Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Marjon Rebecca Carlos: Lady of the Hour: LeToya Luckett Takes on R&B, Love & Self Top
When sitting down recently to interview R&B singer, LeToya Luckett, I couldn't help but pick up on this certain something about the star, this ineffable quality that makes one want to just root for her. I would never consider the former Destiny's Child bandmember and now successful solo artist as an "underdog", per se; heaven's no. But there is a "local girl done good" quality that seems to just exude forth from the Houston, Texas native. I mean, to speak frankly, Ms. Luckett has had to go up against the indomitable spirit of Papa Knowles and the "Beyoncé machine" when Destiny's Child collapsed in 2000 over rumors of internal mismanagement, and resuscitate her career after a six-year hiatus from the public eye. Trying to be creative under conditions like these would leave anyone paralyzed with doubt, but since the 2006 run-away success of her single "Torn" and number-one album, LeToya , the singer has been working relentlessly to come into her own as an artist. With this week's release of her sophomore project, Lady Love, she has seemingly done just that. Having already released two singles from Lady Love , "Not Anymore" and "She Ain't Got, "Ms. Luckett is well on her way to leaving her own "thumbprint", as she likes to put it, on R&B music. She confesses that with the immediate success of her single, "Torn", she was catapulted from the respite she had carved for herself in Houston, Texas to the centerstage. "I quite literally had to chase the single down, all while developing myself as a solo artist, finding out who I was as an artist." True, up until "Torn", the singer's career trajectory had largely been marked by another time, by another sound, by another LeToya altogether, so fans were eager to discover where Ms. Luckett would be taking us as she embarked out on her own. LeToya's search for a musical id is not lost even on her most unwavering of fans, especially considering that now more than ever, a musical artist's persona is so deeply tied to their sound and success. Although "Torn" was a hit, it didn't quite tell us listeners much about Ms. Luckett's potential or range as an artist; it didn't quite give us an idea of what exactly she wanted to say. Le Toya reassures me that Lady Love addresses these queries head-on, and she has really found who "Toya" is. And from the sound of it, you can't disagree. Collaborating with the likes of Ne-Yo, Ludacris, Tank, Estelle and Ryan Leslie, Ms. Luckett was looking to have fun and more importantly "create music that can change people's lives and hearts" on her sophomore offering. A tall order, but with the help of R&B producing wunderkid, Ne-Yo, channeling her newly realized sense of self into song, it makes it all the more conceivable. Confronting the histrionics and wounds of relationships directly, Ms. Luckett explains that with Lady Love she "got some guts" and wanted to be the voice for those women who far too often lose themselves in relationships. I tell her that I can certainly gauge that sentiment on my favorite track, "Regret," featuring Ludacris. Pegged as the third-single off the album, Ms. Luckett squeals in delight after learning of how this track struck quite a chord with me. A smooth ballad that moves delicately over a simple piano-riff, Ms. Luckett's powerful voice warbles of how an old love will realize all too late how much of an influence and impression LeToya in fact had on his life. But to be fair, LeToya isn't about imparting the blame on the fellas entirely. No, she's much more interested in discussing the mutual culpability men and women must take in their relationships, and is quick to reveal she's guilty of committing mistakes of her own. With tracks like "Lazy" and "Take Away Love", the listener can easily identify Ms. Luckett's earnestness, her honesty about relationships, which makes this album all the more powerful in its accessibility. She is direct in her wants from a partner on "Good To Me" and particularly fed up with the back-and-forth of a dissolving relationship. When she revealed to me, "I am speaking from experience on this album....I am not afraid of being alone and single," you believe her. But for those who still harbor any doubts over such a confession, they need only look to Lady Love 's bold album art, which has LeToya encased in free-form armor, her lithe-form peeking out ever so through the slits. Serving as a defense mechanism to the fullest, Ms. Luckett explains that the armor, "represents a protection of one's heart. I am free within...but that armor protects my heart." A serious forewarning to any interested parties, especially considering Ms. Luckett's effervescence and general charm works in stark contrast to such an image. But perhaps when there is more at stake, when there is greater sense of self at play, you're not going to just fall susceptible to the same patterns, the same ruses that have beleagured you before. Yes, it sounds like another time, another sound, another LeToya altogether.
 
Stephen Gyllenhaal: Common Sense: What you guys got on Capital Hill - we want on Main Street! Top
Common Sense - if it was good enough for Benjamin Franklin, it's good enough for me. You Senators and Congressmen know damn well what the best health care plan is - you've got it for yourselves, and for the Supreme Court and for everyone that works at the White House. All three branches of government set up by our forefathers have single payer health care, sponsored by the government. And while you Conservative representatives may call it Socialism or Communism or whatever you like - has any of you opted out of the plan? Or you Liberals and Centrists who are still on the fence or scratching your heads about how complicated the whole thing is, was it all that complicated when you signed on that bottom line for you and your families? Why haven't you been discussing this solution with all of us - daily? Are you afraid we're going to take it away from you if we understand the truth and don't get it too? It's the only option that makes sense, which is why you all got it and why I want it. Single payer health care. Or could it possibly be that you all in DC feel superior to us? Or feel that you have a right to something we don't? Why? Because we elected you? How about some common sense here? Or maybe you're just greedy. If it's any of the above, I suggest you go back to Ben Franklin, see what he'd have to say on the subject. I suspect the word "treason" might come up, given that this government was founded on the concept of the people, by the people and for the people. Back in Franklin's day the punishment for treason was hanging for which no amount of health care is helpful. And what was Franklin's famous saying on that subject? "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Common Sense: let's not hang anybody (out to dry or otherwise) - single payer health care for all! More on Health Care
 
Tamara Conniff: Why Red Bull Might Save Music Top
I wanted to buy Green Day's new album 21st Century Breakdown . I could have downloaded but I desired to touch it, look at the CD art, and own a hard copy. I'm old school sometimes. Also, I didn't want to wait for shipping from Amazon.com. No, I needed it now. Suddenly, I felt like a complete moron. Where can I buy a CD in Los Angeles? Tower Records on Sunset Boulevard went under, as did the Virgin Megastore. Amoeba Records, the only independent record store -- actually the only record store period still in business in was too far for me to drive to. Oh no! Oh no! I had to go to Best Buy! I panicked. Until now, I had managed not to give in and purchase music at Best Buy. I bowed my head, sucked in my pride and went to Best Buy. I found the music easily at the front of the store. I didn't fall prey to expensive electronic gadgets beckoning me to buy. I ran out of the store, CD clenched in my hand. I was happy sad. Yes, I do believe there is such an emotion. Happy I had the album. Sad I was lame enough to need a physical copy. Sad my beloved recorded music business was falling into the toilet. Happy that out of the ashes can come new models. Or maybe old ones can be revived? A quick history lesson: RCA Records, home of Elvis Presely, was initially launched in the 1930s not to sell music, but to sell phonographs, specifically the famous "Victorla." Fast forward to 1999 when Starbucks got into the music business by purchasing Hear Music. The Starbucks honchos put music in stores to sell coffee, not music. They were trying to create Starbucks as the ultimate lifestyle brand; music was simply a part of that. Music executives however thought Starbucks could be the salvation of the music business. That dream came to an abrupt halt McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts started boosting their 'gourmet' coffees. Starbucks had to refocus on their core and cut their entertainment initiatives almost to nothing. Itunes. Yes. Music sells iPods. Best Buy is not in the business of selling music, they want to sell flat screen TVs. Music is a lure -- a lure that is not working. Big box retailers are such as Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart have dramatically cut music retail space. Some will use mobile devices and gadgets at front of store to seduce customers instead of music. What is recorded music worth? Note I say recorded music. Sales are plummeting -- both digital and physical. In part, this is due to the economy -- if a consumer has to choose between dinner and a CD, most will choose dinner. Also, an entire generation of music lovers do not value recorded music as a product to buy. They grew up stealing it off the internet and became accustomed to poor sound quality. Musicos take great care in the perfect mix, the perfect sound quality, and the perfect equipment to get the perfect sound. However, the average consumer could care less. They are accustomed to listening to music on mobile phones, cheap MP3 players, or through computer speakers. Nothing fancy. Nothing hi fi. Fact: Artists need to make recorded music. An act lives to make their art and have people hear it. Fact: Artists need to make money to live. Do artists need to make their money off of recorded music? Not necessarily. Let's take a developing band looking to make it in today's marketplace. They have to be good. This may sound like a silly caveat, but it's surprising how many mediocre and often downright horrible acts are signed to record labels. The band has to be able to play live. Gone are the days of made-up over produced bands, fans want the real thing. Despite the current downturn in ticket sales (stay tuned for another blog entry devoted to ticketing), smaller venues, booking good bands, offering affordable tickets are selling out. Those same fans are buying tshirts because they want everyone to know they were at the show. True fans may even subscribe to an online fan club if they could get tickets before the general public, video blogs from the band, and yes, FREE recorded music to download. Or, what if Coca-Cola were to become the new "Victrola"? A brand could pay an artist to record music and then offer the tunes for free to all the consumers who purchase the product. Why not give away free downloads with cans of soda pop? Artist makes money. Fans get free music. More people are drinking soda pop. This model can work, but there are few requirements: the artist has to actually like the soda pop, the artist has to be very active with fans online, the brand has to allow for the artist to grow slowly and not slap logos on everything. There is one company that is trying this model -- Red Bull. Yes, Red Bull has a record label and they are developing a few artists under the radar. Once upon a time kings and queens commissioned artists like Mozart for musical masterpieces. Perhaps, brands will be the new patrons of the arts.
 
How To Hide In Your Office (VIDEO) Top
Via Gizmodo comes this hilarious (and informative) video of Russian people's office-hiding techniques. We have no idea what they're saying, but that adds to the awesomeness because everything is funnier without context. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Funny Videos
 
Kimberly Krautter: 10,000 Words from Ted Kennedy: A little girl and the Lion Top
The first time I met The Lion of the Senate, I was not nearly as in awe of him as I was of then House Speaker Tip O'Neill. I was about eleven years old, four-foot nothing, and the Speaker was enormous to me. In truth, he dwarfed most. Being precocious and a political junkie even then, I was of course aware that both were giants, and I was eager to sponge every essence of the meetings. I was impressed for all of the obvious reasons but also because both gentlemen had a twinkle in their eyes, a mirthful laugh and massive paws that enveloped mine into a generous but gentle handshake that pulled me into a hug. I also remember being so proud of my dad whom I was shadowing as he made visits on The Hill, championing his dream -- and an official project of the State of Georgia -- of helping Americans learn as much about citizenship as they know about baseball. Each listened to my dad, agreed it was important, pledged their support, and I believed them. Neither let him down. The dream and the project live on. The second time I met Senator Kennedy it was on a political junket with "The Dean's List," a group of high donor fundraisers for Governor Howard Dean's Presidential Primary campaign. We had been invited to participate in the "Unity" events that aimed to get all Democrats and party backers on board for the John Kerry nomination. Our friend Terry Lierman put together an amazing day of small group meetings with Democratic Party luminaries from both congressional chambers, and we were all very impressed and honored. But THE man we were most excited and abuzz to meet was Senator Ted Kennedy. He did not disappoint. The broad, welcoming grin, the twinkle in the eye and the mirth I remembered were there, but our group was treated to something entirely different. There was an urgency in his message to us that day. We must be unified. Our young people were dying in a senseless war while our enemies were being emboldened and multiplying as our military endeavors were distracted from the real perpetrators of 9/11. And if we didn't unify on the matter of health care reform, our entire economy would face collapse and the government would go bankrupt. We had to get together. I remember thinking, wow. This is one man who can use 10,000 words to say something so simple. The thought was one of admiration for how earnest he was and how he spoke, not as a grizzled, jaded and fading political vet. Rather, he spoke with the vim and vigor of a young pup candidate, a true believer. And so, we believed him. I wonder if we'll let him down? More on Ted Kennedy
 
Hassan Nemazee, Prominent Fundraiser For Democrats, Freed On Bail Top
NEW YORK — A prominent fundraiser for President Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and other top Democrats left jail Wednesday for his $20 million Manhattan apartment, where he will remain under house arrest. Investment banker Hassan Nemazee, 59, left U.S. District Court in Manhattan shortly after noon, his folded prescription eyeglasses dangling from the front of his pink shirt. He spent one night at the Metropolitan Correctional Center next to the courthouse after his Tuesday arrest on a bank fraud charge. Prosecutors say he used "fraudulent and forged" documents to get a $74 million business loan. Nemazee must wear an electronic monitoring bracelet during his house arrest. As he left the courthouse, he mildly pushed away a photographer who was standing in front of the door of a gray sedan waiting for him. At his side was his lawyer, Marc Mukasey, who would only say to reporters: "We have no comment now. We're going home." The chairman and chief executive of Manhattan-based Nemazee Capital Corp. served as national finance chairman for Clinton's presidential campaign in 2008. He raised money for Obama after her primary defeat. Nemazee was freed under a $25 million bail package that requires him to pledge his Park Avenue apartment and a Katonah, N.Y., home worth $8 million as collateral within a week. He has $24 million of equity in the properties. He is also banned from using computers or the Internet or getting new cell phones or bank loans. Mukasey on Tuesday called the bail terms "draconian" and "staggering." When Mukasey argued for his client to be released Tuesday before the electronic monitoring could be arranged, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Hillebrect protested, saying prosecutors have reasons to believe Nemazee is a flight risk. To release him without an electronic bracelet "would be a huge mistake," Hillebrect said. FBI agents stopped the financier on Sunday at Newark Liberty International Airport as he prepared to board a flight to Rome, according to court papers. The agents said he paid off the $74 million loan the next day. According to a criminal complaint, Nemazee arranged a $25 million bank line of credit to borrow from in 2006 and extended it last November so he could borrow up to $80 million. The original credit line required him to have a minimum net worth of $250 million while the extended credit line required his net worth to be at least $500 million. The charges resulted after Citibank sought to verify his collateral assets and discovered that Nemazee had used forged documents to show he had financial accounts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the complaint said. Nemazee, who has not had to enter a plea because he has not been indicted, faces up to 30 years in prison if he is convicted. More on Barack Obama
 
Stacie Nevadomski Berdan: Have ATM Card That Will Travel? Not So Fast Top
I've spent a lot of time traveling internationally. Some for business and some for pleasure, but regardless of the reason, I always need more cash then I seem to have on hand. Despite the realization last fall that our financial systems are uncomfortably interconnected around the world, getting cash while traveling internationally is not so easy. And for some banks, you have to pay big bucks in fees to access your own hard-earned money -- or even use a credit card outside the U.S. I've paid fees that should be criminal in some parts of the world, simply to exchange my hard currency for rupia, rubles or renminbi. The ability to be able to get cash when traveling rivals in importance to staying in a safe hotel; cash equals safety. So many places around the world do not take credit cards and personal foreign checks are worthless. Cash is king and yet many people mistake an ATM card for a constant source of cash while traveling. While in Hong Kong for a week promoting my book , I found I could not access my U.S. bank account without incurring high fees. I bit the bullet and withdrew what I needed, which, thankfully, was not much as Hong Kong is a city that runs on plastic. From Hong Kong, my family and I traveled to the Philippines and stayed with an old friend in Manila. I decided to straighten out my financials then since we planned to visit the kinds of places that do not take credit cards -- some of the outlying islands to take in sights far from any city or bank -- and needed cash. The first day I went to a bank and withdrew money, no problem. I suspected all was fine, withdrew again two days later and was fine again. The third time, I was allowed only a $100 withdrawal -- significantly less than I needed. Running out of time, I had to get the cash or I would disappoint my twin daughters who were really looking forward to swimming with whale sharks in Donsol. Shocked and embarrassed, I had to borrow cash from my friend to pay for our tickets. If not for him, our vacation would have taken a sharp nose dive. I later learned that since I had not been in the Philippines for 10 years, my bank tagged my transactions there as "suspicious" and mistakenly froze my account, limiting my daily withdrawal to $100. I was also charged high transaction fees, something that had been implemented unbeknownst to me in the past 12 months. Needless to say, I was quite unhappy both there and when I returned to the U.S. and read my statement. Adding insult to injury was my credit card statement; it showed two fees: one for using my card abroad and the other for exchanging currency. Shocked, I was convinced that some bank had to offer superior services for global travelers such as myself. Fortunately, while doing some consulting for HSBC, I learned about HSBC's Premier service that caters to individuals who live and travel overseas. I loved what I learned enough to switch over my account and tell everyone I know who travels internationally to check it out. It offers me international services and support like no other bank -- replete with a Premier Relationship Manager who can provide 24/7 assistance - which would have helped when we wanted to swim with the whale sharks -- as well as a credit card that doesn't charge foreign transaction fees. If you travel internationally, it pays to find out what fees you're being charged -- and perhaps do something about it.
 
Mark Sanford: I Will Not Resign (VIDEO) Top
COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he appreciates the lieutenant governor's offer to take over, but he plans to stay in office. Sanford said Wednesday that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer's call for him to resign hours earlier was almost like "heaven on earth." Sanford's June admission to an affair with an Argentine woman has led to questions about the legality of his travel on state and commercial planes. But he says the people of South Carolina want to move past the scandals. He says he will not be railroaded out of office and thinks he can still do important things for South Carolina in the last 16 months of his term. Bauer says that if Sanford steps down, he will renew his offer to stay out of the 2010 gubernatorial race. Sanford's term ends in January 2011. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – South Carolina's lieutenant governor called on Gov. Mark Sanford to resign Wednesday, promising to put aside his own political ambitions if that convinces fellow Republicans wary of elevating him to urge Sanford to step down. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is now the most prominent state Republican pressing for Sanford's resignation two months after the governor came under fire for sneaking away to a secret rendezvous with his Argentine mistress. "It is my opinion the best interest of the people of South Carolina can no longer be served by the current administration," Bauer said. "The serious misconduct that has been revealed along with lingering questions and continuing distractions make it virtually impossible for our state to solve the critical problems we're facing without a change in leadership." Sanford has said before he has no plans to resign, but his spokesman did not return several calls and e-mails Wednesday. Bauer said he tried to give his fellow Republican the benefit of the doubt after he admitted his affair with the Argentine woman, but the state has been paralyzed by questions raised afterward about the legality of Sanford's official travel. Bauer said he worries calls for Sanford's impeachment will dominate next year's legislative session instead of issues like the economy and job creation. Bauer was widely expected to run for governor in 2010 but said he will not if that's what it takes to encourage other Republicans to call for Sanford's resignation. Some had been wary, fearing Bauer would get a long-term tryout for the job if Sanford stepped down. "If taking me out of the governor's race makes this happen, and we move forward quickly, then yes, I'm willing to forgo the opportunities that I may have to be the next governor for four or eight years in the best interests of the people of South Carolina," Bauer said. Sacrificing the run for governor next year could boost Bauer's status in the state GOP but still allow the 40-year-old plenty of time for another election. His announcement comes a day after the first formal gubernatorial campaign news conference by Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster. Bauer has always been Sanford's lieutenant governor, but South Carolina voters choose the officials separately and the two have had a rocky relationship. Some of Bauer's friends in the Legislature are among Sanford's biggest critics and Sanford's estranged wife supported a Bauer opponent in the 2006 GOP primary. Sanford has come under scrutiny since he returned from a nearly weeklong disappearance in June to admit he had been in Argentina visiting his mistress. His staff had been led to believe he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. The governor told The Associated Press his mistress was his soul mate, and AP investigations since have found Sanford used state planes for personal and political trips, which state law prohibits. He also failed to disclose trips on private plans that ethics officials say should have been made public in campaign and ethics filings. An AP investigation in July showed the governor took pricey flights on commercial airlines for overseas trips despite a law requiring state employees to use lowest-cost travel. A state senator investigating those flights has said six of them broke the law and the state attorney general has called for an ethics probe. The governor says he has done nothing wrong and claims the AP has mischaracterized his flights on private planes. He says he flew in more expensive seats on commercial flights because he needed to be well rested on economic development trips, which other governors have done. His office also has claimed the law restricting such use is no longer valid. His wife has moved out of the governor's mansion with the couple's four sons but says she and her husband are working on their marriage. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Mark Sanford
 
As FDIC's Funds Dwindle, Regulator May Need To Ask For More Money Top
NEW YORK — The government agency that guarantees you won't lose your money in a bank failure may need a lifeline of its own. The coffers of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have been so depleted by the epidemic of collapsing financial institutions that analysts warn it could sink into the red by the end of this year. That has happened only once before – during the savings-and-loan crisis of the early 1990s, when the FDIC was forced to borrow $15 billion from the Treasury and repay it later with interest. On Thursday, the agency reveals how much is left in its reserves. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair may also use the quarterly briefing to say how the agency plans to shore up its accounts. Small and midsize banks across the country have been hurt by rising loan defaults in the recession. When they fail, the FDIC is responsible for making sure depositors don't lose a cent. It has two options to replenish its insurance fund in the short run: It can charge banks higher fees or it can take the more radical step of borrowing from the U.S. Treasury. None of this means bank customers have anything to worry about. The FDIC is fully backed by the government, which means depositors' accounts are guaranteed up to $250,000 per account. And it still has billions in loss reserves apart from the insurance fund. On Thursday, Bair will also update the number of banks on the FDIC's list of troubled institutions. That number shot up to 305 in the first quarter – the highest since 1994 and up from 252 late last year. Because of surging bank failures, the FDIC's board was expected Wednesday afternoon to make it easier for private investors to buy failed financial institutions. Private equity funds have been criticized for taking too many risks and paying managers too much. But these days fewer healthy banks are willing to buy ailing banks, and the depth of the banking crisis appears to have softened the FDIC's resistance to private buyers. At least in theory, allowing private investors to buy failing banks would mean the FDIC could charge a higher price, shrinking the amount of losses the agency would have to cover. Bair has not ruled out hiking premiums on banks for the second time this year or asking the Treasury for a short-term loan. She has said taking the longer-term step of drawing on the Treasury credit line is only for emergencies. So far this year, 81 banks have failed, compared with just 25 last year – and only three in 2007. Hundreds more banks are expected to fall in coming years because of souring loans for commercial real estate. That threatens to deplete the FDIC's fund. "I think the public should expect the fund to go negative at some point," said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets, which has predicted that up to 1,000 banks – or one in eight – could disappear within three years. Either lifeline for the FDIC carries risks. Borrowing from the Treasury could be seen as another taxpayer bailout. But charging more in premiums would shrink profits at healthy banks, squeeze troubled ones and make lending even tighter. "The more you levy these assessments on banks, the less money they have to lend to the general population," said Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, an industry group that represents 5,000 banks. Last week's failure of Guaranty Bank in Texas, the second-largest this year, is expected to cost the FDIC $3 billion. The FDIC recorded more than $19 billion in losses just through March. The agency figures it will need $70 billion to cover bank failures through 2013, more than five times the $13 billion that was in the fund in March. The last time it was that low was during the S&L crisis in 1992, when the fund was down to $178 million. Some critics say regulators have taken too long to shut down troubled banks. Chicago's Corus Bankshares, for example, has staggered for weeks under the weight of bad real estate loans. FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray said the agency seeks to strike a balance between helping troubled banks work through their problems "so there's zero cost to the deposit fund," and intervening quickly if there are no other options. ___ AP Business Writer Marcy Gordon contributed to this report from Washington.
 
Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Playing Shortstop for The Boston "Ted" Sox Top
Ted Kennedy was my boss and my mentor. More than anyone in my life, he inspired me as he inspired all of the many hundreds of staffers who served him on his senate staff. I began volunteering as a freshman in college in his mailroom in 1969 when I was 20 years old. In those first months I ran errands, drove him to appointments, babysat his children Kara, Teddy Jr. and Patrick, and wrote many speeches and Congressional Record statements that he would insert for every conceivable cause, event and person who merited having "The Senator's" support. I was also a short-stop on his Senate office softball team affectionately known as the "Boston Ted Sox." Senator Kennedy would come out several times each summer to play softball with his staff and summer interns. He captained the team, yelled us on, and then jumped in to play first base when it looked like his staff could inconceivably lose to another senate office team. Lose! A Kennedy nor his staff could lose a softball game! So The Senator would grab a bat. And he hit many a ball out of the ballpark. He always, always was hitting them out of the ballpark. My most cherished photo is of us standing out in a baseball field in DC soaking wet from a rainstorm that had interrupted a game. He was as muddy and wet as the rest of us were. For the many generations of staff who had the honor to serve him during his Senate tenure, all of us were proud members of the "Boston Ted Sox." The staff either respectfully referred to him as "The Senator" or "EMK." It was never appropriate for us to call him by his first or last name. To this day -- especially this day, I always just called him "The Senator." After a year volunteering, I was hired by Senator Kennedy to be a legislative assistant on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Refugees, which he chaired. It was The Senator's mini-State Department. He chaired this Subcommittee with courage and conviction on behalf of millions of the world's hungry and destitute refugees. It was from this vantage point that I came to see a side of Senator Kennedy which few in America appreciate -- a tireless globe-trotting champion of the downtrodden victims of war and natural disaster whose passion, concern and commitment saved countless thousands from certain death. It is a legacy that deserves to be better known as he is honored by so many today and in the weeks ahead. During the Vietnam War, Senator Kennedy (a veteran himself), trudged through countless refugees camps in Vietnam and Cambodia to shed light on the plight of the innocent war victims that were left homeless, caught in the incessant crossfire. He railed against President Nixon and his Administration for failing to do more to come to the aid of these hundred of thousands of Vietnamese. Kennedy did everything humanly possible to convince his colleagues in the Senate to support greater aid to help Vietnam's displaced. He singlehandedly compelled the Nixon Administration to devote more foreign assistance to the refugee organizations working in the refugee camps, and strengthened the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees by moblizing global humanitarian support for Vietnamese victims of the war. We always knew that the world's refugee crisis was a 24/7 commitment, and Senator Kennedy was determined to make a difference. When Bangladesh declared its independence in 1971 and Pakistan's military invaded it, hundreds of thousands of refugees fled into India. Kennedy came to their rescue. He personally galvanized the U.S. military to airlift relief supplies to the refugee camps around squalid Calcutta, spent over a week among the refugees working with international relief organizations to organize their donor needs from the U.S. government and the generosity of the American people. When he returned to the Senate, he used the gavel of his Subcommittee chairmanship to enlist his colleagues in supporting new changes to the foreign assitance act and the Food for Peace program to enable massive airlifts of food to feed the starving refugees in India. Kennedy took great personal risks as Chairman of the Senate Refugee Subcommittee. He courageously traveled with UN personnel into war zones to investigate and attempt to protect refugees. When the breakaway region of Nigeria, known as Biafra, broke away, Kennedy implored the Nigerian Army to enable interntional relief agencies to begin protecting the innocent civilians caught in the civil strife. The Senator sent me to the Middle East one year to investigate the plight of Palestinian refugees following the 1973 Middle East war. After visiting almost 20 refugee camps, I returned to Washington to write the first report about Palestinian refugees as a junior staffer for the Subcommittee. Kennedy read every page, and then convinced his colleagues to support more social, medical and welfare support for the UN Relief and Works Agency, which provides funding for many of the Palestinians. Kennedy introduced an amendment to the 1974 Foreign Assistance Act to speed more humanitarian relief to Palestinians In the face of some critics at home. Kennedy never backed down from his support to find a permanent home for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, which he considered absolutely essential to the cause of peace as a passionate supporter of Israel. When Soviet Jews were being persecuted by the Kremlin, Kennedy travelled repeatedly to Moscow with lists of names in his hand to appeal to Soviet leaders to gain their release. By his own legacy and persistence, hundreds of Soviet Jews personally gained their freedom because of his intervention. I know I am not doing adequate justice to all Senator Kennedy did for refugees around the world with these few, short paragraphs. Where there was war, Senator Kennedy believed someone had to protect the innocent victims. When you next travel to Vietnam or Cambodia, to Laos or to East Timor, to Bangladesh or to Sudan, to Nigeria or Jordan, to Algeria or Russia, Senator Kennedy's legacy will endure as a savior of refugees. In the four decades that Senator Kennedy chaired or served on the Refugee Subcommittee, there is not one U.S. or international relief organization that did not benefit from his professional or personal generosity. The United Nations is a much stronger global relief organization because of his enduring support. Congress has become far more amenable to supporting a strong, vital U.S. foreign aid program because of his leadership. The cause of refugees has become a critical issue among global diplomats in international forums because of lion-like devotion to humanitarian causes around the world. Surely JFK is remembered around the world for his presidency and RFK is admired among his generation for his compassion. Tonight, by candlelight or lantern EMK will be quietly remembered and honored in thousands of tents, huts and homes of refugees around the world who owe their lives and the lives of their children to his generous devotion to their safety and security. Ted Kennedy was as much a home run king around the world as he was to so many millions of Americans at home. More on Refugees
 
Shannyn Moore: VIDEO: Senator Ted Kennedy's Address to Alaskans Top
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy spoke to the Alaska Democratic Party Convention in Sitka on April 7, 1968. He addressed the convention shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and weeks before Robert F. Kennedy's death. Senator Ted Kennedy was standing in for his brother, Robert, who had been scheduled to speak. This speech was discovered as an open reel simply marked, "Ted Kennedy Sitka" forty years later and was in near perfect condition. Senator Mark Begich referred to this speech in his statement: "Many Alaskans remember Senator Kennedy's visits to our state - notably in 1968, when he joined Alaskans in mourning the loss of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr ., and in 1971, when he promised rural Alaska help fighting poverty, a promise he made good on." Courtesy the Alaska State Library Historical Collections. More on Video
 
Paul LeGendre: Ted Kennedy: Fearless Leader in the Fight against Hate Crime Top
Senator Kennedy's prolific career spanned nearly five decades, during which he authored more than 2,500 bills in the U.S. Senate. Several hundred have become public law. This fall we hope to add yet another bill to that distinguished list - the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Ted Kennedy was one of the Senate's earliest champions in the fight against hate crime. Since the early 1990s, Senator Kennedy has called for better government response to the growing problem of violence motivated by racism, religious intolerance, sexual orientation bias or other similar factors. For example, in one of his most courageous political moments, Senator Kennedy argued in favor of legislation protecting those who face violence because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. He spoke out after realizing that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, as well as those who seek to protect their rights, have been threatened by a particularly aggressive wave of bias-motivated violence. Senator Kennedy later went to on to compare hate crimes to "acts of domestic terrorism" and worked tirelessly to pass hate crimes legislation in the Senate. In 2007, he joined Sen. Gordon Smith in a bipartisan effort to pass the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The bill failed to advance in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but that not deter Senator Kennedy. He continued to fight, and just this year, the Senate adopted this critical measure as part of the Defense Authorization Bill. Human Rights First is one of many U.S. rights groups supporting the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as it will help to ensure that law enforcement authorities have the tools they need to combat violent hate crime in the United States. This bill could prove to be one of the nation's strongest weapons to date to protect those who are most vulnerable to bias-motivated violence. These crimes - including assaults on individuals, damage to homes and personal property, and attacks on places of worship, cemeteries, community centers, and schools - undermine our shared values of equality and nondiscrimination, ideals that Senator Kennedy worked his whole life to promote. Senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime friend of the human rights movement and a powerful supporter of social justice and democracy at home and throughout the world. He had a keen understanding of the courage and tenacity it takes to overcome adversity and to find the way forward when the odds seem insurmountable. This fall, we sincerely hope that President Obama will follow in his footsteps by signing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law. P.S. Watch Human Rights First's Tribute to Edward Moore Kennedy. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Stimulus Checks Mistakenly Sent To 1,700 Inmates Top
The federal government mistakenly sent out stimulus checks to 1,700 inmates, the Social Security Administration said Tuesday -- a $425,000 error.
 
Thomas Frank: Health Care and the Democratic Soul Top
What is at stake in the debate over health care is more than the mere crafting of policy. The issue is now the identity of the Democratic Party. By now we know that Democrats can bail out traditional Republican constituencies like Wall Street, but it remains to be seen whether they can enact a convincing version of their own signature issue: health-care reform. At this point, it's fair to ask whether Democrats remember why health care is their issue in the first place. As health-care debates always have done, this one has pushed to the fore all the big questions about the rightful role of government, and too many Democrats have sought to avoid them with mushy appeals to consensus and bipartisanship. The war is on and if Democrats want to win they need to start fighting. In the early years of the campaign for national health insurance, the battle lines were more clearly drawn. Back in the '40s, the issue was part of an "economic bill of rights," a grand Rooseveltian idea pushed by President Harry S. Truman. Truman had a knack for populist phrasing. "In 1932 we were attacking the citadel of special privilege and greed," he declared in accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in 1948. "We were fighting to drive the money changers from the temple. Today, in 1948, we are now the defenders of the stronghold of democracy and of equal opportunity, the haven of the ordinary people of this land and not of the favored classes or the powerful few." The Democrats won that particular battle with "the powerful few" but, fighting among themselves as usual, failed to enact national health insurance. Health-care reform nonetheless remained their great cause, their high-voltage appeal to average voters, even those who otherwise saw them as a Harvard-and-Hollywood elite. And even during feeble reform campaigns like President Bill Clinton's 1993 attempt, the opposite half of the populist melodrama--in that case, the insurance industry--duly acted out its corporate bad-guy role. This year things were supposed to be different. Democrats hold good-sized majorities in both houses of Congress and are led by an eloquent president who won an undeniable mandate last November. This time, the Democrats got the traditional opponents of health-care reform on board: "Ex-Foes of Health-Care Reform Emerge as Supporters" declared a headline in the Washington Post in March, over a story describing a friendly summit meeting between Mr. Obama and various health-care industry representatives. This time the health-care fight was to be what official Washington loves: An act of cold consensus, not of hot idealism or Trumanesque populism. All the "stakeholders" would be taken care of. No one would need to get his suit ruffled. And all it took to send the whole thing crashing to the ground, it now appears, were a few groundless rumors and a handful of angry right wingers who figured out how to game town-hall meetings and get themselves on TV. "Today there is another populist revolt afoot," wrote Gary Bauer in Human Events last week, hailing the righteous grassroots outrage he sees in the town-hall protests. So we have come full circle: The reformers shake hands with the special interests, while conservatives denounce the whole thing in the name of the common man and the Founding Fathers. After I listened to a few angry town-hall meetings on the radio, the situation was clear to me. Democrats had to meet this pseudo-populist challenge by rolling out the real thing, the New Deal vision that is their party's raison d'être. So far, however, many in the party's leadership haven't been able to awaken from their bipartisan reverie. When Mr. Obama found his plans under attack, for example, he promptly began to downplay the "public option," an obvious predicate to cutting a deal and placating the insurance industry. In other words, the prospect of a populist outburst from the right apparently moved him toward abandoning the most populist element of his party's plans and toward an even more Beltwayist position--to move that much closer to the caricature of Democrats traditionally drawn by the right. Mr. Obama still has time to reverse course. A great deal depends on it. To fail on health care yet again might well be the "Waterloo" Republicans dream of. And yet, as the party's leaders click through their PowerPoint presentations and review the complicated details, they seem unable to confront the biggest questions that the right is asking, the ones about the eternal perfidy of government. Maybe Democrats are afraid it will hurt their standing with those generous fellows on K Street if they channel Harry Truman and say what needs to be said: That government can be made to work for average people. But it will hurt even worse if they refuse to say it. Read other Opinion Journal articles: Bernanke's Second Chance Four Ways to Help Africa More on Health Care
 
Patricia Handschiegel: The New Power Girls: Is The Credit Crunch Hurting Women Startups? Top
The backyard party at a well-heeled women entrepreneur's house is littered with women founders and executives who work and play together in Los Angeles. A cheese plate from the local hot spot Joan's on Third, munchies and red wine flows as evening sets. The group ranges from battle-hardened CEOs who have owned companies for years, high-level executives from a variety of prestigious companies, and freshly launched startup founders. They laugh and share stories about their companies, issues they're facing and of course, the near-constant work/life juggle of having big goals with being young and active. Today's new modern women entrepreneurs and executives know the power of networking and support. In fact, they live by it. As the night goes on, the economy comes up in conversation as everybody chimes in about life and business in the recession. After a time, the discussion shifts to options for capital for startup entrepreneurs. "This time around I raised capital for my company," I say as I sit legs crossed on the grass. Others share that they've relied on small business loans, loans from family, the SBA and other means. Many have funded ideas using credit cards. One by one, the women weigh in regarding the credit crunch, new legislation and how interest rates will affect their businesses and larger, the future of women's entrepreneurship. "I'll be honest, I'm worried about it," said one guest who asked to remain anonymous. "It already seems hard to find funding and investor support. If credit isn't possible, I'm not sure how people, not just women, will launch new businesses." It's a sentiment also echoed among The New Power Girls email subscribers, who chimed in this past week. Responses varied from confusion to concern, with a near equal split of those feeling affected by the economy and credit issues and those who are not. "I'm not excited about it," said entrepreneur Jen Grisanti of Jen Grisanti Consulting , of the new credit card legislation. "It will not change things for me in any major way, but it'll affect money coming in." Regardless of response, there was one current theme among the women: As the financial landscape changes for startup and small businesses, Power Girls will be watching - and adjusting - to adapt to the market conditions. See what Meghan and I have to say about this week's topic here More on Small Business
 
Kathy Plesser, MD: Video: Pathologist and Surgeon Team to Find the Extent of a Breast Cancer Top
Most women who have cancer can save their breast with a lumpectomy, followed by radiation therapy. Dr. Deborah Axelrod, a breast surgeon, tells us that a small number of recurrences in the breast are expected with breast conservation. Dr. Baljit Singh, a pathologist, reports the factors that he examines under a microscope which can keep this to a low and acceptable rate. It is about margins, the tissue surrounding the cancer when it is removed. The surgeon has to mark the tissues removed with sutures and clips and the pathologist carefully inks it with different colors for orientation. The desired result is a rim of normal tissue, not containing cancer cells. Dr. Singh talks about other factors : multicentricity, lympho-vascular invasion and hormone receptors. These determine the behavior of the cancer and are found in the pathology report. The surgeon interprets these and this motivates decisions about further treatment. This post was originally posted on BeetMedicine.TV by the site's medical director Peter Pressman, MD About our interviewees: Baljit Singh, MD, Associate Professor & Director of Breast Pathology at NYU Cancer Institute at NYU Langone Medical Center Deborah Axelrod, MD, Associate Professor & Director of Clinical Breast Services and Medical Director, Community Outreach & Education at NYU Cancer Institute at NYU Langone Medical Center
 
Tim Berry: 3 MBA Tricks to Shorten Boring Meetings Top
On the bad days, in off moments, it seems like my two years in business school were mostly about learning the definitions of a few key buzz words to use in meetings. 1. ROI Stands for return on investment, as in profits divided by total investment. For fun in boring meetings, think of it as "run out of interest." So you say: "What's our ROI on that?" That sounds like you know what you're talking about and care about the discussion. But what you mean is "how long before we totally run out of interest on this topic?" Another fun ROI trick is to make the R and I impossible to calculate. That's trendy these days. Blow up the analysis by including status or branding or improved productivity or socio-economic gains as part of the return, or time and effort or creativity as part of the investment. Variations: return on assets (ROA) is another good detour for a group; just redefine assets to mean anything you want that's good for the company. 2. Matrix Take a whiteboard or a piece of paper and divide it into rows and columns. Look at the picture here. I know, it's no big deal, basically something like tic-tac-toe. But it works. Divide whatever it is (competitors, markets, problems, people) into groups that you can cut into boxes on a matrix. The cool thing with the matrix is that it can make the most obvious classifications and categories look deeply analytical. Extra credit: the plural of matrix is matrices. Points off: if the word matrix reminds you of the movie. And, for a really good time, ask Google to define:matrix . 3. Diminishing returns That's when you get less bang for the buck as you put in more bucks. You can also apply the same phrase to a meeting, as in "I think we're at the point of diminishing returns for this meeting," supposedly suggesting that we got a lot out of it in the beginning but now the value is waning. It's like less value per minute when you put in more minutes. This one sounds really good, doesn't it? Look at the Wikipedia definition : In economics, diminishing returns (also called diminishing marginal returns) refers to how the marginal production of a factor of production, in contrast to the increase that would otherwise be normally expected, actually starts to progressively decrease the more of the factor are added. According to this relationship, in a production system with fixed and variable inputs (say factory size and labor), beyond some point, each additional unit of the variable input (IE man*hours) yields smaller and smaller increases in outputs, also reducing the mean productivity of each worker. Conversely, producing one more unit of output, costs more and more (due to the major amount of variable inputs being used,to little effect) (Meeting image above by Steve Weaver via Flickr)
 
The Passing of Ten Kennedy: HuffPost Bloggers React Top
More on Ted Kennedy
 
Steven Waldman: Ted Kennedy, National Service and the Art of the Deal Top
A while back, I wrote a behind-the-scenes book about the passage in 1993 of the law creating AmeriCorps. That national service program is sometimes called the "Domestic Peace Corps," a reference to the international program established by President John F. Kennedy. As chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, the task for getting Bill Clinton's proposal through the Senate in 1993 fell to President Kennedy's younger brother, Ted Kennedy. I got to watch up close Kennedy's extraordinary skill as a legislator. Far from being an ideologue, Kennedy was invariably the guy going for the deal -- so much so that one Democratic player complained that "[Kennedy was] cut and run, cave and run," a phrase that sounds eerily similar to the current liberal critique of Barack Obama. As a Kennedy, who occasionally gave inspirational speeches, he may be remembered as a liberal torch-bearer. But his great talent was trading on his unsurpassed liberal credentials to create bi-partisan legislative coalitions. Republicans came to trust him for his pragmatism; liberals trusted him because he was Ted Kennedy, and never stopped defending liberal principles. It gave Kennedy a unique set of assets as legislative dealmaker. I'd like to share with you some passages from the book that give a sense of Kennedy's much misunderstood style and skill. It gives one a strange sensation to interview someone as recognizable as Ted Kennedy. It is odd to see the familiar features, his moon-scape complexion, the eyelids that turn down slightly at the corner, and those blue eyes. But it is stranger still to see the features that you had never imagined: his nervousness, for instance. When we sat down in the vice president's Senate office, he continually readjusted himself in his seat, and his hands never stopped moving. But most jarring was his inarticulateness. Kennedy can be among the most inspiring men in American politics, and in fact had just spoken eloquently on the floor of the Senate about service yet when asked about what influenced his conception of service, he went into a meandering, nearly incomprehensible riff. "And my sister Jean...the very special arts program which is now an international... in the states which is a program developed out of the Kennedy Center. The concept was very part of our lives. The Peace Corps. When I was at Harvard I worked at the Phillip Brooks House..." People who work for Kennedy get used to interpreting this shorthand; they have a hard time explaining why he can rise to such eloquence in public situations, while his sentences become embarrassingly convoluted during some private moments. But they have come to realize perhaps the most misunderstood point about Kennedy the legislator: his eloquence has nothing to do with his effectiveness as a Senator. Kennedy has become a good Senator because he insists on being well prepared, works hard, has a feel for human relationships, and most surprisingly, is deeply practical. As the torchbearer for modern liberalism, Kennedy has the public image of an ideologue, but in the U.S. Senate he almost cuts his two pinches of idealism with three cups of pragmatism. After years of fighting losing battles, Kennedy has come to take a longer view: Don't become so obsessed with "principle" that you lose the bill." As the national service legislation moved to the floor of the Senate, you could see Kennedy in peak form. Kennedy moved periodically from the floor to the ornate, private Senate cloakroom. As one of the ten most senior senators, he had his name engraved on one of the phone booths in his members-only lounge. He would squeeze himself into the booth, close the door, and call senator after senator with instructions or cajoling: That amendment you were interested in is about to come up and we need you to speak on it ; or We have a gap in the schedule so now's the time to offer your amendment ; or The Republicans are putting us on the defensive about cost, so we could sure use you here to talk about the programs in your state. On the Floor, Kennedy would occasionally organize quick vote counts. When the chamber was full for a vote, Senators Harris Wofford, Chris Dodd and David Boren fanned out, questioned legislators, and reported back to Kennedy... While working privately for a deal in the backrooms, Kennedy would nonetheless push hard rhetorically in public. As the afternoon proceeded, the debate took on a far more combative tone. It began when Senator John McCain of Arizona proposed making soldiers eligible for the same benefits as national service volunteers. He kept referring to the proposal as $10.8 billion program -- taking the exaggerated figure cited by House Republicans and adding another fictitious year of budget projection. Kennedy asked McCain the cost of HIS amendment, but McCain said he did not know. "All I am trying to get is the facts," Kennedy said angrily, "because the senator was very free with facts and distorting the cost of the current bill. He mentioned $10 billion and then, when asked about the cost of his proposal, he does not have it.... I have been around here long enough to understand for those who oppose a particular proposal, their favorite tactic is to distort and misrepresent and put a false price tag on it. That has been done here... We are talking about a national service program of $394 million and such sums in the future." Again the amendment went down, 56-52, with the Democrats holding solid... Kennedy and his top aide, Nick Littlefield, walked down the marble back steps of the Capital to the senator's car. Littlefield thougth the day had gone reasonably well, but Kennedy was uneasy. "We're in trouble right now," Kennedy said, to Littlefield's surprise." It's turned into a debate about tax-and-spend instead of about service. "The chemistry," Kennedy said, "is all wrong." As the debate went on, the lawmakers haggled over the size of the program. The White House was furious with how Republicans were shrinking the size of the program and feared it would look like a "pilot program" instead of the ambitious initiative Clinton had promised during the 1992 presidential campaign. They wanted a program that would enlist enough young people to make a major impact, at least 25,000 people in the first year. And they wanted legislative authorization that would guarantee that the program would exist for at least three years to prove itself. But Kennedy was less concerned by the whittling away at the numbers, and indeed started to float compromises. As they were making calls, one of the White House staff aides was monitoring the debate on TV. To their surprise, they heard Kennedy on the floor say, "We are glad to try and find some accommodation. The effect of the Kassebaum amendment would be for five thousand Americans. We are talking twenty-five thousand Americans. I would be glad to suggest that we settle for fifteen thousand in the first year, try to double that the next, and then double that for the third year, and stop it if it it's not working." This was not part of the script. The administration's stand was 25,000 the first year, 50,000 the second, and 100,000 the third--a cumulative total of 175,000 servers in three years. Kennedy had just offered a total of 105,000--a cut of one third nothing in return! Kennedy seemed to be showing signs of desperation.... Throughout the day, the senators, staff, and Segal's team worked the phones to scrounge up Republicans for the next morning's cloture vote. Kennedy privately resisted suggestions that the Democrats become more combative and partisan. But the White House strategists believed the time had come to turn up the volume. In Chicago, Clinton went on the attack. "They just want to delay it," he said. "Why? Why shouldn't we send a signal to America's young pe9ople that we want you to work in your community to make it a better place?" Then the Republicans filibustered the national service bill. It was Kennedy's job to figure out how to break the filibuster or come to an accommodation. The White House and its allies put pressure on the moderate Republicans by generating press coverage in their states. Simultaneously, Kennedy continued to try to work out a deal privately with two key Republican Senators, Nancy Kassebaum and James Jeffords. Kennedy, Kassebaum, and Jeffords stayed in their seats [in a committee room] - and talked about national service. Surrounded by aides, they began discussing the size of the program - how many participants, how much money, how many years. "Come on Nancy," Kennedy said. "Let's work something out." Kassebaum raised the idea of a study on how to consolidate the programs. Absolutely, Kennedy quickly agreed. They then started throwing around numbers like androids conversing in a special digital language. "Three-six-nine," Kennedy said, meaning $300 million the first year, $600 million the second, and $900 million the third. The White House proposal was for $400 million, $1.2 billion and 1.4 billion. "Too much," Kassebaum said. She countered, "two-three-four." "Three-five-seven," Kennedy offered, circling the numbers on a pad. He pointed out that that was halfway between her proposal and the administration's original request. Clinton's aide Eli Segal talked over the idea with Clinton and got him to agree to three-five-seven, though at that point it was unclear whether the Republicans had agreed. Segal called Kennedy and Majority Leader George Mitchell. Kennedy then told the Republicans they could accept three-five-seven. The Republicans countered with three-five and no third year. The White House rejected the offer. After the Republicans left, the Senate Democrats and the House people gathered. They were divided themselves. Kennedy's impulse was to get it done - to make a deal. He thought they should accept the two-year authorization. Wofford, along with Dodd and Mikulski, thought Kennedy and the White House had already compromised too much -- or, as one staffer put it, Kennedy had given away too much, but Segal felt uncomfortable challenging the negotiating prowess of the senior senator from Massachuetts. That task fell to Wofford, who recruited Maryland's Senator Barbara Mikulski. "I'm already upset about the three-five-seven," she said. She pointed out that she could have funded that much without even passing a new bill. Mikulski pressed Kennedy to hold the line. The republicans were taking a beating in the media. They would fold eventually if the Democrats kept hammering. Insist on the three-year authorization, they said.... Kennedy at that point does indeed dig in. He's given an offer for a two year instead of a three year authorization. "No," Kennedy said. "You don't have a deal." Eventually, public pressure mounted enough that the Democrats were able to get 60 votes and break the filibuster. The combination of the White House's strong public efforts, and Kennedy's behind-the-scenes negotiations, had worked. On September 8, 1993, the Senate passed the National and Community Service Trust Act, creating AmeriCorps. Since 1994, 500,000 people have served in AmeriCorps, more than twice as many as have served in the Peace Corps since 1961. Reprinted from Beliefnet.com. More of Steven Waldman's posts can be found here . More on Ted Kennedy
 
Auren Hoffman: A Second(ary) Chance for Venture Capital Top
Troubled venture capitalists need to rethink how long they invest in startups; many should fund early and then sell to a secondary firm after a few years. There's plenty of fretting in Silicon Valley and beyond over the venture capital industry, how broken it has become, and what needs to be done about it. Proposed solutions abound, with some favoring a government bailout, others saying the ranks of venture capitalists need to be slashed dramatically, and some proposing the creation of a market where equity in startups is bought or sold like shares of publicly traded companies. Each has its merits and weaknesses. But in my view, what's needed is a fundamental rethink in the way startups get backing. VCs need to take a fresh look at when they invest, and for how long. VCs and other investors that have expertise in early-stage companies ought to invest at the outset for a few years, but then sell to companies that specialize in-and have more to offer-more mature companies. To understand why this approach makes sense, consider the shortcomings of the existing model. Currently, many investors buy stakes early on and then add to those investments in later years. For instance, a typical early-stage firm might invest $3 million to $5 million in what's known as an A or B round. Then over the life of a startup, they'll put in another $3 million to $5 million to maintain their share of ownership and the rights that come with it. The model has been sacrosanct for the past 30 years. A 10-Year Life But the wait for an exit, through an initial share sale or a buyout, can take a decade from the time of the A round. Remember that most VCs have a "life" of about 10 years. And if, say, a VC invests in a company in year three of its fund, there's a good chance the firm will be managing the investment past the life of the fund. What's more, the time to exit is getting longer, not shorter. Companies like YouTube, purchased by Google (GOOG) for $1.65 billion less than two years after it was founded, are rare. In the future, big wins will more closely resemble Zappos, an online apparel retailer. Zappos is incredibly well run, and all VCs wish it were in their portfolio. But Zappos is having its 10-year anniversary this year, and it might be another few years before its exit. Longer waits are bad not just for the VC calculating the return on investment (ROI). They also result in impatience on the part of limited partners such as university endowments that invest in venture firms. It's also demoralizing for individual venture capitalists. There are many well-regarded VC partners that have never had an exit. Some venture capitalists are leaving the profession altogether and firms are shrinking. Here's where secondary VCs can play a vital role. These firms, most of which did not exist 10 years ago, specialize in buying stakes in private companies from VC firms. Some examples include Saints Ventures and W Capital Partners, which are among the most successful firms this decade. Secondary firms now account for roughly 3% of the VC market, but their clout is increasing as they do more deals. San Francisco-based Saints now has more A-list portfolio companies than most traditional VC firms. Its investments include Facebook, eHarmony, and QuinStreet. Increased Return It helps that increasingly, many VCs are open to selling their positions to secondary firms. While selling early will lessen the long-term value of investments that become hits, it could increase a VC's actual return on investment by letting them realize returns much faster-say, three years rather than 10 years. What's more, increased dependence on secondary investors will let VC partners focus on what they do best. Different skills are required for an A-round investor than for a late-stage investor. A venture capital firm should deliver and focus on its core competency and move on. Just like startups change CEOs as they mature, shouldn't companies change VCs as they mature? If there is a good startup CEO, shouldn't there also be good startup VCs? Some people can take a company from startup idea to billion-dollar business, but most need to be replaced along the way-this is true for both management teams and board members. Early-stage VCs could focus on early-stage issues and later-stage VCs could focus on later-stage issues. Their investing timelines could be shorter, they can better plan for the future, and they'll need to keep less undeployed capital, or "dry powder," on reserve. They'll probably also do more deals. My guess is that firms that invest in an A round might not necessarily invest in the B round. Instead, they might look to unload some or all of their shares in the C round. Take Gains Early I know a few angels who already follow this model. One sold half his interest to a particular VC in the C round and later sold the rest of his interest to that same VC. He made about 250% in three years. That's not bad-especially when compared with the current market. Sure, he may miss a big pop in share price. But he's become a very successful investor through his strategy of taking gains early. Why don't more VCs and angels follow this strategy? As an angel, I have a lot of good advice for a company that's just getting off the ground, but if I'm intellectually honest, I don't usually add much value after the second venture round. Still, I haven't followed the model I outline here. Maybe it's time I should. Cross-posted from Summation.
 
Grassley 'Getting Reamed Out' By GOP On Health Care Top
Most of the commentary on Chuck Grassley's truculence and back-pedaling has focused on his potential primary challenge and fear of the Iowa electorate. But that's not terribly convincing: According to Survey USA, Grassley has a 62 percent approval rating, and that lifts to 69 percent among Republicans. He's a five-time senator with a serious machine. How scared can he be? More on GOP
 
Joe Solmonese: Getting the Times to Catch Up with Ted Kennedy Top
It's been said that Senator Kennedy accomplished more on behalf of the people that we civil rights advocates work for than any politician since President Lincoln. When historians have considered his 47 years of service, Senator Kennedy will likely assume a place in our national consciousness alongside the founders. I knew him as a founder of our more perfect union, and an early architect of the great unfinished business of modern civil rights. We have a tradition in this country of understanding our great icons as creatures of their times. Thomas Jefferson, who gave us "all men were created equal," was a slaveholder. Although Lincoln himself never owned another human being, slaves staffed his White House. Even the most remarkable among us bear the stains of our own society's prejudices. But not Senator Kennedy. We don’t have to forgive him for being a product of his times because he has always been the first person calling for our times to change. Whatever the history books will say about my friend's life, there can be no doubt that his vision of my equality—and of the civil rights and welfare of every human being on this planet—set a standard that transcended his times and even ours. My life’s work, and the work of every other civil rights leader and advocate for justice, is to get the times to catch up to Ted Kennedy. In a speech before the Human Rights Campaign in 2008 , Senator Kennedy was greeted with enthusiastic applause. “Do you hear that, Jesse Helms?” he joked. Many of us nodded in appreciation, but there were interns and junior staff in the room who hadn’t been born when Jesse Helms and Senator Kennedy started going toe to toe in the U.S. Senate. He was speaking out against Helms’s discriminatory measures in the 80s and 90s, when it was safer to attack us. He fought off measures to discriminate against HIV positive people. He railed against measures designed to stop the “promotion” of homosexuality. At the same time, he was a consistent and powerful leader on what he often eloquently called the “unfinished business” of this great nation: civil rights for every LGBT person and our families. He was not just a supporter of hate crimes legislation but a leader on it. Not only an opponent of the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment but it’s most prominent and vocal critic. He railed against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and led the charge for the Employment Non Discrimination Act. Senator Kennedy supported full marriage equality and was proud of his state’s highest court for recognizing that it is a fundamental right enshrined in the Commonwealth’s constitution. He understood that “We the People” means all of the people, and very specifically LGBT people. He helped to spare our Constitution from the possibility of a Justice Bork. If he hadn’t, it might still be legal to arrest and jail a gay person for private, consensual sex. Thanks to Senator Kennedy, we have come a long way since those first battles together, and are poised to move civil rights legislation forward. There are many worthy people who are willing to vote their conscience on LGBT rights. What makes Senator Kennedy our greatest hero was not only that he always did the right thing. It’s that he always did it first. To complete our unfinished business, we all must fill the vacuum that he is leaving—leadership, bravery, and always stepping in first. Oftentimes our champions have a personal connection—a gay child, a brother lost to AIDS. I’m not aware of a connection like that in Kennedy’s case. Senator Kennedy’s capacity to be close to people might explain why he has stood by the LGBT community from the beginning of our civil rights movement. It might tell us why this youngest child of a Catholic family of 9 children, born in 1932, spoke for us before it was expedient to do so. When it was safe for Jesse Helms to call us perverts on the Senate floor. Senator Kennedy’s personal connection, I believe, was his boundless humanity, and his recognition of ours. Already he is becoming history, this man who connected with each of us as a human being. Now the job of making history is in our hands. More on Civil Rights
 
Dennis Perrin: Ted Kennedy: The Last Progressive Top
A year ago today, I wrote this about Ted Kennedy, who appeared at Obama's Denver coronation: "I'll confess a soft spot for Ted Kennedy's speech. This has more to do with nostalgia than anything Kennedy said (the American flag is still on the moon? Color me proud). I supported Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter's incumbency in 1980, my first presidential election. While certainly not perfect, Kennedy was easily preferable to Carter, and might have given Reagan more of a contest had he grabbed the nomination. His pseudo-concession speech at the '80 convention was powerful, a real up-your-ass to our underrated imperialist, whose hand Kennedy refused to shake. You don't see that kind of spirit anymore, whatever the political reality. "The reaction shots of Joe Biden during Kennedy's brief bit only highlighted the difference between the two. Kennedy's time is over, as is the political age he helped to define. Biden is old enough to remember those days, but too avaricious to care about their demise. He hustled his way onto Obama's ticket, more than ready to embrace today's savage rules. Compared to Biden, Ted Kennedy was a socialist. Maybe that's why felt I sad watching Kennedy last night. Say goodbye to all that, liberals." Kennedy's death makes me feel older and more wistful. I was turned on to his intra-party challenge to Jimmy Carter -- a ballsy if doomed effort -- by my Army roommate, a Black Spec. 4 from Chicago who schooled me on how African-Americans would fare better under a second President Kennedy as opposed to Carter or Ronald Reagan. Younger liberals don't know or remember how right-wing Carter became in 1979-80, while Kennedy promoted New Deal positions and whatever remained of 1960s political passion. The choice back then was clear, at least to my young mind. Reactionaries loved rubbing Chappaquiddick in Kennedy's face. Whatever really happened that night when Kennedy's car went into the water and drowned Mary Jo Kopechne we'll never know. I suspect it wasn't an innocent ride home. But compared to the mass slaughter reactionaries have long supported and celebrated, from Nixon to Reagan to the Bush family, Kennedy's fatal failure was, to his and Kopechne's family, a private tragedy, not a war crime. You can say a lot of negative things about Ted Kennedy that were true, but the man was as much of a progressive force as this rotten system allows. With his wealth, Kennedy could've easily been a Republican and pushed for more perks for the rich. Instead, he championed the powerless. Maybe he was sincere. Maybe not. But to me, Ted Kennedy was one of the few politicians who genuinely lifted my spirits, and dare I say it, hopes. Another part of my youth has died. RIP Senator Kennedy. Here are the final minutes of Kennedy's 1980 speech at the Dem convention in Madison Square Garden. It's only audio, but it still rocks. Barack Obama wishes he possessed this kind of eloquence. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Madeleine M. Kunin: Remembering Senator Ted Kennedy Top
At the 1980 Democratic Convention I was not pleased with Senator Ted Kennedy. Why was he challenging the incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Presidency, and thereby hurting his chances for re-election? The convention was deeply divided between Carter and Kennedy supporters. But we sat shoulder to shoulder on the convention floor to hear Kennedy speak. All was forgiven. I was enraptured by the passion and substance of his words. It was one of the most mesmerizing political speeches I had ever heard, climaxed by the words, “the dream will never die.” And he did not let the dream die after he lost his last stand battle with Carter. He went to work as a Senator. When I worked in Washington as Deputy Secretary of Education from 1993–1996, I had a firsthand opportunity to experience how Kennedy “worked.” Unlike most United States Senators who are experts at demonstrating their self-importance, Kennedy carried his fame lightly. He wasn’t there to grandstand or issue partisan salvos; he was there to get things done. I worked with him and his staff on several education issues, including the Direct Student Loan Program and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. When he chaired the commitee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, he worked closely with the Republican Vice Chair, Senator Nancy Kassebaum. When he lost his chairmanship because of the Republican takeover of the Senate, he worked just as closely with her. The irony of his career is that from the outside, he appeared to be one of the most liberal and partisan Democrats in the Senate. From the inside, he was one of the most bipartisan and constructive members of the Senate. He respected his colleagues and they respected him. And he understood the process—not only in terms of the rules by which the Senate plays, but also in terms of how people interact with one another, how to make a deal which leaves both sides feeling they have won. Another contradiction in his life is that he was so obviously flawed as a human being in his early years, and in his later years, became a model of a life well lived. We tend to forget that he was expelled from Harvard for cheating, we remember Chappaquiddick without having to restate the details, and we know about his struggles with weight gain and alcohol consumption. History, however, will be kind. He will be remembered for his strengths, rather than his frailties. His strength in working all the angles of a piece of legislation to get it through, his faith in the democratic process, his respect for dissent, and his unwavering belief in the dream. I only wish, as we listen to the accolades that will be given to him in the days ahead, by mourners all over the world, that the members of the United States Senate could give him the highest honor of all by passing an effective health care reform bill. That would please him greatly.   Madeleine M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state’s first woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be Clinton’s VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing. Cross-posted on ChelseaGreen.com .
 
Tony Blankley: Command Decision Top
On May 27, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson had telephone conversations about Vietnam with McGeorge Bundy, his national security adviser, and Sen. Richard Russell, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. First, to Bundy, he said: "It just worries the hell out of me. I don't see what we can ever hope to get out of there. ... I don't think that we can fight them 10,000 miles away from home and ever get anywhere. ... I don't think it's worth fighting for, and I don't think we can get out. It's just the biggest damn mess I ever saw. ... What the hell is Vietnam worth to me? ... What is it worth to this country?" In a second, 20-minute conversation that day with his friend Sen. Russell, he said: "I've got lots of trouble. What do you think about this Vietnam thing?" Russell responded: "It's the damn worst mess I ever saw. ... I'd get out. ... It isn't important a damn bit." Late in the conversation, President Johnson worried: "The Republicans are going to make a political issue out of it. ... Nixon, Rockefeller and Goldwater all (are) saying let's move (and) let's go into the North. ... They'd impeach a president ... that would run out. Wouldn't they?" Johnson went on to speak of a sergeant who was a father of six. He ''works for me over there at the house,'' Johnson told Sen. Russell. Then Johnson said: ''Thinking about sending (him) in there ... and what the hell we're going to get out of his doing it? It just makes the chills run up my back.'' LBJ concluded the conversation by saying, "I haven't the nerve to do it, but I don't see any other way out of it." (To listen to those heartbreaking taped conversations, go here .) As of that spring day in 1964, a total of 201 Americans had been killed in Vietnam since 1956, according to the official records. A few months later, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed by Congress, and the great escalation of our troop levels started. By the time we finally lost the war and brought our boys home, another 57,992 American troops were killed. Of course, in 1964, only the president knew he was taping his phone conversations. Publicly, Johnson said that it was a war we had to fight and win and that we would win it. Now, of course, we know that he believed we couldn't win even before he sent the first of those 57,992 American boys over there to die. And that he did it because he didn't have, in his words, "the nerve" to follow his best judgment because he wouldn't risk his own political danger, perhaps impeachment. As painful as it is to consider the consequences of Johnson's decisions, he was, for all his faults, no monster. And even the finest, ethical leaders often find the pressures of politics powerfully encroaching on their best policy judgments. (For example, in order to win, Franklin Roosevelt ran publicly on a peace ticket in 1940, though he privately believed American interests required us to get into World War II.) Today President Barack Obama is on the cusp of a fateful policy decision. He has argued consistently that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to deny al-Qaida a base of terrorist operations and to stop the Taliban insurrection from destabilizing nuclear Pakistan. But serious doubts are being raised by many policy experts and an emerging majority of the American and British publics as to whether we have a strategy and the materiel to succeed. Even the optimists believe that a successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan (and needed as much in Pakistan) will require several years of sustained commitment, with substantially more men and materiel and a shrewder strategy (probably requiring modern nation building of a traditional tribal society). To have a reasonable chance at success, President Obama will have to sustain the effort for years, which will require him to be at least as determined and stubborn on behalf of this war as former President George W. Bush was in fighting the Iraq war -- whatever one thought of Bush's policy wisdom. It may be a lonely struggle at times for the president because his strongest supporters (the Democratic Party, particularly its progressive/liberal wing) are not by philosophy or recent history natural supporters of military action; their support will be based largely on party instincts. The war's natural supporters -- the hawkish right and center of the Republican Party -- inevitably will have at least their enthusiasm ameliorated by their party instincts. Thus, President Obama has a hard decision to make. Because things are going worse than expected in Afghanistan, it will take longer and require more sacrifice of American blood and treasure to succeed (if we can succeed even then) than was believed to be the case last year. Moreover, political support for the president is likely to be uneven at best. So in this already politically difficult summer of 2009, President Obama must bring a higher level of intellectual integrity and moral courage to his go/no-go war decision than Lyndon Johnson was capable of 45 years ago. Notwithstanding his prior and current commitment to prosecute the war in Afghanistan -- and notwithstanding the ambiguous political effect of his decision -- he owes it to both himself and the many young service members who soon may be shipping out to make a new, cold calculation of whether he believes that he has a reasonable chance of successfully leading us in this new stage of the war. I don't envy him his job at the moment. More on Afghanistan
 
Obama's Vacation-Style Press Conference (VIDEO) Top
JImmy Kimmel returned to television last night after weeks of vacation and brought with him video of Obama's press conference from Martha's Vineyard. It seems the president has fully relaxed...maybe a little much. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Barack Obama
 
Adam Dub: Can American Tennis Be Saved? Top
That Was Then Agassi had stone washed shorts with pink spandex, his own signature Nike pastel colored shirts, and a flowing Rick Springfield like mane that earned him Brook Shields. Chang had the Reebok Pumps so he could play like 6'0 (he was only about 5'6), and resembled your high school valedictorian and president of the student body who everyone liked, but no one knew that well. Pistol Pete had a serve and volley like no other, Bridget, and male pattern baldness that seemed to stop at just the right time. McEnroe was freakishly talented. His unfiltered passion for the sport, albeit abrasive, was invigorating. Despite being a-hole in the minds of the rest of the world, his tantrums would later on earn him millions making American Express commercials and commentating, not to mention bad game shows and cable talk programs. If you weren't in Mac's court, or in other words, weren't a Billy Joel loving Long Islander, you were a Connors fan. Jimmy defined perseverance, heart and all things good about a professional athlete. He was regular guy who just happened to be a great tennis player that mothers, fathers, and kid's cheered on. Who doesn't remember exactly where they were during the insane Krickstein match? I remember I was on route to Giants Stadium for a football game listening to it on the radio. Speaking of, Krickstein contended just enough that you could remind people he was a Jewish kid from Michigan with a hot girlfriend, his father was an orthopedist who could have easily been Alan Greenspan's twin brother, and everyone was connected to him somehow through Jewish geography. Courier was like a Corona in a koozie, at times great on a hot summer day, but not as good in other seasons. He was the Zack Barnes (Peter Horton) of "Side Out." Point being, back then America had talent and personality from the top to the middle. Liken it to having Hogan and The Rock on the upper echelon and then crowd favorites good enough to compete against them like Tito Santana and Superfly Snuka. At the end of the day, we were deep enough where simultaneously there could be a notable American playing in Louis Armstrong, the Grandstand and one of the outside courts. Least we forget the fortitude of foreign rivals who for the most part we disliked but lent a "Red Dawn," "Rocky IV" Cold War much needed competitive rivalry tone. There was Becker, arrogant and cocky, but fiercely competitive, and the youngest man to win Wimbledon at age 17. Since retirement, he's been know more as the Ace of the poker table than the tennis court, lending himself as the spokesperson for Poker Stars while evading a tax here and there. There was Lendel, the cold blooded fundamentally efficient Czech New Yorker's were prone to dislike, but tolerated because he was married to nice Jewish girl and lived in Greenwich. Lastly, we had Edberg, the cool as a cucumber classy Swede who without fail served and volleyed consistently well and was hard not to appreciate. Like Federer, his game seemed effortless, and you never got bored watching him play. He had one of the best signature polo shirts in the game, and for all we know today, Tiger's wife could be his daughter. This Is Now We don't have an American we can get behind that we believe can win a major or at the very least contend for titles regularly. We haven't since Sampras and Aggasi retired, who even at the end of their careers were a cut above today's players. In today's ATP Top 25 rankings, you'll find Andy Roddick ranked 5 and James Blake at 22. Last year at this time Roddick and Blake were ranked (8) and (9) respectively. Credit Roddick for not faltering, but you're only as good as the Grand Slams you've won, and despite a lethal serve, he's hasn't closed the big ones. Both Americans are worlds apart from tennis'axis of evil, Federer (1), Nadal (3) and even Djokovic (4) when he feels like playing. Andy Murray has risen quickly and impressively to the number 2 spot, but I'm still waiting for him to win a Grand Slam before anointing him top billing. If not for injuries, Rafa would be in the number 2 spot. Next in line you have Sam Querrey at (23) (the tall guy), and Mardy Fish (26), respectable, hard working guys who play above their potential, but hard to see them as contenders. Apart from Roger's disturbingly close relationship with Anna Wintour, his penchant for black patent leather Nike shoes during twilight Open matches, Rafe's knickers (which seem to be going away thankfully) and Menudo doo, and Novak's Jekyll and Hyde acts, it's hard not to like or at least respect these guys. How much so because we have no Americans regularly contending is debatable. Would we love Tiger as we do if he wasn't' an American? Where's our Tiger and Phil of tennis? There's reason why Tiger is BFF with Roger, and why he openly supports him over Roddick. If you must know which Americans are next in the rankings, you'll have to scroll down your mouse for a while past countless FRA, ESP, ARG, RUS, SRB, CZE, CRO and GER notations, only to find Robby Ginepri (75), Robert Kendrick (78) and Kevin Kim (100). At this point, they may as well be a bunch of people who tried to friend you on Facebook. You can actually become a fan of Roger Federer on Facebook and for his part, he does some great fan friendly updates. Where is our latest prodigy like Great Britain's Andy Murray who is only a grand slam or two away from being a regular top contender? We are time and time again given a false sense of hope that Andy Roddick will turn the corner, but it's really not all that different than suggesting the Jets will win a Super Bowl in my lifetime. You start to feel for the guy, because he plays so darn hard when he's one the court (probably too hard than his talent allows), you hear about his getting married and maturing mentally, but it's hard to imagine his ever pulling it out in a close match. That was confirmed unfortunately at Wimbledon this year. Like the original A-ROD, he tends to tighten up in the heat of competition and is not as mentally fit as he is physically. Similarly, Andy shares A-ROD's lack of digression and media training. Just look at his jilted expression and envy after losing to Federer at Wimbledon. He was almost punkish. It was hard to watch Andy's crass mixed Roger's class. Sometimes I wonder how much better he could have been if he was not chosen to carry the American torch and had someone other than the underachieving James Blake picking up some of the slack. What's the Problem? We're not really cultivating players in college anymore as either tennis programs are being cut or increasingly dominated by foreigners, just like our best tennis academies in Florida have been for years now. Where's the incentive to join the tennis ranks if the sports has a lesser perceived scholarship value and importance on campus? There's a welcome mat to come train in the U.S. in the best facilities, climate, and under the finest instruction, and dominate the sport under another flag. Without a couple legitimate American stars, who is there to emulate and aspire to follow in the footsteps of? Every sport needs it handoff. Michael to Kobe to Lebron; Montana to Young to Manning; McEnroe and Connors to Sampras and Agassi to____? Why does the talent of yesteryear disappear after retirement, and when they reappear, they do so in large part to the broadcast booth? Why is at that mediocre players turn to coaching (e.g. Brad Gilbert) and not the other way around? Why is the USTA not cultivating our stars of the game better? Is it a matter of having heart and talent? After all, two our brightest spots in the women's game came under the tutelage of Richard Williams with Venus and Serena. In a sport typically labeled as being cherished and played by the upper-middle class, the Williams sisters came from a lower socio-economic background, yet were instilled with the tools and determination to rise above. So, why isn't the USTA doing more to bring tennis to inner cities and more diverse backgrounds as a means to tap into a new prospect pool and instill hope and opportunity in something other than conventional sports? A tennis court can be outlined on the concrete just as easily as a basketball court, and rackets are the same price as sneakers, if not less expensive. Look outside the lines of the U.S. and look at rise of the Serbian men and women professionals, who developed their games playing in swimming pools without water. This is 2009 U.S. Open and the Mind of the Spectator New Yorkers arrive at National Tennis Center Center in Flushing Meadows secretly hoping Justin Gimmelstob will come out of retirement and give us one last run through the third round. Fans anxiously await the unveiling of the new 2009 US Open logo so they can update their caps and t-shirts from the year prior, (we wonder how much bigger can the Polo logo get) and look forward to the next wave of innovation from American Express, who somehow manages to find a way to do more experiential marketing with less American talent every year. What's missing on the retail frontier these days is the signature player attire. Who can forget Edberg, Lendel's and Agassi's bespoke playing shirts that were available for sale like a piece of memorabilia. Now, most players are either sleeveless or wear factory issued Nike uniform. Gone is the originality, gone is the more niche Diadora, Serigo Tachinni, and Le Coq Sportif attire myself and countless other young aspiring tennis players adorned thinking it would get us to the #1 singles spot on the Varsity tennis team. The only guy doing it right is the consummate professional Roger Federer, aka RF. He is worthy of his own Nike crest like his buddy Tiger. To his credit, unlike Tiger, Roger has actually been better at finding his brand of humor, just look at the ESPN style tongue and cheek NetJets commercial and fodder after matches. I used to feel guilty for rooting Roger on over Roddick, but the modern day RF requires no rationalization from an American fan's perspective. You see, I've digressed already, and am not even at the gate yet. Moving on, when we get passed the gates we're delighted by the perk of having mini satellite TV's and wonder when the time will come when we can order food from our seats. On that note, we wonder what new culinary delight will be in the food court. Will Bobby Flay have created a signature Nadal Smashed Mojito for $20, and how much is too much to put on our corporate cards to entertain clients with it being a recession and all? Wait, is that the cast of Top Chef I see whipping up dishes behind Court 10 where rumor has it a promising junior from Stanford is warming up? Watching Andy Roddick in Arthur Asche, we get a little sucked into that false glimmer of hope again as we witness his monster serve. If he contended more and had a better temperament, New Yorkers could have warmed up to him like they do Phil Mickelson. He spends more time tugging at his ill fitting Lacoste polo shirt than he does hitting winners. With Jimmy Connors in his court a year ago, we liked him a little bit more, but only because we miss seeing Jimmy so much. One U.S. Open title six years ago is an afterthought and most would probably attach an asterisk to it since it didn't come against Roger. Unfortunately, the next best thing, James Blake, who despite a heartfelt admirable tennis comeback years ago, has proven less than inspiring himself. What he brings which Andy does not is an annoying entourage called the J Block, a contingency of 30 something Ivy League professionals (Blake went to Harvard briefly and is from Yonkers which we are reminded about every match by commentators) who probably had a class or two with Blake, but would be in better company at Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium. Our best possible outcome is Blake and Roddick facing one another midway so one of them has to move on. Note, the omission of Roger or Rafe for whatever reason from late round play nullifies any forward progress or championship by Roddick. It's like winning the US Open with out Tiger and Phil competing. Again, trivial stuff, but this is the mind of today's American tennis fan, who has been delegated to food court and analysis and pessimism. So What's America to Do to Get Through This? 1) Require all American prospects to train in swimming pools without water (it worked for the Serbs) 2) Have Nike bring back stone washed shorts with built-in spandex and if that doesn't work, have Reebok reissue The Pump 3) Establish an age limit mandating that all foreign players must be at least 21 years old to train in the United States; at least this gives a head start 4) Make everyone go through rigorous training in Dubai 5) Pressure Agassi/Graf and Sampras/Wilson to reproduce at least 5 children 6) Call on President Obama to anoint a special task force for solving America's tennis talent shortage (foreigners living the US such as Lendel may serve) 7) Get rid of the "J Block" at the US Open (justification on the grounds of drawing comparisons to the former Hennmen's Hill need not apply, they were Brits). 8) Offer Federer and Nadal dual citizenship in the U.S. 9) Find Nick Bollettieri and give him a bigger role 10) Bring back wooden rackets, maybe it will even out the playing field 11) Allow flash photography and heckling at U.S. Open matches 12) Make Roddick and Blake double's partners 13) Ask Richard Williams for permission to make Serena and Venus compete on the men's circuit and have him rewrite the training manual for the USTA 14) Have Jeff Zucker commission a reality show on Bravo, Search for the Next Great Tennis Star, hosted by none other than Johnny Mac (it can packaged with Wimbledon coverage as the return of "Must See TV") 15) Launch a Senior's Tour. It just might be more compelling than the current fare. If All of the Above Fails 16) Test Nadal for steroids 17) Check Novak's papers 18) Make Roger disclose his holdings in Dubai 19) Authorize the use of performance enhancing drugs 20) Join forces with another country to play under a joint flag
 
Obamas' Martha's Vineyard Vacation Day 4: First Family Hits The Beach, Lunches On Fried Seafood (PHOTOS) Top
*Scroll down for photos* After making remarks about the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy on Wednesday morning, President Obama accompanied his family to Oyster Watcha beach in Edgartown, where they spent two hours on a private beach, before proceeding to Nancy's, a restaurant in Oak Bluffs, for a takeout lunch. The Obamas sat at a picnic table as they waited for two bags of fried seafood. With them was Konrad Ng, the president's brother-in-law, family friend Dr. Eric Whitaker, and assistant White House press secretary Tommy Vietor ( who recently became engaged to Michelle Obama's spokswoman Katie McCormick Lelyveld ). 8-year-old Sasha sat on her father's lap, and Michelle Obama tried to remove sand from 11-year-old Malia's hair. The president also shook hands and posed for pictures with the restaurant's staff and patrons. When the food was ready, they continued on to the nearby home of Valerie Jarrett, with whom they also ate dinner last night. See photos of the Days 1 and 2 and Day 3 . PHOTOS: Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook ! More on Photo Galleries
 
Michael Roth: Senator Edward Kennedy: Courage to Believe Top
Late last night the nation lost one of its great public servants. It is difficult to think of another elected official since WWII who supported programs to help the most vulnerable members of our society with the energy and intelligence consistently displayed by Senator Edward Kennedy. His vision of justice was tied to a commitment to mitigate the cruel effects of economic inequality and entrenched power without unduly compromising economic growth and individual freedom. His support of education as a vehicle for the creation of opportunity has inspired countless students and teachers. He had the courage to maintain his beliefs and to find ways, even in dark times, to make progress. Senator Kennedy's family had strong to Wesleyan University. The senator received an honorary degree here in 1983, and his son Ted is a graduate. His stepdaughter, Caroline Raclin, graduated in 2008, and we had looked forward to a Commencement Address that year from the Lion of the Senate. It was around that time, though, that doctors discovered his tumor. Barack Obama was still in the thick of his campaign, but he took time out to address Wesleyan's graduating class when asked to do so by his Senate colleague and friend. Obama's theme was public service, and it was both a tribute to the great legacy of the Kennedy family and a call to action for the future. In his Wesleyan Address, Obama had the following to say about Senator Kennedy: It is rare in this country of ours that a person exists who has touched the lives of nearly every single American without many of us even realizing it. And yet, because of Ted Kennedy, millions of children can see a doctor when they get sick. Mothers and fathers can leave work to spend time with their newborns. Working Americans are paid higher wages, and compensated for overtime, and can keep their health insurance when they change jobs. They are protected from discrimination in the workplace, and those who are born with disabilities can still get an education, and health care, and fair treatment on the job. Our schools are stronger and our colleges are filled with more Americans who can afford it. And I have a feeling that Ted Kennedy is not done just yet. But surely, surely, if one man can achieve so much and make such a difference in the lives of so many people, then each of us can do our part. Surely, if his service and his story can forever shape America's story, then our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation. At the very least, his living example calls us to try. That is all I ask of you on this joyous day of new beginnings; that is what Senator Kennedy asks of you as well, and that is how we will keep so much needed work going, and the cause of justice everlasting, and the dream alive for generations to come. Today, the hopeful rhetoric of fourteen months ago is being drowned out by angry, paranoid fear-mongers. Many already seem to regard their own optimism of just a year ago as naïve. But it was not naïve to believe in change, only to believe that change would be easy. We have already missed Senator Kennedy. In this season of lies and distortions aimed to preserve profits and privilege, we have already missed him. In this season of posturing and bloviating without apparent thought of legislating, we have already missed him. We have already missed his uncanny ability to combine forceful advocacy with thoughtful, pragmatic compromise. May the memory of his passionate and reasoned voice for health care as a right and not a privilege be the basis for extending and improving our health care system. May we continue to have the courage to believe in the possibilities for positive change. This would be the greatest tribute to a remarkable man. More on Health Care
 
Shawna Vercher: Democrat or Not, Why You Should Wear Black Now Top
My father is a true Texas Republican -- so much so that he would cringe at me sharing his political beliefs so publicly as it is his God-given right to vote privately. He's not one of those "tea bag" Republicans or "birthers" or any other kind of recently fabricated and over-publicized zealot. He's just a hardworking, intelligent man who happens to be conservative. As a tree-hugging, latte-sipping liberal myself, he's the reason Obama's "Red America, Blue America" speech resonated so loudly with me in 2004. We disagree on, well, just about everything politically and we've actually had a pretty spirited debate on the merits of Ted Kennedy as a Senator. Here's where we can agree -- health care reform is not a red state issue or a blue state issue. But my God it is an American issue. I'll save you the details of my family's health care story. It's similar to one that you've heard any number of times before if you've chosen to pay attention. The "Cliff's Notes Version" is that my father had a heart attack. He was insured, but unfortunately for him he had the heart attack too young to fit nicely onto those actuary charts that the insurance company keeps handy -- presumably next to the red stamp that says "Declined" for just about anything they can get away with not covering. I remember walking into the kitchen and finding my mother with her head in her hand, yelling into the receiver of the phone that a triple bypass is not an elective procedure. It devastated my family in so many ways. Financially, the bills were almost laughable. The thought that our family had seven figures worth of anything...much less that we could pay it. My parents' credit score and retirement plans were ruined. His job was no longer just a job; it became the warden that held his health insurance. You see, he was now someone with a "pre-existing" condition, so his career belonged to them. You wouldn't want to have someone as versatile and skilled as my father make a decision on a job based on what's best for his family, his income or his happiness. Clearly Cigna knows best. And he's one of the lucky ones. He received excellent treatment and survived. Ask my father about Ted Kennedy and you most likely will not get the warmest of responses, but ask him about health care reform and you'll be there all day as he explains carefully why it has to change and why the "sons of bitches" that do not want it to change are "not worth spitting on". He and Senator Kennedy agreed on that one. Senator Kennedy was a tireless champion of American health care. His views were "liberal", his state was Massachusetts and his name was Kennedy, but he wanted each and every American to have health care. Period. The fire and resolve in his voice when he discussed this issue matched my father's. They both knew that the existing system, which leaves so many American families literally devastated in the wake of any health-related incident, is one of the most un-American systems we still possess. Now we have a choice. Does health care reform pass away as legend and a political footnote? I am sad for my fellow Democrats today as they lose an icon and a leader. But I have been mourning them from the sidelines for weeks as I see so many of them apparently lose their spines. This is war for a better life for most Americans -- poor, lower income and middle class -- and apparently they have decided that they don't quite have the stomach for it. I don't care how many people get paid to protest at the rallies, I want to see equal passion and determination from the speaker at the podium. You know, the one that is supposed to be in support of this reform? I don't care what public or private or opt-out or choice clauses people try to disengage and frighten us with. I want the truth of the core issue repeated again and again. Not doing anything is killing us. I'll repeat it for those blue dogs that may have missed it. Not doing anything is KILLING us. And I don't care what spin, fake statistic or new label the 24-hour news shows put on the fringe zealot minority -- I want to see Democrats and Republicans alike stand up and say that those are not Republicans. Those people are not the proud, conservative, valued people of the red states and it is both an insult to half of our population and a danger to our American political system that they are propped up as representing one of the parties that is helping to build this country. My God. Is it that easy for the health insurance companies to make fools of both sides of the aisle? As a small business owner in the south that never met Kennedy and has no formal tie to his family, I'll be wearing black this week. And if I can figure out what kind of ribbon I'm supposed to wear to show my support for this particular disease (there are just so many colors now you see) then I'll do that as well. I'll be showing my quiet respect for him, but more importantly for his issue of health care reform. I want to be asked about it. I want to discuss it. And at the end of that discussion I want for one more person to demand it. Shawna Vercher is an executive, a social media strategist and a philanthropist. But for today she is focused on the job of being a mother and calls on that role as her qualified authority to speak on the issue of health care reform. Find Shawna on Twitter on www.twitter.com/shawnavercher . More on Health Care
 
Maegan Carberry: Millennial Mourning: Tweeting, Facebooking & Appreciating Ted Kennedy Top
As America mourns the loss of legendary senator Ted Kennedy, I can't help but marvel over the way that technology has affected the way we mourn his passing, and the generational gap this difference illustrates. For example, here is how the news played out in my personal Millennial sphere of influence: 7:30am >> Usual morning routine: Roll over in bed, grab BlackBerry. The co-host of my Variety show, "Wilshire & Washington, Teresa Valdez Klein, has emailed at 3am: "We'll obviously have to address the passing of Senator Kennedy, which is all over Twitter." 7:32am >> I groggily yell to my pal and fellow journalist, Eric, who I'm visiting in DC this week: "Ted Kennedy died." 7:34am >> Eric is on his iPhone reading tweets, checking BlackBerry emails from colleagues, while he puts on the cable news shows. We debate which network will have the best coverage, and wind up sticking with Morning Joe. 7:37am >> Pouring over my Twitter feed, I am moved by the commentary that's rolling in and my faith in the masses is reaffirmed when I discover that Ted Kennedy is #2 trending topic. 8:30am >> I realize this is way beyond the comprehension of my generation when I read Meghan McCain's five-part Twitter commentary: "I just heard about Sen. Kennedy, it is so incredibly sad especially given that my memories of him are that of a politician who reached "across party lines. something that is painfully missing in todays politics. I remember his voice more than anything the times we met "being larger than life and booming. My thoughts and prayers to his family. "I fear politics without politicians that reach across party lines when it is necessary and important. Anyone that want's to know why Sen. "Kennedy is such an American legend. Read his speech at the 1980 convention after conceding to Jimmy Carter." 8:35am >> I text message my dad and say: "Teddy Kennedy's death is overwhelming. What an American life. Did you vote for him in 1980 primary?" (He says he can't remember, btw, and assures me he will tell the players of the college football team he coaches in San Diego what an important day it is in history.) 9:00am >> A friend gchats me and asks if we should email a former Kennedy staffer we both know and express our sympathies, even though we have all parted ways politically. We concur that we must re-evaluate what matters and do the right thing. We start an email chain and have begun rebuilding our relationship with this person. 9:15am >> A friend from Blue State Digital sends me a Teddy Kennedy graphic, which I make my Facebook profile picture for the day. 10:30am >> I host "Wilshire & Washington" with Teresa and conservative new media strategist David All. Teresa and I ask our listeners to consider whether American dynasties will be the same going forward? Will it mean something different in our era? Non-traditional families with two Mommies, the "Outliers"-style effects of civil rights policies in the last four decades could mean the good old boys club is dismantled and power is more accessible. Or are we having Obama post-racial Internet-is-the-great-democratizer puppy eyes and this is impossible? 11:30am >> I meet Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post and explain to him the series of events that have happened this morning, and how my generation is mourning differently. He says the contextual difference, having grown up when Jack and Bobby were alive, is immeasurable and I'm sad that I wasn't around then to experience it. 2:30pm >> I write for CauseCast.org and HuffPost, exporting these thoughts to an entirely different crowd and connecting with people outside my immediate sphere. Something about this progression of events is fleeting. I'm such a full-fledged member of the Obama generation and the new political netroots movement. It feels like we lost more than the Lion of the Senate today, but an entire way of conducting business and life.
 
Cash For Appliances: Everything You Need To Know Top
If you missed your chance to get cash for your clunker, you may soon have another shot at getting government money for going green. Just step out of the garage and into the kitchen. This year's stimulus bill funded a $300 million program that will offer rebates of varying amounts – possibly up to $200 – to buyers of energy-efficient appliances and other products that carry the "Energy Star" label. The rebate programs are being run by the states, and the details are still being worked out. But unlike Cash for Clunkers, you probably won't have to drag your old stove into the store to get money for a new one. Here are some questions and answers about the rebates. Q: What is this program, and why haven't I heard much about it yet? A: There hasn't been much talk of the program yet because it's still taking shape. Here's what we know: The government has set aside about $300 million for states to use to give out rebates to buyers of energy-efficient appliances like freezers, refrigerators, furnaces and central air conditioners. Q: When will this start? A: States had to send letters saying they wanted to participate to the Department of Energy by Aug. 15. In the next week, they'll start to receive 10 percent of their funding allotments, which department spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said will be used to help develop the programs. Plans for the programs – including which products qualify and how much the rebates will be worth – are due back to the federal government by Oct. 15. The Department of Energy estimates that the full $300 million will be awarded by the end of November, and consumers should start to see the rebate programs in stores later this year or early next year. "It will really just depend on how complex the state's program is and the infrastructure they have to put in place," Stutsman said. Q: How much money is being awarded to each state? A: The allocation to states and territories is based on population, working out to roughly $1 a person per state. So California's allotment is the biggest, with nearly $35.3 million. There's a minimum allotment of $100,000, which is what American Samoa and Northern Marianas will get. Q: What will the average rebate look like? A: The Department of Energy won't give a number, since it says it won't know what the states' plans are until mid-October. But the appliance industry's trade group, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, said consumers should expect to see rebates of between $50 and $200, since that's what states with existing rebate programs typically give. Q: Is this a new idea? A: Yes and no. An energy rebate program was first included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but it was never funded until this year's stimulus bill. From the Department of Energy's perspective, this is a new federal program. But the trade group estimates that 25 states already have their own rebate programs, which either states or utilities pay for. Q: What's the thinking behind the program? A: Similar to the clunkers program – which gave car buyers up to $4,500 if they turned in a gas guzzler for something more efficient – the goals are to stimulate the economy and improve the environment. The rebates might spur new appliance sales, which would help an industry that's really been struggling – sales of big-ticket items like major appliances have slumped in the recession. So far this year, shipments of new appliances to retailers are down 15 percent, according to the trade group. That's on top of a 10 percent drop last year. The Department of Energy says it hopes the program will ripple throughout the economy by saving families money on their energy bills and by creating jobs and helping businesses because it will create new sales. As for the environment, replacing old appliances with new, efficient ones means less energy is required to operate them. The Department of Energy recommends that states focus their programs on rebates for heating and cooling equipment, appliances and water heaters, saying they offer the greatest energy savings potential. Q: Aren't most of the manufacturers of these products overseas? How will this help America? A: Everyone involved is going to benefit from the additional sales – from stores selling the appliances to delivery people who will get a tip when they bring home that new stove. And consumers will be saving money on the purchases and on their energy bills, which frees up cash to spend elsewhere. How much money will people save? The trade group said replacing an 8-year-old clothes washer with a new one saves $78 in electricity a year. Last year, Americans saved more than $19 billion on their utility bills due to savings from Energy Star products, according to government estimates. Q: How do I know which products qualify for the program? A: Pay attention to your state's details when they are announced for the types of products that will qualify. But generally, just look for the blue "Energy Star" sticker. The Department of Energy estimates that Energy Star products use between 10 percent and 30 percent less energy than standard models. You won't have to look too hard. The appliance manufacturers' trade group said 55 percent of the products its members make carry the label.
 
Jim Wallis: Honoring the Greatest Commitment of Sen. Edward Kennedy's Life Top
In the aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, the Democrats were roundly accused of losing the "moral values voters" in America, and of being the party of "secularists" who were hostile to faith and religion. The very first Democrat to call me and ask to talk about that accusation and how to change the moral debate in America was Ted Kennedy. He invited me to his home, where he and his wife, Vicki, engaged me in a long and very thoughtful conversation into the night about the relationship between faith, morality, and politics. Their own deep Catholic faith was evident and their articulation of it very impressive. Our discussion was not partisan at all -- it was not about how to win religion back for the Democrats. Rather, we focused on the great moral issues facing the nation, and how we as people of faith needed to respond to them. On the occasion of his death, I pray that God may now move us as a nation to address the greatest commitment of Sen. Kennedy's life -- the need for a comprehensive reform of the health-care system in America -- as a deeply moral issue and one that calls forth the very best that is within us. May we honor the life and death of Sen. Edward Kennedy by laying aside the rancor, lies, fear, and even hate that has come to dominate the health-care debate in America this summer, and regain our moral compass by recovering the moral core of this debate : that too many Americans are hurting and suffering in a broken and highly inequitable health-care system, and that it is our moral obligation to repair and reform it -- now . Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening , Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com . Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis To learn more about health-care reform, click here to visit Sojourners' Health-Care Resources Web page. More on Health Care
 
Heather Taylor-Miesle: Damned If you Don't Top
So often, life comes down to being damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  Living this life sometimes means trade-offs.  The cake tastes great going down but I do pay for its deliciousness every time I pull my jeans up.  Saying a swear word may ring funny to friends when I am telling a story but it is like a stab in the heart when it comes echoing out of my parroting toddler’s mouth.  Some might say that reducing global warming pollution is the same kind of double-edged sword.  The high chieftains of the status quo (aka as “villains”) have spread the word that the climate legislation making its way through Congress would cost jobs and hinder our international competiveness. Which is just plain wrong, as evidenced by yesterday’s New York Times . For ages, we have heard these climate-naysayers say that addressing our global warming problems will make the U.S. less competitive.  They have held up global warming inaction by China and India as a reason for the U.S. to drag our feet.  In fact, this very point was brought up more than 70 times during the recent House debate on the climate bill. Funny thing is – today’s article “China Racing Ahead of U.S. in the Drive to go Solar” basically says that these very countries are now benefitting from our inability to pass a clean energy bill. Whose economy do we want to fuel? China is quickly becoming the world’s leader in the production of solar panels.  Driven by government subsidies, they have taken over the solar market and are putting their citizens to work.  Just like the disaster that we saw (and are still paying for) in Detroit when the Big Three bet on gas-guzzlers instead of efficiency, we are going to lose the clean energy technology battle if we don’t act soon.  And did I mention the millions of jobs that go along with it?  Jobs we cannot afford to lose. Senators, don’t be damned if you don’t.  Be a hero.  Strengthen and pass Clean Energy legislation.   Originally posted @ http://www.facebook.com/nrdcactionfund More on Energy
 
Georges Ugeux: Should the United States worry about the dollar? Top
One of the most contentious economic issues between the United States and the rest of the world is the parity of the U.S. dollar. Historically, the United States has not included the value of the dollar as a strategic element of its international strategy and leadership. In doing so, the country is missing an important way to create solidarity and loyalty among our trade partners and fair treatment for our creditors. The U.S. Treasury does regularly declare that the United States prefers to have a strong currency. These statements are merely aimed at reassuring the foreign holders of U.S. debt. But fundamentally, the Treasury or the Federal Reserve could not care less. The presiding rationale is that we manage ourselves and it is up to the rest of the world to adjust to the risks. There are four reasons for this. First, every country in the world has a responsibility for its international balance of payment and the treatment of its currency. It is paradoxical that U.S. administrations have repeatedly tried to push some countries (especially Japan and China) to "act responsibly" and revalue their currency to reduce the trade imbalance with the United States while the U.S. has never accepted the same from its trading partners. Second, and increasingly important, the dollar is important for our foreign trade. This helps the U.S. to manage its significant foreign debt. Now more than ever, the U.S. needs to count on the goodwill of our foreign creditors to finance the explosion of our fiscal deficit, especially the recent expenses to support the financial system. When a country owes $ 3,380 billion to its foreign treasury holders, it is more than an embarrassment that the U.S. dollar has depreciated by approximately two thirds vis-à-vis the Euro since its was launched in 1999. Third, as the most important economic power in the world, the United States, has a responsibility for the good functioning of international trade and capital markets. Its leadership has been affected by the financial crisis that originated in the United States and a "laissez faire" attitude of the Bush Administration, corresponding with a period of dramatic weakening of the U.S. dollar. The ability of the United States to exercise its leadership in the free world is completely correlated to its willingness to act responsibly in its monetary and fiscal policy. Fourth, the price of oil and commodities is generally denominated in dollars, often giving the illusion that the U.S. dollar is the standard. In fact, the demand for those products comes from countries in various monetary zones. What happens, in reality, is that the dollar price for oil generally increases when the dollar drops and decreases when it increases. This makes the cost of these commodities higher for U.S.-based industries than for European and Asian competitors. The hike of the price in 2008 coupled with a weak dollar is one of the factors behind the petrol price hikes that we all experienced. The reality that all of this creates - the Euro bond market has now exceeded the U.S. bond market offering foreign countries a really liquid alternative for the first time. The fact that the United States allowed their currency to drop creates a problem for our trading partners as well as for our creditors. That situation does not create the right atmosphere for international trade talks. As the United States is engaging in a more constructive dialogue with the rest of the world, it is essential that a realistic currency policy be part of these conversations. After all, caring about the status of the dollar is in the U.S. own best interest.
 
Richmond SPCA CEO Robin Starr's Blind, Deaf Dog Dies After 4 Hours In Hot Car Top
RICHMOND, Va. An executive for an anti-animal cruelty group says her 16-year-old blind and deaf dog died after she accidentally left him in her hot car for four hours. Robin Starr, the CEO of the Richmond Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, says she didn't realize "Louie" was in the car until noon. Starr's husband, Ed, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch he put the dog in her car as she got ready for work Aug. 19. She often took the dog to work with her. Robin Starr took the dog to two clinics, but he died of kidney failure. The National Weather Service says the temperature had reached 91 degrees by noon that day. The board of the SPCA says it still supports Starr, who has been CEO since 1997 and does not plan to resign. It was unclear whether she would be charged. More on Dogs
 
Jan Herman: A Doctor Speaks OutHe's Mad As Hell and Won't Take It Anymore. Top
This comes from an internist. He has had a primary care practice in the New York metropolitan area for more than 20 years. For obvious reasons, he asks to remain anonymous. I've met him and can vouch for his identity. Right now, I have dropped my participation in every insurance plan except Medicare. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the private managed care plans are out of control with their denials, pre-authorization requirements, and drug formulary restrictions. Plain old Medicare is the last bastion of health care insurance that actually allows the doctor to make a decision on what a patient needs without having to fill out reams of paperwork or spend endless amounts of time on hold, waiting for insurance company representatives who barely have a high school education to tell me if I can provide needed procedures or specialist referrals for patients they've never laid a hand on. Has anyone looked at the expenses of a primary care physician's practice vs. the ridiculous insurance company reimbursement schedules for E&M (evaluation and management) services? That is, for actually talking to and caring for patients instead of cutting and irradiating them? My average reimbursement for a 15-minute office visit by a patient covered by a private managed care plan is about $50 vs. Medicare's $70. Too bad it currently costs me $92 to provide that same service. And can anyone explain to me why I have to pay $50,000 in salary and benefits for someone in my office to sit on a phone all day long fighting for my patients' health care needs? Especially when I'm attempting to authorize procedures I believe necessary that I will not earn a penny on? At the same time, radiologists and other overpaid subspecialists get to bill hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on the procedures I have to fight to authorize for them? Or maybe someone would like to explain the insurance companies' wonderful new managed care formulary departments, which approve medication authorizaation requests -- or don't. Three times in the last two months they have rejected my requests for more "expensive" diabetic medications, invoking the requirements that all diabetics be given generic Metformin as a first-line agent. Unfortunately, these patients all happen to have weakened kidneys (common for diabetics) and would get lactic acidosis if I prescribed Metformin. It would likely kill them! But I guess dead patients cost the insurance companies less money than living ones. And I guarantee that some busy primary care physician's office will get one of these form letters and blindly sign it without taking the time to check the patient's renal function numbers ... but of course only the physician can be sued for a mistake like this, not the insurance company. How about the patient I'm trying to treat with Symlin, a new diabetic drug specifically for Type II diabetics already on maximal treatment (including insulin) who are not reaching the goal of controlling their hemoglobin A1C levels? The formulary morons rejected my request for authorization based on the fact that my patient's sugar numbers were -- get this - too high! I've tried for three weeks to get the insurance company physician who denied the authorization on the phone, but he's never in the office; and every time I'm told he'll call me back within 24 hours, he never does. I've reported this to the Commissioner of the New York State Insurance Department, but the case could take months. Meanwhile, this poor patient is suffering a slow death from her uncontrolled disease. Yet all I see in the press is how it's the greedy doctors -- broad brushed as an undifferentiated class -- who are driving up costs of health care. Take a look at the disgusting piece printed by The New York Times earlier this month, headlined Survey Finds High Fees Common in Medical Care , about doctors charging exorbitant rates for out-of-network care. Guess who provided the survey data? American Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group for the insurance companies! ("The health insurers, saying they felt unfairly vilified, gave the report to The New York Times ... explaining that they wanted to show that doctors' fees are part of the health care problem.") I bet they and the Times reporter had to dig down pretty deep to find what amounts to 0.0000001% of the problem with the current system. I can tell you for a fact that in the past 20 years, my reimbursement rates have dropped to about 30% of what they were in 1988, while my costs have at least tripled. My income has steadily declined every year over the past 10 years. It's now down to about half of what it was during my peak earning days. Meanwhile, the CEOs of the health insurance companies are making $10 million and more a year, with lord knows how much in deferred compensation and stock options. The CEO of United Healthcare walked away two years ago with $1.5 billion in compensation over his last five years running the company. Imagine how much care you could provide with a fraction of that money? And so I am currently working on my exit strategy, as are many of my friends in primary care medicine. And if you think there are younger people eager to fill my spot ... think again! With an average of $300,000 in student loans, eight years of college and medical school, and four years of indentured servitude at minimum wage as a resident physician in a hospital, these poor fools will be starting out on their own at age 30 and often older in a job that might earn them $100,000 a year ... and that's if they're lucky. Yes the system is badly broken, but not by my primary care colleagues. It's broken by the greed of the insurance and pharmaceutical giants who have sucked every dollar out of the system, and by the politicians who are in bed with their lobbyists, take their money, and do their bidding. So enjoy your new health care system. Nurse practitioners and foreign medical school graduates will be your new primary care providers managing 95% of your needs. I hope you don't come down with something serious that would actually require someone with knowledge and experience, to say nothing of the training ... as my friends and I will all be long gone. You can sign me: 20 Years of Primary Care Practice and Totally Fed Up ... Done.
 
Erin Green: The Day Teddy Kennedy Held the Elevator for Me Top
Today will be filled with memories of Senator Edward Kennedy -- I'll leave the important milestones to other news outlets. Instead, allow me to share a story about the day Sen. Kennedy and his dog held the elevator door for me at the US Capitol. I was working at one of the big networks, producing live TV from the Hill. Most of the talking-head shots you see from the Capitol happen steps away from Sen. Kennedy's office in the Russell Senate Office Building. By the time my path crossed with Sen. Kennedy, he was an old man. Forget "spring in his step" -- the man could barely walk. It was more of a pained shuffle, the result of an injury sustained in a plane crash earlier in his life. I couldn't help but think he was feeling the pain (and the weight) of what life had delivered him and his family over the years. Typically, you could tell that Kennedy was coming down the hall because he was grumbling at someone or talking to his large dog, a Portuguese Water Dog named Splash. The Senator wasn't particularly sociable on these occasions; he was heading to work after all. Plus, I think his dog held a higher favor with him than the press camped out in his hallway. Late one night in the Russell Rotunda by his office, I was packing up after filing a story. The rest of the crew had gone home and I assumed the Senators had done the same. I realized my assumption was wrong when I heard the click-clacking of Splash's nails hitting the stone floors as he and his owner came toward me and the elevators. There are two types of elevators in this particular building at the Capital: one for "Senators Only" and one for the rest of us. They're the same kind of elevator, but one is labeled with an LCD screen that indicates that you'd better wait for the next ride (assuming you don't have a constituency somewhere or a bill to pass). So there I was, standing in Russell Rotunda with Sen. Kennedy and his dog. HISTORY was standing next to me. The best thing I could think to say was, "Can I pet your dog?" He obliged. As I was scratching behind Splash's ears, the "Senators Only" elevator dinged, the doors opened waiting for someone important to step inside. Now, last time I checked, I didn't have a bill pending in the world's greatest deliberative body, so I stood there as I watched Sen. Kennedy and his pup shuffle in to the elevator. He got in, pressed a button, but the door didn't shut. He was holding the door. I looked over my shoulder half expecting Sen. Kerry to come running in. (His office was in that hallway too.) That's when Sen. Kennedy -- not the dog -- barked something like, "Are you getting in, or what?" Senator Edward Kennedy, youngest brother of the Kennedy clan, liberal lion, prolific legislator, patriarch of Hyannis Port... Teddy. Teddy Kennedy was holding the "Senators Only" elevator for me. And that made me smile .
 
Keith Ferrazzi: 10 Tips to Banish Your Public Speaking Fear for Good Top
Last week's " Three Steps to Kick Social Anxiety " broke traffic records here. No doubt about it: Meeting new people puts us out of our comfort zone! You guys had a lot to say about public speaking. In fact, there were so many good tips in the comments, many from professional coaches, that I've used them to create this new post. (Most of the responses are edited down, rather than verbatim.) Thanks all for the great input! 1. Practice, practice and practice . Most nerves develop when we think we won't come across as credible to our audience. The more you practice, the more comfortable you will be with your program, the less nervous you will be. Janet Boulter 2. Home field advantage: Examine your current affiliations and see if there is a group that you are very comfortable in and start speaking there first. Josh Phanco 3. Control for quality: Focus more on content and less on delivery. Chad Brue 4. Do your wee ones a favor : Parents can help their kids grow up with comfort in public speaking by looking for and creating opportunities. Church, scouting, various clubs, drama, debate all can give these opportunities. Or you can create them in your own family and in gatherings with friends and relatives, where children are given experiences to contribute, to share a thought, give a little speech, act in a skit, etc. (An opportunity for practice for you as well!) Jeff Lindsay 5. Get meds : Taking the drug Propranolol about 30 minutes prior to a high stakes meeting can really help. It's a beta blocker - sometimes called the 'stage fright pill' - that reduces the anxiety response, e.g., sweaty palms, dry mouth, racing heart, long enough to let you get into your presentation, sales call, etc. Dean Becker 6. Ipod to the rescue: Listen to a few kick ass songs to get you into your groove. If your body isn't moving and you're not singing... then find better songs. Matt 7. Remember the Force: See yourself as connected to everyone and everything. Martial Arts teaches students that all is one. That means when you address that "scary sea of faces" you should see them as exactly the same as you, because guess what - they are! David Portney 8. Mental buddy-up: Imagine yourself some time in the future, hugging the people in the crowd, as though they were long lost family. Or imagine them after the talk, approaching you and telling you how positively the message affected them. 9. Share the love: Just before walking to the podium, look into the eyes of as many people in the room as you can. Project every ounce of your being into the thought that they are going to love your message. (And make sure your content delivers on that promise!) 10. Use a positive mantra. Rather than thinking negative thoughts like "don't screw up" or "what if I forget what I want to say?"repeat a positive mantra as a means of boosting confidence and focusing on the audience. Find a mantra that is personally meaningful and believable. It could be a song title (Aretha Franklin's "RESPECT" comes to mind), a line from a poem or anything that makes you feel powerful and confident. And it has to be strong enough to drown out the negative, "Joy-Sucker" voice in your head that undermines their confidence and makes you less able to convey their knowledge and experience to the audience. My personal mantra is "You go, girl!" (accompanied by a mental fist in the air). Gilda Bonanno Take a minute to develop your personal pre-speech mantra - and share it here! Check out my blog at www.keithferrazzi.com/blog for more posts like this! Photo courtesy the Experient e4 Blog .
 
Cash For Clunkers' Top-sellers, Top-Trade-ins Top
Auto dealers reported 690,114 sales under the federal government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers rebate program, according to final data released Wednesday by the Department of Transportation. The total value of the rebates claimed by dealers totalled $2.88 billion. The following is a list of the top-selling vehicles under the program, the most popular trade-ins, the share of sales for automakers and the top-selling states. TOP SELLERS 1. Toyota Corolla 2. Honda Civic 3. Toyota Camry 4. Ford Focus front-wheel drive 5. Hyundai Elantra 6. Nissan Versa 7. Toyota Prius 8. Honda Accord 9. Honda Fit 10. Ford Escape front-wheel drive TOP TRADE-INS 1. Ford Explorer four-wheel drive 2. Ford F-150 Pickup two-wheel drive 3. Jeep Grand Cherokee four-wheel drive 4. Ford Explorer two-wheel drive 5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan two-wheel drive 6. Jeep Cherokee four-wheel drive 7. Chevrolet Blazer four-wheel drive 8. Chevrolet C1500 pickup two-wheel drive 9. Ford F-150 pickup four-wheel drive 10. Ford Windstar front-wheel drive van TOP MANUFACTURERS OF NEW VEHICLES SOLD 1. Toyota, 19.4 percent of Cash for Clunkers sales 2. General Motors, 17.6 percent 3. Ford, 14.4 percent 4. Honda, 13 percent 5. Nissan, 8.7 percent TOP STATES FOR SALES 1. California 2. Texas 3. New York 4. Florida 5. Illinois More on Cars
 
Disgrasian: The McDonald's "Mr. James" Ad Campaign and How We Don't Care About White People, Apparently Top
Oh dear. It seems that we've ruffled a few feathers . Last week, I wrote about a McDonald's ad campaign in Japan featuring one "Mr. James," a wacky gaijin nerd who speaks in broken Japanese (pictured), and the outrage that's ensued over this depiction of white foreigners there. Regarding that outrage, I cited the blog Debito.org , written by an American who's now a naturalized Japanese citizen, who 1) compared Mr. James to Stepin Fetchit --a reference that has since been removed from Debito's post, although it was mentioned on Japan Probe, too --and 2) suggested that if McDonald's put a " full-body 'ching-chong-chinaman' with funny glasses and protruding teeth saying 'Me likee McFlied Lice,' '' it would never fly over here in America. But, of course, the ching-chong-chinaman with funny glasses and protruding teeth speaking broken English is a frequent flier here on TV and in corporate advertising, and I provided a couple examples of this. (See this recent Six Flags commercial and this current KFC Grilled Chicken commercial . Also, um, try reading our blog some time). After seeing my post via HuffPo , Japan Probe took my providing counter-examples of extant "Asian versions" of Mr. Jameses in American pop culture and advertising to mean that I "don't care" about stereotyping when it happens to white people: Over at the Huffington Post, a pair of Asian-American women who call themselves Disgrasian has written a short article about Mr. James. The authors seem offended by stereotypes of Asians they witness in American ad campaigns and they've also expressed disgust with stereotypes of Asians they believe were present in a recent Marie Claire article about Asian trophy wives. When they look at the Mr. James commercials they recognize the same kind of stereotyping, but don't care because "Karma's one wacky bitch, isn't it?" Japan Probe then put up a screengrab from one of our vlogs where Diana and I are both smiling, as if it were somehow photographic proof of just how blithe and smug we are about other people's problems (guess they didn't realize we were talking about burrito-fucking in that one). But hey, I'm not complaining, that photo of us isn't half-bad! I've enjoyed Japan Probe in the past, but here their reading of my post is just fatuous and dumb. It's not that I don't think Mr. James is an unflattering stereotype of white people in Japan. And it's not that I don't care. (Incidentally, by the same measure, Time magazine doesn't seem to care , either.) But I find the outrage leveled at this Mr. James character by certain people to be verging on histrionic. Comparing Mr. James to Stepin Fetchit? Really? Stepin Fetchit was an African-American stereotype popularized in the 20's and 30's. He was known as "the laziest man in the world," and "a befuddled, mumbling, shiftless fool." But one of these fools is not like the other. It's important to remember context here, that Stepin Fetchit was a minstrel character created during the time of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the systematized oppression of African-Americans that followed slavery. I mean, slavery, okay? Over two hundred years of slavery. It's morally bankrupt to put a fool like Mr. James on par with a fool like Stepin Fetchit; stereotypes like Stepin Fetchit were instruments, ultimately, in reinforcing the second-class status of blacks--and not just socially, mind you, but legally. Stepin Fetchit didn't merely offend . Stepin Fetchit made the abuse of our constitution, the miscarriage of justice, the legalization of inequality, and the back of the bus only that much easier to live with. (I can only think that Debito reflected on this, and that's why the comparison between Mr. James and Stepin Fetchit has been removed from his original post. ) But let's get back to me not caring. I provided examples of Asian versions of Mr. James in my other post so as not to say, And n ow we're even , but rather, Open your eyes, racial stereotyping is all around us, and actually, it's often tolerated or ignored or dismissed, and yes, it's sometimes even tolerated or ignored or dismissed by YOU . And that's why I call Mr. James the face of karma. He's getting people who don't want to think about race issues or don't have to think about race issues to think about them. He's getting people who can't be bothered or don't see what's wrong with stereotypes so long as they're stereotypes of other people-- the very thing Japan Probe accuses me of --to suddenly declare that negative stereotyping is bad all-around and, by golly, everyone oughta do something about that. Well good. It's about time more people did. [ Japan Probe: Mr. James and racial karma ] [ Time : Not Everyone Is Lovin' Japan's New McDonald's Mascot ] More on Japan
 
Bob Cesca: Healthcare Reform Named After Ted Kennedy Must Not Suck Top
If they're going to name the final healthcare reform bill after Senator Kennedy, we ought to be demanding with voices as powerful and booming as the late senator's... The bill must not suck. But if it does, they should perhaps name it after Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley. The Blame Baucus and Grassley for This Sucky Act bill. Or maybe borrow the name of the House bill, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act , which, by the way, reminds me more of a frozen diet meal than a robust healthcare reform bill (the final House bill is actually pretty robust -- it's just a ridiculous name). On this day of national mourning, we're reminded that Senator Kennedy's political legacy has been inextricably bound to the cause of universal healthcare. Affordable, portable, reliable healthcare. It's difficult to know for sure, but I can't imagine, had he not been stricken with cancer, that the senator would be lending his unmistakable baritone to the awfulness, equivocation and bipartisan hackery that's on display within the ranks of Max Baucus's 'Gang of Six'. It goes without saying that left to their own spineless and corrupt devices, these six senators will absolutely deliver a terrible healthcare reform bill, one that would only serve to besmirch the Kennedy legacy. So what exactly does a sucky healthcare bill look like? Naturally, without a beefy public health insurance plan, healthcare reform would be an utter failure -- or worse. To call the public option a "sliver" of the bill, or to push for eliminating it altogether is almost as bad as having no reform at all. Journalists, writers and bloggers who I otherwise respect have been damning the public option with faint praise lately. Let's not sabotage healthcare reform with partisan ultimatums , they say. We can have a great bill without it , they say. No, sirs and madams. No we can't. They're not seeing the big picture here. I get it, though. There are many other meaningful aspects to healthcare reform. Banning exclusions for pre-existing conditions, setting caps on out of pocket expenses, bans on rescission. These are all excellent and historic. But tossed into the mix with these items is the necessity for individual and employer mandates which, like car insurance, would require everyone to buy health insurance. Simply put, mandates will spread out the risk and help to control costs by making sure everyone can pay for medical treatment. So if your 1040 shows that you can afford it (a minimum of around $88,000 per year for a family of four), you'd have to purchase insurance by law, though there are proposals on the table for allowing government subsidies to help families earning up to $110,000 annually. However, as I've been writing about on my daily blog for the last week or so, without the public option, such mandates would be nothing less than an ongoing financial endorsement of corporate crime. In other words, the public option is an option of good conscience. Without a public plan, mandates would transform what would otherwise be a landmark reform bill into a massive and perpetual handout to the healthcare industry. You and I would have no choice but to pay a monthly tribute to the worthless bastards at UnitedHealth, CIGNA, Aetna and Blue Cross every month until we died, went broke or reached the age of 65. Put another way: either we're forced to financially support an industry that has knowingly allowed thousands of Americans to die by denying them healthcare when they need it most , or we operate without a safety net while also paying a hefty annual penalty to the federal government. Nice. I'm not sure which is more punitive. A solid public option, on the other hand, solves this wicked catch-22. It will allow many of us to both purchase affordable, portable and reliable health insurance, while also serving as an expression of our disgust with the Mafioso-style business practices of the private insurers. The former scenario -- the mandates but no public option scenario -- is practically unthinkable (with or without Senator Kennedy's name). Wrapping my conscience around a being legally forced to buy private health insurance, regardless of new regulations and knowing everything I know about how the private insurance industry has operated all these years, would be almost impossible for me. I honestly don't know what I'd do. In a political sense, the president and the Democratic Party will have succeeded in authoring and passing a bill that would boil down to nothing less than a massive, almost unprecedented subsidy to the private health insurance oligarchy. And we'd have no way out. In fact, you and I would've spent years of our lives mobilizing and activating for healthcare reform only to wind up with a bill that sanctions us to subsidize the very enemy we've been fighting all this time. Senator Kennedy would've spent his career fighting for what will have devolved into an enormous corporate giveaway disguised as "universal healthcare." That's what a sucky bill looks like. Regardless of the name of the bill, I can think of no greater way to honor Senator Kennedy's legacy of activism for this cause than for us to stand up and, in his place, to vigorously fight for a bill that includes an option of good conscience -- a bill that provides a real public insurance option. Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go! More on Health Care
 
Police Crack Down On Food Vendors Outside The Met Top
In what appeared to be a coordinated crackdown on the proliferation of food vendors - many of them disabled veterans - outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, police officers swooped down on Fifth Avenue on Wednesday and began issuing hefty summonses, as well as ordering at least one vendor to shut down his cart. In all, officers from the Central Park Precinct wrote seven summonses to vendors who had "positioned their carts beyond the curb line," Paul J. Browne, the Police Department's chief spokesman, said.
 

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)