Monday, September 14, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Dave Johnson: Myths of Protectionism: Stories You Are Likely to Hear in the Wake of the China Tire Trade Tariff Case Top
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF. President Obama has decided to enforce our trade laws and imposed a 3-year tariff on Chinese tires. I suspect the country is about to witness a corporate hissy fit that will surely rival any righteous teabagger's demands to see the President's birth certificate. Here is what is going on: when the US endorsed China entering the World Trade Organization the agreement was that if any of our industries were significantly disrupted, we could call "time out" and give those industries 3 years to adjust. In case after case President Bush refused to enforce this agreement as China took over one industry after another. Since we then had to buy what we used to make, our balance of trade deteriorated and we now owe China vast sums. In this case the U.S. International Trade Commission found that America's tire industry was, to say the least, disrupted by a surge of imports of cheap tires. As with so many industries, cheap Chinese imports quickly dominated the market, American factories closed, American workers were laid off, American communities were devastated and instead of having to pay wages and maintain factories, American CEOs and Wall Street executives pocketed more and more short-term profits at the long-term expense of their own companies and our country's economy. So this time President Obama is enforcing the agreement and applying tariffs . In fact he is applying a lower tariff than the 55% that was recommended, but the tariff of 35% is still substantial and may save jobs, preserve some manufacturing capacity, and hold the trade deficit down just a bit. The corporate hissy fit is beginning right on schedule. The word being shouted loudest is "protectionism" and there are threats that this will lead to a trade war. The headline at the Drudge Report screams: " CLASH OF THE TIRES LEADS TO TRADE WAR ," linking to a Financial Times story that doesn't actually say anything about a "trade war." In the story China's minister of commerce Chen Deming says, "This is a grave act of trade protectionism," and Eswar Prasad, professor of trade economics at Cornell University, calls the enforcement of the agreement "protectionist measures" while at the same time saying the tariffs are not "substantive restraints on trade." The Washington Post, rather than lead with the pro-American viewpoint, chose to lead with China's, " China blasts US tire duties as protectionist blow ." Many other corporate-dominated media outlets followed in a similar vein, arguing how this is a bad decision. Wall Street Journal, " A Protectionist Wave " and " Tariff on Tires to Cost Consumers" . Others, like Business Week, just reported the news: " In China Tires Case, Obama Strikes Middle Ground. " (Forbes, to its credit, led with a neutral pun, " China and US: Tire-d of Fighting .") So what is "protectionism" and why is it supposed to be wrong for a government to protect a country's manufacturing interests? Isn't America borrowing so much money from other countries because we don't manufacture enough goods here anymore to sell and thereby pay for the things we buy? In the past a major portion of America's tax revenue came from collecting tariffs on imported goods. This helped fund development of our competitive infrastructure while maintaining internal markets that encouraged development of industry to make goods here both for use in the country and for export. This led to manufacturing jobs. Every country that has built up a manufacturing base has done so by restricting competitive imports. But there were problems with this "mercantalistic" approach. As with all rules they can be manipulated by the currently-powerful. This was done to keep some prices unreasonably high, encourage monopolistic practices, reduce access to localized or regionalized specialties and discourage others from importing our domestically-made goods. So after we built up a manufacturing base the time came to start selling to others. This necessitated back-scratch trade agreements: you scratch my back by lowering your tariffs, we'll scratch yours by lowering ours. Etc. And each country's markets expand - as does the competition. Unfair competition led to the idea of protecting our standard of living. Unfair labor costs, kept low by use of child or prison labor, exploitive wages in non-democratic countries, even use of forced labor or slaves undercuts our own companies' ability to compete. Failing to provide worker safety protections, or allowing pollution also provide trade advantages to offshore competitors. So to protect ourselves we imposed tariffs that raised the store price on those goods to prevent them from undermining our own standard of living and safety and pollution standards. We protected our national interest. The idea of these "protection" policies is to encourage these competitors to pay better wages, improve worker safety and/or stop polluting. This way their own economy and environment could improve and their workers would be able to buy the things that we make . Used this way, the policy of protectionism improves living standards for workers everywhere, while growing our economy and improving our standard of living in the process. The idea of "free trade" theorizes that without "government" involvement these disadvantages will disappear and prices will eventually reflect supply and demand instead of tariffs and regulations. Of course, this ignores that government as constituted in democracies is a banding together of the citizens for mutual protection, empowerment and benefit. The result of "free trade' is a downward spiral of wages, benefits, worker protection and environmental standards as countries race to the bottom in competition. Expansion of trade is beneficial to all parties if done fairly . Of course, "fairly" is a difficult state to attain when powerful interests compete for dominance in rule-making. In this case we have the competing interests of American workers and manufacturers pitted against Chinese manufacturers. There are also the powerful interests of distributors and retailers who make a percentage off a sale, whatever the source of the goods, and Wall Streeters who buy up companies and demand short-term profits, and profit from debt. This is where the opposition comes from. Certain powerful interests are doing just fine without any of this goody-goody do-gooder stuff, thank you, and they want things kept that way . So they will fight against changed in the status quo, no matter how necessary or beneficial to the rest of us. We see this so clearly in the health care reform fight and soon we will be hearing some outrageous lie on the order of "death panels" and "government takeover" to try to scare people away from fighting for their own jobs, wages and benefits by asking for reasonable trade and manufacturing policies. Their primary scare word in use today is "protectionism." Part II will examine some of the specific myths surrounding the mystical and powerful word "protectionism."
 
Richest Congress Members: See The Top Ten (SLIDESHOW) Top
Roll Call has documented the 50 richest members of Congress, finding that the economic downturn had hit this flush group hard : Lawmakers on this year's list reported a combined loss of more than $275 million from their minimum net worth since 2007. While the combined wealth of the 50 richest Members tallied approximately $1.3 billion in 2008, that figure falls nearly $171 million short of the previous club, which put up a total of almost $1.5 billion. Still, none of these lawmakers are scrounging for cash. Here's a slideshow of the top ten: Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Photo Galleries
 
B. Jeffrey Madoff: An Honest Display of Lying Top
Commuters jammed the train. As one commuter exited, another immediately sat down next to me. "Oh, it's you," he said. "I remember you. " I remembered him too. "Listen," he said, opening his laptop. "I'm not interested in discussing politics with you. We have different points of view. You're not going to convince me of anything and I'm probably not going to change your mind either." I nodded. He was right. What's the point of having a discussion with someone when you already know the outcome? I looked out the window, content to count the rapidly passing trees. He turned to me, "So, what did you think of your boy Obama's speech the other night?" My boy Obama? "I thought you didn't want to discuss politics." "I don't. I was just wondering what you thought about his speech. He went on and on - must've been 45 minutes. " "You want my opinion on the length of his speech?" "Never mind." He turned his attention back to his computer screen. "What was your opinion of the Congressman from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, yelling "You lie!" at the President." I asked him. "It may not have been appropriate, but it was an honest display of emotion." "So if someone assaults someone who they disagree with, the fact that it was an honest display of emotion ought to square things?" I asked. "That wouldn't fly in a courtroom. Sorry I shot those people, your honor, but it was an honest display of emotion." "You're making a big deal out of a little outburst," he said dismissively. "It would be more credible if Wilson and others like him showed their distaste of government sponsored health care by giving up their own government sponsored health care." "He said he was sorry, what more do you want?" he countered. "I'm sorry I had sex with your wife said your neighbor." "That's offensive." "It's offensive that an elected official behaved like a drunk in a barroom during a Presidential speech. Whether you agree with him or not, Obama is the President and there is supposed to be a respect for that office. You talk about family values and role models, what kind of message is his behavior sending?" I asked. "This is just another example of the left trying to demonize the right." "I admit I do have a fundamental problem with people showing up armed at town hall meetings, shouting down others who disagree then taking that same kind of disruptive behavior into a Presidential speech. It stretches the boundaries of acceptable behavior. What happened to civilized debate?" "I feel bad for Joe Wilson. He's being made an example of." "This is the best thing that ever happened to him," I countered. "A few days ago nobody knew who he was, now everybody does. He certainly couldn't get a national reputation for his accomplishments in Congress." "Listen, a lot of people just want their America back," He was agitated. "Are you talking about the Navajos?" "I'm talking about almost two and a half million people who showed up in Washington to protest health care reform and the direction of this administration." He was getting more agitated. "Where did you come up with that number?" "That was the official estimate, " he said. "You lie!" I shouted. "Associated Press estimated the crowd to be tens of thousands, ABC news reported 60,000-70,000. Freedomworks, the organizer of the march estimated "hundreds of thousands" on their own website." "These were estimates from bloggers who were there-" "I guess you're right," I agreed. "People like me have been unreasonable about hearing the other side of the health care debate. What is the other side of the debate?" "The current plan provided coverage for illegal immigrants until that was brought to light." "You lie!" I shouted. "I beg your pardon?" I continued,"You lie about the plan covering illegal immigrants, you lie about health care reform leading to socialized medicine, you lie about care being denied to the elderly, you lie about the government eliminating Medicare, you lie about the President brainwashing our children-" "That's unfair, untrue and rude-"he interrupted. "In fact, the success of "Cash for Clunkers" is being combined with healthcare reform so sick old people can be traded in for younger, healthier ones. Your grandparents could end up being younger than you - and you get a new car in the trade." "Now you're being ridiculous-" "Maybe if I say it loud enough and often enough people will believe it - it works for you." He angrily snapped his laptop shut. "There are legitimate questions about the costs," I said, "how it will be paid for, what services would be affected, how it will be implemented, what is included, what isn't - rational questions for a rational discussion-" "I'm not interested in your idea of rational discussion." He got up to leave as the train screeched to a halt. "Our country is at risk of a government takeover of our health care system." "I agree with you." He looked back at me, puzzled. "You agree?" "I agree that you're not interested in having a rational discussion." He turned away, muttering, "You lie," under his breath. More on Health Care
 
Canadian PM Harper Says He Won't Extend Afghan Mission Top
TORONTO — Canada will not extend its mission in Afghanistan even if President Barack Obama asks him to when the countries' leaders meet this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Monday. Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas reiterated in a briefing Monday that Canada will withdraw its troops in 2011. One hundred and thirty Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan, where Canada has 2,500 troops. "Canada's position is clear," Soudas said. "The military component of the mission ends in 2011." Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the United States and increased its deployment after declining a U.S. request to dispatch troops to Iraq. Although Canada has usually served in more of a peacekeeping role in overseas missions after World War II, Harper has been a steadfast ally in the post-Sept. 11 fight against al-Qaida. In 2005, Canada assumed responsibility for Kandahar, one of Afghanistan's most dangerous provinces. Last year, Harper said Canada had done its part after serving in the volatile region and announced Canada's troops would be withdrawn in 2011, extending its mission by two years. Although Canada's participation is slated to end in two years, critics are growing increasingly wary of a mission that they see as too dangerous. Soudas said post-2011 Canada will examine what other contributions it can make in reconstruction, aid or training. The Obama administration is considering whether to boost the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the 68,000 approved to be there by the end of the year. Violence in Afghanistan has soared to record levels, requiring more troops to secure wide stretches of countryside. Obama and Harper also are expected to discuss the economy, border security and the environment during Wednesday's one-hour meeting in the Oval Office. The prime minister visits Obama as a possible election looms in Canada. The main opposition party has vowed to try to topple Harper's minority government in a no confidence vote at the first opportunity. That might happen as soon as Friday. Harper will visit the U.S. Senate and congressional leaders on Thursday to express concerns about the so-called Buy American provisions in the U.S. economic stimulus package. There are provisions that exclude Canadian companies from state and municipal construction projects. The Canadian government and the Obama administration have named negotiators to examine a proposal by Canada that would grant American firms guaranteed access to Canadian procurement contracts in return for a waiver on Buy American provisions. Canada and the U.S. share the largest trading relationship in the world. About 70 percent of Canada's exports go to the U.S. Soudas called the relationship with the U.S. Canada's most important. The two leaders have already met several times but it will be Harper's first official trip to meet Obama in the U.S. Obama visited Ottawa in February, shortly after being inaugurated, in his first visit to a foreign country as president. More on Afghanistan
 
Arianna Huffington: Why Obama Won't Be Able to Reform Wall Street Top
Listening to President Obama's heartfelt, well-intentioned, but ultimately naïve speech on financial reform today , my mind kept flashing on a story I heard the last time Washington, in the wake of the Enron scandal, promised to reform Wall Street. The story came from a friend who took a family trip on a cruise ship. Her 10-year-old son kept pestering the crew, begging for a chance to drive the massive ocean liner. The captain finally invited the family up to the bridge, whereupon the boy grabbed hold of the wheel and began vigorously turning it. My friend panicked -- until the captain leaned over and told her not to worry, that the ship was on autopilot, and that her son's maneuvers would have no effect. And that's the way it is with our leaders. They stand on the bridge making theatrical gestures they claim will steer us in a new direction while, down in the control room, the autopilot, programmed by politicians in the pocket of special interests, continues to guide the ship of state along its predetermined course. Standing on the deck at historic Federal Hall, the president said all the right things, eloquently pointing out how American taxpayers had "shouldered the burden of the bailout" and are "still bearing the burden of the fallout -- in lost jobs, lost homes, and lost opportunities." And I don't dispute for a minute that his heart is in the right place, and that he means it when he says "the old ways that led to this crisis cannot stand" and touts "the need for change and change now." But we've been hearing similarly great sentiments for months now -- and they've had the same impact as my friend's ten year-old yanking on the cruise ship wheel. None. President Obama won't be able to change the course our financial system is on unless he goes down into the boiler room and disengages the autopilot -- which means taking on the bankers and their hordes of lobbyists who continue to dictate policy in DC. To do that, the president will have to do more than deliver great speeches. He'll need to stand firm when the lobbyists, working behind the scenes, work to gut real reform, leaving only the appearance of reform in its place. This is exactly what he failed to do when the banking lobbying killed cramdown legislation back in April. But instead of telling the Wall Street power players watching him today that he was going to insist on making cramdown a part of his financial reform package, he tried to appeal to their better angels, reminding them that they didn't have to wait for Congress to pass new laws... they could just start acting better on their own. It was shockingly naïve. Wall Street has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars, doing everything in its power to kill things like cramdown legislation, derivatives regulation, and the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and the president is asking them to be nicer people. That's like tossing a wounded seal into the middle of a school of Great White sharks and hoping the beasts will nurse it back to health. There was a moment in the speech that spoke volumes about the high hurdle financial reform is facing. The White House had sent a copy of the president's remarks to reporters and I was underlining key parts of it as he spoke. Near the end of the speech, Obama movingly exhorted his audience to demonstrate that they have taken to heart their obligation to help "families who need their mortgages modified," "small business owners who desperately need loans," and "communities that would benefit from the financing [they] could provide." In the speech as written, he was supposed to end this run by calling on Wall Street "to embrace serious financial reform, not fight it." But when the president actually delivered the line, he edited it, saying instead that Wall Street should "embrace serious reform, not resist it." That one-word change says everything you need to know about why all the president's well-intentioned pronouncements won't actually lead to fundamental reform. The president is utterly misreading the opponents of reform. They are not passively resisting; they are aggressively fighting against reform with every weapon they have in their extremely well-funded arsenal. As a result, Obama's rhetoric has not been matched by reality. In his speech today, the president claimed that the actions of his administration have "spurred lending" and "helped responsible homeowners refinance to stem the tide of lost homes and lost home values." But, in truth, credit for Main Street is still very hard to come by , and only 12 percent of eligible homeowners have had their mortgages modified by the president's home ownership plan. Meanwhile cramdown legislation remains lobbyist roadkill (though Barney Frank is vowing to revive it this fall) and mandatory mediation between homeowners and lenders prior to foreclosure is going nowhere on a national level. That's why I could picture all the heads of the big banks sitting there today, listening to Obama and smiling -- knowing that, in the end, his claim that his administration is "proposing the most ambitious overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression" won't mean anything as long as Wall Street's relentless lobbying and contributing continue to hold sway in the control room of the S.S. America. More on Barack Obama
 
Enforcing Bedtimes Improves Kids' Health Top
Setting bedtimes can improve sleep quality and quantity for infants and toddlers, according to a growing body of research. Not getting enough sleep affects children's behavior, memory, attention, and emotional well-being, experts said. More on Sleep
 
Andrew Ruben: Does the Democratic Congress Have "Business Experience"? Top
Among the misinformation that's toxic to the healthcare debate, FOX News' Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others seem determined to prove that Democrats in Congress will destroy American business because, lacking business experience themselves, they just don't "get it." I've spent the weekend pouring through the Almanac of American Politics 2010 , and here's what I've come up with: Among Democratic Members of the House, 26.5% have direct business experience. There are more attorneys -- about 35%. Two Members have been both business leaders and practicing attorneys. House Republicans are skewed in the other direction: 45% in business, only 25% in law. Three Republican Members have worked in both. In the Senate, 17% of Democrats (including Independent Sens. Lieberman and Sanders) have business experience. About 45% are attorneys. Most of the other Senate Democrats were engaged in local or state politics, government service, or academia before their election. For the 40 Senate Republicans, about half were practicing lawyers, and one-third have business experience. These statistics on Congress lead to a few observations: First, it's been over 150 years since Alexis de Tocqueville devoted part of Democracy in America to arguing that lawyers "fill the legislative assemblies," but today his analysis remains true. America is a nation governed by lawyers (look no further than President Obama). Almost half of Senators were first practicing attorneys. In the House, there are just a few more businessmen and businesswomen than attorneys. On the whole, I'd say that this is a good thing: I want lawyers to have input in making laws. Second, despite there being so many lawyers and businesspeople, both chambers of Congress -- and especially the House -- are professionally diverse. There are farmers, sheriffs, professors, physicians, lobbyists, real estate brokers, insurance salespersons, teachers, and mayors. There are some very interesting biographies: Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) was a quarterback in the NFL. Rep. John Kline (R-MN), a Marine, carried the "football" for Presidents Carter and Reagan. Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) served as a national security consultant in Kosovo, Darfur, and Afghanistan. Rep. David Price (D-NC) was a political science professor at Yale and Duke. And Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL), as a researcher at Fermilab, helped discover the top quark, the heaviest known form of matter, and designed a particle accelerator. Rep. Foster also founded a theater lighting company that now supplies half of all theater lighting equipment in the United States. So in addition to ideological and geographical differences, another explanation for the differences of opinion in Congress must be the diversity of professional experiences. Whereas at an accountants' convention, for example, everyone has similarities in education and knowledge base, in Congress many Members have totally different professional perspectives. Finally, and most importantly, the next time you hear a friend accuse Congressional Democrats of just not "understanding business," please correct him or her. Congressional Republicans may have more businessmen and businesswomen in their corner, but the Democrats have plenty in theirs -- and some very accomplished ones at that. (A note on methodology: I applied a uniform standard to Democrats and Republicans, noting any involvement in helping found or run a business in the "professional career" section of each biography. When there was ambiguity, I looked online for a more extensive biography. I recognize, of course, that there are many ways to gain business experience besides involvement in the corporate world, and also that I've likely overlooked more than a few Members of Congress.) More on Glenn Beck
 
Ivy Pochoda: The Day My Book Was Born -- Will It Survive? Top
On the morning of September 15th, 2009 I will be standing in a crowd outside my local bookstore, waiting to rush towards the new fiction releases. At the shelves, the crowd and I separate. They will grab copies of Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol (Doubleday). I will snag my own novel, The Art of Disappearing (St. Martin's Press). I'm willing to bet that no two books released on the same day for the rest of the year will top our combined total sales. Dan Brown and I are going to make publishing history. I've always known that I would have to share my release date with a host of eager novices and established authors. But I had no idea that I'd be joined by Mr. Brown, a literary juggernaut, a one-man stimulus package for the book business. His income from The Da Vinci Code , $250 million dollars, could float a fleet of struggling publishing houses and bookstores. With an astounding first edition print run of 6.5 million, the largest in Random House's history, Mr. Brown is going to bring customers out in droves. (I will not mention here by how many powers of ten his print run dwarfs mine.) But in case a bookstore sells out of The Lost Symbol , or a customer wants varied fictional fare, my novel will be beckoning. I'll happily ride Mr. Brown's coattails as long as I can. Internet conspiracies have been swirling about our mutual publication date, hinting its significance will be revealed in The Lost Symbol . Whatever this may be, for me it represents the only day that Dan Brown and I will be collaborators. On September 16th, 2009, we will go our separate ways. In terms of publicity, we are going to divvy up the terrain. Mr. Brown is an old hand with the high-end media outlets. He'll handle CNN, the Today show, and NPR, but he won't show up in your local bookstore or do a tour of book blogs. You probably won't be able to chat with him online or send him an email. But I'm going to grind it out on the ground. I'll be reading high and low -- from dive bars in Brooklyn to the Harvard Club of New York. I'll be traveling to independent bookstores and stopping by Barnes & Noble and Borders. I'm going reader-to-reader, meeting the people who've honored me by choosing my book. Along the way, I hope to reaffirm that literary culture is still alive: it's just transformed, gone viral. You don't believe me? Look at the Internet. There is an abundance of literary social networking sites, Goodreads, Librarything, Redroom, Shelfari, and WeRead, which boast memberships in the millions. These sites make authors available to their fans and critics and allow readers to discuss books with each other. I've joined all of them. The word is out. I'm waiting to hear from you. You'll be hearing back. Then of course there is Facebook, where Dan Brown and I both have personal pages. Mr. Brown's page boasts an remarkable 60,000 members. Mine, somewhat less. But I'm an untested quantity. I might catch up. However, I'm pretty sure Mr. Brown isn't sitting behind his desk, Tweeting his whereabouts. That's left to his army of social media strategists. But each update or Tweet bearing my name comes straight from the source. It's thrilling to me to be able to reach out to my readers, to participate in this new breed of social media that democratizes literary culture and opens interactive channels of communication between those who love to write books and those who love to read them. There are critics out there who will question my desire to associate with Mr. Brown. Consorting, even theoretically, with a mass-market bestselling author is not the company that an aspiring writer of literary fiction should aim to keep. But authors who have reached or surpassed the same mind blowing sales figures as Dan Brown (83 million copies) include J.D. Salinger and Charles Dickens. I'll hang with them. It's no secret that cultural acceptance is fickle and faddish. Unless they feature vampires, wizards, or Robert Langdon, it's hard to judge what books will triumph. Success can come from the most surprising places -- perhaps sharing a release date with Dan Brown is one of them. Maybe in a few years when my second novel is about to drop, a first time author will discover that she has the same release date as I, and blog, Tweet, or editorialize about it, hoping to ride my success to the top.
 
Gary Marcus: What makes people want to play Rock Band and Guitar Hero? Top
In some ways, Guitar Hero™ and Rock Band™ seem like the stupidest games on earth. Colored discs scroll down a TV screen, and eager participants mash colored buttons in time with what they see. You press a red button when you see a red disc, a blue button when you see a blue disc, and hold your fire when you see nothing. Rinse, lather, and repeat; that's about all there is to it. Since the sequence and timing are provided by the game software, you don't really even need to know the songs. There's no need to strategize ahead (as in chess); no need for big muscles (as in basketball), and no need to bluff past one's opponent (as in poker). Few games demand less of the player; I suspect monkeys could be trained to play, and know for a fact that robots can cruise through Guitar Hero on Expert. Yet the two games together have grossed over three billion dollars, and received extensive coverage in highbrow outlets like The New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly. What is the appeal of a game that demands so little of the human mind? Part of it of course lies with the music; the latest Rock Band™ comes complete with Beatles music, and for people like me, who grew up listening to music, no body of music is more compelling. (For people with rather different tastes, there's Guitar Hero: Metallica and Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, with Steely Dan allegedly on its way, although Jimmy Page swears there will never be a Guitar Hero: Led Zeppelin). Still, at $60, the game costs as much as 4 or 5 albums, and the game takes more work to play. Why mash buttons on a video game controller, when you could put Sgt. Pepper on your CD player, or learn to play a real guitar? If an alien scientist came to observe humanity, they'd find a lot of things puzzling, but few would be as puzzling as Guitar Hero™. § Some games, of course, could be seen as practice for the real world; Monopoly™ could be viewed as preparation for a career in real estate, chess for the art of war. Many evolutionary psychologists believe that play evolved as way to ease children into their ultimate adult responsibilities; chasing your friends in a game of tag prepares you for the bison hunt on which your life will later depend. Whether you buy that theory or not, the plastic "guitars" in Guitar Hero have little to do with real guitars; there are no strings, and no frets, there's no soundhole, and no jack to hook up to an amplifier, either; except for a bit of clattering, the plastic pseudo-instrument makes no sound at all. And there's no room for genuine creativity, as there would be with a real instrument. A real apprentice guitarist must spend hours and hours practicing scales and chords, and learning about the relation between melody and harmony; an aficionado of Guitar Hero skips straight to the songs, and may well never learn the difference between a major scale and a minor. Economists would be puzzled, too. It generally costs the same amount or even less (once you factor out the costs of the plastic guitars) to buy the songs on iTunes as to get them in a package for your Xbox™, and if you buy them on iTunes, you can play them over and over , wherever you want, in the car, or in the gym, and not just when you stand in front of your television set. You also aren't stuck suffering through the abominable mid-80's Hair Metal, in order to "unlock" the next song that you actually like. What gives? If it's not practice for a career in music, and it's not efficient or rational from an economist's perspective, what is it that drives people to play these games? § It's a lust for power. Not, mind you, of the sort that allows one to rule the world, but the sort that allows one to control one's own world. Dozens of studies over the years have shown that human beings are happier when they believe themselves to be in control. In one famous set of studies, participants were asked to solve simple arithmetic problems while sitting in a room in which sudden blasts of noise occurred at random intervals. One group of subjects had no choice but to listen, the others had a panic button they would be allowed to press if the noise became too much. Though few participants actually pressed the button, the mere feeling of control made the entire experience considerably more bearable. In another famous study, dogs were put in an environment in which nothing that they did correlated with their situation; so-called "learned helplessness" - essentially a form of depression - was the result. Alas, although humans are very fond of being in control, we aren't always so good at telling whether we actually have it. As Harvard psychologist Dan Wegner has argued in The Illusion of Conscious Will, Oujia boards were designed to trick people into thinking they didn't have control when they really did. Guitar Hero is designed to do the opposite. Inferring control is really an exercise in inferring causality; we want to know whether A causes B, but sometimes all we know is that when A happens, B happens too. In technical jargon, we infer causality from temporal contingency. Games like Guitar Hero set up one of the most potent illusions of temporal contingency I've ever seen: if the player presses the button at the right time, the computer plays back a recording of a particular note (or set of notes) played by a professional musician. The music itself is potent and rewarding - Keith Richards really knows how to bend a note -- but the real secret to the game is what happens is that fact if you miss the button, you don't hear the note. The brain whirrs away, and notices the contingency. When I push the button, I hear Keith Richards; when I fail to push the button (or press the wrong button, or press it late), I don't hear Keith Richards. Therefore, I am Keith Richards! § It's not simply that you hear the songs (which bring pleasure) but that the game skillfully induces the illusion that you yourself are generating the songs. You aren't paying $60 to hear the songs; you're paying $60 to trick your brain into thinking that you are making them. Your conscious mind may know better - and realize that it's all just a ruse - but your unconscious mind is completely and happily fooled. Is that worth $60? If you want to feel like Keith Richards, the answer is surely yes.
 
Jane Fonda: Expanding the Narrative Top
I recently signed a letter protesting the Toronto International Film Festival's decision to showcase and celebrate Tel Aviv. This in the very year when Gaza happened. The decision made the festival a participant in the newly launched campaign to "rebrand" Israel. Arye Mekel, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's Director General for Cultural Affairs, has said that artists and writers must be enlisted in order to "show Israel's prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war." The protesters felt it was wrong for the much-respected festival to be used in this manner. The role of art, after all, is not to prettify but to expose reality with all its contradictions and complexities. I signed the letter without reading it carefully enough, without asking myself if some of the wording wouldn't exacerbate the situation rather than bring about constructive dialogue. Last week, Rabbi Shlomo Schwartz, director of the Chai Center in Los Angeles, explained to me the meaning of the Hebrew word "teshuva"-- to fix things you have done incorrectly, not just by never doing them again but by "coming with a sincere heart. Words that come from the heart enter the heart." Some of the words in the protest letter did not come from my heart, words that are unnecessarily inflammatory: The simplistic depiction of Tel Aviv as a city "built on destroyed Palestinian villages," for instance, and the omission of any mention of Hamas's 8-month-long rocket and mortar attacks on the town of Sderot and the western Negev to which Israel was responding when it launched its war on Gaza. Many citizens now suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result. In the hyper-sensitized reality of the region in which any criticism of Israel is swiftly and often unfairly branded as anti-Semitic, it can become counterproductive to inflame rather than explain and this means to hear the narratives of both sides, to articulate the suffering on both sides, not just the Palestinians. By neglecting to do this the letter allowed good people to close their ears and their hearts. Additionally, protesting the use of the festival to "rebrand" Israel was perhaps too easily misunderstood. It certainly has been wildly distorted. Contrary to the lies that have been circulated, the protest letter was not demonizing Israeli films and filmmakers. On one of the many trips I have made to Israel, I spoke at Tel Aviv University's film department and am well aware, as I'm sure the other signatories are, that Israeli films are not a mouthpiece for their government's policies. Nor was the letter an attack on the legitimacy of Tel Aviv as an Israeli city, or a call to boycott the Toronto Film Festival. In fact, many signatories are attending the festival and have films showing there. As I said in my recent blog, the greatest "re-branding" of Israel would be to celebrate that country's long standing, courageous and robust peace movement by helping to end the blockade of Gaza through negotiations with all parties to the conflict, and by stopping the expansion of West Bank settlements. That's the way to show Israel's commitment to peace, not a PR campaign. There will be no two-state solution unless this happens. The Israeli-Palestinian story cannot be reduced to a simplistic aggressor-victim relationship. In order to fully understand this, one must be willing to come together with an open heart and really hear the narratives of both sides. One narrative sees 1948 as the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their land. Another sees it as the birth of a nation. Conceivably it was both. Neither narrative can be erased, both must be heard. More on Palestinian Territories
 
William Bradley: Mad Men: "The Fog" -- HuffPost Review Top
The rather slow-developing third season of Mad Men continues gathering steam in its fifth episode, "The Fog," with five major plot developments. As always in these reviews, there be spoilers ahead. So if you haven't seen the episode yet, consider yourself warned. Five major plot developments in this episode -- named for the culmination of Betty Draper's pregnancy -- drive the action forward as we enter the middle of the season. Young Sally Draper is acting out in the wake of her grandfather's sudden death in the last episode, occasioning a consequential parent-teacher conference. In case you missed the previous episode, here's a quick recap. Betty Draper gives birth to her third child. Less than joyously, and in the midst of a painkiller-induced fog complete with a dream sequence which represents her deep dissatisfaction with her life. Duck Phillips, whose duel with Don Draper for control of Sterling Cooper defined much of Season Two, makes a dramatic return after falling off the earth professionally in a drunken tirade that blew his coup of arranging the agency's takeover by a British firm. The British owners' penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to overseeing their acquisition comes to the fore. And the burgeoning civil rights movement percolates throughout the episode, which takes place in the immediate aftermath of the assassination in Mississippi of Medgar Evers, the NAACP's field secretary. A quick recap of Episode 3. Let's take a moment to see where we are, and what it means. Mad Men is not The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles , in which young Indy encounters and befriends so many consequential world figures one wonders how he could ever have any problem later in life that couldn't be solved with a phone call to the president. Mad Men is much more subtle than that; the historicity wafts in from time to time, rather than enveloping the show from start to finish. It's a show about an advertising agency, not a secret agent or politician. Which doesn't mean it's not a political show. Among other things that are more in the forefront. Evers' assassination was a huge event at the time, coming, not at all coincidentally, just after a major civil rights speech by President John F. Kennedy. Evers, an Army vet, was buried a week later at Arlington National Cemetery with a huge crowd in attendance. The assassination helped build the massive March on Washington at the end of August, featuring a certain speech by Martin Luther King. It also helped drive a national sense of outrage about institutionalized racism, as Evers' assassin was quickly identified, but was not convicted of his crime for another 31 years. Young Sally, so angry at the grownups at the end of the last episode for laughing in the aftermath of her pal Grandpa Gene's death, is one angry little girl at school. After she picks a fight with another girl, her winsome teacher calls in Don and Betty Draper for a conference. Where she learns about Grandpa Gene's death, which no one, like inattentive mom Betty, had bothered to tell her about. Immediately solicitous and emotive, she pushes Betty's "I just want everything to be fine and never talk about problems" buttons. When she rushes from the room, the teacher -- and yes, she's the one from the season opener who was so entrancing to Don as she danced with the children around the Maypole -- finds that she and Don both know the pain of losing someone at an early age. Here is a quick recap of Episode 2. Later that night, after a few highballs, she calls Don to apologize for her behavior (but really to connect with him). He's kind, but has to go, for now, as it's time to take Betty to the hospital. Given that they are the two people who have the most concern for Sally, and she obviously has a crush on Don, who finds her attractive ... And we're at the hospital. Where Don is quickly separated from Betty and sent to "the solarium" to wait it out with a fellow father-to-be, a prison guard from the infamous Sing Sing State Prison. Which is not far from the Draper home in Westchester County, not that Don mentions this. These two, despite the prison guard's obvious trepidation about class and education differences, bond during their hard day's night over a bottle of Johnny Walker Red scotch the man brought in for what he had imagined to be a party-like atmosphere with the other dads-to-be. The prison guard, to Don's increasing sense of guilt and unease, uses Don as sounding board and father confessor figure, alternately worrying about his wife -- who's undergoing a breech birth, not that the hospital staff bothered to mention that for a few hours -- and vowing to be a better man with this second chance to re-start his life. For Don, this arrival of a third child is just another happening in his life that he thinks he's supposed to undergo in his picture perfect life. Though of course we know a big part of him just wants to chuck the whole thing. Meanwhile, Betty, in the less than tender grips of the hospital staff, is blown off when she learns to her great dismay that her own (WASP) doctor is off in Manhattan for a fancy anniversary dinner and she will be attended by a (Jewish) doctor she's never met before. But her nurse could care less because the plan is to keep Betty heavily sedated throughout. Which doesn't stop her from asking plaintively why Don wasn't there, saying he's never where he's supposed to be, and wondering if Nurse Ratched had been with him before dropping the bitchfest she's been building to all season and finally dropping off. Here is a quick recap of the season opener. And so we have an elaborate dream sequence. Now, I don't generally like dream sequences much. This one is nicely done, if a bit obvious. First we have Betty, looking especially Grace Kelly-like in a marvelous summer dress, walking along the perfect suburban sidewalk, dreamily catching a lovely green caterpillar in the palm of her hand, which she closes. Symbolism, anyone? Earlier, she'd imagined seeing her late father mopping the floor in the corridor as she was wheeled to her hospital room. In her dream, she sees him again, this time mopping her kitchen floor. With blood. Asked if death is imminent, he refers her to her mom, suddenly standing there above a seated black man. Who is, of course, the later Medgar Evers. Referring to Evers, mom warns her about what can happen if you speak out against your lot in life. Gene reassures Betty, telling her: "You're a housecat. Very important, with little to do." I don't think Betty is going to like her newly crystallized self-conception as housecat. When she wakes, she is holding her new baby. And Don is there, being quite attentive. And it's not a dream, although it is a simulacrum. After Don informs her that the lovely little baby she'd thought all along was a girl was in fact a boy, she promptly names him after her father, with whom, from her perspective, she'd just been talking. Don is notably less than thrilled about having a son named after a man he'd barely tolerated. Back at the office, Don finds a mound of presents, and some pressing problems. The essential milieu of Mad Men is not all that admirable. After his parent-teacher conference and before Betty went into labor, Don walked out of a meeting in which the agency's new British overseer, Lane Pryce, was on the warpath about expenses and the use of far too many pens and pieces of paper. In an advertising agency! Don and Lane met later, and while both clearly have regard for one another and are trying to avoid confrontation, the signs are not promising. Don basically tells Lane that you have to let creative people be unproductive until they are creative. Which Lane seems to understand. But he appears to be laboring under some short-sighted directives from London, as we saw earlier when Sterling Cooper was forced to boot the new account of a little something called Madison Square Garden because the very short-term profit maximization wasn't there. As Don contemplates the mound of new fatherhood presents in his office, he has two disquieting encounters with key Sterling Coo players. First, Roger Sterling (hilariously eating a sundae) calls from his office to briefly congratulate "Da-da," allow as how Jane wants the new child's initials ("for a yacht or something") -- with Don saying the baby still hasn't a name! -- and complains that things have stacked up in his rather brief absence because nothing can happen without his okay. Well, Roger, perhaps if you were more involved in the running of the business that your private life caused to be sold, things wouldn't get so stacked up. Then Peggy Olsen comes in. Though the Beatles have not yet arrived in America, Don Draper had something of a hard day's night in the latest episode, albeit not as fast-paced as the Fab Four. While the Draper domestic dramas played out, Herman "Duck" Phillips made a dramatic re-entry onto the scene. He's landed at Grey Advertising (which is still a big deal today), and has decided to do some poaching at his old firm, calling up Pete Campbell in the guise of "Uncle Herman." Which makes for a very funny scene, the upshot of which is a surreptitious lunch with Duck When Pete arrives, he finds not only Duck, resplendent in turtleneck and blazer and looking decidedly none the worse for wear, but also Peggy Olsen. Duck has decided to recruit the two biggest young go-getters at Sterling Cooper. Noting a "special relationship" between the two, which they vehemently deny, since it's more special than even Duck knows, he urges them both to come aboard. Pete, naturally, leaves in a snit, wanting his very own recruitment lunch. Peggy, who has more reason to feel aggrieved at Sterling Cooper, as she is a woman already bumping the glass ceiling there, notwithstanding Don Draper's support, sticks around for Duck's pitch. Which is quite good. Back at the office, after Don fields Roger's rather frosty call, Peggy, who's made the move to expensive Manhattan, comes in to tell him that she wants a raise. With the Brits counting paper clips, it's a bad time, as Don points out. Peggy, who points out that an equal pay law has just passed and she does better work than guys who get paid a lot more also wants more respect, some of which she gets from Don, little of which she gets from the guys, who usually exclude her. Noting how much Don has, which she doesn't quite know that she values far more than he does, she asks, echoing Duck's pitch to her: "What if it's my time?" Distracted, Don doesn't do a good job of assuaging this lament of someone who is, after all, a very young professional. So things are left very unresolved. Pete, in addition to snitting about not having his very own recruitment lunch with Duck, has been whining about accounts co-chief Ken Cosgrove supposedly getting the best accounts. One of his accounts, Admiral Television, has flat sales. But sales are up in selected markets, which turn out to be centers of black America. Pete resolves to pitch the Admiral execs on a new advertising strategy for the "Negro" market, undertaking market research with Hollis, the Sterling Cooper building's black elevator operator. It's a telling scene which I won't spoil, pointing up a vast gulf of expectations and concerns at that moment in history. Not that that gulf has been bridged yet, even with the election of President Barack Obama. So Pete pitches the Admiral execs on focusing new advertising on black media. Which these very white execs, not that Pete can sense this right off the bat, hate. They definitely do not want to be identified as the Negro TV company. He clarifies that he's not talking about "Negro" advertising, he's talking about "integrated" advertising. Which they like even less. They like it so much less that Pete is called on the carpet by Bert Cooper and Roger Sterling, who greets Pete as he enters the inner sanctum with: "If it isn't Martin Luther King." This eventful episode closes back at the Draper household, where Betty, "the housecat," looking none too beatific even though this is what she through she wished for, gets to rise in the middle of the night to deal with what will be months of wailing from her latest child. After a few episodes mostly centering on tone, tweakings of character, and scene-setting, the past two episodes have kick-started plotlines which may well define Season Three. I think also the show deserves credit for bringing the history and politics of the time into the series without hitting the audience over the head with it. This is a series that is ultimately about the 1960s, among other things, but it is a series with a particular set of prisms; namely the New York advertising business and some very intriguing characters revolving around that most American of businesses. We know, or think we know, what's ahead for this society. We don't know what's ahead for the characters, though we might. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ...
 
Howard Glaser: Death Panels for Your Car Loan, and Other Distortions Sinking the President's Financial Reform Plan Top
President Obama on Monday travels to Wall Street to try to jump start the administration's thus far feeble effort to enact comprehensive reform of the financial system. Back on June 17th, Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, predicted that the President's reform plan was "overwhelmingly likely to be passed substantially" in its original form. But 12 weeks later the chances of that happening have grown increasingly slim. The Obama financial reform plan has fallen victim to several problems: Crisis, What Crisis? Congress operates at two speeds: Now; and Not Now. Much like an 11-year-old's approach to homework, any legislation that can be put off, will be. The current stabilization of the financial system, and nascent housing recovery, have reduced the urgency of action. So absent some new and threatening mutation of the financial crisis (anyone feel a case of commercial real estate market implosion coming on?), most of Congress would like to punt this thing until next year. Agenda Overload The focus on health care as the administration's major domestic initiative pushed the financial reform agenda to the sidelines. Oh, and Afghanistan, the energy bill, the federal budget, and other assorted items are waiting for Congress as they return for the fall. Death Panels For Your Car Loan Opponents of the President's financial reform proposal have deployed many of the same arguments that have stymied health care reform. Assertions that faceless feds will be an uninvited guest at the kitchen table as families make financial decisions characterize the message. Representative Jeb Hensarling nicely summarized the scary talk: "Unelected bureaucrats will now decide what mortgages we can have. They can decide what bank accounts we can open. They may even decide whether or not we can be trusted with a credit card. This could take us back to the 1950s." (And you thought House Republicans wanted to go back to the 1950s!) Meanwhile, the administration's campaign for financial reform has been anemic. The Treasury Department, charged with leading the effort, has plenty of policy wonks and ex-Wall Street financial geniuses, but no commandos capable of orchestrating support and beating back opposition. By contrast, the US Chamber of Commerce, just one of many trade groups working to defeat a financial overhaul, is spending $2 million in advertising to get their message out. The administration didn't put horsepower behind the financial reform effort, miscalculating political reaction to the proposals. They mistakenly assumed, for example, that the creation of a Consumer Finance Protection Agency (CFPA) would be politically popular "rocket fuel" that would carry some of the denser and more contentious proposals (on systemic regulation, banking regulator overhaul, credit agency reform) through the legislative process. Instead, CFPA has run into a lukewarm response even from many Democrats. The only piece of the package that has any momentum is the reform of executive compensation, driven in large part by a continuous parade of jaw-dropping headlines on bonus pay. In his Wall Street speech, the President will rightly point out that federal actions to stabilize the banking and financial system have avoided the economic armageddon that many predicted just one year ago. At the same time, he will try to renew the sense of urgency to pass reforms that will prevent another financial meltdown. He will argue that federal regulators lack the tools to effectively monitor and oversee the financial system. And, no doubt, the President's speech will foster a bump in the futures market betting on new federal regulation. But one speech alone won't be enough to move his financial agenda through Congress. The administration will need to "play away from the ball" -- following up on the President's speech with a focused campaign to build support for financial reform. Without a sustained effort, we will likely end 2009 with the same system of financial regulation that suffered near catastrophic failure -- and that is in nobody's best interest, consumers and Wall Street financial barons alike.
 
Jody Powell Dead: President Carter's Press Secretary Top
WASHINGTON — A close associate says Jody Powell, who was White House press secretary during Jimmy Carter's presidency, has died. Powell, a Georgia native known for his deep Southern drawl, worked on Carter's presidential campaign in 1976 and served as the Carter's spokesman between 1977 and 1981. The cause of death was not immediately known. After leaving the White House, Powell became one of the founders of the Powell Tate public relations firm in Washington.
 
Key Found To Muscle Loss After Age 65 Top
It's a sad fact that muscles shrink as adults age. But new studies are starting to unravel how this happens -- and what to do about it. More on Health
 
Richard Blakeley, Gawker Editor, Arrested On Domestic Violence Charges Top
Gawker video editor Richard Blakeley was arrested earlier this month on charges of domestic violence. Blakeley, who co-authored a book based on the blog This Is Why You're Fat, denied the charges on his personal blog : Yes it's true, I was arrested for assault. However the allegations against me are 100% not true. In cases of domestic abuse there's an assumption not of innocence but of guilt so half of you won't believe me. I hope we can put this behind us and move on with our lives as quickly as possible. The police report indicates that the alleged incident occurred on August 25, and that Blakeley was arrested on September 4. He is due in court November 4. In May 2008, Blakeley solicited suggestions for an article on "where to take a girl on a first date...rape" from friends, asking "where you would take a girl if you were planning on date raping her for the first time."
 
A Heart Benefit For Chocolate Top
In a study that will provide comfort to chocoholics everywhere, researchers in Sweden have found evidence that people who eat chocolate have increased survival rates after a heart attack -- and it may be that the more they eat, the better. More on Health
 
Hoyt Hilsman: Vogue, Prada and the Fashion Revolution Top
R.J. Cutler's The September Issue and last year's The Devil Wears Prada have ripped the frilly veil off the $2 trillion global fashion industry, revealing it as the last bastion of a bunch of autocratic dinosaurs. Even for a dedicated non-fashionista like myself, it is shocking to see the iron grip that the fashion potentates have had over this huge marketplace, and equally refreshing to see the revolution that is clearly brewing to dethrone them. For someone who is more familiar with the worlds of entertainment, media and politics, the recent slew of behind-the-scenes fashion movies is like taking a trip back to the days of Tammany Hall politics or movie mogul Hollywood. Seeing Anna Wintour dismissively pronouncing "I don't like black" as cowed assistants hurriedly remove all remnants of black clothing from the upcoming issue of Vogue is a lot like watching a Chicago political boss haul in a hapless City Councilman and summarily fire him or having Sam Goldwyn casually toss out a script by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The point is that whether you are a politician or a movie producer or a fashion editor, you are ultimately supposed to answer to the voters or the audience or the readers. When a system gets so top-heavy that decision makers show only contempt for their constituents or customers, then you know that system is doomed to fail. Sure, the system can hum along nicely for years, but in the end, there will be a revolution that will bring the corrupt system down with a crash. Today, that revolution has come largely through the internet, which gives voters, audiences, magazine readers, consumers and everyone else not only access to more information more quickly, but also the ability to communicate our ideas and feelings to one another much more easily. Gone are the days when politicians could simply close the doors and make secret deals. With C-SPAN and YouTube, much more of the public's business is done in the open, whether politicians like it or not. With the internet and digital technology, all kinds of entertainment are being democratized, whether it is the creation of low-budget films, the recording and distribution of music, or the blossoming of personal videos on YouTube. It is a global burst of communication and creativity that involves everyone with access to the internet. No longer can the fashion doyennes have exclusive runway shows that are selectively leaked to favored publications, because within minutes of the show there are photos and videos online. No longer can designers hold off for months in offering their clothing to the public, because consumers want to buy it now and manufacturers will rush to sell it to them. And no longer can a few powerful people dictate fashion from the top down, because there is a growing fashion revolution from the bottom up, as more designers find underground, web-based outlets to reach consumers. The global economic crisis has hastened the demise of the already toppling fashion establishment. It is as if consumers have awakened after a decade of mindless spending and asked "Why did I pay all that money for something I didn't want or didn't like just because someone I don't respect told me to buy it?" Clearly, this is the beginning of a mass uncoupling from the giant advertising machine whose main purpose was to get consumers to buy things they didn't need or want. And it may even be a backlash against the Bush years, when crazy spending beyond our means was epitomized by President Bush, who urged us all to put aside our concerns about war and terrorism and "go shopping." Not there is anything wrong with shopping, or fashion, for that matter. Beauty and style are universal and timeless concepts, and are hallmarks of our humanity. But having these very personal modes of expression hijacked by aging potentates who display little more than scorn for the tastes or wants of average consumers stretches credulity. A very telling moment in the September Issue is near the end when Anna Wintour is presenting the issue to her bosses at Conde Nast, most notably Si Newhouse. After seeing her parade through the Vogue offices like some kind of third-world dictator, we see her timidity and anxiety as she presents her work to her real bosses -- the advertising world that pays the bills. It brings to mind slogans from revolutionary periods in the past, "The Queen is dead! Long live the Queen!" More on Fashion Week
 
Jacob Heilbrunn: Sarah's Choice Top
Sarah Palin is hitting the lecture circuit. On September 23 she's scheduled to address the CLSA investors' group in Hong Kong. The title of her talk, however, is a secret. According to CNN, CLSA flack Simone Wheeler says, "We are not disclosing the topic of Sarah Palin's presentation at this point." Nor is the media going to be allowed to attend. But keeping mum about Palin's talk is sure to whet curiousity about it. What hot tips about maximizing personal income might the former Governor of Alaska be dispensing? One key source may be Levi Johnston's recent chronicle in Vanity Fair of his several months spent living in the Palin household. If his observations are anything to go by, Palin definitely has her own approach to work. She doesn't like it. Levi's account suggests that her favorite activity is getting others to do her bidding. And she likes free stuff -- free room service, free clothes, free hotel rooms. Once the campaign ended, Levi says, her motto was, "I want to just take this money and quit being governor." And so she has. In her venality, Palin represents the quintessence of the ethos that flourished during the Bush years. Her credo of something for nothing contrasts starkly with President Obama's admonition to Wall Street today: "I want everybody here to hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses." Palin clearly isn't listening. But her audiences should. When Palin says whatever tumbles into her head in Hong Kong, her listeners would do well to remember what John McCain quickly learned: she herself has always been a volatile and bad investment.
 
Natural Cures Women Should Know Top
Because women are the biggest users of supplements, it's critical that they know which ones really work. To make safe and effective buys, try this age-targeted advice from leading women's-health experts. More on Health
 
Nora McAlvanah: Amendment 2358, Recognizing Vitter's Big Cojones Top
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has filed an amendment on the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, which is now being debated on the Senate floor to prohibit any use of funds in the bill to ACORN. The move comes after ACORN office workers in Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC, were caught last week on hidden video camera advising a couple posing as a prostitute and pimp on how to hide their crimes. In 2007, Vitter publicly apologized for his connection to an alleged prostitution ring in Washington, DC, and weathered accusations that he frequented a pricey brothel in his hometown of New Orleans. But one wonders if Vitter, who clearly skirted the law when he solicited prostitutes, is the right guy to advocate banning ACORN from receiving funds. After all, Vitter himself may well have been a beneficiary of such ACORN services and never even knew it....
 
Phil Bronstein: Why are Kanye and all these celebs mad? It's in the stars... Top
South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, it turns out, was just the red-faced canary in the coal mine of anger toxicity poisoning our national psyche. Fury is being unleashed across the land and don't say you weren't warned: it's all been astrologically predicted . While you've been burying your nose in egghead tracts about gasping health care reform and the deteriorating war in Afghanistan, the truly in-touch cultural media, like Susan Miller's AstrologyZone Web site, has the details you need to know. September is a "very rough month" for pretty much all of us, Susan says, "when almost everyone you interact with will be feeling raw, and you may find your nerves jangled, too." And in case you're unemployed, fundraising for struggling non-profits, looking to budge entitled and entrenched health care/new financial bubble chicanery, or think you have the most clever idea for saving journalism, just hold on. "Don't ask for favors, present ideas or launch new projects this month," Suzy warns. OK, I know it's astrology. But even after the long speeches and uproar, do you really think all the proposals in Washington, Wall Street, Karachi and Kabul are themselves much more than some pin-striped voodoo? My home is a bad place to check anger levels because we have a 6-week-old and between postpartum -- don't let anyone tell you it's for moms only -- and sleeplessness, triggers can be quicker than at the OK Corral. But really everyone's so MAD right now . While Mercury is in cosmic play on this one, according to Ms. Miller, it wasn't Venus but Serena Williams, the epitome of cool grace in an otherwise sputtering and spittle-filled sport, who actually threatened to kill a line judge . Almost famous reality-TV personality Tila Tequila accused San Diego Charger Shawn Merriman of choking her (he says she was the one out of control) and deservedly famous South African amputee runner, Oscar Pistorius, was arrested on assault claims after a party at his house (he says the alleged victim was the assailant.) Those are all sports circumstances, but who isn't mad at the media? A new poll has 63 percent of Americans thinking the press isn't doing its job , double the doubters 20 years ago, though we're certainly doing our part to help populate the jobless ranks. And Kanye West had a hissy pooplosion on stage at the Video Music Awards stage last night because his favorite nominee (Beyonce) didn't win, leaving poor 19-year-old Taylor Swift holding her Best Female Video trophy in terror. Even the skies in the Bay Area unleashed some wrath-of-God action over the weekend with 350 rare lightning strikes and thunder that could have awoken a propofol junkie. Finally, the guy who may have started off this freakish era of wrath, the Iraqi shoe-thrower, had his release from jail delayed , showing either that actions do still have consequences or that a grave injustice has been perpetuated, depending on your politics. One person who's apparently not mad: thrown-shoe victim George W. Bush. His wife, Laura, in an interview where she generously praised Barack Obama , said her husband is doing a lot of mountain biking. So he's probably not into a lot of angry hating (unlike his former Veep.) Maybe Mr. Bush has discovered the truth of a study, featured on the cover of yesterday's New York Times magazine, that says happy friends are a key to making you happy , not mad. So hug a smiling person tight until the astrological huff has passed on.
 
Andrew Cuomo To Charge Bank Of America Over Merrill Bonuses Top
NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Attorney General's office is preparing charges against several high-ranking Bank of America executives over the bank's alleged failure to disclose details about its acquisition of Merrill Lynch, according to a person familiar with the investigation. Separately, a federal judge on Monday rejected a $33 million settlement BofA reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission over disclosures tied to bonus payments at Merrill. BofA agreed to acquire Merrill in a hurried deal a year ago at the height of the credit crisis. More on Merrill Lynch
 
Carol Felsenthal: Red Meat for Limbaugh and Beck - Courtesy of the New York Times Top
In their Sunday editions, the New York Times and other major dailies (my hometown Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times , for example) gave Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity huge hunks of red meat for their Monday shows. Expect to hear repeatedly about how the New York Times in its national edition (which is the edition available in Chicago) stuck the story about Saturday's "Taypayer March on Washington," not on the front page and not even on the front page of the second ("National") section, but way back on page 33. In the Tribune it landed on page 41 under the headline, " Conservatives vent at Obama ." (The Tribune 's web site carried the head, "Massive crowd marches against Obama's Agenda." The story didn't make the print Sun-Times at all. As the Washington Post reported -- on the front page of the print edition -- the rally outside the U.S. Capitol, mostly against "Obamacare," "appeared to number in the many tens of thousands." The fact that so many people gathered from so many states deserved to be reported. And so did the fact that so many of the chants -- "Liar! Liar!" and so many of the placards -- Obama's likeness defaced with a Hitler mustache, "Liar in Chief," "Bury Universal Health Care -- Along with Senator Kennedy" -- were so extreme, so mean, so scary, also deserved to be reported. And yes, some of the marchers were still asking for the President's birth certificate. Underplaying the story feeds into the Obama-haters' belief that the elite print media are seriously biased against the right of center, and that the story might have received better play had the crowds been sparser.
 
Diane Francis: Reports of another stock market fall this fall exaggerated Top
The Ides of September in 2008 is simply the latest manifestation of autumnal market turmoil. That day, Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch bit the dust and the world changed dramatically. Of course this is nothing new which is why there's reason again to break out the stock worry beads. Little wonder, the autumn is also called "the fall". Of course, autumn comes in March in the southern hemisphere. But no matter. A quick survey of market catastrophes reveals that autumn, north or south versions, is not only when the traditional harvest comes in but it is when we reap what we have sown whether it's corn or bad economic policy. For skeptics, here are the biggest crashes and their blamed causes: -- Oct. 24, 1929 - a disaster caused by a speculative bubble, unrestrained credit to punters, rampant fraud, a vacuum in bank regulations, a real estate bubble and an influenza epidemic -- November 19, 1973 - a stock dive after the U.S. dollar was decoupled from the gold standard, Bretton Woods currency valuations unraveled and the first oil price shock hit. -- October 19, 1987 - a worldwide crash that began in Hong Kong and spread wildly due to overpricing, program trading and herd psychology led by certain forecasters. -- October 27, 1997 - the Asian contagion which hit stock markets due to worries about Asian economies, their currencies, their banks and rogue trading. The decline sparked serious drops in consumer and spending confidence. -- March 10, 2000 - the dotcom bubble crashed after years of over-valuation, fraud and excess liquidity. Fundamentals for high tech companies fell after the spending binge, to avoid the alleged Y2K Millennium bug, ended because the danger was vastly overstated. -- September 11, 2001 - markets closed after the terrorist attacks but on September 17, when they re-opened, the crash was frightening. -- September 24, 2002 - a year after 9/11 markets dove again amid economic and political jitters, war drums regarding Afghanistan and Iraq plus the negative psychological fallout from the attacks. -- September 15, 2008 -- Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch bite the dust causing a precipitous drop after years of excess liquidity, banking malpractice and poor regulation bring down America's real estate and banking systems. On September 29, 2008 another market crash occurs as fear spreads. -- Fall 2009? The anniversary of the Lehman fiasco has been marked by some forecasters predicting more disaster, based on extrapolation. Others point to symptomatic conditions such as surging markets, rampant short positions, increasing commodities prices, increasing interest rates, shaky economies and banks, frightening deficits and debts by governments, currency jitters and a falling Baltic Exchange Dry Index which means, in English, that the terrible declines in trade will worsen. Oh yes, then there's Afghanistan, Iran and the looming global influenza pandemic this autumn. But then there's Robert Froehlich, with DWS Scudder, who pointed out recently that since 1950 the average return of the S&P 500 from early November to the end of April has been 9% compared to 2.71% for the other six months. So, like Job in the Old Testament, I prefer to keep my faith and optimism on the basis that when everybody is thinking along the same lines, and the press is fiercely amplifying that group-think, the opposite result is much more likely. More on Banks
 
Bedroom Insecurities, Shopping Addictions And Stress Top
What's the secret to bedroom body confidence? How do you conquer impulse shopping? Can you get addicted to stress? You ask the questions. We called the experts. More on The Inner Life
 
Dr. Ana Langer: When Planning a Pregnancy Can Save a Woman's Life Top
A new UNICEF report released last week is the latest in a series of drumbeats for a concerted, large-scale campaign to save the lives of mothers and newborns worldwide, far too many of whom are dying today from entirely preventable causes. With Congress back in session, a first order of business should be to approve a spending increase for maternal health and family planning in the FY10 Foreign Operations Bill. At stake are the more than half a million of expectant and new mothers who die each year, 99% of them in developing countries where maternal care is scarce. That's more than one woman every minute. Yet the number of maternal deaths has remained virtually unchanged for the past two decades. This is unconscionable, and it's why the Group of Eight leaders recently agreed that the world must do more to ensure that mothers everywhere can deliver their babies safely. Here in the U.S., we can do our part by doing more to fund life-saving efforts. When most of us think of childbirth, it triggers an image of a mother in a comfortable delivery room, holding the baby she'd dreamed of. Birth is a triumph, in part because pregnancy is never without some degree of risk. But in countries where women have a 1 in 8 lifetime chance of dying from pregnancy or giving birth, it can be tantamount to Russian roulette. Making sure that all women can get emergency obstetric care will go a long way to improving these odds, and there are very good reasons why this type of care receives the most attention from both health providers and policymakers. But it is not enough. Education about, and access to, contraception is also critical for saving lives. That's because when women and their partners are empowered to decide if and when to have children, it can significantly reduce the likelihood that mothers will die in childbirth. Indeed, family planning as a preventive measure is unparalleled. In Africa alone, experts estimate that better access to contraception could avert more than 70,000 maternal deaths annually. More than 250,000 children would be spared the loss of their mothers. There are broader ripple effects, too: when couples can plan how many children to have, and when to have them, they are also better able to better prepare financially for the related costs. In some cases, smaller families also make it more likely that girls will have the opportunity to go to school. No wonder, then, that the demand for family planning is vast and growing. In developing countries, 201 million women want to plan their families but still lack access to modern contraceptives. A new study [pdf] finds that adolescent contraceptive use in developing countries is rising faster than among any other age-group, as the largest generation of adolescents in history--more than 1 billion of them--enters their reproductive years. Yet despite this increased demand and need, progress in actual contraceptive use has stagnated, or even declined, especially in parts of Africa. Access remains a major problem: Women are cut off from health care in general and from family planning information and services in particular. This is most dire in remote areas - where, not by coincidence, maternal death rates are highest, too. In July President Obama visited La General Hospital in Accra, Ghana, where specialists from my organization and others are training local health providers to offer a range of contraceptive options at the community level and particularly in rural districts. We do this elsewhere on the continent, too, focusing on getting services to women who don't want to be pregnant now or in the near future and who live in places where regular doctor visits are virtually impossible. This work needs to be supported and expanded. In this day and age, no woman should die giving life. And no woman should die because she was unable to plan her pregnancy. The health of mothers and their children is the currency that stabilizes communities and allows for economic development. That's the message Congress needs to hear as they deliberate the proposed increase in the FY10 Foreign Operations Bill. Visit www.3for1.org to learn more about what you can do to pressure our leaders in Washington to do the right thing. That's what family planning is about, and it's why should be included in any global effort to protect the lives of women and newborns. Ana Langer, M.D. , is the President of EngenderHealth . More on Health
 
Barbara Ficarra: Extremely Tired and Completely Worn Out? What It Could Mean Plus Questions to Ask Your Doctor Top
Her muscles and joints ached. Her throat was raw and sore and throbbing headaches came on without warning. She felt foggy-headed all the time, and had trouble remembering simple thoughts or following reruns of familiar TV sitcoms. Even though she was bone-tired all the time, she had trouble falling asleep and staying asleep. And there was no stamina for everyday tasks, let alone the activities she enjoyed doing with family and friends. At 41, she couldn't keep up with her 68-year-old mother. She felt like she was going crazy. Source: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: New Insights, New Hope Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a serious medical condition that can easily be overlooked because it mimics so many other disorders. Chronic fatigue may be so profound and debilitating that it can affect work, school and family life. The CDC reports that between 1 and 4 million Americans suffer from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). What are the symptoms of CFS? ( Source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services] • feeling tired even after sleeping • muscle pain or aches • pain or aches in joints without swelling or redness • feeling discomfort or "out-of-sorts" for more than 24 hours after being active • headaches of a new type, pattern, or strength • tender lymph nodes in the neck or under the arm • sore throat Partner up It's important to partner with your doctor or health care provider. By being proactive and an empowered patient you can help get the care and treatment you need. Trust, mutual respect and communication are vital for the doctor/patient relationship. Be honest and open and allow yourself to be in charge of your health. Before your appointment with your doctor, it's important to be prepared. Here are some of my tips: • Take your medical history form with you, which includes a list of your medications. You can download a free personal medical history and medications form here. • It's always a good idea to have someone with you. A trusted family member or friend can help make sense all the information that is given. • Keep a journal of your symptoms, and bring it with you. Write down symptoms you may be experiencing. When did the symptoms start? Are they triggered by some activity? How long do the symptoms last? Are they constant? • Write down any questions. Writing a list of questions in advance can help you stay focused and it will allow you to make the best use of time. Get the conversation started. Here are a few questions to ask your doctor: • What are the causes of my symptoms? • Will the symptoms go away? How long will they last? • What tests are needed to determine the CFS? • How is CFS diagnosed? What are the criteria for diagnosis? • What is the treatment? • Are there alternative therapies? Over-the-counter medications? Prescriptions? What are they? Will my present medications interfere with any of these new medications? • Should my diet change? Are there certain foods that I should be eating? • What lifestyle changes should be made? These are just a few ideas to help make the most of the office visit. Remember to speak up and take charge of your health. If you don't understand something, ask to have the information repeated and it's okay to take notes during your visit. To find out who gets CFS, diagnosis, treatment, coping and more, please check out these additional sources: Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Information The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Women's Health Health in 30® Radio Interview with Kimberly McCleary, President of CFIDS Podcast from the live radio show on CFS Please visit Healthin30 for more info and to listen to podcasts from the live radio show, and more.
 
Jill Schlesinger: Obama's Financial Reform: All Talk, No Action Top
It's just so predictable: use the anniversary of Lehman's bankruptcy to talk about regulatory reform. President Obama's Financial Rescue and Reform speech today at Federal Hall (a beautiful building downtown, that's worth a visit if you are in the neighborhood) was laden with some harsh words: "there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them." As my mother likes to say, talk is cheap. There are three distinct trends that belie the President's "tough" stance on financial reform: President Obama has made health care the number one priority, eclipsing financial reform The economic and stock market recovery makes people lazy. This is especially true for lawmakers, who all of the sudden remembered how much money financial firms pour into their coffers. Inter-regulatory turf battles are downright ugly, although who among us does not want to see Sheila Bair take down Tim Geithner ? Despite the numerous financial reform proposals that are floating around Washington, very little progress has been made on any substantive measures . It was well and good that the President talked the talk, but we're waiting for him to walk the walk and put regulatory reform near the top of his priorities. Until then, the world will keep wondering if financial reform is DOA . Image by Flickr User Davidography , CC 2.0
 
Heather Taylor-Miesle: REALLY?!?! Top
I am a pretty loyal Saturday Night Live viewer.  Through the funny skits and um, the not so funny skits, I have often found myself in front of the TV at 11:30pm on Saturday waiting for someone to scream “Live from NY….”  One of my favorite skits in recent years is a Weekend Update segment that mocks the bad decisions of famous people by asking, “REALLY…. Was that the best use of your time….. did you REALLY think you wouldn’t get caught…. You REALLY thought....” Last week, after a visit to Capitol Hill to talk about climate to those Senators on the fence, that skit reverberated in my mind.  As in – Really?!? You would REALLY rather bet on archaic, filthy, polluting industries that subsidize rogue nations instead of helping create new, better paying, cleaner, home-grown jobs right here in the U.S.? Really?!?!  You REALLY think that U.S. entrepreneurs and renewable manufacturing companies won’t suffer if we don’t act quickly.  REALLY, you don’t think it is a big deal that China is already the world’s leading manufacturer of solar panels and is quickly claiming the wind market? Really?!?!?  You REALLY think that the impacts of global warming are still unsettled and we need to fund more studies?  Even though the Pentagon and military service arms have enacted their own scenarios to deal with Climate refugees? REALLY? You still choose to believe the pandering of the big oil & coal lobbyists? The fact of the matter is that this is NOT a skit.  This REALLY is about someone’s job here in America, our nation’s economic security; the health of our country and our children’s’ future hangs in the balance.  I ask you Congress, are you REALLY going to fail to act?  Now is the time for action. More on Climate Change
 
Bruce Wilson: Palin Pastor's Re-education Scheme "May Seem Like Totalitarianism" Top
While Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has recently raised the specter of totalitarian government by warning about "death panels" she claims are part of the Obama administration's health care plan, Palin herself has ties to a prominent Christian pastor who publicly advocates the establishment of a government regime that, in his own words, "may seem like totalitarianism" and would re-educate citizens in 'correct' decision making -- an approach reminiscent of re-education campaigns during the violence-wracked Chinese communist Cultural Revolution. Last March, Sarah Palin enjoyed an extended telephone consultation and pep talk with Morningstar Ministries founder and head Rick Joyner, who has contacts among Republicans in Congress and whose ministry is closely tied to Palin's most important Alaskan church, the Wasilla Assembly of God . Even some of Sarah Palin's most dedicated fans might be taken aback by Joyner's enthusiastic advocacy for an authoritarian religious state. In a "prophecy" published June 19, 2007, Rick Joyner wrote, "The kingdom of God will not be socialism, but a freedom even greater than anyone on earth knows at this time. At first it may seem like totalitarianism ... Instead of taking away liberties and becoming more domineering, the kingdom will move from a point of necessary control while people are learning truth, integrity, honor, and how to make decisions, to increasing liberty so that they can." Joyner's dream is reminiscent of the visions of 20th Century communist revolutionary leaders who expected that centralized authoritarian government would initially be necessary but anticipated a period of greater freedom after capitalism was successfully vanquished. In a video segment released March 25, 2009, Rick Joyner described an extended phone chat with Palin during which he discussed meeting with members of Congress such as Michelle Bachmann, complained that media overage of the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Palin had been unfair, and declared "I believe there is a spiritual authority and a calling on Governor Palin that is extraordinary ... I believe she has a national calling on her life. I felt that when I first saw her on the television ... I felt, right away, 'I am listening to the President of the United States." Last fall, when asked by a Religion News Service reporter about his ministry's ties to Sarah Palin's most important church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, Joyner sought to downplay the connection stating, "I would be honored to be connected, but we are not that I know of. It is very likely that her church has read our stuff and I think some of our folks have been up and spoken to her church. It would be a very loose, distant association." But Morningstar Ministries is in fact closely tied to the Wasilla church, whose head pastor Ed Kalnins, along with Kenyan evangelist Thomas Muthee, anointed and blessed Sarah Palin against the "spirit of witchcraft" in an October 2005 ceremony at the church, shortly before Palin launched her bid to become Alaska governor. During that 2005 ceremony, Muthee urged his church audience to "infiltrate" key sectors of society such as business and finance, government, education, and media. Thomas Muthee became briefly notorious during the 2008 election, for his claim to have driven a "witch" from Kiambu, a suburb of Nairobi, Kenya. But media missed the most significant aspects of the story; Muthee is an international celebrity for his role in a series of documentary videos, seen by millions worldwide, that claim Christians can reduce crime, murder, traffic accidents, addiction, and environmental degradation by driving out, from cities and towns, demon spirits and accused witches. Both Thomas Muthee and Ed Kalnins have distributed Joyner's books in Africa and the Wasilla Assembly of God uses curriculum from Joyner's ministry, the church's "Masters Commission" students have made pilgrimages to Joyner's church, and Morningstar's Head of Prophecy, Steve Thompson, led an October 2008 Prophecy Conference at Kalnin's church. In 2004, Joyner's fast-growing ministry acquired a portion of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker's dilapidated, palatial former PTL ministry complex near Charlotte, North Carolina and has since partially restored a 52 acre multi-building complex now rebranded as "Heritage USA." In September 2009, a scheduled Morningstar conference will feature, as a speaker, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference Rev. Samuel Rodriguez. Morningstar Ministries promotes the idea that a "last day army" of supernaturally equipped young Christians will conquer and cleanse all evil from the Earth, and a conference advertisement on the Morningstar website features a music track with the refrain, "There is a new generation rising up in power, there is a last day army rising up for war." Militant themes are common at the church. At a revival event held during the week of August 7-13, 2008, Morningstar Executive Vice President Steve Thompson gave a frenzied exhortation to an excited crowd, "See, Jesus is waiting seated at the right hand of the Father, having all authority on Heaven and on Earth, having commissioned and empowered and deployed his disciples to go out and enforce the victory and the judgment that he won over the enemy and waiting until his people rise up and demonstrate their glory and those enemies are put under the feet of the body of Christ !" Thompson's war cry was very similar to that chronicled by journalist Max Blumenthal, who attended a September 2008 service at the Wasilla Assembly of God during which a Russian pastor declared, "We stomp on the heads of the enemy !" In an interview for a September 12, 2008 Religion News Service story Rick Joyner stated, "We are probably described as Third Wave. We have had a lot of influence from movements that I think are identified as Third Wave." The Third Wave is a newly emergent tendency in Christianity, little more than two decades old, which now encompasses by some estimates five percent of the Earth's population and has been promoted from Ted Haggard's former Colorado Springs mega-church. Third Wave doctrine teaches that Christians must reclaim the Earth from demons spirits which possess cities, towns, geographic territories, people, ethnic groups, and even family lines. The cleansing of those demons, and unbelievers, from Earth will usher in a Christian utopian age. Pastor Joyner participated in an early 2008 event endorsing the ministry of Todd Bentley, a Third Wave revivalist who was featured in a Fall 2008 Southern Poverty Law Center report , " 'Arming' For Armageddon: Militant Joel's Army Followers Seek Theocracy", which quoted a writing from Bentley declaring that, "An end-time army has one common purpose -- to aggressively take ground for the kingdom of God under the authority of Jesus Christ, the Dread Champion" . According to an April 30, 2001 story that ran in a Canadian news magazine, The Report , Todd Bentley was convicted as a juvenile of sexually molesting a seven year-old child and by his own admission "was involved in a sexual-assault ring." Bentley subsequently became a born-again Christian and a faith healer but his revival events have featured violent incidents such as Bentley kicking an elderly woman in the face and punching a third-stage colon cancer patient in the gut, with both purportedly the product of divine inspiration. In August 2008, Bentley announced having an extramarital affair and resigned from the board of his ministry. Rick Joyner subsequently volunteered to be one of the religious leaders involved in Bentley's moral rehabilitation (called a "restoration") and has posted a series of video chats with Todd Bentley on his Morningstar Ministries website. Rick Joyner is far from the only notable evangelist associated with Sarah Palin who might raise eyebrows among a wide ideological cross-section of Americans. Palin is even more closely tied to Alaska religious leader Mary Glazier, whose Wasilla prayer group Palin joined, according to Glazier, in 1989. Glazier told SpiritLed Woman magazine, for a 2003 article , that in 1995 her Wasilla group used prayer to attack a woman Glazier had accused of witchcraft: "As we continued to pray against the spirit of witchcraft, her incense altar caught on fire, her car engine blew up, she went blind in her left eye, and she was diagnosed with cancer." As confirmed in a February 2009 Charisma magazine article , Palin's relationship with Glazier continued into 2008, when the two prayed together over the telephone and also in person, at the Alaska Governor's Prayer Breakfast. At a June 12-14, 2008 conference held near Seattle, Mary Glazier described , to top Third Wave leaders, a draconian program of religious cleansing in which unbelievers would be forcibly converted to Christianity or else driven from "the land": "There is a tipping point, at which, at which time, because of the sin of the land, the people then have to be displaced.... God is preparing a people to displace the ones whose sin is rising so that then they tip over and the church goes in - one is removed and the church moves in and takes the territory. Now, that does not mean that the people are removed, because God removes them from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light. They are given an opportunity to change allegiances." On June 7th, 2008, shortly before her bid to become vice president, Palin spent Alaska state funds to fly from Juneau, Alaska, to the Mat-Su Valley where, on June 8th, she attended two religious events dominated by the Wasilla Assembly of God. During a ceremony at one of those events, young adults graduating from the Wasilla Assembly of God Masters Commission program, a college-substitute program which teaches Bible memorization, deference to authority, leadership, and "prophecy", were presented with Samurai swords, underscoring the militant ethic of the church. Palin herself gave a speech at the ceremony and accepted an honorary Masters Commission diploma. Sarah Palin is not merely passively associated with the Third Wave tendency; while Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin appointed a Third Wave religious warfare advocate to the Alaska Suicide Prevention Council and Palin also has served on the advisory board of an Alaska suicide-prevention nonprofit that exhorts high school students to "fight for revolution." More on Sarah Palin
 
As Homeowners Turn To Windmills, Resistance Lingers Top
When Mrs. Howland tried to take the next step in green living -- installing a 132-foot windmill in her backyard that would generate enough electricity to power her home -- she hit a wall. More on Green Living
 
James Heffernan: How to Cut the Cost of Medicare While Improving its Quality Top
Now that the public option for health insurance has been all but jettisoned from the health care reform ship that is tacking and veering its way through Congress, it's high time to consider another option--not for consumers but for health care providers treating Medicare patients, whose health insurance is already public. No matter who ends up paying for health care insurance and how it is paid, the cost of funding Medicare is a tiger we must start taming right now. Last year, Medicare spent 468 billion dollars, 3.2 percent of GDP (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html). This year it's expected to spend 512 billion, and if we do nothing to change the present system, it will spend nearly one trillion by 2018. Instead of nearly doubling its costs by then, what if we could cut them in half? This prospect frightens most seniors, who are now overwhelmingly pleased with Medicare (at the rate of 94%) and who fear that cuts in its spending will mean cuts in the quality of care it now funds. But speaking as a Medicare recipient myself, I am anything but frightened by the prospect of better care at lower cost. This isn't fantasy, folks: it's exactly what thirteen health care programs in this country are delivering RIGHT NOW to their Medicare patients. As I noted just a few weeks ago on this site, these programs are leading the way on two fronts: patient-centered medicine and team medicine (http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/07/healthcare-reform-lessons-from-mayo-clinic.html). At the Mayo clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, for instance, the only thing driving decisions is the needs of each patient. Since all doctors there work on salary, none of them earns more by ordering an extra test or procedure, or earns less by referring a patient to someone else. They all work together with one end in view: improving the health of each patient. They don't care what the treatment costs or even whether it's covered by insurance. They don't practice medicine by wrangling with bean-counters on the other end of a phone. A few years ago, a cardiologist treating a patient needing a pacemaker had to choose between 1) a Medicare-approved model requiring surgery and several days of hospitalization and 2) a new, non-Medicare-approved model requiring just one day of hospitalization. The doctor chose #2 because it was "best for the patient." Do you see now how this system cuts costs while delivering better care? In 2006, the Mayo clinic--with the best doctors and all the latest technology--cost the Medicare system just $6,688 per enrollee, less than half the cost in cities such as McAllen, Texas, where health care providers charged Medicare $15,000 per patient. Is there any reason to fear the kind of care that Mayo delivers? Surely not. But how do we get the rest of America's health care providers to follow the lead of clinics like the Mayo? Not by forging new regulations but by creating new INCENTIVES. To take the place of the "public option" that has just been thrown overboard, therefore, I propose a Best Practices Option for Health Care Providers. The crucial word here is "option." If an HCP likes the present system, if it likes wrangling with bureaucrats over reimbursements, if it likes having its decisions driven by what is "covered" rather than by what is best and most cost-effective for the patient, then it can go on billing separately for every service it performs and maximizing services so as to put profit ahead of savings and patient welfare. But if an HCP can break its addiction to fee-for-service health care, it stands to gain hugely. With no supervision by or interference from Medicare bureaucrats, it could freely decide how to treat each of its patients in the best and most cost-effective way. In other words, it would be free to practice medicine instead of accounting. And every time it lowered costs while improving health care, it would be rewarded with a percentage of the money it saved for Medicare. Following is the blueprint for a bill that would motivate HCPs to take this liberating step. Unlike the bills now circulating through Congress, which run to as many as a thousand pages, this ten-point proposal takes up just ONE page. BEST PRACTICES OPTION FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS 1. This option will be available only to HCPs that provide full-service medical care, from primary consultation to whatever hospitalization and surgery may be required for a patient. Provided the HCP meets the following conditions, its decisions on patient care will never be questioned by Medicare and it will be promptly reimbursed for each bill it submits as well as rewarded for cutting costs. 2. Every doctor and nurse involved in the treatment of the patient will be working on a salary unaffected by the number of patients he or she treats or the number of services he or she provides. 3. No one involved in the treatment of this patient may have any financial interest--direct or indirect-- in any medical device used, lab test ordered, or drug prescribed. 4. All doctors and nurses involved in treating the patient will work as a mutually consulting team supervised by a primary care physician, who must approve all aspects of the patient's care. 5. All records of the patient's treatment--including all tests ordered and drugs prescribed--must be electronically kept and furnished to the primary care physician. 6. When the primary care physician decides that the patient's condition has been satisfactorily treated, he or she will supervise preparation of a single bill that will list all services performed, whether surgical or medical, but will provide just one figure to be reimbursed for the entire course of treatment. 7. Before submission to Medicare, the bill for treatment must be referred to the patient so that he or she may rate its effectiveness on a scale of 1 to 10. No bill will be paid until and unless the patient gives the treatment a rating of at least 8. 8. No bill for the comprehensive treatment of a particular condition may exceed 90% of the fee-for-service baseline, which is what the HCP most recently charged in total fee-for-service costs per average Medicare patient treated for that same condition. 9. Whenever any bill for comprehensive treatment is less than 90% of the fee-for-service baseline, Medicare will pay a bonus of 15% of the savings to the HCP. 10. Whenever a patient gives the HCP a grade of 9 or 10 for the quality of his or her treatment, Medicare will grant the HCP an additional bonus of 5% of savings for a grade of 9, and 10% of savings for a grade of 10. Of course it would take most HCPs in this country at least five and probably ten years to switch from fee-for-service medicine, to start basing its practices on what is best for the patient rather than most profitable for the HCP or most compliant with Medicare regulations. Even an HCP that wanted to change its system immediately would have to wait for at least five years to find enough primary care physicians to make the system work. But the present system is simply unsustainable, and we will never truly reform it until we truly begin to control its costs. The ten points listed above offer one blueprint for doing so. If you think this proposal is worth at least some consideration in Washington, send it to your representative and Senators.
 
Glynnis MacNicol: Time For Obama To Pitch His Health Care Plan Kanye West-Style Top
President Obama just can't seem to catch a break when it comes to holding the nation's attention with details of his health care plan. Perhaps the President should embrace a 'if you can't beat'em, join'em' mentality and stage his own outburst. It may be a good last resort before all is lost. Consider this. Last Wednesday Obama made the unusual move of calling a joint session of Congress, once again occupying the airwaves (sans FOX), to once again pitch his health care plan and hopefully clear up some misconceptions about what it does and does not consist of. It was by most people's measure a fantastic speech...and yet it was mostly lost amidst all the ongoing hubub over Joe Wilson 's "You Lie" outburst. On Saturday, Obama sought to follow up Wednesday's address with a health care plan rally in Minneapolis. Saturday was also known to some 70,000 rambunctious sign-wavers as 9/12, and it was that outburst of sign wavers, marching around Washington, who dominated both the cablers and the next-day coverage. Being nothing if not persistent, Obama appeared this Sunday 60 Minutes for a second time in six months (video below) to talk to Steve Kroft about...the health care plan. 60 Minutes airs at 7pm ET, which last night put it somewhere between Serena Williams' outburst at Saturday's U.S. Open and Kanye West 's Taylor Swift -directed outburst at the VMA's. The President really just needs everyone -- everyone -- to shut the hell up for seven days so he can get his point across! There is a chance Obama will have another shot at the headline ring. Rumors abound he is set to appear on tonight's debut of The Jay Leno Show ...with special guest Kanye West. Perhaps the Prez can get a few outburst notes from the master. Outbursts have appeared to paid off for everyone else. President Obama Talks Health Care on 60 Minutes Watch CBS Videos Online More on CBS
 
Majority Of Doctors Back Public Option: Study Top
A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public health care option. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) study published in Monday's New England Journal of Medicine shows that 63 percent of physicians support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance. If the additional 10 percent of doctors who support an entirely public health system are included, then approximately three out of four physicians nationwide support inclusion of a public option. Only 27 percent support a private-only reform that would provide subsidies for low-income individuals to purchase private insurance. Surveying a nationally representative sample of 2,130 physicians across America, researchers Salomeh Keyhani, M.D., M.P.H., and Alex Federman, M.D., M.P.H., from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City queried physicians about a range of options for expanding health insurance coverage. "There should be no confusion about where doctors stand in the debate over expanding health insurance coverage: they want reform," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "This survey reveals important information about the perspective of physicians on issues central to the health reform debate. Policy makers should listen to their doctors." "We found that no matter how you sliced the data, physicians demonstrated majority support for a public health insurance option, regardless of their type of practice or where they live," said Keyhani. Among those physicians who identified themselves as members of the American Medical Association, 62.2 percent favored both the public and private options. The AMA has opposed a public option , saying that it "threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers." A majority of physicians surveyed (58 percent) also supported expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64. "These results give voice to individual physicians in the national discussion about health reform," said Federman. "Most often we hear the opinions of special interest groups rather than doctors themselves, but we know that Americans want to hear the opinions of doctors like those who treat them. This study lets us hear the unfiltered views of physicians on key elements of health reform and should be useful for lawmakers." Read the full study here . Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Mark Rossini, FBI Agent, Ruins His Career To Romance Hollywood Star Top
As Mark T. Rossini sat at the defendant's table in the D.C. federal courthouse in May awaiting his fate, you couldn't help but wonder, if only for a moment, if he saw himself as a tragic figure in a fabled Hollywood film: Dapper, veteran FBI agent romances pretty actress and foolishly risks career and prestige -- not to mention a $140,000-a-year job -- to sneak the actress a secret FBI document.
 
Larry David Talks 'Seinfeld' Reunion on 'Curb,' Working With Michael Richards Top
The 'Seinfeld' reunion on this season's 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' is the only one we'll ever see, Larry David told us during a conference call. But it will last for five of the eight episodes and include a few brief cameos--Bania! George's mom!--in addition to performances by co-stars Jerry Seinfeld, Jason Alexander, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and the embattled Michael Richards. The season will also see cameos by Meg Ryan, Rosie O'Donnell, Christian Slater, Elisabeth Shue, Sharon Lawrence and Catherine O'Hara. Here's what Larry had to say about the 'Seinfeld' reunion, future seasons of 'Curb' and playing golf with President Obama. Season 7 begins this Sunday at 9 pm EST. Are you happy with how the 'Seinfeld' reunion turned out? "I'm thrilled. But then I was happy with how the 'Seinfeld' finale turned out, so maybe you've got the wrong guy." How much have you kept in touch with the 'Seinfeld' cast, and Michael Richards in particular, in recent years? "I've kept in touch with all of them to varying degrees. Michael went through a very traumatic experience, really. He's been quite chastened by it. What he did on 'Curb' it didn't affect him at all since he was very funny on the show. But I know it's deeply affected him personally." How many times in the past ten years have you been approached to do a 'Seinfeld' reunion? "It's come up quite often. People asked me and I said no. That's probably why it was in my head. I never considered it and I never will consider it. ''Curb' Your Enthusiasm' is the only way it could have ever gotten done. We didn't really do a reunion. We did a faux reunion. We're doing episodes of 'Curb.'" How has your treatment of Jewish humor changed since 'Seinfeld'? "It's not something I think about. My thinking hasn't changed on the matter since I started doing 'Seinfeld'. If it's something that I can use comedically, I will if I think it's funny. The more people I can offend, the better. The only difference is that on 'Seinfeld' we did have a lot of people watching who did get offended by many of the things we did because it was a network show. But the people who are watching ''Curb' Your Enthusiasm' on HBO are paying, so they want to see this kind of thing." How much of Larry David do we really see on the show? "I've always said that my personality is a lot truer on the show than it is in life. So you're really seeing my personality. What you're getting now and what most people get daily is a dishonest human being." Can you give us a preview of the Larry-Cheryl relationship this season? "A lot of the season is about that. I don't want to get too specific, but obviously the only reason I'm doing the reunion show is to try to get her back." Does that reflect some sort of thinking that went on in your real life where you were thinking, 'what if I did something extreme like the reunion show to get my own wife back'? "You know, I don't think I'm going to answer that question." Can we expect to see you coming back for another season next year? "It's possible. I'll think about it in the next couple of months. There's a couple of ideas. I don't think any will be as good as the 'Seinfeld' idea though. It's going to be hard to top that. I'll have to admit." You were playing golf on Martha's Vineyard at the same time as President Obama this summer. Did you get a chance to check out his game? "I was actually on the golf course at the same time he was but we didn't cross paths. I haven't seen his golf game but I don't think much of my own. It's hard for me to disparage other swings." Would you like to challenge President Obama to a game of golf? "I think it would have been fun. Maybe next summer." Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Alison Rose Levy: Health Care By Sound Byte Top
I've always had trouble picturing the decline of Rome. Why would the Roman people get distracted by a mean-spirited and meaningless circus? At what stage of a civilization do cheap thrills become the best option? Unfortunately, nowadays, I don't have to crack a history book to get that lesson. If media outlets, pundits, and commentators were seriously concerned about the health of Americans, why after the President's speech, would media coverage land upon a single word shouted by an idiot--rather than the substantive realities of American health care reform? Of course, I know. The circus is far more entertaining than what you, I, and our loved ones will suffer due to the health care quagmire. It's easier to fixate on a sound byte than to address a complex reality. Too bad for us and our health. Fortunately, Andrew Weil offered a voice of sanity on Larry King show. King joked about the title of Weil's just published book, Why Our Health Matters asking: Isn't it obvious why our health matters? Is it? Do we act as if health is primary? Given all the ways Weil revealed in which American health care is off the rails, I really have to wonder: Can we take it for granted that health really matters to Americans-- when we: • Allow a thousands year old healing art to be co-opted and turned into an industry accountable for bottom line profits, not health? • Permit that industry to make profits higher than any other commodity in our society, while people go bankrupt and their health suffers--even after we watched other unregulated industries topple our economy? • Stand by as that industry donates millions of dollars to legislators to buy legislation that governs health care--and then fear executive branch leadership that tries to restore programs for the public good? • Okay direct to consumer drug advertising so that most TV show push drugs? • Hope that media reporting is honest when it's paid for by drug advertising? • Believe that scientific studies published in medical journals are scientific even when those journals are paid for by industry advertising--as is much of the research itself? • Look on in confusion as health care politics degenerates into a talking point mud wrestle? • Irrationally believe that doctors like Weil who recommend prevention and health promotion stand opposed to insurance coverage--even though he and other integrative doctors have repeatedly supported universal coverage? • Are so health disempowered that any suggestion to take better care of our health in the basic ways available to us-- evokes a terrible two's response in so many? Americas pay lip service to health. But we all too easily get diverted by a media circus--and any old fear-mongering PR campaign can throw us off course. We'll vote against our own self-interest based on a meaningless slogan or the color of someone's tie. We'll jump on board to comment on the latest media frisson, but ignore the fundamental realities of health care and health economics. We believe in a myth (American health care is number one) and ignore the reality--we rank with the Serbians. We overlook basic ways to preserve health and then scream for drugs. We trust high tech services and distrust healthy foods and the gifts of nature. Are we getting the health care we deserve? On Larry King and in his terrific book, Why Our Health Matters, Weil's is the most responsible voice in this debate. He is asking that people be responsible, that legislators be responsible, and that health industries be responsible to the people they serve-- not to executive profit. Yet some view his frank look at how to lower costs as a frilly add-on-- rather than a far-sighted, strategic, and systemic way to save our collective butts. A true solution won't give you an adrenaline rush like the latest media fracas, but we need to do what Weil recommends as the three ways to assure better health care at lower cost: 1. Build some form of government sponsored plan to create leverage to lower insurance rates and negotiate favorable pricing on standard medical care 2. Lower health costs through the lifestyle/preventive measures 3. Assure that both government and private programs enact health promoting policies across the board If your health matters to you, I highly recommend that you read Weil's new book. We'll get the health care that has been imposed upon us, until we rise up, take responsibility and demand the health care we deserve. For the free ezine, the Health Outlook, sign up at: www.health-journalist.com More on Health Care
 
Rich Wolf: Ancient Quaking Aspen Clones Top
The wildflowers are playing out their last act of the summer here in Colorado and it is just about the time to focus on fall colors. Unlike the Eastern US, with its majestic maples and other colorful deciduous trees, here the primary source of fall color is our beloved Quaking Aspen ( Populus tremuloides ). The Quaking Aspen is a graceful tree whose leaves dance in the slightest breeze. They are usually found swarming in large groves and at this time of the year their colorful season finale descends from the high altitudes in a glorious display. These swarms turn yellow and red and we Coloradians log on to the local weather to find out where to worship them with our cameras. Eldora Colorado Aspen Grove 26 Sept 2008 There is more to this popular poplar than meets the lens. It turns out that this plant has a very solitary sex life. Here are the facts: Quaking Aspen reproduce primarily through root sprouts, and extensive clonal colonies are common. Each colony is its own clone, and all trees in the clone have identical characteristics to the original mother tree and share a single root structure. A stand of aspen is really only one huge organism. Think of aspens as large systems of roots that remain hidden underground until there's enough sunlight. Then the roots sprout up white things called trunks (or suckers) that then leaf off green things called leaves. This is called "vegetative" or asexual reproduction. This makes the grove hardy and independent of pollinators but it also halts evolutionary progress making adaptation to environmental change impossible. Entire aspen colonies can be lost due to the encroachment of spruce and fir into its ecosystem. Aspen is dependent on fire, avalanche, or other "clearing" disturbances to keep stands open allowing sunlight to permit reproducing from suckers. Grazing and fire suppression are causing loss of aspen habitat. Thanks to a common genetic blueprint, all members of a clone will all have a uniform shade of color transitioning from green to yellow at the same time. By examining the different color patchwork along a mountainside in the fall you can distinguish individual clonal colonies from each other. Dispite their solitary method of reproduction, aspen seeds do exist. They have very specific conditions needed to germinate and under adverse climatic conditions seldom produce aspen seedlings that survive. Aspens here in the Western US have not propagated from seed since the last Ice Age which means that this ancient organism hasn't evolved for over 10,000 years! Will global warming reward or punish this old giant? A group of 47,000 Quaking Aspen clones nicknamed " Pando " in the Wasatch Mountains, Utah (USA) is sometimes considered the world's largest organism by mass, covering 43 hectares (110 acres).
 
Evidence of Murder Has Suspenseful Plot Top
"Evidence of Murder" (William Morrow, 343 pages, $24.99), by Lisa Black: When Jillian Perry, wife of a wealthy video game creator and mother of a little girl, is found dead in the bitterly cold woods near Cleveland, the police dismiss the death as a suicide. Medical examiner Theresa MacLean isn't so sure, and the more she pokes into the case, the more she suspects that Jillian was murdered. Problem is, there's no physical evidence to explain how she died. She has no fatal wounds, no signs of strangulation, no evidence of drugs or poison. Nothing at all. As far as the forensics experts can tell, she just wandered into the woods and froze to death. MacLean's boss keeps pressing her to close the case and turn her attention to other bodies piling up in the medical examiner's office. But Lisa, still reeling from the death of her fiance in "Takeover," the first book in this new series, can't let it go. Her investigation grows urgent when, as she keeps digging, she becomes convinced that Jillian's killer is about to strike again. The solution to the mystery involves an undetectable and diabolical method for murder. It also involves clever police work in which Theresa explores the mind of the murderer and turns his brilliance against him. With "Evidence of Murder," Black demonstrates an ability to create memorable characters and to fashion a suspenseful, well-structured plot. And her expertise – she is a forensic scientist herself – shows in her handling of the technical aspects of the case. However, Black isn't much of a prose stylist. The writing is clear and straightforward – easy to read except for an occasional clunky sentence. But it has none of the verve and flair we've come to expect from the best writers in the mystery genre. If the quality of the prose matters to you, the book will disappoint; but if you're just looking for a suspenseful plot and a quick read, Black may do the trick. More on Books
 
Kevin Grandia: Canada's Dirty Oil Prime Minister in Washington this Week Top
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be in Washington, DC this week again trying to ride Obama's coattails on clean energy. As a Canadian and writer on climate change issues I can give you a quick and easy rundown of this right-wing George Bush light leader of the North: Climate Change - denied that it existed until opinion polls ( and Republican pollster Frank Luntz) showed that this was an unpopular stance. Tar Sands - PM Harper hails from the province of Alberta and would like nothing more than to see the dirty tar sands oil continue to flow into US refineries. Popularity - Harper is desperate to gain in the polls in Canada where he has been unable to get a majority of Canadians on his side. His backroom boys are no doubt advising him to saddle up to President Obama as a means of appearing more moderate. Loves Karl Rove - Harper is running a TV ad smear campaign painting moderate politicians in Canada as socialists. If he doesn't love Karl Rove, then he sure as heck is listening to Newt Gingrich. I've said it before and I'll say it again, my best advice to Obama when it comes to dealing with Stephen Harper is this: So there you go. And here's a great spoof ad playing on Harper's smear campaign against Liberal Party leader (and main political opponent) Michael Ignatieff:
 
Weed Card: New Garfunkel And Oates Song! (NSFW VIDEO) Top
We have lady crushes on Riki "Garfunkel" Lindhome and Kate "Oates" Micucci, comedians who sing fun songs about sex with ducks and douche-y parties . In their latest video, they croon about trying to get medical marijuana cards in California. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Funny Videos
 
Gretchen Rubin: Balanced Life -- Embrace The Update, Or, Why Is It So Hard To Turn On The TV? Top
I'm working on my Happiness Project, and you could have one, too ! Everyone's project will look different, but it's the rare person who can't benefit. Join in -- no need to catch up, just jump in right now. Each Sunday's post will help you think about your own happiness project. I dread updates - when some computer program cheerfully but forcefully insists on doing an update; when some long-beloved appliance dies and is replaced with the newer, mysterious version of itself (why is it so hard to turn on the TV in someone else's house?); or when my husband joyfully presents the new tech doodad that I'll have to figure out how to use. Novelty and challenge bring happiness, true, but they also bring frustration, anxiety, and sometimes a bit of cursing. It can be hard to get accustomed to a new look or a new approach. To keep myself patient as I work through an update, I often apply my resolution to Put myself in jail . The thing is, though, updates are often helpful. Programs, appliances, services get better. Once I forced myself to figure out our new digital camera - not anything fancy, just the basics - I realized it was easier to use than my old camera. Updates boost happiness by making things work better and by giving a satisfying feel of mastery. I'm reminding myself of this now, because I'm trying to Embrace the update of my blog. I started it on March 27, 2006 , when I knew nothing about blogging, and zoikes, there wasn't much to it in the early days. I remember my feelings of triumph when I first added an image! As I've learned more, I've added more bells and whistles, with what might be called "organic" effect -- or less nicely, "messy" effect. As much as I love my blog the way it is, and as proud as I am of figuring out how to put in an RSS button, live sidebar links, etc., it's time to fix it up a bit. In an example of my favorite Zen saying, "When the student is ready, the teacher appears," I'd just started fussing about the ramshackle quality of my blog when help arrived. The brilliant Fred Wilson put it very diplomatically when he said something like, "Your blog reminds me of mine, before I spruced it up. I have the name of a great person to help you, if you want it." Umm, yes. So thanks to the work of superhero Nathan Bowers , about whom I can't say enough good things, an updated version of my blog will appear Monday. Many of you don't read me at www.happiness-project.com, so for you, nothing will change. But if you read this blog on my own home site, you'll see quite a difference. I hope you like it. Embrace the update . Added bonus: in the re-design, something very exciting (well, exciting to me) is revealed for the first time! Can you figure out what it is? The Super-Fans know, but no one else. What do you think? Have you found that embracing updates makes you happier -- at least in some circumstances? Or do you steer clear of any avoidable updates, as mindless churn? * Ok, you have to be in a very sentimental, sappy mood to enjoy this video on Gimundo of a puppy who can't get up off his back, but it really hit the spot for me. * Interested in starting your own happiness project? If you'd like to take a look at my personal Resolutions Chart, for inspiration, just email me at grubin, then the "at" sign, then gretchenrubin dot com . (Sorry about writing it in that roundabout way; I'm trying to thwart spammers.) Just write "Resolutions Chart" in the subject line. More on Happiness
 
Amanda Christine Miller: Agent Provocateur Debuts Uber-Luxury Collection Top
Fashion Week kicked off with a bang on Wednesday when the luxury lingerie brand, Agent Provocateur, debuted their new "kinky couture" collection "Agent Provocateur Soirée" at the Soho Grand hotel. As Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker (an erudite, audio pun) wafted in the background, models revealed exquisite and sexy pieces made from French leavers lace, Italian leather and Swarovski crystals. ¼ cup bras abounded covering ... well, nothing, but showcasing leather and crystal pasties. Highlights included a biker-themed, halter-neck corset embellished with studs and 2-inch metal spikes which seems right for those evenings when you're just not in the mood or literally want to knock 'em dead. Another look featured a black silk tailored smoking jacket paired with a foundation bodysuit, garters and thigh-high stockings, topped off with a military cap evoking a Night Porter aesthetic. In a salon decorated with gilded couches, champagne and bonbons, the show's MC editorialized by pointing out that every girl wants to "enhance her bottom cleavage" and that many of these pieces can be worn indoors and out. Since 1994, Agent Provocateur has been redefining the standards of lingerie and loungewear; and creates some of the most beautiful, flattering and sexiest sets. This show was a divine demonstration of just how gorgeous support garments can be. More on Fashion Week
 
Bagram Detainees Win Right To Challenge Detention Top
WASHINGTON (AFP) For the first time, the United States is granting some 600 prisoners held in the US air base in Bagram the right to challenge their detention in the jail dubbed the Afghan Guantanamo, officials said Monday. More on Afghanistan
 
Paul A. London: We Are Not Dependent on Foreign Countries for Our Own Money Top
Conservatives say that the United States cannot afford to spend money on bridges, roads, schools, parks and other public works even though we clearly need them. More stimulus they claim, will be inflationary. 14.5 million Americans are out of work. 8.8 million are working part-time but want full-time jobs and millions more are so discouraged that they have stopped looking for work. U.S. steel production is down 47 percent from last year and cement output is down 30 percent. Consumers and businesses have cut spending so their purchases won't put people and plants back to work. The government has to do it. Conservatives argue, however, that the government does not have the money to undertake projects that would employ people and reopen plants and offices: Borrowing and increasing the deficit they claim would be a disaster. To get the more of our own money, they say, the U.S. would have to borrow from and pay interest to China and Japan. This whole line of argument is wrong. Ask yourself how the American government can be dependent on others for American dollars. It is impossible. The U.S. government can have as many or as few dollars as it wants. In the modern age money is a human construct: governments and banks empowered by governments create it. Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress can "coin money" and it does not limit the amount. Foreign currencies can be scarce or expensive, and this is an important issue, but U.S. dollars to spend in the United States can only be scarce if the government makes them scarce. It would be foolish to create more money if prices were rising and labor and goods were scarce. That would be inflationary. The great inflations in history occurred in times of such scarcity. But there is no scarcity when 14.5 million people are unemployed and factories and offices closed. Modernizing America's infrastructure at a time when scarcity is not a problem therefore will not raise prices. History should be our teacher when it comes to money. In the early 19th century private banks created it to supplement gold and silver coin. Paper money was in the form of "bank notes" for this reason. The government in the early 19th century allowed the organization of two Banks of the United States that played a large role in the money-creating process. President Andrew Jackson thought these banks were monopolies so he ended the government's special relationship with the last of them. Over the next few decades many more banks got into the profitable but risky business of issuing bank notes. When the U.S. government needed money to fight the Civil War, however, the Treasury created it by issuing "greenbacks," in effect by-passing the private banks, and the Greenbacks worked fine. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson and the Congress shifted the money-creating role from private banks to a hybrid government-private entity called the Federal Reserve Bank. Hence today's bills say "Federal Reserve Note" at the top. So when the government needed money to fight World War II, it did not issue its own Treasury notes as it had during the Civil War. Instead it told the Federal Reserve to buy government securities with money the Fed could create and paid the latter no more than 2.5 percent interest to do so. The Fed, discredited at the time by its role in creating the Great Depression, did what it was told. As a result, Americans were fully employed and prospered during World War II although over 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product was going to military expenditures that created no civilian economic benefit. The Federal Reserve's Chairman, Ben Bernanke, knows this history. He knows that the Fed's unwillingness to create enough money was a cause of the Great Depression. He knows that the money it created to finance World War II not only defeated the Axis but created prosperity that made memories of the Great Depression fade. Based on this history, the Fed is purchasing the securities of public and private entities as well as government debt with Fed-created money as it did during World War II. It should buy more government debt to finance programs that would put America's unemployed, as well as its steel mills and cement plants, back to work and modernize our decrepit infrastructure. It hesitates to do so largely because history-blind conservatives scare the country by saying that creating more money is a slippery slope to runaway inflation. This is not so. The real danger is the opposite. It is that the U.S. will repeat what happened after the Civil War. Then despite the collapse of a speculative expansion of railroads like the recent collapse of speculation in real estate, the government abruptly withdrew the "greenbacks" it had created to fight the war. It further decreased the money supply at the same time by de-monetizing silver. This caused prices to fall sharply, especially for farm products, and led to a severe and prolonged depression. In contrast, after WWII the government withdrew money more gradually and adroitly so that the U.S. economy continued to prosper. That should be our model when we get to full employment again. History tells us that good things happen when the government is skillful in its use of the constitutional power to create money. The next time a conservative who is ignorant of history says that the U.S. government is short of dollars and can not afford to put people and unemployed resources to work, ask them what history they are citing. It is not American history.
 
New York Residences Raided In Terrorism Probe Top
WASHINGTON — Law enforcement agents raided residences in New York City on Monday as part of a terrorism investigation, and began briefing Congress about the probe. New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne confirmed that searches were conducted in the borough of Queens by agents of a joint terrorism task force. He would not discuss the matter further. Separately, federal authorities started briefing a series of senior lawmakers in Congress about the case. Two U.S. intelligence officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly, said the target of any purported attack – or who would carry it out – remained unclear. Authorities have not found any weapons ready for use – such as a bomb – that would indicate an attack was imminent, they said. Nevertheless, one of the officials called the threat very real and emphasized the urgency of the threat. Another person briefed on the matter, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, said the raids were the result of previous law enforcement surveillance of individuals. The investigation is continuing. ___ Eds: Associated Press Writers Eileen Sullivan, Lara Jakes and Pam Hess contributed to this story. Hays reported from New York.
 
Evan Handler: America, I Love You. Americans, You Suck. Top
I have found the last week to be one of the most politically dispiriting of my adulthood. After President Obama's address to the nation on health care, I posted an opinion piece on Huffington Post which garnered well over 600 comments, as well as dozens of emails sent directly my way. The piece was in support of strong health care reform legislation, including a "public option," and used my own history of overcoming acute myeloid leukemia, as well as my wife's Italian family's health care experiences in that country, as reference points. Most responses were of the "Thank you for saying what I've felt" variety, and it's always gratifying to be told I've said something important, or made someone else feel heard. The strong minority current won't surprise anyone who's followed the health care debate, or most any political discussion, over the past couple of years. A vocal minority has let me know, over and over again, that they don't want the government taking any more of their money; that they want to be able to decide how to spend and invest their own money; that they don't want to have to pay for anything for anyone else; and -- the big time, firecracker, most-consistent comment of all -- they don't want any Americans to have government-subsidized health care insurance if one single, goddamn, fucking, disgusting illegal immigrant might be able to get their hands on it, too. Okay. I get it. And here's my response to both groups. First, to those opposed to any European-styled government subsidized health insurance option: I found every one of your arguments to be small-minded, selfish, fear-driven, ill-informed, self-serving, and -- most crucially -- detrimental to the long-term interests of the United States of America. As I indicated in my last piece, the oft-stated logic of "government out of my life" is a fantasy existence you've never experienced, and that you'd whimper in fear over were you ever subjected to it for an instant. Make a list of the industries you're aware of: medical, chemical, automobile, steel, housing, whatever. Each and every one of them would crush you with glee without government regulations if it added to their profits by one one-millionth of a percentage point. They'd sell the juice they squeezed out of you as a refreshment drink, if they could get away with it. As corrupt and inefficient as your government is (and it clearly is), it's the only thing keeping you alive moment to moment. Reform it, by all means. Keep it honest. Throw out the bums who aren't protecting you adequately enough. But, end its involvement in your life? Scale it back? You're kidding yourself. That's a joke. Take one look back at history (please, just one look!), and see how workers, and children, and consumers are now protected where they were once injured and exploited. That's called "progress," and we're hoping to add a little more. To those who insisted, "I don't use public transportation, my local taxes pay for my town's sidewalks, I don't use this, I don't use that," yours are idiotic arguments. The concrete under your feet, the steel used in elevators, the earthquake and flood resistant building codes, the dams that don't break and drown you, the cars that (hopefully) don't fall apart as you're driving them, the airplanes that don't (usually) land on your head -- every single thing that keeps you safe every day of your life is provided to you by a government standard or regulation. Argue with me about it all day long; go ahead and take offense at my use of the word "idiotic." None of it changes the fact that you wouldn't survive a week if you were really in it on your own, and that your resistance to recognizing it is a much bigger problem than 11 million people who entered this country illegally. You, in your refusal to acknowledge your interdependence with everyone else, are a bigger problem than they are. As to those immigrants, and the rage I've seen inspired by them, just give me a break. You're all immigrants. Every one of you. Every one of your pink, overstuffed, jiggly "American" asses is stuffed full of tortillas, or pancetta, or paella, or schnitzel, or knockwurst, or moussaka, or Dublin Coddle, or whatever the fuck your ancestors ate before they crawled their way over here. And, when they got here, someone hated them just as much as you're hating whoever's newest here now, and fought against their having anything you now enjoy. If it's only the illegal entry that's an issue for you, let me ask you this: If you lived in Country A, where you and your family were starving, and you knew you could get a job in Country B, are you telling me you wouldn't sneak across a border to feed them? Of course you would. And, if the people of Country B kind of, sort of allowed it, and benefited tremendously from your willingness to harvest their crops, or work on their assembly lines, or vacuum their offices, or clean their children's school toilets for pennies, it would be pretty shitty treatment, indeed, to turn you away from an emergency room if you got got sick, like I've heard recommended in terms of the undocumented residents of the United States. As to those undocumented residents, get ready to have your blood really boil. They're not going anywhere. No one is going to round them up and send them home, other than in token gestures to calm you down, and no amount of mistreatment is going to force them to run home in any meaningful numbers. What needs to happen, and what will happen, is that they be put on track to gain legal residency status, so that they will pay taxes, and be rightfully protected from all the evils I've outlined above, just like the rest of us human beings living here. The reason it needs to happen and will happen is that it's the more cost efficient thing to do. It's cheaper than keeping them here as a marginalized population, with all the costs included in that, and it's cheaper than the impossible process of gathering, prosecuting,and sending them away. Really, when will enough be enough? Don't you realize, can't you realize, that all the change you're fighting against -- just like the protections that are now taken for granted, but that someone fought against once-upon-a-time -- will happen, eventually, whether you like it or not? That last bit is the only thing that comforts me right now. No matter how hard the nitwits (and the clever ones who manipulate them) fight, eventually everything they despise will come to pass. Gays will get married and enjoy equal protection. There will be some form of government-subsidized health care coverage for all. And the vast majority of the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently here will be granted some degree of permanent residency status. These things will all happen, even if it's thirty more years until they do, because they need to. They are the most correct solutions. (Don't tell me, "There's no right or wrong. We just happen to disagree." Nonsense. I don't accept it. There is right, and there is wrong, and those against strengthening protections for those least able to protect themselves are wrong.) The joke is that, by fighting, and delaying, those who think it's just "unfair," or that providing rights or protections for others will "cost too much," or who want "the government out of my pocket," will make the final tab so much higher than if the reforms were implemented now. The costs of exclusion are astronomical, from ER care for those with no coverage, to cultural warfare and political campaigning, and eventual (lost) lawsuits by those who've been trampled upon. My prediction is that, finally, one day, with fewer fireworks than anyone could now expect, with more of a groan of exhaustion than much celebration, enough of the opposition will have seen enough carnage to come to their senses, or have discovered they can love the gay children they've given birth to (imagine that!), or had a catastrophic illness themselves, and the right laws will come into play, and the country will change. But what will we have gained from the long delay? As to those who agree with some, or much, of what I say, you'd better get off your asses right now. I mean right now. The greedy and the foolish are ruling the day, even after they lost an election (and even though they hold no majorities, either in government or in population). Because they're working harder. They're yelling louder. Their hatred is out hustling your good will by a mile. How many of them showed up in Washington, fifty-thousand, or 1.5 million? It doesn't matter. Because no bigger demonstration existed to demand government-subsidized health insurance be available to those who want it. Were there facts shouted at the town hall meetings, or lies? It doesn't matter. Because there was no larger force, to sing "I Ain't A-Scared of Your Lies, 'Cause I Want My Health Care," to the tune of the old civil rights song "I Ain't A-Scared of Your Jail, 'Cause I Want My Freedom." That would have made the evening news. Because it would have taken a spectacle, and used it as a jumping point to create a bigger, more powerful, one. Because it would have framed the effort for what it is, a struggle for what should be a civil right. And, at least for one small day, a news cycle would have been won, instead of lost. Oh, the mail I'll get now. The comments will scream that I don't know what I'm talking about, because one or two of my facts might not be perfectly correct, or phrased. People will take offense, and say I've lowered the level of dialogue with my language. But there is no dialogue. One glance at the comments section to my last post, or at my emails this week, and you can see. Dialogue is over. There is no convincing those who will not listen to reason. It's funny to remember and compare such a small incident, but it applies. When I still lived in New York, I owned a small apartment in a co-op building. There was a security guard who patrolled the block at night, and he was paid by voluntary contributions from those who chose to give. Ten dollars a months was the requested amount. Ten dollars a month, from people who owned Manhattan real estate, in order to make the block a bit safer, and a bit cleaner. But payments to the guard's salary were dwindling, so a survey was done, and it became clear that while 50% of the people on the block were contributing, our building had a participation rate of only 30%. At a board meeting, some of my neighbors said, "I don't go out at night. Why should I have to pay for a security guard when I don't go out at night?" "Well, would you rather have to step over broken glass and used condoms during the day, when you do go out?" I asked. "Would you rather have noise and music from groups that gather at night, or hear screams from people being robbed, or worse?" It didn't matter. They weren't moved. So we did what the law allowed us to do. We took a vote, and we made the ten dollars a month a mandatory part of the building's monthly maintenance charges. We went from 30% participation, to 100%. In other words, we stopped trying to reason with them, or make them understand, or agree. We used our majority, and we rammed it down their throats. It's time now to do the same. This is a war we're in. Not a shooting war (and I condemn anyone who takes up arms on either side of it, like some have already done at supposed "Town Hall Meetings"). It's an ideological war. And the longer it takes to recognize and acknowledge that fact, the longer it will take for our society to throw off the outsized influence of those who are willing to wage one from the other side. So, if you feel inspired, if the words of the last post meant something to you, do something. Don't write to me on Facebook, or merely pass the article on there (though I thank you for doing so this past week). Call Senators and Congressmen/women. Flood their phone lines. Send them emails. Shout out to them from the street. Carry signs. Gather. Organize. Call ten friends, or a hundred, or fifty-thousand, or a million-and-a-half, and go to Washington. Scream and shout. Wage war. Insist. We were once a nation of such potential. A nation built on the pride of its self-proclaimed superiority. We've been embarrassing ourselves in front of the world since shortly after 9/11, 2001. In spite of a change of leadership, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Shame on the citizens who are trying to obstruct, and shame on the politicians who pandered to them this past week. The words on the Statue of Liberty, liberators of concentration camps, inventors and innovators throughout the twentieth century. And what's the United States' most recent contribution? Collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and eleven million brown, yellow, and red-skinned people who'll be denied the privilege of paying money to purchase health care insurance. Hooray for the red, white, and blue. Evan Handler's latest book is "It's Only Temporary: The Good News and the Bad News of Being Alive." EvanHandler.com More on Health Care
 
The 7 Most Inappropriate Products For Children (PHOTOS) Top
More on WTF
 
Obama May Do Back-to-Back TV Interviews Sunday Top
If there's one thing this White House doesn't seem worried about, it is that Americans will get tired of seeing President Obama. After a week of speeches and rallies, the appearance on "60 Minutes," the speech on Wall Street today and a rally in Maryland later this week, Mr. Obama is looking to do what would be a presidential first: sitting down for interviews on at least three of the Sunday morning news shows.
 

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)