Saturday, October 3, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: The GOP Right to Cheer Obama's Olympic Defeat Top
The GOP cheered wildly at President Obama's Olympic bid folly. In a rarity they actually got some of the reasons they cheered for his defeat right. The games would have been a nightmare for Chicago. There was the excessive cost, massive hikes in taxes, a city rife with corruption and cronyism, no evidence the games would do much to generate jobs and business growth in the most impoverished areas of the city, and the blatant impropriety of a president plugging his own home city. The GOP also got it right in knocking Obama for wasting time chasing Olympic windmills when his time should be spent on health care reform, fixing the economy, confronting the Iran nuclear threat, and doubling down on his efforts to wind down two crippling wars. The GOP offers no real solutions on any of these problems. And they happily used Obama's Olympic flop to bludgeon him and his administration as a failure. But that doesn't let Obama off the hook for self-diverting his time and attention from these crucial issues. That's not the only reason to give the GOP a one time prop for getting it right about Obama and his Olympic pipe dream. In the last year more than forty young blacks have been stabbed, shot, and bludgeoned to death within miles, and some within blocks from Obama's home. The violence stirred a mild national outcry when a cell phone video showed 16 year old honors student Derrion Albert being bludgeoned to death on a Chicago street. Before the Albert killing, black community leaders and activists had begged, pleaded with and implored Obama to speak out on the violence. Apart from a few oblique platitudes and moral finger wagging to blacks at a black church and later at an NAACP convention about the perils of the street, the silence from the White House has been deafening on the violence. The murders literally in Obama's own backyard are more than just a shame and an embarrassment to him. They represent a missed teaching moment for Obama. They were a tailor made opportunity to connect the dots and show just how failing public schools, Great Depression unemployment highs among young black males, soaring incarceration rates, the paucity of recreation facilities, breakdown in family support services, and the unwillingness of public agencies and private businesses to invest in job skills, training, and education programs for youth is the direct line to the shocking murder of innocents such as Albert. The paid lobbyists, high profile PR firms, well-heeled corporate donors, high powered political connections, and major civic and industry groups happily designated Obama as their point man on the Olympics. They had the political muscle and money to send him scurrying on a wild goose chase thousands of miles away to plug the Olympic Games. Meanwhile, the Derrion Alberts who are at mortal risk from street violence only a few blocks from the president's home are forced to play a much deadlier game; a game called survival. GOP may have cheered for the wrong reason Obama's Olympic smack down, but the cheer was well deserved. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January, 2010. More on GOP
 
Daniel Burrell: Win or Come Home In Afghanistan Top
Speaking last week to the UN General Assembly, President Obama told world leaders that we need a "global response to global concerns." This call for greater engagement and multilateralism is the right approach for US foreign policy. It is an imperative, however, not just on issues such as Iran, where our allies have been cooperative in supporting tougher sanctions, or on nuclear non-proliferation, where Moscow and Beijing have recently showed a willingness to lead with America, but also on the more divisive issue of Afghanistan. America is trending deeper into the Afghan war without adequate resources or political support, at home or abroad. This issue is now the greatest test of the President's foreign policy leadership. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released last week indicates waning domestic support for US involvement in Afghanistan, and even stronger opposition to troop level increases. Only 39% of Americans favor the war and 63% percent believe that we should hold stable or reduce our forces on the ground, not increase them. Counteracting this deterioration in popular support will require a change in the current US approach, requiring greater NATO involvement, but also clear conviction by the President that increased troop levels, technical support, and supplies will make the conflict winnable. Without a clear path to accomplishing this, the President cannot ask that more American or European lives be placed at risk, and he should begin the process of limiting US involvement in Afghanistan. But to the extent that Obama remains committed to the Afghan conflict as a war of "necessity, not choice," with success hinging mostly on resolving the "adequate resources" question, he must be willing to communicate a more forceful message to NATO countries -- that continued US involvement and leadership in Afghanistan will be closely tethered to a correlating European response, commitment to shared objectives, and a unified strategy. The consequences of not re-fashioning US policy in this way seems clear, especially in light of the recent memo written by General McChrystal assessing US involvement in Afghanistan. In that memo he stated that "failure to provide adequate resources ... risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and ultimately, a critical loss of political support," and that "any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure." President Obama must confront this stark reality by acknowledging what his predecessor couldn't - that there are real limitations to US power and resources. But he must also take a series of steps to set parameters around further US involvement in Afghanistan, as well as to win back popular support among the American public: First, the President must tether any further troop commitments, US or European, to a legitimate political resolution of the Afghan election. NATO's main role in Afghanistan is to assist the Afghan government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. But clear evidence of fraud and electoral manipulation would create resulting illegitimacy for the government that would make the mission much less tenable politically and far more likely to fail militarily as well. This is especially true in light of recent concerns raised by the US government's highest-ranking UN diplomat in Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, about electoral inconsistencies and potential fraud. Second, if there is a resolution to the election that is workable, the President needs to re-make the case for the Afghan war to the American public in an address that clearly defines the mission, our reasons for being there, the changing strategic focus on the ground, a military assessment, and the resources needed to win. Popular support for the conflict relies primarily on coherence in these areas and justifiably, the public is seeking answers. Over the past six months, however, the President has been quiet on Afghanistan much to the detriment of popular support. His last major address on the subject was in March, but since this time we have had substantial troop level increases, more than 21,00 in total, losses in soldiers lives, and deterioration of overall US strategy. The President needs to regain the initiative now at a time when members of Congress and significant portions of his own party are moving rapidly away from their commitment to the conflict. Finally, Obama must convene a summit of NATO member countries to address the needs of Afghanistan and decide on a unified, multilateral objective. This must also be coupled with a formal request that more troops, supplies, and technical assistance be sent using European resources, not American ones. This request has been back-channeled in recent months by Obama and his team to European leaders and officials, but it has stopped short of being the defined policy of the US or as a predicate for our ongoing commitment in Afghanistan. This must change in light of what our generals have communicated about the state of the conflict, the risks, and relevant needs. Internationalizing the war effort and executing a successful Afghan troop "surge" is the right policy for the President to follow. The stakes of failing in Afghanistan are simply too high to accept failure. But success will only be realistic if we send a signal to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda that NATO is an immovable, inexhaustible, tireless force that is willing to stay the course for years to come if necessary. Right now, using the playbook from Iraq, insurgent groups see weakness in the European and American commitment and believe that an overstretched US military, in particular, will not be able to defeat them over time. This is fueling the current opposition and making the strategy on the ground more difficult and complex. President Obama can only forestall a failure in Afghanistan by recognizing the need to build consensus around the mission, to spread the costs widely, and to harness overwhelming force and resources. If he cannot accomplish this or has wavering commitment to it given recent assessments of the military challenges, it is time for US forces to come home More on UN General Assembly
 
Dr. Peter Breggin: Learn to Help Children Without Psychiatric Drugs Top
There is one week to go before the best conference in the world about psychiatry, mental health, and the well-being of our families and children. Experts from around the world will explain how the psychiatric diagnosing and drugging of our children does more harm than good, and present far better alternatives based on sound psychological, moral, and educational principles. I will be joined by psychiatrists, psychologists, educators, and interested citizens from across the country and from around the world--all concerned about protecting children from psychiatric abuse while empowering them through improved family and school life. The conference is put on by the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (www.icspp.org) Friday October 9 and Saturday October 10, 2009. It starts each day at 8:15 AM at the Renaissance Syracuse Hotel in Syracuse, New York. Although ICSPP advocates for individuals of all ages, this year's conference focuses on children and their families. None of the speakers are paid and none of the leadership of ICSPP makes any money from this volunteer organization. None have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. These are professionals genuinely dedicated to reforming psychiatry and mental health services and to providing children and families the kind of help that they really need. I'll be giving a talk toward the end of each day, but you won't want to miss any of the outstanding presentations. Learn how psychiatric diagnoses disempower children and mislead their parents and teachers. Learn how psychiatric drugs retard the development of children, cause serious adverse effects, and teach children to give up responsibility for themselves. Learn how our society's reliance of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs prevents us from finding real solutions to the problems in our families and schools. And learn about far more effective interventions that help children to grow up in our families and schools by providing for their real needs for discipline, love, and inspired education. Information on the conference can be obtained at www.icspp.org. You can also register at the conference a week from now at the Renaissance Syracuse Hotel on Friday, October 9 or on Saturday October 10. If you decide to come, please say hello to me. Peter R. Breggin, M.D. is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York, and the Founder and Director Emeritus of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. His latest book is Wow, I'm an American: How to Live Like Our Heroic Founders . Pre-publication copies can be obtained with a bonus interview by Dr. Breggin on his website, www.breggin.com.
 
Andy Borowitz: Scientists Say Oldest Human Ancestor Had Sex With Intern Top
MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) - Just days after discovering a skeleton that belonged to the oldest human ancestor, paleoanthropologists say they now believe that this early human had the first recorded affair with an intern. "This is an amazing discovery," said Professor Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota. "It suggests that having sex with interns goes back a lot further than any of us thought." Dr. Logsdon would not elaborate on how scientists came to the conclusion about the early human's sexual activities, saying only that it was based on "bone examination." More here . More on David Letterman
 
Dan Dorfman: 'Tis The Season ... To Be $anta Top
Hey, if you're looking to make a few extra bucks, have I got a gig for you. It's an unusual job you would probably never think of: playing Santa Claus, or perhaps Mrs. Claus. I thought about it after hearing Friday's grim September jobs report, which came on the heels of a recent chat I had with Bob Mindte, the owner of Santaforhire.com of Newport Beach, Ca., the nation's largest provider of live St. Nicks, for assorted functions around the country. If you're about to snicker or ridicule the idea on the grounds that you're not interested in work that pays chicken feed, don't. Depending on the time and location, you can earn as much as $300 an hour, or say between $2,000 and $8,000 for five weeks' work. First, though, to some reaction to that miserable employment report, which shows the economy is still hemorrhaging jobs -- at a greater than expected 263,000 in September and 7.2 million 22 months into the recession. Based on these numbers, it should now be clear to everybody that those so-called financial experts who've been predicting a decided upturn in the number of working Americans before year end have one or both feet in La La Land. Interestingly, the word on Wall Street Friday -- following the early morning announcement of a spurt in the jobless ranks to a 26-year high of 9.8% -- was that a number of brokerage economists might soon hike their projected peak in the percentage number of out-of-work Americans during the present economic cycle. If that happens, talk of a jobless recovery will balloon from a murmur into a roar. And any thoughts of a speedier than expected economic rebound will become increasingly suspect, which is the last thing Wall Street wants to hear. The expectation, generally, is that the unemployment rate will peak in the 10.3% to 10.5% range. However, some economists see a considerably higher number if there's a further significant economic setback, which, in turn, could cause consumers to pull back even more. Under such a scenario, Argus Research economist Richard Yamarone tells me. "you could see 11.5% unemployment." Describing the present employment environment as terrible, he doesn't see any improvement until around mid-2010. "It's likely the economy will spin its wheels for a while and the jobs picture will remain stagnant," he says. Meanwhile, while I don't operate an employment service on the side, I thought I'd alert the non-working population -- currently about 15.1 million, which would expand to more than 16.6 million if we hit an 11.5% jobless rate -- to the prospects of some temporary work, playing either Santa Claus or Mrs. Claus. The job embraces roughly a five-week period, Post-Thanksgiving through year end. A couple of weeks ago, Mindte told me he figured his business, reflecting the economic downturn, would likely drop about 10% this year. So far, though, the company's figures aren't bearing out this projected decline as his demand for Santas is about on par with last year's levels, he says. Mindte's firm has provided more than 1,000 Santas nationally for assorted activities, notably for malls, parties and charities, and three years ago it filled a request for one from the White House. It has also provided Santas for overseas functions. Here's what Santa economics look like. Mindte's charge is based on a community's income and demographics and a Santa can generally earn anywhere from $20 an hour in a mall (usually 10 hours a day) to $300 an hour for a Christmas or New Year's Eve party in Manhattan. Santas collecting for charities traditionally make $25 to $50 an hour, while party Santas will pull down about $150 an hour. An accompanying Mrs. Claus will generally earn about half the hourly rate. If you're interested, Mindte, who is seeking to expand the company's number of available Santas, prefers grandfather-type St. Nicks, generally between the ages of 55 and 75. They're also required to have real beards, either natural white or bleached white. As for weight, "it's okay to be overweight, but not obese," he says. There are no fees paid by would-be Santas. The companies doing the hiring pay all fees. To become a working Santa and get paid to bellow to one and all ho, ho, ho and a merry Christmas, get all the particulars by e-mailing Info@Santaforhire.com . It could be, especially if you're out of work, a jolly good opportunity. Write to Dan Dorfman at Dandor-dan@aol.com .
 
Michael Moore: A Great Opening Night -- Do Not Put Off Seeing Capitalism: A Love Story -- Go Tonight! All of Wall Street is Watching! Top
Friends, Thank you, all of you, who packed the theaters across North America last night to see my new film. The movie houses were rockin'! The national movie exit poll company announced this morning that the audiences in America gave Capitalism: A Love Story a rare "A" rating! Wow, thank you! In most multiplexes where Capitalism played, it was the #1 or #2 top-grossing movie there for the evening. That is nothing short of amazing. For those of you waiting till next week to see it, I can't say this strongly enough: Do not put off going to see Capitalism: A Love Story . It is not just a movie. It is a referendum that is being closely watched by the CEOs of America. Let me tell you bluntly, the suits on Wall Street are closely watching to see how this movie does this weekend. So, too, are the members of Congress. If "Capitalism" has a huge opening, it will send shivers down their corporate spines, telling them loud and clear that the American people are mad as hell and are not into taking it any more. It will put all the bosses on notice that the vast Obama-voting majority has awoken from its silence and are out in full force. But if the attendance is just "ok" or "so-so," then they will be relieved knowing that there is not a popular groundswell of opposition out there -- and then they can go about their business as usual. I'd like to send them a different message. Treat tonight and tomorrow as if it were election day. Blow their minds on Monday morning when they show up at their executive suites, switch on CNBC or Fox Business News, and learn that America turned out in droves to participate in a raucous denunciation of Wall Street and everything it stands for. I often hear people ask, "What can I do to make my voice heard?" Your answer is at the nearest theater showing this movie. Trust me, packing these movie houses tonight and tomorrow will eff them up in an overwhelming and profound way. Last night, there were many reports of spontaneous cheering throughout the film in nearly all the theaters. Theater managers reported difficulties in getting people to clear the theater lobby afterwards because groups of total strangers assembled to passionately discuss what they just saw. One manager wrote to me and said, "It's a good thing we carry Gummy Bears and Junior Mints at the concessions stand instead of pitchforks and torches! These crowds were ready to march over to the local Citibank and do something!" Another manager said a crowd in the lobby formed around the little Chase ATM machine next to his popcorn stand and started to "yell at it." Jeez! ( Click here to see some of the cell phone photos fans have sent from various theaters around the country last night.) Here's what I've heard the most about last night: Audiences were stunned and shocked by many of the things I reveal in the movie -- stuff that the networks have refused to show them -- even though they have the footage! They purposely withhold this news from you, the public. And because I dare to show it, some networks now refuse to license any of their footage to me. So I get my hands on it and put it in the movie anyway. I truly don't care. I'm sick and tired of the truth not being told to the American people -- and I am willing to suffer whatever the consequences come my way because I showed it to you. Fortunately we have "fair use" laws in this country that have kept my hide out of court so far. There is something so patently wrong with not being told what Wall Street and Corporate America are up to. If you go see Capitalism tonight, you'll see what I mean. You will alternately have your head spinning and then find yourself laughing your ass off! Much more is riding on the success of this movie than the amount of popcorn that is sold. If we do well this weekend, the studio will expand the film to smaller towns next week. Don't put off seeing it! Click here to find out where it's playing and order your tickets now. Call some friends and make a night of it. My crew and I have put nearly two years of our lives into this and I am honored that it has been so well received. Join in on the fun of giving AIG, GM, Bank of America and all the other thieves the shellacking they deserve. And send me a photo of you and the crowd there tonight! I'll post it and personally send it to the heads of all the financial institutions and the members of Congress. They need to get a clue -- right now -- and I'd like you to help me send them that clue! Thanks again, and I'll see you tonight at the movies! Yours, Michael Moore MMFlint@aol.com MichaelMoore.com Join Mike's Mailing List | Join Mike's Facebook Group | Follow Mike on Twitter | Become Mike's MySpace Friend More on Capitalism: A Love Story
 
Kim Bensen: "He chose poorly..." Top
As I write this, our little boys are in bed, my husband is overlooking bagel shipments, and my older two children and I are watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade while the first fire of the season crackles in the fireplace. We just saw the scene where the old knight says, "He chose poorly." It's classic. Talk about the understatement of the year! In case you haven't seen the movie in a while, there's this bad guy (of course), and he follows Indiana (sigh) into a hidden room full of ancient goblets. Inside there are many gorgeous, solid gold, gemstone encrusted chalices that are fit for a king. Whoever drinks from the cup of Christ, the Holy Grail, will supposedly have immortality. Whoever chooses the wrong cup will suffer immediate death. But which one is it? So this bad guy chooses the most beautiful of all the goblets, thinking it surely must be the one. He drinks deeply. It's obvious that his choice is a poor one because moments later the flesh melts from his skeleton and then his head explodes. Cool! It's at this point that the ancient knight protecting the Holy Grail delivers his classic line, "He chose poorly." Well, this blog isn't meant to be any great epiphany. But after a day full of choices, most good, one or two which could have been better, that movie line really hit home to me. Earlier today my eight year old decided to make a surprise chocolate cake for his older brother. It was a surprise to me as well. As I stared down at my arch nemesis, cake, the old feelings of desire welled up from nowhere. I was momentarily dazzled by it's beauty. Lost in desire, I could almost taste it's moist sweetness and feel the creamy frosting on my tongue. (Sorry, I know this is a little over the top.) But at that moment I wasn't thinking about what after-effects that cake would bring. I was thinking about cake. That is the moment, the moment of choice. Do I indulge? If I do, do I stop at one piece? What will satisfy me? Cake was not planned into my day. I have no idea how many calories it has and frankly I really don't care. I start thinking, "When will I have this opportunity again? How many times in life will my eight-year-old make his first cake for his brother? It's a once in a lifetime event! How can I not have a piece?!" Alright, I know it's ridiculous. Do I really want to blow everything on cake? And I've seen Andrew bake before - lick and stir, lick and stir. But even knowing what's probably IN the cake, even knowing how damaging it can be to me - it's not easy to work it through in your mind when you're staring at ... cake. One piece of cake probably won't show up on the scale at the end of the day. But even a bite can be a mental invitation for me to have another and another and well, you get the picture. A bite can put me "off" my diet. And if I'm "off" then I quickly start thinking about everything else I want to eat before I get back "on." The mental games in the on-again/off-again world of the dieter can begin with one piece of cake. Today I didn't eat a piece, but I have before. Yes, there are times when I regret my choices and the words "You chose poorly" echo in my mind. No, my head doesn't explode. I may not suffer immediate death when I make a poor food choice, but I do suffer the consequences. No matter what happens, when all is said and done, it's a blessing to know that each day is a new day, with new choices to be made.
 
Mark Goulston, M.D.: Q: Feeling Anxious? A: "Just Listen" Top
Anxiety is the state of having your brain, mind and behavior be out of alignment with the task in front of you. - Mark Goulston Consider someone in their early forties or older who has a, b and c skills that have earned them a living. Skills that they do masterfully and nearly automatically and ones they now need to replace with something altogether new. A few years ago I worked with the controllers of a large international bank that was beginning to outsource many of their functions overseas. Many of these people were CPA's and MBA's who hadn't thought strategically in decades and now had to think that way, because all the auditing and actuarial functions they had been doing could be done less expensively abroad. Their brains, minds and behaviors as auditors were completely out of alignment with thinking strategically. And then there was the case of a large insurance company whose independently owned franchisees had been selling auto, home, property and casualty coverage (i.e. protection from risk) that had then been told to sell (risky and complicated) financial instruments. In both cases, the push back was enormous. The list of explanations and excuses from the bank and the insurance company was long and extensive. The bank controllers claimed that services coming from India would upset clients and the small insurance office owners claimed that selling financially risky products would turn everything they did for their customers upside down. Every counter explanation of the need to move forward to the new platforms and new offerings was met with, "Yes, but." And every "Yes, but" was clearly fueled by anxiety. The only thing that eliminated that anxiety was listening. When managers were trained on how to listen without an agenda and instead keep asking out of genuine concern "what's really going on?" the resistant controllers at the bank and mom and pop insurance franchise owners opened up and revealed it. In the cases of the controllers and insurance office owners, both were embarrassed to admit that they had become so comfortable doing what they did -- that was no longer sufficient to be competitive -- that they hadn't learned anything of this scale in decades. The controllers hadn't thought strategically in many years and the insurance agents had never sold financially risky products. Both groups were scared that they couldn't learn new things and felt too embarrassed to admit that they felt too stupid to do so. However, once they both owned up to this, they exhaled and breathed a huge sign of relief and were able to get this humiliating weight off their chest. An interesting thing occurs after people are able to talk from what they're really scared, ashamed or frightened about and feel not just understood, but -- as I write about in my new book, "Just Listen" -- "feel felt." At that moment not only do they physically relax, but it is as if their brain relaxes and as if the three parts of their brain (the "fight or flight" lower reptile, the emotional middle mammalian, the rational upper human brain) relax the way they are bonded/neurologically welded together and can realign with each other in a way more aligned with the present situation. Nearly every break though that most people have had with another person is preceded by their stopping talking over or at each other, beginning to truly listen and hear the other person and then begin talking with each other. It's only after that point that they realize they had misunderstood (i.e. their brains, minds and behaviors had been misaligned) each other. After that it was easy to point out to them that they had each learned many new thinks with regard to technology, with regard to new rules and regulations and with regard to new sales approaches and that learning these larger items -- which they could do in a step by step fashion -- would utilize the skills and abilities to learn that they already had. The second thing that eliminated their anxiety was their learning to listen more deeply to their clients and customers and find out what was really on their minds, much as their managers had just listened to them. That enabled them to stop being so self-absorbed and do the thing that makes any service or sales person more successful, which is to stop selling and instead listen to what is truly on your client or customer's mind and help them with that. If the above speaks to you and you were listening and would like to pick up some tips on how to do that better and more effectively, please visit the Just Listen website and sign up for the exclusive FREE RESOURCES. . Also if you're a working mom and anxious and would like to find out how to become less anxious and even happier, you'll want to check out my good friend, Cathy Greenberg 's great new book, What Happy Working Mothers Know . I was pleased to have contributed to the large body of research Cathy used to write this cutting edge book.
 
Robert Siciliano: 8 Ways to Prevent Business Social Media Identity Theft Top
There are hundreds, or maybe even thousands of social media sites worldwide such as Facebook , MySpace , Twitter , and YouTube . Social media networks are quickly becoming the bane of the IT Manager. Twitter phishing and Facebook jacking are growing rapidly. Social media is still in its infancy and its security has been an issue since its inception. Facebook has been perceived as an ongoing privacy and security issue and Twitter has increasingly become a big target for attacks. Users are tricked into clicking links. Viruses enter the network as a result of employees downloading or simply visiting an infected page. Computerworld reports that "Twitter is dead." Twitter is dead because it is now so popular that the spammers and the scammers have arrived in force, and history tells us that once they sink their teeth into something, they do not let go. Ever. Implement policies : Social media is a great platform for connecting with existing and potential clients. However, without some type of policy in place that regulates employee access and guidelines for appropriate behavior, social media may eventually be completely banned from every corporate network. Teach effective use : Provide training on proper use and especially what not do to. Encourage URL decoding : Before clicking on shortened URLs, find out where they lead by pasting them into a URL lengthening service like TinyURL Decoder or Untiny . Limit social networks : In my own research I've found 300-400 operable social networks serving numerous uses from music to movies, from friending to fornicating. Some are less than appropriate and others even less secure. Train IT personnel : Effective policies begin from the top down. Those responsible for managing technology need to be fully up to speed. Maintain updated security : Whether hardware or software, anti-virus or critical security patches, make sure you are up to date. Lock down settings : Most social networks have privacy settings that need to be administered to the highest level. Default settings generally leave the networks wide open for attack. Prevent social media identity theft : Register all your officers, company names and branded products on every social media site you can find to prevent twittersquatting and cybersquatting . You can do this manually or by using a very cost effective service called Knowem.com . Robert Siciliano Identity Theft Speaker with ID Analytics discussing Social Media Identity Theft on Fox Boston More on Twitter
 
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D.: Do Gender Stereotypes Undermine Perceptions of Female Leadership? Top
In this post I want to describe the hypotheses and measures used to test the hypotheses of the research to which I alluded in my previous post. Gender differences in motivational orientation are important mediating factors in fashioning an individual's leadership style. Some researchers have examined the relationship between the evaluation of leadership effectiveness and differences in leadership style. We can understand leadership styles in terms of the content of stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Studies analyzing the components of gender-role stereotypes have shown that popular beliefs about male and female behavior can be summarized, following Bakan (1966), in terms of differences on two dimensions: the "agentic" and the "communal." Men are expected to have high levels of agentic (instrumental) attributes, including needs for autonomy, mastery, assertiveness, and instrumental competence. These qualities reflect a more self-centered orientation. Women are expected to display high levels of communal (social) qualities, including needs for affiliation, lack of self-centeredness, concern for others, spontaneity, playfulness, and emotional expressiveness. These qualities reflect a more social orientation, openness to experiencing and expressing feelings, and a disposition to make a personal connection to others. Men are expected to be more self-promoting and domineering, a style that has come to be known as directive, "command and control," or autocratic. Women are expected to be more empathic and other-oriented, a style that has come to be known as participative and democratic. When applied to leadership, gender-role stereotypes suggest that female-typical forms are interpersonally oriented and collaborative whereas male-typical forms are task oriented and dominating. The congruency of female leaders' behavior with female gender roles may influence the degree to which women experience role conflict. To the extent that female leaders exhibit a masculine style, they amplify the role conflict they experience and increase the chances that others will evaluate their leadership negatively. The tendency to reject the authority of female leaders is greater when women behave autocratically than when they behave in accord with any other style. Exhibiting an autocratic style is likely to reduce acceptance of women as leaders. Gender role congruency has different ramifications for the evaluation of male leaders' behaviors because male leaders do not face a basic role conflict similar to the one female leaders face in their dual status as women and leaders. Expectations about the behavior that is appropriate for a leader coincide largely with beliefs about the behavior that is appropriate for men. Co-workers may scrutinize the details of female leaders' behaviors but do not bring the same hypercritical orientation when evaluating male leaders. Men may be freer to carry out leadership in a variety of masculine or feminine styles without encountering negative reactions because the male gender role legitimizes leadership in men. Assuming a satisfactory level of competence, individuals will tolerate a broader range of behaviors in male leaders, whether those behaviors are congruent with or diverge from the male gender role. Female leaders are not allowed to lead using an autocratic, directive style. Women in leadership roles are more constrained in the behaviors that will be perceived as effective leadership because of the conflict they face as women and leaders. Research into the Relationships among Motivation, Coping, and Leadership In 1993, I led research into the relationships among gender, motivation, and coping among second-year M.B.A. candidates at the University of Chicago. These students were selected to participate in an elite, highly sought-after leadership development program. This program lacked formal guidelines. Forty-eight students were selected from a pool of approximately 200 first-year M.B.A. candidates who applied to the program. Selection was based on the student's perceived leader-like characteristics as judged by a panel of faculty and peers. I expected that two forces would minimize stereotypical personality differences. These were the unstructured nature of the setting and the criteria for selection into the program (i.e., leader-like characteristics). I expected that men and women would differ little in their motivational orientations and would perform equally well as leaders. I also expected that active coping would be the key factor in the emergence and evaluation of a leader. To control for the potentially confounding effects of intelligence on the evaluation of leadership, I used a measure of non-verbal construct formation, Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices ("APM"). To provide a set of scores of motivational orientation that would shape an individual's leadership style, I used a self-report personality assessment instrument, the Personality Research Form ("PRF"). I selected 12 of the 20 personality scales on this instrument to assess motivational orientations related to leadership style. I based my choice of scales on their theoretical relationship to gender-role types. In particular, I chose five scales to create a measure of agentic orientation. The scales were Achievement, Aggression, Autonomy, Dominance, and Endurance. I used a statistical measure known as Cronbach's alpha to estimate the internal consistency of the agentic factor. Cronbach's alpha compares each item with the average of all the remaining items on the five scales. It is the most vigorous appropriate measure of internal consistency. For the agentic factor, Cronbach's alpha indicated a high degree of internal consistency (alpha = .68). To form a measure of communal orientation, I chose seven scales: Affiliation, Change, Impulsivity, Nurturance, Play, Sentience, and Succorance (alpha = .70). The high alphas for the agentic and communal measures indicated that the two factors were internally consistent and provided reliable measures of the two factors, justifying using the agentic and communal factors as constructs related to male-female differences in motivational orientation based on the assumption that the participants' self-reported motivations would be reflected in their leadership styles. To assess coping style, I used a well-validated instrument that yields more spontaneous measures of coping than self-report measures, which rely on what individuals consciously tell about themselves. Operationally, on this instrument, active coping is defined according to four categories. The first two categories elicit responses which indicate the extent to which one is open to experience and capable of clearly articulating aims (Category 1) and sources of frustration (Category 2). Items in the last two categories examine one's tendency to overcome obstacles and continue to strive to achieve aims in a constructive and effective fashion (Category 3) while maintaining positive self-esteem (Category 4). Responses are scored positively or negatively depending on whether the respondent indicates an active or passive orientation to the environment and self. The Final Score reflects adjustments for defensiveness and psychopathology. High scores are indicative of the ability to respond adaptively to stress; low scores signify excessive reactivity to or dependence on internal impulses or drives and the environment. The only criterion measure was an individual's leadership effectiveness as judged by other group members. Each participant was asked to evaluate every other participant's leadership behavior. The term leadership referred only to an individual's perceived leadership as measured by the perceptions of others. Aided by a team of statisticians from the social sciences division at The University of Chicago, I analyzed the data for the significance of the correlations between the measures of personality and leadership. I wanted to determine the relationship, as seen by men and women, between personality and leadership style. I used an alpha level of .05 for all statistical tests. The findings, which I will report in my next post, were surprising and counter-intuitive. They are of great relevance to the ongoing discussion of women, happiness, and changing social roles.
 
Harvey Wasserman: Obama's LBJ Moment Top
Lyndon Johnson was once on the verge of becoming one of America's greatest presidents. But with a single wrong turn into Vietnam, LBJ plunged himself and the nation into a ghastly tragedy that still makes us all weep and bleed. It is now up to us to make sure Barack Obama does not do the same. Even the corporate media shows signs of understanding the parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. So many of us are alive today who remember March, 1965, and all the horror that followed, that there is simply no excuse for allowing this lethal mistake to be repeated. LBJ inherited the momentum of the New Frontier, the murder of John Kennedy and a huge 1964 electoral mandate. He turned them into a string of civil rights and social welfare victories that still vastly enhance all our lives. But LBJ also inherited from JFK the beginnings of the war in Vietnam. LBJ's choice was to escalate or pull out. Recent biographies indicate he had a strong premonition that the war was futile, and that it would do him in. A century from now, historians will still agonize over why he took the plunge anyway. Likewise, Obama's most critical decision today does not have to do with health care or energy. There will be bills on both. How much they help or hurt us will be a matter for debate, and for future legislative and legal battles. But there will be no grey area in Afghanistan. If Obama chains himself to some kind of "victory," he and what's left of our nation are doomed. As in Vietnam, the goal would seem to be to install a regime run by the United States and to "pacify" the country into accepting it. The last foreigner to win like that in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great, about 2300 years ago. Since then the British and Soviets have been among the many to crash and burn in this "graveyard of great powers." When LBJ escalated, the draft cards started burning and the protests began in earnest. But it was already too late. By 1968 more than 550,000 American troops were stuck in Southeast Asia and the war raged for yet another 7 years. Millions of Vietnamese and more than 58,000 Americans died. Tens of thousands were terminally traumatized. The toxic human, economic and ecological impacts still ravage both nations. At some point, LBJ realized what he had done. His extant image is not of a victorious, canonized Lincoln or FDR, but of the exhausted shell of an on-his-way-out president, slumped over a table, listening to a tape from his son-in-law in Vietnam (the photo is by Jack Kightlinger, July 31, 1968). Obama could all too easily share LBJ's fate. His mandate to make change is unmistakable and his potential for success is tangible. But another trap has been set. He has inherited from George W. Bush the beginnings of a horrific quagmire. How he handles it will determine, more than any other decision, his future and that of a deeply wounded nation that still hasn't recovered from the Southeast Asian catastrophe. LBJ apparently thought he could not "lose" Vietnam because right wingers would blame him for an ensuing "success of world communism." Despite the billions spent in blood and treasure, the last Americans fled from a Saigon rooftop on April 30, 1975. No triumphant wave of global communist aggression ensued. By 1991, due largely to its fiasco in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union and the "world communist conspiracy" definitively disintegrated. Today's right-wingers like Condoleezza Rice shout that "losing Afghanistan" will mean more terror attacks. It's utter nonsense. But the warning, carried by the screaming Foxist media, is that unless he drags us all into Southwest Asia, Obama will be held personally responsible for all future mayhem. Some White House advisors could well be saying the same thing, just as JFK's "Best and Brightest" warned LBJ not to pull out of Vietnam. Today General Stanley McChrystal plays the role of William Westmoreland, the prime architect of Vietnam's military catastrophe. As did Westmoreland, McChrystal is telling the public an Afghan war can be won if only we "stay the course." In the 1980s I debated Westmoreland on two college campuses. He told me, with a poker face, that we actually "won the war" by "buying time" for a set of non-communist Southeast Asian dictators (including Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew, Indonesia's Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, all of whom brutalized their people and stuffed billions of dollars into their personal Swiss bank accounts). If he prevails, General McChrystal may someday have similar things to say. But we cannot let this happen. Afghanistan cannot be controlled any more than Vietnam could. Effectively fighting terror demands an intelligent, coordinated international effort, not a blundering unilateral plunge into yet another hopeless overseas quagmire. It also requires a revived prosperity, a winning agenda for social justice, and a Bill of Rights that is honored and in tact. All of this is in Obama's reach. But ONLY if he stays out of Aghanistan, and any other military quagmire that might beckon. That would include Iran, where the crisis has internationalized, and is of a very different sort. Afghanistan, should Obama choose to go there, will be ours and ours alone, with no victory possible and no way out that does not resemble the one from Saigon. If we had known enough to do it, we should have begun marching against the Vietnam War in 1961, when John Kennedy first committed 11,000 troops there. With a full-blown anti-war movement, perhaps we could have stopped LBJ from committing personal and national suicide in 1965. Today we have no excuse. This administration is teetering on the edge of catastrophe. A military plunge into Afghanistan would doom Barack Obama and the rest of us to tragedy and impoverishment beyond even LBJ's worst nightmares. The moment is now. Health care, yes! Energy and the climate, yes! But first and foremost: STOP THIS WAR!!! -- Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.harveywasserman.com, as is HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US. This article was originally published by http://freepress.org. More on Afghanistan
 
Rachel Fleischer: Without A Home: To Live and Die on The Streets of Los Angeles Top
I met "Skateboard Bruce" in the same spot in the valley I'd met Joby a few days earlier. His real name was Bruce Cram but he went by the nickname Skateboard Bruce, which I have to say, seemed really fitting, even though I never heard him mention owning a skateboard. There was something special about this man. I couldn't immediately put my finger on it but I sensed he was different and that he had a real gift. He spoke in such a way that led me to believe he may have suffered from an injury or had some kind of mental illness, perhaps schizophrenia. Not being an expert on mental illness, I was left only to wonder. He had large hands that seemed disproportionate to his otherwise small frame. His eyes darted back and forth with passionate energy as he spoke dutifully of his obligation to care for all forms of life around him: insects, animals, birds, trees, plants, and people, particularly his homeless brothers and sisters. I had only done a handful of interviews with homeless people at this point and I had never heard anyone speak this way. Truthfully, I had never really heard anyone I know speak this way. He sounded like a prophet, like some kind of enlightened being. There was something divine about this man and it was apparent that he was operating on another level. I truly felt blessed and protected as I sat in his presence. I asked a lot of questions as I tried to get to know him better and understand how he ended up homeless. He described a tangled web of financial issues and other unfortunate circumstances. After some time he pulled out a series of elaborate and beautiful sketches (featured in the video below) that outlined how human beings can be kinder to our planet by being more resourceful and energy efficient. This conversation took place about four years ago, before talk of global warming was as prevalent as it is today and at the time I must admit this all seemed rather new to me too. This man had spent his days trying genuinely to make the earth a better place on all levels from the micro to the macro. He had as much compassion and dedication towards saving the lives of the insects and birds around him as he did saving our planet and the people on it. I left him that day feeling that the world was truly a better place having "Skateboard Bruce" a part of it. A few days after meeting Bruce, I came to realize that he and I had a mutual friend in Joby , another homeless man I had interviewed (featured in earlier articles ). It was exciting for me to begin to put these pieces together. Slowly but surely this large and daunting world of homelessness I initially entered rather blindly, became a little smaller and more familiar. It felt nice. While I was lucky enough to have several encounters with Joby, whom I came to know and love, this was the only time I ever saw Skateboard Bruce. That is until a few weeks ago. As I would spend my weekends and free days driving around looking for homeless people to speak with, it was equally important for me to follow up with those I had already met on the street. That one encounter with Bruce had left a profound impression on me. His regal face and pure heart were permanently etched in my memory. I thought of him often and wondered if I would ever run into him again. I had learned from experience that those living on the street could disappear for a while only to resurface later. This had been the case with Joby who was repeatedly in and out of jail. It has been years since I have seen Joby or Skateboard Bruce. Of the two, I thought it more likely that I would run into Joby again. Bruce seemed more like an enigma. Just a few weeks ago I was at the gas station on Ventura Boulevard and Vineland in North Hollywood. I was pulling out of the driveway when I noticed a face in my periphery that looked familiar. I pulled over and then it hit me -- it was "Skateboard Bruce." Nearly four years had gone by since we'd first met. But he looked different. He had grown this wild shrub of facial hair that began below his chin and covered his entire neck. I reminded him of our interview years ago and gave him a big hug. I told him that I was so happy to finally see him again. I asked if he'd seen Joby. Bruce told me that Joby was dead. This sudden news, combined with the rush of adrenaline from running into Bruce and the blazing summer heat made me feel like I was going to pass out. I summoned the strength to speak and asked the obvious question, "How did he die?" Bruce told me that he had been hit by a car. But that wasn't what killed him. He said that Joby's injuries were so bad that he more or less let himself die by not treating them properly. I hugged Bruce and gave him my condolences. Those moments always feel so trite because there is no measure of tears or sadness that can equate with such a feeling of loss. I am heartbroken over Joby's death. I can only hope he has found happiness and peace in being reunited with his wife and daughters, of whom he always spoke. Earlier this year I wrote two other pieces about Joby. His life, from what I gathered, was filled with addiction and sorrow, but he was always so kind to me in spite of the immense pain he was in. And so I feel compelled to tell the rest of his story. I don't really know the details of his death; I only know that he was a homeless man who lived on the streets of North Hollywood. He was tragically wounded by the life he lived. I don't know if he had a funeral, I do not even know where his body is. These are the questions I did not have the capacity to ask as Bruce and I stood there in the blazing summer heat. The sad truth is that simply because of Joby's status as a homeless man, his story and his life cannot reach as many people as they should. This is why I feel the need to share what I know with you. There are so many others out there who live and die on the streets, anonymous and alone. There isn't one solution to this problem, but perhaps, at the very least we can try to pay more attention and show more compassion for these people. Remembering that while we may not know them or understand why they are out there, their lives are equally fragile and equally valuable. "Skateboard Bruce" from Rachel Fleischer on Vimeo . To see and read earlier videos and articles featuring Joby please click here WITHOUT A HOME is playing at The Woodstock Film Festival Oct 2 & Oct 3. For showtimes and tickets visit us here.
 
Mike Hegedus: USA Wins Olympic Naivete Gold; Media Leads Off, Obama Runs Anchor Top
The next Olympic Games are still a few months off, the Winter fest in Canada in 2010, but the good ole USA has already won it's first gold medal. In the naivete competition we are the Usain Bolt of nations. Following Rio's selection as the host of the 2016 Summer Games, the outpouring of "shock and awe" in the U.S., as one American pundit put it, was tsunami-like. In fact, the reportage of Chicago's "defeat" surpassed that of an actual tsunami in the Samoan Islands. Roll that DVR of nightly newscasts from Fox to CNN to MSNBC to any of the three "majors" and that's what you're going to see. "My goodness what happened?" an earnest Charlie Gibson asked. "Chicago was the favorite," said Katie and Brian. Really? Says who? You? And they're off and running! Turns out the Olympics and the politics that go with them have been a particularly favorite topic of mine. My first Olympic 'experience' came in 1960, and my professional reporting on them began in the early 1970s. Remember the Denver Winter Olympics in 1976? Go ahead; look it up. For over 30 years I've either reported on or attended the Olympic Games. I've watched as East German women with a distinct five o'clock shadow have put the shot farther than most of their "male" competitors. I've teared up a little when the USA hockey team beat Russia in Lake Placid, and I've watched in awe as John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their fists in defiance. Can I tell you a secret? Chicago was never the favorite, even if Oprah thought it was. The reasons are not difficult to figure out. All it takes is a quick understanding of how the International Olympic Committee votes, who the 100 IOC voters are, and which way the international wind is blowing. It is a political competition, not a sporting one. It is a game of intrigue, and one that is more or less corruptible if you know how to play it. One of the few times a U.S. city actually tried to compete was with the Salt Lake City bid. They won the Games, and ended up with officials going to jail. We can also blame that effort for the ascendency of Mitt Romney. Take that anyway you like. Following the SLC bidding debacle, the IOC reformed its rules, but there was no washing away the bad taste it had in its mouth from the pounding the American press and Congress gave it in the aftermath. I could go on, but you can find this all out for yourself if you're interested. And that's the point. Why didn't Charlie, and Katie and Brian and all those other folks know it? Because either they didn't bother to look, or they didn't want to know. Naivete. It's so much more fun to buy the hype than it is to explore the reality. Which brings us to the President. A couple of things first. Whether he goes to Denmark or not, Chicago is not going to win. So in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" scenario, he went. Made a quick speech, kissed his wife and went on to other, some would say, more important things. No worries. Second, you should know for purposes of this piece that Barack Obama was not my first choice for President. I've dressed left my entire life; the first political discussions I can remember are listening to my father try to explain the policies of Adlai Stevenson and why there were good for America. But experience has taught me through the terms of now ten Presidents that what really counts is what gets done, not which party does it. So while thrilled with the elegance, thoughtfulness, clarity and apparent honesty of Barack Obama, I was looking for someone whom I thought could get things done in Washington D.C. I do not have the luxury of as many years as I once did to hope change happens, and after wandering in the political wasteland as a country for the last decade I was yearning for action. LBJ can pick his dog up by the ears for all I care, as long as he gets the Civil Rights Act passed and signed. You catch my drift? My candidate did not win the nomination and in the "pick one or the other" world of American Democracy, we, the people, selected the best man available for the job. He won big. He has a majority in Congress, even if the final piece is a comedian from Minnesota, so let's get something done. He's the favorite! He's going to change things! He's from Chicago and you know they're going to have the Olympics! Oh. As noble as the desire is for reaching across the aisle and bi-partisanship it's simply time to make things happen. As Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican, of South Carolina said, "We lost, and there are consequences." And no matter what those "nattering nabobs of negativism" like Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly like to think or say, or how many of their ilk can be stuffed in that right turning only clown car, and no matter how virulent those incessant forwarded emails are from your relatives regarding every move Obama makes or doesn't make, and no matter how it might look, I say if you have a hammer, use it. And in that is likely the President's biggest test. Can he control his own toolbox? Can he get Pelosi and Reid to deliver? You honestly believe in a public option for health care, Mr. President? Make it happen. Grab your dog by the ears. Go to Iran in a bold gesture. But let's not be naive. The Olympic oath is a wonderful thing, but do you remember the oath or do you remember Michael Phelps? Oh, one suggestion for Chicago if it ever decides to bid again. Have Oprah block off a street in Copenhagen and give everybody in the audience a new car. Of course, only invite the IOC. More on Glenn Beck
 
Robin Caldwell: Uncle Milton Doesn't Get the Internet Top
Trying to explain the difference between broadband and dial-up to my Uncle Milton is like someone trying to explain the difference between sauteing and pan-frying to me. He could care less. I really could care less. Though I tried to explain broadband is faster and wouldn't tie up his telephone line, he said no. Uncle Milton has no use for the Internet. All he knows is that when he called about the bill for his dial-up connection, he got one of those automated systems we both hate, and the waiting led him to disconnect the service. It was the disconnect between the human touch and technology that moved him to stop the service . Uncle Milton will be 90 in February. Time is precious to him, which is why I wish he'd relent and have broadband installed in his home. He'd be able to read the email messages my cousins and I exchange or visit the website we established for our family. But he said no. My uncle isn't an elder who is afraid of learning something new, understand that when he was in his late 70s he took Photoshop classes to learn how to electronically retouch photographs. He's a retired studio photographer and at the suggestion of some young dude at the camera store he took those classes. Uncle Milton is not quite in love with Photoshop, because he believes the hand retouch is more perfect and precise. Still, he knows his way around the software with relative skill and patience, believe it or not. Here is a sample of his Photoshop work: (Before retouch) (After retouch) (That's Uncle Milton as a boy. He's the one in the rear and to his left is my Aunt Alice; my Uncle Earl is the tiny one and my granddad Charles is to Uncle Milton's right. The photo is one of his first Photoshop experiments.) My beloved Uncle Milton is a cool cat who wears a beret, owns a mobile phone, listens to reggae (Bob Marley, Jimmy Cliff - the old school guys), loves Tito Puente and until a few years ago would do the meanest headstands at his annual New Year's Eve party sans alcohol. (I suggested he throw back some shots and give it a try again. He laughed and said no.) He owns a PC and as you can see some sophisticated software. However, he has no patience with the Internet as in Internet providers. I feel him. Like my uncle I need my technology with a human touch. There are days when I have no patience with the Internet or Internet providers. And there are days when I don't know how I'd ever live without the Internet. Maybe I'd live like Uncle Milton who seems to have done just fine without the World Wide Web. He's done just fine. He'll be meeting me at Panera Bread for some tea, and I can show him this post on my laptop.
 
Valerie Tarico: Many Don't Know World Vision's Christian Mission Top
On October 2nd, The Seattle Times featured an AP article about the recent quake in Sumatra, along with a "how to help" list. At the top of that list was World Vision International. What the article failed to mention, and many donors fail to realize, is that World Vision is an Evangelical Christian organization with a mission that includes "serving as a witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ." Perhaps the best known program of World Vision is their child sponsorships. As an Evangelical college student, I sponsored a child in India. I even got and sent a few letters, and it felt great knowing that thanks to me he could afford to attend a Christian school in his area. World Vision explicitly states on their website that they "do not proselytize or work with those who insist on proselytism. Proselytism takes place whenever assistance is offered on condition that people must listen or respond to a message or as an inducement to leave one and join another part of the Christian church." The organization ascribes to Red Cross standards prohibiting conversion activities. But consider the next paragraph from their website: "At the same time, World Vision shares the Church's commitment to disciple followers of Jesus Christ who bear witness to the Gospel by life , deed, word and sign, with the goal of encouraging people to respond to the Gospel. We do this through the life of service that we lead, the deeds of Christian love we perform, the words that we share about our faith and the signs of prayers answered as we visibly and concretely improve the lives of others." People in disaster zones and small children, the two primary populations served by World Vision, are both particularly vulnerable, and because of this they are particularly vulnerable to influence. It's great that World Vision doesn't take an "or else" approach to aid: listen to our message or else go hungry. Not all missionary organizations adhere to this ethical boundary. But to deny the conversion pressures of money and medical care or education is naive. Consider the plight of Hindu parents who have a choice between a bare local school or a Christian school that provides paper, pencils, and books. All over the world, vast differences in power and resources say to desperate people: Christians have what you need; Jesus is the answer. The World Vision mission, in its own understated way, acknowledges this. Does this make World Vision a bad investment? It depends on your own values, on whether their mission of encouraging people to respond to the Gospel is also yours. Make no mistake. In evangelical circles, the word "witness" is code for seeking converts, and "Gospel" means salvation by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. If that is a message you want carried to the world by a competent, compassionate aid organization, World Vision may be your ticket. If it's just the competent , compassionate aid that you care about, then you're likely better off sending your money to an organization further down the list. Try Mercy Corps , for example, or Doctors without Borders or that standard bearer, the Red Cross itself.
 

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.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment