Saturday, September 26, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Barbara Ficarra: 3 Ways for a Better, Happier and Healthier You Top
Sometimes, it's the simple things that we can do to help improve our outlook and health. The best part is... It's something that we have within ourselves to help boost our mind, body and spirit. Learning to mediate and learning to focus on breathing, spending time face-to-face with our friends and smiling all are really simple things that can do to help us reduce stress and anxiety. It can help us live a happier, healthy life. 3 Ways to Boost Your Health 1. Meditate You may feel that you need to be in a lotus pose or in a spa like environment to gain the benefits of mediation, but truth is you can be anywhere. You can meditate while waiting in line at the post office, in a doctor's office, during your daily walk, in the shower or while cooking dinner. Meditation can help you reduce stress, and it's great for your mind, body and spirit. The Mayo Clinic highlights the benefits of meditation . Meditation relaxes the body and reduces stress. Meditation may help with these conditions: • Allergies • Anxiety disorders • Asthma • Binge eating • Cancer • Depression • Fatigue • Heart disease • High blood pressure • Pain • Sleep problems • Substance abuse Always check with your doctor or health care professional before beginning meditation for any of these conditions. You can find more info on mediation from the Mayo Clinic here . Yoga is one form of meditation and it is a great way to help clear the mind. Through various yoga poses and breathing, yoga can help alleviate stress and reclaim a clear mind. Stay tuned...I'll be bringing you more on yoga with interviews, pictures and more. 2. Connect with Friends Face-to-Face It's no secret that spending time with your friends is simply good for your health , and brings happiness . While staying connected with friends who live faraway is a great thing, it's important to also have friendships where there's an interaction. Face-to-face communication with your friends can help you unwind, relax, and simply make you happy. Go ahead, email or text your friends and schedule some fun face-to-face time! 3. Smile I remember sitting in my high school math class eying a poster that was prominently displayed on the bulletin board right next to linear equations. It said: "If you see a friend without a smile; give him one of yours" Somehow I never forgot that quote. [Hmm...I wonder if I still remember linear equations]! Smiling brings happiness and it's good for the mind, body and spirit. Smiling can make you feel good; others feel good and can help reduce stress. At Livestrong.com it highlights the importance of a good smile. Smiling just doesn't improve your appearance; it's good for your health. Smiling can lift your spirits. A study conducted by the British Dental Health Foundation showed the act of smiling to dramatically improve one's mood. Dr. Nigel Carter, foundation CEO, stated "We have long been drawing attention to the fact that smiling increases happiness both in yourself and those around you, so it is good to receive the backing of this scientific research. A healthy smile can improve your confidence, help you make friends and help you to succeed in your career." Meditation, friends and smiling are three easy things to do that can help you live a better, happy, and healthy life. I'd love to hear how you maintain your healthy lifestyle. Do you make meditation part of your daily routine? Do you practice yoga or other forms of meditation? Do you connect with your friends face-to-face? Do you smile often and at others? Please let me know. Thanks! [Please check out Healthin30.com for more info and stay tuned for upcoming radio shows. If you have any health topics you'd like to know more about, please contact me! Thank you]. More on Happiness
 
Richard Stuebi: Money Walks, Fossil Fuel Talks Top
Earlier in September, a group of investors from around the world with over $13 trillion under management issued a statement calling on governments to agree at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December to require greenhouse gas emission reductions of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. $13 trillion. That's a lot of money. It's the kind of money that makes decision-makers sit up and take note. This money is telling world leaders that maintaining the status quo -- of essentially doing nothing substantive to mitigate the prospects for human-induced climate change -- will be expensive and risky relative to undertaking prudent and prompt action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since investors are the engine of the global economy, without which productive growth cannot occur, you'd think that industries seeking to be major players in world markets for decades to come would want to be arm-in-arm with the big sources of capital. In few industries is access to capital as critical as the conventional energy industry. It takes billions of dollars to make a major oil discovery or build a new baseload powerplant. Energy requires massive amounts of capital, no two ways about it. And, in a world where energy demand growth has resumed and is likely to continue unabated to satisfy the increasing appetites of China, India and other developing economies, many trillions of dollars will need to be obtained by energy industry players from the world's capital markets in the decades to come. Yet, many of the main purveyors of fossil fuels -- the bedrock of the energy sector -- are fundamentally at odds with the growing ranks of investors clamoring for global government action on climate change. For instance, here in the U.S., an "astroturf" (i.e., false grassroots) organization called Energy Citizens , backed (according to this recent article in The Economist ) by the American Petroleum Institute and other oil/gas interests, is sponsoring rallies around the country denouncing the American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed the House a few months ago -- a bill that would lead to substantially less emission reductions than the aforementioned investors wants to see. Now, it must be said that the fossil fuel industry -- oil, gas and coal -- represents one of the strongest aggregations of political muscle on the planet. And, although maybe not as much as the financial centers of the planet, the energy companies have plenty of financial resources to throw at an opposing "call to inaction". After all, consumers worldwide spend roughly $5 trillion per year on energy, putting lots of dough in the coffers of the energy suppliers. So, over the coming months running up to Copenhagen, it will be interesting to see which side can amass more force: finance or fossil fuels. In the U.S., it is doubtful that any climate change bill will become law this year, with Congress being mired in the ongoing health care debate. Without a U.S. climate bill passed in Congress, representatives in Copenhagen will be challenged to achieve anything meaningful. Thus, the fossil fuel folks may well win this round of the battle. But the energy companies must remember that they will need to go to the capital markets, hat-in-hand, many times in the coming decades if they want continued successful growth. And, investors are going to be less and less willing to fund management teams for business growth if the same management teams are stifling progress on something that represents a bigger wealth-destroying factor for their overall portfolios. Energy companies like to say that they fuel the economy. That may be true, but capital fuels the economy at least as much -- and fuels the energy companies to boot. In the long-run, I'd put my bets on the money managers making change happen, than on the energy industry preventing change from happening. Because when money walks away from them, all that fossil fuel interests will have are declining resource extraction businesses starving for capital. All they will have left, is talk. And talk is cheap.
 
Swine Flu: 10 Best Gadgets To Protect Yourself From H1N1 Top
Some good news about the Swine Flu: * Swine flu isn't nearly as deadly as anybody originally thought. * But it's still nasty! So we've come up with 10 Gadgets To Protect You From The Fall's Swine Flu Pandemic More on Swine Flu
 
Michelle Obama Walks Bo: Guess What Music She's Listening To! (PHOTOS) Top
On Saturday afternoon, Barack, Michelle and Bo Obama went to see daughter Malia play soccer. After the game, the First Parents returned to the White House with Bo, and Michelle took him for a walk on the White House lawn, music player in hand. So here's the question... What is she listening to?? We need your input. Here's how it works: think of a song or album Michelle might be listening to, or music you think she should be listening to. Next find an image to go with it -- could be an album cover, a picture of the artist, or a picture of you relaxing with your favorite animal. Hit the participate button below, give your submission a title, upload the image and hit submit! Feel free to add a caption! More on Photo Galleries
 
Greg Hanlon: Giants - Buccaneers Preview: Trap Game? Nah... Top
Warnings about trap games have become so commonplace that as to render the concept meaningless. It's hard to get "trapped" by something that everyone's been talking about all week. This makes you wonder if trap games ever existed, or if they're just the product of a good team playing poorly and a bad team playing well. This happens sometimes, after all, and not because the good team takes the bad team lightly. Bucs Offense vs. Giants Defense This section boils down to this: The Giants defense is good, but depleted. The Bucs offense is mediocre, and depleted. For all the worrying about the injuries, the Giants still have the advantage in this battle. First, a word on Kenny Phillips. Everyone's looking for a "SuperSafety" these days - a guy like Troy Polamalu, Ed Reed, or Bob Sanders that makes all kinds of plays all over the field. After last Sunday's game, Giants fans thought they had a budding SuperSafety in Kenny Phillips, who could have teamed with Corey Webster to give the Giants two dynamic defensive backs to compliment their fearsome pass rush. It was an exciting thought, but it's going to happen, not this year or maybe ever. The reaction in Giants-land might seem out of proportion, considering Phillips, while showing flashes, has basically just been a pretty decent player so far in his short career - it's not as if the Giants are losing that much production or that his loss jeopardizes their chances that much. But the possibility that his star potential has been cut-short that so disturbs Giants fans, who were dreaming big after last week's game. Phillips' injury is the latest blow to the Giants' depleted secondary and a defense that has already incurred its fair share this year. The situation in the secondary is a bit alarming: Kevin Dockery is listed as questionable and Aaron Ross is out, so there exists the possibility that three of the six active defensive backs - CC Brown, Bruce Johnson, and newly acquired safety Aaron Rouse - will only have had a handful of Giants snaps between them. The probable loss of Justin Tuck - who hasn't practiced this week - and the continuing absence of Chris Canty with a lingering calf injury means the Giants will also be depleted on the defensive line on what is supposed to be a muggy, 90-degree day. So that's the bad news. The good news? Tampa Bay's offense is decidedly below-average, their high-yardage total this year a mirage created by playing from behind. Last year, Tampa Bay ranked 20th in offense, according to FootballOutsiders.com 's DVOA metric. Yes, they have made some improvements on offense: Derrick Ward is good, as we know; Byron Leftwich is probably an upgrade over last year's ineffective Jeff Garcia/Brien Griese combo; and Kellen Winslow is effective when healthy. But they come into this game banged up in key spots. Playmaking receiver Antonio Bryant, one of the best receivers in the league last year and by far the most dangerous Buccaneer, is questionable with a knee injury; Maurice Stovall, who started for Bryant last week, is out. Running backs Cadillac Williams and Earnest Graham are questionable with knee injuries, leaving the running game in the hands of Ward, who is trying to turn around a ground attack that ranked 21st in DVOA last year. So the skill players, who are nothing to write home about at full-strength, are depleted. The offensive line is healthy, but not especially good. According to FootballOutsiders stats, they ranked 18th in Adjusted Sack Rate, which adjusts sacks to pass attempts and situation. That's good news for the Giants this week because Leftwich is notoriously stationary. Even without Tuck, it's realistic that one of the Giants outstanding pass rushers - Osi Umenyiora, Matthias Kiwanuka, or maybe even Clint Sintim? - can keep the streak of big plays on defense alive for another game. Giants Offense vs. Bucs Defense The Bucs defense started out last year strong but then collapsed late in the year. First, they incurred a nationally televised beat-down at the hands of Carolina, and then they blew a playoff birth by allowing 17-fourth quarter points against the Raiders, thereby allowing the Eagles to get in. (Thanks, assholes.) This year, they've allowed 67 points in two games, second most in the NFL. It's hard to pinpoint how the Bucs defense got so bad, so fast, but they can't stop the run or the pass right now. It will be interesting to see how the recent performance of Eli Manning and the Giants receivers - notably Mario Manningham and Steve Smith - alters the conventional wisdom of stacking the box against the Giants. As Plaxico sits in Rikers Island - an absurdly excessive punishment - and Amani Toomer sits at home, the young guys have blossomed. And even though Eli will never be the most accurate quarterback, he has completed 67 percent of his passes this year. That's obviously an unsustainable figure, but remember that he completed more than 60 percent last year for the first time in his career. If he can raise that by another couple of points, keep the interceptions low, and maintain his gains in pocket presence, we're talking about a bona fide excellent quarterback, and not just an above-average one who happens to be incredibly clutch. Prediction: The one thing the Bucs have going for them is the desperation of being 0-2 - obviously not the best thing to have going for you. This current Giants team - we'll call them the post-2007-Week-16 Giants - have been great at showing up for games like this. As happy as the Giants were after the Dallas game, they know they left unanswered questions about their running game and run defense. Giants 31 - Bucs 17.
 
Tony Corbo: The Safety of Imported Food? Top
It is interesting to read in yesterday's Shanghai Daily that China -- which has experienced its share of domestic food safety calamities in recent years -- has decided to beef up its scrutiny of food imports. It might provide a lesson to us. As the U.S. imports more of its food, the safety of it has become an increasing concern. The melamine contamination of milk powder in China that killed Chinese infants and sickened thousands of others and caused the recall of numerous imported food items here in the U.S. shows how vulnerable we have become in a globalized food market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has made the assertion that about half of the food borne illness outbreaks in the U.S. in recent years have come from imported food products. According to an August 2009 report issued by USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), U.S. food imports grew from $41 billion in 1998 to $78 billion in 2007. The growth has come in consumer-ready foods, such as fruit and vegetables, seafood and processed food products. It has been estimated that as much as 85% of the seafood we now consume is imported, and depending on the time of the year, upwards of 60% of the fresh produce we consume is now imported. Officials from the FDA have stated that about 15% of the average American diet is made of imported food products. There have been several reasons attributed to this dramatic rise in imported food over the past decade. First, trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, the Central American Free Trade Agreement and various bi-lateral free trade agreements have facilitated the importation of food products. Second, multinational food processors have shifted production and have set up operations in developing countries where the costs of production are lower and they are now exporting more food products to the U.S. Third, U.S. consumer demand for a year-round supply of certain food items, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, has contributed to an increase in food imports. This increased volume of imported food has overwhelmed the FDA that is responsible for monitoring the safety of most of the imported food coming into this country. According to the agency, there are currently 226,377 foreign food establishments in over 150 countries that are registered to export food products to the U.S. In its most recent budget request to Congress, FDA stated that it will have completed a paltry 200 on-site inspections of foreign food establishments by the end of this fiscal year which ends on September 30. Furthermore, of the 9.5 million shipments of imported food items that will arrive at our ports-of-entry this fiscal year, FDA inspectors will physically examine only 1.53% of them. Food & Water Watch released three reports in 2007 and 2008 that further shed light on how woeful the food import inspection program has been at the FDA. With laboratory data that we secured through Freedom of Information Act requests, we discovered that FDA conducted tests on only 0.59% of the 1.3 billion pounds of shrimp - the most popular seafood consumed in the U.S. -- that we imported in 2006; and one test for every one million pounds of all seafood imported in 2006. Much of our imported seafood comes from Asia where the aquaculture practices are generally unregulated and the seafood is often times contaminated with pesticides, illegal antibiotics and other food additives in addition to pathogens. For fresh produce, only 0.23% shipments of fresh produce imports received laboratory testing by the FDA between 2005 and 2007. FDA data show that imported fresh produce is three times more likely to be contaminated with food borne pathogens such as salmonella and shigella than domestic produce and four times as likely to have pesticide levels that exceed U.S. standards. The food safety bills being considered by Congress attempt to close some of the gaps in our imported food safety net. H.R. 2749 - the Food Safety Enhancement Act - passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July would create standards for both domestic and foreign food manufacturers to follow. It would also create a dedicated corps of FDA inspectors who would inspect foreign food establishments at the same frequency as FDA would inspect similar food establishments domestically. S. 510 - the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act - which is pending in the U.S. Senate would permit the FDA to enter into agreements with accredited third party certifiers who would vouch for the safety of food products exported to the U.S. We at Food & Water Watch would prefer that the only recognized third party certifier be restricted to the exporting country so that its government can be readily held accountable should contaminated food reach our shores. Short of renegotiating some of our flawed trade agreements, H.R. 2749 and S. 510 provide the most immediate protection against unsafe imported food. Tony Corbo is the Senior Lobbyist at Food and Water Watch. More on Food
 
Colorado Democratic Lawmakers Ally Against Mesa County Nuclear Storage Top
Colorado's senators and Rep. John Salazar sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu this week urging him to remove a Mesa County storage site from consideration as the home for 17,000 tons of mercury.
 
Sharmine Narwani: Lights, Camera, Action: Why the Iranian Nuclear Drama Took Center Stage Last Week Top
The news cycle on the Iran nuclear story never seems to end. It is one sound bite after another. On Friday, we had to endure a pre-announcement (read drum-roll) that there would be a formal announcement by US President Barak Obama, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British Prime Minster Gordon Brown on the existence of a secret Iranian nuclear enrichment facility under construction near Qom. This, just a day after the UN Security Council meeting where all three took a bash at Iran's nuclear program before passing a resolution on global denuclearization. And that, following two days of relentless UN General Assembly speeches by various heads of state blasting Iran's nuclear agenda. As the news leaked out, we learned that the US had known about this facility for years, while other news sources claimed that French, British and American officials have worked all summer on presenting a disclosure of this secret underground facility to the IAEA -- the international agency that oversees and maintains compliance on the nuclear activities of member states -- this week. They must have been furious to learn that Iran, of its own volition, beat them to the punch in a letter to the IAEA last Monday, alerting the agency that "a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country," according to a statement released by the IAEA on Friday. "The Agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility," it continued. Fact: The current rate of inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities is an inspector's visit every other week. It is by far the most heavily enforced inspections regime in IAEA history. Approximately half of these visits are unannounced. Per the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), member states have the right to enrich uranium. Iran signed onto the treaty the year it became open for signature, in 1968, a year after the United States provided Iran with its first nuclear plant, and two years before the NPT came into force. In 2002, it became known that Iran was pursuing a nuclear enrichment program, which it acknowledged in 2003, and subsequently opened its doors to the IAEA to place these facilities under the required safeguards. But, after enduring years of scrutiny, Iran started complaining that the cycle of questions never ends. In a letter to the Agency's board of governors on June 17, 2009, the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA argued: "After six years of the most robust and intrusive inspection in the history of the Agency, and in spite of the continuous declaration of the Director General (of the IAEA, Mohammad El Baradei) in over 20 reports to the Board of Governors, that there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials and activities to prohibited purposes (i.e., weaponization), the issue is still on the agenda. The simple question is: why?" He goes on to allege that the issue of Iran's nuclear program remains on the table because of the political motivations of a few nations, who would like to turn the Agency into a "watchdog, with maximum intrusiveness in safeguards in order to interfere in the national security...of Member States, under the pretext of proliferation." To be fair, while the IAEA's exhaustive inspections have found no evidence that the Iranians are diverting nuclear technology or materials to a weapons program, Iran has not helped its own case. It continues to be less than transparent about its activities, perhaps in part because it does not expect a fair hearing, but also undoubtedly because the impression that it may be developing nuclear weapons capability doesn't exactly harm its deterrence position vis-a-vis regional and foreign foes. But back to the events of Friday. The endless days of orchestrated sound bites on Iran's nuclear intentions were frankly overkill by week's end. The indignant Security Council trio, who displayed dismay and shock at the revelation of this new enrichment facility, were surely shamed by the news that they had been sitting on this nugget of information for years, and had spent the summer secretively trying to maximize its impact on the IAEA. Surely if Iran's nuclear enrichment program was actually the imminent threat that is so often alleged, these nations would have immediately alerted the agency responsible for safeguards and inspections? This cannot sit well with the IAEA, which spent the early part of September defending the conclusions of its last report on Iran, which again, confirmed the non-diversion of the country's nuclear enrichment program. Agency head El Baradei went out of his way to dispute claims by several countries, including France and Israel, that the report results were cooked, saying that these accusations "are politically motivated and baseless." So what's with the relentless scrutiny of Iran's nuclear intentions? Let me go out on a limb here: Iran, which is a major oil producing state in a strategically important region, has a very independent foreign policy stance on issues that are of concern to the United States and many of its allies. They don't like that. Israel, the US's main regional ally, needs to keep itself relevant to Western powers now that the Cold War is well and truly over, divert attention from it's own covert nuclear weapons stash, and avoid accountability for its failure to address the Palestinian issue. It needs a big old bogeyman. Enter Iran, the convenient scary kid on the block. Iran isn't exactly an angel -- it has powered up its anti-Israel rhetoric to stay relevant on the Arab and Muslim Street. These two blocs clash, and they seek continuously to curb the other's influence. The bluster, threats and sound bites we have heard this past week were nothing more than an effort to create maximum pressure on Iran as the October 1 meeting between the Islamic Republic and the group of five permanent Security Council members plus Germany draws near -- a meeting where the group of Western nations hopes to secure compromises on Iran's nuclear program. It was political posturing in technicolor -- live footage beamed to millions of TV screens across the globe -- using the annual UN General Assembly Plenary Session as a stage, and counting on the thousands of gathered reporters as the playwrights of this unfolding drama. When Iran sits down with the US to discuss nuclear and other issues in October, it will not likely budge on the state's "inalienable right" to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Energy independence is a vital issue of national security for any country, and Iranians are unified on this subject, particularly as the years of living under foreign sanctions regimes has left the country mistrustful about depending on imports. Iran also enjoys the support of much of the developing world on the nuclear enrichment issue, where it has taken time to build coalitions through shared visions and the offering of financial and humanitarian assistance. And talks of double-standards are playing throughout much of this bloc of nations, particularly after the United States and its Western allies voted against a September 18 IAEA resolution that called for Israel to join the NPT and subject its nuclear facilities to the same oversight as other countries. But the events of this past week have upped the ante, and the US and its allies will be hard-pressed to back down from the line in the sand drawn on Friday. So, sadly, sanctions it may be -- to the detriment of common sense and constructive engagement. Memories of another misguided WMD pogrom in neighboring Iraq not too long ago are surfacing. And yet the drama continues. More on Israel
 
Jed P. Cohen: Brief Interviews with Hideous Men: Women and (Mostly) Men Top
CAVEAT LECTOR In the interest of full disclosure, I must here admit that I am a massive, overly enthusiastic, often proselytizing, obviously pleonastic fan of David Foster Wallace. My admiration for his writing will doubtless (1) influence this review. So, there it is. --------------------------------------------------- What do women want? Countless movies, books, episodes of "Sex and the City," and issues of Maxim have been devoted to this very silly question, and all inevitably come up with the same answer: a whopping "Search Me." This is because when one tries to generalize about a large sample group, e.g. half the world's population, one will discover that for all the similarities within that group, there are equally as many deviations. Ask five women on the street what they look for in a man (or woman, as the case may be), and you will of course get five different answers. And despite the reputed male penchant for the blonde and large breasted, five men will give you five very different ideal women. This is more or less where "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men" picks up. (For clarity's sake, I'll italicize when talking about Wallace's book. Or I'll just say "Wallace's book.") Sara Quinn (Julianne Nicholson), a graduate student in anthropology at an unnamed East-Coast school (2) studying the feminist movement, switches her focus from women to men and begins a series of interviews in an attempt to uncover the lingering impact of feminism on the male psyche. The impetus for the switch is her breakup with Ryan/Subject #20, played by John Krasinski. The viewer doesn't get any real sense of their relationship beyond a few flashbacks -- one of Ryan goofily raising his wine glass to Sara; another at a dinner party, where Ryan launches into a Billy Joel tune on the piano, inspiring a hackneyed group-sing that seems lifted from "You've Got Mail." (3) But we see that she's at least distracted -- she gets a short, emo haircut and listens to her iPod a lot -- if not heartbroken, so we assume the relationship was pretty serious. If this sounds overly flippant re: Sara's character, it's because, though hers is the tenuous narrative holding the movie together, she is finally unimportant. She functions as a stand-in for the viewer -- a silent, passive receptor for the sometimes comical, often cruel confessions of the men she interviews. In Wallace's book, the interviews are wholly one-sided -- the interviewer's questions are effaced. Here too, the viewer does not see or hear Sara's prompts; the movie, true to Wallace, is about the men. Sara's interviewees are ostensibly boorish, infantile, infantilizing, perverse, uncaring, shallow -- in a word, heinous. Some of the interviews seem to bear this out: Subject #40, played by a wise-talking Bobby Cannavale, has only half of his right arm, the other half (we assume) lost in an industrial plant accident. Instead of viewing this as a disability, Subject #40 dubs his amputated arm "The Asset" and uses it to make women feel sorry for him, and later sleep with him. It's disgusting, right? Well, let's unpack this a bit. Despite his bravado re: his arm and his view of it as a tool, as a means to bedding women, he is still disabled, still without the use of his right arm. Calling it The Asset is clearly a coping mechanism, a way of dealing with a horrific accident. And are the women really being preyed upon? Do they feel used? Maybe not. Maybe they feel loving and generous and sensitive ignoring this guy's arm and sleeping with him. Or maybe they go back to their friends and say, "Listen, he only has one arm, the least I could do is sleep with him." Who comes out better in a situation like this? (4) The power of Wallace's interviews, and thus the power of the interviews in the film, is their moral ambiguity, their subtle interrogation of our initial judgments. The most compelling interview in the film (which also yields the most compelling performance) is with Daniel/Subject #46, played with a crazed intensity by Dominic Cooper. Daniel is an undergraduate and one of Sara's students. He hounds her for comments on a paper he has written for her -- a tendentious piece positing that there are benefits to be had from horrible events, e.g. rape, incest, or, rhetorically, the Holocaust. Sara reacts with revulsion, as does the viewer. But Daniel continues, telling a story about his sister, who was beaten and gang raped at a party. He argues that she now knows something about herself: she knows what it feels like to no longer be a person, but a thing ; and that knowledge is worth something in itself. Then, at the emotional climax of the story, the sex of the victim changes, and it is suddenly not Daniel's sister but Daniel who was raped. Sara, bewildered, says nothing. And the viewer, squirming in self-contradiction and confusion, is silent as well. Unfortunately, the film only rarely rises to these rhetorical and emotional heights. The supposed "tough guys" in the film -- played by Cannavale, Corey Stoll, and Christopher Meloni -- all come off sounding like bad impressions of tough guys. (Those who have watched "Oz" know that Meloni can play tough.) And the "nice guys" -- Sara's colleagues and friends, played by Joey Slotnick, Timothy Hutton, and Ben Gibbard -- seem canned and unconvincing. (Interestingly, Ben Gibbard, a musician best known as the frontman for Death Cab for Cutie, turns in the most natural performance among these trained actors.) Perhaps this is because Krasinski, who directed, was too loyal to Wallace's text. Try to follow me here: many of the actor' lines were taken verbatim from Brief Interviews with Hideous Men , and, to be honest, the way Wallace's characters talk isn't the way real people talk. Wallace's interviewees are a strange admixture of his own intellect and that of the created character; their monologues are calculated, painstakingly constructed efforts at sounding off-the-cuff and extempore. So, when the actors, who are trained to sound off-the-cuff and extempore, read these constructions as definitive lines in the script, they are actually reading seriously premeditated, semantically irregular approximations of normal speech that, if the actor is given no leeway and is required to recite the line as such, end up sounding not like a person talking, but like a writer writing like people talk, which results in a singular kind of falsity this viewer has never encountered before. (5) ---------------------------------------------------- (1) Some of you might object to the form doubtless here rather than doubtlessly (or, if not object, just think it sounds weird). But, after consulting my just-bought copy of Garner's Modern American Usage , I discovered that doubtless is an adverb, and that use of doubtlessly is, well, doubtless incorrect. I would have kept this little aside to myself if it didn't bear some relation to the proceedings: I bought Garner's because of an essay Wallace wrote called "Authority and American Usage," which I would recommend to any Armchair Grammarian. (2) A.k.a. Columbia, where all the collegiate scenes were shot. As a former Columbian, I appreciate that no (noticeable) changes were made to the campus to facilitate the plot, as in "Spider-Man," when a payphone magically appears outside of Hamilton Hall, inspiring in this viewer a fit of near Swedish Fish-tossing intensity. (3) Yes, I have seen "You've Got Mail." A bunch. (4) Of course, if there were genuine feelings on either side of the transaction, it would be a different story. But Subject #40 does not describe his rendezvous as having any true emotion or intellectual content. (5) Does that make sense?
 
Social Media: Web Users Triple Time Spent On Social Networks Top
U.S. web users tripled the amount of time they spent on social networks in August from the same month last year, according to Nielsen. And advertisers took note -- estimated online advertising spending on social networks more than doubled over the same period. More on Twitter
 
Jenny Darroch: Avoid the Temptation to Cut Marketing Budgets to Balance the Books Top
The Nielsen Company has just released data that shows advertising expenditure in the US fell 15.4% in the first half of 2009. A total of $56.9 billion was spent on advertising in the first six months of the year, $10.3 billion less than the same time period in 2008. All evidence that in times of recession, marketing budgets are amount the first to be cut. But, cutting marketing budgets to balance the books is a bad idea. Here's why. Why are marketing budget cuts? Well, we all understand that marketing expenditure is not directly tied to the immediate production of output. What this means is that marketing budgets are among the first to be cut when managers are trying to find ways to drive down costs in order to retain shareholder confidence and stay afloat. Because marketing expenditure is treated as an annual expense, managers often justify the decimation of marketing budgets on the basis that the effects will only be felt in the current year. The view is that once the recession ends we can return to our previous levels of marketing expenditure -- that is, we can pick up where we left off without having damaged our brands at all. It turns out that marketing expenditure does influence the long-term value of the firm. One day (when I had nothing else to do), I decided to pull together a database to enable me to examine firm performance during the last big recession - the 1980s recession. I measured firm performance in 1979, which is the year before the recession began, measured marketing expenditure during the recession and then measured firm performance one year and five years after the recession ended. I found that firms that spent more on marketing than their peers during the recession enjoyed a higher market value five years after the recession ended. To me, this result provides clear evidence of the long-term effects of marketing expenditure. This result is important because during a recession, not only are marketing budgets being cut but also marketing managers are reconfiguring how to allocate marketing funds. What this means is that during a recession, it is tempting is to focus marketing expenditure on areas likely to result in short-term gain (for example, discounting prices, offering coupons and other sales promotions, or using direct response advertising which makes it easier to measure marketing effectiveness), without paying any attention to the maintaining and building the long-term value of the brands. And so what do I recommend? Right now, managers should resist the pressure to cut marketing budgets and resist the pressure to focus mostly on marketing activities that generate short term gain. The recession will end and firms that come are stronger will be those firms that clearly understand the contribution of brands to the long-term value of the firm. Now that's interesting. Jenny Darroch is on the faculty at the Drucker School of Management. She is an expert on marketing strategies that generate growth. See www.MarketingThroughTurbulentTimes.com More on Advertising
 
The Yes Men: First ACORN. Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs Next? Top
Congress Went After ACORN. Big Business Must Be Next! By Jacques Servin and Igor Vamos (WaPo) We are the Yes Men , two guys who dress up as powerful businessmen, propose horrible things to audiences of actual powerful businesspeople and film them cheerfully applauding our most outrageous -- and often illegal -- ideas. In our new film " The Yes Men Fix the World ," we posed as Dow Chemical representatives at a big 2005 banking conference where we said that, clearly, any number of human deaths is acceptable as long as a project is extremely profitable. A life-size golden skeleton made sure the message hit home. Instead of recoiling in horror, most of the bankers simply applauded. One chief executive said he was interested in working with us, and a senior manager at a financial technology firm said he found the idea "refreshing." In 2006, we posed as Halliburton reps at an insurance conference on Amelia Island, Fla. There we unveiled the " SurvivaBall ," a grotesque suit six feet in diameter, made of nylon and inflated by two small computer fans, which we said would keep corporate managers safe from the climate calamities that they had helped cause. Lawyers at the conference, who represented some of the most powerful American companies, had a few questions: How much would it cost? Could it be made more comfortable? Might it work in a terrorist attack? See the full essay here at washingtonpost.com More on The Bailouts
 
David Finkle: Religion in the United States and England, as Influential English Rabbi Sacks Claims to See It Top
It's almost always beneficial to see ourselves as others see us. It can be useful whether those giving us the once- or twice-over are wearing rose-tinted glasses or glasses with tints not so rosy. And it's not only as individuals that we reap rewards but as a country. How do others see The United States, and what can be learned from another perspective? I was thinking about this on a recent late London night when BBC One ran an address by Jonathan Sacks, the United Synagogue chief rabbi. Rabbi Sacks often speaks for Great Britain's Jewry, although factions will tell you he doesn't speak for them. Nevertheless when he speaks, he does so eloquently, as he did in the BBC One speech called "Rosh Hashanah; A More Gracious Future." In many ways, it was the sort of positive talk a Jew -- or anyone, for that matter -- would want as the Jewish new year 5770 begins. And it was not simply Rabbi Sacks talking. He spoke in the context of an obviously expensive production that had him traveling across England to consult others. In one especially impressive sequence, Rabbi Sacks interviewed Northern England boys of bar mitzvah age on their values and was pleased -- as many viewers must also have been -- that the youngsters didn't cotton to footballers who take home big salaries but were more intrigued by the Barcelona team players who wear Unicef logos on their uniforms and contribute to the organization. Calling by implication for more BBC spectators to see the schoolboys as role models, Rabbi Sacks also had praise for other potential role models. Foremost was the United States, which he contrasted to his bailiwick. In Rabbi Sacks's estimation, much of what he sees in the United States as religious practice is far superior to what's happening in England. From where the rabbi stands, he sees only admirable images worthy of his countrymen and -women studying and emulating. Watching the program (it came on at 11:05 in the evening and therefore was not primetime -- but close), I was startled. As someone who lives and works in London for close to two months every year, I wasn't used to this kind of unqualified rave review for the United States on any issue, let alone religion. I'm much more familiar with ambivalence about my country. Much is liked across Great Britain, but much is also criticized -- often rightly, I think, but just as often out of a kind of national jealousy. Indeed, I suspect the reasons for resistance to United States manners and mores go deep and are based on complicated psychological impulses difficult to undo. But here's Rabbi Sacks lauding the United States populace for unqualified progress in religion. In the process, he wasn't taking into account contemporary drawbacks. Never once did he point out that the United States was founded on the principle of separation of church and state or acknowledge there are stateside forces today determined to undermine valuable Constitutional precepts. As far as he indicated, there's nothing occurring in the U. S. today that smacks of religious intolerance. Of course, that's patently not the case. To me, his failure to note the negative aspects of religions as perpetuated in the United States today bordered on dangerous denial. Because Rabbi Sacks greatly influences the thinking of Great Britain's Jews -- and perhaps not only Jews -- his pronouncements concerned me. As my concern mounted, I wondered if there was anything I could do to ease it. I wasn't, of course, about to demand a rebuttal, much less a retraction from the BBC. It did occur to me, though, that I might make my feelings known to Rabbi Sacks. I thought it would be helpful if he'd consider rethinking his assumptions and making any reappraisal(s) known, if not by Yom Kippur -- ironically, the day of atonement -- then sometime in the near future. I went about contacting him by phoning the United Synagogue office, where I was advised to email him at another URL. I did so. I received this prompt reply: "The Chief Rabbi thanks you for your email, the contents of which have been noted. Please note that no one else has commented. Thank you for your interest in the office." It was signed by the woman whom I was told handles these affairs. There's something hinting at a standard reply here. Although the sentence "Please note that no one else has commented" is in response to a question I'd included, the "Thank you for your interest in the work of this office" has the ring of boilerplate." I understand Rabbi Sacks is too busy to answer every letter he receives, but I'm nonetheless hopeful he'll reconsider his unadulterated encomia. I'm equally hopeful that his sanguine view of religion in the United States isn't wide-spread at a time when serious homeland self-reassessment is required. More on Religion
 
Georgianne Nienaber: Delta Music Provides Heartbeat for Heinz-Kerry's G-20 Climate Reception Top
The Delta's Global Ambassadors for Louisiana Music and Culture rolled into the Andy Warhol Museum at the G-20 Summit this week. Over 600 guests packed the space, which was hosted by the U.S. Climate Action Network , with Teresa Heinz and Senator John Kerry serving as Honorary Hosts. Quint Davis produced the presentation of Louisiana's bayou musical heritage, featuring the Savoy-Doucet Cajun Band , Allen Toussaint , Trombone Shorty, and Cajun bluesman Tab Benoit. Policy was eschewed in favor of fun while Savoy-Doucet and Benoit took their turns on the tiny stage in the main reception area, and Toussaint and Trombone Shorty played the more formal main stage. But the sounds of the Cajun bayou ruled the younger crowd. By the end of the evening, Teresa Heinz turned out to be the soul of the party, with Louisiana's delta music providing the heartbeat. There was no doubt it was a fun event that at the very least exposed the mostly east coast crowd to the only state in the union that can claim a truly unique culture and heritage. (l-r) Michael Doucet, Wilson Savoy, Ann Savoy After the Savoy-Doucet foot stomping solid opener , delta bluesman and star of the IMAX presentation Hurricane on the Bayou , Tab Benoit took the stage alone and to little fanfare. As the first licks of "Rambling on My Mind" played out, heads literally turned. It's tough to work what is basically a huge party, and many musicians would end up as so much background. Benoit went from song to song, the sweat building on his forehead and you knew that even if no one was listening, he was pouring heart and soul into very phrase. But they crowd was listening, mesmerized by Benoit as they were by Savoy's Cajun strains before his set. Getting the attention of a cocktail party crowd is no small feat. Mission accomplished. Tab Benoit "I hate to leave my baby, but she treats me so unkind..." In some ways, Louisiana is Benoit's "baby." He was originally scheduled to play an event in New Orleans with Cyril Neville, Anders Osborne, Big Chief Monk Boudreaux, Jumpin Johnny Sansone, and Waylon Thibodeaux as the Voice of the Wetlands Express Tour 2009. The tour will wind up at Benoit's home town of Houma and a huge community party with the Voice of the Wetlands All Stars . Benoit has been sponsoring this event for six years as a means of focusing attention on the destruction of the wetlands. We had a quick conversation, promising to catch up in Houma for Voice of the Wetlands. He asked where I had been. When I said, "Africa," he laughed and said, "Well, no one knows about that, either." Benoit worries constantly about the potential loss of a way of life and valuable culture if nothing is done to literally turn the tide on the Delta. Ann Savoy graciously sat down with us for a quick chat after her second set. Writer, producer, photographer and songstress, Savoy is a fierce advocate of Cajun music and Louisiana in general. Familiar to mainstream audiences because of her appearance in the movie, Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood, Savoy also collaborated with Linda Ronstadt on the critically acclaimed CD, Adieu False Heart (Vanguard). Savoy sipped a beer while notes from Trombone Shorty's horn had us talking almost nose to nose as he tuned up hardly fifteen feet away outside of the green room. It felt like we were in New Orleans. We were called by Quint (Davis) and we came. Louisiana is so endangered. It is something we talk about all of the time. It is important to make people aware. Hello we are here. You know we are disappearing into the water and I hope this fun party and the music made people take notice of us. Quint is a champion of authentic music and is holding the candle for Creole and Cajun music. All of us who came here tonight...we all have been working hard on this. It was a shame in some ways that water policy in Louisiana did not merit more discussion. Several of the "young un's" came up to this writer and asked about the music and the Delta. As climate change experts, one would have thought that Louisiana would have been front and center on their radar, considering that the state is losing an average of 34 square miles of land per year due to dredging, erosion and hurricane damage. 700 square miles are in danger of vanishing and if they do, the United States will lose a valuable cultural asset as well as critical energy infrastructure. When I asked why there was not more policy discussion, the reply was that this was a break from "24/7" organizing leading up to the G-20 event. That makes sense, but you had to wonder if it was a bittersweet experience for the musicians who had come so far to bring their message about the troubles facing Louisiana's environment. Teresa Heinz Finally, things wrapped with an impassioned plea for environmental responsibility from Teresa Heinz, philanthropist and wife of Senator John Kerry. Kerry remained in Washington, working on environmental legislation with Senator Barbara Boxer. "We live in an environmentally unjust world," Heinz said. We cannot have health if we do not do something to clean up this mess." It was obviously a heartfelt plea, and someone in the crowd behind me murmured, "She is much more spiritual than I expected." Heinz oversees many foundations for women, the environment, children and the arts. The Heinz Endowments, based in Pittsburgh, is among the largest independent philanthropic organizations in America. The foundation approved more than $70 million in grants to non-profit organizations, mostly concentrated within southwestern Pennsylvania, in the program areas of Arts & Culture; Children, Youth and Families; Economic Opportunity; Education; and the Environment. Heinz took notice of our camera and stopped for a minute to chat after her speech. After the connection to the Huffington Post was established, she smiled warmly and said, "Say hi to Arianna for me." OK. Here goes. "Hello Arianna," from Teresa Heinz, the soul of the G-20 party. ................................ Nienaber is currently working on a profile of Tab Benoit for the Spring issue of Dirty Linen Magazine . More on G-20 Summit
 
Felicia C. Sullivan: Interview: Sharon Collier, CEO of Gurwitch Products (Laura Mercier and ReVive) Top
A thirty-year veteran of the luxury retail and beauty industry, Sharon Collier in 1995 joined Gurwitch Products, the company that produces, manages and markets Laura Mercier Cosmetics, a global brand of high-end cosmetics, skincare and body and bath, and ReVive, a line of luxury scientifically-founded skincare products. The two renowned brands differentiate themselves from their competitors because of their fastidious attention to quality, product efficacy, and really listening to customers' needs. In an economic climate that's slowly creeping toward recovery, it's fascinating to see luxury or niche brands prosper. Combining a lean business model, products that actually work (who hasn't raved over Laura Mercier's foundation), and savvy business sense, Laura Mercier and ReVive are models for niche, high-end brands breaking into the beauty space. Recently, I had the opportunity to chat with CEO Sharon Collier, and learn more about succeeding during a recession and key lessons learned when launching a company. Although we're in the midst of a precarious economy, many are finding, ironically enough, that now is the best time to start a business. With nearly thirty years of experience in the beauty and retail space, and an integral part of the launch of Laura Mercier with founder Janet Gurwitch since 1995, can you speak of your experience moving from Paloma Picasso to take the reigns at a new company? When I joined Gurwitch Products in 1995, just like today, the beauty industry was evolving. In 1996, we launched Laura Mercier at a time when "makeup artist's brands" were shaking things up. Laura Mercier was a globally renowned artist and the creator of an edited product line that offered innovative products...Primer, Eye Basics. And more importantly, she was accessible... "face to face" with the customer providing personalized consultations and teaching women how to have a "Flawless Face". We had a strong point of difference that allowed a young brand to compete with the big brands...we used to say that we replaced Gift With Purchase with education. Today, the same principles hold true for starting a business...you must have innovative products and a point of difference to entice the customer to purchase. What are some of the personal and professional challenges you've faced as the CEO of Laura Mercier/ReVive? Launching and nurturing the Laura Mercier brand and then acquiring RéVive, in May of 2008, have been at once the most challenging and exciting times in my career. The early years of building Laura Mercier were physically exhausting and took a lot of time away from my family. Janet's attitude that we were not a small company but a young company really helped us stay motivated and persuade the retailer to partner with us. Today, a challenge we face with both brands is successfully expanding internationally. The failure with most companies is rapid diversification and massive product line extensions, which have a tendency to subsume the core product. What intrigues me most about both Laura Mercier and ReVive are its simplicity and painstaking attention to quality. The product lines for both high-end brands are lean, but efficacious. What is the process of developing a collection? What is the typical timeline from concept to production to retail? I totally credit Laura Mercier and Dr. Brown -- they are perfectionists -- they work with the best formulators and personally approve all new products. Also, because both Laura and Greg spend hours in stores listening to the customer...her likes/dislikes and her pain points, they have their finger on the pulse of what she wants. They take their customer seriously and never sell her short. In addition, they are both credible and authentic creators, which is something that really resonates with the consumer. The process of developing a collection begins with the vision of these creators and then goes through marketing and product development, then packaging and production, and finally through retail planning and sales promotion to the point of sale. You've brought extensive luxury retail experience (Bonwit Teller/Neiman Marcus) to your tenure at Gurwitch. Can you speak to how you leveraged your background in the launch, sales and marketing of two formidable luxury brands? My experience in luxury retail taught me the importance of excellent customer service and attention to detail. I leveraged this with executing Laura Mercier Personal Appearance events, emphasizing the importance of immaculate Laura Mercier makeup artist kits, and leading our team in providing consumers with a truly luxurious, unique, and personalized at-counter experience. In a tough economic climate where women are more discerning with their discretionary income and brand loyalty is paramount, how do you differentiate yourself from your competitors? We differentiate ourselves from our competitors by showing our customer how much we value her. For example, this Fall, I plan on hosting CEO breakfasts with our counter managers and with our customers next Spring to hear their experiences and perspectives. In this way, we hope to continue to understand our consumer and to customize the brand experience accordingly. Looking back at the evolution of both brands -- is there anything you might have done differently in the nearly fifteen years you've been in business? Any critical lessons learned? They say that you really learn from your mistakes not your successes. I've learned that you must react quickly to correct mistakes such as when we had to completely repackage Laura Mercier in the 2nd year. I believe that following a trend can lead you down a path that is not true to who you are, so we are always focused on staying true to our heritage. We were very lucky with our original founders, then the Neiman Marcus Group, and now our parent company, Alticor, in that our owners always supported us in making decisions that were right for the brand. Any new and noteworthy Laura Mercier/ReVive fall product launches? We are excited about our new Laura Mercier products which will launch this Fall - Mineral Primer & Pressed Powder, Long Lash Mascara, and Flawless Skin Tone Perfecting Crème. The Mineral Primer & Pressed Powder offer our consumers an extension of the signature Laura Mercier Flawless Face line while capitalizing on the continued interest in mineral makeup. This wonderful new mascara extends and precisely separates the thinnest, shortest, hard-to-reach lashes by expertly scooping up and lengthening each lash while delivering the right amount of product. And Flawless Skin Tone Perfecting Crème extends our Laura Mercier skincare offering to give our consumers not only a Flawless Face but also Flawless Skin. And for RéVive, we are introducing Serum Presse, Les Yeux Presse, and Intensite Crème Supreme. Our noteworthy Presse collection instantly lifts, smoothes, and brightens the appearance of skin such that over time, skin looks firmer and more radiant with fewer visible lines. These new RéVive products continue the brand's emphasis on anti-aging using unique bioengineered growth factors and the expertise of Dr. Brown. Any advice you'd like to impart for burgeoning entrepreneurs? It is all about passion and vision...believe in yourself and your brand. You will have to make sacrifices, as I did with leaving NYC to move to Houston and as many of us did with leaving secure jobs to join a startup. But never doubt that you will be successful - know the challenges and keep your eye on the goal.
 
Queen Noor of Jordan: The Beginning of the End of Nuclear Weapons Top
It was my privilege to witness the United Nations Security Council Summit yesterday unanimously adopt a resolution calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. It was the first Security Council Summit ever dedicated to nuclear proliferation and disarmament and the first chaired by a U.S. President. In addressing the Security Council members, President Obama declared: "The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons." Building on the extraordinary leadership of Presidents Obama and Medvedev, who in April committed to work together to eliminate all nuclear weapons, this resolution is a significant step toward an international consensus on this goal and a stirring moment for so many who have worked on this issue for so long. World leaders are recognizing that whatever stability nuclear arsenals may have provided during the Cold War is now outweighed by the growing risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism, and the only way to eliminate the nuclear threat is to eliminate all nuclear weapons. They have resolved to work together in the interests of our common security to achieve this goal. As a leader of Global Zero -- an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, as a citizen of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, and as a deeply concerned parent, I believe that yesterday's action by the Security Council comes at a critical moment as the world approaches a nuclear tipping point when nuclear weapons spread beyond the capacity of any effort to rein them in. This resolution helps to set the course toward the only responsible path -- the path to global zero. To help turn this vision into a practical goal, Global Zero has developed a step-by-step four-phased plan for the elimination of nuclear weapons over 20 years. Since the Cold War ended 20 years ago, the total number of nuclear weapons worldwide has been reduced by nearly 40,000 -- from approximately 60,000 to the 23,000 in existence today. Could we not aim over the next 20 years to eliminate the remaining 23,000 warheads and leave to our children and grandchildren a world without nuclear weapons? What happened yesterday at the Security Council was an historic step -- but we still have a long way to go. Governments must take action, beginning with deep bilateral reductions in U.S. and Russian arsenals -- following the current negotiations on the START replacement accord -- as well as serious multilateral discussions about the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, the establishment of a comprehensive verification and enforcement system, and strengthened safeguards on the civilian nuclear fuel cycle. And the message to every country must be clear: the international community is resolved to join together in the interests of our common security to eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide, and all nations must join in this pursuit with no exception. Eliminating all nuclear weapons will require people from around the world to get involved. In fact, last night college students launched "Global Zero" chapters on dozens of campuses- a trend I hope we will see develop in every nuclear state. To join me and the citizens from every country around the world who are already part of this movement, go to globalzero.org and sign the declaration. If yesterday's resolution is not followed up by action in the months and years ahead, it will fade into the history books as words on a piece of paper and nothing more. If, on the other hand, leaders and citizens seize this historic moment and act with determination and resolve, perhaps our children and grandchildren will look back on yesterday as the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons. More on UN Security Council
 
J. Bradley Jansen: For Liberty Examines the Kingmakers Top
For Liberty , a documentary of the Ron Paul grassroots movement, deserves attention.  Ron Paul enthusiasts will recognize familiar names and faces and relive unforgettable moments, and students of elections, campaign managers and political activists of all persuasions should see it.  Everyone concerned with the direction of the country and the breakdown of political discourse would find something moving. The seeds of this grassroots movement are still growing.  One Amazon customer review lauds, "this movie simply and eloquently captured the passions of an unlikely coalition of people from all across the political spectrum who quickly came together in response to a uniquely American message, and who unexpectedly, enthusiastically and sometimes haphazardly ended up immersing themselves entirely in a political campaign."  Why then did the campaign do so poorly?  "The grassroots felt [the official campaign staff] were at best incompetent" protested Adam de Angeli of the Campaign for Liberty, the remnant of the official presidential campaign on which he worked.  He then doth protested too much defending the failures of the official campaign in a documentary about the grassroots.  Incoherently, de Angeli criticizes the documentary for avoiding examining mistakes while still harboring delusions that the official Ron Paul presidential campaign brought "hundreds" of Republican National Convention delegates in its fight for the nomination ( Green Papers shows Ron Paul winning only 20 of 2,380 delegates with 15 final votes).  This movie puts faces on the people demanding a radical change towards a more moderate government.  Ross Perot mined this good government vein in his two presidential bids with a call to put our own house in order before promising new grandiosities and foreign interventionism.  About two-thirds of Americans are angry at government solutions and do not think either party has the answers according to a recent Rasmussen poll .  Recently Joe Scarborough revisited a 2003 economic prediction from his guest Ron Paul that warned that if we were to continue to inflate this bubble we would have our housing crisis with damage world-wide; Arianna Huffington went out of her way to agree with Dr. Paul. People now protesting against the bailouts, out of control government spending and out of touch politicians in both parties show the movement has grown beyond the Ron Paul "r3volution."  A few hundred thousand people, by my best estimates, recently converged on the Capitol for the Tea Party protests.  David Brooks explains these Jeffersonian roots.  In my unscientific poll of the 9/12 Tea Party protesters, few recognized Ron Paul's name and nearly all of those who did were dismissive or expressed a highly negative reaction.   Two years ago, my friend Nicholas Sanchez prophetically remarked , "This political train-wreck Republicans face can largely be traced to Bush’s philosophical metamorphosis from a traditional, non-interventionist conservative to the neoconservatives’ exemplar of a 'War President', and his positioning of the Republicans as the 'War Party'."  In fact, polls and other indicators increasingly show both a resurgence of conservatism as well as disillusionment with the Republican Party.  After Dr. Paul warned the party has lost its way, the Republicans suffered a crushing defeat.  Support for foreign wars has since plummeted to an all-time low says CNN .  For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty introduces us to the people who decide elections and the future of the country--not just the activists but the swing voters.  A 2006  study by David Boaz and David Kirby found that about a fifth of voters hold generally libertarian views.  Grover Norquist labels it the "leave us alone" coalition.  The pieces of a political realignment waiting to happen are wonderfully edited on screen.  As Ron Paul demurred, "it was the message not the man": liberty is popular and the constitution brings us together. With a third of the country behind one of the two major parties, For Liberty examines the people standing in the middle who decide elections.  Those who want to win over increasingly discriminating voters in 2010 and 2012 should study this movie.  As one woman in the film explains, the more they talk with their neighbors the more they find they agree.  The Rovian approach of divide and conquer loses in the end .  For Liberty beautifully shows us what Markos Mousitlas called the only true people-powered campaign in 2008.  More on Tax Day Tea Parties
 
Robert David Jaffee: Israel Is More Than Real Top
In recent days, a story spread that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had referred to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama adviser David Axelrod as "self-hating Jews." Asked about this by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Netanyahu denied the allegations. But the rumor offered a glimpse into the unseemly side of the politics of supporting Israel, where accusations of Jewish self-hatred sometimes mingle with accusations of war crimes. It is hard to believe that anyone could question Emanuel's dedication to Israel or characterize him as being anything other than a Zionist. By now, most everyone knows that Emanuel's father served in the Irgun, an Israeli paramilitary outfit, whose alumni include the late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. And Emanuel himself volunteered in a non-combat role in the Israeli Army. I know a little something about this too, having participated in an ulpan (Hebrew immersion) on a kibbutz as well as in several Israeli Army programs for non-Israeli citizens. While some of these experiences turned out better for me than others, they all illuminated the composition of Israel supporters. Of the Americans and foreigners who go to Israel and spend time on kibbutzim, most have just graduated from high school, dropped out of college or, in some cases, gotten into trouble with the law in their native countries. Historically, there were also those fleeing persecution or poverty, which isn't so typical today when many participants in activities like Taglit/Birthright Israel come from wealthy U.S. families. Few of these visitors would be considered idealists. Rather, a significant percentage of them seek to rehabilitate themselves in a country that will pay much of their expenses if they become friends or citizens. The IDF supporters are a bit different. They tend to be older, more resolutely Zionistic and, from a political point of view, more to the right. That is true whether the participants are religious or secular, Christian or Jewish. But there are also liberal Zionists who revere the IDF, people who believe that Jews have a right to a homeland but also believe that settlement activity does not help matters. I tend to fall into that category. On the kibbutz, I was in the majority; on the army bases, I was in the minority. I favor a land-for-peace, two-state solution along the lines of that proposed by former Israeli Prime Minister, now Defense Minister Ehud Barak (and rejected by then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat), in the waning days of the Clinton administration. In such a scenario, Israel would likely yield 95% or so of the West Bank. As for Jerusalem, current Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said that the Palestinians don't necessarily mean the Old City of Jerusalem when they discuss having Jerusalem as their capital. All of that sounds reasonable to me. Still, I sometimes wonder why Israel is held to a higher standard than any other country in the world. Many people forget that the idea of a two-state solution did not begin last year. In 1948, when the U.N. mandate ended, Jews and Palestinians were both supposed to have their own homelands. It is important to remember that Israel would have had an even svelter piece of land than it now has. There would have been just an access road connecting Jerusalem to the coastal plain. Yet that was fine to the Israelis. It was not, however, acceptable to the Palestinians or the neighboring Arab countries, which attacked Israel and tried to destroy the embryonic Jewish nation. What other country has been attacked, as Israel was in 1948 and in numerous wars since, went on to win the wars and then was forced to give up the land it won? It goes without saying that the United States will never return territories to the Native Americans, the Mexicans and the British. Like the Israelis, we Americans conquered states such as Texas and California in wars, but, unlike Israel, we initiated some of those wars. Yes, I know, times were different back then. That was before the age of 24-hour cable news coverage, the Internet and the U.N., the world body that once issued a "Zionism Is Racism" resolution. One can understand why Netanyahu in his speech on Sept. 24 before the General Assembly decried the body for providing a forum for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who on Sept. 23 once again denied the Holocaust and threatened Israel. The MIT-educated Netanyahu, whose diction may be as good as that of any U.S. politician, echoed the language of Joseph Welch at the Army/McCarthy hearings. Netanyahu said to those at the U.N. who did not walk out on Ahmadinejad, "Have you no shame? Have you no decency?" Netanyahu was right, but so was U.S. President Barack Obama in his recent decision to remove the prospect of a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. His policy change has already produced dividends from the Russians. Moscow criticized Tehran for denying the Holocaust and opened the door to sanctions against Iran if it continues to pursue nuclear weapons. Placing SM-3 interceptors in the Mediterranean, as the Obama administration will now do, gives us a greater ability to protect Israel from any missile strikes. That may not stop Iran from funding Hezbollah and Hamas, but it could provide some leverage for the U.S. when it begins nuclear talks with Iran in October. By thawing U.S. relations with Russia, following a chill in the latter years of the Bush administration, Obama and his advisers like Axelrod and Emanuel, as well as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the rest of the national security and military team, are proving to be geopolitical strategists of a high order. They have not only improved ties with Moscow; they have also improved the climate for peace in the Middle East. Russia, which has significant economic dealings with Iran, can potentially influence Tehran with carrots and sticks unavailable to the U.S. Of course, that is easier said than done, considering that Iran is a rogue regime, which killed its own people in the streets following its recent disputed election. The only positive development resulting from such fraud and destruction is that the world is coalescing against Iran. On Sept. 25, French, British and U.S. intelligence disclosed that Iran has been secretly enriching uranium in a second location, contravening U.N. resolutions. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called the breach a "line in the sand." The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese all either criticized Iran or advised it to cooperate with international inspectors, which means that any possible sanctions against Tehran will have a stronger chance of being efficacious. If the world unites in this fashion, that could deter Iran from threatening Israel. All of which leads me to believe that Israelis and Palestinians might at last reach a two-state solution, something that could have happened in 1948, when Rahm Emanuel's father was fighting for the independence of the Jewish nation. If Emanuel and Axelrod are "self-hating Jews," then I'll take more of them. They are guiding Barack Obama, whose first name means "lightning" in Hebrew and is close etymologically to the Hebrew word for "blessed," to a historic peace in the Middle East and the world. More on Israel
 
Suren Ramasubbu: 10 Things to Consider Before Giving an iPhone to Your Kids Top
Most parents that we talk to did not even think about it until they brought the iPhone (or iPod Touch ) home. They spend a few minutes on it and discover that they love to play with it. But their kids love it even more and can stay occupied playing with it for long periods of "quiet" time! The second thought that hits them is, hey, this is a mini-computer. I couldn't agree more. Apple invented a netbook before netbooks became a category of computing devices -- tiny computers that are always on and instantly connect to the Internet, giving access to the essentials of the Internet age -- email, browsing, social networks, Skype, blogs, news. As Apple drops the prices of the iPod Touch , more and more parents are either purchasing or handing down the devices to their children, either to keep them occupied for brief periods of time, or as a personal Internet/gaming/learning device. Here are 10 things parents need to consider before handing an iPhone or iPod Touch to a pre-teen or teen. 1. Protect the Device From Accidents For all the convenience of a pocket handheld device, the iPod Touch can be broken relatively easily, and the glossy touchscreen can get dirty and scratched quickly. To be on the safe side, buy a hard case with a touch-sensitive screen protector, and a stand. If you have a pool in your backyard, you may want to consider a waterproof case. 2. Discuss Rules Discuss the ground rules. Where and when can they use it, and what can they use it for. No running around with the device in one hand in the park, that they should be seated while using it, and no browsing late into the night, for instance. In addition, discuss this article with him/her, and explain why you are setting up restrictions. Our recommendation is that you baseline what you agree on, and use it to setup the controls described below. 3. Setup the iTunes Account The iPhone and iPod Touch can be tied to specific iTunes account on your computer. Setup the account yourself, even if it has your child's username, so that you have control over the iTunes settings on the computer. For instance, you can setup a credit card for purchases from the iTunes Store so that you have fine-grained control over what can be purchased, and also to ensure you are notified upon a purchase. 4. Create a Device Passcode It is conceivable that you or your child will personalize the iPod Touch with access to your personal email and other social networking apps like Facebook etc. If the device is lost or stolen and ends up in the wrong hands, these accounts can be misused or compromised. For safety, setup a passcode to access the iPod Touch itself, and share this passcode with your child. You can setup a 4-digit passcode by selecting Settings > General > Passcode. 5. Setup Internet Filtering & Web Parental Controls Decide if you want to allow unfettered access to the Internet. The iPhone and iPod Touch are powerful browsing devices and can be used to access any website that can be accessed from a regular browser on your computer. This is a big departure from the previous generation of cell phones and handheld devices that had limited access to websites that had a customized mobile interface. Thankfully. Apple has built excellent parental control restrictions for the iPhone and iPod Touch in the latest version of the OS (iPhone OS 3.x and later). As part of these restrictions, you can block access to the Safari Mobile browser and enable a safe browser such as the one offered by Mobicip.com as the default browser for your child. You can setup restrictions by selecting Settings > General > Restrictions and using a 4-digit restrictions passcode. Enable restrictions using a 4-digit restrictions passcode (not to be confused with the device passcode), and DO NOT share this passcode with your child. Do not forget it either, for you will have to jump through hoops to reset it. The Mobicip Safe Browser offers a safe, secure and protected environment for your tween or teen or learn responsible and safe browsing. To customize the settings and monitor Internet activity through the browser, you can purchase a Mobicip.com Premium subscription . 6. Allow or Disable YouTube? Depending on the age of your child, you may or may not want to allow access to the built-in YouTube app on the iPhone. While YouTube does a reasonably good job of keeping hardcore content out, kinky stuff does get in and they are fairly easy to come across as part of regular usage. Select Settings > General > Restrictions > YouTube > OFF. 7. Allow or Disable iTunes? Decide if you want to allow access to iTunes. Not to be confused with iTunes on the computer, iTunes on the device allows the user to access and purchase content directly without going through the computer. You can disable access to iTunes completely by selecting Settings > General > Restrictions > iTunes > OFF. 8. Allow or Disable Third-Party Apps? Decide if you want to allow your child to install and/or purchase apps from the App Store. You can choose to restrict apps by default, and only allow a purchase with your permission. i.e. when you enter the password. You can do this after you purchase all the apps your child wants, then have him/her come to you when they need an additional app. To disable the installation of third-party apps from the App Store, simply select Settings > General > Restrictions > Installing Apps > OFF. 9. Setup Age-appropriate Filtering for iTunes Content If you choose to allow temporary or permanent access to iTunes, make sure that you setup age-based restrictions for the content. Select Settings > General > Restrictions > Allowed Content In App Purchases > OFF Ratings For > United States Music & Podcasts > Explicit > OFF Movies > G TV Shows > G 10. Setup Age-appropriate Filtering for Apps If you choose to allow temporary or permanent access to the App Store, make sure that you setup age-based restrictions for the App Store content. Select Settings > General > Restrictions > Allowed Content In App Purchases > OFF Apps > 4+ This tutorial provides a step-by-step walkthrough to setup parental controls on the iPhone and iPod Touch. That is it! See, you don't have to be an expert at using these devices to make them safe for your kids. Apple and other providers have built ways and means to make the device just as powerful as you want it to be for your child.
 
Susan Harrow: Mackenzie Phillips Slept With Her Dad Top
She called it a rape and a romance. Confusing? The messages about sexuality often are. While this is an extreme case you don't have to sleep with or have been raped by your dad to feel bad about yourself, your body or your sexuality. Mackenzie Phillips' revelation, while shocking and disturbing, is more common that most of us would like to believe. 1 out of every 6 American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey. 1998.). It's usual that "small" sexual degradations of a father toward his daughter lead to a diminished sense of self. I was at dinner with a dear friend of mine the other night and she said to me, "Do you know how much I've held myself back because of the way I look? I don't think I deserve to be in front of people the way I am." She is a luminous person, full of compassion and brilliance. She is "heavy" and has always worn loose fitting clothes. She is a leader in her field and has held prominent positions at large and respected spiritual organizations. She is one of us. This wearing away at self-esteem started long ago when her father would pinch her and pit her against her mother. She got fat so her mother would be the thin one. At prom time she put on a dress and her father pointed at her breasts and said to her brother, "Look at those sagging five pound sacks of flour." This was one of many inappropriate comments that lead her to where she is today. Holding herself back from giving her full light to the world. And hers is a very bright light. Susan Harrow is the author of Sell Yourself Without Selling Your Soul . She runs a Media Consultancy where she helps everyone from Fortune 500 CEOs to celebrity chefs, entrepreneurs to authors grow their business through media coaching and the power of PR. For more information please contact Susan . More on Sexual Violence
 
Ben Berkon: Other Diseases Feel Neglected Since Outbreak of Swine Flu Top
Who am I? Maybe I should introduce myself. My name is "Malignant Lung Cancer." Yeah, nice to meet you too. Let's talk about this Swine Flu. I get it, the Swine Flu is spreading and it could potentially kill you. Yeah, great. Big f*ckin' deal. But if you want to play in the Big Leagues, son, you're gonna have to be a bit scarier -- otherwise its back to the minors (and no, I'm not talking about the sh*tty third installment of the Major League film series). It's been pissing me off how much media press Swine Flu has been getting. I mean, I killed 354 people yesterday, and I don't even get the back page in the New York Post -- instead, there was something about how a local bodega was selling milk from the 1990s. Did I mention that you need chemo just to try to prevent me? Yeah, f*ck you sour milk. I usually don't discuss "politics" with people, but I talked to my acquaintances Malaria, AIDS, and even Salmonella -- and they all agree that Swine Flu is being a dick. I mean, we get it, you're all new and "it," but lay off the press, you look like a drunk Lindsay Lohan going into a swanky LA club. "Oh look at me press. Oops, my boobs just popped out! I could totally kill you if you don't get a vaccine. Tee-hee!" That's what you look like Swine Flu. So what if the media likes you now? After you're no longer a threat, you'll be forced to do made-for-tv movies or dental floss commercials. Have fun working with Joey Lawrence. So what's my point? My point is that while the Swine Flu seems like a "big deal" now, in a few months or a year, it will just be a part of disease history. Just another disease that came, did a little damage, and left. And yes, I get it, there have been many confirmed cases of Swine Flu. But here's the reality of the situation - I, Malignant Lung Cancer, kill close to 1.5 million people per year. I want some attention. I deserve some attention. I will kill more people than any of these "new" diseases combined. So Swine Flu: stick that in your pipe and smoke it! (Seriously, do it. It'll give you malignant lung cancer.) (For more articles and segments of this kind, visit www.SomethingYouShouldRead.com .) More on Swine Flu
 
Craig Newmark: Serious civics apps a big deal in San Francisco Top
People are using the Net for civic purposes in increasing numbers for all sorts of useful stuff. Now, the City of San Francisco has a civic apps store, check it out at datasf.org/showcase/ I already use a bunch of these, including EcoFinder, Routesy, and Everyblock. This is real, and useful stuff, like telling me when the next train or bus is coming. Mayor Gavin Newsome is pushing this hard, check out his pitch at Mashable : A number of apps have already been created from government data and are featured in the Showcase with others in development. Check out an interactive crime map with San Francisco Crimespotting , or EcoFinder , an iPhone app that helps residents recycle based on their location or Routesy , an app that helps people find their way around the Bay Area's transit systems in real time. This is just the beginning. We hope creative developers will build countless more apps never dreamed of in City Hall. We understand the key to creating more apps is making more City data available to the public. The initial phase of DataSF includes more than 100 datasets, from a range of City departments, including Police, Public Works, and the Municipal Transportation Agency. This is just scratching the surface. We are working with departments to free as much city data as possible. More on Transparency
 
Richard Allen Smith: What Happens When the VA Actually Cares About Vets Top
Yesterday, I sat on a blogger roundtable call with Assistant Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Tammy Duckworth and Deputy Director of Education Services Lynn Nelson. The topic was the much-publicized problems Veterans are encountering in being payed the benefits to which they are entitled to under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The call was respectful, but heated. Vets from several different new media outlets and organizations aired their grievances candidly. To their credit, the VA representatives on the call took the criticism in stride, acknowledged fault and agreed that the situation was unacceptable. They explained that this weekend alone, 900 workers would be working 3,000 hours of overtime to help process GI Bill claims and bring the VA closer to their self-imposed 25-day goal for processing. This was all well and good, and it was nice to hear the VA was doing something to fix the problem. That in itself was a breath of fresh air after the conditions under which the VA had been run in the previous administration. The humility of the VA on this occasion and their commitment to fix the problem alone are praiseworthy. But I wasn't satisfied. As the call was coming closer to an end, it seemed to me that VA wasn't quite getting the problem exactly. They understood that they had a system full of angry Vets who weren't getting paid, but it didn't seem to me that they understood how many Vets were struggling because they weren't getting paid. So I decided to personalize the situation for them. I told them that I had submitted the proper paperwork on the 5th of August and still had not received my housing allowance, nor had my school received my tuition payment. This means I had to pay tuition out of pocket, and have not received any of my housing entitlement for things like food and rent. I explained that this is well beyond the 25 day processing goal, as well as the the current 35 day period that VA reports as the current average. I explained that I have gone into exorbitant credit card debt and taken out loans just to get by this semester. I informed them that I had $120 in my checking account and that rent is due next week. I asked the VA representatives what they had to say to Vets in this situation. At this point, Deputy Director Nelson let me know they could get with me after the call to insure I was taken care of. "Thank you", I said. "But that isn't what I want. I can't be the only Veteran in this situation. What are you going to say to the other Vets who are struggling like me?" I was informed that the VA was working to fix the problem. I was skeptical. But today, fix the problem they did: WASHINGTON - Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki announced the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has authorized checks for up to $3,000 to be given to students who have applied for educational benefits and who have not yet received their government payment. The checks will be distributed to eligible students at VA regional benefits offices across the country starting Oct. 2, 2009. "Students should be focusing on their studies, not worrying about financial difficulties," Secretary Shinseki said. "Education creates life-expanding opportunities for our Veterans." Starting Friday, Oct. 2, 2009, students can go to one of VA's 57 regional benefit offices with a photo ID, a course schedule and an eligibility certificate to request advance payment of their housing and book allowance. Because not all these offices are located near students, VA expects to send representatives to schools with large Veteran-student bodies and work with Veteran Service Organizations to help students with transportation needs. A list of those VA regional offices is available at www.vba.va.gov/VBA/benefits/offices.asp . I don't pretend to believe that my question alone led to this decision. It was but one voice in a chorus of grassroots complaints aired to the VA by many bloggers and organizations on that call, combined with the reported voices in media of Veterans all across the country who have been struggling under a failing system. Honestly, I don't think anyone on that call or in the Vet community in general expected this. I know I didn't. The VA has shown what can be done when the agency actually cares what happens to the Veterans it serves. During the last administration, it took major scandals to get anything fixed in the Department, and then it was never corrected at this level. On behalf of myself, and the entire Veteran community, I want to extend a personal thank you to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Assistant Secretary Duckworth and Deputy Director Nelson for making this happen, and ensuring those of us who sacrificed in uniform for our country get the assistance we deserve.
 
Joseph A. Palermo: Meg Whitman's "Vision Thing" Top
The billionaire former CEO of eBay, Meg Whitman, has formally announced her candidacy to run for governor of California. Her "platform" (if one can call it that) is nothing short of a scorched earth campaign against the public sector she seeks to manage. She wants to fire 40,000 state workers, slash another $15 billion out of the state's already depleted general fund, eliminate "overly generous" pensions for public employees, and scuttle any new regulations designed to stave off global climate change. She also wants to build more prisons. So right-wing and extreme are Whitman's proposals that even Arnold Schwarzenegger had to distance himself from her radical and nihilistic prescriptions for state governance, which ignore both practical constraints as well as the disaster these measures would wrought if ever implemented. Schwarzenegger's office had to point out that 40,000 more layoffs would end up emptying a lot of the state's prisons (the only "social program" California Republicans care about), and that it would be unwise (politically) to chuck the new climate change regulations. According to the Sacramento Bee Whitman hasn't even bothered to vote in any election during most of her adult life. How's that for civic engagement? Her megalomaniacal pursuit of the governor's office fits in nicely with the class-warfare we've come to expect from California Republicans. Another arrogant CEO comes down from on high to bless Californians with her talent for making lots of money presuming that governing the nation's most populated state is the same as producing widgets (or at least selling widgets through an on-line auction house). I wish someone would tell these people that government institutions are supposed to be democratic and deliberative, not profit-generating institutions. It's a testimony Whitman's overblown ego that she thinks she can just step in and become governor by dint of her private sector bona fides. That might be all one needs in the Republican primaries but in the general election hopefully voters will demand more. Just because Californians tell pollsters they don't like the Legislature doesn't mean they want to fire 40,000 more state workers, build more prisons, and scrap climate change measures; neither does it mean they like what Schwarzenegger is doing. Why else would the governor's approval rating be on par with George W. Bush's when he left office? Next year, Arnold Schwarzenegger's circus will leave Sacramento. The cigar tents will be packed up and his menagerie of lobbyists and hangers-on will follow him out of town. And like a departing circus it will leave in its wake a barren field strewn with garbage and elephant shit. Whoever is the next Republican nominee for governor will have to at least promise to clean up some of this mess. The last thing the state needs is a Margaret Thatcher wannabe.
 
Michael Brenner: Much Ado About Almost Nothing Top
The Mother of All Economic Summits held this week in Pittsburgh evokes faded images of similar conclaves in the 1930s. The grainy footage from those times showed somberly dressed men with severe expressions carved on their faces. They walked stiffly from vintage limousines to the imposing façade of some temple of finance. They returned looking even grimmer. Today, things are done with more pizzazz. Colorful ties, a parade of fashionable spouses, and big grins all around -- as if the American hosts had passed around gilded cards with the embossed message: "Look upbeat and keep a positive attitude." So they assembled cheerfully in the rotunda of the Phipps Conservatory beneath the lofty glass dome. The cacti that normally surround the rotunda were removed. Pity. By some divine intervention, they might have pricked the conscience of the assembled statesmen -- or some other part of their anatomy that could have jump-started the palaver. As it was, the heads of government were so exuberant in their self congratulations that they nearly O.D.ed on huge helpings of green shoots. A throwback to the 'survivors parties' the British once held in Calcutta after the monsoon season passed. All this celebration while the global economy they so badly mismanaged is still hospitalized. At the very least, Nicolas Sarkozy's glamorous wife, the chanteuse Carla Bruni, could have composed and sang the debut performance of a Rehabilitation Blues. The scorecard for the Summit is extremely thin. It is easily summarized. Here are the highlights: Most banks but not other financial institutions will be required to increase their capital. Specifics are left to a Working Committee. Monitoring and enforcement is left to the national governments. Bank salaries and bonuses are to be restricted and made to conform to performance over a three year period. Specifics are left to a Working Committee. Monitoring and enforcement is left to the national governments. These prospective rules will not come into force until 2013, i.e. when the hunting season for 2012 campaign contributions is over. Also note the strong incentives for executives to grab as much as they can in the next four years -- thereby adding to the risk of another crash (assuming that they're truly worried -- a highly dubious assumption). Leaders agreed to work to reduce the structural imbalance between those countries that have large balance of trade surpluses and rely heavily on export trade (e.g. China, Germany) and those who have large, chronic deficits and consume too much, i.e. the United States. Specifics are left to a set of Working Committees and the goodwill of the governments involved. Some adjustments will be made in the voting quotas of the IMF to give greater weight to BRIC nations. The U.S. retains its veto. The G-20 will replace the G-8 as the primary body for global economic kibbutzing. It will meet annually instead of bi-annually. Makes sense; as Simon Johnson remarked, "doing two summits a year -- when you don't have anything to report on -- is embarrassing." That's it, folks -- there ain't no more. Regulation of CDOs, CDSs, over leveraging, too big to fail financial institutions, etc never made it onto the agenda. The blood oaths of November and April to tackle head-on the practices that brought us to the brink of disaster evidently are gone with the wind. The real drama of the Summit was Obama's before dinner delivery of the 'breaking news' that a new Iranian nuclear fuel facility had been discovered. In fact, the United States has known of its existence for months, conserving the information for the moment -- and audience -- when it could have maximum impact. The exquisite timing had the further benefit of distracting attention from Pittsburgh's historic non-event -- not to mention Obama's own abject failure on Palestine when Netanyahu stiffed him at the U.N.
 
Taylor Orci: Top 10 Videos I'd Pay to Have Moammar Kadafi Digitally Inserted Into: Top
  photo courtesy of Bryon DiGianfilippo 1. Hall and Oates' "Method of Modern Love" 2. Eddie Murphy's "Party All the Time" 3. That Christmas Special Where Bing Crosby Sang "Little Drummer Boy" with David Bowie 4. As Part of Morris Day and the Time's Entourage in Purple Rain 5. Cher's "If I Could Turn Back Time" 6. The "Voices That Care" Iraq War Tribute 7. The Volley Ball Scene in Top Gun 8. Run DMC's "It's Tricky" 9. Raven Simone's "That's What Little Girls Are Made Of" 10. Taylor Swift's "You Belong To Me"   (with help from Melissa McAllister)
 
Patricia DeGennaro: Hello World: Obama Needs Your Help with Israel! Top
This weeks UN General Assembly certainly brought out the drama of the people still living in their day-to-day inability to face reality. From Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Benjamin Netanyahu, the world seems to be full of ranting on and on about the other. Bibi Netanyahu, the reinstated Prime Minister of Israel, even brought documents that evidence the Holocaust, which of course is not only unnecessary, but also bowing to the ludicrous statement by the Iranian President that it never existed. Unfortunately not one of these has taken the time to look at themselves. Ahmadinejad can talk until he is blue in the face about being legitimately elected while refusing to acknowledge that he terrorized his own people to stay in power, but none of us are buying it. Nor are we acknowledging that his own democratic misjudgments were our fault. Further no one believes Bibi's rant about Iran being the only government building nukes and persecuting people while his continues to hide their own weapons and occupy, displace and repress over 3.7 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. The dynamics are to say the least ironic. While Israel pretends not to have the nuclear bomb, Iran says its not making one, while Israel continues to displace Palestinians, Iran continues to imprison opposition. And both have an over jealous religious right that is unduly influencing practicality. The world powers are appropriately banding together to pressure Iran with crippling sanctions if it doesn't comply with international will and law. Obama has promoted a brilliant strategy of making this a global effort, the only way to coerce Iran to change. Unfortunately, there is no international or American will to challenge Israel's bad behavior. Netanyahu for his part has been making it his only priority to shift all eyes toward Iran so everyone forgets about a Palestinian state. Most Americans have no idea that pro-Israel lobbying groups launched a Capital Hill initiative on what they called and "Advocacy Day on Iran" promoting fear and pressuring American representatives to begin beating those war drums. As if the Untied States doesn't have enough American soldiers fighting in wars half way across the world already. Makes you wonder whose interests are running whose? Obama should be applauded for the strides he is making in the international community in reference to Iran. Iran wants engagement; it now has it in the form of all member of the G5 telling it the world has had enough. It is time, however, to tell Israel the same. To be fair, Israel must declare its nuclear arsenal; it must work with the US, its largest supporter (not to mention the US's largest recipient of aid), to finally bring peace to the Middle East. It is in Israel's interest and it is unquestionably in the US's as well. The US Congress and its Administration must show the same backbone they are showing on Iran. If the Iranians don't like international or American policies, they are directly confronted, this time by the entire world. If the Israelis don't like them, we say "Oh well?" Something seems a bit unbalanced there. The US should immediately cut off all military, economic and development aid. Especially after the way Netanyahu rebuked all efforts by the American President at the UN meeting he was trying to initiate. Shameful. At one point in Netanyahu's speech to the UN General Assembly he questioned the legitimacy of giving Ahmadinejad the stage because he is a denier. The other did the same -- Ahmadinejad invoking the case of the Palestinian. To our dismay, neither listened to the call of the United States President. A call to come together, to "begin a new chapter of international cooperation, one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations." Instead, they both chose to ignore their own responsibilities for the current situation, deny their own actions hang on to history and hate. All parties, not just these two, must pledge, as Obama says, to " act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad." The alternative is a future consumed by ongoing strife and propensity for never-ending war. More on Palestinian Territories
 

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)