation Abrams uses to build layers of connections between the prequel and the TV series and previous movies in the Star Trek franchise throughout the movie. A key difference here, though, is that he accomplishes it in a way that addresses a criticism of other prequels like those in the Star Wars franchise. Rather than just create scenes without context, Abrams uses his skills as a story-weaver to comprehensively address so many questions that pop up for the serious viewer, that folks actually are satisfied with the suspension of disbelief experienced along the way. The result is a very well-written and produced movie that also takes the summer blockbuster to a whole new level. Both casting and production elements (visuals, sound, effects) truly take on a scale that befits the pic's universal scope and goalpost-moving purpose. There is a sense of feeling like you are suspended in space, on the deck of the Enterprise, and the Romulan vessel as envisioned by Bad Robot's (Abrams' production firm) army of cinema artists and sound gurus. Indeed, in radio interviews earlier in the week, Abrams has said that he thought carefully about wanting to make this movie for all movie goers, not just for Trekkies. In my opinion he succeeded. Casting Chris Pine as the swashbuckling Kirk was a master stroke. Not only does he carry the movie well, he actually embodies a more than a bit of the 'ol Shatner / Ford / Connery leading man, sex symbol qualities that carries each of them still today. The ensemble casting in tandem, though, especially the way Quinto literally became Spock (so much that he and Nimoy seemed to be a believable same persona), was so effective with each actor assuming their characters so completely...well, it blew my mind. Anton Yelchin as Chekov, Jon Cho as Sulu, and Zoe Saldana as Uhura were superb; although I would have liked more character development behind them, as well as their individual roles in achieving assignments to the newly-minted Enterprise in the first place. I also was disappointed that more time was devoted to the friendship between Bones (Karl Urban) and Kirk beyond a simple setup scene. All in all, I felt that the acting was very believable, but I know there will always be people who can't accept the new actors in the old roles. Get over it. If you're hanging on to the old folks in the old roles, you might want to remember...only one of them was able to appear in this massive pic, and that's because he IS one of the two leads in the original franchise. Nimoy still has it, and the magic when he appeared brought the instant screen cred that should shut all the purists' arguments down. Star Trek earns its bars, and by the end of the picture, he insures that the torch is properly awarded to the new cast in a very dramatic and fitting way. 4 1/2 stars out of 5 in my book. Go see it, and "Live Long and Prosper!" (Thanks to WGN-TV9 Chicago / Paramount Pictures for the tix to the Sneak Preview.)
 
Robert Kuttner: Collateral Damage and Double Standards Top
I recently spoke at a Federal Reserve conference in Chicago, on financial regulation. The keynote speaker was Ben Bernanke . Chairman Bernanke was unable to leave Washington, so he spoke live, via a giant TV screen, giving his speech a fittingly Orwellian cast. This was the day that the results of the so called stress tests were released. Not surprisingly, Bernanke was upbeat, since restoring confidence was the whole political point of the stress-test exercise. No major bank was insolvent, and the 19 largest banks collectively needed to raise only about $75 billion in additional capital, although their losses might total as much as $599 billion. Citigroup, queen of the Zombie Banks, remarkably enough, was said to need only $5.5 billion in additional private capital. You could almost make up that paltry sum with executive bonuses. At one point in his remarks, Bernanke, recounting just how rigorous the stress tests were, explained that "More than 150 examiners, supervisors, and economists" had conducted several weeks of examinations of the banks. That kind of let the cat out of the bag. If you do the arithmetic, that is about seven supervisors per bank, and all of the stress-tested 19 banks were hundred-billion and up outfits. When an ordinary commercial bank, say a $10 billion outfit, undergoes a far less complex routine examination of its commercial loan portfolio, it involves dozens of examiners. So the stress test was not a set of rigorous examinations at all, but a modeling exercise using the banks' own valuations of their assets. The most serious outside observers think the hole in the banks' balance sheets is much larger than $75 billion or even the Fed's worst-case estimate of $599 billion in losses. The International Monetary Fund estimates the hole as more like 2.7 trillion dollars, and informed economists like Nouriel Roubini put the number at as much as 3.6 trillion. Why is the Fed low-balling the problem? The hope is that by keeping the banks afloat for a few more months, and trying to entice private capital back to the table, the recovery in other parts of the economy will spill over onto the banks. But the greater likelihood is that weakened banks will continue dragging down the rest of the economy. Despite talk of "green shoots," - economic indicators not being quite as bad as expected, and the stock market up - most of the news is still pretty grim. Unemployment was up in April by "only" 539,000 jobs. Home foreclosures keep rising, with a total of eight million projected this year. Manufacturing is dead in the water. The administration's voluntary (to the banks) mortgage relief program will address only a fraction of the problem; and 12 Senate Democrats voted with the banking industry to deny bankruptcy judges the ability to modify the terms of a mortgage as a last resort - thus killing the one proposed stick in a program that is all carrots. I also recently spoke at a convention of industrial construction companies. These are the people who build and maintain factories, power plants, and do other heavy industrial construction. I asked a room full of hundreds of executives how many saw signs of improvement in their order books. Not a single hand went up. Then I asked how many had had projects deferred because of difficulty getting financing. About two thirds of the people in the room raised their hands. My guess is that the Obama administration will be back next fall, asking Congress for the money and authority to do the bank rescue right, after the current policy proves inadequate to restore the banking system and the economy to health. That would mean taking the insolvent banks into receivership, deciding how much public capital was required and where to get it, and then returning the banks to private ownership. Better late than never, but it's a pity to waste six months. Chatting with the bankers in attendance at the Fed conference, mostly bankers from the heartland of the Midwest, I encountered resentment bordering on fury at the double standard. The big Wall Street banks are getting propped up with literally trillions of dollars in aid from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, while community bankers that stuck to their knitting and did not go in for the sub-prime swindle are suffering collateral damage. That's a pun, by the way. Because of the huge losses to the FDIC's insurance fund, small and medium sized healthy banks are having to pay increased premiums. And while the Fed and the Treasury are being extremely gentle in letting the big money-center banks like Citi value their distressed securities with great charity and forbearance, the community banks are having their loan portfolios examined with fine-tooth combs. With regulators breathing down their necks, and fewer sure-thing businesses in a position to borrow, the community banks are being made to raise their lending standards, contributing to the vicious circle of reduced business activity and reduced credit. Why had the administration made this perverse alliance with Wall Street, and decided to prop up large zombie banks rather than taking them into receivership and getting on with it? You could blame it on campaign finance, or you could blame it on the quirk of history that Obama, once he became the nominee, decided to hire the Wall Street-oriented Clinton economic team. The most hopeful and elegant theory I've heard is that for now, Obama's main political project is to let the Republicans self-destruct; co-opting Wall Street (for now) is part of that game plan. He'll get around to reforming Wall Street next year. Even Roosevelt had to take things one step at a time, as public opinion moved. The Second New Deal was more radical than the first. I've often said that Obama is smarter than I am, and if he is politically shrewd enough to have come up with that strategy, hats off to him. I'm also a Red Sox fan, and anything is possible. But for the moment, it looks more like a case of political expediency and even political capture. I could excuse all that if the Geithner-Summers-Bernanke strategy of low-balling the scale of the banks' problems and inviting speculators to bail them out actually worked. But the greater likelihood is that the economy will tread water at best for the remainder of this year, losing both precious time and political credibility in America's heartland. Robert Kuttner is co-Editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos . His recent book is Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency . More on GOP
 
Martha McCully: My Reinvention Tour: Car-less in L.A. Top
I'm standing on Lincoln Boulevard at 7 in the morning holding my yoga mat. I'm waiting for my friend Lora to pick me up at California Rent-a-Car where I'm dropping my rental. I will take her to the airport and borrow her car while she's in New York so I can save some money. It's freezing. I see her silver Mercedes approaching, wait, she drives right by, and I'm flagging her down with my mat, yelling her name as she speeds down Lincoln. Pathetic. I'm doing a lot of things differently in my new economy. I'm cleaning my own house, choosing meters over valet, rebuilding my own blow dry muscles, skipping doctors' appointments, living without HBO, avoiding Whole Foods. I search my garbage for a CVS receipt so I can return soap I've bought mistakenly. Clothing? I'm not shopping at all. Well, actually, I've discovered Ross, where I bought a $20 pair of T-strap Aerosoles. I show them off to my friends at lunch at The Ivy; they're not impressed. Actually I grew up this way, saving plastic bags and watching my parents drive their Buicks till they died. I'm from New England originally. We're all Pilgrims there, smart and frugal; we don't live on credit. As one Boston friend said recently, "We start storing food in February for next winter. Potato Up!" It was only in my life as a New York magazine editor that I was exposed to Fedexing suitcases and limitless free mascara. When Lora reclaims her Mercedes a week later, I decide to give up a car altogether. I happily ride my bike around Venice, to the post office at Winward Circle, to yoga on Main Street, to the movies on the 3rd Street Promenade. My bike's limitations help curtail my spending; I only go out at night if I can walk or my date drives. No buying meat, or any heavy food. I purchase two bowls on sale at Pottery Barn but the heavy basket topples my wheels. Despite my decade-long spinning regimen, I'm a dork on a bike. I take an informal poll, asking friends what they've given up during the recession. The answers are heartfelt and absurd at the same time: shopping for clothes, professional makeup applications (she now stops by the Laura Mercier counter before events), tennis in Manhattan, monthly hair color, weekly manicures, daily housekeepers, Starbucks and vacations all around. One friend did downsize by selling her San Marino house and renting in Pasadena, another planted a vegetable garden. If this sounds ridiculous, and that of course these concessions are a necessary adjustment, sure, I get it, and so do they. But everything is relative. If you start to seethe that I'm bragging about cutting down but somehow still managing to drive a Mercedes and lunch at The Ivy (next to Sofia Coppola on one side and some guy named Chick on the other) know that all the "stuff" is borrowed and an illusion in one way or another. Sure, I miss my old life as an executive and what came with it, but it's all temporary, especially when it's from an expense account at a well paying job. I watched "The Devil Wears Prada" the other night, filmed right outside my old office building. I've been there, literally. (Though at this stage of reinvention, I relate to Andy, not Miranda.) Some days I want to hold onto every last bit of my former life when I didn't have to think about saving quarters for the laundry. There, I said it. I recently lost my Jimmy Choo sunglasses, my last vestige of a designer lifestyle. Granted I got them for free, but I really do miss them. I've been redeeming miles, flying coach, taking the AirTrain (if you don't know what I'm talking about you are still in the old economy). But last trip, in a weak moment, I upgraded to business class, using miles of course. The whole experience suddenly seemed so luxurious. A pillow and blanket! Movies! A free meal! A friend in the next row! Clinging to that pillow I saw how far back my former lifestyle has receded. Still, despite the warm cookie, I was happy to land in my new reality, get back into my bungalow and my new life, even though I had to take a taxi to get there. More on The Recession
 
Deborah Jiang Stein: A Tribute to Mothers Top
And How I Got So Happy Since when did 'happiness' become a life goal, an emotional destiny to achieve? All of a sudden, everything 'happiness' scatters the blog and book landscape - happiness indexes, happiness economics, happiness projects and programs, happiness research, collections of 'happy' quotes. Happy, happy, happy. I'm suspicious. Is happiness the carrot in front of the horse? I question the premise of the Happy Movement, the premise, "If I do this ___________, then I'll be happy." What is there to achieve in 'happiness' if we are at peace, contented, and fulfilled? Isn't life enhanced when we feel contented and fulfilled, backed by a positive attitude and positive outlook on life? I'm told that people think of me as resilient and positive, and I'm often asked how I acquired and remain so contented. I never thought about it much until I started receiving requests to speak on the topics of resilience and the power of positive attitude. Since I don't believe much in absolute truths, all I know is what works for me. Though people ask me how I'm so happy, I never pay much attention to happiness. I do pay a lot of attention to feeling contented and fulfilled. Enriched, satisfied, positive, and resilient. It's this path that gets me to the 'happy' that I'm asked about. From where I come from, with all the pieces that make me who I am , my survival (beyond just staying alive!) depended on my outlook on life. One example: I can look at my birth in prison and all the circumstances that got me there and which then followed me, along with multiple mother separations, as irreconcilable and damaging wounds. Each could be a gash that won't heal. One after the other. Or I can appreciate my enigma, these unique and rare roots, as a chance to reach out and turn what was adverse, with all the set backs, into a positive tool for change. I'm a fan of adventure, a thrill-seeker with an insatiable curiosity and appetite for learning. Along the way I recognized I was served a full plate, and it's only right to share when we have abundance. Once called a special needs child and at-risk girl, I had too much on my plate . Rather than an abundance of negative, I began to wonder how I could use what landed in my lap as a way to give to others. How and what I do to give is another article. But I believe in using my highly creative energy to innovate, build, and create, in many forms. Whether it's writing, marketing, speaking, inventing, or program and business development, the roots are the same: creative adventure and abundance to share with others, all as a positive tool for change. If I had sought happiness throughout my rocky road, I'd never have bounced up with the resilience that is now ingrained in me as a worldview. I'm contented, no matter the circumstances around me, and yes, happy. But 'happy' is not my goal. It's simple to feel happy when we're contented. I'm lucky to hold my station of contentment and joie de vivre. Some of it may have to do with being multiracial. According to a recent study , multiracial people are generally happier than most. My curiosity about the 'happy' movement led me to learn there's even research about happiness. (Can't a person just live, without a social and academic movement with books and research to justify the experience?) It seems like the happy gurus and happiness movement guide draws followers to seek a felt experience associated with pleasure. I'm all for pleasure and fun. In fact, I'm probably one of the more playful pleasure-filled people you'll meet. And I don't even drink or drug to get there! I get there by way of my positive attitude and outlook, feeling at ease with myself, contented and fulfilled. What does any of this have to with honoring mothers in this May, the month of Mother's Day? Everything. Mothers are our source. I've had several mothers, the early ones just briefly, then my Mother, the one who stood by me no matter what. At one time I viewed the influences of so many mothers as a conflict within me. Now they all walk beside me. From each I've learned to seek and live: • Enriched • Satisfied • Positive • Resilient My Mother is the source of my on-going ability to feel enriched, satisfied, positive, and resilient. She is one of the reasons I can pass this on to my children, and to others around me. Now that I look around, happiness is quite simple. In a forthcoming post, I'll list my simple tools for contented and enriched living. For a start, put I just put one foot in front of the other and make sure to do what fulfills, what is gratifying, and what contributes to others. What gives you contentment and fulfillment? * * * This is another Musing for Mutts Like Me . Find me here: Twitter Website Blog Join the muttslikeme Facebook group Email: deborah.kjs [at] gmail [dot] com What do you think? Post your comment below. More on Mother's Day
 
Don McNay: We Need Business Leaders Who Know About History Top
" Don't Know Much About History" -Sam Cooke If we are going to break out of this economic crisis, we don't need business leaders trained in business schools. We need leaders who know and understand history. About 20 years ago, I was asked to speak to a college business class. I told the class they should stop studying business and study history and English instead. I was never invited back. In business you need to understand where your market has been and where it is going. You can look at history and analyze trends. I have a passion for history. That fire was lit by tremendous high school and college history teachers. Chester Finn Jr., my former professor at Vanderbilt and an education guru, noted that only 31% of middle school history teachers and 41% of high school history teachers actually majored in history. Several fields may be necessary for middle school teachers, but I am horrified at the terrible percentage for high school history teachers. I don't blame the teachers. I blame the administrators who hire them. When I went to college, I kept meeting students who hated history. To me that was like hating pizza or the American flag. I could not believe that someone could not love history. When I asked why, I found they had high school teachers with no background or interest in history. The "teachers" made the students memorize dates and random facts. Students subjected to classes like that should be able to sue the school for malpractice and have the school administrators arrested for torture. History is about great people, great events and great movements. I was lucky that I found teachers who understood that too. My two high school teachers at Covington Catholic High School, Tim Banker and Joe Hackett, could not have been more different. Banker was Irish, left handed, funny, and coached football and track. Since I was Irish, left handed, funny and played football and track, in my junior year I became his favorite student. I was not a likely teacher's pet. After my sophomore year in high school, I ranked 110 in a class of 128. I played sports, but was not good at them. My friends were the top five students in the class and the worst five students in the class. The police were on a first name basis with the bottom five and learning my name, too. Banker helped me get excited about history and school in general. I became a good student and drifted away from the negative crowd. Banker knew his history but was also a great entertainer. He thought learning should be fun and it was. But there was nothing fun about my other mentor, Joe Hackett. I've never known a tougher disciplinarian. Hackett had been a meat cutter in Covington and did not graduate from college until he was nearly 50. Hackett coached state champion baseball teams and I suspect his ability as a baseball coach kept him from getting fired. Hackett was a registered Socialist who taught in a conservative Catholic school. He challenged and intimidated my classmates, no matter how well connected their parents were. Hackett taught that the powerful must be challenged or they will trample the rights of the less powerful. I left his class never being afraid to challenge authority. I was only afraid of him. He loved me and I was the first person to receive an award named for him. We stayed in touch for the rest of his life but he was not my buddy, he was my teacher. I want every young person to have teachers like Banker and Hackett. They should have teachers with passion who actually studied what they are teaching. They should have teachers who are not trying to stay one chapter ahead of their students. I want them to have teachers for whom, Don't Know Much about History is not a theme song. If I were in charge of schools, administrators who hired history teachers who didn't know history would only have to know one date. Their termination date. It would be listed under current events. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the founder of McNay Settlement Group in Richmond, Kentucky. He is the author of Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You When The Lottery. You can write to Don at don@donmcnay.com or read his award winning, syndicated column at www.donmcnay.com . McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table. More on Small Business
 
Obama-Netanyahu Meeting Will Decide The Mideast's Future, Says Jordanian King Abdullah Top
President Obama's critical meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu next week has become the acid test for the Administration's commitment to peace in the Middle East, King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday. The monarch does not conceal his feelings about the Israeli leader.
 
Lisa Earle McLeod: Science And Religion: A Marriage Made In Victorian England Top
It was an unlikely marriage. He was a science writer and she was a religious studies major. He went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for a book about evolution. She became a children's book author, often writing about religious holidays. But it was their pillow talk about Charles Darwin and his devoutly religious wife that prompted her to explore the intimate details of another marriage of science and religion, the marriage of Charles and Emma Darwin. Author Deborah Heiligman's newest book Charles and Emma: The Darwins' Leap of Faith, has its roots in the bedtime conversations she had with her husband, Jonathan Weiner, while he was writing his award winning, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. Weiner shared with Heiligman that Darwin's wife Emma had been deeply concerned that Charles' work on evolution was going to sentence him to eternal damnation, and that they would be separated for eternity. As they discussed Charles and Emma's differing perspectives, it was obvious that the Darwin's marriage was not unlike their own. Two intelligent people of strong convictions who loved each other, but who looked at the world through different lenses. Science versus religion arguments continue to rage even today, 150 years after Darwin first published the Origin of Species , but Charles and Emma's differing perspectives didn't divide them. Quite the contrary; the deeply religious Emma was Charles' most frequent and helpful editor, and much like Heiligman and Weiner, the Darwin's marital dialect expanded their partners' perspective rather than assaulting it. Drawn from first person diaries, family letters and Darwin's published notebooks, Charles and Emma opens shortly after Charles Darwin arrived home from his famous voyage as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle, where he collected the data that would later form the basis for his controversial work. As a young man from a prominent 19th century London family, Charles was expected to marry and start a family. However, he felt conflicted. So, ever the researcher, he drew a line down the middle of a piece of scrap paper, on the left side he wrote Marry. On the right he wrote Not Marry. And in the middle: This is the Question. The pros ultimately outweighed the cons, and Charles found a soulmate and spouse in his cousin Emma. Charles and Emma, (a rousing romantic narrative aimed at young adults but enjoyed immensely by this 40-something reader) provides an intimate glimpse into the Darwin's marriage and a life different from the stereotypical reserved Victorian household. Charles Darwin was, for the times, a radically involved father playing with, and even bathing his children. He worked right in the middle of their home - Down House - with his children running in and out of his study all day and he frequently involved them in his experiments. He also routinely discussed his work with Emma, whose opinion was of utmost importance to him. His love and respect for his intelligent and deeply devout wife caused Charles to rethink how the world might receive his ideas, prompting him to document his theory of natural selection for decades before publishing it. Heiligman ( www.DeborahHeiligman.com ) says she wrote Charles and Emma to demonstrate that "people who have differing opinions can live together and love each other, and keep talking about it." Science and religion, it was a happily ever after for the Darwins; perhaps the rest of us can make the marriage work as well. Lisa Earle McLeod is an author, syndicated columnist, keynote speaker and business consultant. She speaks and writes about all the counterproductive ways that people keep themselves from being successful and happy. More info - www.ForgetPerfect.com
 
Cory Booker: A Hard Look at Education Top
This week, I became a more active tweeter (@ CoryBooker )! I was encouraged by the dialogue that came from one of my tweets regarding education reform. There is no doubt that America faces severe educational challenges. We are a nation that proclaims unalienable rights and "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ." These are not some ethereal principles -- they are tangible and worthy ideals for which to struggle. Our children call to us daily from schools across the nation that we are "one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Justice, liberty, life, happiness -- critical to all of these ideals are wide universally accessible avenues for our youth to obtain a high quality education. Few can argue with this and few would argue that the long-term success of our nation, in an increasingly competitive global knowledge-based economy, relies squarely on what is happening in American classrooms every day. In the United States, a highly educated populace would result in a GDP trillions of dollars higher than our present GDP -- more jobs and more opportunities for so many Americans. As other nations continue to outpace us in K-12 education, our country must seriously grapple with the consequences of lack of progress in school improvement. Further, American demographic shifts should sober all of us as to the work that must be done in America. Every year, minorities comprise a greater percentage of our total workforce, yet the racial achievement gap (and socioeconomic achievement gap) in American education remains unacceptably large. We cannot be two nations -- one with access to high quality schools and another with failing schools and limited options. There is, however, tremendous hope in America for change. David Brooks' opinion piece in last Thursday's New York Times clearly articulates the potential of education reform. Schools in Harlem, Newark and numerous other cities are succeeding in replicating models that are erasing the education gap evident along both racial and socioeconomic lines. In fact, the highest performing public school in all of Essex County, New Jersey -- a county that has both pockets of poverty and great affluence -- is a Newark charter school with a student population that is nearly entirely minority and with a significant percentage near or below the poverty line. In America now, I can confidently say that it is no longer a question of CAN we educate all of our children at equal and high levels -- it is a question of WILL we. This is not a philosophical debate. I have no loyalty to charter schools, traditional public schools, magnet schools, small school models, publicly funded scholarships (vouchers) or private schools. I have loyalty to results. The important question should not be one of philosophy or political perspective, it should be: What is working to empower poor and minority children to have the same educational opportunities in America as those who are more affluent? We should embrace those successful school models, learn from them, infuse that understanding into all of our reform efforts and no longer tolerate any institution that fails to live up to our common community standards of excellence. In Newark, there are many models of success and we are aggressively working to replicate and expand them. Last year, Newark was selected as one of three cities for a huge investment in our charter schools. The goal is to make our entire charter school sector in Newark high quality in accordance with the highest and most uncompromising standards and outcomes and work to expand those schools so more Newark youth can have high quality choice. We have recently begun a small school initiative for our high school students who are at risk of dropping out. Further, among other things, our new superintendent is looking to expand our magnet schools of excellence which have long waiting lists and completely reorganize our persistently failing schools. Here in Newark, there is much work to do and we face many challenges. As Mayor of this great city, I want everyone to understand that, beyond continuing the dramatic reduction in violent crime, the fight to realize our educational dreams for our children is the most important work of Newark. More than this, the most important work in our nation is the fight in cities all across America to establish a United States education system of the highest standards and achievement to finally secure our nation's ambitions. K-12 education is the front line of the fight for the American dream -- our elected officials, policy makers, educators, administrators, parents and students are engaged in the last great struggle to help our nation achieve herself - we all must join in this struggle for the outcome of this fight will determine our common destiny. If we fail, America fails. Let us take up the cause of America again, like those who signed our original declaration, and the many more unnamed heroes who bled to push, pull, drag and lift our nation closer to its sacred ideals. Let us all take up the cause of educational justice -- it is the cause of American justice. As our Declaration of Independence concludes, "With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
 
Byron Williams: Taking a Page from JFK Top
In 1963, Predident John F. Kennedy was initially leery of the proposed March on Washington. He was concerned the demonstration would place external pressure on his administration to act on civil rights legislation that he did not believe had the votes to pass in Congress. Kennedy eventually endorsed the march when it was agreed that the federal government could have input, which included final say on some of the more controversial speakers. Whatever criticisms or praise for Kennedy's behavior toward the March on Washington, what remains clear is that he took something he initially opposed politically and transformed it into something he could endorse. President Barack Obama might do well to recall this piece of presidential history as he moves dangerously close to allowing a key moment in the nation's history to take on a life of its own. The periodic drips of torture from the faucet of the war on terror have become a steady trickle that clearly requires the executive branch's leadership. But the president seems content to utter meaningless Pabulum in response. The president supports further investigations of torture, which could include indictment of Bush administration officials, as long as those proceedings were not of partisan nature. That sounds nice, but it is hardly realistic in the current partisan climate that exists. There is simply no way that a Democratic-led investigation into the torture policies, or for that matter, the run-up to the Iraq invasion and occupation by the Bush administration can be conducted and not be partisan. If Obama wants further investigations void of a partisan atmosphere then he must put the weight of the executive branch behind them. Only the president has the moral authority to ascertain the truth without the process falling into the cesspool of partisan rancor. He cannot sit on the sidelines, placing such a crucial moment in U.S. history in limbo, hoping for the antithesis of our current political behavior without risking a portion of his high approval ratings. The country is in dire need of a process that rises above those on the left who desire an investigation for perfunctory purposes because they've already tried the case in the court of public opinion, and those on the right who will blindly defend the previous administration's actions at all costs. The destruction that the so-called war on terror has done to human capital both here and abroad, the nation's economy, our standing in the world, not to mention the Constitution, must have a written legacy lest future generations run the risk of repeating our contemporary moral infractions. Like JFK, the president must transform this much-needed process into something that he can support. The legislative branch simply does not have the moral standing to lead. But the president does. The president must appoint a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission led by individuals such as former President Jimmy Carter and former Sen. Howard Baker. He should give the commission full subpoena power. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who led South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, could also advise him. The president, standing in the Rose Garden surrounded by members of Congress, can set the tone for how these investigations should take place. I'm quite familiar with the arguments, particularly on the left, opposing such an idea because nothing short of seeing members of the Bush administration behind bars will suffice. This approach, in my opinion, is too linear to serve the public good. The potential infractions go to the core of who we are as a country. And let us not forget there was bipartisan public approval for the path that we've taken, at least in the beginning. A blue-ribbon commission would be charged to ask: How did we get here? The answer to that question can ill afford to have the slightest hint of partisanship if it is to serve the public interests. Unfortunately, the president, based on his statements, seems to think that bipartisanship will happen naturally and he need only offer tacit approval. That's not how politics in our current climate works; and it is certainly not how leader's lead.
 
Andy Ostroy: How the Internet is Killing Our Economy Top
The United States is facing the most challenging economic crisis since The Great Depression of the 1930's. And if you ask me, the greatest technological invention ever, the Internet, is in no small part responsible. In fact, I believe the Internet is not only killing our economy, it's shredding our social fabric as well. To be sure, the Internet is an incredibly useful medium. It's been a genuine paradigm shifter, altering the way we communicate, research, travel, shop and organize, educate and entertain ourselves. It allows us to do all of these everyday tasks faster, more efficiently and more cost-effectively...often times even free. And therein lies the gargantuan problem of the Internet. As someone who's formed and runs a few businesses, I can tell you firsthand that free is not good. Free never shows up on a P&L or a balance sheet. Free doesn't fatten the company's coffers and allow for growth and expansion. And you can't pay bills with free . In short, and to use the vernacular of my 16-year-old son, free, in business, sucks . Yet, the Internet is all about free. We can get our newspapers and magazines for free. We can watch televisions programs free. We can download movies and music free. We can book our own travel, send free mail, make free phone calls, send free greeting cards. We can, thanks to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter to name a few, even socialize for free, never having to leave the house or spend one red-cent actually socializing the way truly sociable folks used to. Think about all the businesses, all the people, who've been slammed by this economic black hole called the Internet. Consider how much money has literally been sucked out of America's GDP by this rapacious beast which resides in our laptops, PC's, iPhones and Blackberries. Look how it's destroyed the music business, travel agencies, the publishing industry. It's killed the movie after-markets, like DVD. Look at the strikes it's caused in Hollywood, because somehow studios think that viewing content on a computer screen instead of a TV screen somehow gives license to screw writers out of their residuals. Think of all the money not spent in cafes, bars, lounges, restaurants, clubs, video stores, and book stores because of the proliferation of impersonal, intimacy-starved social-networking sites and free-content sites. Somehow, when it came to the Internet, businesses decided the only way to truly attract a scalable audience was to give them everything free. But now that the economic shit's hitting the fan, our corporate titans may be coming to the long-overdue realization that capitalism and free are about as successful a marriage as Karl Rove and Queer Eye's Carson Kressley. Just this week one of those corporate uber-moguls, Rupert Murdoch, announced that his News Corporation will begin charging for content on his newspaper websites within a year in a direct answer to what he calls the current "malfunctioning" business model. Citing the enviable success of the Wall Street Journal's growing online subscription revenues, Murdoch said that newspapers were experiencing an "epochal" debate over charging consumers for content. Murdoch's a guy who likes to make money. I'll bet he'll make it all work and have the last laugh. Hopefully, others will follow suit. I'll say it again: free sucks . Nobody can make money by giving their products an services away for nothing. There can be no profit without revenue. And without revenue all you have is expense, which leads to bleeding red ink. The more people like Murdoch who wake up and smell the cyber-coffee, the sooner our economy and our once-thriving capitalist society can get back on track. When companies and individuals make money, they spend money. Just because a business operates online doesn't mean all that good old fashioned Wharton Business School stuff doesn't apply. Let's keep all the speed, the ease, and the efficiency of the internet, but how about making people pay for it all, just like everywhere else? Duh... More on Twitter
 

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)