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

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.
 
Tom Matlack: Tarantino & Inglourious Basterds: An Uncomfortable Laugh Top
Perhaps my favorite scene in all of movie history is muttered by Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Jules, in Pulp Fiction in response to Vincent, played by John Travolta, just after they have finished carving up human flesh. Vincent : Want some bacon? Jules : No man, I don't eat pork. Vincent : Are you Jewish? Jules : Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all. Vincent: Why not? Jules : Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals. Vincent : Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood. Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces. Vincent : How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces. Jules : I don't eat dog either. Vincent : Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? Jules : I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way. Vincent : Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true? Jules : Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charming motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres , you know what I'm sayin'? It's hysterically funny and truly sickening. What Tarantino does such genius is deepen his serious message by forcing the viewer to try to hold humor and violence in their mind at the same time. The net effect is to shed new light on the violence, making us consider it even more seriously. In Inglourious Basterds , we are asked to take this juxtaposition one step further by looking deeply into the horror of the Nazi occupation of France. The movie tells the story of a Jewish cadre of American soldiers, led by Brad Pitt, behind enemy lines who set out to scalp a hundred Nazis each. We get graphic views of their handiwork with breakaway scenes reminiscent of the World Wrestling Federation. As I watched the movie in a packed theater last night, the women in the row behind me giggled at the absurdity of what we were watching. I found their laughing just as troubling as the movie itself. I wanted to turn around and yell at them, "Don't you get it? He's going deeper into the insanity of what actually happened? It's not suppose to be funny, it's horrific!" [SPOILER WARNING] We are forced to witness humanity in its unfiltered, raw form. The one Jew that escapes the dairy farm massacre of the opening scene, Bridget von Hammersmark, becomes the love interest of a Nazi war hero, Private Fredrick Zoller, who himself is unsettled by his killings and is portrayed as endearing. Bridget shoots Zoller in the end. But then she appears to realize the hypocrisy of what she has done. She reaches out to him just before he wakes from his bloody slumber to shoot her. They both die in a Romeo and Juliet style, filled with hate and remorse and love intermingled in an unresolved, blood-spattered mess. In the final scene, Hitler and all his henchmen are left to burn to death in a locked theater under the projected image of the now dead Bridget's face as it twists and contorts in the smoke and flames. We see the last remnants of the Basterds shooting up the crowd with machine guns, and can't be sure if this is some kind of revenge fantasy on steroids or a statement on the futility of such a fantasy. Brad Pitt, left with the ultimate Nazi devil known at the "Jew Hunter," cuts a bloody swastika in his forehead with a huge knife to mark him as Satan forever. We see the knife, the cut flesh, and Pitt's pride at his artistry. It is repulsive and thrilling at the same time. As with Pulp Fiction , it may take several viewings for me to settle on my own interpretation of Inglourious Basterds . But there is no doubt that Tarantino is the master at forcing us to get inside our own reactions to violence through uncomfortable laughter. That's why there's no moviemaker like him. More on Brad Pitt
 
David Calleo: Death of a Superpower: Twenty Years After Top
In 1991, our great Cold-War rival, the Soviet Union, disintegrated and disappeared. Now, nearly two decades later, it seems a good moment to consider what the consequences have been for our nation and its foreign policy. The initial American reaction was facile celebration: American-led capitalism had triumphed decisively over its principal enemy--Russian-led collectivism. The U.S. was entering a new era of security, prosperity, and global power. The first policy that followed during the Clinton administration was a considerable geopolitical retreat. The U.S., feeling secure, cut defense spending to record lows, and the country ultimately balanced its budget for the first time in decades. The economy enjoyed a major investment boom. A great inflow of private foreign capital during these dot.com years permitted the U.S. to combine high investment with high consumption. The Federal Reserve collaborated by keeping monetary conditions easy. Inflation of prices and wages seemed not to be a problem, thanks to a rapid increase in productivity and competition from low-cost producers like China. Ultimately, "asset inflation" did set in, as the Clinton boom turned into the Bush bubble -- in the stock market and then in real estate, arguably, there were the first acts of today's financial drama. Meanwhile neo-conservative pundits and the Clinton administration itself were evolving a second line of policy with quite opposite implications for U.S. foreign policy. The end of the Cold War -- with its "bipolar" world order -- was interpreted to mean that a "unipolar" world order would follow. There would now be only one superpower, the U.S. itself. Exerting global hegemony was therefore seen to be America's national duty and interest. The most significant early sign of this new policy was President Clinton's fervent support for NATO enlargement into former parts of the Soviet Union, a policy that alienated the Russians and logically presumed American hegemony over Eurasia. The new triumphalist policy received a further boost when Europe failed to deal effectively with the breakup of Yugoslavia. President Clinton's reaction was to declare the U.S., "the indispensable nation" for maintaining order throughout the world. During the Bush years, particularly after the atrocities of 9/11, the influence of this "unipolar" world view over American foreign policy was greatly accelerated. In due course, it put us in opposition to most other world powers. We ended up contesting France and Germany for the leadership of Europe, Russia for its own near abroad and China for Asia. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has committed us to an interminable contest with Arabs and Iranians for control of the Middle East. From our present perspective, we can see how these two lines of post-Soviet policy have led us to a bad place. Clinton's balancing the budget was doubtless a sound idea, but the subsequent high borrowing and heavy consumption, particularly of imported goods, have severely weakened the national economy. Bush's launching two wars and returning military spending to Cold War levels, while cutting taxes, has led the country deeper and deeper into financial chaos, making the dollar itself an increasingly toxic asset. Meanwhile our wars spread in the Middle East and our alienation of China, Russia and Europe continues. Under these circumstances, the U.S. appears to be replicating the same sort of broad systemic breakdown that destroyed the Soviet regime twenty years ago. Ironically, the root cause of our present predicament lies in our failure to understand that the end of the Soviet Union pointed not toward a "unipolar" world under American hegemony but toward a plural world of several great powers. The process had been underway well before the Soviet demise itself. By now, this prolonged misreading of the geopolitical future has put us in great peril. The Soviet Union dead has proved a greater threat to us than ever during its lifetime. We can hope that Obama will eventually lead us out of this geopolitical cul de sac. But enduring success will require something more fundamental than a skilled and graceful leader. To stop generating policies so ill-suited for the world coming upon us, we will need to purge the prevailing uniplar consciousness from our nation's mind and spirit. This is a project demanding support from liberals and conservatives alike. We will need to rejuvenate the spirit of our own constitutional tradition, and project that spirit into a better understanding of the global system itself. The Iraq war has revealed how wayward American power can become. To preserve our own domestic balance, something beyond a purely national constitutional framework is required. We will need to recognize that the U.S., like all great powers, needs to be checked and balanced. Among states, as among individuals, balancing is often better done among friends than between enemies. For our own sake, we had better rejuvenate our lapsed interest in a stronger and more united European partner. Its talent for conciliation proves more useful for bringing order to a plural world than the preposterously outsized military power and grandiose vision we can no longer sustain.
 
U.S. Accuses Pakistan Of Illegally Modifying American-Made Missiles Top
WASHINGTON -- The United States has accused Pakistan of illegally modifying American-made missiles to expand its capability to strike land targets, a potential threat to India, according to senior administration and Congressional officials. More on Pakistan
 
Brad Listi: Unsolicited Advice Top
First things first: Be careful not to worry too much. But don't worry too little , either, because then you might wind up with even more to worry about than you originally bargained for. And it's important to bargain. It's important to be frugal and exercise caution. And it's important to exercise, too. You have to stay fit. Because if you stay fit, your mind will be sharp, and that will help you bargain well. Otherwise, you'll get taken for a ride. And generally speaking, you don't want to get taken for a ride -- unless, of course, you're going somewhere. And if you are going somewhere, just remember to wear your safety belt. Be sure to consider the risks. Nothing is guaranteed in this life, and you have to be ready for anything. Existence, like confidence, is always fleeting. Embrace every moment. But don't embrace every moment so freakin' tightly that you wind up trying to hold on to moments that are actually fleeting in the first place. Because you can't hold on to the past , no matter how hard you try, and you need to remember that, first and foremost. You can't catch the wind. This isn't to say that you shouldn't learn from the past. Certainly you should learn from the past. Certainly you should be cognizant of the past as you make your important life decisions. But at the same time, you have to remember that you can't spend your existence living in the past, just like you can't spend your existence living in your parents' basement anymore, either, because they finally kicked you out after all these years. Fact of the matter is, you can't hold on to anything. But you should always try to hold on to the ones you love, because they won't be around forever. Good health, like everything else, is temporary. If you're lucky enough to be blessed with good health, you have pretty much everything in the world you could ever want, except for money and fame and a significant other. Point being: In order to get rich and create healthy relationships, you have to employ the power of positive thinking. Negativity is always the enemy. Declare preemptive war against it -- and then declare preemptive victory. Learn how to find silver linings in even the grimmest of circumstances. Look for the silver, yes -- but stay away from mercury. Mercury causes birth defects, and it can also give you cancer. You may find it frightening to hear such things. This is normal. Breathe deep. The point isn't to always be fearless; the point is that you can't let your fear overwhelm you. You have to make your fear work for you. You have to employ it -- but never enslave it. You have to read The Gift of Fear . If you allow your fear to overwhelm you, you will lose your ability to intimidate people. Moral of the story: Stand up and be courageous. Remember the timeless words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and be terrified of fear. To do anything less would be cowardly. But at the same time, never be afraid of things like failure, or ideas. Ideas are only thoughts, and, like failure, they eventually happen to everyone. Some of your ideas will be humiliating, and others will be merely deranged. So what? Embrace them anyway! Feel free to entertain them! Water the average ones thoroughly, and smile as they flower! Fertilize your ideas. Nurture them. Chuckle as they wither and die. Last but not least, never be afraid to take chances. (This is critical.) The world doesn't turn on the minds of rational men who always take the safe way out and spend the majority of their tragic existences bowing at the altar of an endless Plan B. Rather, it turns on the minds of irrational men who refuse to accept the limitations of a deeply stagnant and ultimately unsatisfying status quo. Harebrained human beings with fire in their eyes. Passionate human beings with a tendency to fidget. Misanthropes. Drunks. Narcissists. Antisocial comic book enthusiasts who are secretly addicted to Vicodin. Join their ranks immediately, and go forth boldly, with confidence. Do not allow yourself the comfort of an easy road, a road that is devoid of risk and genuine inspiration, because one day all too soon, you're going to wake up in a room that smells of formaldehyde--a urinous, lonely room with floral-print wallpaper and a window that looks out on a solitary bare oak tree. And as you lie there in silence on a late autumn day, a heavyset nurse with a persistent stutter will walk into the room with her pantyhose going swish , swish , swish , and this heavyset nurse with a persistent stutter will look into your eyes while feeding you fortified yogurt, and she will t-t-tell you that ev-ev-everything is gonna b-b-be alright, and before you have a chance to agree with her, you'll realize that you're way too weak from anesthesia to remind her that you're actually lactose intolerant.   This post originally appeared on TheNervousBreakdown.com . More on Death & Dying
 
Murdoch's Son: BBC Expansion Is "Chilling," A Threat To Independent Journalism Top
EDINBURGH, Scotland -- The son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch has called the British Broadcasting Corp. a threat to independent journalism. James Murdoch, the 36-year-old executive in charge of News Corp.'s businesses in Europe and Asia, spoke late Friday at the Edinburgh International Television Festival -- 20 years after his father delivered a keynote speech at the same event. "In this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy," Murdoch said. The BBC is subsidized by the British government and funded, in part, by television licenses that consumers must pay if they use a television. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. controls British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, one of the BBC's main competitors in Britain. "As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion," Murdoch said, referring to George Orwell's book, "1984." He said broadcasting policy had failed to keep pace with changes, relying on regulation and intervention from the state rather than empowering consumers. Story continues below Greg Dyke, the BBC's former director general, said Murdoch's argument was "fundamentally flawed." "Journalism is going through a very difficult time -- not only in this country but every country in the world because newspapers, radio and television in the commercial world are all having a very rough time," he said. Dyke said it was not the fault of the BBC that the recession and loss of advertising revenues had hampered news organizations. Last month, a journalist told a British parliamentary committee that James Murdoch approved an out-of-court payment to settle a controversial phone hacking case. News of the World editor Colin Myler said that Murdoch was told that 700,000 pounds ($1.1 million) would be paid to settle a case against the company. The suit was brought by Gordon Taylor, head of the Professional Footballers' Association, one of the targets of the hacking. The allegations against the News of the World, part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. empire, have been waged as part of a wider scandal concerning journalistic abuses. "In this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy," Murdoch said. The BBC is subsidized by the British government and funded, in part, by television licenses that consumers must pay if they use a television. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. controls British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, one of the BBC's main competitors in Britain. "As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion," Murdoch said, referring to George Orwell's book, "1984." He said broadcasting policy had failed to keep pace with changes, relying on regulation and intervention from the state rather than empowering consumers. Greg Dyke, the BBC's former director general, said Murdoch's argument was "fundamentally flawed." "Journalism is going through a very difficult time – not only in this country but every country in the world because newspapers, radio and television in the commercial world are all having a very rough time," he said. Dyke said it was not the fault of the BBC that the recession and loss of advertising revenues had hampered news organizations. Last month, a journalist told a British parliamentary committee that James Murdoch approved an out-of-court payment to settle a controversial phone hacking case. News of the World editor Colin Myler said that Murdoch was told that 700,000 pounds ($1.1 million) would be paid to settle a case against the company. The suit was brought by Gordon Taylor, head of the Professional Footballers' Association, one of the targets of the hacking. The allegations against the News of the World, part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. empire, have been waged as part of a wider scandal concerning journalistic abuses.
 
David Finkle: Barack Obama: Left-Handed? Right-Handed? Ambidextrous? Ambivalent? Top
What's wrong with this picture? Maybe nothing, but there's definitely something unusual about it. Not quite abnormal, but unquestionably deviating from the norm. What's the picture under discussion? It's an image of Barack Obama signing an autograph for an onlooker at a Martha's Vineyard golf game. The President is wearing a short-sleeved white shirt and khaki trousers--very golf proper--and a smile. The autograph recipient is one of four spectators identified as part of a retiree's outing. The grinning seniors are holding cell phones or BlackBerrys or whatever on which they're likely just about to text, "You'll never guess who we just bumped into...." So far, so usual. But look closer. Obama is signing with his left hand, but that's not really the stop-the-Tweeting news. Obama's left-handedness has been recorded in myriad places over the last couple of years, and much has been said about it--including his place as the fifth-left handed President in recent years. (Preceding southpaws are Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George G. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and, not long before that Harry S. Truman and not that much longer before him, Herbert Hoover.) But wait. What's that I see on Obama's left wrist? Why, it's his wrist watch. And there's the rub. Left-handed people typically wear their watches on their right wrist, just as right-handed people wear their watches on the left wrist. What does this tell us -- or at least imply? It tells us Obama is either one in a thousand, perhaps, who do this odd left-handed-left-wrist-watched thing, or it tells us he thinks of himself, or wants to think of himself, as right-handed. And I'm here to inform you that a certain number of column inches have been devoted to this trait as well -- although I've yet to find any specific reference to the President's writes-with-left-hand-wears-watch-on-left-wrist trait. It's even been reported that our President executes certain tasks with his right hand. The Washington Post informed us over a year ago that then-candidate Obama eats pizza and sandwiches as a righty. But those are finger foods and not compelling for our analysis. Besides, Obama remains a lefty when knives, forks and spoons are involved. Nonetheless, I can't stop wondering whether President Obama's ambidextrous tendencies somehow indicate ambivalent tendencies. And I bet I'm not alone in this. Am I the only one tempted to read into quirks like this, even as I'm aware that reading into it may be all it is. As the President's first 200 days stretch toward 300 and political issues such as health care reform veer ever deeper into turbulent waters, I'm thinking maybe a person's not being firmly left-handed or right-handed means that as the metaphorical ball comes at him, he waits too long to decide which hand will catch it and instead lets the ball drop. Of course, the flip side of ambivalence can be flexibility. Stephen Christman, a University of Toledo professor of behavioral psychology, told Washington Post reporter Melissa Roth that from his stand-point "mixed-handers are better able to see both sides of the story." And that's, of course, what I -- and you? -- want to believe about our current leader. Christman did go on to say, "If you want change, you might be better with a mixed-handed candidate." No one is likely to have forgotten that change is what Obama was selling, what to millions of voters he represented when they went to the polls in droves last November. At the moment, however, with any improvement to the health care situation threatening to founder, change may not be what he's got in store for believers. Full-disclosure: I'm left-handed. And I know that like many other left-handed people in a generally right-handed world I'm sensitive about it. I've been particularly sensitive about it ever since seventh grade when a metal-shop teacher looked over some work I was doing and said, "I don't know how you left-handed monkeys get along." So, yes, I'm defensive about the left-handed state of being and want other lefties to be the same. Okay, I did not celebrate International Left-Handed Day this past August 13, but that doesn't disqualify me from membership in the club. I want commitment to the left-handed cause, and this may underlie my concerns about Obama and his seeming left-hand-right-hand vicissitudes. Call me nuts, but I suspect the convictions that seem somewhat wobbly now that he's attained the nation's highest office would immediately strengthen if he looked his two hands over and committed once and for all to the left one. I just can't stop thinking that favoring his left hand would lean him in that direction in more ways than one. More on Barack Obama
 
Sam Greenfield: Epitaphs for the Miscreants Top
Some people on the right have been unsparing in their attacks on Teddy Kennedy, even though as i write this he has not yet been laid to rest. These professed faith followers have violated the teachings of all that is good and pure by besmirching a man who has done more good for more people than they will ever dream of even reaching. I expect this behavior from Limbaugh. He would slam anyone in the name of ratings. I do not know Eric Stanger, an executive with ABC Radio, but I do know he worked closely with Sean Hannity, a self-described Christian conservative, so when Stanger labels Kennedy a "piece of garbage," it seems to be a departure from the teachings of Jesus. I wonder what the scribes will write about those who have attacked Kennedy and/.or his programs as his family and most of the nation mourned. Hmmmm..... Newt Gingrich died today. Gingrich was a former Speaker of the House who was chased form his position by his own party. He also negotiated with his first wife while she was undergoing chemotherapy. While chastising President Clinton for adulterous behavior,he was sleeping with his intern while still married. Most recently,he attacked President Obama's health care bill without disclosing his financing by health care institutions. Grover Norquist died today. He wanted to eliminate all taxes that might go to helping the needy and reportedly took money from convicted Bush insider Jack Abramoff. He refused to disclose his religious affiliation,leading to speculation that he might have taken on the religion of his Islamic wife, a move that might alienate the more devout Christian segment of his support structure. Bill Bennett died today. Bennett was well known for preaching personal responsibility while although he himself at one time or another was an obese chain-smoking gambling addict. He decried big government but gladly held two paid positions in the same government. Bennett's most famous quote was (and I paraphrase) that if all Black babies were aborted the crime rate would go down,leaving one to ponder if Bennett had been aborted, would not the cigarette and gaming industries have been economically damaged. Ann Coulter died today. She holds the record for most negative articles about one political group and is the only conservative on record who idolized Joe McCarthy. She holds the distinction of making Bill O' Reilly look like a sympathetic character and earned the undying gratitude of all American men by never marrying any of them. Town Halls died today. Due to the changing demographic makeup of the United States these meetings that were populated largely by screaming elderly redneck gunowners simply ran out of people. Clarence Thomas will deliver the eulogy. More on Ted Kennedy
 
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 Afghanistan, both in crafting and implementing policy. Moreover, could we be witnessing (from backrow 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 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.
 
Michelle Obama Wears Sophie Theallet Dress To Fly To Boston (PHOTOS) Top
The Obamas took a time-out from their Vineyard vacation to attend Senator Ted Kennedy's funeral in Boston on Saturday . They flew from Edgartown, Martha's Vineyard to Boston on Friday night. Mrs. Obama wore a black Sophie Theallet dress that she had previously worn to the unveiling of a Sojourner Truth statue in April with a black Azzedine Alaia belt and black flats. She also owns a sleeveless version of the dress in white. For the funeral on Saturday, Mrs. Obama dressed in a traditional black dress, with a black bolero jacket and black heels. See photos of the Obamas' Vineyard vacation. Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook ! More on Michelle Obama Style
 
South Carolina GOP "Disappointed," "Angry," And "Disgusted" WIth Gov. Sanford Top
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — Republican legislators fumed Saturday over Gov. Mark Sanford's affair and questionable travel, though they stopped short of trying to force his resignation or impeachment before they return to the Statehouse in January. Still, the House GOP Caucus that dominates the lower chamber with 73 of the body's 124 members made two things clear – they want Sanford gone and they want to act soon. However, lawmakers are waiting to make any decisions until the state ethics commission finishes its investigation. And starting impeachment proceedings now could require a costly and special session. In all, 56 members were on hand and not one raised a word to defend Sanford, who shocked state residents by disappearing for five days in June to rendezvous with his Argentine lover. Since then, investigations by The Associated Press and a state senator have prompted state Attorney General Henry McMaster to call for an ethics investigation. The probe has been under way for about a week. State Rep. Rita Allison was an education adviser to Sanford, and he supported her 2008 bid to return to a House seat she had held for years before running for lieutenant governor in 2002. Even Allison was mum when House President Pro Tem Harry Cato said Sanford supporters needed to raise their voices now. "That's because we want him to resign," Allison said afterward. "He made a choice. It wasn't our choice." Since news of his affair broke, three Associated Press investigations found Sanford used state aircraft for personal travel, violated state requirements by using high-priced air fare and didn't report use of private aircraft. Sanford has said the news reports reflect "cherry-picking" of his records and that he only followed the practices set by other governors. He's also brushed aside other criticism and investigations as politically motivated. House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, said he's been telling Sanford for weeks legislators and the public are angry. On Saturday, he urged the GOP caucus to hold off on any action involving an impeachment resolution until the state Ethics Commission wrapped up its probe. "Members of the caucus are disappointed in him, angry with him and in some ways disgusted by the whole thing and they want to deal with it and they want to deal with it as quickly as possible," Harrell said. Sanford issued a statement Saturday about the caucus but didn't directly address the disgust of lawmakers. "It's also important to reiterate what we said yesterday: that we're dedicated to an open and fair ethics process, and would further urge all levels of state government to embrace that same transparency," the statement said. Harrell said he'll continue gauging sentiment in the caucus on whether it should send a joint letter calling for Sanford to resign. But legislators left without taking any action. Two-thirds of the House would have to approve an impeachment resolution; two-thirds of the Senate would have to approve Sanford's removal from office. Ethics commission director Herb Hayden said it could take as long as six months for commissioners to review the investigation, schedule hearings and reach a decision. Harrell said that wouldn't be acceptable and hoped it could be wrapped up in a matter of weeks. "If we can get the results of their investigation from them, I think that would suffice for us to make a determination on how we should proceed," he said. State Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said there was already enough proof of misconduct. "He has disgraced the office of governor of South Carolina," Delleney said. "He has disgraced and brought shame on the state." Delleney laid out specifics of the impeachment resolution he is drafting, noting Sanford "planned this trip that he wanted to take all because he wanted to have sex with a woman that he wasn't married to." He said that amounted to a "premeditated dereliction of duty."
 
Linda Hirshman: Friends, Romans, Countrymen... Not Top
So I sat through all the unfamiliar ceremony, the maudlin commentary, and the endless repetitions of the speech at the 1980 Democratic Convention, waiting for President Obama to take the body in his arms and tell the nation how this death sets the scene for a renewed commitment to heroic politics. But, nothing. What might President Obama have said? "We gather here today to honor the life of Edward Kennedy, the blessedly long-lived and uniquely inspiring American leader. Although we meet in his beloved Boston, he was, to borrow a phrase, America's Senator. There is never a good time to lose a Ted Kennedy. But this is a uniquely painful moment indeed. "Like all Americans, I have witnessed in the last month scenes of our fellow citizens proclaiming their indifference to the suffering of others. As one demonstrator's sign said recently, 'Drop Dead. I Won't Pay for Your Health Care.' Another told the New York Times that in America the safety net must not catch too many people. As we lay to rest this long-lived servant of the American nation, let us take a moment to remember that his story is an evergreen reminder of another way for Americans to live. We loved then and weep now for Edward Kennedy because he cared for others - his family, his brothers' families, his state, the racial minorities, the victims of 9/11, the mentally ill ... and the physically ill, especially the ones who, without our love, will, indeed, fall through the safety net, many to their death. "Like Ted Kennedy, and unlike the vision of lonely, selfish souls the protests invoke, Kennedy's life reminds us that we are not alone. He was not born alone; Rose Kennedy, his devoted mother, whose life played out here in this city of America's founding, bore him. His parents and, especially since he was the youngest, his sisters and brothers, raised him, a vital early safety net without which neither he nor any American could survive. The family, and the traditions of this noble state, Massachusetts, taught him the values of public service and community that are the touchstones of his legacy. When the time came for his family to enter into the public service for which they had been raised, they did not think their social obligation ended when they dropped a casserole at the house of a neighbor. They looked to our great nation, the United States of America, as the place where the most meaningful and effective efforts might be directed. They ran for Congress, for the Senate, for the Presidency, for good or ill. In those contests for public service and in the service that they rendered, Ted the most, of course, because he had the gift of time, they did everything in their power to manifest the collective possibilities inherent in the American dream -- for John Kennedy that we could start a corps for peace, for Robert that poverty and racism could be resisted and in the end defeated, for Teddy that the justice system could live up to its name and that the sick could be healed. "Taken together, the legacy of all the Kennedy brothers is an old one, but one that bears remembering as strident voices demand we forget our communal ties. They believed, and I believe, that we are a community, not just any community but, as Ted Kennedy believed, in the centuries-old tradition of Puritan Massachusetts -- a chosen people, that America is a city on a hill, a beacon for all humanity. Let us take this sacred moment of his funeral to reconsecrate ourselves to that ideal." More on Barack Obama
 
Dr. Irene S. Levine: Owning Up Top
QUESTION Dear Irene: About 8 months ago, I had my heart broken by my best friend of three years. Liz and a guy I had been dating for a short time slept together after they had been drinking excessively. Liz and the guy, Dave, had been friends since high school and she was the one who set me up with him. However, this particular night, she told me she was lonely and was going to have sex with him - I didn't believe her. When I found out, I felt devastated and betrayed by them both. Dave apologized repeatedly. We are no longer dating but I have been able to forgive him. Liz, on the other hand, hasn't even apologized once and refuses to take responsibility for her part in what happened. She blames Dave completely and says he took advantage of her. She and I have had many talks but her story doesn't quite add up, especially since she said she intended to sleep with him that night. Whenever I speak to Dave or mention something about him, she makes me feel so guilty for talking to him "after what he did to her." Our mutual friends think she is blaming him so that she doesn't have to admit that she did something so wrong and hurtful to me. Since this happened, I have turned into a jealous, self-conscious, mistrusting person with friends and boyfriends alike. I began self-medicating with alcohol and got into bad situations. She blamed me for anything bad that happened instead of seeing that I was in pain. In her eyes, we are still best friends. We have even discussed moving out of state together. However, I still don't forgive her or trust her. I want an apology. I want to stop feeling manipulated, self-conscious, and depressed. I will always love her and don't want to hurt her, but being friends with her is hurting me . Why haven't I been able to move past this after 8 months? Is there any chance our friendship can be saved? How can I talk about this with her without feeling guilty and manipulated? Signed, Hayley ANSWER If Liz hasn't taken responsibility for her actions after 8 months, she isn't likely to apologize any time soon. Adding insult to injury, she has positioned herself, rather than you, in the role of the victim. You were the one who was betrayed by your two friends. Liz may believe you are still best friends simply because you've taken no steps to make her think otherwise. Sometimes people believe they need to obtain closure from another person before they sever a friendship. This isn't true. Be forthright and open in expressing your anger and disappointment in Liz's behavior and move on. Follow up your words with actions. This will give you a sense of closure. Liz lacks the empathy and insight you would expect from a good friend. You will continue to feel badly about yourself if you continue this toxic friendship in the hopes that Liz will change. Hope this is helpful. Best, Irene Have a question about female friendships? Send it to The Friendship Doctor . Irene S. Levine, PhD is a freelance journalist and author. She holds an appointment as a professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and her book about female friendships, Best Friends Forever: Surviving a Breakup with Your Best Friend will be published by Overlook Press on September 20, 2009. She also blogs about female friendships at The Friendship Blog . More on Relationships
 
Beds Made Of Hay Are Latest Hotel Craze Top
In Germany and its European neighbors Austria and Switzerland, a long weekend in a converted barn - sleeping on a bed of freshly raked hay -- is fast becoming the 'staycation' of choice. Heuhotels ('heu' is German for hay) offer exactly what their name suggests. For as little as eight euros ($11) a night backpackers, couples, families and, in the case of one "hay hotel" in central Germany - 'groups of up to 60' - can rest their heads in a way nature intended. More on Germany
 
Jamie Lee Curtis: Say Top
At the end of the lovely Rob Reiner film The Bucket List , two human men -- flawed and contradictory, given knowledge that their oh-so-human lives are about to come to their mortal end -- find redemption and transformation. The song "Say" by John Mayer plays over the credits. The film moved me: Jack Nicholson eulogizing his new friend's courage and guidance was powerful film-making, but it was the song mixed with message that did me in. I sat in the theater for twenty minutes after the lights had come up, sobbing. The song, perfect and true, reminds us that life is hard and triumphant and that it is the people we touch and feel and contact that matter. That who we are is based on what lessons we can learn and what lessons we can teach, what part of our family we are from, what part of ourselves exists outside that family, what fights we fought, and which ones we walked away from, and, most importantly, who we loved and who loved us. Teddy Kennedy -- a human man, so forceful and formidable and flawed, as he and his family described at his funeral -- got to say what he needed to say to his children, wives, family and colleagues and strangers: what he did, why he did it, and what he hoped for in the future. His brothers did not. Neither did the people from Massachusetts who died on September 11, and whose families Senator Kennedy called and cared for afterward. Nor did the soldiers in Iraq, or the children in the van with Diane Schuler, who died with their drunk mother. It is crucial that that we all say what we need to say, and say it now . Say it daily. Tell your truths, your hard truths. Shower the people you love with love, show them the way that you feel. Say what you need to say. It is the gift of a very public death, long in coming, that we can learn from... that we all, from every corner of the globe, are in contact and intertwined in the lives of each other... Teddy's political legacy will live on. Pass health care. For everyone. Let all who are sick and dying get the same care that he got in his last year. And if you are not satisfied with what you are hearing or seeing on the news.....then be Americans and say what you need to say to your elected officials, who say what they need to say on your behalf . That's what I have to say. "Say," by John Mayer Take out of your wasted honor Every little past frustration Take all your so called problems Better put them in quotations Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Walkin' like a one man army Fightin' with the shadows in your head Livin' up the same old moment Knowin' you'd be better off instead If you could only Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Have no fear for givin' in Have no fear for givin' over You better know that in the end It's better to say too much Than to never to say what you need to say again Even if your hands are shakin' And your faith is broken Even as the eyes are closin' Do it with a heart wide open A wide heart Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say Say what you need to say More on Death & Dying
 
James Sims: Ted Kennedy Was the Man of La Mancha Top
This week marked a dark time for America as senator Edward M. Kennedy, one of its most championed political leaders, passed away. With the loss of Ted Kennedy the political legacy of Camelot might very well be dead -- an American myth surrounding the storied Kennedy clan. Camelot was an ideal for all Americans to gaze upon. John F. Kennedy held the reign as King Arthur while Bobby acted the gallant sir Lancelot. Then there was Jackie Kennedy, the lovely Guinevere. And the youngest brother was none other than Teddy. He championed for real change in America long after assassins gunned down his two admired brothers. Family and friends gathered at a private memorial Friday evening at the JFK Library and Museum in Boston in order to bid Ted farewell. Among the guests was Tony Award winner Brian Stokes Mitchell. The actor performed "The Impossible Dream" from Broadway's Man of La Mancha -- a musical based on Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote . The song was a fitting tribute to a man that spent much of his political career following his own impossible dream -- health care for all. It was as if the "lion" of the Senate was marching towards an unbeatable foe . He refused bowing to the Republican party's notion that health care was a privilege and not a right. No, Ted was intent on righting the unrightable wrong . In 1969 Ted found himself in the middle of a major controversy following a car crash in Chappaquiddick. Mary Jo Kopechne, an aide to Robert Kennedy and passenger in Ted's car, died after they careened off a bridge. Many speculated that Ted would resign -- his arms too weary to carry on. Instead, he picked himself up and set out to reach the unreachable star . Health care reform was now in his sights. Ted could almost be heard singing: This is my quest To follow that star No matter how hopeless No matter how far To fight for the right Without question or pause To be willing to march into Hell For a heavenly cause Leading the charge to pass the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990 proved Ted was serious about health care reform and equal rights. He promoted AIDS research and pushed the Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill through in 1996. Ted was true to this glorious quest until the very end of his life. Roaring in support of President Obama's latest push for health care reform, Ted refused to lie peaceful and calm until he was laid to rest. At the last Democratic convention in Denver Ted told everyone that universal health insurance was "the cause of my life." Diagnosed with brain cancer, the disease that would ultimately take his life at age 77, Ted was scorned and covered with scars . However, the senator still strove with his last ounce of courage to see that health care reform became a reality. This impossible dream now falls to President Obama, a man that campaigned on hopes and dreams. Obama and all political leaders must never forget that America is a land for all people, not just those that can afford expensive medical plans. Should Ted's dream be deemed impossible, this country runs the risk of suffering Don Quixote's fate -- dying a beaten and battered man. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Ted Kennedy Memoir 'True Compass' Set For September Top
In the days following Senator Edward Kennedy's death, his story will be told by friends and admirers, fellow politicians, family members, pundits and critics. But when Kennedy's mammoth memoir, True Compass, is published on Sept. 14, readers will be able to experience his life story as told by the Senator himself. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Michael Brenner: America's Afghan Election Top
The White House is upset by the Afghan election. Celebrated at first by Obama on the White House lawn as a signal success marking the country's progress on the road to democracy, it now looks like a monkey wrench thrown into the already stuttering engine of our mission there. The turn-out in Taliban intimidated areas was only about 10%. Voter fraud seems to have been endemic. And President Karzai, our wayward protégée, may be further weakened as a result. So Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke flies to Kabul for the umpteenth time and screams at Karzai that he should do an election rerun. Karzai instead bolsters his standing among his own people by thumbing his nose at Washington. Meanwhile, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen decries continued deterioration in the war while calling for the deployment of more American troops. All this in what Obama calls "a necessary war" to advance vital national interests. Exactly why that is so remains obscure. In the absence of a convincing answer, the growing Afghan fiasco looks to become a tragic comedy. Tragic for the United States, tragic for the cause of containing the spread of violent jihadist organizations, and tragic above all for the people of that war ravaged land. Just as on Iraq, the conclusion that we had to escalate our intervention preceded the assessment of why and how. Three unspoken premises underlie that judgment. All are dubious. First is the notion that the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda itself are our enemy. Their supposed hostility toward us means that they will lend their active support to terrorists targeting America, and may join in themselves. Second, the implication is that their eradication as a political force in Afghanistan is essential to our national security. Finally, the Taliban must be eliminated across the border in Pakistan, too. In short, a grand project for remaking the political life of two countries where favorable views of the United States are in the single digits (6% in Pakistan). Here is the more complicated reality. The Taliban agenda is an Afghan one. Their credo and program sets no ambitions beyond its borders. No Taliban ever has been implicated in actions outside their homeland. Today, their movement is fueled by a Pashtun sectarianism aggrieved by a government In Kabul dominated by their traditional Tajik and Uzbek rivals whom we installed in power -- except for our Karzai, himself a Pashtun. The Talban's political neutering is therefore an impossibility. Fellow Pashtuns in Northwest Pakistan are pushed into the Taliban fold by American airstrikes that enrage tribes whose members are victims, often innocent ones. Our prodding of the Pakistani leadership to abandon their policy of containment for one of military intrusions in conjunction with American air strikes has led to unprecedented upheaval that is further destabilizing the country's roiled politics. The Islamabad political elite is no more ready to risk civil war by complying with American demands than is Mr. Karzai to kow-tow to Richard Holbrooke at the risk of his political future. The elementary truth is that we do not have the power (hard, soft or half-baked) to transform the minds and behavior of entire peoples with whom we have no affinity and who view us as aliens. Our own self-declared virtue, good intentions and self-interest do not change that one iota. We should have learned that lesson in Iraq. We want absolute security -- zero threat from the Greater Middle East. We cannot get it -- no matter what we do. Our costly, pointless wars only increase whatever real risk exists. More on Afghanistan
 
What The F**K Happened To Rock And Roll? (VIDEO) Top
This is a good question. When did rock become the douchiest genre of music? When did Nickelback, Parachute, The Fray, Chris Daughtry, and Linkin Park become acceptable to listen to? Did that one band just give up on writing lyrics and repeat "love" over and over again and no one noticed? WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Funny Videos
 
Kathleen Reardon: The Private Measure of Self: A Crucial Part of Ted Kennedy's Legacy Top
We are all of us a composite of conflicts from which may emerge a sense of who we truly are - a center of self. Some of us never find this place, leading lives of "quiet desperation" forever pushed and pulled. Senator Kennedy found his center and used it to better our lives. He was not perfect. As his son Ted lovingly said, "It hasn't always been easy to live with this man." Yet this same man rose to so many occasions in a family more than peppered with tragedy, more than gifted and in a country with so much to offer yet peopled with many willing to lessen its greatness. He was there to stand strong for both. As we watch this family embedded deep within the psyche of the American experience, the lesson Senator Kennedy conveyed by much of his life and in death is that each of us can find within ourselves a marvelous strength. We can persevere even facing what may at first seem more than can be borne. You don't have to be a lover of history as Kennedy was to learn, as he did, that your own history is worth study. To not know it is to assure repetition of its less admirable parts. To know it, truly, is to have within your grasp the ability to draw and build upon its impressive moments. Ted Kennedy came to know himself. He angered many but he also left those with mental illness , disabilities , and struggling with so many other challenges clearer pathways around otherwise formidable obstacles. He left all of us a blueprint for living with harsh events thrust upon us as well as struggles of principle and practice raging within. The public measure of ourselves so often seems the defining one, and yet, as we grow to know ourselves, it is the private measure, how we treat those we love, those who at times despise us and those we hardly know, that is ultimately the more telling. This is a lesson Ted Kennedy leaves. It is an invaluable one. More on Death & Dying
 
Miles J. Zaremski: The Moral Imperative: Health Care as an American Right Top
In recent days, pundits have turned to discussing health care as an American right. After all, we see this in other countries. When asked by Bill Maher on his show the other day, Bill Moyers said, "We're all in the same boat", and said how could he be provided an operation in a hospital, yet floors away someone else less fortunate could not have the same procedure because he couldn't pay for it. During the celebration of life on the passing of Teddy Kennedy at the Kennedy Library on August 28, we heard John Kerry state that health care is a right and that true health care reform will be passed this year. On the campaign trail against Senator McCain in Nashville, Tennessee last fall, President Obama said the same thing (they were both asked whether health care was a right, privilege, or responsibility and Obama said without hesitation, a right). Even Teddy Kennedy himself bellowed out at the August, 2008 Democratic convention when introducing then candidate Obama that health care is a right of all Americans. And a month earlier, this writer said in a column, "All Americans should be provided health care as a matter of a new social policy" ("Is It Time for Universal Health Coverage", Clinical Endocrinology News (p.38). A month later, I said in a published article, "Everyone has a right to healthcare". We are rounding the bend and coming full circle as the Congress is to return from its August recess and once more tackles the debate for real health care reform. Many have asked whether Kennedy's passing will have an impact on resolving the impasse. I doubt it. His oratory was powerful; make no mistake about it. But his real skill was in the art of compromise; he would sooner negotiate 75% of what he wanted rather than lose everything. It seems those days are long since passed. From outside the beltway as I am, the landscape is much more partisan, and the fight over major legislation is not merit-based, but predicated on what it takes to win the next election. We put President Obama in office to make a change -- a change in our lives -- what more of a change can there be but to ensure that every American, including those seeking citizenship in earnest, can afford and access health care. So, is health care a right? Certainly, not in a constitutional sense, though Thomas Jefferson spoke of in(un)alienable rights inclusive of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But there are a lot of rights that have been created over the decades of our history not found in the precise documents crafted by our Founding Fathers. Others of my colleagues have said health care should be viewed like a service, you know, like the state or municipally-generated electricity or gas that lights and heats our homes, or the publicly financed transportation systems that take us to work each day. There is no moral decision that need be taken with any such service. But however we look at health care, one thing is certain: health care is universal to each and every human being in this country, regardless of power, position, gender, race or ethnicity. That means those we voted into office to do the people's business have no more access to it than those who are at the poverty level. That also means those of our elected officials who will vote on health care reform should not be able to afford and access it any more than anyone else. Health care is the common equalizer (without our health we cannot do anything) among us all -- just like the most powerful and wealthy have no advantage over anyone else when going into a voting booth to vote: we all get just one vote. Similarly, the patient Bill Moyers referred to with Bill Maher should not be deprived of his surgery for a life full of health any more than, well, Bill Moyers . . . or, for that matter, each and every Member of Congress. When it comes to health care, elected officials are entitled to nothing more than that to which the ordinary American would be entitled. Maybe Kennedy's legacy will not be shaped by his absence from the legislative process (he will be sorely missed certainly), or his style and presence in the well of the Senate and in the halls of Congress he walked so often, but in his being the symbol of achieving once and for all the moral imperative - - - that health care is a right for us all, and without its reform now, it will cease to exist. 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)