Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Frank Dwyer: Political Haiku: Bipartisanshit Top
Obama and Dems achieve bail-out miracle: near-dead GOP. More on Barack Obama
 
Nosheen Abbas: More Action than Talk: Elite Pakistani Students Pick Up Trash Top
On a sleepy Sunday afternoon in the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad, 6 high school students from an elite school are spending a few hours doing the unexpected. As shiny sports cars take languid rounds of the outdoor arena in Jinnah market, a posh shopping area, they slow down to get a closer look of what these youngsters are doing. They're picking up trash. Wearing gloves and holding big black garbage bags, sweat rolls down the side of their faces and matts their hair. " We're tired of hearing people complain and criticize about what's wrong with this country -- picking up trash is such a basic thing, and everyone complains about it. But when people join in, it turns in to a movement, and that's what were here to do, make everyone join in a movement to make Pakistan a better place" says one of the volunteers. These high school kids believe in the power of social responsibility. They call themselves 'zimmedar shehri' (responsible citizens). Donned with posters that read messages like 'time to reclaim Pakistan' and 'become a responsible citizen', they're hoping to encourage people to join in. The project began when a group of friends in Lahore, including Shoaib Ahmed Murtaza Khwaja and Saif Hameed, decided that they had had enough of 'talk' and were ready for action. Ali Khwaja, another friend, decided to start the Islamabad chapter by attracting students from his elite school Froebels. The environmental society of froebels took up the task and since then have gotten together twice every Sunday for a couple of hours to clean up a certain area. Last week, they spent hours cleaning up a busy shopping area called aabpaara, and this week they targeted a more elite shopping place called Jinnah super. Their output is dependent on a number of factors, including the weather. On that partially cloudy day they are thankful for the otherwise cruel humidity and heat of Pakistan's august summers. As they continue wading through the sporadic patches of grass, Hina looks up to show me a small paper flag of Pakistan, "look isn't it ironic that were cleaning up from 14th August celebrations". If only they felt that celebrating Pakistan's Independence Day meant keeping their country clean. Boota an employer of the Capital Development Authority that has collaborated with the young volunteers adds, "we wouldn't see any dirt around, if everyone united together to do this work." They receive a mixture of reactions. A calm and soft-spoken Nida Sattar, one of the volunteers says, "no one is really inspired when they see us doing this. Only one shopkeeper joined us, the rest just seem to be laughing." As we walked towards the front area of the market the young shopkeepers laughed loudly calling the girls "kachra raani" (garbarge queens). But the girls seem impervious. "A lot of girls are hesitant to do this work because they don't want to be seen picking up trash -- but we really don't care, we just keep going on." Their experience in a less opulent, yet busy shopping area was a little more different. "Nobody joined us at aabpaara but then no one laughed or mocked us like they are over here," said Ghani Rajput. The contrast in this upscale market is indeed sharper. A bunch of boys sit in an open top jeep and chuck their plastic glasses on the road. One of the six high school students carrying a black garbage bag wearing plastic gloves walks over to the car and picks it up. The boys' reaction is a mixture of embarrassment and mockery. " I pay my taxes," says a boy arrogantly as he simultaneously speaks on his cell phone, "I mean this is the governments job to clean up the city -- but yeah, I guess its good that these kids are." He continues defensively, "well only if this project is sustainable does it make sense." Ali has a different opinion of their reaction, he said, "It's laziness, doing things the conventional way, expecting others to pick up/clean up after you, these are phenomena that have been bred due to class conflicts, but have, ironically, surmounted, and permeated all the classes. They need to get over their own embarrassment." Towards the end, Hina happily jogs up to us to tell us that a shopkeeper joined in. A ray of hope for the volunteers. He's wearing gloves and picking up trash with the kids. "I think this is a great initiative and I would love to help them out whenever I can," adds the new volunteer. During the course of their campaign that day, friends kept joining in -- they show up later, sleepy eyed, but reach out for pairs of gloves. They joke around and chase each other with dirty gloves and various items of garbage as people watch on, some in shock, some with curiosity. In a country where there are very clear class divisions, their practical example of good governance is showing that jeans-clad and designer-wearing youth are trying to create a practical sense of social responsibility, and that although a challenge now, will slowly but surely will have a domino effect. More on Pakistan
 
Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner: Take that! Moms in Capes Bust Healthcare Myths Across the Nation Top
Faster than a toddler crawling toward an uncovered electrical outlet and more powerful than a teenager's social networking skills, moms across the country are fanning out to dispel the unfounded rumors, misperceptions and lies about healthcare reform. The effort, the SuperMom Healthcare Truth Squad, is spearheaded by MomsRising.org. Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco are among the first cities to witness this "mom power," when the cape wearing SuperMom Healthcare Truth Squad arrives today to distribute information about Myths & Truths. SuperMoms dressed in red capes are distributing powerful truth flyers to passersby to educate them about what healthcare reform will really do and how it will help to ensure the economic security of families across the country. Join this effort online by Truth Tagging a friend with healthcare reform myths & facts today: http://www.momsrising.org/TruthSquadTag While the SuperMom Healthcare Truth Squad is debuting in Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco today, this is just a small part of what's going on with moms fighting for healthcare reform right now. Across the country, over the next several weeks thousands of other MomsRising Truth Squad members will do their part by talking to friends, neighbors, and other community members about what healthcare reform will really accomplish; sending emails that explain the real purposes and plans for reform and dispel the myths; and using their school and soccer/sports team lists, along with Facebook and Twitter accounts to spread the truth. Why do moms care? Not only are families struggling with getting children the healthcare coverage they need for a healthy start, but 7 out of 10 women are either uninsured, underinsured, or are in significant debt due to healthcare costs. In fact, a leading cause of bankruptcy is healthcare costs--and over 70% of those who do go bankrupt due to healthcare costs had insurance at the start of their illness. Clearly we need healthcare reform! Healthcare reform is a key economic security issue for mothers and families in our nation. That's why this summer, MomsRising members across the country are also meeting with over 90 in-district U.S. Senate offices to share their experiences with the healthcare system and to convey the message that moms will "not be pacified" until our healthcare system is fixed. Dozens of highly attended in-district meetings with U.S. Senate offices have already happened in the past couple of weeks. Pictures can be seen here: http://www.momsrising.org/HealthcareSenateMeetingHighlights At these meetings, MomsRising members are sharing their stories, as well as delivering a book of members stories complete with a real pacifier and the message that, "Moms won't be pacified until our healthcare system is fixed." See the book of member stories here: https://momsrising.democracyinaction.org/o/1768/images/SenateMeeting_MomsRising%20Book%20Color%20Low.pdf Why did we start the MomsRising Truth Squad? Well, things were getting so out-of-hand with ridiculous rumors flying, that we at MomsRising decided to add a little levity and, importantly, truth to the situation with moms in capes. So if you can't wear a cape today, join us in the game of Truth Tag to help put a little truth into the mix of the national dialogue on Healthcare Reform right now: http://www.momsrising.org/TruthSquadTag Go to this link to tag a friend with the truth and pass it on. Onward! More on Health Care
 
Saul Segan: The Perils of Being Governed Top
The continual upheaval of the last few months surrounding the conflagration over health care reform has served to illustrate almost everything wrong with government. It has been agonizing to witness the exchanges of diatribe and punditry and the conspicuous dearth of civility. I would prefer to believe that all concerned within the seats of administration and lawmaking have had the nation's best interests at heart. And I would like to believe that it is the intention of the media to fulfill their vital task responsibly. Unfortunately, these admirable states of mind have been contradicted by the collective conduct of participants on all sides. Only recently, the frightful reality of our government at work has revealed the dark hole that is our leadership in action. The process has been marked by apathy and what would, if committed by a doctor or a lawyer, have been tantamount to professional malpractice. Unfortunately, redress for such egregious negligence is not available in our courts. How can there be justification for enactment of a critical instrument of legislation which has been unread by the majority of those who have to exercise their privilege to vote -- and I hope they remember it is both a privilege that must come with a sense of moral obligation to engage therein with the utmost of caution and conscience -- if they have not even read the matter in question? And how can there be a development of an intricate policy which can make or break people's lives without the meticulous care that is indispensable to its finest craftsmanship. Just as we are cautioned against a "rush to judgment" in discussing the resolution of a criminal court action, why are we willing to tolerate a "rush to enactment" of vital law without being duly informed of its contents. The construction of the proposed bill was such that an excessive amount of authority to execute its provisions was delegated to administrative bodies, whose structure and limits of authority were open-ended. As such, these provisions would have been indelibly imprinted upon our governmental landscape, and if found to be unworkable, would have been impossible to rescind. The scope of the proposed changes was so vast that their consequences were incapable of being foreseen. This is not conscientious or responsible formulation of policy. And one more question leads me to distraction. Did not our legislators, and our executive branch even consider or allow themselves by way of empathy to recognize the feeling of utter helplessness and fear that gripped the citizenry when it appeared that they had no control and no voice in their own destiny. As socialism and redistribution of wealth began to make their antipathetic appearances, and protests about their advent were met with understandable opposition, those who dared voice their discontent and apprehension were ridiculed and labeled as "Unamerican," agitators, and almost traitorous. Exercise of our precious rights and cherished freedoms were suddenly equated with anarchy. Just as the Iranian government, whose election became tainted, accused the opposing factions of agitation and planted disruption, so were opponents of the proposed health care legislation shown equal disdain and defamation. I think our current governmental climate and the fragility of its stability goes far beyond the subject matter of the debate. Unscrupulous tactics and the absence of promised bipartisanship, highlighted by the finger-pointing and vociferous blame game, offer little hope of meaningful change. The call for spirituality and the need to put aside selfishness and genuinely try to achieve the desired ends for the greatest of all concerned will result in a greater glory for America than the one-upsmanship of any political party over another. Instead of constantly seeking credit for one party or another, the protective instincts of the governmental participants must rise to the forefront. EVERYONE will get the credit deserved, maybe even more so, with that wonderful quality known as magnanimity. The emotional repercussions of the last few months must be recognized. The true danger is the total erosion of faith in government, so that when a crisis does present itself, we will be embedded in a quagmire of doubt and catastrophic and destructive inertia, so that needed action will be forestalled. What happened to compassion and caring? Merely because these terms were not part of the oaths of office administered to everyone ascending to positions of authority, did this mean they were to be excluded or ignored? The threat to our blessed existence in a democracy is more pervasive than we realize. Somehow the criteria of political success, which is raising campaign money, should give way to the quantity of beneficence and moral conscience within each aspirant to public office. It wouldn't take that much effort, and the results and benefits would be far more positive than the allocation of accountability and reprehension. It certainly couldn't hurt! More on Health Care
 
Dave Johnson: National Association of Manufacturers Blasts ... American Manufacturing? Top
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF. Last week Harold Meyerson wrote a great column in the Washington Post, Just One Word: Factories , promoting American manufacturing. Meyerson wrote, "Since 1987, manufacturing as a share of our gross domestic product has declined 30 percent. Once the world's leading net exporter, we have become the world's leading net importer. In 2007, we exported $1.2 trillion worth of goods and services but imported $1.8 trillion. If there were a debtor's prison for nations, we'd all be in the clink. [. . .] What makes the decline of American manufacturing particularly galling is that we're not falling behind because we're inefficient: American factories are among the most productive on the planet, as McCormack notes. But alone among the world's industrial powers, we have left the task of enticing manufacturers not to the federal government but to state and local governments, which try to attract factories and research facilities with tax abatements and public investments that are dwarfed by the efforts of national governments in other lands. ... It's not just that the United States uniquely lacks an industrial policy. It's that the United States uniquely has an anti-industrial policy." This sounds good to me. If we are going to restore American economic power we need to promote American manufacturing. So who comes out to blast Meyerson for his column promoting American manufacturing? Was it the European Manufacturers Association? Was it the China Manufacturers Association? Was it the Korean Manufactures Association? No, it was America's own National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) . Yes, the American NAM, not the European, Chinese, Japanese or Korean NAM, but the American NAM. WTF? Why is the NAM blasting Meyerson for writing a column promoting American manufacturing? A clue might be the source of the anti-American-manufacturing information they use. They quote Daniel J. Ikenson of the Cato Institute. Cato is an anti-government "libertarian" think tank that supports "free trade" and is against any kind of regulation of business, including any restrictions on imports. This could be because Cato receives a great deal of financial support from non-manufacturing interests including commodities and securities traders, tobacco companies, communications companies, software companies and oil companies. They also receive support from non-American manufacturing interests, including the Korea International Trade Association. What I want to know is: Why is America's National Association of Manufacturers echoing the Cato Institute's views against American manufacturing? Has this organization lost its way? Does the NAM membership know about this?
 
World Vision: World Humanitarian Day: Life 'On the Ground' Top
By Dan Kelly, World Vision Today marks the first World Humanitarian Day, a day established by the United Nations to recognize the ongoing work and challenges facing humanitarian staff and to pay tribute to aid workers who have lost their lives responding to emergencies and promoting the humanitarian cause. "What is it like on the ground?" people always ask. It's difficult to know where to begin. Sometimes I think of the endless stream of airports of varying quality; the challenge in balancing the requirements of process and procedure with the urgent needs of the situation -- finishing a proposal, dealing with no electricity when your computer battery is also dying and worst of all, running out of toilet paper. Other times when I'm asked that question, distinct images begin to cross my mind -- a flooded river in Mozambique; a food-distribution that goes wrong, hundreds of people charging across an open space towards sacks of U.S. government maize; the sound of a bullet going past the vehicle window in Gaza; the face of a man who is threatening to pull the pin on a grenade because he is desperate and can't help his family; shivering on top of a snowy mountain in Pakistan, waiting for helicopters of WFP food to arrive; the faces of two child soldiers in Masisi; a displaced person offering me a piece of roasted maize; a little girl no more than three carrying a ten liter jerry can on her head and walking slowly and carefully up a hill.... And all these images carry with them specific smells and sounds and feelings -- indeed one part of being an aid worker is to experience sensory overload as a frequent part of your work. We live in a world that is brutally unjust. While there are shocking numbers of women in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo right now who are terrified of being raped or killed, very few of us here can relate to such a pervasive and justified fear. Time and again I've met amazing people, who while in the midst of disaster themselves, give of the little they have. In Pakistan we met a man who took 30 displaced strangers into his house and looked after them until his own finances ran out. Such generosity always makes me ask myself, "How much am I willing to give?" After the Pakistan earthquake in 2005, we drove up and up through the sharp, cold mountains of the Northwest Frontier Province. The road clung precariously on the edge of the cliff and if you looked out the window, you could see straight down the side, far down to the river below. It was unnerving but one of the most beautiful places I'd ever been. Our small team went to a few different villages gathering information that would feed into the design of a program. In the last village, I was standing near some rubble talking with the team when a veiled head peeked out around the corner and a woman beckoned to me. I went over and she invited me into her small house, with temporary walls made of corrugated iron sheeting. It was dark and very cold inside and the wind kept coming through the gaps in the wall and ceiling. The floor was hard earth, and in the dim light I could see quilts and blankets piled in the corner. There was nothing else inside. The woman asked what we were doing. I speak Urdu, but her dialect was difficult to understand. I began explaining about our assessment and, opening my notebook, started to ask her about the types of needs her family was facing. I didn't get very far. She cut me off in mid-stream: "My six-year old daughter died here." And she pointed to the ground where we were standing. She began sobbing and clung on to me so hard my ribs hurt. She was crying "My daughter. My daughter" over and over again. I did nothing but stand there, weeping and hugging a woman who was grieving for her child. More on Palestinian Territories
 
Don Hewitt Remembered By Colleagues As A Legend Top
CBS CEO Les Moonves: "In the history of journalism, there have been few who were as creative, dynamic and versatile as Don Hewitt. The depth and breadth of his accomplishments are impossible to measure, because since the very beginnings of our business, he quite literally invented so many of the vehicles by which we now communicate the news. He will be missed by our entire industry, but most of all by his many, many friends at CBS both past and present who continue to be inspired by his professionalism, grit and dedication to the truth." CBS News and Sports President Sean McManus: "Don's creativity, drive and outright enthusiasm were an inspiration to everyone at CBS News. He shaped the television news business from its earliest moments through the creation of his masterwork, 60 MINUTES, which is still a vibrant and successful symbol of his colossal influence." "60 Minutes" Executive Producer Jeff Fager "It is a sad and difficult time for all of us who work at 60 Minutes. Don was a giant figure in our lives and will always have an impact on this broadcast - there's a part of him in every one of us, and it affects every decision we make. He will be remembered as a brilliant editor and story teller, an irrepressible force who changed journalism forever. Those of us who knew him and worked with him will remember him simply as a great guy to be around. He was full of life, usually armed with a joke, and he always found a way to make our stories better. I will miss Don very much." NBC News President Steve Capus: "This is an enormous loss. Virtually everything we do everyday goes back to the innovations that Don Hewitt brought to our craft. To say he was a pioneer doesn't do him justice. He was a visionary, a brilliant producer, master story-teller, tough as nails, and a tour de force. I've had the pleasure of getting to know Don through the years and always enjoyed his stories about his legendary productions, from presidential debates to unforgettable 60 Minutes broadcasts. His family and CBS colleagues are in the thoughts of everyone at NBC News. ABC News President David Westin: "Don Hewitt taught us all by his example just how good television news could be. He was a brilliant producer, a formidable competitor and a good friend. He forever changed television journalism, which will not be the same without him." ABC News Anchor Diane Sawyer: "Don was all genius and joy. He loved that he added the first female reporter to the 60 Minutes team. He greeted every brand new story with the excitement of a cub reporter. At a fancy political dinner party, he once made me crawl under the table and out of the room to scoop the competition on some fact he had learned. (On radio. At midnight.) He was one of those bosses who made you braver. One of those visionaries who made you believe. I loved him. And feel today a light has dimmed -- one that illuminates and celebrates this world." ABC News Anchor Barbara Walters: "Don Hewitt was probably the greatest news producer in television. He was original, creative, far-seeing and had an amazing gut instinct. To lose Walter Cronkite and Don Hewitt at almost the same time is truly the end of a remarkable era in news. " "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams: Don Hewitt stood up to his relentless illness the very same way he fought for his journalistic values. He was truly present at the creation of our medium. Don was among the first to realize: television without context amounts to pictures with noise. It is a battle we fight every day, and his memory will guide our work in the decades to come, wherever our reporting takes us, using whatever technology will allow. His work and his vision will always be the template for television news.
 
Mary Ellen Harte and John Harte: Addressing Global Warming: US Poised to Lose the Clean Energy Race Top
Whoever wins the race to a clean energy future will lead politically and economically on this planet. So, it is frustrating to see the US administration dreaming so senselessly about it. Department of Energy (DOE) chief scientist Steve Koonin was so right when he noted recently that we have limited time and resources, and "cannot let 1,000 flowers bloom indiscriminately." Having said that, he concluded that the US should focus on promoting clean coal, nuclear energy, and biofuels -- and leave electric cars for the future. Say WHAT?? Most scientists and technologists agree that "clean coal" technology borders on non-existent, and even if we could safely sequester carbon dioxide underground on a mass scale, we would still have the pervasive particulate air pollution, as well as the environmental pollution and destruction associated with coal mining. This is not a shovel-ready solution to our energy needs. Neither is the heavily subsidized nuclear energy industry, perhaps the most expensive alternative energy option on the table. And, as we explain in our free online book , biofuels have been shown to be as bad as fossil fuels or worse, since biofuel production leads to rainforest destruction, is energy, water and land intensive, and competes with needed food crop production, driving up food prices globally. Is this the best our government can do -- cherry pick the worst, most expensive, and least efficient options for our energy future? Is President Obama awake at the energy tiller? DOE's vision of our energy future is ineffective, obsolete and unrealistic. Buggy whip in hand, they seemed determined to drive us into a dusty sunset of energy oblivion. Meanwhile, China is vastly accelerating development of one of the cheapest and most promising clean alternative energy sources around: wind. By June 2009 it had doubled its wind power capacity to 12 Gigawatts, a 101% increase in its 2008 capacity, and increased its purchase of this power by 100% as well. China has also just started building a 10 Gigawatt wind farm, and plans to install 100 Gigawatts of wind power generation by 2020 . How much energy is that? One hundred Gigawatts represent roughly 25% of the entire current US energy demand. What are we doing about wind? As of 2007, total US wind power capacity was at 12.5 Gigawatts . Despite the economic downturn, the private US wind energy industry has so far installed 4 Gigawatts of wind power generating capacity this year, but orders for wind turbines and their components are decreasing , a troubling trend. American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode notes that we could be delivering much more wind power capacity, but that "Congress and the Administration must pass a national Renewable Electricity Standard with strong early targets" -- that is, mandate a much greater increase in the percentage of clean alternative energy that power utilities must acquire. Much of this clean electricity can then be used to fuel the energy efficient electric cars that are already being produced, as well as the further manufacture of them. So, both China and the US have roughly the same amount of wind power capacity -- but China is gearing up to leave us in the dust. Far less developed in both countries is the other major source of clean renewable energy, solar power. But even here China is accelerating its development. Although its installed solar capacity is less than 1 Gigawatt, China plans to increase that to 2 Gigawatts by 2011. By the end of 2008, a total of 8 Gigawatts of solar power capacity had been installed in the US , but this reflects only a 17% increase from the previous year, and in the meantime, the US manufacturing share of the global solar cell production decreased from 12% in 2003 to 5% in 2008. Furthermore, solar energy policy in the US is still primarily driven at the state, not the federal level, in contrast to the other major solar markets of Japan and Germany. Imagine what could be done if our federal government really promoted wind and solar power generation on the scale that China, Japan and Germany do. Now that is a sensible dream worthy of our national future. More on Climate Change
 
Philip N. Cohen: Teen Sex Headline Abuse Top
Early sexual activity is risky for adolescents. Without proper sex education the health risks are large, and even with sex education there may be negative social and emotional consequences. But, despite what you might have read in today's headlines, sex at age 12 is not the norm for poor children. Science Daily headlined the story , "Low-income Kids Report First Sexual Intercourse At 12 Years Of Age In New National Study," while the Chicago Sun Times led with "Poor Chicago kids have sex at young age." The actual study , published online by the journal Children and Youth Services Review was much more reasonably titled, "A Bioecological Analysis of Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Early Sexual Intercourse of Young Adolescents." The study surveyed adolescents in low-income families in Chicago, Boston, and San Antonio. What they actually found was that 32% of boys, and 17% of girls, had sexual intercourse by the age of 16. Put another way: 68% of low-income boys and 83% of low-income girls, remained celibate until age 16! The "First Sexual Intercourse At 12" screamer is only based on the average age of those who reported first intercourse. And actually it was 12.8, so it should be rounded to 13, not 12. A science editor should know that. The results confirmed that boys, especially African American boys, had higher rates of sexual activity. But some details that don't seem to have made the headlines are also important. Most notably, when other factors were controlled, children of single mothers had the lowest rates of sexual activity, compared with those of married or stably-separated parents, or those who entered into new relationships. Why would poor children of married parents be more likely to have early sex? Maybe they have bigger houses, with their own rooms. Maybe they have cars. Or other privileges that make them attractive in the teen sex market. That's something we could do a study on -- but don't look for a splashy headline when it's done. More on Health
 
James M. Lynch: Cooking Up the Success You Want Top
I work as a coach and one of my many 'recharge' hobbies is cooking. I consider a meal very similar to a work of art and am concerned not only with the tastes but the presentation. My goal is to get a 'wow' from my dinner guests and I'm most often successful. My style of cooking is very creative and I usually just follow my instincts and intuition with good results (mostly). However, after a while my 'make it up as you go' style of cooking becomes a routine. I have a set number of culinary ideas and skills and I need to go outside for inspiration and education. I watch TV shows on cooking, read magazines and look online for ideas and to learn more about cooking. I even, and this is the shocker, use someone else's recipes now and then! Life and business is like this model of cooking. You have a set number of ideas and intuition and you can follow them into any venture with varying levels of success; you may even get some 'wows'. You may even tap into the many sources of inspiration, creativity, training and resources available to keep you growing. This model and method can be useful and helpful and may be all you ever need to be fulfilled and happy in your endeavors. But, if you are looking for growth, for breakthroughs and the biggest possible future for you and your business you may want to find an expert and follow their 'recipe' for success. In fact, the closer you follow a recipe, as in the cooking model, the more often you'll be able to replicate your successes and create a sustainable, repeatable model for growth and success. Consider a recipe: ingredients, preparation, baking or cooking time, special instructions and a desired result. If your end result isn't exactly what you wanted then you can make notes and adjustments for the next time. You add an ingredient for a new or more textured flavor, vary baking or cooking time according to your oven, practice some of your preparation techniques, consult a more experienced cook and, in general re-think your recipe. You don't give up eating just because your cake was a bit dry any more than you'd quit your business because you had a few bad sales weeks or divorce your spouse or family because life had gotten a little boring or you're in a rut. So let's take on something that you're interested in causing a breakthrough in as if it was a recipe. Start off by listing the ingredients: what do you do, what do you need, to get your goal. Write them all down as if they were items you could get your hands on and don't edit yourself; i.e. if it's a large chunk of time then just write that down, don't edit yourself because you don't presently know where you'll find the time. What kind of 'processing' does it need? This is the 'bake at 350 degrees for 1 hour' type of instruction. How long would you need to do what you need to do in order to get results? Say for example that you're going to grow your accounts by 10% as a goal: ingredients are 10 new clients, and that means '10 cold calls a day for one month', let's say or, if it's a personal goal like weight loss, 'lose 10 lbs.-- 1/2 hour of working out, 5 times a week for 8 weeks'. What kind of help do you need? Chefs have 'sous chefs' and tasters to give them feedback and be their support when they need it. Can you enlist someone to be a 'taster' for what you're up to? Tell them what you're up to and invite them to be a witness, much the same way that when I serve a dish up to guests I'm looking for a 'wow'. Let them in on where you are now and where you want to be and ask them to check in on you, be your 'help line' if you get stuck and in general be at stake with you for the result. What will the result look like? Have a clear picture of the outcome. I couldn't imagine cooking something without knowing what the result should look like if I've followed the recipe correctly. Comparing my result to the photo in the cookbook lets me know if I've hit the mark or not, no matter how tasty the dish. You have to be working towards some result or you'll feel trapped, in a rut or like a drone working, working, working with no 'souffle' at the end of the tunnel. Let's revisit a little: you're going to have a breakthrough in mind. You'll list what you need, what actions to take and how long it will take for the result. Along the way you can 'tweak' the recipe if you're not getting the next step the way you want it and you'll be asking for help along the way. If you find that your result is not perfect you won't give up or throw out the recipe and start from scratch, you'll adjust, fine tune, add or vary ingredients and try again and again. At the end, you'll aim to 'taste' success and to 'serve up' a 'wow'. So now, get in the kitchen and get out of the 'hunger' phase. Thinking about a cake or pie doesn't make it appear; you have to roll up your sleeves and knead the dough. Spend your time looking for inspiration, education and new ideas and reduce everything to its ingredients and step by step instructions so that you can adjust, tweak, spice and fine tune until you get exactly the results you want. Following this model will help you create awareness and awareness is key to making any lasting changes or building a successful model or enterprise. Who knows, you may wind up writing your own recipe book for the benefit of others! Here's my offer: I'm available to you and to anyone at either 'Star of Your Own Life' ( www.starofyourownlife.com ) or 'JM Lynch Training and Consulting' either by email or phone and will come do one free session with any group, anywhere in the world, to help you get started on what you're passionate about, what you're doing to feed your soul or to set the table for your community with abundance and prosperity. Contact me and I'll arrange it with you -- I love to 'cook'. By the way, my 'cook book' is written, The Hamlet Secret: A self-directed workbook for living a passionate, joy-filled life, ( http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Secret-Self-Directed-Shakespearean-Passionate/dp/1438960662/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250693366&sr=1-1 ) and is full of 'do it yourself' recipes for enjoying and savoring life for the tasty dish it can be. Bon appetit!
 
ALL Fish In US Steams Have Mercury In Them, New Study Reveals Top
From The AP: WASHINGTON -- A federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday found the toxic substance in every fish tested at nearly 300 streams across the country, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become. The study by the U.S. Geological Survey is the most comprehensive look to date at mercury in the nation's streams. From 1998 to 2005, scientists collected and tested more than a thousand fish from 291 streams nationwide. While all fish had traces of mercury contamination, only about a quarter had levels exceeding what the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for people eating average amounts of fish. "This science sends a clear message that our country must continue to confront pollution, restore our nation's waterways, and protect the public from potential health dangers," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement. Mercury can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children. The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury -- a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish. Some of the highest levels in fish were detected in the remote blackwater streams along the coasts of the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana, where surrounding forests and wetlands help in the conversion. Mercury was also detected in high concentrations in western streams that drain areas mined for mercury and gold. At about 59 of the streams, mostly in the West, mining could be contributing to the mercury levels, the researchers said. "Some ecosystems are more sensitive than others," said Barbara Scudder, the lead USGS scientist on the study. All but two states -- Alaska and Wyoming -- have issued fish-consumption advisories because of mercury contamination. Some of the streams studied already had warnings. "This is showing that the problem is much more widespread," said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst for the Environmental Working Group, which has pushed for stronger advisories on consumption of mercury-laden fish and controls on the sources of mercury pollution. "If you are living in an area that doesn't have a mercury advisory, you should use caution." Earlier this year, the Obama administration said it would begin crafting a new regulations to control mercury emissions from power plants after a federal appeals court threw out plans drafted by the Bush administration and favored by industry. The Bush rule would have allowed power plants to buy and sell pollution credits, instead of requiring each plant to install equipment to reduce mercury pollution. The EPA also has proposed a new regulation to clamp down on emissions of mercury from cement plants. On the Net: * U.S. Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/mercury/ More on Food
 
Afghan Election Eve: 6 US Soldiers Killed Top
KABUL — The U.S. military said Wednesday six American troops were killed in Afghanistan, as militants killed six election workers amid growing fears on the eve of the presidential election that insurgents would mar the vote. Two troops were killed in gunfire in the south on Wednesday, the U.S. military said, while a third was killed in an unspecified hostile attack. The U.S. also said a roadside bomb Tuesday in the south killed two troops, while another died of noncombat-related injuries. No other details were released. The deaths bring to at least 32 the number of American troops killed in the country this month, a record pace. Forty-four U.S. troops died in Afghanistan last month, the deadliest month of the eight-year war. Attacks in the countryside killed six election workers, officials said Wednesday, one day before Afghanistan decides whether President Hamid Karzai deserves a second five-year term. In Kabul, three Taliban militants took over a bank, and gunfire and small explosions reverberated throughout the capital. Police stormed the bank and killed the three militants. The drumbeat of attacks would appear to signal the intent of Taliban insurgents and their militant allies to disrupt Thursday's vote. Karzai faces some three dozen presidential candidates at the polls, including his former foreign minister and top challenger, Abdullah Abdullah. Islamist insurgents have threatened violence against those who take part in the election – a crucial step in President Barack Obama's campaign to turn around the deteriorating war. Afghanistan's electoral commission said all but one of the country's 364 districts had received voting materials. Polls open at 7 a.m. Thursday (0230 GMT Thursday, 10:30 p.m. EDT Wednesday). In a region generally considered safe, four election workers were killed Tuesday when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb about 20 miles (30 kilometers) outside the capital of northeastern Badakhshan province. Officials said the four were delivering materials to a polling station. Another two election workers were killed in Shorabak district of Kandahar province on Tuesday when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb, said Abdul Wasai Alakozai, the chief electoral officer for southern Afghanistan. A remote-controlled roadside bomb exploded early Wednesday near a vehicle taking voting supplies to a poll in the Chaparhar district of the eastern province of Nangarhar, said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, the governor's spokesman. The driver was slightly wounded, but the voting materials were not damaged, he said. Security forces arrested the man who detonated the bomb, he said. The Interior Ministry says about a third of Afghanistan is at high-risk of militant attack, and that no polling stations will open in eight Afghan districts under control of militants. The three armed men took over a branch of the Pashtani bank early Wednesday in a section of Kabul's old city still in ruins from the country's 1990s civil war. Police surrounded the building, exchanging gunfire with the attackers. Abdul Ghafar Sayedzada, head of Kabul's criminal investigations unit, said police eventually stormed the building and killed three "terrorists." Few civilians were in the area because government ministries and businesses were closed Wednesday in observance of Afghanistan's independence from British rule. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said 20 armed suicide attackers wearing explosive vests had entered Kabul and that five of them battled police. The claim could not be confirmed, but the Taliban in recent months have unleashed several attacks involving teams of insurgents assaulting government or high-profile sites. The latest attacks were an ominous sign that the Taliban and their militant allies are determined to disrupt Thursday's election. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the rise in insurgent violence in Afghanistan reflected a deliberate campaign to intimidate voters. A shopkeeper near Wednesday's gunfire attack in Kabul, Abdul Jalal, said that if violence persisted into Thursday, he and his wife would not vote. "Tomorrow we plan to go the polling center," said Jalal. "But if it was like today, we will not vote. Elections are a good thing for Afghanistan, but security is more important." Attacks nationwide have increased in recent days from a daily average of about 32 to 48, said Brig. Gen. E. Tremblay, the spokesman for the NATO-led force. Even with the increase, Tremblay said that insurgents do not have the ability to widely disrupt voting at the country's 6,500 or so polling sites. "When you're looking purely at statistics ... they're not going to be able to attack even 1 percent of the entire polling sites in this country," he said on Tuesday. U.N. Secretery-General Ban Ki-moon encouraged all Afghans to vote and said that by participating in the election Afghans will help "bring fresh vigor to the country's political life, and ultimately reaffirm their commitment to contribute to the peace and prosperity of their nation." The next president will face challenges on several fronts: the rising Taliban insurgency, internal political divisions, ethnic tensions, unemployment, the country's drug trade and corruption. Karzai is favored to win, but if he does not get more than 50 percent of Thursday's vote he and the second-place finisher will face off in an October run-off. Polls show Abdullah in second place with around 25 percent support and Karzai's support around 45 percent. Preliminary official results of the presidential election should be announced sometime Saturday evening. Fearing that violence may dampen turnout, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement Tuesday demanding that news organizations to avoid "broadcasting any incidence of violence" between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. on election day "to ensure the wide participation of the Afghan people." In other violence, a roadside bomb killed a district government leader and a tribal elder early Wednesday in the Registan district of Kandahar, said Ghulam Ali Wahadat, a police commander in southern Afghanistan. Another roadside bomb in Tirin Kot, in Uruzgan province, killed three policemen, said Ali Jan, a provincial police official. ___ Associated Press reporters Fisnik Abrashi and Rahim Faiez in Kabul and Noor Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report. More on Afghanistan
 
Charlotte Safavi: Keeping Children Clean Top
"Mom, may I please print something?" asks R.J., my eight-year-old son, in his sweetest, most innocent voice. I have my hand stuck up a bird feeling for giblets. "Sure," I reply. I hear the hum of the printer and yank the giblets out. A little while later, the chicken roasts in the oven and a kettle simmers on the stove. While "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen plays on the oldies station, R.J. walks into the kitchen, his eyebrows knitted intently as he cradles a sheaf of paper. "I see a little silhouette of a man," I sing. "Scaramouch, Scaramouch, will you do the..." The kettle shrieks and I whisk it off the burner. "Mom," says R.J., "you know that bad word -- the F word." "Fandango!" I say, accidentally scalding myself with a few drops of hot water that miss the teapot. "Not that one," he says, rolling his eyes, "the F word." "Thunderbolts and lightning, very, very frightening," I think as I run cold water over my hand. "Well, it's an Anglo-Saxon word," he says. "There was even a man called John You-Know-What. Besides, it means mating!" He pauses for effect, waving the sheaf at me. "How can a word like that be bad?" "Can Mommy see that?" I ask in a high voice laced with anxiety taking the paper, still smelling of ink, out of his hands. My son has printed out about 20 Wikipedia pages on the definition of a swear word -- under parental supervision. My eyes scan the text, frantically at first and then with curiosity. Hmm, first occurrence in a 1475 poem about randy Cambridge friars; a place called Fuccerham from an Anglo-Saxon land deed; Norwegian word fokk meaning streaks of foam and spray at sea. This is like F through K 101. I suppress a wry smile. "Mom, I haven't finished reading that," says R.J., snatching the bundle out of my hands and jerking me out of my thoughts. With a child's agility, he vaults out of my reach, guarding his National Treasure du jour. I give chase, plead, reason, threaten consequences and finally catch him, wrestling the wad of paper -- now smudged, shredded and crumpled -- out of his clutches. "Let's have some tea before we talk," I say. He nods, eyes welling up. I have shielded R.J. from blasphemy since birth: covering his eyes when we pass French Connection boutiques (with their FCUK logo); switching channels when chef Gordon Ramsay -- as famous for his spicy speech as for his gourmet food -- cooks on BBC America; pointing out something on the opposite side of the street when we drive by inappropriate graffiti; removing from his reach reading materials that may contain offensive language. Then again, I think, paraphrasing the Bard, "What's in a word?" We all learn swear words by adulthood, some of us even use them. But kids are not grownups. It is our responsibility to guide them -- say please, thank you; not bleep -- until they are old enough to make their own decisions. My husband Ron shields our son less but helps him mature more. He set up my old computer in the family room for R.J., precisely so he could look things up in the open. Though the computer has parental controls, I worry R.J. will Google worse things when older -- or on a friend's computer with no controls. Forget "Let's talk after tea," I would need a stiff drink before I broach the propriety of, say, surfing for Fat Bottomed Girls! Still, Ron talks to R.J. about making good choices. R.J. never goes online without asking permission and rarely looks up things we do not approve of. The truth is kids grow up: they hear things, read and see stuff. Those who are curious act on it. I am proud of my son's industrious initiative, research tactics and dogged determination to learn something he does not understand. Even something he knows might get him in trouble. I remember looking up swear words in a dictionary when I was a kid, but I never did R.J.'s level of research. We had no Google then. Once R.J. realizes I am not punishing him or cross, I share all this with him. I also talk about words, how their meanings and applications change, how some words are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, how other words are simply grown-up words, best looked up and learned when older. That night, after our roast chicken dinner, Ron tucks R.J. into bed, whispers to him about trust and responsibility when operating a computer. All is well. "I didn't want to alarm you last night," says Ron the next morning, "but I found the pages in the printer that R.J. hadn't removed. Merriam-Webster Online. With audio pronunciation tips." *This story ran in the Washington Post on January 4, 2009 More on Food
 
White House Draws Line In The Sand... But Not On Public Option Top
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Wednesday that President Obama would be unwilling to sign a health care bill that raised taxes on those making under $250,000. But Gibbs would not draw a similar line in the sand when it came a bill that lacked a public insurance option. NBC News White House correspondent Chuck Todd pushed Gibbs to explain why the White House, which has generally insisted that all good policy ideas are on the table, had been so firm on one pledge but not another. The press secretary acknowledged that Obama had reiterated his commitment to not raise taxes on those making under $250,000 "just the other day." But when prodded for a similarly declarative statement on the public plan, he dodged. "The president ... believes we should have choice and competition for people entering the private insurance market, in order to hold down costs and provide quality of the coverage, we have to of choice and competition," Gibbs said. "The president's preferred way is a public option. If there are others that have additional viewpoints or other ideas in policy... we are ready to hear it." The White House has, over the past few days, insisted that the president remains committed to an insurance exchange that has choice and competition, and that a government-run option would best achieve that goal. But the White House's commitment to the public plan hasn't been anywhere near as firm as its stand against higher taxes. Why was that the case? Todd pressed. "I'm not going to get into ranking all those things," said Gibbs. "The president addressed that in here and I'm not going to get into ranking different priorities like the pre-season college football poll." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Taxes
 
Asma Nemati: Good luck, Afghanistan Top
In the last few hours before over 30 million Afghans vote, tension is at its peak in Afghanistan. Within the last few days, the capitol has been struck by two suicide attacks, killing at least 14 and wounding over 120 civilians. The casualties in yesterday's deadly blast, which targeted a passing NATO convoy, included two Afghan UN employees. Today, three gunmen raided an Afghan bank in the heart of Kabul. Fighting between the gunmen and police ensued before the gunmen were killed. In the northern province of Jawzjan, Mullah Abdul Rahim, a provincial council candidate was gunned down in his car while traveling home yesterday. The amount of attacks on the heart of Afghanistan are definitely not usual, but are expected as the Taliban have vowed to disrupt elections to the best of their ability. Not only are some people refusing to vote in the volatile south, but people in the capitol are likewise nervous about heading to polling booths to partake in Afghanistan's second national elections. According to some reports, 10% of the polling stations may not be able to open Thursday due to security concerns. After nine years of "nation" building, international security and aid agencies' presence, the government of Afghanistan had to negotiate their way into parts of the country with the Taliban. One can't help but ask questions such as where the aid has gone and why a legitimate government has to ask permission from the Taliban to enter some parts of the country to provide enough security to allow Afghan citizens to vote. The questions are numerous and loom ever so clearly on the eve of the elections. Stories of election fraud are also threatening the legitimacy of tomorrow's elections. Voter registration cards are widely being sold in some districts not too far from Kabul and thousands of dollars are spent on bribes to buy votes. In a humorous twist to the fraud, a voter registration card with Britney Spears's picture (renamed "Jamila," or beautiful) is being circulated throughout Afghanistan and on the internet (see AfPax article ) All this commotion will not stop at least some of the hopeful youth from voting. Many are enthusiastically planning on partaking in tomorrow's elections to end, what some here say, eight years of corruption, continuous waste of aid money and the increasing number of civilian casualties. Foreign forces have also steadily lost its man power. The UK military has now lost at least 200 soldiers, while the US casualties continue to rise from 150 so far this year. Depending on election results, civil unrest is not far from sight. It is not yet obvious whether any candidate will get at least 50% of the votes, which means the possibility of a run-off. That, in turn, will take at least another month. According to recent polls, however, incumbent Hamid Karzai is leading with 44% ahead of the nearly 40 other candidates. As Afghans await the election results along with the remaining international community here, we can only hope for the best albeit the difficult circumstances. Afghans have suffered way too long to forego another opportunity to freely - at least in some parts - elect their future leader. All I can say is: good luck, Afghanistan. More on Afghanistan
 
Ed Levine: Bowling and Eating: Easy Rolling or A Big Strike-Out? Top
All photographs by Robyn Lee Though bowling and eating seem in some ways to go hand in hand, no bowling alley I've ever been in has tried to seamlessly blend an ambitious menu and a state-of-the-art bowling experience quite like the newly opened Brooklyn Bowl . It's not a bowling alley with really good food—it's a bowling theme park for hipsters of all ages. Why do I say this? The shiny bowling lanes are graced with two alternating video installations, shown on screens right above every alley. The kitchen has been turned over to the haute comfort food championship chef team of the Blue Ribbon boys, Bruce and Eric Bromberg. Every 21st-century bowling alley needs a soundtrack, but Brooklyn Bowl takes the music bowling thing to another level--adding a large stage with a high-quality sound system to accommodate live music of all stripes. And when there's no band, they blast an incredibly pleasing mix of music from the last four decades. So even if you bowl a gutter ball, you can snap your fingers. (If they're not too greasy, that is.) If you find this all a little overwhelming and distracting, join the crowd. Look at me. This is supposed to be a restaurant review, and I haven't written one word about the food yet. Yikes! At Brooklyn Bowl, my bowling score suffered, but I ate very well--if rather messily. And my guess is that they're still cleaning sloppy joe out of the finger holes of the orange ball I was bowling with. Not surprisingly, the stuff emerging from the kitchen is all comfort food, Bromberg Brothers-style. Though some of it is knife-and-fork food, a lot of the menu is literally finger-lickin' good--fine, if you're not bowling, but not so fine if you want to bowl your best. All the wet naps in the world can't stop the good eats from seeping into the bowling experience. Bruce and Eric Bromberg could have been content with giving us a menu straight from Blue Ribbon's greatest hits, but instead they've come up with an almost entirely new roster of comfort food classics. Housemade space-agey pork rinds ($7), starting out as stamp-sized pork fat matter, are topped with cilantro, fresh jalapenos, queso blanco (cheese), and chopped red onion. These might be the most seriously delicious pork rinds ever, and they're not too messy to eat while bowling. A "really" sloppy joe ($11) was a sweet and savory delightful mess that, the menu correctly notes, you need a fork and knife to eat. If you try to eat it while you are bowling, your score will suffer. (At least, mine did.) We ordered the kitchen sink-like Fatty French bread pizza ($16), topped with pepperoni, ham, pulled pork, sausage, mushroom, and eggplant. Though really tasty, it was near impossible to eat without making a mess, even with a knife and fork. Next time I'm going to opt for the one topped with pulled pork. A housemade potato onion knish ($9), served with sour cream and mustard, was downright dainty, pretty delicious (though it needed more salt), but ridiculously overpriced. I missed the pork-derived cold cuts in the chicken muffaletta ($11), and I wanted more than the spoonful of olive salad it was topped with. A slow-roasted barbecued brisket sandwich ($10) accompanied by pickles and sweet and spicy gravy is great Jewish soul food, which the Bromberg brothers definitely know something about. The roast pork sandwich ($10) had moist slices of pork loin and tangy melted cheese on top, but I couldn't figure out its reason to exist. The same could be said for the oyster po' boy ($14), which needed more oysters and more crunch to justify its price tag. Fried chicken (8 pieces, $22, with white bread and honey) is a Bromberg Brothers specialty. Better versions are available at Blue Ribbon and Blue Ribbon Sushi and Grill; though the fried chicken at Brooklyn Bowl is crisp and greaseless, the crust's Old Bay-dominated seasoning overwhelmed the bird. Although our gracious server informed us that we could not get our burger deluxe ($9) medium rare as ordered--"All burgers must be cooked through"--it was nonetheless pink all the way through, and plenty beefy and juicy. It was just a damn fine burger, and it was the right size for a bowling accompaniment. It came with terrific salty french fries that I would ask for well-done next time. The half rack of vaguely smoky pork ribs ($18) had a very crunchy exterior, lots of sweet barbecue sauce, and came with mashed potatoes and corn on the cob. But if you picked up those ribs with your hands, as I did, bowling would be very tough. The same sticky sweet sauce made the smoked BBQ wings (8 pieces, $12) an inappropriate bowling snack. Even my incredibly polite and well-bred wife couldn't figure out a way to eat these wings with a knife and fork. The mac and cheese ($11) works as a bowling alley food because no one, not even sloppy me, would consider eating it with their hands. To wash all this comfort food down, order a too-expensive vanilla malt ($8)--so malty, and creamy, and vanilla-y that I'm ready to put it on my list of Top 5 Vanilla Malts, Ever. It's only with dessert that the Brombergs revert to the tried and true Blue Ribbon classics. Chocolate chip bread pudding ($9), a Blue Ribbon Bakery dessert staple, is topped with vanilla ice cream and hot fudge. It's not terrible, but the bread pudding was under-baked here. A hot fudge sundae ($9) is, well, a hot fudge sundae, one made with great ingredients. The banana split ($10)--believe it or not, a banana split made with great ingredients. (See above.) So what do I make of Brooklyn Bowl? It's an incredibly fun place staffed by people who seem to want you to have a great time, where serious eaters will find a lot of skillfully cooked and constructed comfort food, though from a menu that should be pared down. Well-equipped lanes; interesting videos; a great soundtrack. Is it sensory overload? It all depends on who you ask. The real question serious eaters should have is this: Have the Brombergs and their partners bit off more than they can chew? (Or should I say, roll?) As a standalone restaurant Brooklyn Bowl would be totally in the pocket. The food is for the most part very tasty and satisfying. But as a restaurant integrated into a bowling alley, the menu is too ambitious and too messy. The choices you make in a bowling alley should involve how to convert tough spares--rather than what to eat, or what to watch, or what to listen to. Brooklyn Bowl 61 Wythe Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11211 718-963-3369 Service: Friendly, enthusiastic, and solicitous (they happily transport food from the restaurant to the lanes) Compare It To: Bowlmor Lanes, Blue Ribbon Bakery, 100 Acres, Shorty's 32 Must-Haves: Pork rinds, burger, brisket sandwich Cost: $10-20 per person for bowling snacks and beer; $35 for a three course meal Grade: B/B+ for the food and for the bowling
 
Mitchell Kapor: The Real Secret to Controlling Health Care Costs Top
With the debate on health care reform in full force, it's notable that the proposed bills all focus on extending coverage but do not have credible plans for controlling costs. It's a matter of the greatest national urgency to provide universal coverage, but we can't do it without bending back ever-rising cost curves. Reversing the escalation of health care costs is going to need more than legislation, yet it can be done without imposing rationing as critics of reform fear. The key to understanding how this can happen begins with recognizing the crucial distinction between providing good care to one patient at a time, and managing whole patient populations for good health outcomes. As an example, let's say you're diabetic and you're seeing your family physician for your annual checkup. Your doctor can tell you how well or poorly you're doing in managing your chronic disease over time. Patient by patient, the quality of health care by family physicians in this country is pretty good, and, of course, the goal of universal coverage is that everyone have access to a primary care physician. But now, let's look at diabetes management not just for you, but for all the diabetics in your physician's practice, who number in the hundreds. If one asks how well or poorly are they doing as a group, there's no good way to know. The information is in the wrong form, scattered across the hundreds of disparate paper records that 97% of small medical practices still use. Since most of the total cost in our health case system has to do with management of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension, this choice of example is central to the cost management issue. A typical medical practice is like an old-fashioned business which keeps all of its records on paper. It can probably track down any individual transaction if it needs to, but it's basically helpless when it comes to overall measurements of performance. And that's the big problem. What would make a difference is if the physician had patient data in electronic medical records (EMR's). Beyond the value of EMR's for individual patients, those that permit data aggregation are indispensable to assessing overall performance. It's a significant peculiarity of the world of routine medical care that such aggregate performance measures are not only unavailable, but regarded as unimportant or even unwanted. Worse, many existing EMR's are in fact really billing documentation modules used for managing insurance claims and not in the least useful for tracking population health. But with the right kind of EMR, it would be straight-forward to determine measures of the health of a particular population or sub-population. Why does this matter? It's not as if the legacy health care software vendors are itching to bring these capabilities to market or that their customers who manage medical practices are clamoring for them either. It matters because once performance can be measured, it opens up the possibility of reforming payment systems to pay for outcomes (outputs) instead of inputs (office visits, lab tests, etc.). If a physician can improve the overall health of diabetics in their panel, they could be paid more. Even if we wanted to base payments on this today, we couldn't, but with the right information technology infrastructure we could. Physicians today, as human beings, are not exempt from the perverse economic pressures created by fee-for-service regimes to see more patients for shorter appointments and order more tests and procedures. If the incentives were changed to pay to foster better health outcomes, I am convinced physician behavior would change over time. Of course, putting such a system of payment reform in place would be a huge undertaking. To get to the starting line, though, we need to be able to measure population health, and that's where information technology can play a crucial enabling role. Therein lies the real hope for controlling medical costs. The culture of the practice of medicine, however, is enormously resistant to this approach. There's a great deal of suspicion and misunderstanding about IT among practicing doctors. One hears things like, "I don't want to be turned into a data entry clerk, and I don't want some machine between me and my patients." It reminds me of what I heard from managers and executives a generation ago about personal computers. "I'm not going to spend my time typing at a keyboard. That's for secretaries and clerks. It's wasteful and inefficient." Another contributor to the problem is an over-insistence on medicine as an art, which therefore does not lend itself to outcomes-based assessment. While there are plenty of hard cases in which experience, human judgment and intuition are terribly important, there are many opportunities to provide basic health care services in more efficient ways and to use IT to help measure effectiveness. We have to get serious about this if there is any hope of controlling health care costs.
 
Sara Avant Stover: Unplug and Recharge: How to Stay Cool with Yogic Breathing Top
During the dog days of summer we're familiar with the usual methods of cooling off: AC, dips in cool lakes, watermelon, and tall glasses of iced tea or lemonade often do the trick. Yogis, however, use yet another way; and it's one that we doesn't require paying an electricity bill or going on vacation. We can cool down through our very own breath. That's right, one particular form of yogic breathing, called sitali (pronounced sheet-ah-lee) in Sanskrit, cools down the body when it's feeling overheated, as well as the mind and heart, when fiery emotions like anger and jealousy arise. Here's how to do it: 1. Find a comfortable seat, either on the floor or on a chair. Make sure that your spine is long and tall. 2. Close your eyes and take several breaths, linking your mind to your breath. Feel and observe your inhalation and exhalation, gradually turning your senses inwards. 3. Then, if you can curl your tongue (a genetic trait that you either have or don't have), do so on the inhalation as you lift your chin slightly. Imagine that you are drinking in cool air. If you can't curl your tongue, part your lips and teeth slightly and place the tip of your tongue behind your upper row of teeth. Imagine that you are drinking cool air into the space between your teeth. 4. As you exhale, close your mouth, lower your chin so that it is parallel to the floor, and imagine that you're breathing warm air out of your nostrils. 5. Do this several times. (If you start to feel light headed or strained in any way, return to a natural, full breath.) 6. Once you've completed these rounds, return to your natural breath, watching it rise and fall. Slowly open your eyes and return to the outer world, refreshed and revived. I'm curious, how do you feel now? *It's best to do this at least two hours after a large meal. View my blog , my website , and my youtube channel . More on Wellness
 
Rabbi Abraham Cooper: The 'One-state Solution' Only Stokes Palestinians Self-Delusion Top
In a New York Times op-ed, Robert Malley, who served as President Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israel Affairs and Palestinian Hussein Agha, in his New York Times oped "The Two State Solution Doesn't Solve Anything" suggests that the "two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored." He continues: "To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948... the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews...As Israelis make plain by talking about the imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the refugees' rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel". Withdrawal to pre- 1967 borders won't suffice for the Palestinians, the authors suggest we must revisit the Arab state of mind in 1948, "to bring the conflict back to its historical roots, distill its political essence and touch its raw emotional core." Here's a snapshot of six decades ago. For the emerging Arab nation states, many themselves constituted by the stroke of a French or British pen, there was dismay and anger that the international community had recognized a Jewish state alongside Trans Jordan; bewilderment over how the Jewish people-in three short years managed to step out of the black hole of Genocide onto the world stage; wholesale denial of the Jews' 3000 year attachment to the promised land; insistence that "Israel" was forced upon the Arab world because of Europe's guilt over the Nazi Holocaust. The Arab Street was whipped into frenzy with calls to finish Hitler's vision by driving Holocaust survivors and the 600,000- strong pre-WWII Jewish population into the sea. Local Arabs were urged to leave 'for a few weeks' as seven Arab armies were dispatched to destroy the fledgling Jewish state. The other narrative? Despite British White Papers and blockades, Jews--from Yemen and Iraq, to Poland, France and Morocco, would not be deterred from returning to the only land they never really left. For this land-one that Palestinian children are still taught never housed David's Palace or Solomon's Temple, whose walls they are told never echoed the prophetic calls of Isaiah and Jeremiah-was and is the Jewish People's once and future homeland. Sixty years, five wars, two intifadas, scuds, suicide bombers and 8,000 kassam rockets later, the leader of Israel's Right, Prime Minister Netanyahu, declared his readiness for a two- state solution, with the caveat that Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish State. Not so fast, warn Malley and Agha: In the eyes of the Palestinians, "to accept Israel as a Jewish State would legitimize the Zionist enterprise that brought about their tragedy." In fact the "no to side-by-side- Jewish and a Palestinian states" chorus has some powerful voices committed to a solution that would at once solve Palestinian grievances by erasing the historic error of Zionism. There's Professor Tony Judt's who declares that Israel, is "bad for the Jews," and that ultimately there must be a single Palestinian state, from which Jews either depart or stay as a "protected" minority. The One-State solution was the subject of an academic conference recently in Toronto. First columns in the New York Review of Books and now a New York Times op-ed that does nothing to debunk Palestinian self-delusions. Why no peace? Apparently, it's not because Fatah's National Assembly and Hamas serially deny the legitimacy of today's Jews and 3,000 years of Jewish continuity in the Holy Land. Why no Palestinian State? It's not because Fatah and Hamas' unending civil war that makes a mockery of the idea of democratic Palestinian self-government. Its not because President Mahmoud Abbas, for the past five years has been unable to even set foot in the largest city in his domain-Gaza- for fear of assassination. No, the authors suggest, it is Israel's very existence that is the real obstacle. For the Palestinian national movement, they insist remains "above all, a refugee movement"-rooted in the imperative of rectifying the aspirations of Palestinians (or their ancestors) displaced in 1948. " In other words, the Jewish state has to be rolled back beyond the 1967 borders-beyond even the 1948 borders-until it becomes, not even a postage stamp but a historic error buried beneath a new Arab or Muslim state. This delusionary vision may have received an unintended boost from President Obama's unfortunate omission in his Cairo address of any recognition that Israel has legitimate claims to existence that predate the Holocaust. Who then will finally tell the Palestinians that Israel's kings did not reign in Norway, her prophets did not preach in Pakistan and Jesus of Nazareth did not walk in the shadow of Madrid's Holy Temple. To advance his Mideast agenda President Obama should go to Israel, and publicly put an end the One-state charade. He should declare America has one more 'change we can believe in'--that "No nation should ever again be stripped of its identity", especially the Jewish people that has suffered and struggled for thousands of years to cling to its national destiny. And Europe, whose societies would be thrown into chaos if the "right of return" for refugees was ever applied to their nations should tell the Palestinians-"Time to put your 'Mediterranean to the Jordan vision on a diet and get on with the business of peaceful nation building." Israel is not 1938 Czechoslovakia; it can defend itself and has no intention of quietly committing suicide. There will be no Munich II. So until the Palestinians and the elite undertakers eager to bury the Jewish state finally recognize the legitimate national aspirations of 5.7 million Jews, there may not be peace, but there will always be an Israel. This essay was co-authored with Rabbi Marvin Hier, Founder and Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center More on Jordan
 
Robert Greenwald: Ex-CIA agent: Argument That Afghanistan War Makes Us Safer is "Bulls**t" Top
The war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that Americans will be killed in a future terrorist attack. Part 6 of Brave New Foundation's Rethink Afghanistan documentary series brings you three former CIA agents on the record to explain why. We were told that we went to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists there so we wouldn't have to fight them at home. That was eight long years ago. What about today? Here are the facts: Today, Al Qaeda no longer exists in Afghanistan. Defeating their erstwhile allies, the Taliban, will do nothing to stop terrorist attacks on the U.S., because the Taliban has never aspired to attack Americans on U.S. soil. Yet, because of the U.S. occupation, extremists are being pushed across the border into Pakistan, creating the very real risk of nuclear-armed terrorist cells. There is no "victory" to be won in Afghanistan. There is only the prospect of further destabilization of Pakistan, increased hostility against Americans throughout the Muslim world, and an increased likelihood of future terrorist attacks on the United States. Help build a movement to change this misguided policy. Bring this discussion to your community. Organize a grassroots screening of Rethink Afghanistan. More on Afghanistan
 
Zachary Adam Cohen: Whole Foods CEO John Mackey: Marketing Genius or Out-of-Touch Schmuck? Top
This story, as they say, has legs. Katherine Goldstein, Green editor at Huffington Post, has a poll up connected to this post about the backlash against Whole Foods that I wrote about earlier today . Her poll shows that 55% are "outraged" and won't ever shop at Whole Foods again. Obviously its not a scientific poll but with over 600 comments currently up on Katherine's post, the progressive community is not letting this issue die down so easily. Nor should they. I think it's far past time that liberals confront what my good friend and fellow blogger, Lee Zukor (he of Simple, Good and Tasty fame), the "Whole Foods Illusion." So what is the Whole Foods Illusion? Well, as Lee said in his comment to my earlier post, the idea "that we can shop the same way we always do in a big supermarket, pay a bit more, and feel good about ourselves." Lee is exactly right. If you care about the environment, if you care about small local farmers, if you care about the food you eat and your consumption habits, then Whole Foods gives you the illusion that you are doing good. But you really aren't, not for the most part. Most of Whole Foods produce is not local, they have a shoddy environmental record, and even the term organic means much less than it used to, partly due to Whole Foods' influence. True advocates in the local sustainable world have known about Whole Foods' shame for a while now. It's telling that it took a very public spat that wasn't even about food (ZOMG!), to disconnect upscale liberal shoppers from what was, for them, a cathedral of sorts. Whole Foods, as Radley Balko said in his wonderful post on the subject, "is everything leftists talk about when they talk about "corporate responsibility." " It sure was . That's not all. I think this story is, to use a current buzzword, a "teachable moment." Later in the day, the same brilliant and gifted Lee Zukor proffered another gem when he asked me if John Mackey knew what would happen when he posted his controversial op-ed. If he did know, and presumably the CEO of a very successful company such as his would know a lot about his customers, and deliberately decided to rock the boat anyway, might it be a way to bring more conservative-minded shoppers into his store? I have no way of knowing, but if this was the intention, his tactics are brilliant for two reasons. Boycotts Don't Work. Simple as that. And don't take my word for it, take Megan McArdle's, hands down one of the best bloggers on the interwebs, and a major influence. Megan writes : Not that I'm exactly sweating for the fortunes of Whole Foods. Quick: name the last time a consumer boycott achieved a result of any significance. (Getting American Airlines to stop using animals in its ads doesn't count.) I have to go all the way back to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Here's why boycotts don't work: the vast majority of customers don't care. And yes, that includes the vast majority of Whole Foods customers, a surprising number of whom drive SUVs and even--I swear!--occasionally vote Republican. Now consider the demographic that cares enough about health care to actually boycott a company over it. Most of them are a) wonks or b) political activists. The latter group is disproportionately young and does not spend a great deal of money on groceries. The former group is tiny. You may get a large number of people who say they'll boycott Whole Foods. But then when they're out of extra-virgin olive oil and the Safeway doesn't have organic, and the nearest Trader Joe's is a twenty-five minute drive away through traffic--they'll shop at Whole Foods. Three weeks later, they'll have managed to forget that they ever intended to stop shopping at Whole Foods. The stores are successful because they dominate their market niche, putting together a collection of things in one store that you would ordinarily have to go to several stores for. Shopping in multiple places is a big pain in the butt. Conservatives are now free to walk around the aisles! Something that I have been working long and hard on is about to happen, and that is that conservative shoppers will now feel more enfranchised to shop at Whole Foods. When it comes to the culture war, which like it or not conservatives still think and care about, they'll know that John Mackey stood up for what he believed in, even in the face of a customer base that was likely to get very, very angry at him for doing so. Conservative shoppers will respect that. And they'll put aside their long established suspicion of the company now that they've seen Mackey's stripes. This is a huge moment, and one that all local foods advocates should seize upon. Because the reality is this: the progressive boycott of Whole Foods will fail, and an entire segment of the country that never ever would have come to terms with organic produce and products, will now be engaging with them head on. This is a huge victory. I fully expect to see Whole Foods' revenue bounce from this. Let's not let this opportunity be wasted. More on Health Care
 
Paula Forman and Jeff Johnson: Three Things To Do When You Don't Know What To Do Top
Change is never is easy, and making important changes in your life is even harder. It takes time, commitment and courage. It takes energy to change and there can be many false starts. Money, the people in your life or a string of obligations can all be a drag on your determination. These are only a few of the obstacles that you may encounter if you know you are stuck in a life that has less shimmer and glow than you had hoped for. When we interviewed Boomers for our book ( The Hourglass Solution ), we discovered that many Boomers were stuck -- but only a few had any idea of what might make them happy. A lucky few had an epiphany and knew what they must do to realize their dreams. But for most of us, we have to build our own GPS. Most of us have no idea what we want to do and no clue about where to turn. We just don't have a clear vision of what we would really like to do, or who we might like to be. Instead, we try to think we are "happy enough." Unfortunately, there is the constant and disturbing feeling that there is something missing. Sometimes we sense that "there must be something more." But we have taught ourselves to push that thought away. We run away from change because we simply don't know what kind of life would be satisfying. If this sounds familiar, then the first thing you need to do is expand your notion of what is possible. Often we set limits on our imagination by unconsciously censoring ourselves and rejecting alternatives based on pre-conceived ideas or previous experiences that may no longer be relevant. Here are three things to try that may help you to open your mind to some new fantasies, and who knows where that can lead. They are small first steps that anyone can do. They cost nothing and won't rock your boat but they may open some doors that have been "stuck" for a long time. 1) Start a "Change Notebook" Nothing crazy, just a place to put anything that strikes your fancy. It could be an article in a magazine about something you find interesting or a place you might like to visit. Maybe it's a new restaurant down the road that you read about or maybe it's a story about a farming community in France. It could be a piece of fabric that you think is beautiful. Maybe a postcard of a painting you saw -- or a couple of sentences on a conversation you thought was amusing. It could be a recipe; it could be a ribbon; or a photograph or the name of a book you would like to read. Include observations you make about your town, or about the world. Keep collecting and in a month or two or three it may reveal an idea that hadn't surfaced before. 2) Change One Small Thing in Your Daily Routine Go for a walk every morning, or give up meat for a month, or use e-mail instead of the phone, or stand on your head for 60 seconds every day. Go to a different supermarket or wear a hat. Or don't wear a hat or a watch. Small changes reveal where and why we are stuck in places that may surprise you. 3) Put Yourself in the Way of Different Experiences For a month or two, do anything that crosses your path that you would have previously rejected. For example, if think you hate hiking but someone asks you to take a hike: do it anyway . Same with cycling, yoga class or Thai food. If you think you will hate it, try it anyway. Visit someone in a hospital or go to an opera. It doesn't matter what it is. Make it a point to talk to people you have never talked to before and introduce yourself in a different way. The idea is to open yourself to experiences you have avoided in the past -- not because you are likely to discover a sudden passion for yoga or opera but because in opening new doors, other things are likely to happen. These are not answers -- they are fire-starters. They will help you change the way you think about your life in ways that will end up being more important than you can imagine now. The first step doesn't need to be the hardest step: just take it. Follow at least one of the ideas discussed above, and then you are ready to read The Hourglass Solution: A Boomer's Guide to the Rest of Your Life . Buckle your seat belt. The adventure is about to begin.
 
Jill Sobule: My "Feud" With Katy Perry Top
"how DARE YOU. Calling Katy Perry a slut. srs. I'm so pissed at you right now. So are the rest of her fans. why did you do that?!" "Hi gramma.. I mean Jill fuck face. You should probably get over yourself.. Your 1995 song. I kissed a girl is terrible" I woke up last Tuesday, and went straight to the computer. I had an interesting idea for a song -- that now I forget. First thing I noticed was my Twitter was filled with, what appeared to be, hate mail from about 30 very upset Katy Perry fangirls. I was confused. Then, I got email messages from relatives and friends informing me that I was in Perez Hilton and The Sun . Why would I be in the tabloids? I'm not that fancy. And, from what they said -- I still have yet to visit those particular sites -- I was portrayed as this angry bitter jealous "gramma" starved for publicity. It all started with an interview I did for one of my new favorite blog sites: Therumpus.net -- a semi-obscure but hopefully growing arts and cultural website. It was one of the more interesting interviews I have ever done, as I was actually asked, engaging questions for a change. However, the interviewer had to ask the annoying yet inevitable "What did I think of the Katy Perry version of "I Kissed a Girl?" I thought maybe this time I would have fun with it and goof on what many of my fans were hoping to hear over the last year. I prefaced my reply with a wink, and then rambled on with a string of over the top dumb-ass profanities, purposely out of character and completely in jest. There was no problem with The Rumpus readers, but then a few weeks later the quote was picked up in the tabloids, out of context, with no link to the original interview, and without that -- hard to sometimes see in print -- wink. My friend Ken, a publicist, said, " I saw the grin behind your words, but not everyone knows you, Jill" My use of the phrase, "fucking little slut", by the way, would only be used... ironically. I am sounding apologetic, which I'm not, but I have to admit the whole thing made me feel terrible for a couple of days. Who wants to be misunderstood or portrayed negatively, especially by such a beacon of light as Perez with his enormous following -- my mother reads him. And I'm not one who goes for the "all press is good press" dictum. Now I hear I will be featured in the upcoming issue of US magazine under the heading "Feud of the Week"! But where my thin skin really showed was my reaction to the Katy Perry teen fangirls. I somehow was transferred to 7th grade, the worst year of my life. I was reminded of when mean girl Shelly Zissman spread the rumor that I was a "lezzie" at Shwader Camp. I was devastated. Okay, so maybe the rumor had some basis of truth to it, but she didn't know that at the time. Out of curiosity, I wrote back to one of my tormenting Katy Perry fangirls -- Typhany. Most had already bored of trolling me, but Typh kept on going. I didn't ask her to stop, but instead asked if we could actually have an honest civil dialogue --unlike some of those health care town hall meetings. We did, much to her credit. She said she was just sticking up for her favorite artist. We are friends now. Facebook friends. I will end with my final Katy Perry comments. I may be a touch cynical about the business, but I have never really been angry or had ill feelings towards Katy herself. I was actually in a small way happy to not be the "Kissed a Girl" girl anymore. That said, I hope her and her fans (god knows I don't want to piss them off anymore) are okay with the title of my brand new song, " I Kissed a Girl ...First" Wink. By the way (a bit of shameless self-promotion since I don't have a big machine behind me): My new record, California Years , was completely fan-funded. You can get it most places, but I like it best when it's listened to and bought on my website, JillSobule.com .
 
Jonathan Littman: How Soloists Recharge Top
A great time to relax, summer is also the perfect chance to try new experiences. It's when you're out of the office and away from the workday grind that you may also discover your Soloist moment. The summer break is often viewed as a timeout during the hectic business year. A reprieve from rushing to the airport or marching from one identically dull business hotel to another, or constantly checking your BlackBerry. A time to read books and see movies. To enjoy long dinners with friends, put your feet up and hang for a while. But summer vacation can be something else. It's the ideal period during the year to take chances and have new experiences, the time and place to venture outside your regular life. In our new book, I Hate People! , my co-author and I talk a lot about how men and women rise to the role of Soloist in their careers and business. Take chances as an individual or as part of a small, nimble Ensemble. But too often we think of this role as something restricted to office hours. What about on your summer vacation? There are lots of temptations to fall back into the pattern of company teamwork, whether in the comfort of the air-conditioned tour bus or being herded through the museum with the rest of the pack. Instead, why not take this ideal opportunity to test and explore your own limits? This past week I stretched my Soloist legs and ventured into new waters. In the past year, my teenage daughter has become a competitive rower. Her passion for the sport and the positive effect it has had on her outlook on school and life has been extraordinary. Rowing is a storied sport and avocation that my wife, too, knows something about, having rowed on Philadelphia's Schuylkill River after college. Even my 12-year-old, a dancer, has recently gotten the bug, learning how to row after just a few lessons. These facts led me to arrange an unusual family vacation: Nine days rowing in Boulder, Colorado. This vibrant college town is internationally renowned as a center for professional marathon runners and cyclists. Kenyan and Japanese star marathoners are among the distance runners you might see cruising along the roads here. Rowing is not one of the featured local attractions. There is no Thames or Charles River. But a few Internet searches turned up a little known fact: The city is home to Boulder Community Rowing, located on a large reservoir with stunning views of the Flatirons and in the distance, the snow-capped Rockies. This is where the University of Colorado rows, as well as a junior team and a host of masters rowers. Since we live near San Francisco, rowing as a family here would require stretching some rules. But the first rule of the Soloist is you don't worry about what is typical or accepted. The local rowing club didn't really have a model for what we wanted to do. Normally you'd have to join Boulder Community Rowing, which would be costly. Then there was the obstacle that I had never really rowed before (just one shaky lesson), and my youngest daughter had been out only a few times. But I exchanged a few e-mails and calls with one of the club members and explained our situation. He arranged for my rower daughter and wife just to take a flip test (capsizing the boat and righting yourself) and then pay only a small flat fee each for an entire week of rowing. My youngest daughter and I would need lessons, but the cost was reasonable. Rowing in a racing shell or "scull" resembles skating on a pond. The boats are razor thin, made to knife through the water. They are anything but bulky rowboats. To fall out of the boat all that is required is to let an oar dig in too deeply or slip out of your hand. Balance is everything. You are a water bug, and your oars must be in motion or resting on the surface to maintain your equilibrium. There is the feeling of sitting on a rocking chair on ice. The boat is one long blade, the secret rhythm and momentum. My first two times out were at once easy and humbling. Easy because I was in a double. Humbling because my youngest daughter was running the show, pulling us along with her 100 pounds of grace and power. My 12-year-old stroked the boat, and I did my best not to knock her oars. There was a definite benefit in starting as part of an Ensemble. I was less likely to capsize the boat. The technique was baffling. Square the blades before slicing into the water. Drive the legs, lean back as if into a lawn chair, pulling the handles into your chest. But my timing was wretched. I'd forget to square. Didn't push the legs hard enough, and worst of all couldn't slip the blades out cleanly at the end of the stroke. "Square your blades, Dad!" my daughter yelled. And that was when she was encouraging. A couple of days later, my youngest and I each graduated to singles. The switch was a shock, letting go of the safety of at least one person who could steady the boat. I felt as if I was riding a horse without stirrups. And just when I'd start to get the hang of it, a motorboat pulling a wakeboard would roar by, the wake nearly capsizing my scull. But by my third day solo, my youngest took a day off and was riding with our coach, Lauren, in the launch. Lauren suggested I adjust my stretchers, the device that locks your feet in place. It's not easy to do on the dock. I leaned forward, unscrewed one, and then was suddenly swimming. Fortunately my daughter had brought a camera to record my prowess, and the turn of events brought a smile to her face. Lauren coached me back into my scull, helped me to set the stretchers, and then I discovered something remarkable. My dunking had improved my stroke. "You're more relaxed," a surprised Lauren said. "Your stroke is getting longer." After a few minutes, she left me to see how my older daughter and wife were doing. Ten minutes more of vigorous rowing, and I noticed leaden clouds gathering. And just as I started to feel a little more comfortable, leaning back into that lawn chair and feeling the surge of the boat, the wind came off the Rockies. The change happened in a minute. Baby whitecaps. Not what you want when it's your third day in a single. I was half a mile out in the reservoir - more than a mile from the dock. I'd like to say I was cool and collected, but I had a good minute or two of panic. I stopped rowing. Then realized that was even worse. Then started dipping my oars in and pulling toward what I thought was the dock. It was a good ten minutes before Lauren and my daughter returned. I was glad I hadn't heard their conversation: "Is your dad a good swimmer?" When they pulled up nearby, Lauren coached me along, and gradually my confidence returned. I was moving despite the wind and the white caps. Overcoming the urge to quit and crawl into the launch. "If you can row in this you can row in anything," Lauren said, just before she and my daughter puttered away in the launch, satisfied with my progress. By now I was smack in the middle of the reservoir. The fear would come and go. My shoulders ached and my legs lacked that drive. I noticed a bit of blood on my knuckles. The shore seemed a long ways off. Just when it seemed impossible, the stroke found me, and that wind off the Rockies eased. I was still every bit the novice. Far from having mastered this classic, elemental sport. But I was crossing the reservoir in weather any rower would have found daunting. And I knew in my bones that the depth of the experience was greater because I was not part of a group. It was my Soloist moment. Jonathan Littman is the co-author of the new book I HATE PEOPLE! (Little, Brown and Company; June 2009) with Marc Hershon. A Contributing Editor at Playboy, Jonathan is the co-author of the best selling Art of Innovation.
 
Bryant Welch: Why Obama Had to Have Been Born in Kenya Top
Why are there so many "crazies" coming out of the woodwork to attack public officials with their views that defy reality? And why are they so angrily insistent on those views? As a psychologist I believe the answers to these two questions have profound significance for our nation's mental health and will determine whether America will have the mental capacity to confront the increasingly complex challenges that confront us. Of course we know these people are lied to by increasingly effective and ruthless Republican strategists operating in patriotic sounding front organizations. They are indoctrinated 24 hours a day by Fox News and proselytized to by the Religious Right. But that still takes our "why" question only so far. What is it about the mind that makes so many people accept a reality that is so much at odds with the reality that we hold? There is nothing subjective about the reality issues in play here. Obama was born in Hawaii and there are no death squads in Obama's plan. So what gives? In a recent book, I tried to answer these "why" questions from a psychologist's perspective. Here is the most succinct way I have been able to articulate it. Reality We take our sense of what is real and what is not real for granted. We shouldn't. We each actually form our own unique "reality sense" with our mind that assimilates an infinitely complex bombardment of stimuli from outside us and from within. It is no simple task, and the most miraculous part of the human mind is that it is able to create a coherent reality at all. The problem is that in times of extreme uncertainty the mind has a hard time creating this reality sense. The mind becomes confused. This can be caused by external events in our world, such as rapid change or inner psychological states -- for example, when we are experiencing strong emotions like paranoia, envy, or challenges to our sexual identity. In this state of confusion, the mind does not do very well at all. When it feels sufficiently uncertain about what is real and what is not real, it panics. Ultimately the mind will fragment if it is not able to create a cohesive reality sense with a reassuring sense of what is real and what is not real. The breakdown in this ability to form a coherent reality sense is the primary difference between sanity and madness. Thus, it is not too surprising that for many people it is more important to have some reality sense than it is to have a correct reality sense. Of course, people differ greatly in their ability to tolerate ambiguity and in their ability to create a reality sense in times of stress. But for someone in an acute state of uncertainty, it is any port in a storm when it comes to reality formation. And this is where things go awry. Current right-wing politics is an art form that is designed to re-define reality for a class of people who are increasingly unable to establish their own sense of reality. Instead, they succumb and become increasingly dependent on someone else to tell them what is real and what is not real. In their regressed psychological state, under certain conditions, many people will accept as real whatever they are told by an authoritative sounding figure be it Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly. And the more people lean on these people to provide that function, the more dependent they become on them, and the less able they are to think for themselves. As this process continues people will accept ever more outrageous ideas. Death squads in health care? Obama secretly born in Kenya? Okay. The value people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly have for these people is that without them people simply cannot make sense of their world. They are in a state of confusion unless and until someone offers them a reality that "explains" things enough that they at least feel they understand what is going on in the world. Only then is their panic and anxiety abated. The "reality" sense they are handed has to be simple enough that they can readily understand it. The devil was one of the earliest bogeymen for a reason. We create a "devil box" and everything that needs explanation comes from the devil box. So if you paint a Hitler-like mustache on a picture of Obama and toss in the word "socialist" things begin to make sense and come into a focus no matter how distorted that "focus" is. Again, it is better to have a reality sense that is wrong than to have no reality sense at all. In the latter case one enters a state of complete fragmentation or madness. The portrayal of someone, in this case Obama, as the devil incarnate serves multiple functions. It organizes a person's world by explaining so much so simply, and it also offers an explanation of why the person has been feeling so apprehensive. They were not afraid of their own psychological fragmentation. Instead, the danger is external in the form of Obama. Better the enemy be outside of oneself than inside oneself. And, of course, if Obama is a foreigner from Kenya their fear is much more understandable and helpful in arranging our inner world. The "birthers'" insistence on their reality, even in the face of Obama's birth verification from Hawaii and the copy of the newspaper announcement of his birth, reflects the deep psychological need these people have to maintain the view of reality that was handed to them. Once their reality is established people are reluctant to retrace the steps of uncertainty that has led them to their illogical position. To do so they have to traverse their route back through the uncertainty they were trying to escape in the first place. Strategy And make no mistake about it, the conservative element in America has a very good understanding of how this process works inside the mind, the critical sense of timing it requires, and how one must deliver the powerful messages in repetitive depth charges to the human mind. The democrats are still lagging very far behind in this regard and still think the public is engaged in a substantive discussion of the issues. They ignore the reality of the human mind time and time again. There are two critical elements to this form of "reality" politics. One is timing. The other is certainty. To exploit this vulnerability in the mind, the time to strike is at the very first moment of uncertainty that people feel, before they have formed any reality of their own and before they become attached to anyone else's view of reality. This is why the swift-boating was so effective. John Kerry was "unfit to lead" before he even introduced himself to the American public. With the current health care debate, a black man is offering a government designed health care plan that is largely undefined. Health care is too complicated and confusing for most people anyway, and Obama is a "foreigner." Latent paranoid fears and uncertainty are not hard to understand. In such a state, many people are receptive to anyone who presents him or herself with a strong angry argument that organizes their world and gives some extrinsic explanation for the anxiety they are feeling. Anger is a tremendous organizer. Angry people may not think clearly, but they are very certain of themselves. This is what we are seeing in the town hall meetings. So what should progressives do? Do we have to be like the far right and beat them at their own game? No, not at all. But we do have to hoist them on their own petard. We have to expose the manipulations and the manipulators with a torrential counterattack that is focused on the manipulations, not a message that emphasizes some irrelevant "positive" message such as how important health reform is. Instead, we need to harness the rage that is ubiquitous in this country because of all the uncertainty and the confusion. That is the energy that is driving health care and most political life in America at the present time. We need to harness it for constructive purposes, exposing the puppeteers and the corporate interests that are behind them. Health care is ultimately a populist issue, but we are not igniting the populist rage that drives all populism. Until progressives learn this lesson they will lose. Those Pollyannas who thought that with Obama's election progressives had won were very naïve. If we learn nothing else from the birthers and the deathers, if we learn that we must work with the deeper strata of the human mind, it will be an invaluable lesson. B ryant Welch is a clinical psychologist and attorney. He is the author of State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind (St. Martin's Press, 2008). More on Fox News
 
The Plastic Bag War Rages On Top
In the wake of Seattle voters' decisive rejection of a proposed 20 cent fee on paper and plastic bags, opponents of disposable shopping bags have vowed to press for an all-out ban on the bags.
 
Helene Pavlov: More Insight on "Not All Images Are Created Equal" Top
Over the next few weeks I will be posting excerpts from an article in RT Image . Some of the questions and answers in this piece further highlight my position that "not all medical radiology images are created equal." You can read the full article here . One of the key reasons health care is exploding is linked to medical imaging. A predominant factor in this explosion is related to non-radiology owned private practices and imaging centers and self referral. Self referral is perpetuated by patient convenience and a "one stop shopping" concept, however, underlying this statement is the incentive to increase the bottom line of their practice. Compounding this process is that the vendors of medical equipment make it appealing for a private practice to purchase its own imaging equipment. RT Image wanted to know if this is a new trend or has it always been easy for non-radiologists to purchase their own equipment. My response included the following: Most vendors will sell to anyone that has the money to buy the equipment. You look at the stock market and these companies are in trouble. They need to sell equipment -- that's how they make their profit. Specifically with less expensive equipment such as ultrasound and extremity MR units. The vendors emphasize to potential buyers that, "You're not going to do any damage to the patient; you're not going to be using ionizing radiation." [Untrained physicians] feel as though there's a magic button that they will press that will give them an image, and they will either rely on the technologist or the sonographer to get the image; expertise and quality control parameters for image acquisition may or may not exist within their practice. Once they have the image, they may then send it to India or to some teleradiology service for a low-cost interpretation, or they will read it themselves thinking they have the necessary expertise, which they may or may not have. Non-radiology physicians do not fall under the scrutiny of the American Board of Radiology which requires written and oral examinations and verification of four years of training to be a board-certified radiologist. Non-radiology physicians do not get extensive training in imaging and their certification boards do not test for imaging expertise. Patients and possibly third-party payers are not always informed accordingly and may not be aware of the importance and difficulty of achieving quality images. They may also not recognize the difference between the interpretation by a radiologist who does not self refer and a non-radiologist physician who may benefit by generating the need for additional self referred imaging examinations. HSS More on Health Care
 
David Finkle: New Study Confirms Water Is Wet Top
Since I've lately began to cherish The New York Times for its scrupulous reporting on new studies, the Tuesday, July 28 issue was especially valuable to me. It included three--count 'em, three--studies, two of which warranted front-page, above-the-fold placement. At the top left, this headline appeared: "In Study, Texting Lifts Crash Risk By Large Margin." The story included the news that when drivers in trucks rigged with video cameras texted, "their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting." Well, duh! Just to the right of that shocker--under an arty photograph of Sgt. First Class Edward Tierney on night duty in Iraq--was a story with the headline, "Hunches Prove to Be Valuable Assets in Battle." In the account, we learned that "[i]n the past two years, an Army researcher, Steven Burnett, has overseen a study into human perception and bomb detection involving about 800 military men and women." According to the story, "the study complements a growing body of work suggesting that the speed with which the brain reads and interprets sensations like the feelings in one's own body and emotions in the body language of others is central to avoiding imminent threats." Well, double-duh!! I had to forge on to page 13 of that treasure-trove issue to discover, under the headline "Obese Americans Spend Far More on Health Care" that "Obese Americans spend about 42 percent more on health care than normal-weight Americans, according to a new study based on 2006 figures." Well, duh! three times over. Which brings me to why I hunt these stories. (I'll defer more recent study reports until later.) They all come under the category "Water is Wet," and I'm collecting category additions. I'm trying to figure out the need for repeatedly being informed about what we all already know. Money is being spent on these evidently endless studies--perhaps lots and lots and lots of money. For what? For news as old as recorded time and maybe older. Weren't, for instance, primitive men and women using their hunches to keep them out of the grip of marauding enemies, human or sub-human, without having to corroborate their behavior with a new study undertaken by Fred Flintstone? It's not that I don't see part of the point. Confirmation that obese Americans throw more hard-earned cash into health care substantiates the need for a fight against obesity, but during a time of economic crisis, wouldn't the capital behind such a study be better spent promoting the fight before a substantiating study is completed? Or begun? (This assumes, of course, that a study isn't coming along that will contradict the conclusions of the first one?) Do we need to test truckers texting--and evidently adding to trucking accidents in the process--before we prohibit all drivers from texting in moving vehicles? Hey, wait a minute? Mightn't there even be something illegal in allowing truckers to text under these study conditions and thereby cause uncalled for accidents simply for the benefit of categorically deciding they shouldn't be doing what we knew all along they shouldn't be doing? Where does using common sense figure in? Or doesn't anyone have common sense any more? Or do we need a study to determine the answer? Imagine The New York Times headline: "Common Sense Found to Be Common Among 83% of Americans, New Study Finds." Sub-headline: "Remaining 17% Work in New-Studies Field." But let's go back to a few more of that "Water is Wet" Times coverage--and, believe me, I'm not blaming the Times , where they're just diligently passing along the findings. A few weeks later in the newspaper of record, it's called to our attention--under the "Generation Gap Narrows, And Beatles Are a Bridge" headline--that "raging antagonisms that defined the intergenerational divide in the 1960s have eased." It seems that the Pew Research Center survey has determined that "[e]very age group from 16 through 64 listens to rock 'n' roll more than any other format." You say you want a revolution, and here it's confirmed. In a recent Science Times section under the single word headline "Really?" we're told that "[i]n 2004, researchers in San Diego found that subjects in a study were able to correctly match pictures of dog owners with their pets more often than not, but only when the dogs were pure-breds." Yes, it appears the old saying about dog owners coming to resemble their dogs may be true. Not because the Bible says it's so, but because a study says it's so. The Times writer does conclude, however, "Some studies argue that dogs can resemble their owners, but the research is debatable." But likely not inexpensive. Okay, folks, this is the New York Times headline I'm waiting for: "Most New Studies Found Wasteful, Redundant, According to New Study." More on Health Care
 
Scott Stringer: "Clunker Cash" That Makes Sense For New York Top
The "Cash for Clunker" program (officially the "Car Allowance Rebate System Act," or "CARS") has boosted month-to-month auto sales nationally by 2.4%, emptying lots at Dallas car dealerships, and prompting Ford factories in Detroit to do something they haven't done in years: scramble to raise production to catch up with demand. But even with this welcomed jump in auto sales, the story told by July's retail sales numbers was that not even Cash for Clunkers has been enough to keep retail sales in the black. After making gains in May and June, national retail sales trends reversed in July and fell 0.1%. Earlier this week, I called on Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu to create a Cash for Clunkers program for urban America, one that transforms the Department's appliance rebate program into a mirror-image of the successful program for cars. I have proposed expanding the CARS model to cover clunker appliances, offering a $300 rebate to consumers who trade in their aging, environmentally unsound refrigerators for replacements that have been federally approved as Energy Star efficient and a sliding rebate scale for other appliances like air conditioners and dishwashers. For the 77% of Manhattan households (and over half of all city households) who do not have a car, the picture is clear: By limiting the clunkers program to automobiles, urban consumers have been left out of the recovery picture, and the program's impact has been narrowed. According to the Energy Star website, New York State's average kilowatt-hour electric rate is 64% above the national average, and more expensive than every other state in the nation except for Connecticut Hawaii. Electric rates are even higher in New York City. Because of these energy costs, the savings to families from upgrading the energy efficiency of their appliances is potentially very large. For example, a household that trades in a 20-year-old refrigerator - by no means a rarity in New York City - will pay Con Ed almost $1200 less in electricity bills over five years, just from that single replacement. If 5% of New York City households participated in such a program, the $45 million cost of the rebates could generate $180 million dollars for local retailers and would be quickly matched in energy savings. Of the $32.7 billion made available to the Department of Energy through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, only $9 billion has been awarded. The Department of Energy has the expertise, the means and the resources to boost the urban economy. Now, thanks to Cash for Clunkers, we also have the model for how to do it. Stimulus spending on rebates to spur the trade-in of energy-wasting consumer goods helps to achieve three pressing goals: economic stimulus, reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, and less strain on family budgets. The replacement of an energy-guzzling old refrigerator succeeds in achieving these objectives just as surely as the replacement of a gas-guzzling car. Let's bring the success of this program to America's cities and enlist New York's 8 million soldiers in the retail recovery effort. The line starts at your nearest appliance store. More on Cars
 
Linda Buzzell: What's With the Climate Change Deniers? Top
A recent post of mine (on the new American Psychological Association report on climate change behavior) got hijacked by climate change deniers -- who are unfortunately an aggressive and nasty-mouthed lot -- so as a psychotherapist and ecotherapist, I'm becoming curious about the psychology behind the virulence. Why are these folks so desperate and frantic to dispute the current scientific consensus, which includes psychologists as well as climate change scientists? While I agree with them that a scientific consensus doesn't mean that all those scientists are right, surely it would be prudent to listen to what they have to say, based on their most current studies? And if you disagree, why the need to scream and foam at the mouth? What the deniers don't seem to realize (or are paid not to realize) is that if they're right and they persuade us to do nothing about climate disruption, the consequences of this mistake would be truly horrendous for everyone, including themselves, their children and grandchildren. If they're wrong, however, and -- miracle of miracles -- we actually do something to mitigate climate disruption, we have a chance of becoming alternative energy leaders rather than the Neanderthal left-behinds... solar moguls rather than petroleum beggars. Another benefit of getting off fossil fuels: we won't have to pay for expensive wars in fossil-fuel rich areas. Right now, the countries that still have fossil fuels, including Russia, are beginning to flex their muscles against the fossil-fuel-importing nations like the US. Doesn't it make sense to get off our "addiction to oil" (George W. Bush's term) even if a few of us aren't fully convinced that that will help mitigate climate disruption? So psychologically I'm curious: why are the climate change deniers so upset, so shrill, so fearful, loud and angry at those who agree with the international scientific consensus? What's the psychology behind the screaming? What are the deniers afraid of? Perhaps the fear is really political rather than scientific or even psychological. Some conservatives appear to believe that the concern about climate change is a liberal plot -- because that's what their political leaders have told them. And why are these political leaders putting out disinformation on climate change and health care reform right now? I'm afraid it comes down to politics and the corporations who pay the politicians' bills. The true fear may be that if reforms happen, the insurance and fossil fuel industries will lose money. If the Republicans and other conservatives can't come up with some constructive issues that are worth fighting for (as opposed to just fighting against every scientific or progressive proposal), the party is well and truly bankrupt. More on Climate Change
 
Max Baucus Is Scared Of "The YouTubes" Top
Max Baucus is a conservative Democrat from Montana who arguably holds the fate of health care reform in his hands. Another fun fact about Max Baucus is that he's accepted so goddamn much money from corporate health care interests this year that lobbyist cash is now permanently imprinted on his genome . But now we have discovered something new about Baucus: THE INTERNET, IT SCURRS HIM! Via ThinkProgress , comes a great pull from Mark Leibovich's article today, " Baucus, and the Debate on Health Care, Go West ," in which we learn that Baucus has a strange, Fox Mulderian take on the interwebs: After speaking at a preventive-care conference here last week, he was swarmed by protesters. Or, in Mr. Baucus's words, "agitators, whose sole goal was to intimidate, disrupt and not let any meaningful conversation go on." There were a couple of people in the crowd "with YouTubes," Mr. Baucus added (meaning cameras), and he posited that the agitators were paid and probably from out of state. ("I could just sense it," he said.) If he's that afraid of the people with "YouTubes," just wait until he finds out about the people with Twitter! (Or, you know, the ones with assault weapons !) Anyway, meet Max Baucus, who will play a large part in determining whether you get to see a doctor, ever. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Twitter
 
Keith Ferrazzi: Three Steps to Kick Social Anxiety and Become Comfortable Approaching Anyone Top
I was never afraid of failure, for I would sooner fail than not be among the best. - John Keats There are people who don't think twice about addressing a room full of new people, a table of potential clients, or an attractive single in a bar. Then there are the rest of us. But in a world of relentless competition, you can't afford to let social anxiety hold you back. It's wasted opportunity. So what to do? For many people, the fear of meeting others is closely tied to the fear of public speaking (a fear that consistently beats out death as the one thing we dread most). Some of the world's most famous speakers admit to feeling similar anxiety. Marcus Buckingham , for example, who's addressed thousands as a speaker and millions as a guest on Oprah has said that he gets "throw-up nervous" before every engagement. Try these three steps to tame your natural anxiety: 1. Acknowledge that your fear is perfectly normal. You are not alone - and fear is not an excuse for inaction. 2. Recognize that getting over that fear is critical to your success. The choice isn't between success and failure; it's between choosing risk and striving for greatness, or risking nothing and being certain of mediocrity. 3. Commit to getting better. How? Some ideas: • Find a role model . Have your most gregarious friend wingman for you at a few events. Watch what they do, and over time, adopt their techniques as your courage builds. • Learn to speak . Join an organization such as Toastmasters that gives you the chance to practice in a non-intimidating environment, with an instructor who can guide and push you. • Get involved . You'll feel most comfortable when you're doing something you enjoy with others who share your enthusiasm. So become an active member in a club or organization, and ultimately take on a leadership role. • Just do it . Set a goal for yourself of initiating a meeting with one new person a week. It doesn't matter where or with whom. Introduce yourself to someone on the bus. Slide up next to someone at the bar and say hello. Hang out at the company water cooler and force yourself to talk to a fellow employee you've never spoken with. You'll find that it gets easier and easier with practice. As you reach out to others, don't worry about failure! As the playwright Samuel Beckett wrote, "Fail, fail again. Fail better." Fear debilitates. Once you realize there's no benefit to holding back, every situation and every person--no matter how seemingly beyond your reach--becomes an opportunity to succeed. What are your tried and true tricks to bust through nervousness while speaking to a group?
 
Damon Weaver: "I Would Like To Be Wolf Blitzer" Top
Child journalist Damon Weaver, who landed a coveted interview with President Obama, said Wednesday that CNN's Wolf Blitzer is his role model.
 
Grant Cardone: Car Dealers: Great Entrepreneurs and Cash for Clunkers Top
I don't believe any set of entrepreneurs could have gotten more out of a government program than car dealers did with the recent Cash for Clunkers, and they should be applauded for making the most of it. I wonder if any group of entrepreneurs from any other industry could have made so much out of this opportunity. Dealers fully maximized this government subsidy opportunity with most not even understanding fully how the program worked or when they would actually receive their funding. You have to acknowledge these entrepreneurs for knowing how to make the most of an opportunity. As soon as cash for clunkers was announced and car dealers could get their heads (partially wrapped) around the program, auto dealers immediately went on a full court press with TV, radio, print and direct mail marketing to activate the program with their customer base. Most of these dealers are still waiting on their money and don't know when they will get it which makes it a little tough on cash flow predictions but they aren't complaining, just grateful for the action. Entrepreneurial as they are, they operate with the attitude of, "commit first, figured the rest out later and trust the money will come." This is a good example for all entrepreneurs -- move with speed and execute, figure the details later. And notice these guys didn't go back to Washington begging for more money they used the first 1billion dollars so successfully and so quickly that Mr. Obama approved them for another $2b because of their performance. I like this idea of rewarding those that did something positive with a program! This is an interesting and radical concept of rewarding those that are successful and cutting off those that cannot make a program work. I have spoken with hundreds of dealers who are grateful for the activity this program created. Some dealers that didn't even sell one unit under the program told me they while they didn't use the it stimulated activity, interest and traffic. Other than pundits on TV, not one car dealer I spoke with was concerned about robbing future sales. Who worries about future sales when you are trying to make the month other than a 'talking head' on TV. In the real world of commerce when you are trying to make the third quarter profitable you aren't worried about whether the sales you make today steal from tomorrow. The reality is retailers are trying to make the most of a tough situation and that means you do whatever is necessary to make every sale you can. The only complaints about the program I have heard were dealers that didn't want to send some of the 'old sleds' to the junk yard and felt like this was great inventory for them to resell. Also some independent used car dealers felt like they saw a drop in traffic because they didn't have the program to offer their clients but the truth is they were complain the banks not lending two months ago and six months before that they were complaining about unemployment and before that it was $5 gas. Car dealers have done an exemplary job with Cash for Clunkers and should be applauded for their 'can do' spirit and making the most of a handout! At least this actually stimulated activity with a customer getting a car, an old vehicle being removed from the streets, banks loaning money, car dealer moving inventory, sales people make a commission and the economy starts to move. Compare what the banks did with their money where they got billions of dollars that never went anywhere and what the car dealers should be awarded economic congressional medals. Grant Cardone , Author of Sell to Survive .
 
Time Warner, YouTube Strike Clips Deal Top
Google's video site has hammered out a deal with Time Warner (TWX) to show clips from the media conglomerate's' cable networks, TV shows and movies. But you won't be seeing full-length shows or movies from Time Warner on the world's biggest video site -- it's saving those for cable companies that play along with its "TV Everywhere" plan. More on YouTube
 
Josh Rosenblatt: The Real Reason Easy Access to Porn Is Ruining Our Kids Top
One day when I was 12 years old, word got around school that a copy of Hustler magazine had been spotted in the woods behind the soccer field. Thirty seconds after the final bell rang, dozens of my male classmates and I were back in those woods scouring the ground for evidence, like forensic experts at a crime scene. We were a group of confused kids taking our first steps into the world of sex -- which to us symbolized all the mystery, terror, deviance, darkness, seediness, and freedom of adulthood -- so it seems only appropriate that those first steps would be taken in a patch of muddy woods on a rapidly darkening winter afternoon, like a scene out of a Dennis Lehane novel. Stalking through the forest that day, I was plagued by questions I was too self-conscious to ask out loud. Questions like: What kind of person would throw a copy of Hustler away? Would I one day do the same, for reasons I couldn't understand with a seventh-grade education? Is the cultural stigma against smut really so great that it will force a man to try and alleviate his sense of shame and self-loathing by tossing magazines into the woods when no one's looking? And also, why not just use a trashcan? Answers to these questions didn't come that day, but we did eventually find the magazine. It was tattered and muddy and missing pages, but we passed it around reverently like it was a holy relic. And that night we all went home and remembered it fondly in the privacy of our own bedrooms, bathrooms, and hallway closets. Just on the cusp of adolescence, we had participated in a rite of passage as old as humanity itself: young men going to great lengths to come in contact with naked women. These days, however, those great lengths have been shrunk down to nothing, and that rite of passage is as irrelevant as a boy's first saber-tooth tiger hunt. Now any 12-year-old with a computer, an Internet connection, and the presence of mind to click on a "Yes, I'm over 18" link is granted full admission to a world boys of my generation had to shed blood to even get a glimpse at. Gone are the days when the accumulation of "dirty" materials actually required you to get dirty. Gone is the sense of illicit adventure and deviant camaraderie. Gone are the potential for metaphor and the willful push into murky psychic territories. With the rise of the Internet and digital cable, pornography has become commonplace. It's become societal wallpaper. It's become about as rare and mysterious as sitcoms or car commercials. Porn is everywhere. Which sounds nice, I admit, but in actuality, kids these days don't realize how bad they have it. See, when you've got no barriers between you and your heart's desire, your mind and your body deteriorate from lack of use. You know how people who grew up in the Depression always talk about how soft Baby Boomers are because they never had to suffer for anything? Well, it's same thing with this latest generation of teenagers: Their minds and personalities are soft from the constant, instantaneous satisfaction of their desires; they're totally self-indulgent (which I'm fine with) but unaccustomed to and unappreciative of the work and sacrifice needed to properly indulge oneself. The thrill of striving has been replaced by the blandness of possession. Gone are the days of teenage boys robbing stores and lying to their parents and fumbling around in the woods after school in an effort to understand a little better life's greatest mystery. Gone is the need to connive, collude, cajole, flatter, hustle, conspire, and scheme to get your hands on pornography in a time of wanting. Here to stay is the impassive, entitled, predictable consumption of stimuli ... leading to numb, bloated indifference and a life of boredom. Boredom?! My God, when I was a teenager, I never would have dreamed of using the words "boredom" and "pornography" in the same sentence. It would have been sacrilegious, disrespectful, a violation of an unwritten code. These days all kids have to do is turn on a computer, and bam! -- instant access. No fuss, no muss, no shame, no skulking -- just simulated carnality. Which sounds good, I know. But think about what's being lost: an understanding of the relationship between risk and reward; an appreciation for the art of getting over, getting past, and getting by; a belief that success is contingent upon adeptness and adaptability, strategy and temerity, the conquering of your fear and shame and guilt and the acceptance of your own moral flexibility. What other lessons do we want life to offer us? Today's kids don't even have to suffer the bittersweet pain of settling for soft-core melodrama on late-night premium cable, an act of ritual maturation that taught me and my friends the thrill of unfulfilled desire, of deferred dreams, of implication and suggestion and seduction: the simple joy of making do with what you have, just like our grandparents did during the Depression and World War II. They had bread lines and rationing; we had Cinemax. In America, we've all had to make sacrifices. More on Sex
 
Elena Brower: Art of Attention: Can Toxic Encounters Be Nourishing? Top
For years teachers and inspiring colleagues have referenced the heart as the key to inner peace, abundance, and health. Over the next few installations I'll explain how your heart holds your highest potentiality for consistency, as well as every current answer to any ancient question regarding what is possible in your present life and evolution. Two of my biggest curiosities that led to the Heart: Why does another person's inner state have an effect on my own? And what should I do when I'm in the company of strong negativity and it seems to have an influence on my own state? Different cells in our bodies, as well our very fields of energy, even without proximity to one another, synchronize with one another. Each of us are cells in the global heart. This is why we feel "affected" by the moods of others. When we hold resentment and hostility, our heart rhythm shifts the actual shape of the heart muscle; a very different shape from the one created when we feel happiness and joy. You can factually pick up the emotions of another person, even at a distance [non-locally], with your own heart. We all crave happiness, to see the good and to be nourished by our interactions. Our hearts are all working towards finding the optimal good-feeling shape all the time. Without the clarifying element of our attention, this shared biological resonance becomes a muddy experience of identification with other people's toxic emotions and projected thoughts. Which has high costs. It takes more energy to adopt and sustain judgments than it does to accept and appreciate. The most efficient thing you can do is to put your attention on your own heart and create more coherence, symmetry and patience in your own rhythm, by simply breathing. What works for me: I bow my head and turn my actual eyes to my heart in moments of reactivity, and a previously inaccessible patience washes over me. This one movement, chin to chest, invariably helps me find pause and choose my course of action [I have a 3-year old- trust me, this works]. Twenty years of research reveals that to put your attention in your heart for a few breaths generates a coherent heart pattern, experienced within yourself as a healthy calm that inspires others nearby -- cellularly -- to slow down. Deepak Chopra is one of the clearest modern thinkers on this concept. In one of his talks, he explained in simple terms the reasons to put attention on your heart, offering the first four Heart Sutras as ways to cultivate particular qualities of heart in order to transform anything potentially draining or poisonous (people, environments, situations, your own feelings) into nourishment -- although I've found that one single breath with the faintest hint of self-acceptance will usually do the trick. PEACE, 1st Heart Sutra Establish yourself in a state of nonviolence, in your attitude and your physicality [even a judgmental word or dismissive gesture is a form of violence]. Nonviolence is a path to deep creativity; in nonviolence we free ourselves to find alternative solutions. HARMONY, 2nd Heart Sutra Our biological circadian rhythms mirror exactly that of the universe at any time; when you harmonize with that rhythm through your breathing, you experience harmony and diminish stress levels in your body. LAUGHTER, 3rd Heart Sutra Laughter provides a needed shift in perspective; when you can find the humor, even inwardly, you keep your vantage point flexible and will actually discern the quality of energy you're offering. LOVE, 4th Heart Sutra More than an emotion or an experience, Love is a state. When in love, as you know, everything becomes more bright and beautiful; when you locate that state in your heart, even momentarily, you are connecting to the abundance of the universe. The most interesting and important remembrance in your day-to-day: The most challenging encounters provide the most direct access to your heart. They are showing you the exact route to your remembrance of your heart's capacity to receive and transform poison (carbon dioxide) into nourishment (oxygen) for your entire body. In the moments when you're most likely to engage, erupt, or even eject due to someone else's toxicity [or your own], bring your chin to your chest and take one breath to bring peace, another to harmonize your heart to the larger field, another to laugh to yourself, and one more to locate the love in this moment, because something of it has reminded you of your heart. This is how you will arrive, quickly, at a vantage point from which you can see the moment prior to your engagement with the negativity, and shift it. No matter what the situation; tired child, misunderstanding at home or at work, this quick 4-breath practice helps me shift from a reactive mode [in which I'm about the feed the web of negativity] to a reflective mode in which I'm offering my attention with no expectation, attuned to my own heart and therefore the generous heart of the universe. When we can make this shift, someone else's tension no longer influences our mood, and we're able to tap into the quiescence and stillness that is eternally present. May you remember to give what you can and receive what's available. This is what is known as living in the intelligence of the heart. Next week: Radical Forgiveness. More on Yoga
 
Diane Francis: LBJ created Canada's superior health care system Top
As the health care establishment appears to be once again able to block any reasonable changes to America's sick health care system, it's important to note that ironically, the "father" of Canada's universal, single-payer health care system was late President Lyndon B. Johnson. In 1964, his plan caused Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson to rush the same health care scheme into existence so that Ottawa was not beaten by the Americans, as was the case in 1934 with Social Security. As things turned out, LBJ compromised with the Republicans and scaled back his plan to a co-payer insurance for senior citizens, or Medicare. So it's hardly surprising that, again, a popular President cannot win out against the nasty tactics and enormous wealth of the medical vested interests. And yet, today Canada's system is not only as good as America's, but better medically according to the World Health Organization. Even more dramatic, it is between 30 and 60% cheaper for procedures, medications and hospital stays. Despite compelling evidence, the status quo remains south of the border and American voters/media appear to be unaware of the need for change. There are billions in profits being made at the expense of Americans and the country's economy. The Canadian Advantage: five reasons 1. Doctors fees. According to health data collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, average income for physicians in the United States in 1996 was nearly twice that for physicians in Canada. (Doctors in Canada are self-employed, bill provinces for fees and are not employees of the governments.) 2. Hospitals are not-for-profit entities in Canada run on behalf of patients and governed by regional health boards which include physicians and other health professionals. 3. Drugs are cheaper in Canada. In the U.S., US$728 per capita is spent each year on drugs, while in Canada it is $509. Patented drug prices in Canada are between 35% and 45% lower than in the United States, according to the OECD. (The price differential for brand-name drugs between the two countries has led Americans to purchase upward of US$1 billion in drugs per year from Canadian pharmacies.) This is because Canadian provinces buy drugs through a centralized system and get volume discounts. U.S. laws prohibit Medicare and Medicaid from doing so. The Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board also can set a fair and reasonable price on patented products, based on comparisons with similar drugs and prices in similar countries. (Both countries are net importers of medications and industries in both spend 0.1% on research each year.) 4. Administrative costs are dramatically lower in Canada than in the U.S. Administrative costs in the U.S. are double Canada's (according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine 2003) plus healthcare providers and insurance companies have huge marketing costs. Here's the study done by the Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass, USA: "In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least US$294.3 billion in the United States, or US$1,059 per capita, as compared with US$307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada. Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.) CONCLUSIONS: The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to 752 dollars per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system." 5. Other costs also add to American health care expenditures dramatically: government administrative red tape, requirements for record-keeping, a diversity of accounts receivable insurers and a patchwork quilt of plans and layers of authority to deal with. Higher payment for doctors has created a brain drain of physicians from Canada to the U.S. but in 2005 this reversed, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Today, and not surprisingly, a medical tourism business in Canada is growing rapidly as Americans go north to take advantage of lower costs. Now that the Americans appear to have blown another chance to fix their health care system, it's time for Canadian physicians and others to ratchet up the industry offering selective services to Americans. Diane Francis blogs at National Post More on Health Care
 
Michelle Renee: United Airlines Ripping Consumers Off? Top
I had been planning my trip to Australia for over two months. It was on my daughter's top three places she has always wanted to go so for her 16th birthday, since a car was pointless after her "challenges" passing the written driving test, I decided to book our first backpacking trip to Australia as a surprise. The flight I paid for was from LAX to Sydney and then connecting to a flight going to Melbourne. The flight plan was exactly the same on the way home. We spent 12 amazing days in 3backpackers hostels, 3 hotels, one friends house, 5 days in a stick shift car on the other side of the road and other side of the car with windshield wipers going on every time I needed to make a turn due to everything being opposite in the car. Between the Great Barrier Reef snorkeling, driving Capt. Cook Hwy to the rain forest for some jungle surfing, petting the kangaroos and gazing in awe at the famous Opera House, I lost track of the days and forgot about the deadlines waiting for me back home. After thousands of miles across eastern Australia ending the trip to get back home was going to be a wonderful departure... Or at least that is what I had envisioned until I arrived at the United Airlines counter in Sydney. We planned to leave Cairns to get to our flight out of Melbourne that had one stop on the way: Sydney. Instead of going all the way to Melbourne and turning around to go straight back to Sydney within a matter of an hour or two adding an additional 4 hours of flying time to our already 17 hours in the air, I decided to stay in Sydney and wait for our already scheduled and paid for flight from Sydney to LAX. Getting all this? When we went to check in for our already scheduled and paid for flight from Sydney to LAX the man at the counter refused to issue us boarding passes claiming we made a "change" to our flight and we needed to pay $500 US dollars in change fees to get home. When I explained to him this was the exact flight that I already booked and paid for; was not making any change and the ridiculousness of flying from Sydney to Melbourne and right back, he said "You need to find a way to pay the fee, get a credit card or something, or I guess you will not be traveling today." After a half hour of refraining from raising my voice or calling him any of the very accurate yet unflattering names exploding in my head and pleading my case trying to talk any common sense into this man, I handed over my credit card to pay the fees just so we could get home. But my blood was at boiling point at the social injustice of what had just happened. I couldn't sleep the whole flight home. It was like legalized theft... I felt like I had just been cornered and robbed in an alley by a bully that looked a lot like the United counter guy. Aboard the flight the woman next to me told me she was on the Melbourne to Sydney flight they said I needed to be on. I video recorded her saying the flight was not even half full. She said they could literally dance in the isle and she slept across three seats all to herself. It wasn't like I caused them to not have a seat for someone. I asked a crew member if this was normal and he literally told me that they offer good deals and then "beat up the customer" and then apologized for my getting "beat up" by United on my way home. Since coming home I have called with little luck getting anyone on the phone and when I finally did they said call back in a few days when they can access the record of charges to file a claim to investigate whether I should get a refund or not. The simple truth is... United is emerging from a Bankruptcy filing and flying in the wrong direction when it comes to customer satisfaction. Beating up customers and robbing them blind every chance they get because the economy is so bad it is the only way they believe they can get into the consumers' pockets is simply bad business. Weigh in: Do you agree with the $250 change fee per person for the exact flight I already paid for? More on Airlines
 
HuffPost Readers' Favorite Beers: See Them All And Pick Your Favorite! (PHOTOS) Top
We asked you, dear readers, to tell us about your favorite local beers or the tastiest brews that are doing right by Mother Earth. You really came through! we learned about so many cool microbrews and tasty (and eco-friendly) local beers. Check 'em out and vote on your favorite. We'll announce the top five most popular brews at the end of the month to cap off HuffPost Green's beer month.
 
Tariq Ramadan, Islamic Scholar, Fired By Dutch University For Supporting Iran Top
AMSTERDAM — A Dutch university fired Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan on Tuesday for hosting a show on Iran's state television, which the school said could be seen as endorsing the regime. Ramadan – known as a reformist who condemns terrorism, seeks to modernize Shariah law and urges Muslims living in Europe to integrate – has recently been criticized in the Dutch press for allegedly voicing more conservative views for Muslim audiences than he does in the West. Both the City of Rotterdam and Erasmus University dismissed Ramadan from his positions as "integration adviser" and professor, saying his program "Islam & Life" airing on Iran's Press TV is "irreconcilable" with his duties in Rotterdam. Ramadan "continued to participate in this program even after the elections in Iran, when authorities there hard-handedly stifled the freedom of expression," Rotterdam and the university said in a joint statement. It said Ramadan had "failed to sufficiently realize the feelings that participation in this television program, which is supported by the Iranian government, might provoke in Rotterdam and beyond." He had worked at the university since 2007. The professor, a Swiss citizen who is now on vacation in Morocco, told Dutch radio he would appeal the "naive and simplistic" decision. Ramadan has written an open letter to Dutch media saying the show was a debate forum, and that he had no involvement with Iran's government. "Repression against and killing of civilian people cannot be accepted and must be condemned," he said in the letter, published by Dutch media last week when the debate broke out. "I support transparent, democratic process, and I expect the Iranian regime to respect this principle." Ramadan has lectured in France, England and the United States, and also has had trouble with the U.S. government. He had his U.S. visa revoked in 2004 shortly before he was to receive tenure at Notre Dame University in Indiana. He was denied entry to the U.S. in 2006 on the grounds that he had given $1,336 to a charity linked to Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization. The American Civil Liberties Union launched, and initially lost, a case arguing that the U.S. had wrongly excluded Ramadan based on his beliefs. In July, an appeals court said the government should have told Ramadan why his visa was rejected and given him a chance to prove he doesn't support terrorism. The case is now back in lower court. Ramadan had opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and said he sympathizes with the resistance there and in the Palestinian territories. He also was among the most prominent Muslims to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. More on Iran
 
Dr. Susan Albers: More to Love? Sex & The Weight of Attraction on The Bachelor Top
Okay, I admit it. I did watch The Bachelor once upon a time when the concept was new and fresh. It was a time when we were blissfully ignorant to the fact that almost none of the relationships survived. It is easy to understand why the show had to come up with a new version of the show. It got old, fast. So, let's review. The producers came up with various spin-offs. The new seasons matched people by factors such as height, wealth, and age. We should have braced ourselves on what would come, matching people by weight. More to Love is a show about plus sized individuals looking for love. Here is the question I ask. Why do we need a separate show for people based on their weight? I think that matching people by weight is like matching people by their shoe size. Being the same size does not mean you have anything in common. Some of the contestants do share a sense of being excluded or limited by their weight, which is unique to someone who is curvaceous. However, these women are no different than any other women. Their personalities are diverse. They are just as charming and lovely (and at times catty) as any other women. What is concerning about the show is how much it highlights the women's insecurities as if is something unique to these women. For example, in a recent episode, one of the women did not want to get into the pool and reveal her bathing suit. Who does love to parade around in a bathing suit? This is not always a symptom of your size. Unfortunately, this slant reinforces that your weight and size should define your level of self-esteem and confidence level. When you listen to the women on the show discuss their experience dating, you get a sense that weight has played a part in their self-esteem. Several contestants gave examples of hurtful dating experiences and negative weight slurs from people that damaged their self image. It is true that your experiences do impact your self-esteem, but often doesn't determine it. The roots of your self-esteem are formed much earlier in your life. People with self-esteem are able to shrug off negative comments, no matter what they are about. Fortunately, there are many contestants who are very happy with who they are and what they look like. The point, for all of us, is that we accept ourselves and are healthy at whatever size we are. As a psychologist who works with people at all ends of the weight spectrum, one thing that I have learned is that your weight does not correlate with your self-esteem . I've treated clients who were rail thin, verging on emaciation with a very troubled self-esteem and body image. I've also treated clients at the upper end of the body mass index range with a stellar self-esteem and vice versa. We want to believe that there is a perfect correlation between weight and body image. It gives the illusion that self-esteem is just a diet away. Kudos to Emme , the host of the show. Emme is a successful plus sized model who has done a lot of advocacy work with eating disorder prevention and promoting accepting and loving yourself at any size. I wonder where The Bachelor -like reality shows are getting their dating advice? Why do they keep matching people based on superficial factors such as weight and height (i.e. the dwarf version)? Does it make good TV? What really underlies attraction? So many factors play into it. For example, the Propinquity Effect states that repeated exposure to someone increases their level of attractiveness (falling for a co-worker after you get to know them despite not having an initial attraction). According to Morry's attraction-similarity model (2007), attraction is based on similarities or the "birds of a feather fly together" approach. Another theory indicates that people are happiest when they perceive their partner to be of a similar level of attractiveness (not necessarily a similar weight). There are many other theories about why people are attracted to each other. At the end of the day, it's hard to explain why we fall for the people we do. Wouldn't it be nice if it fit into a nice, neat box? My advice: Why not play on people's strengths rather than on the vulnerable parts of their self-esteem? For example, enlist contestants who have a similar, unique hobby such as people who run marathons or share a common job. I guarantee that The Lawyer Bachelor would have plenty of backstabbing drama while also stimulating the mind and finding two people who may have some similarities in their background and personality. Again, what is important in finding a mate is that you are healthy and happy. Looking for love based on a single dimension of who you are, your size or anything else, won't get you too far. If you are single, look for someone who loves and respects you. If the number on the scale matters that much, run away, fast! www.eatingmindfully.com More on Sex
 
Norb Vonnegut: More Talking Points for Clients and Investment Advisers Top
I'm Grove O'Rourke, big-swinging stockbroker and the hero of Top Producer. This post continues my series on conversations between financial advisers and their clients. In two more weeks, I'll appear in Australia when Murdoch Books publishes Norb Vonnegut's debut novel. There's a special treat for Acrimoney's readers, who live in Sydney. You will find at least one highly venomous funnel web spider lurking deep inside the pages. Figuratively speaking, that is. Okay, enough with the commercial. I'm about to make the most outrageous statement ever in the history of private wealth management. Some or you will regard my words as heresy. Asset allocation is a joke. A quick primer. Asset allocation is a process for combining stocks, bonds and other investment classes. The goal is to find the mix that maximizes portfolio returns given an individual's risk profile. Financial advisers often use mathematical tools, like Monte Carlo simulations, to ferret out how much risk an individual can tolerate. But my head is already swimming. I don't know a single client who defines investment objectives as a percentage allocation to stocks, bonds, or other assets. I've never met anyone who insisted, for example, on a "thirty-two percent allocation to alternative investments." I've never called any of my "guys," which is broker lingo for "clients," and said, "Congratulations. You are now on the efficient frontier." Huh? The efficient frontier is not just "inscruta-speak" from Wall Street. It's the holy grail of Modern Portfolio Theory. It's a mathematical curve that charts the optimal returns from a portfolio -- stocks, bonds, alternatives -- given the level of risk. And an investor's risk tolerance is shown as standard deviation. Standard deviation sounds serious. Can I catch it? If so, do I need to see a doctor? Herein lies the problem. It's virtually impossible to quantify how people feel about risk. All the Monte Carlo simulations and J-shaped efficient frontier curves are forgotten during a year like 2008. I think the structure of every portfolio should start with the answer to one question: How much cash do I need? I invest my clients' portfolios by focusing on their cash needs first: renovations to a house, capital calls from other investments, and tuition for example. These discussions are tangible, unlike the concepts of efficient frontiers and standard deviation. I buy securities, usually bonds, to ensure cash is available as necessary. Cash is something we all understand, even works of fiction like me. Grove O'Rourke
 
Bill Shireman: NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THEIR IDIOTS Top
But we all need a political force that can undercut their power When hordes of angry protesters descended on town hall meetings two weeks ago, conservative zealots celebrated what liberal zealots have long admired: the ability of small mobs to shut down discussion on an issue. Now the left is fighting back. Congressman Barney Frank cut down a woman who compared Obama to the Nazis by asking her "what planet" she spent most of her time on. And WalMart and other advertisers are pulling their dollars from Glenn Beck's program, under pressure from the left. But both the right and left have their idiots. They are useful - press their buttons, and they're off, legions of true-believers that follow their pipers, yelling, screaming, and voting just as they have been programmed to, for the candidate that panders most shamelessly to them. Idiocy does not need to be a permanent state, however. We all are part-time idiots, on a wide variety of matters. If we are lucky, our friends and spouses point out our idiocies, and gradually we learn. They don't have a stake in our being idiots - they would like us to be better. But when it comes to politics, we very rarely attempt to teach our idiots. They are too valuable as idiots. For example, Glenn Beck is an idiot. That's not a secret. Pretty much everyone knows it. Expect Glenn. He is either unaware or doesn't care. He has too many handlers who celebrate his idiocy. Any lingering self-awareness he may have is overwhelmed by the pandering acclaim and ill-gotten gains which are temporarily his. I know, Beck is "embarrassed all the way to the bank." I don't buy it. No amount of money could make someone consciously choose to be that much of an idiot. You might think I am using the term "idiot" in a pejorative sense. Nothing, however, could be further from a lie. In truth, "idiot" describes what we do when we allow our buttons to be pushed, and let our instincts get ahead of our genuine, thoughtful good sense. In order to mobilize the legions of idiots, it is useful to have notorious idiots like Glenn, who can boldly play to their worst fears and prejudices. He gives apparent legitimacy to hare-brained conspiracy theories - like his predictable slander-of-the-week latest charge that Obama is, according to his tortuous logic, a communist to advocate "green" jobs, a socialist to push health care, and now a racist. Beck has the legitimacy of a major network behind him, and smarter commentators fighting to get onto his show to tap his ratings, people who could be learning to think are instead just getting angrier and angrier. This is a bad thing. In case that needs explaining, here's why. When any of us see threats to our well-being, we become afraid, and look for a cause or an enemy, to which to direct our anger. It's in our genes, and we're better off because of it. Because we evolved in tribes, for millions of years the enemy or cause was often someone or something outside the tribe. So we are quick to find "others" that everyone in the tribe can blame. In today's world, those instincts can be easily manipulated for political gain. It's easy, for example, to slip a villain into that ready-made mental model. It's easy to paint a whole category of outsiders as the enemy. We're pre-programmed with the narrative, we just need to have the characters filled in. Demagogues like Hannity, idiots like Beck, and paranoids like Savage either knowingly or ignorantly are happy to trigger us - to build their own power, wealth, egos, or all of the above. As a result, the idiots - that's all of us, remember - reinforce our wild fears and prejudices, and fail to learn to be smarter. It's partly our fault - we should know better. But it's also partly the fault of those in a position to manipulate us. No one, by the way, is orchestrating all this. Beck does his thing, and gets ratings. Smarter people pander to him, to tap his power. Listeners become glued to their radios, TVs, and prejudices. And while they're listening, operating on instinct, advertisers slip in their messages, and the listeners go out and buy stuff, unaware. The advertisers then buy more ads, financing the whole thing, and insist that they have nothing to do with the messages conveyed - those are driven, after all, by public demand. Result: no one takes responsibility. We get a dysfunctional Congress with Democrats and Republicans who won't play together because, if they did, the idiots would take them down. Now that WalMart and other advertisers are pulling their business from Beck, will we solve the problem? Or will it just provoke the right to pressure advertisers to pull away from left-leaning messengers? There's a better way. It's time we stopped focusing just on the "other" side's idiots, and acknowledged our own as well. It's time we looked at ourselves. What can we do? Issue the traditional call for "a return to civility" in political discourse? That's a waste of time. There have always been demagogues, paranoids, and idiots, and always will be. Even more idiotic would be to try to restrict speech - to threaten broadcasters with legal sanctions for being idiots. The only alternative to idiocy in free speech is the imposed idiocy of restricted speech. A better approach is to outsmart the idiots, and those who use them. Here's my strategy: form a strategic political force that can render the idiots impotent. It's not that hard. We need a third political movement in this country - not today's ideological right or left, who pander to idiots, but a group of radical centrists who step past their initial ignorance, fear, and prejudice, and actually think through solutions to our problems, borrowing ideas from all sides. We don't need 51% of the population. In our democracy, all we need to do is to control the middle - the large body of people who, despite the rhetoric, are not fooled by extremism. We need only win 5 or 10 percent. We could put the idiots and their panderers in their place - out of politics, and in school. This third force can't be a new political party - the system is stacked against that. We simply need to get between the two parties, and control the balance of power between them, tipping elections to one or the other, depending on which candidates support radical centrist policies. That means - get ready - it has to be able to endorse, and campaign for, non-idiots from BOTH parties. I wish I could send you to the website of this third political force. But there is none yet. So, if you would like to join, sign on to my Twitter, and I will keep you informed as such an alliance comes into being. Or, one of you passionate activists can form the alliance, and draw the pent-up energy of the millions waiting for you. So let's not be idiots, and get to work. More on Health Care
 
Dr. Sasha Galbraith: Who's The Boss? Why More Women Are Not in the Corner Office Top
Are women better managers than men? The embers of this tired gender debate are blazing with new and fiery fodder, fueled by recent propositions in the media. The New York Times ' "No Doubts: Women Are Better Managers" (July 26, 2009) and "Room for Debate: Do Women Make Better Bosses?" are just two examples that have elicited hundreds of responses, the majority of which tend to run something like this: "The worst manager I ever had was a woman." Is all this criticism fair? No. Women are very good managers. While no one can state unequivocally that men or women are better managers, many studies have shown that women do have superior management skills. For example, one study of 900 managers at several multinational corporations indicated that women outperform men in 28 of 31 basic management skills and behaviors. Using the 360-degree feedback methodology, researchers compared various scores given by peers, bosses and subordinates to male and female managers. Despite the fact that 70 percent of the raters were men, women scored significantly higher on critical management skills such as problem solving, decision making, planning, controlling, managing relationships, leading and communicating. Men and women were rated equally on delegation of authority. Interestingly, women scored lower than men on their ability to handle pressure and cope with frustration. But it's no secret that women often discuss their problems more openly, a tendency that can lead men to think that women just can't handle the stress. But how are women as leaders? A group of researchers (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and van Engen) looked at 45 studies on the various leadership styles of men and women. They found that women leaders used more transformational styles coupled with contingent rewards common in transactional leadership. That is, women tended to support and encourage their subordinates to accomplish difficult tasks and solve problems creatively, while simultaneously coaching and mentoring them in their individual needs. Compare that to male leaders who used a more transactional style, which includes both active and passive management-by-exception, and a laissez-faire leadership style (paying attention to subordinates' mistakes and failures, and/or waiting until the problem becomes too big to ignore). In today's complex and highly competitive business environment, where companies have multiple customers in multiple markets all demanding custom-designed solutions to their issues, the organizations that are able to execute multiple initiatives quickly and flexibly have an edge over competitors. Companies are finding that they must move from vertical and hierarchical forms to horizontal and networked models that are more flexible, adaptive and necessary in today's world. This is where a more transformational style of leadership with a high degree of collaboration, cooperation and communication is necessary. Women -- and yes, many men -- are great at these skills. No Girls Allowed So if women have the skills necessary to be effective and top quality managers, why aren't more of them occupying the corner office? The unfortunate truth is that women don't often get the chance. Subtle and pervasive bias against women as managers makes it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for women to both excel as a leader and be admired for the competencies she brings to the job. Women have always been perceived as less-than-ideal candidates for management and that bias has not changed over the years. Women who occupy roles that have traditionally been held by men face extraordinary scrutiny over their expertise and handling of that role. A Swedish study showed that women have to be two-and-a-half times more competent than men in order to be judged equally. Successful leaders are often associated with masculine traits like rational logic, authority, independence, toughness and aggressiveness. But when a woman is in a leadership role, she is held to a different standard than men, and outward displays of toughness, authority and independence are seen as incongruent with expectations of more feminine traits. Need more recent proof? At the annual conference of the Academy of Management in Chicago earlier this month, scholars presented several new studies that indicated the following: 1. In cases where managers (male and female) behave unfairly toward others, women are judged more harshly than men and they are penalized more severely. 2. Women managers tend to use "transformational leadership" styles (motivating subordinates through respect and pride in the organization's mission, and using intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration) more often than men. But when men use that leadership style, they are perceived as more competent and subsequently get higher performance ratings than women. 3. The concept of "manager" still equals "male" especially if you are a man doing the perceiving. 4. Women and minorities who make it to the upper ranks of management are usually "tokens" or numerical minorities vis-à-vis the prevailing group at the top. As tokens, they are often part of a lower status group in the organization. Contrary to what might be expected, the token members favor the dominant and high status group in their preferences for working with other people, while shunning members of their own token group. This suggests that high-level women managers do not actively promote or encourage other women fearing competition from them. 5. Women tend to avoid negotiations about compensation, while men tend to avoid negotiation over family issues. Perhaps it's another reason why women earn about 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. I'm a realist: gender bias will never cease to exist, but it's time to give women a fair and equal opportunity to be the really great managers they have already proven to be. More on Women's Rights
 
Robert Howarth: Record Corn Crop Spells More Trouble for Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Top
In America we grow a lot of corn, more than any other country. Last week, the USDA announced that 87 million corn acres -- the second highest amount ever -- were planted in 2009. It's a push for corn as fuel, not as food, that's spurring Midwest farmers to grow more corn. And there's a link between corn-ethanol production and the recent news that the Gulf of Mexico dead zone was more severe than in past years, which continues to jeopardize Gulf fisheries valued at $2.8 billion. On the surface, growing more corn makes good sense. We can use it to produce ethanol, reducing our demand for foreign oil. But my fellow scientists and I have identified a troubling consequence of this headlong rush towards energy independence: the fertilizer used on the corn fields is the principle culprit responsible for the dead zone, a huge swath of ocean devoid of fish and shellfish. No crop can absorb all the fertilizer applied to it, but corn is especially bad. Its shallow roots mix the nitrogen below the top few inches of soil, and unlike most plants, corn takes up nitrogen for only two months of the year. A quarter or more of the nitrogen fertilizer is wasted, running off the fields and into rivers and streams, which eventually drain into the Gulf. The Obama administration claims to strongly support efforts to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous levels in the Mississippi River Basin by 45 percent. But at the same time, the administration wants to raise the maximum amount of corn ethanol permitted in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent. These cross-purpose directives underscore the corn-ethanol conundrum. On the one hand, what's wrong with subsidizing a home-grown fuel? On the other, who can stand by while chemical fertilizer use in the Midwest destroys marine life and releases nitrous oxide -- a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide in its ability to warm the planet? As a nitrogen scientist and author of a recent international science report on biofuels' impact on the environment, I understand the dark side of corn-ethanol policies. The artificial drainage systems common in upper Mississippi River Basin corn states exacerbate the problem, sending excess nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. There, it spawns algae blooms that consume available oxygen, suffocating aquatic life. Fish, shrimp and other shellfish that are the mainstay of commercial fishing along the Gulf cannot survive in the Gulf's 8,000 square mile dead zone. Dead zones caused by excess nitrogen kill marine life across the U.S., from the Chesapeake Bay to California's Monterey Bay. On the shores of Cape Cod, which I have studied since the 1970s, murky green waters now fill the bays once dominated by healthy seagrass meadows. Scallop populations are declining, and the habitat quality of these nursery grounds for other fish and shellfish gets worse every year. There are viable alternatives to corn-ethanol that allow us to produce biofuels domestically without all of the environmental side effects. For example, biofuels developed with switchgrass would provide a less-polluting source of energy. Switchgrass is a fast-growing, tall prairie grass native to North America that requires less water and chemical fertilizer than corn, and it's being produced now in states like Tennessee, where the state government is developing a biorefinery to produce ethanol from non-food crops. Plantations of small trees like willow and poplar provide another source of fuel more benign than growing corn. The drive to produce biofuels from corn will only worsen the nation's growing nitrogen pollution problem. As we consider a biofuels policy, we need to remember that more corn-based ethanol production equates to devastated marine fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. Perhaps it's time to give Gulf fisheries a much-needed break.
 
Jeana Lee Tahnk: Am I Doing This Parenting Thing Right? Top
It's an age-old question that moms (and dads, but mostly moms) ask themselves on a daily basis -- am I doing this right? Whether it's about disciplining tactics or sleep training or if the organic cheez-puffs are really that much better for your kids, motherhood to most is a type of training-in-progress, we learn as we go along. Life as a mom and "CEO" of a household is challenging enough. Throw a career on top of that and you're bound to find a woman who is always stretched, sometimes guilt-ridden and never satisfied. I find that between juggling work, seeking inner peace, wondering if I'm parenting in a way that my kids will need therapy for, and trying to look presentable at the same time, I'm always asking myself this very question. As moms, we are always making choices, some we are happy with, some not. Do you forgo pursuing the promotion because you know it will inevitably take more time away from your kids? Do you let your baby cry it out so you can get just a couple more minutes of time alone? Do you close your eyes and pretend to be asleep when your husband climbs into bed because after cleaning the house, making lunches and paying the bills, that is the last thing on your mind? Parenting is about making decisions completely on someone else's behalf. And sometimes, there is no right answer, but merely a process of figuring out what works. What I keep trying to reminding myself is that I'm doing the best that I can with what I know and what I have. I'm not always sure that the decisions I'm making for my kids are the best ones, but some of the ways I have confidence in my parenting is by knowing that I: Put the needs of my kids before my own. Put my needs before my kids', if at least minimally. The old adage, "if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" speaks volumes. Feel adequate guilt about something at some point of each day - isn't that inherent to motherhood, for better or for worse? Make decisions that I think will benefit my kids in the long-term and not just the short. Follow through on what I say to them. (Try my hardest to) Retain a sense of humor and keep calm despite complete chaos around me. Am proficient at being on conference calls and keeping kid noises at bay. Treat the relationship with my husband with equal importance as the relationship with my kids. Am weird and wacky with my kids and love to make them laugh. Think about their futures constantly. I've learned over the years that motherhood is about the moment-to-moment. It's about making the decisions that I think are right at the time and believing in them. I know I'll look back and have regrets about certain ways I handled situations, or things I could have said differently, but it is in the collection of these moments that I define myself. Millions of women face this challenge head-on and somehow manage to make it work. Whether you're a working mom of three or stay-at-home mom of one, we all share a common bond and can relate to the many joys, hardships and discoveries of raising kids (and husbands!) while still trying to raise ourselves. No one said it would be easy and no one said it would be fun all the time, but what I've learned so far is that a big part of being a good mom is believing, yes, I AM doing this right. What are some of the ways that give you the confidence to believe that you are doing it right?
 
Josh Sugarmann: Why Does the NRA Hate Puppies? Top
Does the NRA support puppy mills? That's the question asked earlier this year by Miami Herald general assignment reporter Ellie Brecher in the newspaper's blog Crazy for Critters citing the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS): The Humane Society writes: The National Rifle Association says it's about defense of the Second Amendment. But more and more, it's about doing harm to man's best friend. In the 2009 legislation session, the gun group has been going state to state setting its sights on public policies that would crack down on abusive puppy mills. They actively lobbied against an Arizona bill requiring that puppy mill producers are subject to inspections by county enforcement agents at any time during regular business hours. They are working hard in Indiana and Minnesota to derail bills that would limit the number of dogs confined in puppy mill cages and set basic standards of care for exercise, flooring, and veterinary treatment. The Arizona and Minnesota bills have been shelved, and an NRA-backed amendment would gut Indiana's legislation. It's a mystery why the NRA cares so much about defending the status quo when it comes to puppy mills. It can't be a core issue for gun owners. The NRA claims that the puppy mill bills would impact hunting dogs, but surely most sportsmen would want their dogs raised humanely by responsible breeders, not treated like a cash crop. A dog who lives in a filthy wire cage with no exercise, socialization, or human interaction might not end up being a very good hunting partner out in the field, after all. It may just be that the NRA has a knee-jerk opposition to any animal protection issue, no matter how modest or common-sense. Not so fast there. Think about it. We already license and register dogs. So how much longer will it be before we face total dog confiscation? Well, according to the NRA, if the anti-freedom, er, anti-puppy mill lobby has its way, not long. Not long at all. In a July 2009 alert to its members about a puppy mill bill (SB 460) it eventually derailed in North Carolina, the NRA displays the leaden efficiency of using a time-proven template to combat regulation. Any type of regulation. Guns. Dogs. You name it. In the text below, just replace "dog breeder" with "gun dealer." Or "gun show promoter." Or "gun manufacturer." It may sound a little, well, familiar. SB 460 requires "commercial dog breeders" to be licensed, then subject to regulations and inspections. But if you operate a facility that has "overcrowded and cruel" conditions, you likely know this is the case, and simply would not apply for a license. No license means no regulations and no periodic inspections. In other words, the same laws that are currently on the books to target true animal cruelty are the only ones that would apply to investigating an unlicensed "commercial dog breeder." On the other hand, those responsible dog breeders (which are the vast majority of them) that do comply with the licensing requirement, should SB 460 become law, may find themselves regulated out of business. The bill states that certain standards must be met, but does not spell them out. Instead, it allows a bureaucratic rules process for setting the standards, using vague, subjective terms for stating what those standards will be. The terms `adequate' and 'appropriate' are used, which have widely different meanings, depending on the application and who is doing the applying. You can bet HSUS [Humane Society of the United States] operatives will try to influence the rules process to implement the most draconian rules possible in order to promote its anti-breeder agenda. And to finish out the exercise, just replace Humane Society of the United States with "Obama" or "gun control." Talk about crazy critters.
 
Paul Szep: The Daily Szep- The Republicans Top
 
Stephen M. Davidson: Why the Public Option is Critical Top
The health reform proposals being considered by Congress depend on private insurance companies competing. Proponents of this strategy believe that to win subscribers from competitors, insurers will need to find innovative ways to keep costs down at the same time they provide good coverage. To keep them focused on providing good value to the public, some of the proposals, including the President's original one, include a public plan to compete with the private firms. If retained in the bills, this contentious provision may sink the reform effort. So, how important is it to achieving reform's goals? The answer is no mystery: The competition strategy is so weak that the public option is essential. The fact is that competition is a good thing only when it produces innovation that leads to better, less expensive things for sale. The new computer we bought a year ago was faster, more powerful, and less expensive than the one it replaced -- in part, at least, because of competition. The U.S. already has the most competitive health insurance system in the world. Many insurers make lots of money. How do they do it? My colleague, Jim Post, who has studied the industry, reports insurers have only 3 factors to work with: who is covered (availability), what they are covered for (quality), and price. So, among other things, in the present, badly broken system, they refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions or make coverage so expensive for such people that they cannot afford it. They provide coverage that excludes some of the services their subscribers need. They charge cost-sharing amounts that make doctor-recommended services unaffordable for many covered patients. They introduce administrative procedures that make it difficult for patients to receive and doctors to provide covered services. And with it all, instead of falling, premiums keep rising and lead increasing numbers of employers and employees to drop coverage. So, given this history, how do policy makers arrange for a competition-based strategy that will cover everyone and keep costs under control? The president and his allies in Congress have proposed 2 main strategies. One is to impose regulations that prohibit the firms from using the tactics just described. Guaranteed issue and renewal, community-rated premiums, and limits to cost-sharing would be required. But if private insurers can no longer engage in the tactics that got them to profitability, what methods are left to them? How will they keep spending under control at the same time they provide value to the public? That is a question they should be forced to answer. To protect the public against the possibility that they will find ways to vary the 3 factors in their control in ways that undermine the reform goals, the second proposed strategy is to introduce a publicly operated plan to compete with the private firms. The primary mission of this government-run insurer would be to offer affordable coverage for people who could not find it from private firms. It would not need to earn a profit for shareholders, nor to engage in expensive marketing campaigns to win subscribers. In order to avoid losing too many subscribers to it, the idea is that private insurers would need to respond to its offerings. The coops that are suggested as a substitute pale in comparison. The best hope insurers -- and the public -- have to achieve the goals of reform is to change the incentives on providers by ending fee-for-service payment and to promote the development of integrated group practices which would have the means to furnish better, more efficient care. This being the case, should we expect insurers to contract selectively with physicians and pay capitation rates? Will they encourage creation of integrated delivery systems which, being fewer in number and larger than most of today's practices, would have more bargaining clout over rates and terms? If we are stuck with a competition-based strategy, the public option is the last, best chance for private insurers to show us they can provide better value at lower cost. The public option is needed because the insurers have already demonstrated that they do not do that on their own. Supporters of reform should demand that Senator Conrad and his like-minded colleagues who oppose the public option answer these questions: In the absence of the public option, what actions will insurers take to accomplish the goals of reform? And why they have not used them until now? Advocates of the public option should not allow themselves to be put on the defensive. Instead, they should insist that opponents explain what innovations insurers will introduce to provide good value at affordable prices. Davidson, a Boston University School of Management professor, is author of the forthcoming book, In Urgent Need of Reform: The U. S. Health Care System .
 
David Paterson's New York Struggle Top
ALBANY--"Governor Paterson is having a rough time," State Senator Liz Krueger, a liberal, loyal Democrat, told The Observer during a break before a legislative hearing at the Capitol last week. When asked if she supported him for reelection, Ms. Krueger said, "I don't know yet." Mr. Paterson and his surrogates had hoped the summer would provide him time to recuperate. He would beat up on the increasingly unpopular legislators; travel the state, leaving stimulus funding in his wake; and remind the public that they like him, because he really is a likable guy.
 
Mike Lux: I'm For the Obama Health Plan, Are Anonymous White House Staffers? Top
Barack Obama put together the outlines of a really solid health insurance reform plan in his 2008 campaign, and sent a similar package of ideas to Congress earlier this year. While not everything I would have wanted, I have strongly supported him in getting those basic ideas passed, as have three House committees and one Senate committee, and the overwhelming number of Democratic activists and voters. He has said he would remain flexible about specifics, but that to him, health care reform needed to achieve certain goals, including dramatically expanded coverage of the uninsured, serious cost containment, and providing enough choice and competition to keep health insurers honest. I agree 100%. My question now is why are certain anonymous White House officials trying to undermine the President? I ask this question in all seriousness, because this is exactly what happened in the Clinton fight for health care reform. We would do these terrific, thoughtful, complex policy meetings where we go over various options on the health care bill but make no firm decisions. The next day in the New York Times or Washington Post, some particularly controversial aspect of the bill would be headlined as in "High-ranking administration officials say Clinton is considering X." It was without question one of the things that eventually killed health care reform. What I discovered when I worked in the White House was that there were plenty of people who work in that building whose primary loyalty is not to the President but to themselves. They leak things to reporters to cultivate them and make sure they write puff job articles about them. They help certain lobbyists because they might want a job in their firm someday. They empower certain powerful Senators or members of Congress because they are personally close to them, and/or because they might want to get paid big money to lobby them someday soon. Maybe they want to run for office themselves one day, and so they cultivate certain donors. So while it is possible that all the back-tracking on the President's bill from anonymous staffers is all a carefully laid-out strategy, since it's a strategy that is really not working, I think it is also quite possible it is just classic disloyalty from self-interested staffers. In part I say this because what kind of brain-dead strategy would it be for an anonymous staffer to say on the front page of the Washington Post "I don't understand why the left of the left has decided this (the public option, a core part of Obama's health care plan) is their Waterloo." I mean, why would you undermine and attack the people who are actually fighting for the President's plan? Talk about a dumb strategic move. And the Obama people are smart, so I have to assume that his is just pure disloyalty, perhaps someone trying to suck up to Max Baucus, for example. I am going to keep fighting for the President's plan and goals. I will not give in until the fight is done. I just hope all the anonymous White House staffers will keep fighting with me. More on Wash Post
 
Senate Guru: Joe Sestak Leads on Health Care Reform Top
{ Originally posted at my blog Senate Guru . } Congressman Joe Sestak has been an unwavering voice for real health care reform. Check out his latest diary on Daily Kos : We have to bring health care costs down, while covering all Americans. To do this, all Americans need access to preventive care, and all health insurance providers need competition. The best way to accomplish this goal is through a strong "public health insurance option." A public health insurance option is a choice - a choice that is subsidized only by the co-pays and premiums of those who choose to join it - just like a private health care plan. But it is less expensive - and forces private insurance companies to lower costs because of this competition - by not having to pay CEOs $20 million salaries, or $50 million severance pay, for example. Congressman Sestak also put together this video on health care reform, following him on the stump and on cable news, advocating for a public option. It's only three and a half minutes long, and I encourage you to watch the entire video: Congressman Sestak's leadership has seemingly been the only thing pulling recent Republican Arlen Specter to the left on key issues (emphasis added by me): Sen. Arlen Specter just posted on his Twitter account: "People who like their current insurance ought to be able to keep it -- but let's have one more choice: a public option." And this comes just after his Democratic primary opponent in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race, Rep. Joe Sestak, said Tuesday he would "find it hard" to support a health care bill without a public option. After becoming a Democrat in April, Specter has marched to the left (he initially opposed a public option) and will likely continue to do so in the face of what could be a tough primary challenge. But will that include opposing a Senate health care bill if it lacks the public option -- and if Sestak comes out opposed to it? Specter initially opposed a public option. Congressman Sestak is fighting for a public option. So Specter disingenuously tacks left. While Specter panders and postures, Congressman Sestak displays genuine conviction and real leadership. You can support Congressman Sestak's campaign with a contribution via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page . More on Arlen Specter
 
Marilyn Barrett: UBS Deals Cause Switzerland To Back Down on Bank Secrecy Top
While we Americans are rightfully angry with our banks for taking us down the subprime road to unemployment, foreclosure, devastated retirement savings and all of the other trappings of recession, the Swiss must be furious with UBS for the havoc it has wrecked on the famous Swiss banking industry which relied on its stringent bank secrecy policies for much of its success. UBS helped more than 52,000 Americans evade US tax by helping them set up Swiss bank accounts through off-shore entities. Impressively, the IRS started investigating in May 2008 and has already racked up four guilty pleas and has publicly disclosed that it is actively pursuing more than 150 other criminal investigations in UBS-related cases. Through the information obtained from taxpayers pleading guilty, the US has learned much more about how the system worked. Through the help of UBS representatives and Swiss lawyers, the Americans who purchased their services used entities formed in Hong Kong and other countries to funnel money through and did not report billions of dollars of reportable income. Some of the defendants have disclosed that UBS executives would travel to the US dressed as tourists in an attempt to avoid detection. One of the taxpayers who admitted guilt apparently got cold feet at one time and wanted to come clean with the IRS. To help reduce his anxiety, UBS helped move some of his funds to a smaller Swiss bank assuring him that, because the bank was smaller, it would not be subject to the same amount of scrutiny as UBS. A Swiss lawyer working with UBS also assured him that a high-ranking Swiss government official had provided assurances that his name had not been turned over to the IRS and that the official had been paid $45,000 for this information. In February 2009, UBS and the US entered into a settlement agreement wherein UBS paid $780 million in fines and turned over 255 names of Americans who had committed tax fraud. Since then, the IRS has been battling UBS for the additional 52,000 names of evading taxpayers, but Switzerland told UBS that it would violate Swiss privacy rules if it turned the names over. Switzerland apparently felt that this demand so threatened its bank industry that it took over the negotiations with the US from UBS. At least 10 other Swiss and European banks have been identified as having held some of US tax evader funds and whether they too were engaged in wrongdoing will likely be pursued by the IRS. Last week, the US and Switzerland reached an agreement under which Switzerland has agreed that UBS will disclose an estimated 4,450 names of Americans who evaded tax with its help and about 10,000 accounts. However, there has been no disclosure about what parameters will be used to determine which names will be released. This puts these US tax evaders in a real dilemma. Several months ago, the IRS introduced a program to allow UBS tax evaders to come clean and generally avoid jail time so long as they paid all past due taxes and substantial penalties. This program ends September 23, so the evaders now must decide whether to come clean, pay most of the hidden money to the IRS through taxes and penalties, but at least be able to sleep at night knowing that orange jumpsuits are not in their future or take the chance that they are one of the lucky ones whose name will not be revealed and their Swiss account holdings will remain secret and intact. As a result of the UBS case, Switzerland has agreed to amend amend its tax treaty with the US. Historically, Switzerland distinguished between tax fraud and tax evasion, which enabled its banks to assure depositors that their accounts would remain secret. While the basis for the Switzerland's unique distinction between tax fraud and tax evasion is not entirely clear, it appears that Switzerland defined tax fraud as taking some active and deliberate action to defraud the tax authorities - like falsifying a document - whereas omitting things, like millions of dollars of income, was only tax evasion. And in Switzerland, tax fraud was a crime but tax evasion was only a civil matter and not of much consequence. Its tax treaties with other countries required Switzerland to cooperate with the other country in investigating tax fraud, but Switzerland thought tax evasion did not fall within these treaty obligations and the Swiss banks could assure depositors who committed only tax evasion of bank secrecy. Most other nations don't take the same lax attitude toward tax evasion that Switzerland did and the OECD, an international organization, threatened to put Switzerland on the tax haven list. Switzerland capitulated and is adopting the OECD's definition which makes tax evasion as well as tax fraud a crime. This means that Switzerland, by treaty, will be obligated to cooperate with the IRS to catch US taxpayers cheating on their taxes, i.e., turn over names, account numbers, account information, etc. Swiss banks reportedly are now hawking Switzerland's famous stability to potential depositors instead of its historic bank secrecy laws.
 
Esther Dyson: Release 0.9: Washing Health Care Clean Top
Health care is too expensive, and the problem is not who pays for it. It's what they pay for. Just imagine that we paid for housecleaning the way we pay for health care -- by load of laundry, for example. And that homeowners weren't generally responsible for the costs. It would change everything. Housekeepers would suddenly respond to a whole different set of incentives. First of all, they'd do a lot of laundry. Every time you left a shirt on a chair -- whoosh, into the washer! They would probably encourage you to get washable rugs instead of carpets -- for easier cleaning. The kids... well, the housekeepers would be happy to see the kids track dirt into the house -- more laundry to do! Pretty soon the housekeepers would notice that there's too much laundry to do it at home -- and so many special kinds of cleaning possible -- that they would start sending it out to commercial services. Next thing you know, you'd discover that your housekeeper has an interest in the local laundry, and a consulting contract with a detergent maker... Sounds like health care, doesn't it? So how do we solve it? We don't throw out the insurance companies and private health providers, but we start paying them to keep us healthy -- not to perform (or pay for) procedures. Then they can make money not on the volume of care, but on the difference between what we pay them and the cost of keeping us healthy (including necessary procedures but also low-cost prevention measures). To be sure, that will require a lot of record-keeping and actuarial tables and predictions and comparisons of outcomes to predictions and some oversight to ensure that the cost savings come from keeping us healthy, not from denying care. But we're going to do all this record-keeping and monitoring anyway (including consumer feedback), so let's do it in a system where the incentives of the payers and the patients are aligned. There are some good examples out there, and they come in two overlapping forms. The first are Integrated Delivery Networks (or IDNs), in which an entity comprises all the major cost centers including primary care physicians, specialists, hospitals, and imaging centers. These include Mayo, Lahey, Kaiser Permanente and Cleveland Clinic. They typically employ physicians on salary and use systems-design principles to enable doctors to enjoy more of a "9-to-5" existence. Many of them favor long-term relationships with patients and focus on their health rather than charging for instances of care. The second form is in an emerging crop of new health maintenance organizations (or HMOs). These organizations deliver the coordinated care of the IDN in the open, heterogeneous marketplace. Call them commodity concierges. They use contracts that pay per-head (capitation) rather than per-procedure, and make heavy use of information technology to weave together a "virtual IDN" comprised of primary-care physician group practices, specialists and hospitals. Their contracts reward the primary-care physicians for leading and coordinating prevention and management of chronic conditions as well as care, resulting in more health (as opposed to just care). The HMOs got a terrible reputation among policy people and consumers in the 80's and 90's for two principal reasons. First, neither academia nor the government had developed a practical risk adjustment system prior to the work of NancyAnn DeParle at Health and Human Services that was at the core of the original Medicare Advantage model produced under Clinton (in a second try at health care reform!) in 1999. Without risk adjustment, which would give the HMO more money to fund the care of a chronic patient and less for the septuagenarian marathoner (at a zero-sum impact to society at large), the HMOs quite sensibly served only the lean and healthy (since they were paid the same for every patient). Thus, early HMOs went to great and unethical lengths to reject diabetics, the overweight, smokers, cancer patients, etc. Once you set up a system that properly compensates an IDN or HMO for taking care of sicker people, you can fix that problem. Unfortunately, the re-design of Medicare Advantage enacted by the Republican congress in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 went too far. It adopted the Clinton/DeParle risk-adjustment model but gave the HMOs an additional average 14 percent overpayment above the government's own per-person cost of care, presumably to attract more consumers to the managed-care model. This 14 percent was partly used to fund attractive additional benefits to base Medicare, such as preventive vision and dental care -- which stuck (and sticks) in the craw of Democrats who think taxpayers should not subsidize better benefits via private insurance than they can get through plain old Medicare. But little of it was spent on creative, preventive efforts rather than just more care. That has led to the current conundrum: Medicare Advantage is probably the best model we have for what Obama wants, but it's poison to mention until the 14 percent premium is eliminated. Nonetheless, an innovative crop of insurers and clinicians are using MA as the vehicle to fund coordinated, technology-enabled, evidence-based care, and many believe they will be able to do so even when they are paid at parity with traditional Medicare. They provide risk-adjusted subsidies for Medicare patients who prefer to get their health care from a private HMO such as Healthspring or Essence Healthcare; they deal with the inequities of fate (or behavior) that make some people sicker and costlier to care for than others, yet still allow for individual choice. Around 10 million seniors have chosen MA plans, out of more than 40 million overall on the Medicare rolls. Wash the system clean! It's clear that government can and should get more involved in ensuring that everyone can get appropriate care and that the care should be effective. Insurance coverage is not the issue; it's what the insurance actually delivers in the way of health. Nowadays, there is more data available to manage risk adjustment, with increasing regulation and the rise of "evidence-based medicine." So let's use all the data to enhance the market with proper incentives, rather than to create a data-bound bureaucracy. We could do this right easily enough. We need to pay for health and we need to find a way to get insurers and providers to think longer-term by compensating them for keeping healthy populations (not individuals who move from place to place) over time. A different alignment of incentives won't solve every problem - including individuals' own propensity to ruin their own health through eating and drinking too much and exercising too little - but it would go a long way to reversing the perverse rise in costs that has done little to improve the nation's health. Esther Dyson is involved with a variety of health-care companies, none of them an insurer or general health-care provider. They include 23andMe, HealthDataRights.org, Organized Wisdom, PatientsLikeMe, PatientsKnowBest, ReliefInsite and Voxiva. More on Health Care
 
Lakefront Parking Won't Be Free Anymore Top
Free lakefront parking will be gone after the summer, if not a little before, Chicago Park District officials said Tuesday. The private operator Standard Parking will take over the roughly 4,400 parking spots along the lakefront in four to six weeks, the Tribune reports . Park District Supt. Tim Mitchell said the privatization plan "was a done deal back in November," in response to City Council questioning. The currently free spots will cost $1 an hour once the deal is complete. Park District officials estimate the deal will bring around $700,000 in its first year. "[I]f you spend the whole day there, it's $8. You can't go see a movie for that," Mitchell said in defense of the plan back in May .
 
Stephen Viscusi: Buyout...Just Another Word for 'You're Fired...Don't Sue Us!' Top
Readers always ask me, "When should I take a buy-out?" or, "When is a buy-out worth it?" Before I answer their questions, I always need to know the following factors: How old are they? How long have they worked at the employer offering the buy-out? What are they planning to do afterwards, work-wise? -- this question is relevant to your age. Retire? Or, as I am notorious for saying, "Expire!" If they plan to continue working, what other jobs are available to them where they are currently living? My advice today is relevant specifically to the deep recession, in which we are currently experiencing. In spite of the unemployment rate leveling off, new jobs are not yet being created, and most economists tell me that will not happen until the end of the second quarter of 2010. So, that's 8 more months of very few new jobs, and certainly a risky time to consider giving up a job you already have, no matter what your next career change dream may be. To me, the word, "buyout", "package"-- or anything of the sort, is a white-collar slight of hand. Translated in layman's terms, it simply means "You are fired. Take some dough from us if you sign this 'legal release,' so you won't sue us." It's is a dirty trick of smoke and mirrors. Evil. A buy-out is almost never a good thing unless you're about to retire, have a "sure thing" on the back burner, or you're going to be fired anyway within the next year, if you don't voluntarily leave now. Let's not forget that the buy-out is often just a disguise for the big "push," or "force-out". You need to do your best to weigh out if you have any other real options. Sometimes the choice of being bought out is really no choice at all. Right? Do you personally know anyone that took the famous "package" or "buy-out" and got a equal or better paying job? I don't. Oh, they land jobs alright, but not at the same salary or position they were in. If you can hold on to your job and not be forced out, it is always better, especially during a downturn to keep the job you have. It is very doubtful that there are that many equal paying jobs for you, just waiting around the corner. Once again, your age is a big factor, as is money in the bank as well as where you live. I will tell you one thing that is even more important than the "money" from a buy-out, which are the medical benefits. Negotiate with your employer to pay for the cost of continuing your coverage for as long as possible. Do you know what contributing to COBRA costs today? Dangling cash in front of anyone to make a decision is a no-brainer. It's why prostitution is called the "oldest profession in the world". Bosses know that money talks and influences people to make decisions they might not ordinarily make. If the offer comes, take your time and speak to people whose opinion matters to you. Then, ask if there is any room to negotiate or if there are any other options. And by all means, let me know what you think. ________________________________________ You're always welcome to write me with your career dilemmas, and I'll answer you on this column. Follow me on Twitter @ Workplace Guru and add me on Facebook or email me at: stephen@viscusi.com. Disclaimer: The scenarios and events portrayed in this article are products of the author's imagination. © Stephen Viscusi. All rights reserved. Article can be duplicated in part of full without author's permission. ________________________________________ Stephen Viscusi is the author of two books about jobs and the workplace. Charles Gibson from ABC's World News calls Viscusi, "America's Workplace Guru". Viscusi is a TV broadcast journalist on jobs, a headhunter and resume spin doctor. His latest book, Bulletproof Your Job: 4 Simple Strategies to Ride Out the Rough Times and Come Out On Top at Work (HarperCollins) has been published around the globe in at least 9 languages including Chinese, Korean, Spanish and Portuguese. Viscusi is also the founder of www.BulletproofYourResume.com. Viscusi's headhunting and workplace advice is usually considered counter-intuitive to the conventional wisdom. Viscusi is not a career or life coach. To the contrary, his current book, Bulletproof Your Job has been described as the New Millennium's The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, and that's how Viscusi sees the workplace. He's your workplace General. Each week, Stephen Viscusi volunteers his headhunting career advice to the world. His disciples can be celebrities, politico, world leaders, heads of industry, and some are just ordinary people who write him for advice. It's like Tony Robbins advising Al Gore or Deepak Chopra advising Michael Jackson (wait, scratch that one). Even you can get your own advice by writing to Stephen at stephen@viscusi.com, Facebook him or Twitter him at WorkplaceGuru. More on Careers
 
Yvonne R. Davis: The Uninsured Has a Black Face -- White Ambivalence Is Obama's Struggle Top
Yale University Professor of Psychology, and a highly recognized and award winning research expert on racism, John Dovidio does not feel the ongoing protests, yelling, name calling and Hitler labels by white protesters are hate. Instead, what he sees is a fight by whites desperately struggling to defend and maintain their position and status in America before it goes down the tubes to blacks and other colored people. "I don't think we are at the point of hate yet," Says the author of more than 250 academic research articles on racial discrimination. "I see it as a kind of threat. People are sensitive to being threatened and it makes them passionate. I don't think most whites articulate it as hate." A co-author of several books, over the last 30-years, Dovidio has delved into areas of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination towards Blacks and other disadvantaged groups. He has analyzed social power and nonverbal communication. "There is a very real increase in hate crimes and hate group activity that has been going on for a long time, but we have to distinguish between an extremist engaged in a hate crime versus people who are so argumentative in terms of issues like health," points out Prof. Dovidio. Dovidio admits even if he does not see the screamers and gun posers as hate mongers at-this-point, they are heading in this direction - the swastikas and defamed Rosa Parks' poster are hateful acts and bridges between hateful act and feeling threatened. The threat he says however is primarily rooted in racism. "Race permeates so much of our politics and is a part of our history; even if people say race has nothing to do with it. Healthcare is one of those examples," states the Prof. "We're obsessed with race. One drop of black blood will determine someone's destiny in America. Code words for whites are welfare, unemployment and now health care reform - race is one of the main elements in health. While the majority of the people in poverty in America are white, when we talk about welfare, race is what begins to dominate it." On the other side words and phrases such as, "I have a right to carry a weapon in public at an Obama speech," sends a bloody coded message in response to his Presidency. Dovidio says those with the resources want to have a superior position over those who don't have resources. Talking about poverty is talking about black folks. The uninsured has a black face with a public option. "A shifting of resources is not only wealth, but health to make it "more equitable" is threatening...the extreme response is why should we give up our privileges?" Viewing racism as functional, Dovidio argues it benefits whites by providing them with more opportunities, resources, and power to shape their lives and the country, if not immediately than in the long run. He also says with what is going on right now since President Obama has been elected is a pulling back and feelings of uncertainty and insecurity about where white people sit on the totem pole in this health care debate, economic recession and immigration issue (which is more perplexing to many whites because of so many more cultures are now involved) - hence the notion of the redistribution of wealth, socialism and other words related to equality received such a negative response. When African Americans tout that the new Civil Rights movement is about health care reform and education for all, it may now be seen by a growing number of whites as a warning that they will lose what they have been privileged to since the Pilgrims. "Our research shows that a small group of people in America who are openly hateful to blacks," says Dovidio. "There is also a small group of white people who are not prejudice. However, the majority of whites have ambivalence. On the one hand we believe in fairness, justice and equality. We think all of the right thoughts, but on the other hand our socialization experiences and our history, whites have negative feelings about blacks; this creates ambivalence for potentially strong feelings one way or the other. Whites who supported Obama for President, supported him more passionately than they have any Democratic candidate. That energy was channeled in a positive direction. Everything was fine." Many of these voters were the Independents MSNBC's Chris Matthews constantly yaps about. The polls show Obama support is eroding fast. The question is how does he get them back to feeling good about their decision to support him in the first place? Dovidio is brave enough to admit that a black person walks a very thin because it is easier for whites to fall back on stereotypes or what he calls "the unconscious negative feelings," but he still refuses to call it "hatred" by whites. Actually Dovidio admits that he runs away from saying there is hatred, but it seems ironic that he however believes many opponents of healthcare reform who are white have racially based feelings, but to call them haters only stops the discussion. Whites are very uncomfortable with Obama at the moment and while Dovidio believes Obama has the capability to shift the negative energy around him, the President's biggest challenge is changing the perception that the Government (despite the majority being white) is black because of a his Black Presidency; and it is the Black Government echoed by Glenn Beck that is the problem -- Obama hates whites, health care if a form of reparations, etc. Government is out to get the whites and according to Dovidio, "does not take whites much to jump to that conclusion." Dovidio makes a third rail statement when he says what Obama might need to help him come out of this malaise of white discomfort and uncertainty is a "Great White Hope?" During the campaign when President Obama talked about issues of "race," it was in the context of unity and everyone being treated well -it was only talk. Now, Dovidio says, he is in a real decision making position that directly impacts the lives of white people; thus bringing more white people into the conversation who are "credible" and "comfortable" for whites to get things back on track. Dovidio says there needs to be a "calming down." Beyond that, he calls on Faith based and community leaders from all racial and ethnic backgrounds to make a definitive statement about these issues so that the reset button is hit; Obama can't do it alone. If what Prof. Dovidio is saying is accurate about what white people need, and he would know since he is white, it is more than quite troubling that an African American President who has the best boot strap story in history; words many white folks like to use as well as the word "articulate" would need whites to rescue him. While it is realistic that a harsh reality surrounds this suggestion, it also points an even more insidious problem involving liberal racism which maintains the system the way it is - which in some ways is much worse than what the right wing who are at least open about how they feel. Here's to the Post Racial Society. Yeah Right! We've got such a longer way to go. More on Health Care
 
Fred Silberberg: The Unnoticed Effects of DOMA Top
I am in the midst of negotiating the settlement of some issues in a case on behalf of my client. My client and the soon-to-be-ex have been together for 17 years and have two very young children. There is a substantial amount of property involved. There are businesses, a residence, rental properties, retirement benefits and the like. There are arguments over what the custody arrangements should be. There are arguments over who should control what assets, and what the amount of child and spousal support should be. This case has the same trappings as many other divorces. A long-term relationship which, for any number of reasons, has reached its end point. It is time for both parties to move on, and the question is how to enable that while fairly addressing the division of property, support arrangements, and the custody of their children. In trying to work through the issues with my opposing counsel the other day, we ran into a stumbling block. His client would be the one to pay spousal support to my client. As most lawyers know, according to Federal tax law, spousal support when paid pursuant to a court order or written agreement is tax deductible to the spouse who pays it, and is included in the taxable income of the spouse who receives it. It is the tax-deductibility aspect of spousal support that allows us, as lawyers, to try to come up with creative ways to address the issue if at all possible. We try to maximize the tax benefit and use it in a way that reduces overall income tax liability to maximize the dollars that exist to benefit the now-separated family. In this case, however, there is a problem: My client is a man, and the other party is also a man. Therefore, under the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), we cannot apply the same principles to this arrangement as we would to every other divorce. While the alimony would be deductible under California law, it is not deductible under Federal law and that is where the most significant benefit comes because these parties are at an income level where they would pay the maximum federal tax rate. Up until this last paragraph, you probably thought that this was, in many ways, a "run-of-the-mill" divorce. And the truth of the matter is that this is exactly what it is. Both of the parties involved have been productive members of our society all of their adult lives. Through hard work, they have acquired a fairly sizable estate. They set up a household, they had children, and they arranged both their domestic roles and their financial affairs in a way intended to benefit those children. Through all of this they did the same thing that we all do: They paid taxes on the income that they earned. Those taxes contributed to the cost of running our enormous government, and they provided benefits to other Americans in other parts of the country. By paying their taxes, they contributed to the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they provided funds for police protection for their fellow citizens, they provided welfare benefits to indigent people. They did exactly what every other couple does who acquired wealth during the course of their relationship and legally paid their taxes. Yet, now that they are getting a divorce, they are not entitled to this benefit that is available to any heterosexual married couple that is getting divorced in this country. They are not entitled to it for only one reason: they are both men. On Monday, the Justice Department filed a brief in a pending California Federal District Court lawsuit wherein it took the position that the 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed because it is discriminatory. The act prevents the Federal Government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages. It prevents Federal employees' spouses (if they are of the same gender) or domestic partners from receiving benefits, the same benefits that are offered to opposite sex domestic partners and spouses. In an unusual deviation from the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, it allows one state to decline recognition of a marriage between people of the same gender which is valid in another state which allows same sex marriages. The effects of the Defense of Marriage Act are often far-reaching and unrealized by many. Some of the effects are more obvious than others. The issue in this case is probably not one that many would even think of. However, each and every day there are American citizens who productively contribute to our nation, comply with our laws, and who are not treated equally solely based upon their sexual orientation. If we intend to accept the benefits of their contributions to society, we must extend to them the protections of our society. Until DOMA is repealed, "Equal Justice Under Law," the inscription on the building which houses the United States Supreme Court, will have no meaning. As Americans, we should not wait until that court hears the issues, to give every American equal justice. More on Gay Marriage
 
Bush Still Gets Most Blame for Recession Top
Criticism of President Obama's efforts to overhaul the nation's health care system may be growing, but a new Rasmussen poll indicates that most Americans still blame his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the nation's economic woes. More on The Recession
 

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)