Monday, August 31, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Brandon Mendelson: Sometimes Life Gives You Mountain Lions Top
I found myself driving alone on the Palisades Parkway. Starting to come down from a coffee high, I needed to get home before I crashed. Driving at reasonable speeds, some approaching the sound barrier, I suddenly had a dance partner riding in the lane next to me. I slowed down. So did he. The interior light of his car turned on. The light was bright enough to illuminate the officer’s scowling face and the Palisades Parkway Police logo just under his window. The officer shook his head disapprovingly. I hit the speed of an elderly driver, one that doesn’t live in South Florida.  The officer pulled away. I thought for sure he was coming back and I’d find myself in jail, but there was nothing. Just a sense of relief, the kind you feel when the doctor admits he confused your test results with a strangers.  Admiring the scenery and wondering if this is what it’s like to ride a rickshaw, I saw something rustle in the bushes ahead. I’ve watched enough  Friday The 13th  films to know, nothing good emerges from the bushes at 4am. I slowed to a crawl and put on my emergency lights, hoping whatever it was would jump out. This speed should give me time to avoid an animal, and enough space to rev up and flatten Jason Voorhees. In what can only be described as a moment of both terror and hilarity, a mountain lion emerged from the bushes. Now, I know my local fauna and flora,  that’s not supposed to happen in New Jersey. I hit my breaks. The lion stood alert, contemplating whether or not it too wanted to become the center of an annoying riddle like the chicken. I locked eyes with the mighty beast. It, a terrifying version of a domestic house cat. Me, a chew toy. As a driver, you’re prepared for deer. But I ask you, my curious rubberneckers, what the hell do you do with a mountain lion? Part of me didn’t want to blow by and accidently kill nature’s stealth assassin. How would I explain that to Dad, the owner of my current chariot? "I killed a mountain lion, and not in a manly sort of way". The other part of me thought, ”Great. Not only do I get rejected by the gorgeous blond, God sent a mountain lion to finish the job time and gravity started. I need to get out of here." Looking to avoid becoming an infamous New York Post headline, I put my plan into action. I once read somewhere that you’re supposed to act bigger and louder than you really are to chase a mountain lion away. I don’t know, I’m not a zoologist. But I did know I wanted Simba to wander safely into the woods and back into the Disney film he came from. I rolled down the window. The stare down continued. I took a deep breath, paused, and shouted the first thing that came to mind: “Your Mom lives in the jungle!” That’s right. I went there. I then punched the horn as I revved my engine. It worked! Simba, unimpressed, turned to rejoin his father, just in time to watch Jeremy Irons push him off a cliff. Brandon: 1 Ferocious Furry Death Machine: 0 Now, I know, I could have done better than a “your mom” joke, but I was not prepared to appropriately zing the lion. The next day I filed the story into my "Why Does This Stuff Keep Happening To Me?" notebook, with a note that read: "Sometimes life gives you mountain lions. Be prepared for anything." More on Animals
 
New York Comedy Festival: Top Nine Reasons NYC Is the Capital of Comedy Top
9. Laughter is the best medicine. How do you think we eradicated swine flu? 8. With so much daily absurdity, it takes quite a sense of humor to survive in this town. 7. There's a reason why all comedies are set in New York, while nearly every drama takes place on the countryside, by a lake, or in some kind of "nature." 6. The people asking whether you like comedy are not affiliated with clubs, but are actually part of a discrete laughter taskforce. 5. Saturday Night Live is about to begin its thirty-fifth season. I don't even know how to turn on a calculator and I can tell that's thousands of hours of comedy. 4. Living in the city made Robert DeNiro laugh so hard and so often that he ran out of smiles. 3. The jokes told in New York clubs wouldn't reach the rest of the country until a few hours later. Geography itself is on our side! 2. If you were born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn, there's an eighty percent chance you will grow up to influence all of comedy. 1. New York is dirty, frenzied, and funny; all of the things that make the NY Comedy Festival great.
 
Nicole Williams: Work BFFs: The Do's & Don'ts Top
A day at the office is so much more enjoyable when you have a work BFF to share your ups, downs, and blueberry muffin with. You can count on them to come to the rescue when your skirt is tucked into your stockings, or to be a sounding board for your latest big idea before you take it to the boss. They keep you sane when you're stressed and lend a sympathetic ear when you need it. But sometimes, even the best of office friendships can hurt your career if you don't handle them the right way. Follow these tips whether you're in or out of the cubicle. DO: Know When to Work and When to Play While it's tempting to gab about reality TV for hours on end, keep the non-work-related chitchat to a minimum during office hours. If your supervisor sees you two peas in a pod slacking off on a regular basis, he's going to think you don't take your job or your paycheck seriously. DON'T: Be a Gossip The office Gossip Girl is not a role you want to be known for. If it always looks like you and your cohorts are hunched over and whispering, people won't want to work with you (or invite you to happy hour!). Being in a "clique" is so middle school! And remember: Always steer clear of bathroom blab sessions. You never know who could walk out of the stall... DO: Have a Lunch Bunch Grabbing lunch or coffee is the perfect time to take a breather and freely catch up on all those things you shouldn't be talking about at work (i.e., The Bachelorette, Core Fusion classes, and your boyfriend's inability to unload a dishwasher). Plus, it's key to take several short breaks a day to stretch your legs and get some fresh air. You'll feel rejuvenated and ready to rock that meeting you've been dreading all day. DON'T: Create Uncomfortable Situations Knowing how to keep certain work-related occurrences separate from your friendship is key. You never want to put your friend in an awkward professional position. If she just had a meeting with the boss, it's none of your business to ask what it was about. Whether she got a promotion or a stern lecture, let her come to you if she wants to talk about it. Also, don't force her into finding out information for you from people she works closely with. And avoid comparing salaries and sharing negative opinions about co-workers that she may not know well. You don't want to put preconceived notions about others in her head, and vice versa. DO: Be Team Players Many businesses and corporations offer special programs just for employees. From lunchtime Pilates classes to charity walks and neighborhood volunteering, you'll be more inclined to sign up (and actually go!) if you have a buddy right there with you. While you and your stilettos would rather stay on the sidelines during company kickball, joining the team is just another excuse to go out for pizza and wings afterward. So take advantage of it! More on Relationships
 
Alex Green: Corporate Boards, Conflict of Interest and Copyright Top
Throughout the month of August the poker game of Internet business took a vacation as Amazon, Yahoo, and Microsoft lined up in opposition to Google Inc.’s attempt to digitize the world’s entire collection of books.  In an industry where bluffing reigns supreme and overt reaction against competitors is considered a sign of weakness, each of these companies announced that they would join an organization called the Open Book Alliance in defiance of Google’s nearly one-year old settlement with The Author’s Guild of America. For years Google has been trying to find ways to digitize books that remain under copyright for Google Books, their ambitious book digitization program.  After a prolonged legal battle Google agreed last fall to pay $125 million to the Author’s Guild in return for what appeared to be a near full inversion of the United States copyright structure for printed authors.  After the settlement, the Justice Department took interest in the case and began laying the foundation for an investigation into Google.  Two weeks ago, as it became clear that the department would pursue a full inquiry, Amazon, Yahoo, and Microsoft backed the Open Book Alliance, which was established by the founder of the Internet Archive, Google Books’ non-profit competitor.  The goal of the alliance is to ensure that no single corporation gains monopoly access to digitized books and information. The idea of mass digitization of books is extraordinarily appealing, and Google is not entirely incorrect about the need for updated copyright laws.  Gordon Crovitz’s recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal clearly explains how our now outdated copyright laws were once intended to support working authors, not to impede the spread of knowledge.  Nonetheless, Google’s approach is far beyond reasonable, effectively forcing authors to invoke their copyrights while setting the legal default that assumes Google’s right to full access, digitization, and dissemination. Equally problematic is the fact that beneath the veneer of support for equal access by Amazon, Yahoo, and Microsoft, a number of their board members have direct or indirect conflicts of interest that should make their involvement in this inquiry untenable.  John Doerr, a member of Google’s board, is also a member of Amazon’s.  His colleague and partner at the investment firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield, & Byers is William Gordon, who also serves on Amazon’s board.  Former Vice President Al Gore is a senior adviser to Google as well as a partner at Kleiner.  Amazon also has a board member serving in a senior capacity with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Yahoo board member Ron Burkle currently owns an 8.3% stake in Barnes & Noble. An allegation of wrongdoing against the members of these boards would be unfounded, but it is difficult to envision how they intend to carry out their duties as directors without compromising the interests of their companies, shareholders, and colleagues.  An example of the danger of such close ties emerged last week when online classified giant Craigslist posted a blog claiming that a member of their board is, “uncomfortably conflicted,” and “obsessed with dominating online classifieds”.  The reason for their consternation is that the board member was appointed by eBay after the Internet auction company acquired 28.4% of their company last year. Rewriting copyright law by proxy through Justice Department inquiries and legal settlements is a far cry from democracy, especially when one of the private citizens with an apparent conflict of interest is a former vice president. Much like the privatization of radio in the early twentieth century, non-elected citizens who win even when they lose are governing how old media will be used by new media.  It is difficult to believe that any non-profit alliance can address this problem, nor should it be asked to.  Copyright law and its application to the Internet requires Congressional attention.  Much about the world we know will be delegated to the barons of tech, and much already has been, but the governance of copyright cannot or we endanger our access to open information and the ownership of our own words. More on Microsoft
 
Bob Lingvall: There Is a Beauty Within You: Sculpting Tools for Freeing the Angel Within Top
"I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free." - Michelangelo "In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it." - Michelangelo This is the foundation of our spiritual practice -- uncovering our perfection and beauty, "shaped and perfect in attitude and action." Now it is time to "hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition" you are. Let's begin our sculpting, setting the "angel in the marble . . . free." Michelangelo had the eyes of an artist, able to see an angel where others saw only stone. We want to see compassionate, blissful awareness where others see only flesh and blood, mind and emotions. We looked at our desires and longings for compassion and bliss ( see previous reflections and exercises: Intro , Find Your Original Voice , and Knowing Yourself as Compassionate Awareness ) to improve our vision, allowing us to see more clearly the "lovely apparition" within - compassionate awareness. But how do we free this angel? Michelangelo used a hammer and chisel. Our sculpting tools are silence, service, inquiry, and intention. Just as there are many types hammers and sizes of chisels, so there are also many types of silence and service, and ways of inquiry and intention, • Silence: We'll explore the different aspects of silence, such as non-attachment, the present moment, focus, and no thought. The various practices, method, and benefits of incorporating silence into your spiritual practice will be reviewed. • Intention: It will be our tool for sculpting what we can't see or imagine. With intention we find a tool capable of allowing us to enter into the most profound levels of devotion and self-surrender to the unknowable. • Service: It will stretch our ego to become a more accurate reflection of who we are. We'll look at service in the context of our relationships, seeing it as a primary expression of our compassionate awareness - capable of self-less service, performed without attachment to the results. • Inquiry: We will use inquiry to challenge the foundation of our self-identity, holding up a mirror up to our mind, looking for its source and nature. A sculptor uses a hammer and chisel together. When used alone they are certainly less effective and perhaps even damaging. Our work is no different, blending our practice of service and silence, intention and inquiry, becoming master spiritual sculptors over time. Exercise #5: Let's start to get in touch with how these tools (silence, service, inquiry, and intention) are active already in your life. In the coming days keep your eyes open for the appearance and expression of these four tools. To get you started here are a couple of questions. 1. Is there silence in my life? Where am I comfortable with silence? Do I feel a desire for more quiet? Does it make me uncomfortable? 2. Am I engaged in acts of service focused on the needs of others? Am I living a balanced life regarding self care and the service of others? Do I find myself drawn toward helping or assisting others? Are the circumstances of my life putting opportunities to serve in my path? 3. Is there a spirit of inquiry in my life? Do I trust myself to ask questions and find answers? Do I know how to wait and listen for the answers to my questions? 4. What are the intentions of my life? Am I aware of my intentions? Am I consciously using intention to direct my life? Share your insights with us. Looking forward to your comments. More on Spirituality
 
Jerry Cope: Sounds of Silence in Appalachia: MTR Blasting Temporarily Halted Top
On any given day 3.5 million pounds of explosives blast apart the oldest mountain range on the planet. But for the past week the sounds of silence have replaced mining blasts while Laura Steepleton and Nick Stocks have been living 80 feet up in a pair of trees in Pettry Bottom West Virginia. As a result of their civil disobedience action Massey Energy has temporarily halted blasting operations at the Edwight Mountain Top Removal (MTR) coal mining site. For the residents who live below the cessation of blasting operations means they can let their children play in the yards outside without fear of rocks striking them down. On Friday in Floyd County Kentucky, a boulder from a MTR site crashed through a home and caused two others to be evacuated. Fortunately no one was inside the home at the time. To live near one of these surface mining sites is to be in constant terror. Neither the Department of the Interior which overseas surface mining at the federal level, or the State Environmental Protection Agencies, protect the civilians whose property, water, and air are destroyed and contaminated with toxic pollutants from the insane pursuit of coal from surface mining. This is ground zero in the global fight to prevent climate chaos. ClimateGroundZero Photo In Pettry the ground support team of Kim Ellis and Zoe Beavers were arrested on charges of trespassing and released on bail ($2000). Massey is apparently content to harass the tree-dwellers with sleep deprivation and the occasional rock throw while waiting them out. The pair have enough supplies for 10 days or so. In an exchange of messages, Laura and Nick explained why they are living up in the trees. Morale is great! We're up here to protect the communities from effects of blasting, breathing in toxic dust, endangerment of flyrock, housing damages, mudslides, flooding, are everyday realities for the community. Members of Pettry Bottom, Clays Branch, and Peachtree residents have expressed fears of mountains sliding down on them, have to dig ditches in yards to contain flood water from going under their homes. They have lost faith in the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protect them, so the only choice we have is to be up here to keep them from blasting. We will come down if they shut down this site! Four repeat violations that the WV DEP has not been enforcing, cleanup slides, fix housing damages, & address health concerns. Supplies are holding fast but security has taken the tack of keeping us up at night with whistles, air horns, banging sticks, and shouting while the miners pleasantly harass us while on break. In point of fact it is the very site at Pettry where Laura and Nick now live in the trees that Massey was recently found guilty of four violations regarding MTR operations there. No action or enforcement was taken by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, which actually functions as if a wholly owned subsidiary of Massey and other coal mining companies in the state. The same holds true for WV Governor Joe Manchin and the State Supreme Court. Corruption in the State of West Virginia is complete; fear and money rule. Massey Energy campaigns on promises of jobs and prosperity combined with threats of economic armageddon if mining is regulated while simultaneously busting the labor unions, lowering wages, importing workers from out of state, and reducing or eliminating benefits. Massey Energy's CEO Don Blankenship has achieved success by raising profits and his personal compensation package while leveling mountains in the most biologically diverse forest in the world and boarding up what were once thriving communities. Politicians court his favor, employees believe there is no other employment to be had, and both sing his praises. All the while West Virginia suffers and the environmental degradation that results from MTR is permanent, irreversible, and unnecessary. Traditional underground coal mining practices are more productive in terms of the percentage of reserves recovered and the environmental impacts far less severe. MTR is not labor intensive, miners are replaced by mechanized equipment so large some of it must be assembled on-site. Surface mining practices have eliminated over 70% of miner's jobs while destroying over 500 mountains, 2500 miles of streams and headwaters - creating over 100 Billion gallons of toxic sludge in the process. Hopefully this fall the Obama Administration, The EPA, the DOI, and the Army Corps of Engineers who have collectively refused to enforce the clean water act and ban this practice will finally do the right thing. The West Virginia DEP should be eliminated immediately and oversight responsibilities vested directly in the EPA. There is no gray area in regards to MTR and there is no possible justification for ecocide in pursuit of profit. The long term costs are beyond measure. If the mining companies were held economically accountable for the direct consequences of these practices in terms of the environmental destruction which is permanent and the danger to the public health and welfare which is lethal, they would be bankrupt tomorrow. For more information and to contribute to Laura, Nick, Kim, and Zoe's defense fund please go to ClimateGroundZero . Encourage President Obama and EPA Director Lisa Jackson to personally inspect the devastation in the great Appalachian mountains. Demand the US take a leading role in establishing a consensus treaty in Copenhagen this December at the COP15 Conference to address climate change before it's too late. More on Climate Change
 
Senate Delays Climate Change Bill Top
The Senate debate on climate change will be delayed until later this fall, given that two key players have said they will not even introduce their bill until late September.
 
Steve Clemons: US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice on Karen Kornbluh's Impact on Obama Land Top
I recently had the privilege of attending the swearing-in ceremony for my friend and former New America Foundation colleague Karen Kornbluh who recently was confirmed as the new US Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice offered comments both on the personal and professional side of her relationship with Kornbluh that were remarkable in what they conveyed about Kornbluh's impact on President Obama's policy course . After the comments posted above, Ambassador Rice swore Kornbluh in -- and on a later occasion, I will post Karen Kornbluh's comments and other parts of the ceremony. Although I thought Ambassador Rice's comments are richly textured, thoughtful and quite worth listening to in their entirety, I found this slice particularly important: Karen [Kornbluh], however, is famous in this town for her cutting edge scholarship and her eloquent advocacy on behalf of work life balance. . . Karen works extremely hard. I mean crazy hard -- but she also works "smart." But as the trusted policy director in President Obama's Senate office, Karen brought together leading minds in business, technology, science, economics, energy, and foreign policy in freewheeling and insightful exchanges. And these dialogues she organized generated the groundbreaking ideas that have truly and profoundly shaped the President's thinking and many of his subsequent policy initiatives in the Senate, the campaign, and now in the administration. Karen has that extraordinary combination of intellect and creativity that lets her bring these big minds and even bigger personalities together. She gets them to check their egos at the door and work together to craft innovative solutions to complex challenges both at home or abroad In 2008, Karen changed forever the way that major political parties write their platforms by breaking free of the stale old conference rules and reaching out directly to the American people. As the lead author of the Democratic Party platform, she organized 1600 hearings across the country to create a truly open source approach to producing a new blueprint for America's future. I was proud to get to work with Karen on a portion of that platform, the foreign policy piece. I was constantly impressed, not only by her tireless energy, but by her truly visionary approach. She got ordinary Americans involved in a process and harnessed their extraordinary ideas. So that is Karen's unique genius - devising her own brilliant ideas and raising up other peoples' creativity And it served her well -- across a variety of public and private sector jobs. . . My apologies for the lackluster sound quality. When I got to the Treaty Room of the Department of State that Friday morning, I could immediately see by who was in the room and the positive feeling in the air that the event should be recorded -- and pulled out my handy "flip video" to get what I could. Congratulations Karen and family -- and thanks to Susan Rice for making this ceremony one of substance as well as honor and celebration. -- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note More on Barack Obama
 
Cathy Erway: The Pescatore's Dilemma Top
Seafood has enjoyed a long history of acceptance among people who otherwise do not eat meat. Whether for religious reasons, health or personal taste, this has helped give seafood a smack of gentility and relative animal-friendliness compared to other carnivorous choices, such as red meat. Yet today's food gurus -- scientists and writers -- are singing a different tune altogether, one that places pescatarianism at the height of ravenously irresponsible eating. "Counting fish in the ocean is just as easy as counting trees in a forest, except that they're invisible, and they move constantly," quipped a scientist in the documentary film, The End of the Line . Yet what they are able to detect is that the world's fish population has dwindled rapidly since the industrial revolution, wiping out whole stocks of species in once-plentiful fisheries. Most of these fish we continue to eat; bluefin tuna is a highly endangered species that's prized by sushi-lovers. Red snapper is universally eaten -- and overfished. An estimated one-third of the seafood we eat is in a "collapse state," statistically fast on its way to extinction. When I told a friend about the film, her eyeballs froze the size of walnuts. "What am I going to eat?" she shakily managed in response. She always ordered a seafood entree at restaurants. Another scientist interviewed in the documentary had a wry response: "Jellyfish hamburgers?" (The jellyfish population is booming due to less natural predators, as anyone who's hit the beach this summer may have observed.) Hence, our insatiable desire for faster, cheaper and more seafood has harmed the ocean's ecosystem in more ways than overfishing certain species. Depleting larger fish may have plenty more repercussions in store that we have yet to see, besides more jellyfish, algae, plankton and worms crowding the seas. We have also developed industrial fishing techniques that could soundly be described as raping the ocean. Bottom trawling (scraping large nets across the seabed) kills coral, stirs up sediment causing pollutants to migrate into seaweed and other fish feed, and scoops up large amounts of by-catch -- other sealife, like turtles and dolphins unintentionally caught and wasted. Similarly clumsy and wasteful is the practice of "finning" shark: once a rare luxury in Asia, shark's fin has found its way onto more and more tables thanks to poachers who slice off just the shark's fin, leaving the animal to bleed to death, immobile on the ocean floor. While bans and limitations have been placed, in general, commercial fishing is grossly unregulated, and the regulations in place often proven ineffective. Fifty percent of the cod we eat, for example, is illegal. A short while ago, the answer to this dilemma may have been aquaculture, whereby fish for food are farmed under controlled conditions instead of living in the wild. More than fifty percent of the seafood we eat today is farmed. But farming seafood is not all roses. To produce many commonly farmed species like salmon and shrimp, these fish are fed several times their weight in smaller fish like sardines and anchovies. Sustainable wisdom says, why don't we just eat the sardines? (Echoing the agricultural argument that cattle consume most of this country's corn crops for beef production, while the amount of calories in the corn itself could feed a small country.) Furthermore, farmed seafood contains much higher levels of mercury and other contaminants than its wild-caught cousins. Doctors ubiquitously recommend women to avoid eating seafood during pregnancy to reduce the risk of mercury poisoning in their unborn child. Then, what are we eating when we're not pregnant? More and more mercury than ever nowadays, thanks to the rise in farmed seafood. The question on everyone's mind now seems to be, how does one eat seafood in good conscience? One beacon of hope might be the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch campaign, which publishes up-to-date information on the "Best Choices," "Good Alternatives" and the seafood to "Avoid." I'm looking at a pocket-friendly "Sustainable Seafood Guide: Northeast 2009" that the organization had stocked in a nearby grocery store, for anyone to take free. There are different-colored asterisks beside almost every fish on the list, colorfully illustrating just how difficult it is to provide concise explanations to these questions. It all comes down to an issue of traceability and transparency: salmon is acceptable if it is caught wild from Alaska (where it is not yet endangered. Yet). However, "Avoid" salmon that's been farmed. Last I checked, salmon was "salmon," unless it was smoked. They say what you don't know can't harm you, but what you don't know about seafood is likely purposely kept from you so that you don't know about the harm. Here and there, fishmongers and retailers such as WholeFoods have made attempts at labeling accurate details on the origins of their seafood for sale. You'd be much worse off finding this information from restaurant menus. Commenting on the changing seascape, Mark Bittman recently wrote in the New York Times : "Say you're considering a halibut steak. The fishmonger or waiter has no clue where it's from (or may lie about it). Yet according to Seafood Watch, it could be one of six varieties, all wild. Of these, four are to be avoided under some circumstances, though all six are fine under others. Your mission -- should you decide to accept it -- is to find out whether a "set gillnet" has been used in the fish's capture, or if the hirame (one type of halibut) is from the Atlantic (avoid) or Pacific (just fine). I couldn't do this, and I'm in theory an expert." If Mark Bittman is confused about something food-related, there is considerable reason for foodie panic. Thus, I did not have an answer for my friend, who pondered the future of her fish-heavy diet. There have been other attempts at alleviating the overfishing epidemic beyond grassroots efforts to educate the public, too, but many seemed to have missed the mark , mocked the severity of the issue, or just have failed at enforcement. I would advise continuing to drill your fishmongers or servers for a reliable account on how and where their seafood was obtained. This will at least exert pressure on the establishment to find out. My other advice is a one-size-fits-all food equation, which is, simply, to know where it came from. If you can't place it, trace it, or grow it/raise it/catch it yourself, don't eat it. Eat aware. Know your food. Don't wait on waiters or institutions to come up with ways to publicize it, meet your small fishmonger and chat him or her up at the farmer's market yourself. As the Buddha instructed in the "Five Contemplations While Eating," "Think about where the food came from and the amount of work necessary to grow the food, transport it, prepare and cook it and bring it to the table." I'm beginning to think that the oldest sages had the most cunning things on this current situation to say.
 
Cheney For President, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Says Top
The Wall Street Journal 's James Taranto, launching off an anonymous-source-filled Washington Post story claiming a waterboarded detainee gave valuable intelligence, suggests that Dick Cheney may yet save America from the dangerously torture-free Obama administration: If the Bush administration's policies really did keep us safe for 7½ years, then it stands to reason that the Obama administrations' policies may be endangering us now. Certainly that is how the public would see it in the event of another terrorist attack. If that happens, heaven forbid, Obama will be seen to have failed in the most basic presidential duty, and the Bush administration will be vindicated. As inconceivable as it may seem today, the 2012 election may end up turning on national security. Republicans would be wise to nominate someone with both toughness and experience. Under such circumstances, it's hard to think of a better candidate--assuming, of course, that he could be persuaded to run--than Richard B. Cheney. The Post wrote that "for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate." Of course, like Cheney , these defenders can only claim that detainees who were tortured gave valuable intelligence, not that one led to the other. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Dick Cheney
 
Ashley Rindsberg: Who Is Fernado Verdasco? Top
There's only one place in the world where representatives from the US, Austria, Britain, Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, to name a few, are gathering to meet face-to-face to settle their differences in a civilized manner. That place is (of all places) Flushing Meadows, Queens, New York. Those representatives are the elites of international tennis. The event is the US Open. Some of the biggest news about the Open so far is that officials have put the clampdown on players' use of Twitter in the locker rooms. An interesting story -- maybe a little less compelling than this summer's stories about Iran's liquidation of even the 'pseudo' in its pseudo-democracy (the mullahs are said to prefer the term 'costume-democracy') but, still, it's the end of the season and with even the president coming off a vacay it's probably time for a little autumnal relaxation, especially after this summer's fun -- swine flu and the health care headache. Maybe for this reason, the real story about the US Open is about style. Tennis is one of the only -- if not the only -- sport in the world that brings together an international cadre of individuals to show themselves off. Probably no other sport in the world, if you think about it, is this cosmopolitan. The New York Times , always leading the way, has run a big piece about Roger Federer's style. With the golden 'F'elaborately brooched onto his shirts and his kinda-creepy Dr. Evil commie- lounge suits , the Swissman is making a splash. Well, here's my younger, sleeker Huffpo riposte to stuffy-ish New York Times ' coiffed leading netman: Spain's Fernando Verdasco . I've been watching Verdasco lately and you should do the same. As a player, he's fierce. He's got an enormous forehand. He beat #4 ranked Andy Murray this year and in the Australian Open's longest match ever came very close to beating Nadal in what some commentators said was an unprecendented display of endurance and ferocity against the game's greatest defender. Off the court, Verdasco has also got a secret weapon: Andre Agassi. Verdasco has been training with Agassi for some time now. He works with Agassi's coach, Darren Cahill, and with the star's former fitness coach, Gil Reyes. The results are clearly showing. Coming off his win of the Pilot Pen tournament, Verdasco earned this week's distinction of being the only male player in the entire ATP to increase his point ranking. But Andre Agassi also adds the value of style -- and it's no exaggeration to say that with his neon pink 1980s spandex, his acid-wash jean shorts, the hightops, and, of course, the hair, Agassi did more for the spectator element of tennis than anyone since McEnroe. Verdasco is striking out in his own suit. He is already a major celebrity in Spain, where he graces magazine covers regularly (and, regularly, without a shirt). As he slides into the single-digit slots of the top ten, and under the style-and-game-tutelage of one of the game's great's, his fame will grow. Keep an eye on Verdasco. His playing might offer an end-of-summer treat in the form of something Americans love almost more than townhall meetings: a strong upset by a stylish underdog. More on Iran
 
Jared Bernstein: The Recovery Act in Action Top
So I'm driving along a Pennsylvania highway two weeks ago on my summer vacation, radio blasting, and what do I see but one of those Recovery Act signs, touting a highway project. Jeez, I thought. Can't a guy get away from that stuff for a couple of days!? Don't worry. I quickly reverted to my economist self and applauded the infrastructure improvement, lecturing my wife and kids on the considerable multiplier effects of such spending (which led to them turning the radio up even louder). The fact is, what I saw was a small dose of the medicine from the Recovery Act making its way through one of the nation's arteries. And that road project in Pennsylvania is one of out 3,350 highway projects currently underway across the country. But what about the larger patient, i.e., the macro-economy? What are economic analysts saying about the impact of the Recovery Act thus far? As I'll show you in a moment, they're saying good things. The Act is having its intended effect of offsetting some--by no means all--of the damage caused by the deepest downturn since the Great Depression. And in tandem with our other interventions in financial and housing markets, it's helped to pull us back from that very dangerous precipice. As Mark Zandi, a highly respected economist (and former advisor to the McCain campaign) put it in a recent analysis, "The fiscal stimulus is providing the fodder for better sales. Lower payroll tax withholding, checks to Social Security recipients, and more financial help to unemployed workers are buoying household incomes. The cash for clunkers program has juiced up vehicle sales, and the housing tax credit has boosted home sales. It is no coincidence that the recession is ending just when the stimulus is providing its maximum economic benefit. " (Emphasis mine). And other economists agree about the positive effect that the Recovery Act is already having. Moody's Economy.com (where Zandi is Chief Economist), IHS Global Insight, and the Economic Policy Institute all estimate that the Recovery Act has created or saved from 500,000 to 750,000 jobs so far. The economists at Goldman Sachs think the package added 2.2 percentage points to real GDP growth (annualized) in the second quarter of 2009 and will add 3.3 points in the current quarter. That implies even more jobs saved or created during the current quarter compared to the last one. It also means that were it not for the boost the Recovery Act is giving to the economy right now, GDP would have contracted at a 3.2% rate in the last quarter instead of a 1% rate. Which raises a really, really important point--and don't even think about turning up the radio. Suppose you were, oh, I don't know ... politically motivated to argue that the Recovery Act wasn't working. You'd probably point to that 1% decline in GDP and say, "How can it be working if the economy is still contracting" Or maybe you'd point to the 247,000 jobs lost last month. Now, the President has stressed consistently that as far as we're concerned, any degree of economic contraction is too much, and even more importantly, any job losses are too many. But the independent findings cited above make the critical point that if you're only noticing that things are still bad without noticing that they're getting better, you're looking at the wrong benchmarks. The question is not: Are we still in hole? Of course we are; it took years to dig in, and it's going to take a long time to dig out. The relevant question is: Are we digging out faster thanks to the Recovery Act and our other economic policies? To that question, these independent analysts, and many others, unequivocally answer, "Yes." Just take a look at some "then and now" indicators: GDP was tanking earlier this year; it fell much less quickly in the second quarter and the consensus among private forecasters is for real GDP growth to break into positive territory in the current quarter. We're still losing far too many jobs, but the rate has significantly slowed. The fact is, you don't go from losing upwards of 700K jobs on net per month to adding jobs without passing through a period just like this one, where the loss rate slows. Home sales and prices are showing stabilizing signs. The sales data, by the way, have gotten a nice boost from our First Time Home Buyers Credit. And consumer confidence is solidly up, too. Let me be very clear about all this: We are not out of hole yet. It's important to be realistic about what the Recovery Act has and hasn't accomplished thus far. We've pulled the economy back from the brink, provided critical relief to families, communities, and states, and are now beginning to lay the foundation for a stronger, more broadly shared expansion. But we are not there yet. There are more job losses to come. Key economic indicators may have bottomed out, but they've done so at historically low levels. The economy remains fragile. But as we slowly climb out of the hole that greeted us when we got here on January 20th, let's also be sure to take note of what's working. OK... now you can blast the radio. This post originally appeared on the White House Briefing Room Blog . Jared Bernstein is Chief Economist to Vice President Biden, and Executive Director of the Middle Class Task Force More on Stimulus Package
 
Michael Pento: Banana Ben Strikes Again Top
Just when you thought it was safe to hold dollars, even for just a little while, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke once again climbed aboard his helicopter and spread some more confetti (US dollars) across the sky. Apparently having the world's reserve currency drop 13% since March, even as measured against a basket of other flawed fiat currencies isn't enough. And if you were to measure the dollar's performance against hard assets like copper since March, the currency has lost 50%. Yet despite those facts, Fed head Bernanke thought it wise to increase the size of the monetary base by $86 billion just last week alone! That brought the base total to over $1.73 trillion, the highest level since May and just $37 billion off its all time record high. Maybe he thought the rally in the stock market was stalling. Or maybe he was afraid the price of oil was having trouble breaking above $75 a barrel. Either way, it's just plain disappointing to know that even after he no longer needs to worry about being nominated to another term, he's still playing politics. I was fooled myself. I've written recently about an imminent dollar rally due to the fact that the monetary base had been dropping while bank lending was negative when measured on a YOY basis. I thought the Fed was worried about the huge build up of high powered money and had begun its exit strategy. In the long run it seems the Fed has acquiesced to the plain truth that having an $11.7 trillion National Debt means that a loose monetary policy is a necessity. Perhaps it was no coincidence the Fed increased its balance sheet in the same week it was announced that the deficit would grow by at least $9 trillion over the next 10 years. The economic reality is that when a country owes a tremendous debt; it becomes less burdensome and easier to pay off under an environment where the currency is losing value. Of course the citizens of that same country become poorer while they are taxed without their consent through inflation. It is also true that the holders of that country's debt become victims as well. Is it any wonder the Chinese are seeking alternatives to the US dollar as they move their Treasury holdings to the short end of the curve in order to facilitate an easy exit? For me this is a very tenuous position for the Fed to hold. The world's reserve currency can't inflate its way to prosperity. The danger of causing a disorderly decline of the dollar is very high. So perhaps there will be no rebound from the dollar's decline and maybe there won't be a well needed correction in the major averages-at least for now. Debtors and the wealthy will prosper as savers, creditors and the middle class continue to go broke. But no country in the history of planet earth was ever able to sharply devalue its currency while bringing about a stable economy and fostering real growth. That's because a strong currency is indicative of a strong country. One that is providing investors with solid economic growth, positive interest rates, a current account surplus and low inflation. The opposite is evident in a country that is plagued with a chronically falling currency. But eventually a weak dollar will no longer mean the market goes higher. At some point it will result in not only the end of nominal gains in the averages but a violent move lower in bond prices as well. And unfortunately, it will also result in a much lower standard of living for most Americans. The bottom line is this; a dollar rally and a coincident decrease in the value of hard assets may still occur in the short term due to their crowed trade status, but the longer term trade has to be short the US dollar and long commodities. Precisely because the Fed has made it abundantly clear that it will rely on an inflationary monetary policy to help the government pay off its debt. Michael Pento is the Chief Economist for Delta Global Advisors and a contributor to greenfaucet.com
 
Randi Weingarten: The 'Race to the Top' Has Already Started in St. Louis Top
As I embarked on the AFT's first-ever "back-to-school tour" last week, I had a feeling of great optimism, as I always do at the beginning of the school year. But it was reinforced when I was joined by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan for our first stop -- the city of St. Louis. Competition over the generous portion of the federal stimulus funds for public schools -- called "Race to the Top" funds -- is set to begin shortly. But what I saw in St. Louis demonstrated that the race has already begun, and that city's collaboration, support for teachers, community schools and innovative labor agreements could provide a model for the rest of us. As Secretary Duncan said, "Let's face it. St. Louis has struggled." A difficult history of racial tension combined with declining enrollment and resources in the public schools led to rapid turnover in the superintendent's office and, ultimately, to a state takeover of the schools in 2007. In the last year, with the appointment of a new superintendent who believes in working with teachers and their union, along with a union that has a five-point agenda for change, a renaissance has begun in the St. Louis Public Schools. Together, they have embraced new and innovative approaches to alternative education. The city has put a premium on supporting new teachers with a focused and strong mentoring program designed not only to keep talent in the system, but also to help new teachers develop their skills. In addition, St. Louis has embraced something Secretary Duncan and I both deeply believe in -- community schools. The city acknowledges that sometimes the conditions in our kids' lives hamper learning and success, and that if we can provide many of the services struggling families need through the schools, we can build better families and stronger communities, and enable our children to succeed. And there is something else -- an extra ingredient -- that lies at the heart of St. Louis' recent success: collaboration. At the Innovative Concept Academy, its founder, Family Court Judge Jimmie Edwards, told me that it took an "assembly of odd couples" to get his groundbreaking school up and running -- requiring all stakeholders to come out of their respective corners and work together for the sake of these kids who, without their help, would have a very tough road ahead. The school was focused on the 200 students in the system who had the most deeply entrenched behavior problems -- kids who had been repeatedly suspended and were on the verge of expulsion. "It is more important to collaborate for children than it is to dig in for any other reason," said the judge. AFT St. Louis President Mary Armstrong was one of the key leaders who stepped up to ensure that the teachers in this unique school had the kind of flexibility they needed to reach their students. St. Louis' approach isn't only succeeding because of funding. True reform requires more than simply funding. It requires valid, reliable, sustainable and fair policies; thoughtful implementation; and the collaborative efforts necessary for success. What we hope to see as states start to compete in the official Race to the Top is a spirit of real innovation, real collaboration and a real commitment to building programs that are branches on a growing, vibrant tree, not, as the proverb warns, branches without a tree. We need innovations that support good teaching by measuring the right things in the right way, and then using what we learn to further inform instruction -- in other words, a self-reinforcing cycle of success. I saw the beginnings of growing that tree at the Innovative Concept Academy, at Clay Elementary and at Lexington Elementary in St. Louis. I look forward to even more examples of collaboration, innovation and success as I make my way across the country visiting our schools in the next two weeks.
 
Fannie, Freddie Have 'No Underlying Value': Paul Miller, FBR Capital Markets Top
Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fell in New York trading after FBR Capital Market's Paul Miller said the mortgage-finance companies have no "underlying value" to justify a more than tripling in their share prices this month. "There is no fundamental value remaining in Fannie and Freddie, particularly since the government owns 80 percent of each company," Miller, a banking analyst based in Arlington, Virginia, said in a note to investors today.
 
Ahmadinejad's New Cabinet Is More Conservative Than Ever Top
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cabinet nominations, scheduled for a parliamentary vote this Wednesday, reveal a shift towards figures suspicious of the outside world, including some associated with the Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary group charged with protecting Iran's Islamic revolution from threats at home and abroad. More on Iran
 
Diane Francis: America's tax crybabies Top
For decades, Americans have preferred to run up huge deficits by borrowing from foreigners rather than living within their means by collecting enough taxes to cover their governments' expenditures. Any attempts to raise taxes are greeted with derision by voters who have no idea how low their taxes are compared with the rest of the world. Like others living outside the U.S., I'm very unsympathetic to this whining and deficit-riddled form of governance. It's ruinous for the rest of the world and has been a contributing factor to the economic mess we're all in nowadays. Americans are tax crybabies, but their spendthrift party will have to end. For the first time, there's hushed whispers in Washington's policy corridors of a possible federal VAT, or GST, across the land to right the listing ship of state. Some say this is impossible. After all, the President who does this must be the political equivalent of a suicide bomber, willing to die politically in order to get to fiscal heaven. Breakthrough thinking finally But no less than the great former Governor of the Federal Reserve and Reaganite, Paul Volcker, has given some, albeit tepid, support to the possibility, according to a recent Washington Post article. To Canadians, and the rest of the free/developed world, an across-the-board sales tax is not only a no-brainer but, quite possibly, a world saver now. Europeans, pay roughly 15% in VAT taxes and most Canadians pay nearly the same in sales taxes to their provinces and the feds, Alberta excepted. The Americans need to spend trillions over the next few years and can only do this through taxation, borrowing or printing. But more U.S. debt or currency debasement are dire for the world's economy and will lead to even greater problems down the road. In a probably vain attempt, I will repeat once again some taxation statistics I published in January 2009. Figures were provided by investment banker and economist DeWolf Shaw of Montreal: 1. Washington could raise US$600 billion per year or more if Americans paid a 5% federal sales tax on goods and services if it was identical to Canada's 5% GST. 2. Another US$280 billion could be generated if Americans paid slightly more than double what they pay now, or US$3.75 a gallon for gasoline, which is roughly what Canadians pay. 3. Another US$180 billion is available if Americans paid the same taxes on cigarettes as Canadians. 4. Then there's another US$355 billion for government coffers if Americans had the same liquor taxes as Canadians. The total which could be raised from all four of these is US$1.415 trillion. That is, by the way, the size of Canada's or Spain's economies. That's more than enough money to fix the fiscal mess. For those who think such taxes are job-robbers, consider the economic benefits and jobs that derive from a public sector that provides health care, infrastructure jobs or better education. Who likes taxes, but the Americans need more of them as much as they need oxygen. They also need to be more responsible in managing their affairs. More on The Bailouts
 
Marianne Duddy-Burke: Senator Ted Kennedy's Leadership on LGBT Issues: A Model for Progressive Catholics Top
Even though I knew he was in the final stages of life, when Senator Ted Kennedy died, it stopped me in my tracks. What now? Who now? Who will be the kind of leader who would stand up for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) concerns like Kennedy did? We lost a loyal friend and a powerful advocate. Kennedy was in office the entire 40 years of DignityUSA's existence. As the current executive of this largest organization of LGBT Catholics in the country, I see how hard we have worked to change our church and society. Senator Kennedy was a strong Catholic voice for equality and justice for LGBT people and he was a friend of all who suffer. He worked for justice around issues of race, gender, living wages, immigration reform, physical and mental disabilities, and many other issues. As a lifelong Catholic, myself, I know his profound commitment to social justice was a cornerstone of his deep Catholic faith. It made him a leader in striving for equality for LGBT people, and for those affected by HIV/AIDS. From employment to hate crimes to health care access to marriage equality, Senator Kennedy was a tremendous ally to the LGBT community. He fought for Ryan White funding for support services for people living with HIV/AIDS and against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). A former member of the army, he sought the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In short, he treated LGBT people and our families like any other Americans: as individuals and families deserving of dignity, respect, access to basic human necessities, and fairness under the law. He used his legislative seniority and political acumen effectively on our behalf. He will be sorely missed. Senator Kennedy was a man of the people and did what he thought was right. He knew that his stances on LGBT issues were not in line with those espoused by Catholic Church hierarchy, but his positions were always in line with the views of the majority of Catholics throughout this country. The majority of Catholics support fairness and respect for all people. Catholics like Kennedy are rooted in a fundamental Catholic principle; that all humans are equally beloved children of God, no matter what their personal circumstance or characteristics. The Senator applied the principles of Catholic social justice to our struggles for equality, as he did for many other marginalized communities. We will be looking for someone to fill Senator Kennedy's shoes--and no one will. But perhaps his leadership can give hope to the many Catholics who feel their values on LGBT issues do not agree with what they hear from their bishops. Ted Kennedy confirmed that progressive Catholics can live out their deep convictions and genuine faith even when these convictions differ from those of the church hierarchy. Kennedy's model gives progressive Catholics hope because, despite his departures from Church teachings, no Catholic Church leader ever publicly chastised Senator Kennedy for his beliefs, or threatened to withhold Communion from him, due to his pro-LGBT or pro-choice views. Rather, they praised his dedication to family, and his work on behalf of the poor and the powerless. Ted Kennedy's knew that his work for the people was consistent with his personal faith. Senator Kennedy is among many Catholic advocates who know that integrity is a powerful antidote to authoritarianism. No one person will fill his shoes--but many people will. Catholics are stepping into his shoes, the poor, those without health insurance, and LGBT people are all stepping into his shoes as we work together and follow his model of integrity--not perfection or a life without sin--but a life lived mostly for others. We will strive for lives of integrity, devotion and conscience that he modeled and we will all strive for the day that the hierarchy of the church no longer uses the tactics of intimidation to silence dissent and questioning. We will help create a Church more focused on our common humanity than on our differing opinions. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Bollywood Attracts Actors From Around The World Top
INDIPEPAL I Deepika Hariani Bollywood movies are taking on a distinctly international flavor, especially when it comes to their female actors. A bevy of new faces, from countries as diverse as Brazil, Mexico, the United States and Sri Lanka, are appearing in big budget Indian movies, adding more marketing leverage to an industry already over-run by promotional gimmicks. Moving to Center Stage This trend can be traced back a couple of years, when an increasing number of back-up dancers in Bollywood's musical sequences were from Western countries like Russia and the United States, fulfilling India's post-colonial fascination with the fair-skinned, fair-haired girl. This trend has now moved to the forefront of mainstream cinema, with Hollywood actor Denise Richards making a much-hyped appearance in the recent Kambakth Ishq, and Kylie Minogue performing a song-and-dance sequence for the upcoming big-budget movie, Blue, for which she was reportedly paid $1 million, making her the highest paid international star in Bollywood. International Aspirations But more than established artists, Bollywood is attracting newcomers who, hoping to make it big have come far from home. Jacqueline Fernandez from Sri Lanka will star in the upcoming Aladin with superstar Amitabh Bachchan, Mexican Barbara Mori will make her debut opposite one of Bollywood's most successful actors, Hrithik Roshan, in Kites, and Japanese import Chigusa Takaku will appear in The Japanese Wife. French actresses Luchiya Cats and Claudia Cielse, as well as Brazilian model Bruna Abdullah are also scoring Hindi movies. Most recently, another Brazilian model-turned-actress Giselle Monterio was cast opposite a accomplished actor, Saif Ali Khan in the romantic comedy Love Aaj Kal, where she played the improbable role of a rural Indian girl, without having any knowledge of the culture or language. And surprisingly, she pulled it off convincingly. Movies: The New Melting Pot? It seems that in Bollywood, the ultimate land of illusion, barriers of language, culture, and even swelteringly different climatic conditions can be dismissed in a jiffy. A perfect example of this phenomena is Katrina Kaif, a half Indian, half British girl who came to India with no connections and no Hindi language skills, but who in a handful of years has become one of the highest paid actresses in the industry. She is a beacon of hope for other international aspirants. Indira Verma, who acted in Gurinder Chadha's Bride and Prejudice, a British-Indian crossover film, claims that she too has Bollywood ambitions. The half-Indian, half-Swiss actor told a daily here that "if Katrina can do Bollywood films, I don't think it's too late for me either." One-off success stories like Katrina's notwithstanding, whether or not Indian audiences will accept these international faces is yet to be determined. But this current crop of global girls, with their stunning looks, great figures, and sharp ambitions, are sure to give Indian leading ladies a run for their money. For more stories from Indipepal click here More on India
 
Lanny Davis: Memories of Ted Kennedy: Teaching Me How To Be Both Liberal and Purple Top
The other night, shortly after Ted Kennedy's tragic passing, I heard Rachel Maddow on MSNBC express skepticism about those who described Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's long history of political compromise with conservative Republicans. Ms. Maddow, whose liberal views on the issues I mostly share and respect, may have mistakenly perceived that those who depicted Mr. Kennedy this way were calling him a "centrist" -- a word that, it seems, Ms. Maddow regards pejoratively. Perhaps Ms. Maddow was failing to distinguish ideology from legislating -- the difference between Mr. Kennedy's indisputable liberalism on the major issues facing America over the years versus his willingness in the Senate to compromise with conservative Republicans when it was necessary to enact legislation and produce real change. That distinction is one way in which Senator Kennedy (and similarly, President Obama) can be differentiated from some elements of the left of his party: Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Obama consider the perfect to be the enemy of the good; whereas some liberals of the more "purist" approach to politics consider the converse to be true: the good AS the enemy of the perfect, and some might even say it is better to lose entirely and have no change than to have compromised change. Take the issue of health care and the example of the "public option." I personally favor the public option, though I have serious concerns that it might lead to a completely government-run health care system without private insurance options. But compromising out the "public option" and other compromises in the House bill, which most liberals prefer without change, may be the price to get something good -- but not perfect -- through both houses with significant Republican support this year. We don't know specifically what line in the sand Mr. Kennedy would have drawn that might have led him to say, "no, that compromises too much" on the issue that he described as the most important issue of his political career. But we do have some evidence from past history. Note what columnist Steven Pearlstein recently wrote in the Washington Post. He noted that when "asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care." In 1971, Mr. Pearlstein reminds us, Nixon recognized that national health care could be a major issue in the 1972 presidential campaign and he anticipated that Mr. Kennedy could be the most formidable Democratic candidate. Mr. Nixon offered his own proposal to mandate for the first time that all companies provide a health plan for their employees, with federal subsidies for low-income workers. Note, however, there was no public option in the Nixon proposal. Mr. Kennedy rejected the proposal then, thinking it would be a financial bonanza for the insurance industry. But, as Mr. Pearlstein wrote, he came to regret that rejection. Indeed, after the 1972 reelection of Mr. Nixon, Mr. Kennedy tried to re-open discussions with the Nixon White House to accept the proposal. But by then Mr. Nixon, no longer feeling the pressures of re-election, was receptive to opposition pressures from the American Medical Association and small businesses, and thus was no longer interested. By the same token, after the election, Mr. Kennedy was under pressure from purists in the liberal and labor movements to refuse to compromise and wait for Democrats to win the presidency in 1976 in the wake of Watergate. His labor and liberal friends wanted him to wait and get 100 percent -- the enactment of a "single payer" system, as in Canada and Britain. Looking back, he regretted not cutting the 1971 deal, though it would have been far short of the "perfect" urged on him in 1973. For this reason, I cannot believe that Mr. Kennedy would have drawn a bright line, as I have heard some liberal Democratic legislators and leaders state, that without a "public option," there should be no health-care bill at all. I believe, had he been healthy and a central leader of negotiations with Republicans to get a bill enacted, he would have found a way to win significant bipartisan support, even if it meant giving up the public option, in return for passing, at long last, a mandatory-employer-based system that would subsidize the poor who lacked insurance, and as many others beyond the poor as soaring budget deficits and political realities this year would permit. And I am guessing that, for a change so mammoth affecting almost one-fifth of the U.S. economy, Mr. Kennedy would have opposed attempting to use the "nuclear option" of a bogus reconciliation budget bill to end-run Senate rules requiring 60 votes to invoke cloture, with the result of further polarizing the Senate and the country along party and ideological lines. It is my guess he would have ultimately have seen enactment of a national requirement that insurance companies insure all -- even those with pre-existing conditions or who are at health-risk ages -- as a good thing; and getting as high a percentage of the uninsured included in the subsidy as possible, even if not 100 percent, as a good first step. As Democratic pollster Geoff Garin reminded us in an op-ed on Saturday: "Democrats did not get their way on the creation of the Medicare and prescription-drug benefit but on that, too, Mr. Kennedy decided that something was better than nothing, even though seniors were required to buy their coverage through private companies and Medicare was prevented from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies for the best prices. Kennedy gave Bush [and also on "No Child Left Behind," opposed by teachers unions and many liberal groups] a victory rather than sending the Republicans to their Waterloo because he believed the result was more important than short-term politics." Regarding his willingness to listen and compromise, it should be no surprise that Mr. Kennedy, the Liberal Lion, was regarded as the most popular and effective Democratic senator by the Senate Republican caucus; no coincidence that three of his best friends in the U.S. Senate were conservative Republicans: current Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and John McCain of Arizona, and former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming. I remember the night at Hickory Hill, home of the late Robert F. Kennedy, at a fund-raiser for the RFK Foundation, when Mr. Hatch and Mr. Kennedy took the stage and, arms around each other, sang the famous song from the musical "Gypsy": "Wherever you go, whatever you do / We're going to do it -- together." My most vivid personal memory, to this day, of the Kennedy view to see life as rosy and hopeful even at moments of great disappointment: It was Nov. 2, 1976. I was 28 years old and, as the Democratic congressional nominee in Montgomery County, Maryland's 8th Congressional District, I had just lost the race narrowly. I had worked briefly for Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in the 1968 presidential campaign and had first met Ted Kennedy then. He did not forget. When I asked him if he would come into the county to campaign for me, he immediately agreed. In October, he came to Silver Spring for a campaign rally. We were optimistic and rented a hotel ballroom that comfortably would be filled with 500 people. More than 2,000 showed up. Now, a few weeks later on election night, minutes after my defeat was announced on TV, the phone rang. I picked up and heard that familiar cheerful Boston accent. "How are you feeling?" he asked. "I'll bet like #%&," he said quickly, answering his own question. "Yes, that's about right," I laughed. Then he said, cheerfully: "Then get up, get in the car, and go over to your Republican opponent's headquarters, shake his hand and congratulate him. Believe it or not, you'll shock the hell out of everyone, including yourself -- and you'll feel better if you can do that." "OK," I said, so quickly that I surprised myself. I went. And I did feel better for doing so. That was one of the many lessons Mr. Kennedy taught me -- graciousness in defeat -- over the more than the 41 years I was privileged to know him. He was my liberal icon and mentor, my political hero, my friend -- for me and many, many others across the nation. Probably most important of all, as I watched his career in the Senate, Mr. Kennedy taught me the lesson that led to the title of this column -- "Purple Nation." President Obama put it best in his eulogy on Saturday morning: "While his causes became deeply personal, his disagreements never did... He was a product of an age when the joy and nobility of politics prevented differences of party and philosophy from becoming barriers to cooperation and mutual respect -- a time when adversaries still saw each other as patriots." Thank you, Senator Kennedy. May your soul rest in peace. We shall all miss you, Democrats and Republicans alike. More on Rachel Maddow
 
Antonio Villaraigosa: LA Rx: Making Medicine Affordable for LA Top
Every day in Los Angeles, people are forced to choose between buying the prescription medications they need, and providing the basic necessities for themselves or their familes. When I was in the Assembly, I fought hard to help alleviate the prescription drug crisis. When I returned to the City as a Councilmember, I recognized that even though health care wasn't a function of the City, whatever the City had the power to do had to be done with speed and with urgency. So in 2004, I asked on the Personnel Department to find a way that the City could provide all Angelenos with quality prescription drug benefits. We partnered with Envision, a national pharmacy benefits company with a record of success implementing programs across the country. And as a result of that effort, I announced this morning that, starting today, every major pharmacy in Los Angeles will give a 5 to 40 percent discount on the prescription medication people need to live a healthy life. The LARx drug discount card is now available at local libraries, community centers, and soon, as part of your DWP water and electricity bill. Here in Los Angeles, I hope that the LARx program helps make it easier for people to get the prescriptions they need. Nobody should be forced to make the painful choice between their health and their happiness. Because in the City of Angels, they deserve to have both. Go to www.forLARx.com to sign up or learn more about the program. Cross-posted at www.mayor.lacity.org More on Health Care
 
PennyMac: Ex-Countrywide Execs' Firm Making Millions Modifying Bad Loans Top
Among the servicers participating in the government's mortgage modification program is a new recruit that's not like the others. PennyMac, a firm founded by the former president and chief operating officer of Countrywide, buys distressed home loans on the cheap with the goal of modifying them and later selling them for a profit. The company, whose top management consists mostly of former Countrywide executives, now stands to receive up to $6.2 million in taxpayer money to modify those loans, through the Making Home Affordable program. The government's incentive payments go primarily to the participating servicer, but some of the money could also go to borrowers and investors. More on Bank Of America
 
Judge Approves Expedited Legal Process For Cubs Sale Top
WILMINGTON, Del. — The judge presiding over Tribune Co.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case has approved an expedited process for court action surrounding the company's sale of the Chicago Cubs baseball team. The family of billionaire Joe Ricketts, founder of TD Ameritrade, has agreed to buy a 95 percent stake in the team and its Wrigley Field home for $845 million. Judge Kevin Carey on Monday approved a process that calls for any objections to the sale to be filed by Sept. 17, followed by a Sept. 24 hearing on court approval of the deal. Carey also granted Tribune's motion for proposed break-up fees ranging from $5 million to $20 million if the deal does not close. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) – The judge presiding over Tribune Co.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is set to hear from attorneys regarding the company's sale of the Chicago Cubs baseball team. Judge Kevin Carey scheduled a hearing Monday on a motion by Tribune attorneys outlining a two-step process the company hopes will culminate in the sale of the Cubs to the family of billionaire Joe Ricketts, founder of Omaha, Neb.-based TD Ameritrade. The Ricketts family has agreed to buy a 95 percent stake in the team and its Wrigley Field home for $845 million, but the deal must be approved by the bankruptcy court, as well as Major League Baseball. Tribune attorneys have indicated that a separate bankruptcy petition will have to be filed in order to complete the deal.
 
Mike Nellis: Creative Minds Needed -- Help Us Rename the KDP Blog! Top
It's been about three months since I headed South to Kansas to take over the online operations at the Kansas Democratic Party. I've had the chance to do some cool things and meet a lot of interesting people. But nothing has me more excited than what we'll be rolling out online in the next few months. Our new website won't be done for a little while but we're leaking a bit of it today. (I couldn't wait!) One of the newest features of our new website will be a fully functional, community blog in the style of Daily Kos. We haven't worked out all the kinks yet but we want to create a place where all Kansas Democrats could go to talk about their local party, candidates, and partner organizations. Hopefully, it will become the new standard for state Democratic Party blogs. This new blog will be 100% free to all Kansas Democrats. All we need to do to make official is give it a new name! Can you help us out by suggesting a blog name for our new community blog? You see, we wanted to democratize the process. This party isn't about me, it's about the thousands of Kansans who believe in good government and sound leadership. They deserve a place to go where they can talk about their issues and their elected officials. That's also why we want you to name it! Here's how the game rules work. We'll be accepting your suggestions for blog names throughout the first half of this week with the contest closing Wednesday night at 11:59 PM. Thursday morning, we'll select the best five names from across the state and have you vote for the blog name you like the best. Whichever name gets the most votes by Monday, September 7th at 11:59 PM will be the winner! Pretty simple all in all. If you win, you'll get to brag to all your friends and family that you named the Kansas Democratic Party's community blog. So if you've got an idea, click here to submit it! Below you'll find the email we just send out to our list for reference. Thanks for your support. Friend -- Do you have something to say, but no medium to say it? Well that's about to change. We're excited to announce that as you read this, work is being done on the new website you asked from us last June. One of the signature features of our new website will be a community blog where you can write about your local party, candidates, and partner organizations. It'll be 100% free and open to all Democrats. All we need to make it official is a new name: Click here to suggest a great name for the party's new community blog! Here's how it will work. We'll be accepting your suggestions for blog names throughout the first half of this week with the contest closing Wednesday night at 11:59 PM. Thursday morning, we'll select the best five names from across the state and have you vote for the blog name you like the best. Whichever name gets the most votes by Monday, September 7th at 11:59 PM will be the winner! We strongly encourage you to organize around your favorite name, but we'll talk more about that later. For now, if you've got a good idea for a blog name, submit it below: http://www.ksdp.org/nameourblog It's an exciting time to be active in Kansas politics, and we can't wait to hear directly from you! Thanks for all that you do, Mike Nellis Online Director -- Kansas Democratic Party P.S. This blog is about you -- don't forget to make your suggestion before Thursday!
 
George Will Calls For Pull-Out In Afghanistan Top
George F. Will, the elite conservative commentator, will call in his next column for U.S. ground troops to leave Afghanistan, according to publishing sources. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26628.html#ixzz0PnUfcXPa More on Afghanistan
 
Don McNay: The Lottery Question Top
And she never had dreams, so they never came true” -J. Giles Band As a structured settlement consultant,   I go to mediations and settlement conferences with people who anticipate receiving large sums of money. I ask every person the same question. “Forget about what is going on today.    If you won the lottery, what would you spend the money on?” The initial answers are usually vague, like “invest” or “put money in the bank.”   Then, I tell them that when I become a billionaire, I am going to buy the Cincinnati Reds. When I tell them about my lifelong desire to own the Reds, they start talking about the things that interest them. From a planning standpoint, the lottery question is a great one.   Everyone has dreams and desires but usually keep them hidden, back in the recesses of their minds.   The lottery question gets those dreams and desires out in the open, on the front burner.  Some of them have expensive aspirations (owning a NASCAR team comes up frequently).  But, usually, they want things like sending their children to a nice college, buying a particular piece of property or helping their church.  Once we start the conversation, the list gets longer and longer.  My goal is to get people to think long-term.  They need to clear their thinking of the rat race of every day life.  The lottery question makes that happen.  You don’t find many Americans who really think long-term.  Many people go through life never developing real goals or good habits.  We need a lottery question to help guide the people in Washington and Wall Street.   Those of us on Main Street need it, too.  Someone once said that American business people think quarter to quarter, Japanese business people think decade to decade and Chinese business people think century to century.  We’ve watched short-term myopia destroy Wall Street.  We need to take a lesson from our friends in the Far East.  I’ve been asking the lottery question for more than a decade.  I might have gotten the basis for the idea from the Toronto-based strategic coach, Dan Sullivan.  Sullivan has influenced me greatly.  So many of his teachings are internalized in my thinking that sometimes his ideas and my ideas get intertwined in my head.  In preparation for an interview of Sullivan I’m going to conduct this fall, his staff sent me a copy of his latest book, The Dan Sullivan Question:  Ask It and Transform Anyone’s Future.    The Dan Sullivan question is this:   “If we were having this discussion three years from today, and you were looking back over those three years, what has to happen in your life, personally and professionally, for you to feel happy with your progress?”  It’s similar to the lottery question since it gets people to project where they want to go and who they want to be.  Sullivan’s book explains how the concept can be used by everyone in all kinds of situations.   He said that you want to be around people who have a dream and you want to stay away from those who don’t.  My father always said, “If you tell me who your friends are, I’ll tell you who you are.”  Sullivan takes that thinking to another level.  You want to be hanging out with dreamers.  And you want to be a dreamer yourself.  Long ago a college friend introduced me to the J Giles song, “Angel in Blue,” and its sad lyric struck me even then.  My friend was a person who never seemed to have any dreams or goals.  I’ve always had bunches of them and I couldn’t understand a person who didn’t.  I’ve never had a person not answer the lottery question.  I think everyone has some kind of dream or goal, but it gets buried by the overwhelming burdens of everyday life.  Maybe that is why the lottery question is so effective.  It takes people away the realities of their current situations and puts them in fantasy world, where they can start clean.   I don’t play the lottery.  But I can see why so many do.  They want an easy way to make dreams realities.   I would prefer to earn my money through hard work and ingenuity.  But if a one dollar ticket allows me to purchase the Reds, I am going for it.  If people take the time to ask themselves both the lottery question and the Dan Sullivan question, it will allow them to focus on their goals and objectives.  Once they get focused on their dreams, they may actually come true.  When I take over the Reds, I will cut you a deal on some season tickets.   Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is one of the world's leading authorities in helping injured people and lottery winners deal with complex financial issues.  McNay is also an award winning syndicated financial columnist.   McNay founded McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement and financial consulting firm, in 1983. The company's primary office is in Richmond, Kentucky.    McNay has Master's Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni.    McNay has written two books.  Most recent is Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win The Lottery   You can write to Don at don@donmcnay.com or read his column at www.donmcnay.com.  You can reach him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/donmcnay and on Twitter at twitter.com/Donmcnay  McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field.   More on CNN
 
Hearing Date Set On Possible Kennedy Replacement Top
BOSTON — Massachusetts legislators have scheduled a public hearing on whether to change state law to allow the governor to name an interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Lawmakers decided Monday to set the hearing for Sept. 9. Kennedy himself requested the law change, which Gov. Deval (deh-VAHL') Patrick supports. Patrick on Monday set a date of Jan. 19 for a special election to fill Kennedy's seat. The primary will be Dec. 8. Possible contenders include Kennedy's widow Vicki Kennedy, nephew and former Rep. Joseph Kennedy, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and several members of the state's congressional delegation. Patrick says Vicki Kennedy has told him she is not interested in being appointed as an interim replacement. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Sadie Nardini: Your Yoga Poses Aren't 5,000 Years Old: A New Perspective on "Old" Yoga Top
Do you think that your headstand or Downward Dog was handed down from yogi to yogi for centuries, or when you're doing the Sun Salutation, you've joined the ranks of yogis who were practicing those same motions thousands of years ago? Then think again. When I tell people that I'm the founder of Core Strength Vinyasa Yoga , a style I created to draw students back to the powerful experience of their center in every pose--I commonly get two types of reactions. The first is, "Sounds great! I'd love to try it." The second, though a minority, tends to be quite vocal. They sputter, "How dare you tinker with the classical postures of this sacred, ancient practice? Who do you think you are? Krishna?" It's a good question, and one I'll answer, finally, here. But first, a little about my perspective on the poses, and why I think it's perfectly fine to do with them as I wish: In my teacher trainings and classes, I not only give instructions about the classical poses like Triangle or Revolved Half Moon...in some cases I improve upon them. I do this by showing students who might not be flexible or strong enough to look like a Yoga Journal cover model some effective modifications like bending the front knee in Half Moon Pose so the student can reach the ground and the core can be properly activated. I don't use a block like some instructors would and allow the straight front leg to potentially override the all-important pelvic and spinal placement. I work from the ground up. Some yogis growl when I take away their block, and their flexibility-first mentality...but most of them get the point when they are fully, finally immersed in their fantastic alignment and energetic flow. Now, this aspect of my teaching is pretty tame, and usually isn't a problem for the Posture Police among us: yogis who think that any deviation from the poses set forth in books like BKS Iyengar's Light on Yoga is tantamount to heresy. They might grumble, but they'll settle down. It's when I do any one of the next three things that gets them all up in arms. In any given class, I might, and usually do: 1. Add dancelike, wavelike or martial-arts-based movements to (and between) poses in order to unlock stuck places and reconnect the student to their optimal energy and alignment. 2. Teach poses and sequences that I created and named, ranging from Charlie's Angel's Mudra to Fists of Fire Lunges, Shakti Kicks to Fierce Lion--and many more. These poses add benefits I deem to be missing from simply repeating the same poses over and over. Plus, they're fun to do. I even teach a turbosharged Sun Salutation I call the Core Salutations, which heats students up much faster, burns more calories on average and builds greater upper body and core strength than the traditional sequence. Try if tor yourself: Here's a video of my Core Sun Salutations! 3. Either encourage students to remove postures from their practice that might not be healthy for them or don't personally teach asanas that may be classical, but also have a high injury potential like headstand, shoulderstand, and (gods forbid!) the lotus. As a general rule, I've developed a rather punk rock approach to yoga practice: I question everything, my teachers, your teachers...even myself. Assuming that something (say, the way many of us yank our feet forward in Pigeon Pose, getting the shin parallel like we see in books, but sacrificing the knee into a potentially terrible twist) is the gospel truth because you were taught it, even by someone most people have heard of, is unfortunate. Letting anyone tell you something is right for you when your knee is screaming and your inner teacher is saying "um, actually, for me...this is very, very wrong" is simply not empowering, nor even safe. Yet so many students allow themselves to give their power and innate body knowledge over to their teachers, because they must know best. And some do. But many teachers have tunnel vision when it comes to the poses themselves, neglecting to instruct towards joint, muscle, and tissue health and instead just repeat the words their teachers gave them Under the illusion of an "ancient" practice, they have forgotten to question, to re-create...or maybe they just aren't encouraged to. Read a great article on knee health from Yoga Journal So it's important to me to have a realistic view of where these poses actually originated, in order to break through their mystique enough to ask those questions. If I ever wish to add a new pose or variation to my repertoire, before I offer it to my students, I immediately look at it from a clinical point of view. I allow my knowledge of anatomy to trump the classical poses--which, surprising for many people originated not 3,500-5,000 years ago as did many yoga philosophies , but were established much more recently in the early 1800s and were recreated again in the early 1900s. There is a common misconception that stubbornly remains, which is that the yoga poses are thousands of years old, and that they have existed as one static teaching since the beginning of yoga time. This could not be farther from the truth. Though a very few poses have been recorded in the ancient texts, they were all variations on seated or supine meditation postures. There was no Triangle, no Downward-Dog. Nope...not even a headstand. In fact, there is no evidence of a traditional practice of yoga postures handed down intact over millennia. Yoga philosophy and directives about how to embark on a personal path of self-realization have been here for thousands of years. But a specific, holistic, yoga practice of physical and spiritual fitness simply didn't exist before about 200 years ago. And no, I didn't forget another zero on the end of that number. That's right: most of the poses we do in our yoga classes, whether our teacher is an Indian master or an American one, come from a much shorter lineage than we imagine. For an in-depth look at the yoga pose timeline, click here! The first workout-like practice of asanas, or poses, stem from the Sritattvanidhi, a book written in the early 1800's by Mummadi Krishnaraja, a patron of Indian culture and arts. The manual showcased 122 postures, like backbends and handstands, many of which we still practice today. However, some of the poses were clearly drawn from Indian gymnastics, such as what we know today as Chaturanga Dandasana. Shockingly to some, it wasn't a sacred move handed down from, ancient yoga sages to enlighten the masses. It was a pushup gymnasts used to get stronger. In the early 1900s, a yoga teacher named Krishnamacharya and later, his world-famous students, B.K.S. Iyengar and Pattabhi Jois, began to formulate their own takes on the Sritattvanidhi poses, and then some. Krishnamacharya pulled some moves straight from British gymnastics, which one of his main students Pattabhi Jois took forward, like the Pendant Pose jumpback of Ashtanga. BKS Iyengar, another famous student of Krishnamacharya's, created his own, very different take on those poses, and he also added his own variations. Iyengar and the others drew inspiration from the Astanga, or 8-limbed path set forth in the Yoga Sutras, but also from (often contradictory to the Sutras) sources like the Baghavad Gita and Upanisads. Though an inner spiritual tradition may be gleaned from these historic texts, as opaque and esoteric as they can be in their simplicity, the fact remains that the poses themselves were not set forth until much later. So, a few Indian men basically made up the yoga poses, men who practiced for hours a day and had Cirque Du Soleil-like bodies and aspirations. They travelled around showing their yoga prowess to audiences. Along with their spiritual expression--it was their way to attract more students. They were the yoga celebrities of their day--and still are. See a video of BKS Iyengar from the 1930s Today, some classically-bound yogis sometimes send modern teachers the message that it's not OK nor "pure" to take a page from our elder's books, and create our own styles from the inspirations of our time, the anatomical information we have and other modalities we can draw from. This, for me, would be like wearing my grandfather's clothes every day and never being allowed to buy my own or dress the way I want. Even Iyengar modified his original practice to include props, a slower pace, and more involved alignment instruction. Yet still, with all the beautiful expressions of the inner life of the yoga path, there is quite a large sect of yogis, die-hard believers in their teachers' styles, who actually become judgmental and angry when they are questioned if what was right for a few people in 1930s India may need (or want) to be modified for our 21st century practice. They cannot see the potential for self-realization or validity in something that doesn't look like what they have been taught is yoga. The issue I take with this attitude is that if no one could ever create anew within yoga, it would not be here for us at all. And then there's the my-way-or-the-highway perspective that if you've been reading my posts, you know I abhor. Evangelical yogis are strangling the life out of what should be a shared, and beloved practice. And this needs to stop. Today, we usually don't do yoga for hours a day--hours a week or month...maybe. We are more aware of human anatomy, and the toll some of the poses can take on our knees, hips and spine. Plus, it's human as well as divine to strive for self-expression, and bringing forth new yoga poses is as natural to us now as when the founding fathers did it themselves. Like us, they drew from assorted existing sources, as well as their own inspiration. For any teacher to do that as well is only to pay homage to the creative process in which any yoga practice has been brought forth. As long as the body is aligned to stay balanced, energetic and healthy, according to Patanjali, author of the formative yoga text, the Yoga Sutras, it's a yoga pose. He never gave us a list of asanas, perhaps to encourage us to forever create and re-create them according to our individual ideas of how to be within that universal flow. Planting a garden, standing still in the ocean, dancing with a child, walking with a sassy sway of the hips, hugging your loved one, my Waterfall Warrior or Core Plank--all are asanas when they keep you open to the flow of life, and more importantly--of love. Love of others, love of yourself, love for what you're doing right this instant. Some might still argue--because some always do--that the practice as set forth by the founding fathers, is complete in and of itself. The gurus have spoken, and we should need nothing more to keep the body fit, the mind calm and the heart centered. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it, as a general rule. For some people, like those who refuse to read modern books, insisting that the only "real" literature is found in the classics, taking this one-way attitude could hold them back from discovering other, equally valid forms of the living, breathing practice as today's teachers are offering it. For others, who have tried other forms and choose a classical form because it's what gets them to their bliss, then more power to them. I would say that if for you, a more "classical", set practice feels fulfilling, then by all means, stick with it. After all, the point of yoga is to connect to your awareness of the unity of all things, and become fully immersed in the powerful vitality and wisdom of your present moment. But for me, the classical moves are not enough. Of course, I could go to an Ashtanga class, and get to an inner place of unity with my true nature. I could get present and still my mind. However, my heart would not as happily be in it. It is not my preferred vehicle for self-knowledge, transformation and expression. I could also meditate just fine inside a prison cell, though I would prefer to be in Central Park. Sometimes, the environment we each resonate the most with helps us more quickly reach that place we all seek. Who can say where that spiritual park is located ....except for themselves only? Sitting in the park, surrounded by birds and lovers and trees would add a dimension of joy and aliveness that I would have to try to inorganically manufacture in a place that was not as inspiring to me. And I prefer not to waste my time getting where I need to go. And believe me, though I fully respect any other style of yoga, and the master teachers who founded them (May Sri K. Pattabhi Jois rest in peace), as much as I do my own, and though I know that classical styles ARE that park for thousands of people--they do not appeal to me, for me. My yoga is my innermost self manifested in a dance of spirit for the world to see. What I am on the inside--fierce, powerful, natural, flowing and free, comes out through the shapes I make with my body. The students who resonate with this dance come to me because that is who they are also, and my form of expression is in harmony with theirs. So it becomes them. Many students are attracted to styles like mine, or those of Shiva Rea, Duncan Wong and other modern yoga pioneers who bring their own flavor and often, their own specific movements to yoga. Yet some people won't even try a form that is outside "the right way". There is as much inherent benefit, on a spiritual, mental, emotional and physical level from poses that your knowledgeable teachers created in 1930...or last week. Just because they are newer doesn't make them any less sacred, or effective. Not being "allowed" to bring forth the practice as we feel compelled to is restrictive to our very spirits, and if we cannot move with the river of Shakti, our creative flow dwindles to a mere trickle. The practice of diving headfirst into one's potential and moving that inner strength and fire out to light the world takes many forms, and it will take many more as time marches on. It cannot be frozen in time. In the end, it's not this or that pose that makes it yoga, as much as the quality with which you come into the form. We no longer need constrict the yogi's options to only what has been taught. We are released from seeing only the past forms as sacred when we remember that the asanas, no matter how old or young, are simply vessels for that which is already inside. And like a jar of fireflies, we are free to choose the containers that best captures our spark. So when you approach your yoga practice, make it your own. Listen to your body, try new teachers, move outside the box--off the mat, even--and see where your energy needs to take you in this precious moment. You never know what you'll find when you dissolve any ideological walls and boundaries that are restricting you from uniting with your true nature of being totally, utterly present to your own love of life. Only when we let go of the belief that yoga, or anything for that matter, must remain static in order to be pure, are we free to work together to create our most life-enhancing future, filled with
 
Ruthie Friedlander: The September Issue: Behind Fashion's Most Elegant Curtain Top
Gay Talese writes in Vogueland , "Not since Sappho has anybody worked up such a lather of women as have the editors of Vogue . With almost every issue they present stunning goddesses who seemingly become more perfect, more devastating with the flip of each page. Vogue [is a] magazine that has long been the supreme symbol of sophistication for every American female who ever dreamed of being frocked by Balenciaga [or] shod by Roger Vivier..." Such is the world of Vogue -- a world surrounded by mystery, a world covered by the most beautiful -- and opaque -- black velvet curtain that has ever existed. Models, editors, designers, have all maintained an aura of haute otherness, and Vogue has been the epitome of this -- the clothing to the average American nonsensically expensive and unwearable, the articles far removed from the reality of their small towns and mass-produced denim. And for the past 20 years, Anna Wintour has reigned as Queen of it all -- or rather "Pope," as her colleague, Style.com exec fashion director Candy Pratts Price , so candidly puts it in R.J. Cutler 's documentary, The September Issue . The September Issue , released in theaters this past weekend, follows Anna and her flock through nine months worth of planning, shooting, and laying out for Vogue's 2007 September issue -- fashion's annual bible. 2007's issue marked the publication's largest issue in history, a stark contrast from this year's September issue, which now sits on newsstands looking as skinny as its creators. But what appeared on the surface to be a movie about the world of high fashion quickly developed into much more. Cutler may be credited by some as having exposed the true story behind The Devil Wears Prada, , as allowing those on the outside of this exclusive inside world a momentary glimpse. Fashion -- regardless of whether a September issue weighs five pounds or five ounces (it is difficult to write about The September Issue without noting its stark difference in ad pages compared to this year) -- must always remain aspirational. It must always be somewhat unreachable, even "scary," as Anna implies at the beginning of the film. And Cutler allows for the world of Vogue and of fashion in general to be appropriately exposed, without being stripped bare. We see first hand Anna's immeasurable iron-fisted influence on fashion's greats: A scene featuring Stefano Pilati , creative director and head designer at the powerhouse that is Yves Saint Laurent since 2004, previewing his collection nervously; of emerging designer Thakoon remembering his uncontrollably shaky hand while showing Anna his first collection at the offices of Vogue ; of Oscar De La Renta getting schooled on what to put in his Fall Runway shows. We watch editors sit timidly at her desk as Anna, in true Miranda Priestly style, rips their spreads apart ("Let's lift it," is a euphemism for "Get this crap out of my sight"). And for 90 minutes, we get to see an impeccably dressed Anna, whether it be in a casual Lacoste tee at her country home or accessorized unapologetically with fur. But there are also less expected story lines that have less to do with the intricacies of fashion than with the personal dynamics of Vogue and its larger-than-life. Most notably Wintour's relationship with the incredibly captivating Grace Coddington , the magazine's creative director, who we see dressing models, reshooting already perfectly shot spreads, and asserting herself against Anna the Great. We see the images of Anna as a mother to daughter, Bee Shaffer . Despite Bee's dismissal of the world of fashion that is her mother's entire raison d'etre (Bee just can't take it all that seriously , which elicited shocked titters from the audience), Anna's love for her daughter is made quietly but abundantly clear (despite her decision to go to law school instead of into fashion). When asked what her what her weakness is at the end of the film, Anna responds simply, "My children." (Anna also has a son, Charlie; we also didn't hear anything about their father, or any other aspect of Wintour's personal life.) The friendships, the familial relationships, everyone's unexpected humor; these are the story lines that make the film human (they give it "texture," as Coddington might say) -- and are as significant in the film as the fashion underlying it all. >>>CONTINUED: Grace Coddington, movie trailer & September Issue Slideshow Related: PHOTOGALLERY: The September Issue The September Issue [Film Site] Paris, Je T'Aime - The 20s Shoot [Style.com] Andre Leon Talley Plays Tennis [Thumbwar TV] Related on Wintour: The Summer of Her Discontent [NYMag, 1999] This post was originally published at Mediaite.com .
 
College Republicans To Identify Liberal Professors At UT Top
UT College Republicans are compiling a list of liberal professors who they claimed have a bias against conservative students. The list will include professors who students say have let their political views interfere with the way they interact with students in the classroom.
 
The Olsens Don Bunny Ears: Who Looks The Most Ridiculous In Their Animal Ears? Top
The Olsen twins were in Japan over the weekend are the latest celebrities to done a red carpet head look that involves a non-a-hat head accessory. Sometimes it's fabulous and sometimes it's really just awful. Who below, from Lady Gaga to the Olsens to SJP, wore the look best? Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Survey: Newspaper Cuts Clip Younger Workers Top
SAN FRANCISCO — Cost-cutting newspapers are losing many of their youngest reporters, editors and photographers at the same time publishers are trying to break some of their old habits and learn new tricks on the Internet. The findings emerged in a recent survey conducted by the Associated Press Managing Editors, an industry group. The report suggests the massive staff cuts at newspapers across the United States will make it even more difficult for the industry to adapt and remain relevant in the age of digital media. Most of the 95 editors responding to the August survey said their newsroom staffs had shrunk by more than 10 percent during the past year. And workers between 18 and 35 years old represented the largest age group affected by the layoffs, buyouts and attrition, the survey found. Meanwhile, the survey's respondents indicated minorities working in newsrooms were among the demographic groups least affected by the cutbacks. Most of the survey respondents said cultivating an ethnically diverse staff remains a high priority, even as their newsrooms shrink. That echoes an April survey from the American Society of News Editors, which found that daily newspapers cut 5,900 newsroom jobs in 2008 – but maintained the percentage of minorities at roughly 13 percent. The more recent survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors didn't seek to quantify the percentage of minorities currently working at newspapers. But diversity isn't just about ethnicity, said Tom Kearney, managing editor of the Stowe Reporter, a weekly newspaper in Vermont. "Because Vermont is soooooo white, diversity doesn't involve race as much as it does gender and background," Kearney wrote in his survey response. Men have been harder hit by the past year's cutbacks than women, according to the newspaper editors who answered the APME survey. The 13-question poll didn't mine a representative sample of the roughly 1,400 daily newspapers in the United States. Still, the findings highlight how staff reductions are making it harder for many newspapers to cater to the interests and needs of their audiences. "We did not have enough diversity to begin with," wrote Lyle Muller, managing editor of The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "Cutting positions put us more at risk. Meanwhile, our community is becoming more diverse so we are getting farther behind in our efforts to reflect it." Retaining younger workers may be more important than ever as the Internet reshapes the way stories and photographs are assembled and presented. While many older journalists are adapting, the adjustment presumably isn't as difficult for younger workers who have grown up with the Internet and may have honed their digital skills in college. Having the viewpoints of younger workers also helps newspapers identify trends and issues affecting younger generations. The Huntsville Times in Alabama has been relying on its younger reporters to help teach everyone else in the newsroom how to tap into popular sites like Facebook and MySpace to find story ideas and sources, said Curtis Coghlan, the newspaper's managing editor. "It really has helped our coverage become younger (in tone) and more in touch with what's going on in the community," Coghlan said. "It has really helped us get more diverse stories into the paper faster." Publishers often offer buyouts or early-retirement packages to older workers in hopes of retaining their younger – and typically lower paid – employees, said newspaper analyst Ken Doctor of Outsell Inc. But when the job cutting dictates layoffs, union rules sometimes handcuff management by requiring workers with the least tenure to be shown the door first, Doctor said. (Although a relatively small percentage of U.S. newspapers employ workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, labor unions do represent reporters and photographers at some of the largest dailies. The Newspaper Guild says it represents workers at 165 U.S. newspapers, including some weeklies.) Persuading current and prospective workers that newspapers remain an attractive career option is getting more difficult as the industry's financial woes mount. Nearly one-quarter of the newspaper industry's annual advertising sales have evaporated during the last two years, and analysts don't expect all of it to come back after the U.S. economy recovers from the longest recession since World War II. With less money coming into newspapers, a large number of employees are seeking better opportunities in other industries that offer more job security, according to the survey. "Newspapers have lost a lot of their mojo," Doctor said. "If you are 25 or 35 (years old), you are going to be part of an industry that is going to thrive in the future. That is not the way newspapers are perceived right now, rightly or wrongly." Many editors responding to the survey seemed to understand the reasons for the defections, citing lengthy freezes on pay and hiring that have made newsroom jobs less enjoyable. To lure and retain workers, newspaper publishers "should increase their pay and benefits and treat people with kindness and dignity," wrote Kristen Mustain, editor of The Grove Sun in Oklahoma. Other editors responding to the survey seemed resigned to finding ways to maintain their newspapers' standards with a less diverse staff. The Leaf-Chronicle in Clarksville, Tenn., is hoping better use of the Web can help offset its recent reductions in staff. "We still know what to do (on diversity)," wrote Richard Stevens, The Leaf-Chronicle's executive editor. "It's just harder and harder to do it with fewer resources. A main challenge now is to understand how diverse readers are using digital tools, and to remember diversity concepts when shaping digital content." More on Newspapers
 
Michael Judge: The Problem With Tarantino: He Has Nothing to Say Top
Last Thursday, the Post published Johann Hari's critique of Quentin Tarantino's latest film, Inglorious Basterds , in which Hari argued that the director's "terrible moral emptiness" is "wrecking his films." While I share the critical thrust of Hari's accusation--that is, that Tarantino's churning out opulently-made vacuities, the impeccable style-credentials of which appear to be the only reasons for their existence--I could hardly disagree more that what Tarantino's work lacks is a necessary leavening of "moral sensibility" or "responsible ethics"; simply put, Tarantino hasn't got (and, in fact, may never have had) any ideas , an element far less dispensable to a work of art than the vaguely-defined and coercive parameters of morality. In any given sociocultural gestalt , in any place or at any time, "morality" is at best a byword for the social legislation of acceptable behavior; at worst, it becomes the brutalizing thrust of the authoritarian regime, the terrorist tactics of abortion-clinic bombers and concentration camp directors, the exclusionary measure of xenophobes and economic protectionists. To say that a film, or that any work of art, fails to contain a "moral sensibility" is simply to adjudge the degree to which it falls within the bounds of respectability and politesse established in its epoch and locality; this is the stuff of such reactionaries-in-hiding as Lionel Trilling, whose insistence on "moral education" in his supremely popular and supremely banal 1950 treatise The Liberal Imagination is little more than a middle-class anachronism's attempt to force the concepts of "seriousness" and "respectability" into an uneasy marriage vis-à-vis literature and its critique. When film is primarily concerned with the edification of its (presumably White, moderate, and at least middle-class) audience and the delivery of some resounding (and resoundingly obvious) moral message, we can expect little more than the hideous banalities and half-baked piety of Paul Haggis' Crash (2004), that turgid bit of empty preaching which briefly made racial tension the Hollywood cause celèbre of its epoch and prompted numerous astonishingly insincere and naïve dialogues about whether or not we, as a nation, had "really dealt with racism"; this is, of course, the sort of question that only the White bourgeoisie can ask with a straight face, and the tendency of that cohort to adopt pet causes for exactly as long as those causes serve to distinguish oneself as a "caring individual," a "charitable capitalist," one who "understands those less fortunate"--in short, to serve as a mode of postmodern identity capital in the terms delineated by Frederic Jameson, to create a public profile for oneself on the architectonic level of a sort of ür -Facebook--is one of its many sickening and venal qualities. Movies centered around the hamfisted repetition of some moralizing truism or vague Unitarian Universalist cliché ("Family is important ... in the end, you get what you give ... we're all just brothers and sisters ... yawn" ) are doomed to the stifling mediocrity and mouthpiece-for-power-structure status that the visionaries of the French New Wave referred to by that marvelously poisonous epithet, "the tradition of quality." Here, then, is Hari's principle error, and it's instructive to compare Tarantino's ostensibly "amoral" or "immoral" depiction of violence with an auteur, Stanley Kubrick, mentioned alongside Tarantino in the implication that his stylizations and understandings of the violent gesture are somehow "more moral" and therefore better. Unfortunately for the moralist argument, there is perhaps no modern film more equivocal and ambivalent about the nature of violence and the uses to which it may be put than Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971): this vicious and surreal satire of the changing nature of political power pillories precisely the notion of morality as a behavioral code divorce from regime change and economic exchange and examines the mechanisms by which a given era's moral conception changes to fit the purposes of its sociopolitical power-brokers. Protagonist Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell's legendarily bravura performance) is, as the contemporary press for the film put it, principally interested in "rape, ultra-violence, and Beethoven"; he and his less "politic, cautious, and meticulous" band of Droogs roam the streets of an apocalyptic London torturing and abusing whatever human objects of fancy stray across their anarchic path. When a power struggle erupts between Alex and the gang, the once-loyal Droogies betray him by leaving him battered and unconscious, and thus easy prey for the police who have as yet failed to pin anything on him, after his murder of an eccentric spinster. (Note here that Alex is not necessarily taken in because this crime exceeds his former deeds, because it constitutes a more serious violation of the moral code--it's quite simply the result of infighting and politicking.) Upon his capture, he submits to experimental psychotherapy that sears into his neurons an indelible association between violence (and, quite by accident, Beethoven's 9th symphony) and feelings of nausea, asphyxiation, and imminent death that makes it quite literally impossible for him to resume his former hellion's regimen; when, in turn, this therapy drives him to attempt suicide, the Minister of the Interior who championed its implementation has the therapy reversed and brings Alex into his inner circle as a poster-child for the lenience and understanding of his administration. Aside from the fact that Kubrick's film is remarkable qua film in virtually every aspect, one of its most striking features is the absolute lack of ethical outrage with which Alex is treated and the social critique associated with that treatment: his behavior is only "wrong" (that is to say, "illegal") at the outset because it conflicts with the public face of a British parliament that promised to eradicate crime in the streets, and that same behavior, unmodified and reinstituted with a vengeance, is only "right" at the film's conclusion because it serves as proof that the same parliament will refuse to resort to coercive, torturous means to achieve that goal (shades of our own beloved Bush and Cheney here, who instituted torture to combat the inhumanity of torture). Morality as a static and abiding proposition has less than nothing to do with Kubrick's sardonic vision; morality as one more arrow in the quiver of political manipulations, everything. Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds is certainly no more a violation of moral taboos than was A Clockwork Orange at the time of its release (it was rated X for two years in the United States and thereafter only available in censored form for over a decade; in the UK, the uncut film was nearly impossible to see until the late '90s, and Kubrick had his life threatened and was accused of inspiring copycat crimes): the problem is that Tarantino's violence, and by extension Tarantino, haven't got anything to say. Hari's article is correct to note that Basterds , like most of the director's oeuvre, consists of film-history references and stylistic tropes divorced from any sense of meaning apart from their self-contained connoisseur cachet, but he would be hard-pressed to argue that the better films from which Tarantino draws his stylistic gestures--'60s and '70s American exploitation flicks, vintage film noir , the surreal expressionist horror of Italian gialli , among others--are more "morally concerned" or "ethically responsible." Very few bodies of cinematic work, for example, can lay claim to a more paranoid, cynical, and resolutely amoral understanding of world-processes than the golden-era films noirs , and the crucial difference between The Third Man, Out of the Past, or Touch of Evil and Tarantino's borrowings from suchlike films thus lies in his omission of there being any idea behind his depictions and techniques. If anything, Basterds in its worst moments swings perilously close to a jingoistic moralist's anti-Nazi revenge fantasy: the final sequence in which Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) carves a Swastika into the forehead of defecting Nazi intelligence agent and "Jew hunter" Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) is the moralizing S&M fantasy of a naïve historian who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still believes that Nazism was somehow to be viewed as exceptional among the numerous political power systems founded upon exploitation, ostracism, fear, and murder (these including our own). Much more remarkably absent from Basterds is any notable level of intellectual or conceptual engagement--rarely has a movie about such a cataclysmic event had so incredibly little to say about its subject. On the technical and stylistic level, it can't be denied that Tarantino still manages the occasional sparkling passage: Landa's virtually monologic opening exchange with a French farmer whom he suspects of harboring Jews is a taut, swift piece of scripting, and the excellent Michael Fassbender is pitch-perfect as the witty, debonair proto-Bond Lt. Archie Hicox. Ultimately, however, these interludes consist mostly of the skillful deployment of cliché, reference, and cultural archetype, and with nothing resembling an idea lurking beneath their impressive surfaces, one wonders why a self-professed student of film history like Tarantino considers them, or any of his work, necessary.
 
Bill Matthews: Two Years Before it's Discovered Usain Bolt Is Doping, He Sure Is Fun to Watch Top
(MADRID) In a couple years, we'll find out he's been doping. But in the meantime, Usain Bolt gives us all something we can temporarily believe in. "I'm really enjoying being a role model for kids, showing them what you can do and how the possibilities of life are limitless as long as you don't get caught cheating, which is what I intend to do for as long as possible," said the irrepressible, fun-loving Bolt. Sure, in two years, the source of Bolt's inhuman speed will be revealed as coming from a needle. But until that dark time, we can all just be wowed by his amazing feats, from the 9.69 he ran a year ago in the 100 meter dash at the Beijing Olympics, to the astonishing 9.58 he ran in August at the World Games. "He's such a great story, such a great thing for track and field, at least until the revelations about his abuse of illegal substances completely destroys the sport in 2001," said legendary sprinter Carl Lewis. "Maybe he can stop investigators from finding out until the next Games, in 2012, but that's probably asking too much." Bolt was never competitive in the 100m dash until just before last year's Olympics. Since then, however, he has shaved .16 seconds off the world record. The previous .16 drop took nearly 20 years. He also obliterated Michael Johnson's record in the 200m, running an unbelievable 19.19 seconds. "It's a fairytale, my life," said Bolt, striking one of his 'Lightning Bolt' poses. "I came out of nowhere, much like Flo-Jo, to blow away all these records. You have to love my enthusiasm for not getting caught yet." Flo-Jo--Florence Griffith-Joyner--came from practically nowhere in 1988 to smash the women's 100m and 200m records. She, like Bolt and Marion Jones, never failed a drug test even though at 29, she began to resemble Hulk Hogan and surpassed her personal best by nearly half a second. Jones, the closest thing to Flo-Jo that women's track has seen, was disgraced after lying to federal prosecutors. She had to forfeit all of her Olympic medals. In two years, when Bolt has to return all of his medals, his teammates will too. Nesta Carter, a teammate on the gold-medal-winning 4x100m relay, said he'll be disappointed, but only for a while. "I know it's coming--we all do, really--so we're pretty prepared for it," Carter said. he then added with a laugh, "I'm just happy that no one's looking at my training regimen too closely." Bolt said anyone can tell how he's made his tremendous strides. "Better training, more focus, an improved diet, natural physical growth, and a steady stream of illegal substances are all what make me the best. I'm going beyond what a human should be able to do and not doing it fairly," Bolt said. "But until you find out what I'm doing illegally, just think of how good Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire made you feel during the home run race in 1998. Just sit back and enjoy this ride."
 
More City Workers To Be Laid Off Top
Eighteen city workers in Chicago will receive pink slips due to a lack of state funding.
 
20 Ridiculous Ads On Teddy Kennedy Videos Top
This isn't photoshopped, fake or Microsoft Painted in any way. This is REAL TALK. These are screengrabs of some of the ads running on YouTube videos concerning Ted Kennedy's death and funeral. Google prides themselves on being leaders in targeted ads, even when it comes to targeting people seeking information on the brain cancer death of an American political icon.
 
William Bradley: Mad Men: "My Old Kentucky Home" -- HuffPost Review Top
Season 3's third episode, named for a stunning Roger Sterling musical interlude, is as much about tone as advancement of the plot. And a surprisingly musical tone at that. As always in these reviews, there be spoilers ahead. So if you've not yet seen the episode, you can't say you haven't been warned. If you missed the previous episode, here's a quick recap. "My Old Kentucky Home" is structured around four fronts. Three of them are parties, though only two are scheduled to be parties, and one is the inevitable Don and Betty Draper home front. Which was better than those who don't yearn for the domestic scenes might have expected. As for the plot, the biggest advances came for Peggy Olsen's storyline. Yes, she does want to smoke marijuana, and yes, it stimulates her creativity. Or perhaps her underlying workaholism is just so strong that she feels compelled to work to compensate for getting high. Yet I digress, for a moment. The rest of the episode focuses on tone, character, and establishing new threads and playing along established threads. And some ominous hints about the corporate disarray at Sterling Cooper. Back to that episode title. It is in fact the notorious old song, complete with lines about happy "darkies" in the cotton fields, sung by Roger Sterling -- in black face! -- at his "Derby Day" party at a Long Island country club. Roger's actually a good singer, which makes it all the more appalling because he is not playing it for laughs. It may be that Roger Sterling is not as cool as we'd like to think. Don Draper seems far less amused with his old pal than he used to be. As he and very pregnant Betty prepare for the party -- which serves as a sort of coming out party for his 21-year old ex-secretary Jane as Mrs. Roger Sterling, hostess with the mostest -- he's already grumbling about the party. And his mood is not improved with his father-in-law, whose mental faculties are failing him and who Don rather impulsively installed in their home, proceeds to make a federal case out of a missing $5 bill. Which Don naturally offers to replace, only to be immediately rebuffed. But we know where the fiver's disappeared to; into the guilty little paws of adorable little Sally Draper, who needs even more attention than getting to read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" to Grandpa Gene. While this domestic drama wends its way forward, the Drapers make their way from Westchester County to Long Island for the big soiree. Meanwhile, two other parties are in the works. Because of a screw-up by new accounts co-chiefs Pete Campbell and Ken Cosgrove, the younger creative types have to work on the weekend to come up with a new campaign for Bacardi rum. Resentful, they proceed to get sloshed on the booze while trying out slogans on one another. Soon they're in search of more potent inebriation. The essential milieu of Mad Men is not all that admirable. In another part of Manhattan, the real hostess with the mostest, Joan Holloway, is putting on a small dinner party for her new doctor husband and two senior medical colleagues and their wives. She's a whiz, naturally, just as good at putting together a dinner party, and saving it, as she is at not so subtly running the office at Sterling Cooper. Which probably had Joan, Roger Sterling's longtime backdoor girl, recalling her earlier encounter with the new Mrs. Roger Sterling at the top of the episode. Joan hadn't been very nice to Jane, trying to fire her after a harmless prank, which is ironically what brought Jane together with Roger. So Jane, not surprisingly for someone 21 and foxy, rubs her new status in Joan's face. And all that was probably particularly galling to Joan as she realizes midway through her dinner party that her perfect doctor husband, who has a decidedly nasty side we don't see in this episode, screwed up an operation and may not make it to the top the way she'd imagined. Indeed, the mention of his medical mishap cast such a pall over the gathering, especially over the new hubster's face, that Joan is literally beseeched to save the party through her singing. And so we have another musical interlude, with Joan, accompanying herself on accordion (!), producing a fetching version of "C'est Magnifique." Somewhat less magnificently, completing the episode's musical trifecta, the unhappy weekend workers (imagine working on a Saturday!) back at Sterling Cooper show us that Paul Kinsey, in addition to being pompous, can actually sing. Which he first does on a dare from his old Princeton classmate-turned-drug dealer who turned up with the marijuana and decided to hang out, then in a glee club harmony with Mr. Pusher Man. To which Peggy says the only appropriate thing: "I'm so high!" Peggy has a rather motherly new secretary, having dumped the one we saw in the season opener. She had the bad habit of paying much more attention to the attentions of "Moneypenny," the assistant to the agency's new British overseer, than to her own boss. We don't see the Brits at all in this episode, incidentally, including at the big Roger Sterling party. Which doesn't seem like a good omen for corporate relations. Peggy's new secretary is worried about her young superior's smoking marijuana and all, which she finds quite scandalizing. But Peggy reassures that she's going to be fine in the agency, which means that they'll both be fine, and that this young proto-feminist is going to fly. And while you're at it, get me a glass of water and set up the dictaphone, because there's some advertising to be conceived. While that takes care of all the musical interludes, I haven't mentioned the dance number yet. Yes, this was the variety show episode of Mad Men . Meet Don Draper, the protagonist/anti-hero of Mad Men . Don Draper is really not thrilled with the Roger Sterling party, especially after Roger's little vocal performance. He wants to leave, but Betty wants to stay. Among other things, there's lots of really good food, and she's thankfully stopped trying to diet her way through her pregnancy. Pete Campbell's wife Trudy, who is actually charming, is doing the best of any of the wives at helping promote their husbands, and befriends Betty, who accompanies her to the ladies room. With Trudy stuck inside in a typical line, Betty has a very intriguing encounter with a suave political type who introduces himself only by his first name and proceeds, with Betty's rapt acquiescence, to feel up her very pregnant belly. Later we find, through his introduction by Bert Cooper, that he's a top aide to not long divorced New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who has that day scandalized the political world by marrying the just-divorced ex-wife of one of Rockefeller's close friends. Cooper's upset, as that means the Republicans will likely be stuck with Barry Goldwater running against President Kennedy in 1964. Why'd Rockefeller do it? "Love," explains the Rockefeller aide, making discreet eyes with Betty Draper. Earlier, Don Draper has a now familiar character moment, when he encounters a fellow sympathizer to his view that the place is filled with stiffs, an older fellow from the Southwest who I'd bet is actually the richest guy on the grounds. He says he's a registered Republican, like most of the folks there, but he really feels like he wears the head of a jackass. Which is to say, a Democrat. He also does a "Great Gatsby" riff about being entranced by the lights of the elegant parties as a kid and then finding out it's not nearly so nice inside. Don, who has the amusing habit of opening up to strangers who, naturally, don't know who he is, recounts his teenage story of working at a roadhouse where he wasn't allowed to use the facilities, leading him to piss into the trunks of "the fancy people's" cars. In case you missed the season opener, here's a quick recap. Don Draper, meet Dick Whitman. Roger Sterling, who is not a stiff, urges people to dance, though not, notably, his own very young and not quite steady wife, who's beginning to unfurl her sheets to the wind. Then, in a moment almost as disconcerting as Sterling's black face rendition of "My Old Kentucky Home," Trudy and Pete Campbell cut the rug with a dance contest-worthy version of ... the Charleston! Speaking of time warps, the show did a good job of getting viewers -- especially those who recall his mistaking daughter Betty for his late wife -- to think that something bad is going to happen between little Sally Draper and Grandpa Gene in this episode. His dissatisfaction over the loss of his $5 bill does not abate during the episode. Now, the actor who plays Betty's father, Ryan Cutrone, played the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 24 , so he can do intimidating. With the tension mounting, young Sally, guilty and scared, tosses the purloined fiver onto the kitchen floor as dinner is about to begin. And then "discovers" it. Grandpa Gene's mind may have some major gear slips at times, but he's no dummy. Nevertheless, the tension builds during dinner as you wonder if he will lash out at the child. After, as she says a half-hearted good night, he grumps as he orders her into his room. But he hands her the big history book and asks her to pick up again where they left off. All is well. All is decidedly not well at the tail end of the Sterling soiree. The very young Mrs. Sterling, drinking her way through the day to cover her nervousness, has forgotten to eat. With Don and Betty on hand, she gets a plate of food for herself, but drops it and then falls. She babbles about how beautiful Betty is and how Don must love to just look at her and she knew when she was Don's secretary they'd get back together, punching the insecure Betty's departure button. And since improving matters is clearly not on the agenda, Jane tells Don she's a nice person and wonders why he doesn't like her, all the while grabbing at him in her effort to stand up straight. Cue Roger Sterling, who wonders what on earth is going on. "Your wife is drunk," Don says quite coldly to his old friend, who wonders what he did to get under Don's skin. Oh, let's review. You used Don's line out of context as an excuse to your wife of 25 years why you had to divorce her and marry Don's 21-year old secretary, which caused the sale of Sterling Cooper (in order to pay for your divorce) to a big British firm which is screwing up the business and Don's professional life. Are we missing anything? Wounded, Roger tells Don that people can't handle his "conspicuous happiness." In a wounding place, his simmering pissed-off mood breaking through, Don tells Roger that "People don't think you're happy, they think you're foolish." Yet there Roger and Jane are at the end, poignantly shuffle dancing without music, looking much more happy than not. Which leads Don to seek out Betty at the end of the lawn in the dark, embracing her as passionately as we've seen in a long time. A most romantic ending for an episode of Mad Men . That means it's probably not a good omen. Next week, hopefully, on Mad Men : No singing, no flapper dancing. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
 
International Rescue Committee: Refugees lose Three Inspiring Champions Top
by Anne C. Richard (This post originally appeared on The Huffington Post on August 27th, 2009). Over the past year, three Americans who served as leaders of humanitarian causes have succumbed to cancer. They shared an outspoken passion for the cause of aiding refugees and other victims of oppression, war and poverty, but they also shared something rarer: the ability to translate concern into action. The Statesman and Legislator: Senator Edward Kennedy's interest in refugee issues dates from the 1970s, and I can personally attest to that. Nearly 30 years ago, as a student at Georgetown University in Washington, I walked to the State Department to hear him speak about Vietnamese refugees. I found the Senator's remarks and the energy he brought to the issue remarkable. He became the author and driving force behind the Refugee Act of 1980, which moved the country from an ad-hoc program to bring refugees to the U.S. to a formal partnership between government and private organizations with annual goals for refugee admissions. His Senate office regularly produced staff members who would become foreign policy leaders in their own right. A year ago, I finally got the chance to meet Senator Kennedy in person. In a small room off the Senate chamber, the Senator met with a group from the International Rescue Committee, led by his sister, Jean Kennedy Smith. He had squeezed the meeting in between giving an interview to a Boston reporter, receiving a delegation of Irish officials, and votes on the Senate floor. He interrupted our rehearsed points on the Iraqi refugee crisis -- he already knew all about it -- and refocused the conversation on what should be done next. He had already overseen the passage of legislation that gave sanctuary in the United States to Iraqis whose lives were threatened because they had helped Americans. Now, he pledged both staff resources and his personal energies to continue to help refugees in need. The Spokesman: Kenneth Bacon had been a long time Wall Street Journal reporter before accepting the post of chief spokesman at the Defense Department in 1994. In that role, he became known to a wider public as the unflappable bow-tie-wearing man behind the podium at the Pentagon, explaining U.S. involvement in wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. But it was in his third career -- as the president of Refugees International, a group that reports on humanitarian crises and advocates on behalf of refugees -- that Ken may have rendered his greatest service. He spoke out on behalf of the vulnerable, displaced and dispossessed all over the world, and put in many hours traveling to Sudan, Iraq, Cambodia and the Thailand-Burma border. While his colleagues at Refugees International may have written the essential reports analyzing crises, Ken was the one who translated their recommendations into plain English and got them published in newspaper op-ed pages and on television, radio, and the internet. He was a genius at finding ways to get often neglected stories covered by the media. He did all this with a clear voice that was always rational and never shrill, using the same reasonable, informed tone whether talking to refugees in camps, policy wonks in Washington or world leaders at conference tables. The Advocate: Julia Taft died a year ago, in August 2008. She was born Julia Vadala, the daughter of an army doctor and his wife, and married into the famous Taft family of Ohio. She and her husband, Will, moved comfortably in Washington foreign policy circles and took turns serving in government while raising a family. Julia Taft directed the Interagency Task Force on Indochina Refugees for President Ford, led the government's response to foreign disasters in the Reagan Administration and served as an assistant secretary covering refugee policy in the Clinton Administration. In between these tours in the government, Taft led Interaction, the coalition of relief and development aid agencies, and spearheaded reforms at the UN. I worked alongside her in the Clinton Administration and afterwards and learned a great deal about the importance of speaking out. I adored her fearless approach to seemingly intractable problems and her ability to convince decision-makers (often all men) to cooperate. In times of crisis, whether in Southeast Asia, the Horn of Africa, or the Balkans, Julia became the hub through which information flowed, decisions got made and government assets, from food to military cargo planes, moved. She was approachable and could always be found outside after a meeting taking a cigarette break and ready to mentor younger staff. She would be up to speed on emerging crises and several steps ahead of the rest of us. Her greatest talent may have been spurring the reluctant to take action. In the last weeks of her life, she was working the phones from her sickbed challenging us to do more. With the passing of these three heroes, the community of activists, aid workers and donors who care about refugees and relief work has been diminished. In reflecting on their lives we see that they had several things in common: a passion for and mastery of the issues; a strong desire to help the most vulnerable; the ability to work in a bipartisan fashion and inspire platoons of younger colleagues; and voices that could make themselves heard. Their examples challenge all of us to do what we can to carry on their important work. Anne C. Richard is a Vice President at the International Rescue Committee, www.theIRC.org .
 
Atlanta's Next Mayor Could Be White Top
ATLANTA — The city that became a post-civil rights movement emblem of the political power held by African-Americans could have a white mayor for the first time in a generation – a possibility that has some in the black community scrambling to hold on to City Hall. Atlanta Councilwoman Mary Norwood, who is white, is one of the front-runners for the Nov. 3 election, along with City Council President Lisa Borders and state Sen. Kasim Reed, both of whom are black. All three have bristled at a racially charged e-mail circulated by a black leadership group calling for Norwood's defeat before a possible runoff. If the black candidates split the African-American vote, Norwood may find herself in a runoff, where she could benefit. "Blacks do not return to the polls in a runoff, historically," said Clark Atlanta University political science professor William Boone. "It's going to be very interesting. This is the election that some folks had talked about was coming." Atlanta, which has billed itself as "the city too busy to hate," elected Maynard Jackson as its first black mayor in 1973. Blacks who had won the right to vote less than a decade earlier rallied behind Jackson, who forced the city's white business elite to open their doors to minorities and adopted strict affirmative action policies. His election solidified the voting power of urban blacks, and the city has elected black mayors since. And while blacks have been the majority population and voting bloc in the city for decades, the demographics have changed in recent years. A large voting bloc – residents in the city's public housing – was erased as Atlanta's crumbling projects were demolished over the past decade. And young professionals, black and white, have flocked to opportunity in the city. In 2000, Atlanta was 33 percent white and 61 percent black. In 2007, the numbers were 38 percent white and 57 percent black, according to the U.S. Census. In addition, blacks may no longer feel obligated to elect a black mayor, Boone said. "You have a young generation of blacks – not native to Atlanta – who don't necessarily see that as something that has to happen," said Boone, who is part of a group that circulated the racially-charged e-mail. "They may be staking their vote on matters more critical than race." However, a group of black community leaders is urging black voters to rally behind Borders, whose grandfather desegregated the city's police force and who was recently endorsed by the city's black clergy, to prevent a runoff that could hand Norwood a victory. In late August, an incendiary and widely circulated e-mail specifically noting Norwood's race began circulating among black Atlantans, encouraging them to back Borders. "Time is of the essence because in order to defeat a Norwood (white) mayoral candidacy we have to get out now and work in a manner to defeat her without a runoff, and the key is a significant Black turnout in the general election," the message sent by the Black Leadership Forum reads. "There is an unstated assumption that having a black mayor in Atlanta is equal to having a black social, economic and political agenda or at least someone in office who would be sensitive to that agenda if not a full promoter of that agenda ... A black agenda would better enable us to have our interests respected by and our influence realized in any administration." Borders is seen as the more formidable challenger to Norwood, but Reed, an Atlanta attorney who ran current Mayor Shirley Franklin's two successful campaigns, was recently endorsed by civil rights icon and former Mayor Andrew Young and enjoys support from the city's young, black professional community. They and Norwood, a former radio executive who also heads an automated telephone call business, are among 13 mayoral candidates – at least four of them white. Franklin, who became the city's first female chief executive in 2002, is limited to two consecutive terms and will finish her second with mixed reviews. Borders, Norwood and Reed have all denounced the Black Leadership Forum's e-mail and attempted to shift the conversation away from race. Norwood, who so far has not been embraced by any prominent black Atlantans, would be the first white woman to run the city. For eight years, the petite, scrappy 57-year-old has held a citywide post on the 16-member Atlanta council, where she is one of five white members. She said her approach is more on results than race. "We all come in our packages," she said. "This is the package I got." Not that Norwood is averse to using racial symbolism. Her campaign headquarters is in the former offices of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, co-founded by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1957. And when she won support from the city's firefighters, she announced the endorsement from a shuttered fire station in the heavily black West End neighborhood, home to some of the nation's best-known historically black colleges. David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington said cities with large black populations like Gary, Ind., Philadelphia, Baltimore and St. Louis have all had white mayors in recent years. "African-Americans are very pragmatic. When they look at politics, they look at what's going to work," Bositis said. "It's perfectly fine if a white mayor gets elected with black support. On the other hand, it's not a good sign if you have ... a white candidate getting elected with white votes. It's an indication of polarization." ___ On the Net: Lisa Borders: http://www.bordersforatlanta.com Mary Norwood: http://www.marynorwoodformayor.com Kasim Reed: http://www.kasimreed.com More on Civil Rights
 
The Gang Of Six: Dickipedia Top
The Gang of Six (born July 17, 2009) is a bipartisan group of centrist and conservative Senators urging delay in consideration of health care reform, thereby ensuring that the Obama health care plan will not be passed, not before the end of the 2009 Congressional session, not ever. Comprised of six members who are all dicks in their own right, the Gang of Six is an excellent example of Gestalt dickery, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its dicks. The Gang of Six halted progress on a potentially historic piece of legislation by mailing a letter of concern to Democratic and Republican leaders. This is the pussiest form of political protest since Sinead O'Connor ripped up that photo of the Pope on "Saturday Night Live" after singing an a cappella version of Bob Marley's "War." Remember that? WTF, right? By the way, despite having a name that sounds like a super-villain organization--form of "Filibuster!"-- the Gang of Six is also the pussiest gang since Fred, Daphne, Velma, Shaggy, and Scooby. They may as well all be wearing neckerchiefs. Wimp-ass or not, initiation into the Gang of Six still involves killing people, just slowly, while they wither away in the waiting room at an understaffed free clinic. The Gang of Six is totally cock-blocking Barack Obama, right when he needs to get laid the most. Legislationally-speaking, of course. You'd imagine the Obamas still hold regular press conferences in the Rose Garden, if you know what we mean. They do it. Have sex. Jeez, do you really need to have it spelled out for you like that? More on Dickipedia
 
Matthew Alexander: McCain Backs Torture as Recruiting Tool for Al Qaida; Policy Led to the Deaths of U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Top
Since writing an op-ed ( "I'm Still Torture by What I Saw in Iraq", Nov '08 ) for the Washington Post over nine months ago stating that the U.S. policy of torture and abuse was Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and ultimately caused the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers in Iraq, several critics have questioned the validity of my argument. I based my opinion on my personal experience in conducting and supervising over 1,300 interrogations and on statistics compiled by my Task Force and briefed to us by a DoD expert on foreign fighters in Iraq. I was not the first to make this argument about torture as a recruiting tool, but I was the first to say that the policy of torture and abuse was directly linked to U.S. deaths in Iraq. It's a hard pill to swallow, but true. Former Vice President Dick Cheney called torture as a recruiting tool for Al Qaida a 'mantra' and stated that it was untrue. Wayne Simmons, a former CIA agent, called it 'preposterous' when I made this argument over the past weekend on Fox and Friends . Ann Coulter questioned it. Bill O'Reilly. Laura Ingraham. Brit Hume. And a host of others. Of course, none of the above mentioned individuals have interrogated an Al Qaida member, and with the exception of Wayne Simmons, worked as an intelligence officer or served in the military. So let's turn to individuals who have supported this argument. This weekend on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Senator John McCain had the following to say: I think that these interrogations once publicized helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq who told-- who told me that. He goes on to say: I was in -- Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in -- in Camp Bucca, the twenty-thousand-prisoner camp. We met with a former high-ranking member of al Qaeda. I said, "How did you succeed so well in Iraq after the initial invasions?" He said two things. One, the chaos that existed after the initial invasion, there was no order of any kind. Two, he said, Abu Ghraib pictures allowed me and helped me to recruit thousands of young men to our cause. Now that's al Qaeda. Former General Counsel to the Navy Alberto Mora has stated this same conclusion in testimony to Congress more than a year ago. He said: There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. General Ray Odierno: The graphic revelations of detainee abuse motivated some terrorists including foreign fighters from Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to join the jihad. General David Petraeus: An influx of foreign fighters from outside Afghanistan and new recruits from within Afghan could materialize, as the new photos serve as potent recruiting material to attract new members to join the insurgency. From the SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY: Treating detainees harshly only reinforces that distorted view, increases resistance to cooperation, and creates new enemies. In addition, the following individuals have reached this same conclusion: Admiral Mike Mullen, (Ret) Admiral Dennis Blair (Director of National Intelligence), and Richard Clarke (former Chief of Counterterrorism). Those who call this argument 'preposterous' or dismiss it as a political 'mantra' are living in denial. I believe, as a member of the Armed Forces, that I had an obligation to my fellow brothers and sisters in arms to not put their lives in jeopardy, yet senior civilian leaders in the former administration willing sacrificed American principles and caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. In addition, many senior military officers encouraged, authorized, and allowed torture and abuse to be used against prisoners and ultimately cost us the lives of our comrades. I have been contacted by World War II veterans who were outraged that the former administration so easily dismissed the American principles that millions of veterans gave their lives to defend. They pointed out what I have said all along -- we cannot become our enemy in trying to defeat him. This is one reason why I support the call for an independent, non-partisan commission to investigate the past policy of torture and abuse. We owe it to the fallen.
 

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)