Saturday, August 29, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

2morrowknight: No, Not My America, You Mean Our America Top
I must admit, I have intentionally stayed away from commenting on the shameful and criminally irresponsible attacks on President Obama since the inauguration. To call these attacks disheartening would be an understatement. One of the most incendiary and obvious attacks on the President has come from some recent town hall participants across the country: "I want my America back," they shout. My America ? Wow. This statement is utterly disgusting. No need to expound on it because it's become very clear what it all means. To all those mouthing this ridiculously coded crap, I offer an alternative view: America's racial and ethnic diversity is what has made this country rich, incandescent, and beautiful. Yes, there are different perspectives, different views, and different prescriptions for alleviating America's problems. Yes, many people, but one country . Not just my country, but our country . I am member of one of the oldest black families in North Carolina, dating back to a plantation from the mid 1700s. But why am I any more American than recent immigrants from Mexico, Vietnam, Iran, Uganda, or Poland? The notion is ridiculous. America is continuously evolving, and it's our responsibility to adjust and adapt to some of the changes...in our America . Barack Obama is the first in a long chorus to follow. What do I mean? I mean that in this half of the twenty-first century, a woman, an Asian-American and a Latino will sit in the Oval Office. Believe it. I see Arab-American and Native-American governors. And, I wouldn't be surprised if President Obama names an Asian-American to the Supreme Court - namely Gary Locke , who is America's only elected Asian-American Governor, and is currently Obama's Commerce Department Secretary. Additionally, there will be more white lawmakers (like U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen ) representing mostly non-white cities and/or congressional districts. These are just some of the sweeping changes that we'll be witnessing in our America . So rather than wage a losing fight against impending social and demographic changes, it is incumbent upon people to go beyond their communities, and to get to know the residents of other communities. I know that's easier said than done. But don't tell me it's not possible. Simply tolerating people is so my America . Moving forward, we need to value people more, which is a necessary ingredient to making our America work. America doesn't revolve around any one group of people, and no one racial or ethnic group exclusively defines what it means to be an American. I wholeheartedly believe that. We all contribute. I don't want to be misunderstood or misquoted though. I am not saying that racism, sexism, ethnic bigotry, and religious hatred will subside just because we reach out to each other. They won't subside. The idealist in me will still speak out against it, but I know its not going anywhere. We can't destroy any of that, but, we can make sure that none of it destroys our country. Yes, say it with me folks: our people , our country , our America . Got it? Embrace. Empower. Educate. Expand. Enlighten. Let's do it. This post was originally published at 2morrowknight.blogspot.com
 
Mary Lyon: To This Partisan Irish Catholic, More Change We Can Believe In Top
8 29 09 To This Partisan Irish Catholic, More Change We Can Believe In By Mary Lyon Watching the pageantry accompanying the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy was striking, touching something way deeper in my heart than I expected. Okay, full disclosure here - Irish Catholic, went to the schools, went to Mass, did the Missal thing, the Confession thing, the Rosary thing, learned the prayers and the hymns and when you stood up and when you sat down and when you genuflected. All my male Irish Catholic elders wound up looking pouchy and potato-like, with thick, full heads of white hair just like Teddy's. Their wakes were perhaps a little rowdier than his. I could identify with this. Even when my father veered off into Reaganism, it wasn't all "IGMFU" (I Got Mine and the other two initials tell you the rest). He still carried that same deep sense of obligation to remember where you came from, look after those less fortunate, and to stand up to racism and discrimination. For several days now, I've been trying to put my finger on exactly what it is that has moved me so deeply about the end of this era in American politics and history. I never met Senator Kennedy. In my days as a reporter, I interviewed several of the members of the next generation of his illustrious family, but never anyone at his level. I was a little girl when I witnessed another even littler girl and her still littler brother frolic in that big mansion where the President lives. It was the first time I could even minimally identify with anything about Washington DC realities, long before I understood much about politics or any of its major national players. Everything before Ted's brother John and his family ascended was vaguely about the stewardship of benign elderly grandparents - never about anyone who reminded me of my parents or myself. Maybe that was it. The Kennedy family was loaded with vibrant young-ish adults who kind of looked like my mom and dad, and lots of kids only a little younger than I was. Something to latch onto. As I grew, learned, observed conditions in my country that I did not like, and searched for ways to change and improve those conditions, I came to appreciate the mission of the Kennedy family. I learned that matriarch Rose Kennedy infused her babies' bottles with the moral nutritional supplement summed up by - "of those to whom much is given, much is expected." Translated to my own children's baby food decades later, that would become "much blessed, much obligated." No matter how many or how few words, the idea behind such slogans was always the same. You gave back. You helped someone who couldn't help themselves. If you had more, you thus had more to share. If you were positioned such that you could afford to offer assistance, then you were morally bound to do so. Raised in Catholic schools, we studied The Beatitudes and the mission of Christ on earth. Nowhere did The Savior ever measure your worth based on your politics or your wealth or position or connections or your race, age, nationality, fitness, sexuality, religion or lack thereof. When a poor person asked Him for help, He never sneered back to stop mooching off the system and go get a job, and there was never a litmus test applied to gauge the merit of the querant. It always seemed to me that He meant for us to follow that example. Something else for which I came to appreciate the Kennedys. Maybe I came to revere Ted Kennedy's work all the more because unlike his brothers, he had time and many years to make a difference, large and small, and a terrific and powerful podium from which to do so. He never hesitated to use his stature or gifts for good, to help somebody. But I was accustomed to admiring him from a distance for his legislative achievements or his efforts to inspire and uplift. This week, on the other hand, I was touched in a far more personal and intimate way. I've learned over the past several decades to be relentlessly and sometimes ruthlessly partisan. I don't like Republicans and conservatives because of what I understand of their world view - that the haves should be protected and helped, their interests looked after above all else, and the have-nots should maybe hope the haves gain so much that perhaps many more crumbs from their overladen table will fall to the needy below. That no one should feel obligated to chip in, or share, to support and sustain the America we've all built. That this government - you know, the one that's "of the people, by the people, and for the people," is somehow bad. That the status quo is sacrosanct. To try to change or question it, or dare to call for improvements, is impractical, too soon, too much, even unpatriotic, and certainly too expensive. However, watching Ted Kennedy's tribute-cum-wake at the JFK Library, I found myself changing. It was a time to embrace PEOPLE. People I saw there, even those not of my own philosophical tribe. People - not enemies. To celebrate what we shared - even with those we might perceive as unwilling to share. I NEVER, for example, thought I would hold warm feelings toward GOP Senator Orrin Hatch because I couldn't disagree with him more on so many issues - many of which are deeply personal and important to me. But the figure who shared his memories of his friend Ted, wiping at his nose and laughing with flustered embarrassment at his emotional public display, could only be described as dear. I will never think of Orrin Hatch the same way again. He will always be, in essence, dear to me for what his recollections of Ted Kennedy brought out from within him. The next day, with the funeral Mass, there he was again, sitting next to his ideological brother-in-conservative-arms, John McCain, respectful and quiet. They felt compelled to be there, too, to offer support and love, to stand with the grieving mourners and family members and help carry their burden. Regardless my opinion of what they stand for politically, my feelings for them have expanded to make room for more compassion. It's the compassion I rightfully SHOULD feel as a liberal. I saw the very fellow against whom I've spent more than eight years railing, and his wife Laura, sitting in the second row, near the Democrat who was at times much decried and abandoned by those of his own party, as well as the opponents whose loathing of him was never a secret. But there they all sat, together, all for the same reason. The elegance of that tableau, in which bitter foes joined to share a respect, love, and a salute for one remarkable and staggeringly memorable man, all politics aside, might be that man's most significant legacy of all. I still don't like Republicans and conservatives. But now I don't see them necessarily as villains. This week has shown me their humanity. Sad that it takes such a week to do so. I needed that reminder, though. We all did, and do, particularly now when America is far angrier and more virulently and hideously divided than ever. Many by now have remarked about how the Kennedys, Ted in particular, changed things. He continued to do that even after he died - with all those divergent individuals, and also with me. That was the best of him. As we carry on without him - our "National Uncle," hopefully that best of him will leaven the best of us. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Daniel Krotz: Touring the Ozarks, One Crime at a Time Top
Radine Trees Nehring, author of the popular Something To Die For mystery series, has a new book out titled A River To Die For, the fifth in a series that is simultaneously a love affair with the Arkansas Ozarks and a tour through our hills and hollers, one crime at a time. All of the " Something To Die For" mystery series are set at popular tourist destinations in Arkansas. A Wedding to Die For , for example, is set mainly at the Crescent Hotel in Eureka Springs and was, incidentally, honored as an "Arkansas Best Book" by the Center for the Book at the Arkansas State Library. It was also a nominee of the Mystery Writer's Trade Association, Deadly Ink, for best USA mystery novel of 2006. The recurring characters in the series are Carrie McCrite, a widow, and retired Kansas City Police Major Henry King, who decided to live the Ozarks, like so many of us, as the first step on a journey of personal discovery. Carrie's and Henry's friends -- who often work with them to expose criminals and bring justice -- are made up of both new citizens and folks whose families have been in the Ozarks for generations. The series features crimes that are strongly colored by this unique area and its history. During a recent exchange, I asked Radine how she developed the characters in her books. "I enjoy spending time with characters who learn, grow, and change through challenges, and who present human strengths of value to us all," she said. "The way characters find strength will vary, and my major character, Carrie McCrite, includes spirituality in her list of strengths, while Henry King, her husband by book five in the series, isn't that close to any religion. Though they come from different places in demonstrating strength, compassion, and eventual victory over whatever evil is presented in the plot, I think they both have ideas of value to offer us. "I also wanted to write about humans meeting challenges and triumphing in the end. Traditional mystery novels are really medieval morality plays. Bad things happen, evil is vanquished, good rewarded, justice served, and everything comes out pretty much all right in the end. In order for that to work, the adversary has to be worthy, not a wimp that gives up easily. A true mystery novel provides all that" Radine's new book, A River to Die For , begins when Carrie's husband Henry plans a camping trip to the Buffalo National River and invites Carrie's son Rob and Henry's half-sister Catherine to join them. In the mean time Carrie has refused to go and Henry is left to his own resources. During their stay at the park Rob and Catherine disappear under mysterious circumstances that involve an archeological site, caves, and looters, who are a real life problem at the park. Carrie and Henry, along with Carrie's friend Shirley, search for them and...well that's the mystery. Readers will find A River to Die For, and all of the "Something to Die For" books, entertaining, clever, and sweetly romantic as Carrie and Henry tour the Ozarks, one crime at a time. Available at better bookstores everywhere, including one in Berryville, Arkansas. Visit http://www.radinesbooks.com/ to learn more about our Nehring titles.
 
Robbie Gennet: Who Isn't John Galt? part 2 Top
Since the posting of my recent John Galt piece and all of it's ensuing commentary, I thought I would clarify a few things that may not have come across in the original article. Firstly, I am not anti-Capitalism; I am anti-greed and evil. This country has been built on Capitalism and there are a great many people who work hard, pay taxes and amass great fortunes, which is terrific for them and for the country. America has made it possible for people to rise from nothing and reach the highest of heights and it is part of what makes this a great country: opportunity. Capitalism offers opportunity to those who seek it and many of those people have great intentions, good hearts and solid ethics and morals. However, there have been far too many examples of evil and greedy people who will stop at nothing to rook, cheat and swindle as much as they can, giving a bad name to honest Capitalists and the system as a whole. This is why we have and need regulation and financial oversight. A couple of "Capitalist Pigs" and all of Wall Street can look like a trough, when in fact there are many honest and hard-working people who contribute positively to Wall Street and the economy. A few bad apples can tarnish undeserving reputations in any industry, but in an industry where you deal with peoples homes and life savings, you are hitting them where it hurts the most. The term "Wall Street" itself has been used recently as a scapegoat for a cadre of evil and greedy people who tanked whole banks and institutions (and almost the entire economy) in their greedy quest for more money, more money, more money. It is that drive- the "Panzer tank mentality" I spoke of- which I am wholly against. I am totally behind the drive for success and I feel sorry for the good folks out there that can and do make "Wall Street" a positive economic force and have been maligned along with the bad apples. Partly it is the media to blame; they love a juicy scandal but have little interest or incentive in promoting positive stories. This is why you hear every detail of Bernie Madoff's ills and barely a peep about the financial planners and wealth managers who have done a sterling job steering their clients through the wreckage. Rand's Atlas/Fountainhead world was imaginary and it worked in black and white to elucidate her philosophical points. It was as much pro-Capitalism as it was anti-Communism/Socialism, a product of her Russian upbringing and direct experiences. But Rand's philosophies are only as good or bad in action as the moral and ethical underpinnings of the person practicing it. Objectivist ethics may be based on rational egoism but still are driven by good or evil impetuses. Though I used Bill Gates as an example of altruistic capitalism, one commenter pointed out that Gates has done wrong by Microsoft's labor force, which may be true. I'm not suggesting Bill Gates is perfect but let's be blunt: without his initial inspiration and act of creation, there wouldn't BE a Microsoft labor force at all! Not to say that Gates or anyone should treat their employees less than fairly but it does bring up a valid point: There is a huge benefit to capitalism that most people don't mention, which is that a capitalist employs great numbers of people who in turn make a decent wage and pay taxes themselves. By creating tax-paying jobs and paying their own taxes, the capitalist helps make a stronger and more vibrant country. Bill Gates may not have started out as a capitalist but as of this writing, Microsoft employs roughly 60,000 people in the US and tens of thousands more abroad. Once those new Microsoft-branded stores open around the country, expect those numbers to rise even further. Capitalism creates jobs and employed people pay taxes, as do the corporations that hire them. This cannot be understated in its impact on our economy and the our country's workforce. There were those who posted about having to "share" their earnings with those who had "no hand in it at all" and they are truly living in a fictitious reality. To think you are unconnected to your fellow tax-paying citizens is a falsehood that should be dispelled when you drive along the tax-funded streets or need a tax-funded police car or fire crew to help you out of a jam. Maybe you got your start in a tax-funded public school, or got a tax-funded Pell Grant to go to college. Maybe you are now rich enough to not need tax-funded Medicare or your monthly tax-funded Social Security check, though you surely collect it anyway. Or maybe you invested everything with Madoff and have now been saved by that publicly-funded safety net. You know, the one that was meant for the "other people" until you needed it to survive. You cannot take for granted how much of the foundation of our society is funded by taxes even as you take umbrage with how your representatives collect and spend those taxes. If you want to live in a world with no taxes yet somehow keep the infrastructure and institutions that make America great, you are living in the wrong country. To the person who opined that creating art for one's own purpose is "artistic masturbation," you must not have a large record collection, if any at all. Almost every album you own is a product of "artistic masturbation" on some level. Yet you hope for one "gift" from an epic landscape, as if any of that art was made as a present to you. Most great art is self-indulgent work that is only great because it's truth, honesty and merit was up to the artist who created it, not a bunch of armchair critics expecting "gifts." You don't deserve the music and books on your shelves, including Douglas Adams. And to the person who doesn't know how I could "twist and pull any artistic moral goodness out of Ayn Rand," you are obviously not an artist. Of course you don't know, though hopefully my piece might enlighten you on the subject from an artists viewpoint. No twisting or pulling necessary. Ayn Rand herself could not have imagined or even intended the freedom her philosophy gives to artists and yet, it has an undeniable effect which I share with many in the artistic community, from poets to painters to photographers to musicians. This was the intended point of my original piece: Rand's influence on Artists. Her architect Howard Roarke is as positive a role model as any artist could find in real life and I'm thankful that Rand thought to create him. And as Roarke himself might posit: You, like everyone, are entitled to your own feelings, opinions and judgements. And we are entitled to completely ignore them. Someone else posted a comment that said while I grasped the quote "Do not sacrifice yourself to others," I missed the boat on the second half: "Do not sacrifice others to yourself." Does that mean do not trample on others in your own quest? Because that is what I inferred from it and I didn't miss it at all. Dick Cheney, however, missed an entire fleet of boats on this one. Lastly, I heard back from some of the Ayn Rand/Objectivist organizations, including goingjohngalt.org, and was glad to receive their feedback. One gentleman remarked that that word "capitalist" has been "ruined by people who think that money is more important than human rights and human dignity" and I think he is on the money, to coin a phrase. Again, I am not anti-capitalist, though a certain professor took me to task for the tone of my piece. Perhaps if I replaced every instance of the word "capitalism" with the word "greed" he might not have taken such offense. Capitalism without empathy can wreak horrible results, though no one is saying one has to be altruistic to be a "good" capitalist. There is a grey area between empathy and greed and certainly many examples all along that spectrum of capitalism. We hope for the best of humanity among capitalists while suffering from the worst of greed among them. For every group of people helped by Bill Gates charity, there are others in ruins from Bernie Madoff's greed. It must be hard for Objectivists to defend capitalism without simultaneously defending the Madoff's of the world but both Objectivism and capitalism are worth defending in the long run. Bernie Madoff is surely not. The professor who excoriated me for my tone pointed out that the same freedom/creativity accorded to the artist Roark in the Fountainhead is similarly granted to industrialists/businessmen in Atlas Shrugged, which is a valid point. He went on to say that I unfairly lauded that freedom when applied to the artist while not affording the same respect when applied to the capitalist. I see his point, but I still feel that the worst bad art can do is ruin your mood while the worst bad capitalism can do is ruin the world. So while I can appreciate the freedom/creativity for both artists and industrialists, the intrinsic fundamentals of good and evil applied to the worlds of art and capitalism produce vastly different results on the devastation scale. This same professor told me that "it doesn't seem to me that you've really *read* Ayn Rand, just taken away some vague, positive images. Go back, and see what the characters you like are really like." I have read and re-read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and am secure in what I took away from them, both positive and negative. And I realize that her works do need to be re-read along the way because as our perspectives grow, so does our capacity to take even more from those books. Certainly the next time I read them, I will be much more aware of the capitalists and their philosophies; perhaps the next time you read them, you'll be more aware of artists and theirs. And if I may add: regarding the extreme nature of Howard Roarke's reactions- blowing up buildings and whatnot- I understand the principles behind them but I think any rational human being sees Roarke's acts as being severe illustrations of his principles, not examples to follow in "real life." To finish, I will say that if my original piece felt like an anti-capitalist rant, it was not my intention and I apologize to the well-meaning and successful capitalists out there reaping their just rewards. But to those whose hearts are black with greed, whose souls lack conscience and whose bank accounts grow from the pain and suffering of others, may you rot in hell. The Madoffs and Stanfords of the world give a bad name to both humanity and capitalism and it is my hope that they endure whatever karmic blowback is headed their way. The issue is really the age-old good vs evil battle that has played out in every corner of the human race throughout history. Your intent and character drives your ambitions and actions and depending on whether it is based on good or evil purpose, the outcome will tell the tale. I hope I've cleared some things up, answered some questions and perhaps provoked some more. It is obvious that Ayn Rand incites a lot of dialog amongst people who have read her works and others who evidently have not. Whether you are an artist or a capitalist (or both) I hope you consider some of the viewpoints represented here and continue the dialog. Thanks for reading and responding. More on Financial Crisis
 
Nick Armitage: Dear Mr Obama: All People Deserve Health Insurance Top
8/28/09 Dear Mr. Obama, Thank you for being such a great President. There is only one thing that I have to complain about. All people deserve health insurance. I think you should do the right thing which is to give everyone health insurance. Health insurance is not a privilege but a necessity. Sincerely, Nick Armitage Grade 6 P.S. I would appreciate it if you wrote back but I know you are busy. More on Health Care
 
Gordon Marino: Ted Kennedy: Story of Redemption, a Story to Remind Us Not to Give up on Others Top
No offense to Bill Maher and the irreligious, but Senator Ted Kennedy was a man of faith and as such I do not think he would smirk at the use of a Bible tale to help frame his life. I'm thinking here of Peter's denial of Christ, John 18:15-18, 25-2. After Jesus' arrest, his disciple Peter is approached by the authorities and in fear for his life, denies Jesus three times. Such a failure would have been enough to drive most people to despair, but unlike Judas, Peter does not take his life, nor does he give up on himself. Instead he becomes the Rock of the Church. Peter was given a second chance and made good on it. So did the senator from Massachusetts In 1969, Senator Kennedy was involved in a scandal that would have drowned almost anyone else. At about 11:15 on July 18th, a perhaps intoxicated Kennedy drove his car off of a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts. While he was able to escape, Mary Joe Kopechne, who was in the back seat, drowned. Though some claimed that Ms Kopechne might have been saved if Mr. Kennedy had immediately called for help, Kennedy did not even report the accident until the next morning. There were inquests and manslaughter charges considered, but the senator received only a slap on the wrist for leaving the scene of an accident in which an injury was involved. Kennedy's license was revoked and the judge hammered him with a two-month jail sentence- promptly suspended. A person lower on the power scale would have ended up in prison and probably would have been ruined in other ways. There has always been a part of me that resents the unequal treatment that the Kennedys and other trust fund babies receive in life and before the supposedly blind law. Nevertheless, Mr. Kennedy, who showed nothing but pusillanimity in this incident, matured into a knight for the cause of the disenfranchised. That, in large part, is why his life is considered a story of redemption, but let's draws out the pith of that story a little more. We, Americans are inclined to be punitive. We glow to the rhetoric of responsibility. Many warm to the idea of three strikes and you no longer exist for us. However, if that kind of thinking had been applied to Senator Kennedy, we would have deprived ourselves of one of the greatest legislators of our time. Kennedy's life and death are, of course, a trumpet call to service but at the risk of ringing preachy, his loss should also give us pause about giving up on other people, even if they do not have a name like Kennedy. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Mihal Freinquel: The Style Blazer: Taking The Business Out Of The Jacket Top
The blazer is a staple. For men, for women, for business, and yes...for casual as well. If they're not yet part of your casual repertoire, I can say with complete confidence that not only are you missing out on a great fashion statement, but as soon as you learn to wear it in the right way - as soon as you embrace the nonchalance of it, the elegance, the sass, the irony, the smoothness and complexity of it - your style status shall be elevated higher than you ever thought possible. Stick with me dear readers, as I am about to open your eyes - and expose your closets - to the mystique that is the Style Blazer. We are used to the idea of a blazer within a business context. For men it is usually worn with slacks, dress shoes, a button down shirt and a tie. For women we often find it paired with a nice blouse, heels, and either a skirt or slacks. Observe: Now I would like you to erase this image from your mind completely. It's boring, it's predictable, it's what 90% of the office workforce is wearing...and it looks heinous. Goodbye ! Ok, now that this image is erased, please follow me on this mental journey and fill your head with more pleasant blazer-related thoughts. First I'll provide some images that I've compiled: (click HERE for larger image) "How do they do this so flawlessly?" You might be asking yourself. "How do these people not look like they're going to sit at a desk in an office, but rather like they're going to sit front row at a runway show?" I will tell you. Follow these guidelines when you wear your blazers for ultimate clothing harmony and ferociousness: 1) The Style Blazer shall never be worn closed. It is open, it is relaxed, it allows the public to see what is underneath, and if there is a monsoon it will blow freely in the wind. 2) The Style Blazer most not be paired with plain/regular business slacks or a business skirt, or anything resembling the couple above. Cutoff shorts, high waisted pants, one pieces, bellbottoms, lycra miniskirts, cuffed pants with suspenders...heels, flats, high tops, orthopedic shoes, whatever! This is pleasure not business, please allow the Style Blazer some artistic breathing room for the magic to take place. 3) I demand that something to be different about this blazer. I don't care what it is. The buttons can be wooden, it can be bright pink, it can be satin, it can have patches, it can be seersucker or linen, it can have shoulderpads or have shoulder cutouts or have tassels hanging from the shoulders. Whatever it is I would like it to stand apart from other blazers in some way, even if it's only noticeable to you. 4) Experiment with size and tailoring. Long blazers and oversized blazers are huge right now on women (yeah pun intended, sue me). What does this mean? No, not that you go into your fat dad's closet, pull out his 56L jacket and slap it onto your size 6 frame. There are women's blazers specifically tailored to still fit a woman's body in the shoulders and sleeves - but they are extra roomy or long. For men, maybe try one that's tighter than you're used to. Man or woman, boy or girl, you shall find a Style Blazer that is well tailored and fits you like it's supposed to...there is no excuse for anything ill fitting or unflattering. 5) What goes underneath? Ah-HA...this is a good one. It is good because the idea is, that if you follow all the other rules, you can play with this one and try anything you want. Go super tight with a tube top or loosey goosey with and oversized vneck. Tuck the shirt in, wear it out, cut it up the center and tie it in a knot - plain, prints, loud or understated...just whatever you do make sure it's in harmony with the blazer . Sometimes the blazer can be the supporting actor, sometimes it's the star - so be clear about which it is when you're getting dressed, because nobody likes a fight for attention. And with these 5 simple steps my friends, we have taken the business out of the blazer. Walk tall, for you now have the knowledge that many don't, and this is a lesson you can't get anywhere - not from reading Vogue or GQ , not from your sorority sisters or frat fools, and certainly not in the business casual section at H&M. Happy shopping, happy dressing...godspeed.
 
Julian E. Zelizer: Senator Kennedy and Legislative Liberalism Top
Today President Obama honored the late Senator Ted Kennedy by calling him "the greatest legislator of our time." These were fitting words for a man who demonstrated just how much can be accomplished by learning the ways and means of Congress. President Obama's words were a reminder that losing the 1980 Democratic nomination to President Jimmy Carter might have been one of the best things to ever happen to Senator Ted Kennedy. Much of Kennedy's earlier career had been consumed with hopes of winning the presidency. Although Kennedy proved to be a skilled legislative tactician from the moment that he arrived on Capitol Hill, there was always speculation about whether he would be the next member of the family to inhabit the White House. The Chappaquiddick scandal in 1969 forever undermined his ability to achieve that goal, but he did not stop trying during the 1970s. By 1978, Senator Kennedy had become frustrated with Jimmy Carter. Like many liberals, Kennedy felt that Carter had moved too far to the center, focusing on issues like inflation over unemployment and abandoning problems like national health care. At the Democratic midterm convention in Memphis, Kennedy finally unleashed on the president: "Sometimes a party must sail against the wind," he said, "now is such a time." In November 1979, Kennedy announced that he would challenge the president. Carter said he didn't care. "I'll whip his ass," the president said. But polls showed that Kennedy was favored by as much as two-to-one. But Kennedy's campaign did not go well. During a television interview that was broadcast shortly before Kennedy officially announced his candidacy, the senator could not explain why he wanted to be president. Given his eloquent speech at Memphis, nobody thought he would have a tough time with the question. But he did, perhaps reflecting his assumption that he was always destined to run. Kennedy won some primaries, including New York and California, yet he was outmaneuvered by the president who ran up the delegate count. According to biographer Adam Clymer, his staff had failed to conduct adequate polling before he ran and underestimated how much Chappaquiddick would define his image. One of Kennedy's advisors noted that the senator had responded to every question about the incident, but that didn't matter: "They've all been asked and all been answered. It's that people don't like the answers." At the Democratic Convention, the tension between Carter and Kennedy was on public display. Kennedy delivered a powerful speech. He said: "I am confident that the Democratic Party will reunite on the basis of Democratic principles, and that together we will march towards a Democratic victory in 1980. And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again." Carter's speech paled in comparison. As the convention ended, a large number of Democrats appeared on the stage to stand alongside Carter and show their support. The crowd waited for Kennedy for fifteen minutes. When Kennedy finally walked on stage, he raised his fist to the Massachusetts delegates. Then he curtly shook Carter's hand and walked away after a few minutes. Kennedy had practiced a more enthusiastic embrace but decided not to do it. Nor did he lift Carter's arm--the traditional sign of party unity. After Kennedy left, the delegates chanted "We Want Ted!" The senator returned. At that point, it appeared as if Carter was chasing him, only to have Kennedy merely put his hand on the president's shoulder. Ronald Reagan took note. Carter felt that Kennedy should have healed the divisions and that his challenge had hurt the Democrats in the general election. Although Kennedy did not abandon his presidential ambitions after 1980, it had become evident that he had little chance of becoming the president of the United States, particularly after Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement seemed to have captured the heart of America. But the loss in 1980 was an unexpected blessing, as it was responsible for focusing Kennedy on his career as a legislator. And Kennedy turned out to be outstanding at the job. What made him so unique was his ability to retain a broader ideological commitment while simultaneously mastering the art of compromise. When Kennedy had first entered the Senate in 1962, Georgia's Richard Russell told him that "you go further if you go slow." Kennedy took Russell's maxim to heart. After 1980, he worked on fighting for liberalism one bill at a time. He joined the tradition of liberals like New York Senator Robert Wagner and Missouri Democratic Representative Richard Bolling who made Congress their home base as they fought for their political values. He was an unreconstructed Great Society liberal who was determined to fight for health care, civil rights, and social justice. When Kennedy made deals with Republicans, everyone was sure that he would be back the next year to fight for more. It was the second part of this equation that is crucial to understanding his legislative style. This is why the most ardent liberals respected him so much at the very same time that Republicans genuinely appreciated his role as dealmaker. Kennedy offers an important lesson of politicians of the future. Too often, newcomers to Washington have their eyes set on the Oval Office from the moment they arrive in town. But up-and-coming stars should remember that members of Congress who do their job well can leave behind a legislative record that few presidents ever achieve. Kennedy also used the bully pulpit of Congress to caution against the use of military power and in favor of diplomacy and arms reduction. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, he died a deeply frustrated president because most of his domestic agenda had been bottled up on Capitol Hill by a coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans. Freed from his own presidential aspirations after the 1980 primaries, Ted Kennedy was able to concentrate on taking the fight directly to Congress. In doing so, he made liberalism a legislative reality--even in an era of conservatism--and gradually inscribed his ideals into the nation's laws. Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. You can learn more about Zelizer at www.julianzelizer.com . More on Barack Obama
 
Omri Marcus: Six Easy Ways to End the Conflict in the Middle East Top
The world media is in a bizarre race these days. Everyone wants to get as many details as possible on President Obama's new plan to end the conflict in the Middle East. But let's face it - we all know the drill by heart. We shall experience an optimistic vibe all around, then a summit conference full of nice photo ops of smiling leaders. A week later, they will come out of the summit with a short statement of goodwill, and a long list of excuses to explain why, once again, the conflict cannot be solved.  Maybe it's time to think outside the box. Maybe it's about time to stop counting on our leaders, and end this fiasco in a different way. Here are six easy ways to end the conflict in the Middle East:   The Judgment of Solomon - Obama sits with the Israelis, the Palestinians and a map. Suddenly he gets up and shouts to Rahm Emanuel, "Bring me my biggest sword, and I shall hew this country in half. Each of you shall receive a half." The first side to cry out and give up will win the land, as they have proven they love it more. The problem with this idea is that the Jews will have an unfair advantage -- after all, they already know the story, and besides, I'm not sure Obama owns a sword. Heads or Tails – of course the matter is much too serious to solve with a simple coin toss. We will have to use real heads and tails. All we need is a suicide bomber on a horse . The problem with this method is that Jordan will object. They know that if the Palestinians lose, they might suggest "Double or Nothing".   Reality Show – Harness the ancient wisdom of American TV. Produce the biggest reality show ever. Even if it sucks, it will be better than NBC’s   fall schedule.  We can make it "Big Brother" style, but with 10 million participants. Each week, viewers from around the world will eliminate one resident. Granted, the show will end in 2099, but at least that way we know for sure it actually will end.   The Basketball System – Just like in basketball the land will go to whoever catches it first. All we need is one Iranian A-bomb to lift it up.   I Never – Trust our leaders to negotiate, but make them do it in a bar. Everyone sits around the table. One leader goes first, making a true statement that starts with "I never...” For example, "I never agreed to joint sovereignty  in Jerusalem". Then, any leader who agrees with what has just been said -- drinks. After nine or ten rounds, everyone will at least have a much better attitude. An additional a twist could be to not allow anybody to go to the rest room before there is a signed agreement. This is going to be the first peace treaty sponsored by Budweiser. The heading will read: I love you, dude!   Violence – The good old-fashioned way, it's worked for so many decades, why stop now? Only this time instead of sending troops/terrorists and killing hundreds, let's give the leaders the opportunity to fight for their own life in the ring. At the end of that fight either we will have a arbitrament or we will get rid of leaders who aren't strong enough. it's a win-win situation. More on Barack Obama
 
Sophia Yin: Attack of the Killer Onions Top
While many of you already know that chocolate can make your cat or dog sick, did you know that onions can kill? I learned this my second year in veterinary school. But I didn't really appreciate it until the big onion incident that occurred during my senior year. Well, maybe the incident wasn't all that big; it only involved one dog. But it was my own dog, Max, a 72-pound adult Boxer. And it nearly killed him. Not surprisingly, pets actually have to eat the onions to get sick, but depending on their size, they may not have to eat much. One fourth of a cup can make a 20-pound dog sick while several cups may be needed to make a large dog sick. Cats are even more sensitive. You're probably asking yourself, "What dog or cat with brains would eat onions." Well, the onions don't have to be raw. They can be fried as in onion rings, dehydrated, as in Lipton Soup, or prepared in some other tasty form such as sautéed with mushrooms and steak, or hidden in a souffle . In a scattered rash of cat onion toxicity cases a number of years back, the culprit was onion powder used to flavor some baby foods. Veterinarians often temporarily feed meat baby food to cats who are infirmed and unwilling to eat their regular foods. So when the baby food formulations changed, some cats took a turn for the worse while under veterinary care. Due to public pressure baby foods no longer contain onion powder. In Max's case, the onions were fried, dried and then left on the coffee table by my roommate before she left for the weekend. I never saw the pound or so of deadly cuisine. All I found was an empty bag and drool on the floor. If I had known what was in the bag, I would have taken Max to my veterinarian immediately. Instead I took him two days later, after the normally boisterous prankster collapsed while exercising. We performed a bunch of diagnostic tests, and on examining the blood work, found the telltale signs -- little purple clumps in his red blood cells that virtually screamed onion toxicity. Onions cause toxicity by oxidizing an oxygen-transporting protein called hemoglobin in the red blood cells. When oxidized, hemoglobin forms clumps, which can't carry oxygen as well . These small clumps, called Heinz bodies can be seen in the red blood cells when the blood is viewed under a microscope, especially when the cells are stained with a special stain called New Methylene Blue. Although a number of other compounds can cause Heinz bodies, when a veterinarian sees Heinz bodies in many cat or dog red blood cells, onion toxicity is the first differential that leaps out on the list. Normally, in dogs with onion toxicity a moderate number of red blood cells may contain Heinz bodies. In Max's case, most of the red blood cells carried the protein clumps. Heinz bodies don't usually cause life-threatening problems themselves; the red blood cells can still carry oxygen, just not as efficiently. Heinz bodies cause problems by decreasing the red blood cell lifespan . As a result, the onion-eater becomes anemic. If a large amount of onions is eaten at one time, the pet may develop a sudden anemia several days following the onion feast. If the dog or cat eats a small amount of onions every day for many days, he may gradually develop anemia over weeks to months. Onion toxicosis is not a tremendously common occurrence. Annually, the ASPCA National Animal Poison Control Center in Urbana Illinois records only a handful to a dozen calls on onion toxicity and toxicity from its relatives in the Allium genus, garlic and chives . Probably because with low dose exposure, pets may not develop signs severe enough to take to a veterinarian or at least not sick enough to perform diagnostic bloodwork for a definitive diagnosis. It's a good thing the incidence is relatively low, since patients that do eat enough onions to develop toxicosis often need to be hospitalized for several days. In cases of severe anemia, they may even need a life-saving blood transfusion . Max did. Luckily most victims of onion over-ingestion respond well to treatment and recover. Interestingly, garlic can cause the same problems as onion s, but since garlic is usually only used in small amounts, dogs and cats aren't likely to ingest a toxic quantity. The signs you see with onion toxicosis are signs of anemia and low oxygen such as lethargy, weakness, red urine, decreased stamina, and pale or bluish gums, especially with exercise . While onion toxicity is not a common cause of these signs, consider onion toxicosis if you see these signs and know your pet has gotten into onions recently. If by some freak occurrence, your dog or cat does engage in an onion feast, bring him to your veterinarian immediately. She may induce vomiting or administer a product to help decrease the absorption of the onions. If you take this trip in time, your onion eater may be spared many or all of the hazardous sequelae of onion toxicosis and you may be spared the much larger bill associated with intense hospital monitoring and a several night stay. Note: Other human foods to avoid include moldy walnuts or cheese, grapes, chocolate, macadamia nuts. For more information on the ASPCA National Animal Poison Control Center, go to http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/poison-control/. To consult with a veterinarian at the Center's emergency hotline for a $60.00 fee call (888) 426-4435. To read more articles on medicine and behavior of animals or to submit questions to be answered in Dr. Yin's blog, go to www.AskDrYin.com
 
Geoffrey Dunn: Sarah Palin's Obama Obsession Top
Today marks the one-year anniversary of John McCain's introduction of Sarah Palin to the international stage, in Dayton, Ohio, a political battleground that the Republicans desperately needed for another shot at the White House. They lost Ohio big (by more than 300,000 votes), and they lost the election even bigger--mostly thanks to Palin's erratic, if not downright bizarre, performance as the vice-presidential nominee. In many ways, it seems longer than a year. Much longer. Palin went back to Alaska, where her life turned into a nasty soap opera. There were revelations from McCain's staff about her behavior on the campaign trail; she was hit with a myriad of ethics charges (some of which, contrary to Palin's claims otherwise, stuck); she bailed on her relationship with the state's legislators and played politics with the federal stimulus plan; she got into a dog fight with Levi Johnston; she began a series of odd Twitterings, replete with a six-part ramble on Mommy Bear; she resigned amid chaos and deception, only to return as a diva on Facebook. And through it all she has been obsessed with Barack Obama. I've just returned from Alaska, where I conducted interviews and archival research for a book on Palin, and many of those I spoke to in the Last Frontier, from across the political spectrum, noted that Palin was fixated on Obama. "It's like she's back in high school and someone is more popular than she is," said someone who worked closely with Palin during her 2006 campaign for governor. "It's unnerved her. She can't let it go." She's been obsessed with Obama from Day One. In her convention speech in St. Paul, she declared that being governor was a little like being a "community organizer--except that you have actual responsibilities" (a laughable claim now knowing about her failed and truncated performance in Alaska). As John Heilemann noted in a splendid piece in New York Magazine , Palin "was unafraid to wield the stiletto" and "seemed to delight in plunging it into Obama's kidneys." Along the campaign trail Palin hyped up crowds by accusing Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists" and not being "a man who sees America like you and I see America." When those in the crowd shouted out physical threats to Obama, Palin was silent. Her silence says everything--about her lack of integrity and her reckless ambition. In the aftermath of the inauguration, Palin jammed Obama about the stimulus package and lied about "purse strings" attached to the federal money. By the end, she was calling them "ropes." In a telling post-mortem on her governorship in Alaska earlier this month, a largely Republican State legislature overrode her veto, 45 to 14, with many of the legislators openly chastising Palin for playing politics with the state's economic well being. They knew her veto had everything to do with Obama and nothing to do with Alaska. Then she completely misrepresented Obama's cap-and-trade energy policy, failing to even mention global warning in her duplicitous WashPo op-ed piece . More recently, Palin referred to Obama's "death panels" and characterized his proposed health care reforms as "downright evil." It was a typical Big Palin Lie--and even Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski called Palin to task for her characterization. A national labor organization, Americans United For Change , took out an ad on Facebook urging Palin to "Stop Lying." And now Palin's Obama obsession had taken a particularly dark turn. In a largely overlooked passage in Time Magazine's cover story on Palin last month, Palin's official spokesperson Meg Stapleton asserted that there is a White House conspiracy behind the anti-Palin groundswell led by none other than Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "The trail is pretty direct and pretty obvious to us," Stapleton declared. Not printed in the article, but included in a blog posted by Time reporter Jay Newton-Small, were some additional comments on the alleged conspiracy. "To me," Newton-Small observed, "one of the most interesting aspects of the story is how vehemently the Palin camp blames Barack Obama." "[Palin] represents the biggest threat to Obama," Stapleton stated. "She's the only one who can get the base excited....I just hope to God Rahm Emanuel isn't using taxpayer money to come after Alaska." Say what? Palin's Obama obsession has turned into a paranoid delusion. And like many political hucksters in American history--from the Know Nothings to Huey Long to Joe McCarthy and the Fox TV news clowns--Palin has tapped into the anger and fear of the American electorate. It's the low road to political power in America, and, rest assured, it will only get lower. This past week, Palin urged her supporters on Facebook to tune into the television show of Glenn Beck, whose paranoid delusions about Obama have come close to topping Palin's own. Beck, of course, made headlines recently by claiming that Obama is a "racist" and that the president "has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." That there is an underlying racism that fuels Palin's obsession goes quite nearly without saying. But her ardent support of Beck this week, on the anniversary of her being named to the GOP ticket, says oodles about her obsession. Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn is at work on a book about Sarah Palin and American politics, to be published by Macmillan/St. Martin's next year. More on Glenn Beck
 
John Brown: Strategic Communications and the Graveyard of Empires Top
There seems to be yet another bureaucratic battle brewing in Washington. On one side of the ring, we have a high ranking State Department official, Richard Holbrooke, Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan; on the other, an admiral, Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The conflict is over "strategic communications" in Afghanistan and the so-called "Af-Pak" region. Let's go back to the tragic Fall of 2001. Less than two months after 9/11, Richard Holbrooke asked, in a Washington Post article (October 28, 2001): How could a mass murderer who publicly praised the terrorists of Sept. 11 be winning the hearts and minds of anyone? How can a man in a cave outcommunicate the world's leading communications society? Unlike the Bush administration, which, initially, reacted to the Twin Towers attack in predominantly military terms, Holbrooke advocated the use of "[c]all it public diplomacy, or public affairs, or psychological warfare, or -- if you really want to be blunt - propaganda." He added that "whatever it is called, defining what this war is really about in the minds of the 1 billion Muslims in the world will be of decisive and historic importance." Fast forward to June 24, 2009. Holbrooke, now Special Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, announced in a statement to the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives that "the Administration's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan," a "whole-of-government approach," was moving full speed ahead. To demonstrate this plan, Holbrooke devoted an entire section of his remarks to "strategic communications." Allow me to quote him at length: Under General Petraeus' and my leadership, we are implementing a new integrated civilian-military strategic communications effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This effort will focus on three simultaneous goals: redefining our message; connecting to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan on the ground in new ways through cell phones, radio, and other means; and identifying and supporting key communicators who are able, through local narratives, to counter extremists' propaganda and present a positive alternative. Additional personnel and structures in Kabul and the Afghan provinces and in Islamabad/Peshawar will be necessary to implement this new program and I am working with our Embassies in Kabul and Islamabad to identify and address these needs. Broad interagency participation will be key to developing and implementing our new communications strategy. More recently, in a August 16 article by Thom Shanker in The New York Times , " U.S. Plans a Mission Against Taliban's Propaganda ," Holbrooke repeated his strategic-communications-now message: Concurrent with the insurgency is an information war ... We are losing that war. The Taliban have unrestricted, unchallenged access to the radio, which is the main means of communication ... We can't succeed, however you define success, if we cede the airways to people who present themselves as false messengers of a prophet, which is what they do. And we need to combat it. So "whatever it is called" -- public diplomacy, or public affairs, or psychological warfare, propaganda or (if you really want to be blunt) strategic communications -- appears to be an essential element in the administration's "necessary war" (as President Obama recently called it). Right? Not quite, if at all. Enter Admiral Mullen. In a three-page Joint Force Quarterly article that received considerable media attention this week, he made it bluntly clear that he's not fan of "strategic communications." "Frankly," he notes, "I don't care for the term." Some key quotes from the succinct piece: --We need to get back to basics, and we can start by not beating ourselves up. The problem isn't that we are bad at communicating or being outdone by men in caves [ note the reference to Holbrooke's 2001 piece ]. Most of them aren't even in caves. The Taliban and al Qaeda live largely among the people. They intimidate and control and communicate from within, not from the sidelines. --No, our biggest problem isn't caves; it's credibility. Our messages lack credibility because we haven't invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven't always delivered on promises. --I would argue that most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all. They are policy and execution problems. Each time we fail to live up to our values or don't follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are. --To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate. I also hope we learn to be more humble, to listen more. Because what we are after in the end--or should be after--are actions that speak for themselves, that speak for us. Richard Holbrooke, who loves to be seen on the media (where he does most of the talking), is not known for his humility, having just (among many examples of his arrogance) had (as reported by The New York Times ) an "explosive" meeting with Afghan President Karzai regarding Afghanistan's elections. Nor, as his previous diplomatic efforts demonstrate, is he particularly known for his credibility. Mullen, quite possibly, may be showing some frustration in how little Holbrooke has achieved (in his view) in Afghanistan, both in crafting and implementing policy, as opposed to "persuasive" Dick appearing on CNN. Moreover, could we be witnessing (from back row seats) a battle royale between two powerful men -- a publicity-hound civilian, Richard the Bulldozer (such was Holbrooke's nickname in the Balkans, where he helped bring about the Bosnia cease-fire), and a high-ranking military man, Admiral Mike? Of course, this conflict, if it indeed exists, could be no more than the usual Washington tempest in a teapot. But could it not reflect, even in a possibly superficial way, a major problem: That the administration can't make up its mind about what to do in Afghanistan -- and can't find a way to prevent America from getting trapped into this quagmire, this graveyard of empires, for years to come.
 
50 Cent Cancels Queens Street Fair Top
NEW YORK — The rapper 50 Cent has canceled a "Family Day" fair he had planned in his old Queens neighborhood amid police concerns about security for the event. The fair had been planned for Sunday at a school yard in the borough's Jamaica section, blocks from a spot where the rapper was shot and wounded in 2000. The musician's manager, Chris Lighty, says the event is being postponed while organizers work out new arrangements with police. Authorities had been worried about whether they would have enough officers on hand to deal with crowds and keep the peace, especially if the rapper, whose real name is Curtis Jackson, performed. ___ Information from: New York Post, http://www.nypost.com
 
Up To 1,000 Rally In NYC For Health Care Bill Top
NEW YORK — About a thousand people rallied in Manhattan on Saturday in support of federal health care reform legislation. The event near Times Square began shortly after the funeral for U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, and took-on the feel of a tribute to the liberal leader. One person carried a sign that said, "TeddyCare for all." U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney told the crowd the bill will lower health care costs for almost everyone. The New York Democrat also invoked Kennedy, saying the senator understood the need for change. Opponents say the legislation will cost too much and diminish the quality of care. More on Health Care
 

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)